What God

Who? Which God?
The question might be asked, which God is the real God?
Can we know?
Is there proof?
Well here, I will cover things concerning whom or what, the Muslims, Jews (later on others), say their God is, and compare it to the God of the bible.
This study is being written, for 2 purposes, one purpose is to strenghthen the Christian in his faith, and the other purpose, is to open the eyes of the doubter, skeptic or
the one who really wants to know which God is the real God.
Which God is an imposter, and which God is the true, and real God?
Well before we answer this question, I want to first establish, which books the Muslims and Jews consider to be holy.
Muslims
(http://wapedia.mobi/en/Islamic_Holy_Books)
The Islamic holy books are the records which most of the Muslims believe were dictated by God to various prophets. They are the Suhuf Ibrahim (commonly the
Scrolls of Abraham), the Tawrat ( Torah ), the Zabur (commonly the Psalms ), the Injil (commonly the Gospel ), and the Qur'an.
(http://www.wikiislam.com)
The Injil according to the Quran
The Quran talks of the Injil ( ‫ﺇﻧﺠﻴﻞ‬ } referring to the New Testament of the Bible usually the four Gospels.
The Quran reports the Injil to be one of the 3 Previous Revelations of Allah (the other two being the Taurat and Zabur ). The Quran asserts that Allah revealed the
previous scriptures to the Jews and to the Christians, but that those who knew the scriptures 'changed the words from their right places' and 'forgot a good part of the
message'. Regarding the Injil:
Muslim Claims about the Injil
Despite the clear words of the Quran, the majority of Muslims errantly believe that Allah is telling them that the "People of the Book" have corrupted their books.
Muslims proclaim that the actual texts have been changed; that not many of Allah's original words remain in them. The Quran however never charges this against the
"People of the Book". It clearly states that The Jews and Christians knew what their texts said, but that they deliberately distorted the commands and meanings in their
oral recitations to the illiterate people; that they were saying "my book says to do this" when the text on the page did not. The Quran also charges that they 'concealed'
a part of the message or 'hid it (the book) behind their backs.'
Taurat
The Quran talks of the Taurat/Tawrah ( ‫ﺗﻮﺭﺍﺓ‬ ) referring to the Torah the first five books of the Jewish Bible; found in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.
Some Muslims and scholars believe it refers to the entire Old Testament, but this view is not widely held. The Quran reports the Taurat to be one of the 3 Previous
Revelations of Allah (The other two being the Zabur and Injil ). The Quran asserts that Allah revealed the previous scriptures to the Jews and to the Christians, but
that those who knew the scriptures 'changed the words from their right places' and 'forgot a good part of the message'. Regarding the Taurat:
Muslim Claims about the Taurat
As with the Injil, the majority of Muslims believe that Allah tells them in the Quran that the "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians) have corrupted the Taurat;
thus its contents no longer reflect the "true words" of Allah. Muslims claim that the actual Jewish texts have been changed, yet the Quran never makes this claim. It
clearly states that the Jews knew what the Taurat said, because they had the correct texts with them, but they changed the words and meanings in their oral recitations
to the illiterate people. Ie. they said that the Torah said something that it did not actually say.
The Zabur according to the Quran
The Zabur mentioned in the Quran refers to the Psalms of the Old Testament. The Quran asserts that the Zabur is one of the 3 Previous Revelations of Allah (The
other two being the Taurat and Injil . Although the Zabur is only mentioned three times in the Quran, Allah tells us that he revealed them to David.)
Muslim Claims about the Zabur
The Quran claims to confirms the Previous Revelations thus Muslims present evidence of this by quoting Quran 21:5 (above) and Psalms 37:29 . Here they are
together: Before this We wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses): My servants the righteous, shall inherit the earth."
Qur'an 21:105.
(http://www.answeringislam.org)
HADITH
pl. ahadith. A report of a saying or deed. As time passed, in order to establish the authority of shar'ia practices, only hadith reports that are supposed to originate
from Muhammad became important. See also TRADITIONS. The hadith collections are the most important source for the Sunnah (example), i.e. the established 1 / 150
model of Muhammad's words and deeds, which Muslims should be following. Sahih (true) hadiths: those accepted to be the most authentic. Qudsi Hadiths: hadiths
pl. ahadith. A report of a saying or deed. As time passed, in order to establish the authority of shar'ia practices, only hadith reports that are supposed to originate
from Muhammad became important. See also TRADITIONS. The hadith collections are the most important source for the Sunnah (example), i.e. the established
model of Muhammad's words and deeds, which Muslims should be following. Sahih (true) hadiths: those accepted to be the most authentic. Qudsi Hadiths: hadiths
that record what Allah said.
Hadiths consist of two parts: chain of narrators (isnad) and the text (matn). The earliest collection of hadiths dates from 1.5 to 2 centuries after Muhammad's death.
alBukhari collected over 600,000 reports, but kept only 7,397 as true. Of the six important Muslim collections of hadiths, Bukhari and Muslim are accepted as the
most reliable. Their collections are called Sahih alBukhari and Sahih Muslim respectively.
Muslims also believed that the hadiths are also divinely inspired. "The teachings of Islam are based primarily on the Quran and the Hadiths, and as we shall presently
see, both are based on divine inspiration." (Muhammad Hamidullah, Introduction to Islam, pg 23)
Not all Muslims believe in the hadiths, and Muslims have been divided since the existence of these books. Shiites and Sunnis have different collections of hadiths.
Some believe them only when it suits them. For example, they would accept passages in them that would glorify Muhammad and his teachings but reject those that
discredit him.
(Readingislam.com)
...The Islamic belief about the present Book, which the Christians use as “the word of God”, called the New Testament is that it is not the Gospel of Jesus mentioned
in the Qur'an. Still, Muslims believe that the Gospels in the bible contain some teachings of Jesus, as well as the interpretations of the writers of those books, whoever
they might have been. Also Muslims believe that in the words quoted from Jesus in these gospels, you come across certain ideas, which he received from God too.
So the New Testament (particularly the Gospels) is valuable to the Muslims. It is valuable in that there is the “word of God” in it, exactly as the Old Testament
(particularly the Pentateuch) is valuable to Muslims in that it contains also the “word of God” in it...
(Islamonline.net)
...In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states: Bible
contains both the genuine teachings of the Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) as well as those added to it by later Christians. We, as Muslims, are to
believe in everything that Jesus taught. Since we have no way of knowing which of those teachings are genuine other than through their confirmation by the Final
Revelation, namely, the Qur'an, we reject everything that is contradicted by the Qur’an, while confirming everything that has been attested by the same. As for those
teachings which are neither confirmed nor contradicted by the Qur'an, we do not reject them entirely, we only say, (We believe in what has been revealed to you and
what has been revealed to us from our Lord and your Lord; our Lord and your Lord is One. ) (AlÀnkabut 29: 46) ... )
Through talking to a Muslim in person, and searching the net etc. , I can see that the Muslims consider the Quoran, the Injil, the Torah, Suhuf Ibrahim, and the Zabur, to
be holy books.
Now most Muslims ,attribute the Injil, the Torah and the Zabur, as being the 4 gospels, the 5 books of Moses, and the Psalms.
So the bible is considered to be holy only in part, that is the parts that contain parts of the Injil etc., and to some Muslims it is not at all holy. Any part of the bible that
contradicts the Quoran is heredic they say. They say that these books contain parts of the revelations of the Injil, Torah, and Zabur, but have been corrupted, added to,
or some say (not most) completely lost.
Now the most holy book of the Muslims is the Quoran, but the books of the bible known as the 4 gospels, the 5 books of Moses, and the Psalms, are considered to
contain some of the revelations of Jesus, David and Moses, but are not truly holy because of corruption, and the Quoran does aknowledge though, what is called "the
people of the book" as being The Jews and Christians, with their respective books.
So the Quoran is their most holy book, and most Muslims also adhere to certain Hadiths, which to some is considered as being next to the Quoran, but not all adhere
to the Hadiths, therefore, in this study, concerning the Muslim aspect of this study, I will seek to use the Hadiths, as least as possible (maybe not at all), mainly focusing
on the Quoran.
So that is what the Muslims consider to be holy books, or books to adhere to, (especially the Quoran) so now let us cover the Jews.
Jews
Now what about the Jews?
(Encyclopedia Wikipedia)
(The Tanakh is the Bible used in Judaism. The name "Tanakh" is a Hebrew acronym formed from the initial Hebrew letters of the Tanakh's three traditional
subdivisions: The Torah ("Teaching," also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings") hence TaNaKh. The elements of
the Tanakh are incorporated in various forms in Christian Bibles, in which, with some variations, it is called the "Old Testament."
Torah (‫תורה‬, literally "teaching") consists of the first five books of the Bible, commonly referred to as the "Five Books of Moses." Printed versions of the Torah are
often called Chamishei Chumshei Torah (‫תורה‬ ‫חומשי‬ ‫חמישי‬, literally the "five fifths of the Torah"), and informally "a Chumash."
1. Genesis [‫בראשית‬ / Breishit]
2. Exodus [‫שמות‬ / Shmot]
3. Leviticus [‫ויקרא‬ / Vayikra]
4. Numbers [‫במדבר‬ / Bamidbar]
5. Deuteronomy [‫דברים‬ / D'varim]
Nevi'im (‫נביאים‬, "Prophets") consists of eight books. This division includes the books which, as a whole, cover the chronological era from the entrance of the
Israelites into the Land until the Babylonian captivity of Judah (the "period of prophecy"). However, they exclude Chronicles, which covers the same period. The
Nevi'im are often divided into the Earlier Prophets (‫ראשונים‬ ‫)נביאים‬, which are generally historical in nature, and the Later Prophets (‫אחרונים‬ ‫)נביאים‬, which contain
more exhortational prophecies. Although most versions of the Old Testament count the number of books as totalling 21, counting the books of Samuel and Kings as 2 / 150
two book each, and the "Twelve Prophets" (or the minor prophets) as 12 books, Jewish tradition does not:
Israelites into the Land until the Babylonian captivity of Judah (the "period of prophecy"). However, they exclude Chronicles, which covers the same period. The
Nevi'im are often divided into the Earlier Prophets (‫ראשונים‬ ‫)נביאים‬, which are generally historical in nature, and the Later Prophets (‫אחרונים‬ ‫)נביאים‬, which contain
more exhortational prophecies. Although most versions of the Old Testament count the number of books as totalling 21, counting the books of Samuel and Kings as
two book each, and the "Twelve Prophets" (or the minor prophets) as 12 books, Jewish tradition does not:
6. Joshua [‫יהושע‬ / Y'hoshua]
7. Judges [‫שופטים‬ / Shophtim]
8. Samuel (I & II) [‫שמואל‬ / Sh'muel]
9. Kings (I & II) [‫מלכים‬ / M'lakhim]
10. Isaiah [‫ישעיה‬ / Y'shayahu]
11. Jeremiah [‫ירמיה‬ / Yir'mi'yahu]
12. Ezekiel [‫יחזקאל‬ / Y'khezqel]
13. The Twelve Prophets [‫עשר‬ ‫]תרי‬
a. Hosea [‫הושע‬ / Hoshea]
b. Joel [‫יואל‬ / Yo'el]
c. Amos [‫עמוס‬ / Amos]
d. Obadiah [‫עובדיה‬ / Ovadyah]
e. Jonah [‫יונה‬ / Yonah]
f. Micah [‫מיכה‬ / Mikhah]
g. Nahum [‫נחום‬ / Nakhum]
h. Habakkuk [‫חבקוק‬ /Havakuk]
i. Zephaniah [‫צפניה‬ / Ts'phanyah]
j. Haggai [‫חגי‬ / Khagai]
k. Zechariah [‫זכריה‬ / Z'kharyah]
l. Malachi [‫מלאכי‬ / Mal'akhi]
Ketuvim (‫כתובים‬, "Writings") or "scriptures", are sometimes also known by the Greek title "Hagiographa" and consists of eleven books. These encompass all the
remaining books, and include the Five Scrolls. They are sometimes also divided into such categories as Sifrei Emet (‫אמת‬ ‫ספרי‬, literally "Books of Truth") of Psalms,
Proverbs and Job (the Hebrew names of these three books form the Hebrew word for "truth" as an acrostic, and all three books have unique cantillation marks), the
"wisdom books" of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs, the "poetry books" of Psalms, Lamentations and Song of Solomon, and the "historical books" of EzraNehemiah
and Chronicles. In the Jewish version, Ketuvim consists of eleven books, counting Ezra and Nehemiah as one book and I and II Chronicles as a single book.
The "Sifrei Emet," "Books of Truth":
14. Psalms [‫תהלים‬ / Tehilim]
15. Proverbs [‫משלי‬ / Mishlei]
16. Job [‫איוב‬ / Iyov]
The "Five Megilot" or "Five Scrolls":
17. Song of Songs [‫השירים‬ ‫שיר‬ / Shir Hashirim]
18. Ruth [‫רות‬ / Rut]
19. Lamentations [‫איכה‬ / Eikhah]
20. Ecclesiastes [‫קהלת‬ / Kohelet]
21. Esther [‫אסתר‬ / Esther]
The rest of the "Writings":
22. Daniel [‫דניאל‬ / Dani'el]
23. EzraNehemiah[‫ונחמיה‬ ‫עזרא‬ / Ezra v'Nekhemia]
24. Chronicles (I & II) [‫הימים‬ ‫דברי‬ / Divrei Hayamim])
The Talmud (Hebrew: ‫)תַּלְמוּד‬ is a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs, and history. It is a central text of Rabbinic Judaism,
second only to the Hebrew Bible in importance. The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law;
and the Gemara (c. 500 CE), a discussion of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the
Tanakh.)
So the Jew's bible is the Old Testament, but they also adhere to the Talmud.
Now whom do the Jews and Muslims, believe who their God is? Or what is a description of their God?
Well first, let us deal with the Jews.
(While Judaism has no special or particular view of Jesus, and very few texts in Judaism directly refer to or take note of Jesus, Judaism takes a strong stand against
many views expressed by Christian theology. One of the most important Jewish principles of faith is the belief in one God and one God only with no partnership of any
kind,[1] and belief in Jesus as deity, part of a deity, son of God, or Christ, is incompatible with Judaism. [2] For this reason, related issues such as the historical
existence of Jesus and whatever his life involved, are likewise not considered relevant in Judaism.
The belief that Jesus is God, part of the Trinity, the Messiah, or a prophet of God are incompatible with traditional Jewish tenets. The idea of the Jewish Messiah is
different from the Christian Christ because Jews believe Jesus did not fulfill Jewish Messianic prophecies that establish the criteria for the coming of the Messiah.[5]
3 / 150
Authoritative texts of Judaism reject Jesus as God, Divine Being, intermediary between humans and God, Messiah or saint. The belief in the Trinity, as with many other
central Christian doctrines,[6] is also held to be incompatible with Judaism.)
The belief that Jesus is God, part of the Trinity, the Messiah, or a prophet of God are incompatible with traditional Jewish tenets. The idea of the Jewish Messiah is
different from the Christian Christ because Jews believe Jesus did not fulfill Jewish Messianic prophecies that establish the criteria for the coming of the Messiah.[5]
Authoritative texts of Judaism reject Jesus as God, Divine Being, intermediary between humans and God, Messiah or saint. The belief in the Trinity, as with many other
central Christian doctrines,[6] is also held to be incompatible with Judaism.)
So the God of the Jews, is not a trinity, but one God, without there being three persons or personalities.
What about the God of the Muslims?
(In Islam, God is believed to be the only real supreme being, allpowerful and all knowing Creator, Sustainer, Ordainer, and Judge of the universe[1][2] Islam puts a
heavy emphasis on the conceptualization of God as strictly singular (tawhid).[3] He is unique (wahid) and inherently one (ahad), allmerciful and omnipotent.[4]
Islam teaches that its God is the same god worshiped by the members of other Abrahamic religions such as Christianity and Judaism (29:46).)
Now, later on, I will get deeper into the descriptions of the God of the Jews and Muslims, but for now I just wanted to show the fact that they both believe that their
God is one God, and not one God, composed of three persons.
So they reject the doctrine of the trinity.
Now I will get into the scriptures, which I will show the overall view of the Jews concerning this peticular verse, and comment on it, and then the view of the muslims
concerning this verse, and comment on it, and compare verses with verses, so to see the whole picture.
First let us see which verse I am talking about.
Genesis 1:26 KJV
(26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.)
Jewish view
(Jewsforjudaism.org)
(... "And God created man in His image" (Genesis 1:27). In this verse the Hebrew verb "created" appears in the singular form. If "let us make man" indicates a
numerical plurality, it would be followed in the NEXT verse by, "And they created man in their image." Obviously, the plural form is used in the same way as in the
divine appellation 'Elohim, to indicate the allinclusiveness of God's attributes of authority and power, the plurality of majesty. It is customary for one in authority to
speak of himself as if he were a plurality...
...There is another possible reason for the use of the plural on the part of God, and that is to manifest His humility. God addresses Himself to the angels and says to
them, "Let us make man in our image." It is not that He invites their help, but as a matter of modesty and courtesy, God associates them with the creation of man. This
teaches us that a great man should act humbly and consult with those lower than him. It is not unusual for God to refer to His heavenly court (angels) as "us," as we see
in Isaiah 6:8, "And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?'" Although God often acts without assistance, He makes His
intentions known to His servants...)
Now there may be other Jewish views on this, but this is one view that sort of stood out, and many other sites support this view (aish.com, outreachjudaism.org,
torah.org etc.).
Now I will consider this discusion of Isaiah 6:8, and will compare verses 6 to 8 with Genesis 1:26.
Isaiah 6:68 Genesis 1:26
(6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he (26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them
had taken with the tongs from off the altar: have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the
7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. earth.)
8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go
for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.)
Well indeed, in the Isaiah 6:68 case, it is talking about seraphims, which were a type of angel, and the Lord says in verse 8, who will go for us, that is who will go on
behalf of God and the angels, and instead of God sending an angel to these people (verse 9), he sent a man, namely Isaiah, for Isaiah asked God to send him.
Now in the case of Genesis 1:26, it says let us make man in " our 'image' ", this is a very important statement. The question must be asked, Is this referring to God
himself, or to God and the angels?
Well first of all, were the angels made in the image of God? And did they create man? Because the context that it is talking about, is a plurality creating man, in their
image.
Well I looked into the word 'image' in the bible, and I will quote just a couple of the many image verses, and then we will see, if it mentions angels being made in God's
image.
Genesis 1:27 KJV
(27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.)
4 / 150
(27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.)
Exodus 20:4 KJV
(4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth.)
Now I looked at every single image verse in the whole bible, and they are all very similar to these 2, now these verses have the word image in it, but refer to different
things, which are self explanatory, such as a graven image, is an image made by man through carving wood or other materials etc etc etc., but the only one mentioned in
the Old Testament, of being created in God's image is man, not angels, nor animals, just man.

Now there is a scripture in the New Testament, that talks about Jesus being the express image of God's person (Hebrews 1:13), but here I am dealing with what the
Tanakh says conerning the word 'image' (which is the Jewish bible, or the Old Testament).
Now angels are servants of God and obey what God says, and they have many chores; now some are sent to give a message to a person, and some are there to
protect, etc. etc. etc., and angels have already made their decision for God, for a third of the angels, decided to follow Lucifer, when he fell away from God's ways,
then he became known as satan (which means adversary), but God did not offer redemption to satan when he fell, but when man fell, God made a plan for the
redemption of man.
Now men were made a little lower than angels (Psalm 8:45), yet they were created in God's image, so there is something that God placed in man , that sets man aside
from angels and of course animals.
Now some might argue against Genesis 1:26, referring to a plurality creating man, but if you take the whole Old Testament, at face value, for what it says, and not for
what it don't say, you will have to be honest, that what I have mentioned, does not contradict any part of the Old Testament, nor the entire bible for that matter.
Now let's take a portion of Isaiah 6:8, and Genesis 1:26, and see further the differences of each verse.
Isaiah 6:8:(....Whom shall I send, and who will go for us....), Genesis 1:26: (....Let us make man in our image....)
Isaiah is talking about a sending of someone, but Genesis is reffering to a creation of someone.
Isaiah is referring to just sending someone from amongst them, while Genesis is referring to creating someone in their own image.
So both verses refer to 2 completely different type of actions, and the Genesis verse has a requisite to being part of creating the man, which was being already in their
image, but the Isaiah verse, shows no particular requisite.
Now let us, at this time, look at Genesis 1:26 and 27, quoted together.
Genesis 1:2627
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.)
Verse 26, talks of "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness", and when we go unto verse 27, it follows with this statement: "So God created man in his own
image", the word "so", here is an extremely important word.
Now the word "so", in many phrases, can be used in many different ways, all depending on the context.
Now the closest definition that I found, in the Webster's dictionary, that most closely resembles the word "so", in this case, is as follows:
So: Thus; thus it is; this is the state. How sorrow shakes him! So now the tempest tears him up by th' roots.
Notice the phrasing "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....So God greated man in his own image.....
In verse 26, God talks in a plural form, of Let "US", and then in verse 27, in a singular form, but starting with the word "so".
The word "so", is referring to, first of all, something that it was talking about in the previous verse.
It talks about letting the "us" make man after their image, and then verse 27, goes on to say, "So" God created man in his own image.
The "us" in verse 26, and "God", in verse 27, are referring to the same thing, which in verse 26, showing himself to be a plurality, and in verse 27, showing himself to be
one God.
And anyhow, at this point, there was nothing created in God's image yet, for only God had his own image, at this point, but of course, upon man being created, then
man, in some degree, took on the image of God.
Now before I go on, I want to just mention one more thing.
Let us go unto Genesis 3:22, which says:
(22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and
eat, and live for ever:)
5 / 150
At this point in time, man already had been created in the image of God, but here, man fell from God's ways, and now had the knowledge of knowing how to do good
(22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and
eat, and live for ever:)
At this point in time, man already had been created in the image of God, but here, man fell from God's ways, and now had the knowledge of knowing how to do good
and evil all by himself, with no dependance upon God, but before the fall, man did not have to know evil, for he was perfect, and there was no evil in the world, it is
what scholars call "the age of innocence".
Now let us go on to another Old Testament verse, and to what Jewish people of the Judaic religion and other Jews, would say, concerning this verse.
Now the peticular scripture is Isaiah 9:6, which I will include verse 7 with it, for the sake of clarity; now here's the scripture:
Isaiah 9:67
(6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty
God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and
with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.)
Now I will show forth, 2 different view points, concerning what Isaiah 9:6 means, and on one hand, it will be a view from Judaic Judaism, and on the other hand, it will
be a Messianic Jewish view point.
A Judaic Jew, is a Jew that does not believe that Jesus is the Christ or God, and a Messianic Jew, is one that believes that Jesus is the Christ and very much God (they
believe in the trinity (most)), and both of these people, know the Hebrew language.
Now we will compare, both the Judaic view and Mesianic view, side by side.
Judaic view point Messianic Jewish view point
(Rabbi Eliahu Levenson (email)) (Reuben for menorah.org (email))
Shalom, Shalom. See responses below. In His service, Reuben
"Yechezkel (Hezekial) was one of the greatest righteous Jewish kings, sandwiched Question:"Yes my question is this, the Jews of Judaism, say that this refers to
in the middle of father and son who were the opposite. The names, except for "sar Hezekiah, or Israel, now what does Hezekiah actually mean? And they say this
shalom" (Prince of Peace), in the Verses refer to Gd, and not to Yechezkel. should be writen in the pass tense."
Rashi lets us know that the Hebrew word, "vayikra," meaning, "He called," has
been altered in a number of translations to read, "vayikarei," meaning, "he shall be Answer:(Hezekiah) "Means: "the LORD has strengthened" The actual tense is
called." This falsely reverses the meaning and intention of this Verse, given by Gd present/future; propheticly spoken over a Davidic king born in Isaiah's day, were
Himself prophetically to Yeshayahu (Isaiah). Gd gives Yechezkel the name, never fulfilled. Until when the Davidic King Messiah factually came into the world.
Prince of Peace because of the peaceful reign in his kingdom during his tenure." See www.menorah.org/whyjim.html.
Specifically Yesha'yahu 9:5(9:6 in nonHebrew Bible) says: For a child is born to
Regards, Eliahu Levenson us, dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Peleyo'etz
El Gibor Avi'Ad SarShalom [Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of
(Rochel Chein for Chabad.org (email)) Eternity, Prince of Peace] This is in harmony with other verses in our Hebrew
Scriptures that point toward the divine nature of the Messiah, and the names of the
"Isaiah 9:56 read: "For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the child should be taken as descriptive of the Messiah himself. Specifically
authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the Yesha'yahu/Isaiah 7:14 reads: Therefore Adonia himself will give you people a
everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." To him who increases sign: the young woman will become pregnant, bear a son and name him 'Immanu
the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to El. (Adonai/God with us) The prophet speaks of a supernatural event of great
establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to importance to the house of David, apparently the birth of a royal child. When read
eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this." Rashi, the classic in the larger context of 7:11, it is not difficult to see how 7:14 was/is taken to be
commentary on the Tanach (Bible) explains these verses as follows: “Although Messianic. It begs the question, what would be so supernatural or a special sign
Ahaz is wicked, his son who was born to him many years ago to be our king in his for a nonvirgin to have a child? The word used here is 'almah which can mean a
stead, shall be a righteous man, and the authority of the Holy One, blessed be He, young girl who has not know a man; had sexual relations.
and His yoke shall be on his shoulder, for he shall engage in the Torah and
observe the commandments, and he shall bend his shoulder to bear the burden of Question:"Now I would like for yous to show me or refute what these Jews are
the Holy One, blessed be He. The Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives saying, and show strong evidence that this is referring to Jesus, and can you show
wondrous counsel, is a mighty God and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s me were verses with Yeshua are found?"
name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth will be in his days. To whom
will He call this name? To the king who increases the authority of the Holy One, Answer:"See: www.menorah.org/yeshname.html"
blessed be He, upon himself, to fear Him.” "
Question:"and what does Yeshua mean?"
Wishing you and yours a good and sweet new year! All the best, Rochel Chein
for Chabad.org Answer:"See: www.menorah.org/yeshuajesus%20name%20study.pdf"
Now I have read of certain Judaic Jews saying that the person in Isaiah 9:6, refers to Israel, but more than not, thay say, after a certain sense, it refers to Hezekiah.
Certain Judaic Jews may have certain other disagreements among themselves, but the general understanding is that of Hezekiah, and it is their view of Hezekiah, which
you could say, stands out the most.
Now Rabbi Levenson, says that "the names, except for "sar shalom" (Prince of Peace), in the Verses refer to Gd" , so that would mean that he believes that words
6 / 150
such as: 'Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father' refer to God, but Prince of Peace refers to Hezekiah, why? Because of the peaceful reign in
Now Rabbi Levenson, says that "the names, except for "sar shalom" (Prince of Peace), in the Verses refer to Gd" , so that would mean that he believes that words
such as: 'Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father' refer to God, but Prince of Peace refers to Hezekiah, why? Because of the peaceful reign in
his kingdom during his tenure. That's Levenson's reason for Hezekiah being called 'Prince of peace'.
Now what about the other Judaic Jew, mentioned above, which is Rochel Chein of Chabad.org, what is his view? Well he seems to have the very same view as Rabbi
Levenson, and this is what he mentions, in part of his quote, which says:"The Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives wondrous counsel, is a mighty God and an
everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth will be in his days."
They seem to totally reword Isaiah 9:6, for it to say (quote from Rochel Chein):"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his
shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." To him who increases the authority, and for peace
without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of
Hosts shall accomplish this."
They make a totally different phrase, and form it in a past tense form.
And their main reason, for saying that the prince of peace is referring to Hezekiah, is simply because Hezekiah had a peaceful reign, and that is their main argument.
Now what about the Messianic Jewish view? Well I will quote things that Reuben has said, from menorah.org.
Here are some of the quotes he gives: "(speaking of Hezekiah) Means: "the LORD has strengthened" The actual tense (of Isaiah 9:6) is present/future; propheticly
spoken over a Davidic king born in Isaiah's day, were never fulfilled. Until when the Davidic King Messiah factually came into the world. "
So Reuben puts it in a type of present/future tense. And believes it was talking of a future Messiah (remember that this guy also knows the Hebrew language, and many
rabbis, have become Christians, which know Hebrew yet do not agree with Judaic Judaism).
Also, here are other quotes from Reuben, "Specifically Yesha'yahu 9:5(9:6 in nonHebrew Bible) says: For a child is born to us, dominion will rest on his shoulders,
and he will be given the name Peleyo'etz El Gibor Avi'Ad SarShalom [Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace] This is in harmony
with other verses in our Hebrew Scriptures that point toward the divine nature of the Messiah, and the names of the child should be taken as descriptive of the Messiah
himself."
He mentions that Isaiah 9:6, is obviously correctly interpreted, in our english bibles, because of what he says of the verse, which that the person it refers to, is all of the
titles, such as:"Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace", therefore, their being no distinction between "prince of peace" and the other
titles, of who it refers to. He mentions that they all refer to the Messiah. And he mentions that Isaiah 9:6, is actually Isaiah 9:5 in the Hebrew bible, and shows the literal
translation of the bible the Jews use.
Now I also asked, the menorah.org people, of some evidence of Jewish rabbis coming to Christ, and many have come to Christ, but here is a short list of some, who
were Jewish rabbis, and have come to Christ:" Rabbi Asher Levy, Dr. (Rabbi) Max Wertheimer, Rabbi Sam Stern, Rabbi Charles Freshman, Rabbi Philipp Philips,
Rabbi T. Tirschtiegel".
So obviously their is a conflict between the Jewish people, concerning what the bible is saying, and remember that both these type of people, know the Hebrew
language, and yet some rabbis which know Hebrew as much as other rabbis, are coming to Christ, and are agreeing with the doctrine of the trinity.
So just asking a Jewish person alone, in and of itself, may not give you the true meaning of what the bible says, and often times it is based on a stance, rather than
openess to the bible.
I know for myself, I know the bible to be the inspired word of God, and even though I am white, I accept the fact that God called Israel his people.
So on my part, I have no real doctrinal (not motivated by doctrine itself), denominational or racial motives in defending myself, I just want to believe what God says,
plain and simple.
And no, by no means am I perfect.
Now I will quote something else of interest, concerning the name of Jesus, and I believe that the people who translated the Hebrew to English, especially concerning the
King James Version, truly used the right words for translating it to english, and such a word used extensively in the bible , is the word salvation, now what does the
word "salvation", in the Hebrew, in many cases, mean? Or what Hebrew word is used?
Well I will quote something interesting from the menorah.org people which opened my eyes to certain things, and also, some things that I noticed through studying it
myself.
(Menorah.org)
("Something very interesting occurred one spring in St. Louis: I was visiting in the home of our friends, Brother and Mrs. Charles Siegelman, and another Jew was
present there. He claimed Jewish orthodoxy for his creed. Of course the conversation centered around Him Who is the Center of all things Jesus. This good Jewish
brother opposed the claims of Yeshua in the Old Testament verbally, and in a friendly fashion, most violently. His best offensive weapon, he thought, was to fling at me
and at all of us there the wellknown challenge: "You can't find the name of 'Jesus' in the Old Testament;" and this he did. I did not answer him directly, but asked him
to translate for us from my Hebrew Bible, Isaiah 62:11. Being a Hebrew scholar, he did so with utmost ease, rapidly, and correctly; and here is what and how he
translated that text verbatim: "Behold, Jehovah has proclaimed unto the end of the world. Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold thy YESHUA[ Jesus] cometh; behold,
His reward is with Him, and His work before Him." just then he crimsoned as he realized what he had done and how he had played into my hands, and he just fairly
screamed out, "No! no! You made me read it 'thy YESHUA' Jesus], Mr. Glass! You tricked me!" I said, "No, I did not trick you, I just had you read the Word of
God for yourself. Can't you see that here SALVATION is a Person and not a thing or an event? HE Comes, 'HIS reward is with HIM, and His work before him.' "
Then he rushed at his own Old Testament, talking away frantically saying, "I'm sure mine is different from yours." And when he found the passage, he just dropped like
a deflated balloon. His Old Testament was, of course, identical. All he could use as an escape from admitting defeat was to deny the divine inspiration of the book of
Isaiah.")
7 / 150
Now here is what Isaiah 62:11, actually says, in the english, King James bible.
a deflated balloon. His Old Testament was, of course, identical. All he could use as an escape from admitting defeat was to deny the divine inspiration of the book of
Isaiah.")
Now here is what Isaiah 62:11, actually says, in the english, King James bible.
Isaiah 62:11
(11 Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his
work before him.)
Now the word "salvation", as a whole in the Old Testament, points to the word "YESHUA" which translated to english is the name "Jesus".
Here is what the Strong's concordance, has to say about the Hebrew word of "salvation", in Isaiah 62:11 :
"H3468
‫ישׁע‬ ‫ישׁע‬
yesha‛ yêsha‛
yeh'shah, yay'shah
From H3467; liberty, deliverance, prosperity:
safety, salvation, saving."
Now here is a quote from the book "COMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE & glossary" p. 16001601, from Dr. David H. Stern, that I got from Menorah.org .
( Dr. David H. Stern COMPLETE JEWISH
BIBLE & glossary p. 16001601)
" Yehshooah (Jesus) Variant of
"Y'hoshua" (Joshua; see below). In the
TANAKK (O.T.) nine persons and a city have
the name Yeshua, usually transliterated as
"Jeshus" or "Jeshuah." In the Septuagint and the
B'RIT HADASHAH (the New Testament) the
name was brought over into Greek as Iesous and
then into English as "Jesus." It means "YHVH
saves" (Matthew 1:21) and is also the masculine
form of Ye shua'ah ("salvation"). (1) The
Messiah of Israel, Yeshua from Natzeret. In
modern Hebrew Yeshua's name is pronounced
and written "Yeshu," which may have been the
ancient pronun ciation in the Galil (Galilee
area)."
Now here is another quote, but now it is from whoisjesus.com.
(whoisjesus.com)
"The name Jesus in the Analytical concordance is
Yeshua or Yeshuah. Yesha is a shortened form
of the word Yeshua and occurs in the Old
Testament and is translated as salvation."
Now I will just mention another quote, but this time it will be from seedofabraham.net.
(seedofabraham.net)
" The name Yeshua is literally a transliteration of the Messiah’s Hebrew name.
When one says, ‘Yeshua’ one is speaking Hebrew. This is the name that all the
Apostles would have known Him by and what His mother would have called Him
when He was late for supper. Literally it would be pronounced ‘Yeashuah’ the
‘Yea’ rhyming with the ‘ay’ in ‘say.’ (Although many shorten it to Yehshua.) In
the Tanach (the Hebrew ‘Old Testament’) the Hebrew name for Jesus is seen in
29 places, mostly Ezra and Nehemiah (e.g. Ezra 2:2, 6, 36, 40; 3:2, 8, 9; 4:3;
Nehemiah. 3:19; 7:7, 11, 39, etc.) and also in 1st Chron. 24:11 and 2nd Chron.
31:15. In these places the name Yeshua is easily seen in English Bibles as Jeshua
which is the shortened form for Joshua. The name Yeshua was used at least five
hundred years before Messiah was born. The name ‘Jesus’ comes into English
from the Greek New Testament. The Greek Yeasous is a semitransliteration of 8 / 150
Yeshua. The Greek alphabet didn’t have the ‘sh’ sound to fully transliterate the
which is the shortened form for Joshua. The name Yeshua was used at least five
hundred years before Messiah was born. The name ‘Jesus’ comes into English
from the Greek New Testament. The Greek Yeasous is a semitransliteration of
Yeshua. The Greek alphabet didn’t have the ‘sh’ sound to fully transliterate the
Hebrew name Yeshua into Greek. Because of this the best that Paul or any of the
other writers of the New Testament could do was to write ‘Yeasous.’ (The final
‘s’ sound is the sigma, part of Greek grammar.) So instead of Yeasueah it
became Yeasueous (Yeasous). It’s the ‘sous’ at the end that trips some people
up into thinking that somehow Messiah’s name got transferred or associated with
the pagan god Zeus. Some people believe we shouldn’t say ‘Jesus’ as the ‘sus’ in
Jesus is very similar to the sound ‘Zeus’ makes. This logic is very flawed though.
First, the name Yeasous was written and given to us by the Holy Spirit through the
writers of the New Testament. In the Gospels, Acts, Letters and Revelation the
name of Messiah is Yeasous. If the Holy Spirit and the inspired writers didn’t think
it was wrong to use Yeasous as the Greek name for Messiah Yeshua there’s no
need for us to think that the name Yeasous is wrong. Second, to demand that we
don’t say the name Yeasous (or Jesus) because it sounds like Zeus may seem
‘reasonable’ upon hearing the similarity of the sounds but it’s not rational. It carries
the same weight to it of prohibiting the word ‘raisin’ because it has the word ‘sin’
in it. Luke, and all the Jewish writers of the New Testament who wrote in Greek,
wrote the Hebrew name Yeshua as Yeasous. Obviously they didn’t think they
were calling upon the chief god of Mt. Olympus when they did it. Those that
espouse that we shouldn’t say the name Jesus and that Yeasous in Greek means
another god are contending with the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul, John and all the
others to refer to Yeshua in Greek as Yeasous. "
"From the Greek, the name of the Messiah went into Latin and from there to the
European languages. That’s why Jesus is pronounced ‘Haysous’ in Spanish. The
Spanish pronounce the ‘J’ as an ‘H’ sound. And most everyone knows the
German J is pronounced as an I as in Yahn for John. In English the Name has gone
through some interesting changes reflecting its origin from the Greek Yeasous. In
Middle English (1066–1450 A.D.) the Name was written as IHS ‘an abbreviation
of (the) Greek IHSOYS (‘Iesous’).’3 In the 16 th century the Name was Iesu or
Iesus and in William Tyndale’s 1526 New Testament we find Mt. 1:1 being written
as ‘The boke off the generacion off Ihesus Christ’ with Mt. 8:29 as ‘O Iesu the
sonne off God.’4 In the 17 th century the J replaced the I to make Jesu. By the 18
th century the ‘s’ was added to make our familiar ‘Jesus’ but obviously it wasn’t
always like that.5 The point of all this is that the name Jesus has evolved
linguistically directly from the ancient Greek New Testament which was a proper
way of saying Yeshua in Greek. The name Jesus is OK. Changing Messiah’s
Hebrew name to Yeasous was not unbiblical or a sin as the Greek could not
support His full Hebrew name. He still remained the King of the Jews who died for
both Jew and Gentile and the One who showed us the depth of the Law’s
sacrificial love by taking our place on the Tree. "
So the word Jesus (English), is "Iesous" in the Greek language, which in tern is "Yeshua" or the short form of it, "Yesha", in the Hebrew language. Now most Jews, use
Yeshua it seems, rather than Yesha.
So the word Jesus, in the Hebrew form (Yeshua) is all over the Old Testament!!!!!!!
Now I want to show forth something else of interest concerning the name of Jesus, which I discovered in my own personal study.
It is regarding the words "Jesus" and "Joshua".
Now first of all, I will quote a scripture concerning Joshua, and then concerning Jesus, and then I will give the Hebrew definition of the word "Joshua" and the Greek
definition of the word "Jesus".
Deuteronomy 3:28
(28 But charge Joshua, and encourage him, and strengthen him: for he shall go over before this people, and he shall cause them to inherit the land which thou shalt see.)
John 1:17
(17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.)
Now what I have learnt, through much study of various scriptures, is that this Old Testament leader named Joshua, was a physical conquerer, which he conquered
many lands, and Jesus was a spiritual conquerer, for he overcame sin and the devil, so that men could be free from the power of sin.
Now the Hebrew word for Joshua, is as follows (Strong's concordance):
H3091
‫יהושׁוּע‬ ‫יהושׁע‬
9 / 150
yehôshûa‛ yehôshûa‛
‫יהושׁוּע‬ ‫יהושׁע‬
yehôshûa‛ yehôshûa‛
yehhoshoo'ah, yehhoshoo'ah
From H3068 and H3467; Jehovahsaved;
Jehoshua (that is, Joshua), the Jewish leader:
Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Joshua. Compare H1954,
H3442.
We will now show forth, the Greek name, of the word Jesus (Strong's concordance):
G2424 Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
eeaysooce'
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is,
Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two
(three) other Israelites: Jesus.
So it appears that the words: Yesha, Yeshua, and Yehoshua (through our quotes , and these Strong's concordance definitions) are somehow variants one of another.
The Strong's concordance, talks of the Greek word Iesous, which was translated from H3091, which is the word Yehoshua (or Jehoshua which is the same). Yet we
also see the Jewish people, also show that to get to the word Jesus, they used the Hebrew word Yeshua or Yesha.
I am not sure if I fully understand the way the Hebrew language works, but I know that in the English language, there are certain words, which can be used, but mean
the same thing, such as: everlasting and eternal, and you can write the name John as either John or sometimes Jon. And in French, you can write the name Gilles, as
either Gilles with an "s", or Gille without an "s"; now Gilles and Gille may refer to a different person, in the natural of course, but they both spell the same name.
Now in Hebrew it may be a different thing, but sometimes different names can be spelt in different ways, and I wonder, if that is all what it is all about in the Hebrew
language, of these 3 names all being the name of Jesus, just spelt in different ways. Now both the words Yesha and Yeshua, mean salvation, not what about the word
Yehoshua?
Yehoshua means: Jehovahsaved.
What does Jehovah mean?.
Definition of Jehovah (Hebrew Strong's concordance):
H3068
‫יהוה‬
yehôvâh
yehhovaw'
From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal;
Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:
Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.
So all 3 words (Yesha, Yeshua and Yehoshua (Jehoshua)), point to the word salvation or saved (in the case of Yehoshua, one meaning is Jehovahsaved), but Jehovah
(Yehovah) goes a bit furhter, which points to this person or personality that saves, being God!!!
Is this just a coincidence? I think not.
Now there are alot of foreshadows or types of, in the bible, which I will prove.
Hebrews 10:1
(1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually
make the comers thereunto perfect.)
Heb 8:35
(3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that
10 / 150
thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.)
(3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that
thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.)
Colossians 2:1617
(16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.)
1Peter 3:2021
(20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls
were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by
the resurrection of Jesus Christ:)
1Corinthians 15:45
(45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.)
Galatians 4:2126
(21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.)
1Corinthians 10:14
(1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.)
So here I have mentioned a bunch of foreshadow or types of, mentioned in the bible, and Adam's name was used to point to Christ, but in a way referred to as the "last
Adam".
Well Joshua, even though being a different person from Christ, had the very same name used as Jesus' name, which means "Jehovahsaved", and both of these people,
saved people, for Joshua was a physical conquerer and saved Israel from their enemies, and conquered lands, well Jesus saves people, and was a spiritual conqueror,
and set us free from the enemy (Satan), and evil spirits etc.
So both, in their actual lives, brought a type of salvation to the people.
Is this just a coincidence???? I do not believe for one minute that it is, and Joshua means saved!!!!!!!
So Jesus is indeed, in many ways, referred to in the Old Testament.
So at this point, we will go unto other things, for I feel that we have covered enough on the name of Jesus, and his mention, in the Old Testament.
Right now, I want to cover other things concerning the Judaic religion.
Judaic religion questions
Now I have a series of questions, for the Judaic religion, concerning what their own bible says, which is the Old Testament.
First of all, if they truly follow the Old Testament, they should still be doing animal sacrifices, for that was part of the law (Num 28:13), so why aren't they doing so
today???????
Another question is this, what was God's purpose? Was it to establish a "Judaic religion", or was his purpose something else?
And also, what did God actually establish???
Well we will have to go to the Old Testament, to find that out.
Exodus 18:20
(20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.)
Deuteronomy 5:33
(33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your
days in the land which ye shall possess.) 11 / 150
(33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your
days in the land which ye shall possess.)
Genesis 26:25
(2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I
sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.)
If you search for the word "Judaism" in the bible, you will see that it's not in there, no mention at all, about Judaism as a religion (never mentions Judaism, but does
mention in the New Testament (Galatians 1:14), the fact that there was a Jewish religion, but no mention of God establishing it in any way) ,why? Because first of all
God did not come to start a type of religion, but rather he wanted man to know his laws and ways, and that is what he gave to man, he showed them his laws , statutes
and ways, so that it may go well with them.
And peticularly, the reason why he blessed and showed Abraham his ways, was because he was delighted in Abaraham because he followed after God's ways, and
wanted to obey him and did so.
God honors faithfulness!!!
And God was so honoured by Abraham's faith, he made him the father of many nations (Gen 17:5), and through him was born Isaac, and through Isaac was born
Jacob, and Jacob was the one, God eventually called "Israel" (Gen 32:28 ) to eventually form the nation of Israel.
And Israel, was the first nation to want to follow God, and God honoured that.
So what did God establish? Well yes he establsihed nations, but also a nation, peticularly, the nation of "Israel" which he chose to honour, because of them puting their
trust in him, and simply because of that.
And then he called Israel, his people.
So no mention of any religion being established in the Old Testament, just his ways, laws, and statutes, which was given to man, so man can know his ways, plain and
simple, but man in the overall, tend not to be satisfied with God's ways, so what they tend to do, is form man made religions.
So really, there is no scriptural foundation, for the Judaic religion, in the Old Testament, so then why Judaic Judaism?
Well yes, to form the religion of "Judaism", they used certain scriptures, but not only scriptures, but also extra laws, which are not even in the bible , which would mainly
be found in the Talmud.
Alot of what Judaism is really all about, is men mixing their traditions, and mixing some amount of scriptures together, which formed the man made religion of "Judaism",
because if they realy want to be honest with what the Old Testament says, there is no such thing as Judaism.
So Judaism, is a man made religion, which fails to see what God's true intention was.
Now here are scriptures, that I cannot see how the Judaic Jews can get around.
Isaiah 53:19
(1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty
that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him
not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he
openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people
was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.)
This person it's talking about here, is a person that shall bear men's sins, and Isaiah often uses the word "WE" in these scriptures.
Now Isaiah was a Jew, and he often used the word "WE" as referring to his people, which was the Jews.
It showed here, in these scriptures, of how the "WE" would not esteem him, and that they would esteem him as stricken and smitten of God even afflicted, which was a
negative view of this person which was to bear men's sins.
It shows that this person was to be a "despised and rejected" man (men would reject and despise him).
So yes all kinds of men were going to despised and rejected this man, but in a great way the Jews, because of what Isaiah says of the people, he calls "WE".
Who is this man that was going to be rejected by man and the Jews? 12 / 150
So yes all kinds of men were going to despised and rejected this man, but in a great way the Jews, because of what Isaiah says of the people, he calls "WE".
Who is this man that was going to be rejected by man and the Jews?
Well let us go to Isaiah 49:7.
Isaiah 49:7
(7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall
see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.)
Here it is talking about, an Holy One, whom man despiseth, and whom the nation abhorreth, and of this same person, it is said that princes also shall "WORSHIP".
This is the same person that is mentioned in Isaiah 53:19, which talks about this person being despised and rejected of men. But who is this person, that shall be
rejected and despised of men, yet shall be worshipped of princes?
Who does God want us to worship???
Exodus 34:14
(14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:)
He does not want us to worship anyone but him. And this Holy One, in Isaiah 49:7, is called an Holy One, and is going to be worshipped, and God only wants us to
worship him??? So could this Holy One, be referring to God himself, or the second person of the trinity (Jesus)???
Now before I go further, let us go on to another scripture, which should bring everything together.
Isaiah 8:1315
13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of
Jerusalem.
15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.)
This scripture is talking about the Lord himself!!!! And he, the Lord shall be a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, to Whom??? To Israel, and a gin and for a
snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. It actually mentions Israel, and the Lord being a rock of offence to them, which is not a positive thing, but a negative thing, for the
Lord shall actually be offensive to them, and a snare to them, that speaks no doubt of rejection, for if you truly receive the Lord, he will not be an offence to you. Well it
says similar things concerning that rejected person that I quoted from the book of Isaiah chapters 53 and 49, for it says of him, that he shall be despised, well that is a
very similar word to "offence", and this person shall be rejected, so concerning acceptance, this person mentioned in Isaiah 53 and 49, shall be rejected, and Isaiah
chapter 8, talks of the Lord being an offence, and mentions it, word for word as being the Lord, Is this a coincidence? I think not???????
Now for reference sake, here are New Testament scriptures that fulfil these prophecies of Isaiah 53:19, Isaiah 49:7 and Isaiah 8:1315 (New Testament scriptures: 1
Peter 2:2124, Romans 9:3033, 1 Peter 2:78, Mark 12:1013, Mark 8:31, Matthew 21:4243 etc.)
Now the next scripture, shall be a very interesting verse indeed.
Psa 110:1
(1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.)
Now the firts word Lord, in the Hebrew, refers to the word "Jehovah" , and the second word Lord, refers to the word "Adonai".
H3068 H113
‫יהוה‬ ‫אדון‬ ‫אדן‬
yehôvâh 'âdôn 'âdôn
yehhovaw' awdone', awdone'
From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: From an unused root (meaning to rule); sovereign, that is, controller (human or
Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069. divine): lord, master, owner. Compare also names beginning with “Adoni”.
Now these are 2 names, Judaic Jews use, as names for their God. They both point to God; which Jehovah is the national name of God, and Adonai is mentioned as
being sovereign, master, owner; and only God is sovereign.
Obviously, this scripture is refering to 2 people (the Lord said unto my Lord), yet both words refer to God, so obviously, even though God is one God, he is comprised
of more than one person.
So there is all these questions that must be asked concerning whom Judaic Judaism say God is, and what their religion is; they deny the trinity, yet the old Testament
does not deny the trinity, they say God started the Judaic religion, yet there's no proof, and also, it shows that the Lord would be an offence to them and they would
reject the person that would bear their sins; they are denying their own bible!!! So obviously what they are under today, is not the true God, even though God still loves
them, and calls them his people, and also there are other scriptures that show that they will come back to him, sometime in the future.
The Old Testament, even shows proof that there is an Holy Spirit. 13 / 150
them, and calls them his people, and also there are other scriptures that show that they will come back to him, sometime in the future.
The Old Testament, even shows proof that there is an Holy Spirit.
Isaiah 63:10
(10 But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.)
Psalms 51:11
(11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.)
It is very important to check out, what a peticular religion says their God is, for it may not even fit with their own Holy book or bible.
Now let us get to the Muslim side of things.
And once I get to my "FINAL ARGUMENTS" part of this study, I will comment more on this word called "religion".
Now I mentioned early on, in this study that I would comment on what the Jews and the Muslims say, Genesis 1:26 is referring to, so now let us get unto Genesis 1:26,
and let us see what the Muslims say about it, and compare it to the trinity view.
Here is the verse.
Genesis 1:26 KJV
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.)
Now let us remember, that the Muslims in the overall, consider mainly only parts of the bible to be holy (especially the torah, the 4 gospels, and Psalms) , for they say it
is corrupted and not in it's original form, and some of it has been lost (some say). And of course some say that it is not holy at all, but their Quoran, especially in Arabic
form, is totally holy and free of corruption.
Muslim view
(Genesis 1:26 Reinterpreted By Abdullah Smith)
(...Muslims do not believe man is created in the image of God’s essence. God does not physically look like human beings or have the inherent limitations of humanity.
He does not have arms and legs as we do, nor is He of flesh and blood.
...The description “Our image” (1:2617) is purely a Jewish expression, it does not substantiate the trinity, as some missionaries claim, but is basically a plural of
respect, grandeur in the Hebrew language. For example, the Hebrew name for God is Elohim, which means The Gods (Genesis 1:1) it rather should be Eloi (the God).
...The Christian argument is blasphemy according to Islam. Islam teaches that God breathed His spirit into all human beings, but we are not created in His divine
image, nor do we share His likeness. "To whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared? (Isaiah 46:5, NIV)
To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like? (Isaiah 46:5, KJV) For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD?
who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD? (Psalms 89:6) )
First of all, the Muslims as a whole, think that man was not created in the image of God (with the exception of certain Muslim sects; and in the Quoran, it is not written
that man was created in his image), but the bible tells us, man was, man was not the very image of God, but had a likeness of his very image, but not the express image,
for only Jesus, when he came as a man, was made in the express image of God (Heb 1:3 " Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,
and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;").
Now this Muslim author mentions Isaiah 46:5, which says:" To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?", well first of all,
there is no one that is identical to God, God never said , man was made in the express image of God, but rather in his image, to were it is a likeness, and not the exact
likeness.
That is what some Muslims do not understand, and of course, irregardless to that, they would still go against this anyhow, why? Simply because it is not part of their
believed doctrines.
Also in these quotations, it is said, this:" the Hebrew name for God is Elohim, which means The Gods (Genesis 1:1) it rather should be Eloi (the God) ".
Now I want to comment on what is said here, for many Muslims say that Christians believe in 3 gods, and this saying of Elohim, which is said to mean "the gods", is
probably one of the verses they use to say that we believe in 3 gods.
Well let us dig deeper into this word "Elohim".
And I know, that through my studies, in seeing what certain words mean in the "Hebrew" and "Greek" languages, often times they have many meanings, and often times,
you need to read the context of what it says, and compare scriptures with scriptures, in order to know which definition it truly refers to.
I am not talking about here, trying to choose which definition you prefer, according to ones view point, but rather to, towards the true, and honest meaning of the verse.
The bible says this: 2 Timothy 4:3, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers,
having itching ears;" , and also it says: 1 Corinthians 2:13, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." .
14 / 150
Any minor study of the scriptures, will show forth that, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things, is referring to comparing the word with the word.
having itching ears;" , and also it says: 1 Corinthians 2:13, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." .
Any minor study of the scriptures, will show forth that, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things, is referring to comparing the word with the word.
And "sound" doctrine, is referring to that if a doctrine is truly biblical or of God, it will harmonize with scripture, and not contradict it.
God says that there is only one God (1 Corinthians 8:6, Malachi 2:10, Ephesians 4:6 etc.), and with that in mind, let us go unto the word "Elohim", of the Hebrew
language, and let us see what is it's definition, the way it is used in the bible, and in what way would it harmonize with scripture.
Now here is the definition of "Elohim" (Strong's concordance):
"H430
‫אלהים‬
'ĕlôhîym
eloheem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but
specifically used (in the plural thus, especially
with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally
applied by way of deference to magistrates; and
sometimes as a superlative: angels, X
exceeding, God (gods) (dess, ly), X (very)
great, judges, X mighty."
Now it mentions, in part of this definition, this phrase: "...and sometimes as a superlative: angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (dess, ly), X (very) great, judges, X
mighty."
So the word "Elohim" is sometimes used as a superlative.
The word superlative means (Webster's dictionary):" In grammar, expressing the highest or utmost degree; as the superlative degree of comparison."
And in this superlative phrase, it mentions the word "God", either as singular or plural.
Now I will quote a very interesting article.
(Encyclopedia Wikipedia).
(Elohim (‫אלהים‬ , ‫אֱלוֹהִים‬ ) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity. It is apparently related to the Hebrew word ēl, though morphologically it consists of
the Hebrew word Eloah (‫)אלוה‬ with a plural suffix. Elohim is the third word in the Hebrew text of Genesis and occurs frequently throughout the Hebrew Bible. Its exact
significance is often disputed. "And Elohim created Adam" by William Blake. In some cases (e.g. Exodus 3:4, "... Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the
bush ..."), it acts as a singular noun in Hebrew grammar (see next section), and is then generally understood to denote the single God of Israel. In other cases, Elohim
acts as an ordinary plural of the word Eloah (‫)אלוה‬, and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods (for example, Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods
before me."). )
So it can act as a single noun, as in in Exodus 3:4, ("... God (Elohim) called unto him out of the midst of the bush ..."), and can be used in plural form such as in Exodus
20:3, ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me.").
So it does not automatically refer to many gods, as the Muslim author mentioned, describes.
In singular form, the way it is used in the bible, is in a singular form, and in a plural form, the way it is used in the bible, is in a plural form.
Other gods (Exodus 20:3), refers to gods that are different than the one true God, and the word God (Exodus 3:4) refers to the one (singular) true God.
So this description, totally harmonises with scripture, and the King James people, who did that translation, knew the Hebrew and Greek, and rightfully translated the
words, "God" as being God (singular), and the words "gods" as being gods (plural).
No contradictions here, this is probably a muslim who is desperate to disprove the holy scriptures.
Well God loves you anyways.
Now I want to go unto something else, Muslims would say about the doctrine of the "trinity".
(Godallah.com)
(...Why does the Quran use "WE" and "HE" in Quran when referring to God (Allah)? This is a good question and one that Bible readers have also asked about. The
term "We" in the Bible and in the Quran is the royal "We" as an example when the king says, "We decree the following declaration, etc." or, "We are not amused." It
does not indicate plural; rather it displays the highest position in the language. English, Persian, Hebrew, Arabic and many languages provide for the usage of "We" for
the royal figure....)
15 / 150
That is what they say about the word "We" in the Quoran, when it refers to Allah, now I will actually quote some verses from the Quoran, with the word "we" in it,
when referring to Allah.
the royal figure....)
That is what they say about the word "We" in the Quoran, when it refers to Allah, now I will actually quote some verses from the Quoran, with the word "we" in it,
when referring to Allah.
(Surah 15:2630 AlHijr (Yusuf Ali Translation))
( 26. We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape;
27. And the Jinn race, We had created before, from the fire of a scorching wind.
28. Behold! thy Lord said to the angels: "I am about to create man, from sounding clay from mud moulded into shape;
29. "When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him."
30. So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them together: )
Now the "We" is referring to "Allah", and the common belief among Muslims, is that only Allah created man, here is a quote from a Muslim website.
(www.jamaat.org)
(Allah is the only God. There is no god apart from Allah. That means, only Allah could have made mankind and the earth, moon, sun and stars. Allah is the only One
who created all these.)
The Muslims say of course, that this is referring to the royal "we", as sometimes today, royalty will say, a phrase such as "we do not accept such conduct in our
kingdom", that is what they say, but is it really referring to that?
Here are other verses from the Quoran, with plurality.
(Surah 21:91 AlAnbiya' (Yusuf Ali Translation))
(91. And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples. )
(Surah 37:75 AsSaffat (Yusuf Ali Translation))
(75. (In the days of old), Noah cried to Us, and We are the best to hear prayer. )
Now notice that, every verse that I have quote from the Quoran, when mentioning the words "We" and "Our"(concerning Allah) starts in a 'capital' letter????
Also notice that in this last verse, which mentions Noah, it says this of Allah, "We are" the best to hear prayer.
It says:"We are, We are , We are???????
In all truthfullness, and honesty, which Muslims are suppose to be truthful and honest, this "We" (capital letter), is not referring to someone's royalty of addressing
people, but rather to someone they "are" (We are, We are, We are).
"We" are what? "We" are the best to hear prayer!!!
Who knows if they will try to change this verse also, as I have read they have done to other verses.
Now I want to show forth, at this moment, a big contradiction, that is found in the Quoran, which may show us, somewhat, concerning what kind of god, the Muslims
serve.
I will just be frank and honest, about what I am about to quote.
(Surah 5:73 AlMa'ida (Yusuf Ali Translation))
(73. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a
grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. )
(Surah 4:171 AnNisa' (Yusuf Ali Translation))
(171. O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of
Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for
you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a
Disposer of affairs. )
Now all I want to focuse on here, is the fact that the Quoran speaks against calling their god a "trinity, so the Quoran, is against the doctrine of the trinity, that is
whatever the trinity, might be.
So on one hand they speak against the "trinity" , which their god is not a trinity, yet on the other hand, this is what the Quoran, also says:
(Surah 29:4647 Al'Ankabut (Yusuf Ali Translation))
(46. And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury):
but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in
Islam)." 47. And thus (it is) that We have sent down the Book to thee. So the People of the Book believe therein, as also do some of these (pagan Arabs): and none
but Unbelievers reject our signs. )
16 / 150
Now it is declared concerning these "People of the Book", that their Allah, is the same as Islam's Allah, for it is to the same Allah as "the People of the Book" that they
Islam)." 47. And thus (it is) that We have sent down the Book to thee. So the People of the Book believe therein, as also do some of these (pagan Arabs): and none
but Unbelievers reject our signs. )
Now it is declared concerning these "People of the Book", that their Allah, is the same as Islam's Allah, for it is to the same Allah as "the People of the Book" that they
bow to, so they are saying that they both (the People of the Book, and Muslims) bow to the same Allah.
Now who are the "People of the Book" ???
(Islamonline.net)
(...Muslims are to respect both Christians and Jews as being People of the Book, that is, people who received revelation from God before the time of Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and the revelation of the Qur’an, which is God’s final Scripture.... )
Now most Muslim websites, show without a doubt who these "People of the Book" are, which it is the Jews and Christians.
Here are just some of the Muslim websites, who show that these "People of the Book" are the Jews and Christians, itsislam.net, whyislam.org, readingislam.com etc.
So on one hand the Quoran speaks against the "trinity", yet on the other hand, it says that the Allah of the Christians, is the same Allah as their's? Is this not a
contradiction???
If we truly be truthful, without defending any type of gospel; a book that speaks against a doctrine, and knows that Christians have a God, that is a trinity, and says that
their God, is the same as theirs, is obviously not an honest, and truthful book.
Christians in Mohammad's time, worshipped a God, that is composed of 3 persons.
The Quoran is making a strong statement here, it's saying "Our Allah and Your Allah is one" and the Christians have always believed in the trinity!!!
Now yes it is saying what Muslims should say to the "People of the Book", which is "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came
down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; but how can this be said, if the "People of the Book" themselves (the Christians that is), are worshipping a God that is a
trinity!!! We do not serve the same God, for their descriptions are different!!!
Just be honest Muslim, at least for honesty's sake.
And yes I have personally talked to Muslims, who said to me that my God is the same as their god.
Now here is a quotation, from a Muslim website, which will explain better, this Islamic belief.
(ecotao.com)
(...Some of the biggest misconceptions that many nonMuslims have about Islam have to do with the word "Allah". For various reasons, many people have come to
believe that Muslims worship a different God than Christians and Jews. This is totally false, since "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God" and there is only One
God. Let there be no doubt Muslims worship the God of Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus peace be upon them all. However, it is certainly true that Jews,
Christians and Muslims all have different concepts of Almighty God. For example, Muslims like Jews reject the Christian beliefs of the Trinity and the Divine
Incarnation. This, however, doesn't mean that each of these three religions worships a different God because, as we have already said, there is only One True God.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all claim to be "Abrahamic Faiths", and all of them are also classified as "monotheistic". However, Islam teaches that other religions
have, in one way or another, distorted and nullified a pure and proper belief in Almighty God by neglecting His true teachings and mixing them with manmade ideas...)
Now here are scriptures, from the Quoran, which actually shows the words, 'Christians' and 'Jews' in it.
(51. O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you
that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. )
Now the Quoran as many things to say about Christian and Jews, and at this moment, I just want to go unto one more scripture , which connects Jews and Christians,
with the People of the Book.
( 68. Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your
Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these)
people without Faith.
69. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and
work righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. )
So their we have it, Quoranic proof of The People of the Book, being Jews and Christians, and Muslims affirm this to be so.
Are their more differences than this (the Christian God being a trinity, theirs not being a trinity), between the Muslim god, and the Christian God???
Oh yes, a whole lot, but we will get only into some of the differences.
And one thing I can attest you, is that, the God of the bible, never affirms gods of another religion being the same God as he, the God of the bible is not an hypocrite!!!
He knows his own identity!!!
17 / 150
Now before we compare any more differences, I want to get into what the word Allah, actually means.
He knows his own identity!!!
Now before we compare any more differences, I want to get into what the word Allah, actually means.
(Allah (Arabic: ‫ﷲ‬ , Allāh, IPA: [ʔalˤːɑːh] Arallah.ogg pronunciation (help·info)) is the standard Arabic word for 'God.)
All this word is, is the Arabic form of saying God.
So the way you say God in Arabic, is by saying Allah, so this in and of itself, is not a bad word.
Arabs that have become Christians, have the word 'Allah', in their Arabic version of the bible.
Now the god of the Muslims is named 'Allah', and all the word 'Allah' means is the word 'God', in English.
And it is obvious that their 'Allah' (god) is not the same as our 'Allah' or God.
Now let us get back, in comparing the differences of each God.
The Bible (KJV) The Quoran (YAT)
(1John 4:9) (Surah 17:111 AlIsra')
(9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because (111. Say: "Praise be to Allah, who begets no son, and has no
that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might partner in (His) dominion: Nor (needs) He any to protect Him
live through him.) from humiliation: yea, magnify Him for His greatness and glory!" )
So the God of the bible, has an only begotten Son, but the god of the Muslims, has no son.
(Matthew 1:2325) (Surah 5:72 AlMa'ida)
(23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a (72. They do blaspheme who say: "(Allah) is Christ the son of
son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my
interpreted is, God with us. Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode.
Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: There will for the wrongdoers be no one to help.)
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:
and he called his name JESUS. )
Now both, Islam and Christianity, consider Jesus to be the Christ, but on the Islam side, they say it is blasphemous to call Jesus God (They do blaspheme who say:
(Allah) is Christ...), but in the bible verse that I have shown, it calls Jesus "God with us". And I will show forth alot of other verses that show Jesus to be God, but a
little later on.
So to the Christian Jesus is God, but to the Muslim he is not God, which shows another difference between the god of Islam, and the God of Christianity.
(Acts 5:35) (Surah 2:97 AlBaqara)
(3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie (97. Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabrielfor he brings down the
to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah.s will, a confirmation of what
land? went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, believe, )
was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing
in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (Surah 16:102 AnNahl)
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the
ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.) (102. Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy
Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a
Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.)
Now The Muslims, associate the angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost, as being the same, so the Holy Ghost, to them is the angel Gabriel (and many Muslim websites will
attest to this, such as: www.readingislam.com, www.islamicity.com, www.islam101.com, convertingtoislam.com/jesus.html etc.), which he is not God. Now concerning
the bible, in this verse, in the book of Acts, it shows how the person of Ananias, had lied to the Holy Ghost, which it shows that this person that was lied to, is God.
So the bible shows that the Holy Ghost is God!!!!!!!
18 / 150
So here are some of the differences between what Christianity says is God, and what the Muslims say is God.
So the bible shows that the Holy Ghost is God!!!!!!!
So here are some of the differences between what Christianity says is God, and what the Muslims say is God.
So right now, I want to get into other types of differences, concerning their god and our God, and also scriptural and doctrinal differences, and afterwards, I will get
into these socalled contradictions that a certain Muslim is using to draw Christians towards Muslimmism, and I will refute them.
(1Jn 5:78) (Surah 22:31 AlHajj)
(7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the (31. Being true in faith to Allah, and never assigning partners to
Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Him: if anyone assigns partners to Allah, is as if he had fallen from
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and heaven and been snatched up by birds, or the wind had swooped
the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. ) (like a bird on its prey) and thrown him into a far distant place.)
In the King James bible, it not only shows that the three agree in one, but also that they actually are one!!! So the Father, the Word (Jesus is the word), and the Holy
Ghost are indeed one. Now on the Quoran side of things, it shows that their Allah, has no partners, which shows another difference between the God of the bible, and
the god of the Quoran.
How can someone say in an honest heart, that the god of the Quoran, and the God of the bible are the same God???
Let's get real and be honest, we can't just pretend, and live in a fantasy land.
Alot of people, just to avoid conflict, want to make everything fit together, when everything, in reality, does not fit together.
Let us continue.
(Deuteronomy 17:1517) (Surah 4:23 AnNisa')
(15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the ( 2. To orphans restore their property (When they reach their
LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt age), nor substitute (your) worthless things for (their) good ones;
thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, and devour not their substance (by mixing it up) with your own.
which is not thy brother. For this is indeed a great sin.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the 3. If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the
people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but
horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then
henceforth return no more that way. only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.)
not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and
gold.)
Now first of all, a few things need to be talked about here, concerning the bible scripture that I have mentioned, and also I will mention other scriptures so to get the full
picture.
Now the scripture that I have mentioned, talks of the king "not multiplying wives to himself", it is a direct statement, of "not" having many wives, or multiplying wives
(plural). So it was not God's intention that the king would have many wives, or a plurality of wives.
This is what was said, in the beginning: (Genesis 2:24) (24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one
flesh.)
Man shall cleave unto his wife (singular), and they 2 shall become "one" flesh. This was always God's will, and has always been.
Now some might say, well then why did king David and others have many wives? Well let us go unto a peticular scripture and see what it says.
(2 Samuel 12:79)
(7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8
And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would
moreover have given unto thee such and such things. 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the
Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.)
Here it is talking about how God had gave David's master's wives into David's bosom. But why was God saying this? When his original will was for man to cling to one
wife, and that the king should not be multiplied with wives (plural)?
Well first of all, I will quote an interesting quotation that I read, on the net, here it is:
19 / 150
(These words are sometimes misread to mean that the Lord was telling David that He would give him more wives if what He had given were not enough. But this is not
Well first of all, I will quote an interesting quotation that I read, on the net, here it is:
(These words are sometimes misread to mean that the Lord was telling David that He would give him more wives if what He had given were not enough. But this is not
the case. In the first place, God was not specifically speaking about giving wives to David, He was speaking about bestowing upon him the wealth and privileges of
Saul. The reference to the wives of Saul is really part of the Hebrew stereotypical expression, which paints a picture of how David received all that once belonged to
Saul. It was the custom of the time for the succeeding ruler to receive all of the prior ruler's property and women. This is not a proof that God intends people to
practice polygamy. It is contrary to the pattern of marriage established with Adam and Eve and His instructions in Deuteronomy. ... )
And irregardless to this, God was not saying that David should marry these wives, but he did give them in David's hands, and yes God to some degree, overlooked the
sin of polygamy in the old testament, and it was not because he was for it, but rather God was being patient with them (David had these wives in his possession, but it
was not God's will for them to become his wives).
Now here is another old testament scripture that is actually speaking for having the one wife.
(Malachi 2:1415)
(14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy
companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed.
Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.)
The context of this scripture, is talking about the wife of thy youth, how that God had made one, and not 2 or 3 or more, and this is a covenant between the husband
and wife, and here it is clear that it is only approving one.
I will quote, another quote from that article I read, concerning polygamy.
(Between these two definite declarations of monogamy,—in the span of several thousand years of recorded history,—fifteen polygamous men are named, including
Lamech (Gen 4:19), Abraham (Gen 23:19; 25:1; 16:3), Esau (Gen 26:34; 28:9), Jacob (Gen 29:15–35; 30:4, 9), Gideon (Jdg 8:30), Elkanah (1 Sam 1:1, 2), David (2
Sam 12:8) and Solomon (1 Kgs 11:3). In none of the accounts surrounding these men is polygamy ever given a nod of approval by God.)
Now is there a new testament scripture, that condemns polygamy or bygamy? Yes there is, and here it is:
Romans 7:3
(3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she
is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.)
Some think that this scripture is referring, to divorce and remarriage, but if you look at what it says, it does not mention divorce anywhere, but rather it is talking about a
woman, that is already married and gets married to another man, which would be bygamy, and God calls this person an adulteress, these are very strong words!!!
Now under the new testament, believers have the power to overcome sin, through Christ' sacrifice on the cross, but under the old covenant, they did not, and the New
Testament, refers bygamy as adultery, so the bible does not accept or approve of the sin of bygamy or polygamy, but the Quoran is ok with it.
Their Allah actually gives permission of it, as it says "mary women of your choice, 2 or 3 or 4 "
So here is a difference in doctrine, for the bible dissaproves of polygamy, but the Quoran does not.
Now let us get unto another doctrinal difference, which will concern "original sin".
Bible view point Muslim view point
Genesis 2:1617 ( http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm )
(16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the (According to the Qur'an, Allah "created man from a clot of blood" at the same
garden thou mayest freely eat: time he created the jinn from fire. {1} Humans are the greatest of all creatures,
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in created with free will for the purpose of obeying and serving God. The Qur'an
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.) includes a version of the biblical story of the fall of Adam (Qur'an 7), but it does
not conclude from it the doctrine of original sin as some Christian theologians
1Corinthians 15:22 have. In the Quranic version of the story, Adam and Eve begged God's
forgiveness (7:23) and he punished them with a mortal life on earth but added,
(22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.) "from it [earth] you will be taken out at last" (7:25). Since Allah forgave the sins of
the first pair, Muslims believe, all are born in AlFitra, a natural state of submission
Psalms 51:5 to Allah. {2} True repentance from sin returns a person to this original sinless
state. According to Muslim theology, mankind's chief failing is pride and rebellion.
(5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.) In their pride, humans attempt to partner themselves with God and thereby
damage the unity of God. Thus pride is Islam's cardinal sin. The cardinal virtue,
Ephesians 2:3 then, is submission, or islam. References 1. Qur'an 96:13. 2. Qur'an 20:12223. )
(3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our (Surah 7:2025 AlA'raf (YAT))
flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the
children of wrath, even as others.) ( 20. Then began Satan to whisper suggestions to them, bringing openly before
their minds all their shame that was hidden from them (before): he said: "Your
Romans 5:12 Lord only forbade you this tree, lest ye should become angels or such beings as
live for ever."
20 / 150
(12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and 21. And he swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser.
Romans 5:12 Lord only forbade you this tree, lest ye should become angels or such beings as
live for ever."
(12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and 21. And he swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser.
so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:) 22. So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their
shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the
Romans 3:23 garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: "Did I not forbid you
that tree, and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy unto you?"
(23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;) 23. They said: "Our Lord! We have wronged our own souls: If thou forgive us not
and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, we shall certainly be lost."
24. ((Allah)) said: "Get ye down. With enmity between yourselves. On earth will
be your dwellingplace and your means of livelihood, for a time."
25. He said: "Therein shall ye live, and therein shall ye die; but from it shall ye be
taken out (at last)." )
Now I have spoken to a Muslim, and read many Muslim sources, and this article from religionfacts.com is very accurate to Muslim belief, and I chose it for it's
simplicity of understanding, what a Muslim believes.
Now Muslims believe that after Adam fell, man was now able to physically die, but he did not inherit the sin nature, but sin did come into the world as a result though.
And they say that all men today, even ever since the fall, are born sinless or good, in a state that the person is already submitted to Allah. And that everyone is held
accountable for his own sin, and that sin can taint someone to a degree, which would need repentance.
So they (Muslims) are born good or sinless, and they say (which I have read in many articles), that every man is born a "Muslim".
So supposedly, according to them, every man was born a Muslim.
Now on the bible side, yes every man is held accountable for his own sins (which other scriptures show), but as far as birth is concerned (that is ever since the fall) man
was born with a sin nature, and was able to die physically, and also died spiritually, and no I do not mean his spirit ceased to exist, but rather because of the sin nature,
it rendered man's spirit dead.
The bible says this: Romans 6:23 (For the wages of sin is death;.....). Now the sin nature, is not directly referring to acts of sin, but rather to the source that the
unbelieving man lives by, which is through self power, rather than by the power of God. It is dependance on self, rather than faith in God, they live by their might and
power, rather than by the Spirit of God. When one gets saved, the sin nature, even though still present, is rendered inactive, and a new nature is placed within man, but
yes because Christians still sin, sometimes the old nature gets activated once in a while.
Man needed a redeemer, that is why Christ needed to come to die on the cross, so man could be free of sin, and get a new nature, so he can have a relationship with
God.
We men, especially when we do not have God in our lives, want to tend to have self justification, but people!!!! You need God!!! Self righteousness cannot save you!!!
Yes man, without God, can do all kinds of good things towards humanity, and even show forth love, but what man needs is not an unperfect or unregenerated love, but
rather God's nature, God's perfect love.
True Christians, live by his Grace, which empowers the Christian, to live a life before God, in a way that glorifies him.
Now under the Old Covenant, even though men were not yet bornagain, and did not have this new nature placed in them, if they placed their faith in God, God still
considered their faith, simply because of his mercy and love towards mankind, and then, Old Testament believers, after death were placed in a place called Paradise,
but now ever since the death and ressurection of Christ, and the day of Pentecost, men were able to finally have a new nature, and go to Heaven (go to Heaven after
death that is).
Some might say, well that's not fair, why did all men, because of Adam's sin, get a sin nature?
Well say Adam and Eve, would have gotten a son before the fall, this son would have been born sinless, as were Adam and Eve created.
Now say only Adam and Eve sinned and not this son, then Adam and Eve of course, would have died spiritually, but this son would not have died spiritually, for he
would still be in a sinless state, but that is not what happened, and as a result of Adam and Eve sinning, the children they would give birth to after the fall, would have
been born through sinful parents, which a sinful parent can only beget another person that has the same nature as they, why? Because that is how the law of nature
goes, that something begets after it's own kind.
Now some might say , well if that is the case, then if I break a leg, and then bear a son, then my son will be born with a broken leg?
Well their is a big difference between a body and a spirit, a body can die physically and be liveless in the grave, but a spirit is ever living.
A spirit is either living in a state of sin or in a regenerated state, to were you have a new spirit, with a new nature.
And when God said "thou shalt surely die", he meant it, which pointed to man being able to die physically, and a deadened spirit; it is not talking about physicall or
spiritual dismemberment, but rather just being able to die physically and having a deadened spirit.
Now let us go on, unto the part were I will refute, a certain Muslim writter, concerning socalled biblical contradictions.
First, let us get unto the easier socalled contradictions, to refute.
21 / 150
Socalled, biblical contradictions
Socalled, biblical contradictions
(Christian Muslim Dialogue. By Mr. H. M. Baagil, M.D.)
( Note: Most of the information has been derived from H. M. BAAGIL'S book, including the title. (The Compiler & CoAuthor A. Y. MOOSA).)
PART ONE: BEGINNING OF THE DIALOGUE. THE FIRST CONTACT BETWEEN A CHRISTIAN AND A MUSLIM.
Here are a few contradictions: .......
II Samuel 6:23. II Samuel 21:8.
(Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.) (But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare
unto Saul, Armoni, and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of
Question: Did Michal, daughter of Saul, have no sons or five sons??? Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barziai the Meholathite.)
Refutation: Now this Muslim author says that this is a contradiction in the scriptures; now one thing that must be done before declaring something a contradiction, is
to read the context of the verses, and compare it with other verses so to see the whole picture.
Now the key word in the II Samuel 21:8 scripture, is "whom she brought up for Adriel" , now whoever these sons were, Michal had taken them or declared them as
her own, and what was she doing with these sons? She was bringing them up. Bringing them up for who? For Adriel the son of Barziai.
Who was Adriel? Well let us go to a scripture.
1Samuel 18:19
(19 But it came to pass at the time when Merab Saul's daughter should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel the Meholathite to wife.)
Merab was Michal's sister, and Merab was married to Adriel, and yes it is true that Michal had no child until the day of her death, but the one's she was bringing up
"for" Adriel, was not children she gave birth to, but rather it was her sister Mirab's children, which she took to be her own, and was bringing them up" for" Adriel, so
something must have happened to Mirab at this point, which she may have died, in order for her sister Michal, to raise them "for" Adriel, and to raise them as her own.
So we can see by this simple explanation, that this is not a contradiction, at all.
Now let's go to the next, socalled contradiction.
John 5:37 John 8:14
(Ye have neither heard His voice (God's) at any time, nor seen His shape.) (He that has seen me, hath seen the Father...)
Refutation:Now first of all, let us see what these scriptures say:
John 5:37
(37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.)
John 8:14
(14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I
come, and whither I go. )
John 8:14, has nothing to do, with what is spoken here, but I figure that the H.M Baagil person, must have made a mistake, in the scripture he quoted, which he must
have been referring to John 14:9 which says:
John 14:9
(9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou
then, Shew us the Father? )
So what does this all mean?
Well I truthfully believe that this is not referring to God never being heard or seen, which is evident with other scriptures, but rather it is referring to God's shape, or he
himself, or him never being heard, in his "full" glory, and really that is all it is referring to, which is evident if you compare scriptures with scriptures, and go according to
sound doctrine.
Now let us go to the next socalled contradiction.
Luke. 3:23 John. 8:57
22 / 150
(Says Jesus was 30 years old when he departed.) (Says that Jesus was 50 years old when he departed.)
Luke. 3:23 John. 8:57
(Says Jesus was 30 years old when he departed.) (Says that Jesus was 50 years old when he departed.)
Refutation:Well let's go to these scriptures and see the truth of what they say.
Luke 3:23
(23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,)
John 8:57
(57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?)
Now Luke, indeed shows Jesus as being 30 years old, but John does not say at all that Jesus was 50 years old, but rather it is just asking a question, and not speaking
the reality of his age.
There must have been some type of standard back then among the Jews concerning the age of 50, and maybe because of Jesus' wisdom, and there amazement of his
wisdom, and maybe because of some type of 50 year old maturity standard, that thas is why this question could have been asked to Jesus, but in no way does it imply
Jesus being 50 years old, in any way, shape or form.
Now let's cover the next one.
II Samuel 23:8 I Chronicles 11:11
(These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat (And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had: Jashobeam, an
in the seat , chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lifted up Hachmonite, the chief of the captains; he lifted up his spear against three hundred
his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.) slain by him at one time.)
Question: Was it a Tachmonite or a Hachmonite?????
Question: was it eight hundred or was it three hundred???
Refutation:First of all, here is something to note, 2 Samuel 23 is at the end of David’s 40 year reign, and here is how the chapter starts.
2 Samuel 23:1
(1 Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet
psalmist of Israel, said,)
Now I Chronicles 11:11, on the other hand, is very early in David's reign, just read I Chronicles chapters 10 and 11, for proof.
Now this person of Jashobeam, an Hashmonite, mentioned in I Chronicles, is said to be the "chief of the captains" and verse 12, says this:
1Chronicles 11:12
(12 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo, the Ahohite, who was one of the three mighties.)
Now this Jashobeam , in the early reign of David, smote 300.
Now it seems very likely that this Jashobeam, is the same person as Adino, for it says this in 2 Samuel 23:9.
2 Samuel 23:9
(9 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they defied the Philistines that were there gathered together
to battle, and the men of Israel were gone away:)
Now this Eleazar is mentioned both in Chronicles and in Samuel, as being one of the 3 mighty men, and being after Jashobeam and Adino.
Now it is said of the words "Hachmonite" and "Tachmonite", that they are variations of one another.
Now I believe that this great captain's original name was Jashobeam, which in the early reign of David, he slain 300, and Samuel says this, of this mighty captain
(Jashobeam) "the same was Adino the Eznite", now it appears by the way this was said, that he already was known by this name, perhaps sometime after the first 300
slaying, and because of his slayings, he earned or was given the name Adino the Eznite, which the word Adino means:"(that is a spear) his spear", and Eznite means:" to
be sharp or strong "(info: Strong's concordance).
So Adino the Eznite was like a nickname.
And at the end of David's reign, this Adino (Jashobeam), slain 800.
So even here there is no contradiction.
Now let's go on. 23 / 150
So even here there is no contradiction.
Now let's go on.
II Samuel 8:4. I Chronicles 18:4.
(And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred horseman, and (And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven thousand horseman, and
twenty thousand footmen...) twenty thousand footmen.)
Question: Was it Seven hundred or Seven thousand???? Which is correct????
Refutation:Before we cover these questions, let us go to the Encyclopedia Wikipedia, for a definition of the word "chariot".
(...The word "chariot" comes from Latin carrus, which itself was a loan from Gaulish. A chariot of war or of triumph was called a car. In ancient Rome and other
ancient Mediterranean countries a biga was a twohorse chariot, a triga utilized three horses and a quadriga was drawn by four horses abreast. Obsolete terms for
chariot include chair, charet and wain. The critical invention that allowed the construction of light, horsedrawn chariots for use in battle was the spoked wheel. Cavalry
had been in use in Central Asia since 3000 BC and eventually replaced chariotry (the part of a military force that fought from chariots).)
Now let us quote these scriptures, to see what it says.
1 Chronicles 18:4
(4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved
of them an hundred chariots.)
2 Samuel 8:4
(4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved
of them for an hundred chariots.)
So the Chronicles side, shows 1000 chariots, 7000 horsemen, and 20 000 footmen, and the Samuel side, shows 1000 chariots, 700 horsemen, and 20 000 footmen.
Now the footmen, were soldiers that fought on foot, and the number of 20 000 of them, is identical in both passages.
And of course both passages, mention 1000 chariots.
So now we get to the 7000, 700 horsemen part.
How do we make sense of this?
Well actually, it is very easy.
Now these men were called horsemen, now some say they should be called charioteers, but I believe, the word horsemen, was chosen, because these men knew how
to steer or control horses, and maybe the ability to ride horses, but in the peticular role of the charioteer, they would be in this type of cart, that was moved by horses.
The word "charioteer" does not appear in the bible, so maybe the word horsemen, in some cases in the bible, refer to "charioteers", and in other cases, to people riding
horses.
So how does, on one hand Chronicles mentioning 7000 horsemen or charioteers, and then Samuel mentioning 700 horsemen or charioteers, make sense?
Well first of all, how many chariots was there?
1000 chariots.
Now say there was (which I believe there was) 7 charioteers per chariot, so if you multiply 7 charioteers per 1000 chariots, you would get 7000 charioteers.
7000 would be the total amount of charioteers, within the 1000 chariots, which is 7 per chariot.
Now what about the 700 horsemen part?
So there are 7000 charioteers, that were able to go in the 1000 chariots, but were these charioteers, part of units of charioteers?
Say there was 700 horsemen per every unit of charioteers, how many units would there be?
There would 10 units of charioteers, which it would be 700 horsemen per unit, which if you multiply 700 horsemen with 10 units, it equals to 7000 horsemen.
So one verse was covering the total amount of horsemen or charioteers, there were in the chariots, and the other was covering the amount of horsemen or charioteers,
there were per every unit of charioteers or horsemen.
So this, if carefully studied, and compared with each other, gets reconciled, and harmonises with each other, and does not truly contradict.
And there is historical evidence, that alot of armies made up of chariots, had units.
24 / 150
And there is historical evidence, that alot of armies made up of chariots, had units.
And it is possible that the armies of these chariot fighters, had the horsemen packed to capacity within these chariots.
Now let us go to the next socalled contradiction.
(And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred (But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand
chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the men that fought in chariots and forty thousand footmen & killed Shophach the
captain of their host, who died there.) captain of the host.)
Question: Was it men of Seven hundred chariots or seven thousand men? Question: Was it Forty thousand footmen or forty thousand horsemen?? Was it
Shobach or Shophach ??
Refutation:This will be fairly easy to refute.
Now in Samuel, it shows David slaying the men of seven hundred chariots, it does not say how many men there were, but rather how many chariots there were.
Now in the case of Chronicles, it shows that David (and his army of course), slew 7000 men which fought in chariots, which shows how many men there were in these
700 chariots, it is pretty crystal clear.
So if there were 7000 men, that fought within 700 chariots, then that would mean that there were 10 men per chariot, so these must have been fair size chariots. 10
multiplied by 700 = 7000, which in this figure, shows that there was 10 men per chariot.
Now let us cover the other simple questions, "Was it forty thousand footmen or forty thousand horsemen?" , "Was it Shobach or Shophach?" .
Well I believe that it is refering to David slaying 40 000 horsemen, which became footmen as they got off their horses and got slain, that is all.
So in the sense of these men being on horses, and being able to ride horse, they were horsemen, but became as footmen as they got off their horses.
Now the Shobach, Shophach issue, is apparently a variant of one another, and referring to the same person.
Alot of people, in the bible, had there names written in variant forms, and also there are many who had different types of names, for example, the apostle Peter, was
called, of course Peter, but also he was called Simon Peter, and also Cephas, which was another name given to him by Jesus.
Now to the next issue to cover.
(And again the anger of Lord was kindled against Israel, and He moved David (And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.)
against them to say, go number Israel and Judah.)
Question: Who provoked David? Was it the Lord or was it Satan??? This is a very serious contradiction. Shocking!
Refutation:Now the question is, is who provoked David? Was it the lord or was it Satan.
Well first of all, was God pleased with David in numberring Israel? Well let us go to 2 Samuel 24:10 to see.
2 Samuel 24:10
(10 And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech
thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.)
So it is very obvious that for a peticular reason, God was not pleased concerning David numbering Israel, for David's heart smote him after doing so, which made him
realised that he had sinned.
Now here is another verse, but on the Chronicles side, to show further, that God was displeased with this decision.
1Chronicles 21:78
(7 And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.
8 And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very
foolishly.)
It was for a real specific reason that God was displeased with David's decision, which I will not get into, and here, it clearly shows that God was displeased.
So the question might be asked, why was God displeased, if he provoked David to number Israel?
Well first of all, I want to share something that I have personaly seen in the word, and with seeing this, what these verses are saying, it will come into perspective.
25 / 150
Now the word talks of comparing spiritual things with spiritual things, which I have said in this study, that this is talking about comparing the word, with the word. And
Well first of all, I want to share something that I have personaly seen in the word, and with seeing this, what these verses are saying, it will come into perspective.
Now the word talks of comparing spiritual things with spiritual things, which I have said in this study, that this is talking about comparing the word, with the word. And
also it says to go according to sound doctrine.
Now here is what a certain verse says.
Exodus 8:32
(32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.)
Now it says in this verse that Pharaoh hardened his heart, now let us go to another verse to see what another verse says.
Exodus 10:20
(20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.)
Now I just want to go to another verse, so we can make sense of everything.
James 4:6
(6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.)
Now one verse says that pharaoh hardened his own heart, and yet another verse says that God hardened his heart, well in truth, the reason why God hardened
Pharoah's heart, is because Pharoah already had an hardened heart, he was a proud man, and not a humble man, God does not harden a person's heart that is
presently walking in humbleness, for he gives grace to the humble.
And another verse says that God knoweth the hearts.
Now how did God harden Pharaoh's heart?
Well let us go unto another verse.
Rom 1:2224
(22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:)
Well when someone's heart truly lust after something, and someone hardens their heart, God gives them up unto to those things, and man has a free will.
It would be like this, say a person wanted to steal from someone, and he begged his dad to allow him to steal from his neighbour, now the dad is not happy with his
son, but the son keeps on persisting, and then the dad just gives him over to it, and let's him reap what he sows, well in a similar manner (though Pharaoh was not
serving God), pharaoh had an already hardened heart, so God gave him over to his desires, and this is what happened to David, for at this point in time, David for a
brief moment, hardened his heart, so God provoked him in numbering the people, not because he was pleased with this decision, but because David wanted to go this
way anyways, so God handed him over to Satan, which Satan provoked these thoughts in David, to finally get him to number the people, and really that is what truly
happened, and this goes according to sound doctrine, which does not contradict other scriptures but harmonises with other scriptures.
So God provoked David by handing him over to his desires, but Satan provoked David by stimulating these thoughts in his mind, so that David numbers the people.
So Muslim writter, there's no contradiction here.
Now before we go on in dealing with other socalled contradictions, even the more difficult ones, I want to cover a bunch of socalled contradictions from 101
contradictions from islamawareness.net.
And then we will go back to the socalled contradictions from this H. M. BAAGIL.
(101 Bible Contradictions)
Contradiction #10 (How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark? (a) Two (Genesis 6:19, 20). (b) Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this
last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8, 9).)
Refutation:Well let us quote the scriptures to make sense, of what God was talking about.
Genesis 6:1920
(19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.)
Now to the next scripture.
Genesis 7:2
(2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.)
26 / 150
(2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.)
Now unto the last scripture.
Genesis 7:89
(8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.)
Now first of all, in the Genesis chapter 6 account, God said to bring of every sort of animal, and bring couples (2) of each (male and female), and then in the chapter 7
account, God specified that of the clean beasts, that these couples (male and female) should be by "sevens", which "sevens" is referring to 7 males, and 7 females,
which makes couples of seven.
Now concerning the last account, it is talking about bringing them in 2 by 2, it is not contradicting Genesis 7:2, of having couples of 7, of clean beasts, but rather it is
showing the order that they should enter into the ark, which was to be 2 couples, going in at one time, and that is all it is referring to.
Contradiction #54 (Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion? (a) Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, "Today you will be with me in
Paradise" (Luke 23:43). (b) No. He said to Mary Magdelene two days later, "I have not yet ascended to the Father" (John 20:17).)
Refutation:Well let us go to these scriptures, and you will see that there is no contradiction at all.
Luke 23:43
(43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.)
Notice something here, is that it does not say that the thief shall "ascend" with Jesus to paradise, but just rather go with Jesus to paradise.
Paradise, in this peticular case, was not talking about Heaven, but rather a place known as "Abraham's bosom", which I will show.
And in order for men to go to Heaven, or experience a new life inside of them, men needed to first be born again (in a spiritual manner, and not physical), and what had
to happen for that to take place, was for first of all, Christ to die, but not only that, he had to be ressurected from the dead also, which he was not on the day he died,
and upon his ressurection, on the first day of the week, the old testament saints that have passed away, became born again, and a good portion rose from their graves
also, and then went to Heaven (on the day of his ressurection), but as far as concerned the living people, the day of Pentecost, had to still take place, which was 50
days from Christ' ressurection, for Christ had to send back the Holy Ghost, in order for the Holy Ghost, to dwell in men permanently and make them born again, and to
also fill them with his Spirit.
Now under the old covenant, there were only 2 people that went to Heaven, which went their alive.
Now these men were Enoch and Elijah, no they were not born again, and were the only exceptions.
The bible says this:
1 Corinthians 15:50
(50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.)
Flesh and blood cannot go to Heaven, that is why our bodies stay in the grave when we die, but the 2 exceptions to this rule, were Enoch and Elijah, so God must have
put protection of some kind around Enoch and Elijah's bodies, so they do not perish in God's presence, which God can do anything.
So Enoch and Elijah were the exceptions, which no doubt God provided some form of protection for them.
Now when people die today, with having received the Lord; their Soul and Spirits, go to Heaven, but at this event called the rapture, their bodies will be changed into
an uncorruptible body of flesh and bone (not blood), and will meet their spirits in the air and go to Heaven.
Now we get to the Abaraham's bosom part.
Luke 16:2223
(22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.)
Luke 16:26
(26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would
come from thence.)
So in hell, they could see afar off, the people in Abraham's bosom, which there was a great gulf between them, and Abraham's bosom is also known as "paradise".
Now in Abraham's bosom they were comforted, but in hell they are in torment.
Now were is Abraham's bosom and even hell?
Matthew 12:40
27 / 150
(40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.)
Matthew 12:40
(40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.)
Ephesians 4:9
(9 Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?)
So Jesus first descended, in the lower parts of the earth, which is were paradise was, or Abraham's bosom, and hell also had to be under the earth, for you could see
the people in hell from Abraham's bosom, so Hell and paradise (which paradise is no longer used), are both situated somewhere in the heart of the earth.
Jesus went there for 3 partial days and nights (the word night has a few meanings in the bible, but generally refers to the part of the day that is dark), in paradise, and on
the first day of the week, he rose again.
So you can see that Jesus brought the thief on the cross, into a place called "paradise" which was underneath the earth, so the thief never ascended to Heaven upon
Christ's death, but rather went to paradise, which is in the lower parts of the earth.
Now let us go to the John verse, mentioned in the socalled contradiction #54, which is John 20:17.
John 20:17
(17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father;
and to my God, and your God.)
This was said after Christ's ressurection, which has nothing to do with him having to ascend to Heaven with the thief. The thief went to "paradise" and not to Heaven,
when Christ died, this peticular verse (John 20:17) is referring to something completely different than what alot of people think, which I won't get into, in this study.
Now at the ressurection of Christ, the old testament saints went to Heaven, but Christ, at this point did not, that is as far as being with them in Heaven, or with them in a
permanent way (now the ascension it is talking about, in Ephesians 4:9, is the main ascension, which happened 49 days from Christ's resurrection, just before
pentecost, which then, he finally sat at the right hand of the Father).
And I do not want to dwell too much on this John verse, which I know what it is referring to.
I mainly want to focus on the question, of this socalled contradiction.
So we can see that, there is no contradiction here, at all, for both scriptures, do not refer to the same thing.
Contradiction #55 (When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice? (a) Yes (Acts 9:7). (b)
No (Acts 22:9).)
Refutation:Now first of all, it is very important to quote exactly what the verses say. Let us go to those verses.
Act 9:7
(7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.)
Now unto Acts 22:9.
Act 22:9
(9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.)
Now yes, these 2 verses are talking about the same event, which in Acts 22:9, Paul was just reashing what took place that peticular day.
Now Acts 9:7 says that "the men , heard a voice, but saw no man" and Acts 22:9 says that "they heard not the voice of him that spoke to Paul, but saw the light".
So these men saw a light, but did not see a man, that itself is not contradictory, for a light is a light and a man is a man. So they obviously did not see the form of a man,
but they did see the light that Paul saw.
Now what about the voice part? It says that "they heard 'a' voice, but did not hear 'the' voice that spake to Paul.
So indeed they did hear something, which was 'a' voice, but they did not hear the actual words of " 'the' voice" that was being spoken to Paul, and really that is all, it is
referring to.
They could not make out what 'the' voice was saying, for they could not hear it clearly.
Next socalled contradiction.
Contradiction #35 (Would Jesus inherit David's Contradiction #26 (Who was the father of Joseph, Contradiction #27 (Jesus descended from which

throne? (a) Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32). (b) husband of Mary? (a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16). (b) Heli son of David? (a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6). (b)
No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see (Luke 3:23).) Nathan (Luke 3:31).)
Matthew 1:11, 1 Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim
was cursed by God so that none of his descendants 28 / 150
can sit upon David's throne (Jeremiah 36:30).)
No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see (Luke 3:23).) Nathan (Luke 3:31).)
Matthew 1:11, 1 Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim
was cursed by God so that none of his descendants
can sit upon David's throne (Jeremiah 36:30).)
Refutation:Well in this case, we will deal with these 3 questions, all in one shot.
I will do so though, by quoting quotations which easily explain these questions.
(lifeofchrist.com)
(...Jehoiakim was a king of Israel. He angered God by burning a scroll that Jeremiah the prophet wrote. God cursed Jehoiakim by indicating that none of his children
would sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 36:2931).
...Joseph, the father of Jesus, was one of Jehoiakim's descendants (through Jeconiah). Joseph's offspring could not claim David's throne because of the curse. Jesus laid
claim to the throne of David (Luke 1:32, Acts 2:30, Hebrews 12:2). If Jesus had been born of Joseph, the curse would have been contradicted. Also, God had
promised David that one of his physical descendants would reign on the throne of his kingdom forever (2 Samuel 7:1213). As explained above, Joseph was excluded
from being the genetic father of the future king of Israel. It was impossible to fulfill the requirements of both curse and promise by natural means. One man had to be
both heir to and offspring of David, without being the genetic descendant of Jehoiakim. This problem required a divine solution.
...God created a solution through the miracle of the virgin birth. Although Joseph was one of Jehoiakim's offspring (through Solomon), Mary was not. She was a
descendant of Nathan, one of David's other sons (Luke 3:31). God's promise to David was fulfilled because Mary was the biological parent of Jesus. The virgin birth
also addressed the curse God had pronounced upon Jehoiakim. Kingship was an inherited right. By Joseph, Jesus inherited a legal claim to the throne of David.
However, he was exempt from the curse of Jehoiakim because Joseph was not his genetic father. So the miracle of the virgin birth accomplished God's will in two
ways. First, it granted Jesus a legal claim to the throne of David. And second, it maintained the integrity of the curse God had pronounced upon Jehoiakim. Indeed,
Jesus was not one of Jehoiakim's offspring.)
(thercg.org)
(...Matthew 1 clearly explains that Joseph is Mary’s husband. Matthew recorded this for legal purposes, to show the Jews that Christ was the Messiah. It was the
custom of the Jews to trace and record the father’s descent.
...This ancestor, Jechonias, is mentioned in Matthew 1:1112. He is also referred to as Coniah in Jeremiah 22:2430. Verse 30 states, “Thus says the Lord, Write you
this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” This
man was so evil, that God cursed him and his descendants. Jeconiah (as his name is spelled in the Old Testament) did go on to have children (I Chron. 3:17). But, this
curse was fulfilled because none of his children went on to rule from the throne of David. So how could Christ, a descendant of David, qualify to rule from the throne?
This is how Luke 3 complements the Matthew account. Luke records Mary’s genealogy. According to Jewish tradition, in marriage, Mary’s genealogy was placed in
her husband’s name. The Greek simply records that Joseph was “of Heli” (Luke 3:23). But since Jacob was Joseph’s father (Matt. 1:16), Joseph was the soninlaw
of Heli.
...According to Israel’s law, if a daughter were the only heir to the father, she would inherit all his possessions, inheritance and rights—but only if she married within her
tribe (Num. 27:18; 36:68). Since Mary had no brothers who could be heirs to her father, she was able to transmit David’s royal inheritance—and the right to the
throne—to her husband upon marriage. This made Joseph heir to Heli, giving him the right to David’s throne. This inheritance was then passed to Christ. The
genealogies in Matthew and Luke were both recorded to show Christ’s right to the throne. Matthew’s account showed that through Joseph’s genealogy, Christ was a
legal descendant of Jeconiah (Coniah), but could not sit on and rule from the throne because of the curse. This account also proved how Christ was born of a virgin
woman, because the curse would have passed onto Christ if Joseph were, in fact, His natural father. Of course, Christ was really the Son of God—begotten by the
Holy Spirit! Luke’s account showed that through Mary’s genealogy, Jesus was a descendant of Nathan—David’s son. This allowed the inheritance to pass to Joseph,
who in turn passed it onto Christ.)
I need not explain a thing here, I think these comments explain what these scriptures are talking about, all by themselves.
Now to the next socalled contradiction.
The next one, will be kind of silly.
Contradiction #94 (Who killed Goliath? (a) David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50). (b) Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19).)
Refutation:Well let us just simply quote, these scriptures.
1Samuel 17:23
(23 And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the armies of the Philistines, and spake according
to the same words: and David heard them.)
1Samuel 17:50
(50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.)
2 Samuel 21:19
(19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of
whose spear was like a weaver's beam.)
David slew goliath, and Elhanan slew Goliath's brother.
Next.
29 / 150
Contradiction #58 (When the Israelites dwelt in Shittin they committed adultery with the daughters of Moab. God struck them with a plague. How many people died
in that plague? (a) Twentyfour thousand (Numbers 25:1 and 9). (b) Twentythree thousand (1 Corinthians 10:8).)
Next.
Contradiction #58 (When the Israelites dwelt in Shittin they committed adultery with the daughters of Moab. God struck them with a plague. How many people died
in that plague? (a) Twentyfour thousand (Numbers 25:1 and 9). (b) Twentythree thousand (1 Corinthians 10:8).)
Refutation:Again here, let us just simply quote scripture.
1 Corinthians 10:8
(8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.)
Numbers 25:1
(1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.)
Numbers 25:9
(9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.)
Now both these verses, do indeed talk of the same plague, but Corinthians mentions 23000 people dying the very same day, but Numbers mentions how many people
died in the overall, as a result of the plague, and not just how many died the very same day of the plague, for 1000 more, could have easily died, even the next day.
Corinthians is specific of it being the very same day, Numbers is not.
Next.
Contradiction #101 (When Jesus walked on water how did the disciples respond? (a) They worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God" (Matthew
14:33). (b) "They were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened" (Mark 6:5152).)
Refutation:Well let us quote scriptures.
Mark 6:4552
(45 And straightway he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida, while he sent away the people.
46 And when he had sent them away, he departed into a mountain to pray.
47 And when even was come, the ship was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land.
48 And he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and
would have passed by them.
49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out:
50 For they all saw him, and were troubled. And immediately he talked with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.
51 And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered.
52 For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened.)
Matthew 14:2233
(22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
32 And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.)
Well Mark mentions many things, that is why it is important to read scriptures that are mentioned, before, and after, verses mentioned, to get the whole context.
Now in Mark it mentions "...But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out:...For they all saw him, and were
troubled." ; well Matthew says this "And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear." and
nextly, Mark says: "...Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid." and Matthew says this: "...Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid." and then later Mark says this: "And he
went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered. ", and Matthew says this: "And when
they were come into the ship, the wind ceased. ".
Now so far so good to this point, the only difference being is, that Mark, does not mention the account of Peter going to Jesus, and they both going into the boat, for it
was just covering another angle of the event, which he focused on Jesus coming in the boat, but Matthew just expands on what took place.
Now unto the last quotes, Mark says: "...they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered...For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for
their heart was hardened.)" and Matthew says this: "...Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.)" , so yes
they got initially astonished, and had hardened their hearts, but eventually, they just had to acknowledge him, and worship him.
All it is, is Mark and Matthew, mentioning different aspects of what took place, and that is all, it is mentioning.
Next. 30 / 150
All it is, is Mark and Matthew, mentioning different aspects of what took place, and that is all, it is mentioning.
Next.
Contradiction #79 (Apart from Jesus did anyone else ascend to heaven? (a) No (John 3:13). (b) Yes. "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (2 Kings
2:11).)
Refutation:Again I say it is important to read things in it's context.
I will quote verses mentioned before this scripture of John 3:13, and of course verse 13 also.
John 3:1013
(10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.)
Now the context, of what it is talking about, is this: "Knowledge", for here are examples of this: "...Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?..." , "...We
speak that we do know..." , "how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? ".
And after these things spoken, Jesus says this:"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
So what is it saying here?
It is talking about, no man having ascended up to heaven, to come down to bring heavenly knowledge, of the born again experience to men, which this chapter talks
about (John 3:3, John 3:5).
Yes Enoch and Elijah were the only ones in the old testament to go up to heaven alive, but they did not go up, and then descend on earth, to bring spiritual knowledge
of the born again experience, but one day they will come back, as the two witnesses (Revelation 11:3).
So all it it saying here, is, is this, Jesus was telling Nicodemus about the born again experience (John 3:38), Nicodemus asked Jesus a question: "... How can these
things be? (John 3:9)", Jesus then replies:"Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?", then later says:"... And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but
he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." , Jesus was saying that no man ascended up to heaven, and come down to bring you this
heavenly knowledge of being born again" , and he was showing Nicodemus that he needed himself (Jesus, someone from above) to reveal this stuff to him, for his
earthly knowledge could not comprehend this stuff.
So really, that is all that it is referring to, and nothing else.
Now let's go on.
Contradiction #78 ((a) God decided that the lifespan of humans will be limited to 120 years (Genesis 6:3). (b) Many people born after that lived longer than 120.
Arpachshad lived 438 years. His son Shelah lived 433 years. His son Eber lived 464 years, etc. (Genesis 11:1216).)
Refutation:Now let us quote Genesis 6:3, so to see what it says.
Genesis 6:3
(3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.)
Now what is this verse referring to?
Firstly, God spake and said: "man's days "shall" be 120 years.
This was not going to come to pass right away, but rather gradually.
Now this verse is talking about, how man's life, at a certain point, would gradually decline up to the age of 120.
It does not mean that men could not live beyond this age, but rather, that man's age would gradually decline towards the age of 120.
Now most people today do not even come close to that age, but there has been a person that has, which is Jeanne Calment of France, dying at the age of 122, in
1997, and there are other non verified people, who apparently lived beyond 120, but not many have though, it is an extreme rarety, in our age.
And I believe, in some form, it does have it's blessing.
Here are interesting verses, which shows man's decline in age.
Genesis 9:29 (29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.) (950 years)
(Genesis 11:1029) "Now these scriptures show people living within different ages, from the 500's to the 400's unto the 200's, which they may have lived longer than
this because of not showing them as dying."
Genesis 11:32 (32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.) (205 years)
Genesis 23:1 (1 And Sarah was an hundred and seven and twenty years old: these were the years of the life of Sarah.) (127 years)
31 / 150
Genesis 25:7 (7 And these are the days of the years of Abraham's life which he lived, an hundred threescore and fifteen years.) (175 years)
Genesis 23:1 (1 And Sarah was an hundred and seven and twenty years old: these were the years of the life of Sarah.) (127 years)
Genesis 25:7 (7 And these are the days of the years of Abraham's life which he lived, an hundred threescore and fifteen years.) (175 years)
Genesis 25:17 (17 And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, an hundred and thirty and seven years: and he gave up the ghost and died; ...) (137 years)
Genesis 35:28 (28 And the days of Isaac were an hundred and fourscore years.) (180 years)
Genesis 47:28 (28 And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years: so the whole age of Jacob was an hundred forty and seven years.) (147 years)
Genesis 50:26 (26 So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.) (110 years)
Exodus 6:16 (16... and the years of the life of Levi were an hundred thirty and seven years.) (137 years)
Exodus 6:18 (18...and the years of the life of Kohath were an hundred thirty and three years.) (133 years)
Numbers 33:39 (39 And Aaron was an hundred and twenty and three years old when he died in mount Hor.) (123 years)
Deuteronomy 34:7 (7 And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.) (120 years)
So there is no real contradiction here, it is just showing forth that man's age would decline, towards 120 years, which most people's ages today, have declined even
more, but some in our days have reached this age.
Next.
Contradiction #57( Did the voice spell out on the spot what Paul's duties were to be? (a) Yes (Acts 26:1618). (b) No. The voice commanded Paul to go into the
city of Damascus and there he will be told what he must do. (Acts 9:7; 22:10).)
Refutation:Well let's quote scripture.
Acts 26:1319
(13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for
thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen,
and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among
them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:)
Acts 22:6
(6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee
to do.
11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.)
Acts 9:38

(3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou
must do.
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.)
It is extremely simple, to describe what is happening in these verses, first of all, Paul asked 2 questions, and not just one question, the first question was, "who art thou",
and in Acts 26:15, it just describes the Lord's answer, in more details, which he told Paul that he would make him a minister and send him to the Gentiles etc., but even
though God told Paul this, Paul still asked him a second question, which was "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" and the Lord told him, " Arise, and go into the city,
and it shall be told thee what thou must do.".
So obviously, Paul needed even further briefing on the matter, and also he needed to be filled with the Spirit, as it shows in Acts 9:17.
So there is absolutely no contradiction at all, here.
And in case they try to find another contradiction, in Acts 9:8, it says this:"and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man", yet in Acts 9:9, it says this:" he was three
days without sight", which is not really a contradiction, for even though someone can open their eyes, does not necessarily mean they can see, but later on in Acts 9:18,
32 / 150
Paul received back his sight.
And in case they try to find another contradiction, in Acts 9:8, it says this:"and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man", yet in Acts 9:9, it says this:" he was three
days without sight", which is not really a contradiction, for even though someone can open their eyes, does not necessarily mean they can see, but later on in Acts 9:18,
Paul received back his sight.
I will cover a certain amount more socalled contradictions from 101 bible contradictions, and then we will go back to the H. M. BAAGIL contradictions, and finally
end this section.
Contradiction #93(The Bible says that for each miracle Moses and Aaron demonstrated the same by their secret arts. Then comes the following feat: (a) Moses and
Aaron converted all the available water into blood (Exodus 7:2021). (b) The magicians did the same (Exodus 7:22). This is impossible, since there would have been
no water left to convert into blood.)
Refutation:Well let us just simply quote scriptures, and we will see the obviously simple solution to this.
Exodus 7:1724
(17 Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and
they shall be turned to blood.
18 And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river.
19 And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and
upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood,
and in vessels of stone.
20 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the
sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.
21 And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of
Egypt.
22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.
23 And Pharaoh turned and went into his house, neither did he set his heart to this also.
24 And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river.)
First of all, this water that was turn to blood, was the water of the river, and also any streams, pools, ponds and ajoining rivers, and even if this river's water was stored
in vessels of stone or wood, if any of these were connected to the river or contained of it's water, either in vessels of stone or wood, it would turn into blood.
And a key phrase is found in verse 17, which says:" the waters (plural) which are in the river".
And it specifically shows the water of the river, many times in these scriptures, and it says : "they could not drink of the water of the river" (the Nile).
This was devastating to the Egyptians, for it was their main source of water.
Now the Egyptians, knew that their were other sources of water, for they would not have digged round about the river for water to drink, if it was not so.
So in verse 22, it talks about the magicians doing so, also, but the water they turned into blood, was nowhere near the amount, God turned into blood, and the water
they turned into blood, obviously came from another source, which was maybe from a well, but definetely not from the source of the river Nile.
So the water the magicans turned to blood was obviously a little amount, and most likely was water from a well.
Now unto the next socalled contradiction.
Contradiction #15(Solomon built a facility containing how many baths? (a) Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26). (b) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5).)
Refutation:Well here, I will first mention the scriptures, and then comment on them.
1 Kings 7:26
(26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.)
2 Chronicles 4:5
(5 And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand
baths.)
Here is what the Strong's concordance says about the word "baths".
( Strong's concordance)
(H1324
‫בּת‬
bath
bath
Probably from the same as H1327; a bath or Hebrew measure
(as a means of division) of liquids: bath.)
33 / 150
(as a means of division) of liquids: bath.)
So a bath was a means of division of liquids.
Now these measurements of baths. is what the molten sea could hold, which is talked about in 1 Kings 7:23, and th sea in this case, referred to a an artificial basin.
(Encyclopedia Britannica)
(...The Molten Sea or Brazen Sea was a large basin in the Temple in Jerusalem made by Solomon for ablution of the priests.
...It was capable of containing two or three thousand baths of water...)
Now what I Kings is talking about is, that it "contained two thousand baths", so there was actually 2000 baths of water therein, but what Chronicles is referring to is
this:"it received and held three thousand baths" , which this molten sea was able to receive and hold 3000 baths, but was presently filled with 2000 baths, and really that
is all it is referring to.
So no contradiction here.
Ok next one.
Contradiction #22 (Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number Contradiction #23( How many singers accompanied the assembly? (a) Two
of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything hundred (Ezra 2:65). (b) Two hundred and fortyfive (Nehemiah 7:67).)
close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows: (a) 29,818 (Ezra). (b) 31,
089 (Nehemiah).)
Refutation:Let us quote the scriptures.
Ezra 2:6465
(64 The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore,
65 Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and
singing women.)
Nehemiah 7:6667
(66 The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore,
67 Beside their manservants and their maidservants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and they had two hundred forty and five
singing men and singing women.)
Now both accounts, concerning the whole congregation, was numbered at 42,360.
So both accounts, concerning this agree.
Now we get to the other parts, and it looks very likely that Ezra had the original list of the register, but as for Nehemiah, he had found a list of "a" register, and read this
list to the people.
Nehemiah 7:5
(5 And my God put into mine heart to gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy. And I found 'a' register of
the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found written therein,)
Now it appears that, this reading of this register, and the reading of Ezra's register, happened not far apart from each other.
Now the one who gathered the people, was Nehemiah, and not Ezra, for Nehemiah 7:5 says:"And my God put into mine heart to gather together the nobles, and the
rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy....", so the Lord stirred up Nehemiah's heart, to gather the people, so they might be reckoned by
geneology.
Now after the people were gathered, Nehemiah read of the register he found, and I believe that afterwards, Ezra corrected this register, by reading the original register
before the people.
And Nehemiah and Ezra, were in each others presence many times, which I will show.
Nehemiah 8:59
(5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the
LORD with their faces to the ground.
7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people
to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.
8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
9 And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the LORD
your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law.)
So as far as these registers are concerned, one was "a" register that Nehemiah found, which was not correct, thus Ezra needing to read another register before the
34 / 150
people, for why would Ezra, have to read another register, in this case, if Nehemiah's register was correct?
your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law.)
So as far as these registers are concerned, one was "a" register that Nehemiah found, which was not correct, thus Ezra needing to read another register before the
people, for why would Ezra, have to read another register, in this case, if Nehemiah's register was correct?
There would have been no need for Ezra to reread a register, for Nehemiah already read one.
That is why Ezra, needed to read his register after Nehemiah's found register was read.
So I will talk just a little about Nehemiah's register, which he found, but I will deal more with Ezra's register, for it is the correct one.
Now why did God allow for this to be written in the word, concerning Nehemiah's found register?
First of all, so to show that men make mistakes, and God corrected this register, through the person of Ezra.
Are their examples, in the bible, of God using a believer to correct another believer?
Yes there is, and here is one.
Galatians 2:11
(11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.)
This is talking about Paul correcting Peter, and Peter was to blame here, but concerning Nehemiah's situation, he read a register, that unknowing to him, was false or
incorrect.
Now in the Nehemiah side of things, the 101 bible contradiction people, give a count of 31, 089 people, and on the Ezra side of things they get a count of 29,818 ,
now how do they get this count?
Well we will quote scriptures, side by side to each other so to see.
Ezra 2:264 Nehemiah 7:765
(2 Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, (7 Who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah,
Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. The number of the men Nahamani, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispereth, Bigvai,
of the people of Israel: Nehemiahum, Baanah. The number, I say, of the men of the people of Israel
3 The children of Parosh, two thousand an hundred seventy and two. (2172) was this;
4 The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy and two. (372) 8 The children of Parosh, two thousand an hundred seventy and two. (2172)
5 The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five. (775) 9 The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy and two. (372)
6 The children of Pahathmoab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab, two 10 The children of Arah, six hundred fifty and two. (652)
thousand eight hundred and twelve. (2812) 11 The children of Pahathmoab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab, two
7 The children of Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four. (1254) thousand and eight hundred and eighteen. (2818)
8 The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five. (945) 12 The children of Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four. (1254)
9 The children of Zaccai, seven hundred and threescore. (760) 13 The children of Zattu, eight hundred forty and five. (845)
10 The children of Bani, six hundred forty and two. (642) 14 The children of Zaccai, seven hundred and threescore. (760)
11 The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty and three. (623) 15 The children of Binnui, six hundred forty and eight. (648)
12 The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two. (1222) 16 The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty and eight. (628)
13 The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six. (666) 17 The children of Azgad, two thousand three hundred twenty and two.
14 The children of Bigvai, two thousand fifty and six. (256) (2322)
15 The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four. (454) 18 The children of Adonikam, six hundred threescore and seven. (667)
16 The children of Ater of Hezekiah, ninety and eight. (98) 19 The children of Bigvai, two thousand threescore and seven. (2067)
17 The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty and three. (323) 20 The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and five. (655)
18 The children of Jorah, an hundred and twelve. (112) 21 The children of Ater of Hezekiah, ninety and eight. (98)
19 The children of Hashum, two hundred twenty and three. (223) 22 The children of Hashum, three hundred twenty and eight. (328)
20 The children of Gibbar, ninety and five. (95) 23 The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty and four. (324)
21 The children of Bethlehem, an hundred twenty and three. (123) 24 The children of Hariph, an hundred and twelve. (112)
22 The men of Netophah, fifty and six. (56) 25 The children of Gibeon, ninety and five. (95)
23 The men of Anathoth, an hundred twenty and eight. (128) 26 The men of Bethlehem and Netophah, an hundred fourscore and eight.
24 The children of Azmaveth, forty and two. (42) (188)
25 The children of Kirjatharim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred and 27 The men of Anathoth, an hundred twenty and eight. (128)
forty and three. (743) 28 The men of Bethazmaveth, forty and two. (42)
26 The children of Ramah and Gaba, six hundred twenty and one. (621) 29 The men of Kirjathjearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred forty
27 The men of Michmas, an hundred twenty and two. (122) and three. (743)
28 The men of Bethel and Ai, two hundred twenty and three. (223) 30 The men of Ramah and Geba, six hundred twenty and one. (621)
29 The children of Nebo, fifty and two. (52) 31 The men of Michmas, an hundred and twenty and two. (122)
30 The children of Magbish, an hundred fifty and six. (156) 32 The men of Bethel and Ai, an hundred twenty and three. (123)
31 The children of the other Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four. 33 The men of the other Nebo, fifty and two. (52)
(1254) 34 The children of the other Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four.
32 The children of Harim, three hundred and twenty. (320) (1254)
33 The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred twenty and five. 35 The children of Harim, three hundred and twenty. (320)
(725) 36 The children of Jericho, three hundred forty and five. (345)
34 The children of Jericho, three hundred forty and five. (345) 37 The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred twenty and one.
35 The children of Senaah, three thousand and six hundred and thirty. (3630) (721)
36 The priests: the children of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred 38 The children of Senaah, three thousand nine hundred and thirty. (3930)
seventy and three. (973) 35 / 150
39 The priests: the children of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred
37 The children of Immer, a thousand fifty and two. (52) seventy and three. (973)
35 The children of Senaah, three thousand and six hundred and thirty. (3630) (721)
36 The priests: the children of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred 38 The children of Senaah, three thousand nine hundred and thirty. (3930)
seventy and three. (973) 39 The priests: the children of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred
37 The children of Immer, a thousand fifty and two. (52) seventy and three. (973)
38 The children of Pashur, a thousand two hundred forty and seven. (1247) 40 The children of Immer, a thousand fifty and two. (1052)
39 The children of Harim, a thousand and seventeen. (1017) 41 The children of Pashur, a thousand two hundred forty and seven. (1247)
40 The Levites: the children of Jeshua and Kadmiel, of the children of 42 The children of Harim, a thousand and seventeen. (1070)
Hodaviah, seventy and four. (74) 43 The Levites: the children of Jeshua, of Kadmiel, and of the children of
41 The singers: the children of Asaph, an hundred twenty and eight. (128) Hodevah, seventy and four. (74)
42 The children of the porters: the children of Shallum, the children of Ater, 44 The singers: the children of Asaph, an hundred forty and eight. (148)
the children of Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children of Hatita, the 45 The porters: the children of Shallum, the children of Ater, the children of
children of Shobai, in all an hundred thirty and nine. (139) Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children of Hatita, the children of Shobai,
43 The Nethinims: the children of Ziha, the children of Hasupha, the children an hundred thirty and eight. (138)
of Tabbaoth, 46 The Nethinims: the children of Ziha, the children of Hashupha, the children
44 The children of Keros, the children of Siaha, the children of Padon, of Tabbaoth,
45 The children of Lebanah, the children of Hagabah, the children of Akkub, 47 The children of Keros, the children of Sia, the children of Padon,
46 The children of Hagab, the children of Shalmai, the children of Hanan, 48 The children of Lebana, the children of Hagaba, the children of Shalmai,
47 The children of Giddel, the children of Gahar, the children of Reaiah, 49 The children of Hanan, the children of Giddel, the children of Gahar,
48 The children of Rezin, the children of Nekoda, the children of Gazzam, 50 The children of Reaiah, the children of Rezin, the children of Nekoda,
49 The children of Uzza, the children of Paseah, the children of Besai, 51 The children of Gazzam, the children of Uzza, the children of Phaseah,
50 The children of Asnah, the children of Mehunim, the children of Nephusim, 52 The children of Besai, the children of Meunim, the children of
Nephishesim,
51 The children of Bakbuk, the children of Hakupha, the children of Harhur, 53 The children of Bakbuk, the children of Hakupha, the children of Harhur,
52 The children of Bazluth, the children of Mehida, the children of Harsha, 54 The children of Bazlith, the children of Mehida, the children of Harsha,
53 The children of Barkos, the children of Sisera, the children of Thamah, 55 The children of Barkos, the children of Sisera, the children of Tamah,
54 The children of Neziah, the children of Hatipha. 56 The children of Neziah, the children of Hatipha.
55 The children of Solomon's servants: the children of Sotai, the children of 57 The children of Solomon's servants: the children of Sotai, the children of
Sophereth, the children of Peruda, Sophereth, the children of Perida,
56 The children of Jaalah, the children of Darkon, the children of Giddel, 58 The children of Jaala, the children of Darkon, the children of Giddel,
57 The children of Shephatiah, the children of Hattil, the children of Pochereth 59 The children of Shephatiah, the children of Hattil, the children of Pochereth
of Zebaim, the children of Ami. of Zebaim, the children of Amon.
58 All the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants, were three 60 All the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants, were three
hundred ninety and two. (392) hundred ninety and two. (392)
59 And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, 61 And these were they which went up also from Telmelah, Telharesha,
Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, and their Cherub, Addon, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, nor
seed, whether they were of Israel: their seed, whether they were of Israel.
60 The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six 62 The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six
hundred fifty and two. (652) hundred forty and two. (642)
61 And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of 63 And of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the
Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai children of Barzillai, which took one of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite
the Gileadite, and was called after their name: to wife, and was called after their name.
62 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, 64 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy,
but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the but it was not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.
priesthood.
63 And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy 65 And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy
things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim. things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim.
64 The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three 66 The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three
hundred and threescore, (42360)) hundred and threescore, (42360))
So the way they get these calculations, is by calculating, all the people who are numbered, which were the children (sons, daughters, maybe grand children, in this case)
of so and so, and the men of such an such a place. So by calculating the numbered people, in the Nehemiah side, you get 31089 people, and if you calculate the
numbered people, in the Ezra side of things, you get 29818 people.
Now I do not want to dwell with the Nehemiah side of things, any longer, since Nehemiah's list, is not the correct list.
Let us dwell on the Ezra list.
So of the people numbered, on this list, it came up to 29818 people, but the whole congregation was 42360.
How do you get this number?
Well notice what it says, that the "whole" congregation was 42360, but the numbered people on this list were 29818, now if you look at what it says in these scriptures,
and study it, you will notice that there were some people who were not numbered on this list, which the fathers of the children, were not numbered on the list, and
neither were their wives, and also if you count the number of men, that came from Netophah, Anathoth, Michmas, Bethel and Ai, you count 529 men, now these men
were numbered, but not their wives, and neither their children. And also how many, of the people that sought their register, but were not found, were part of the
unumbered people?
So it is very obvious that there were people that were part of the congregation, that were not numbered on this list, So obviously, the "whole" congregation, was made
up of these 29818 numbered people, and of course the 12542 unumbered people, which is needed to make the 42360 persons of the congregation.
So really, there is absolutely no contradiction here, there maybe contradictions between the list of Nehemiah, and the list of Ezra, but obviously one was the true list,
and one was a found list, which was not accurate.
So scripture always harmonises with scripture, and if you ask God for wisdom, especially if you are his child, he will answer. 36 / 150
and one was a found list, which was not accurate.
So scripture always harmonises with scripture, and if you ask God for wisdom, especially if you are his child, he will answer.
Some things take diligent study and search.
(note: in Ezra and Nehemiah, it mentions 7337 servants and maids, these were beside the 42360, and the 200 singers were from these people, which the Ezra side is
correct.)
Next.
Contradiction #52(Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the Contradiction #69(Was Jesus crucified on the daytime before the Passover
crucifixion? (a) On the cross (Mark 15:23). (b) In Pilate's court (John 19:14).) meal or the daytime after? (a) After (Mark 14:1217). (b) Before. Before the
feast of the Passover (John 13:1) Judas went out at night (John 13:30). The other
disciples thought he was going out to buy supplies to prepare for the Passover
meal (John 13:29). When Jesus was arrested, the Jews did not enter Pilate's
judgement hall because they wanted to stay clean to eat the Passover (John
18:28). When the judgement was pronounced against Jesus, it was about the sixth
hour on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14).)
Refutation:Well what do these scriptures, actually say? Let us go to these scriptures, and other verses that go along with these.
Mark 15:2333
(23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.
24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.)
John 19:1318
(13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew,
Gabbatha.
14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but
Caesar.
16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.)
Well first, let us deal with the first question:"Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion? (a) On the cross, (b) In Pilate's court". Well the truth is, as I
studied this issue, I found out that Mark and most biblical books, utilised the Hebrew time system, in the seperation of hours, but in John, which is said to have been
written after the 3 other gospels, utilised the Roman system of dividing the hours, now John I am sure utilised the Hebrew time system in his life, but in his book, it
utilises the Roman time system.
Now none of the disciples, ever aknowledged or mentioned the Roman calendar's monthly names, which existed in their time (and most of these names pointed to other
gods), but John in his book, did utilise the Roman hours, but not the Roman monthly names.
Now I want to mention, how the Hebrew daylight hours worked, and of course the Roman hours, which would equal our hour system.
Hebrew hours Roman hours
Hours of the day 24 hour time table
The first hour = 6 to 7 am The first hour = 1 am
The second hour = 7 to 8 am The second hour = 2 am
The third hour = 8 to 9 am The third hour = 3 am
The fourth hour = 9 to 10 am The fourth hour = 4 am
The fifth hour = 10 to 11 am The fifth hour = 5 am
The sixth hour = 11 to 12 pm (Noon) The sixth hour = 6 am
The seventh hour = 12 to 1 pm The seventh hour = 7 am
The eighth hour = 1 to 2 pm The eighth hour = 8 am
The ninth hour = 2 to 3 pm The ninth hour = 9 am
The tenth hour = 3 to 4 pm The tenth hour = 10 am 37 / 150
The eleventh hour = 4 to 5 pm The eleventh hour = 11 am
The eighth hour = 1 to 2 pm The eighth hour = 8 am
The ninth hour = 2 to 3 pm The ninth hour = 9 am
The tenth hour = 3 to 4 pm The tenth hour = 10 am
The eleventh hour = 4 to 5 pm The eleventh hour = 11 am
The twelfth hour = 5 to 6 pm The twelfth hour = 12 pm (Noon)
The thirteenth hour = 13 pm
Hebrew night watches (military watches) The fourteenth hour = 14 pm
The fifteenth hour = 15 pm
"beginning of the watches" = from sunset to 10 P.M. The sixteenth hour = 16 pm
"the middle watch" = from 10 P.M. to 2 A.M. The seventeenth hour = 17 pm
"the morning watch" = from 2 A.M. to sunrise The eighteenth hour = 18 pm
The nineteenth hour = 19 pm
The twentieth hour = 20 pm
The twentyfirst hour = 21 pm
The twentysecond hour = 22 pm
The twentythird hour = 23 pm
The twentyfourth hour = 24 am (Midnight)
Roman night watches (military watches)
"first wacth" = 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
"second watch" = 9:00 p.m. to midnight
"third watch" = midnight to 3:00 a.m.
"fourth watch" = 3:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Now here is what the Easton dictionary says:
(Easton dictionary)
(Watches
The periods into which the time between sunset and sunrise was divided. They are so called because watchmen relieved each other at each of these periods. There are
frequent references in Scripture to the duties of watchmen who were appointed to give notice of the approach of an enemy (2 Samuel 18:2427; 2Kings 9:1720;
Isaiah 21:59). They were sometimes placed for this purpose on watchtowers (2 Kings 17:9; 18:8). Ministers or teachers are also spoken of under this title (Jeremiah
6:17; Ezek. 33:29; Hebrews 13:17).
The watches of the night were originally three in number, (1) "the beginning of the watches" (Lamentations 2:19); (2) "the middle watch" (Judges 7:19); and (3) "the
morning watch" (Exodus 14:24; 1 Samuel 11:11), which extended from two o'clock to sunrise. But in the New Testament we read of four watches, a division probably
introduced by the Romans (Matthew 14:25; Mark 6:48; Luke 12:38).)
So here is historical facts, concerning the Hebrew and Roman time systems.
So as I said before, John utilised the Roman time system, and Mark etc, utilised the Hebrew time system.
Now there is evidence of one certain verse in John, refering to the Hebrew time system, and right now, I want to quote this scripture.
John 11:9
(9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.)
Jesus here, was refering to the daylight hours of the Hebrew time system, but as far as events go, such as this happened at this or that hour, it was always the Roman
time system that John used.
So now let us get back to that question, "Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion? (a) On the cross, (b) In Pilate's court"?
Well if we observe the scripture in John and the scripture in Mark, we can see first of all, that in Mark, that Christ was on the cross on the sixth Hebrew hour, which
darkness was over the whole land until the ninth Hebrew hour (Mark 15:33), but the time that Jesus was actually crucified, was during the 3rd Hebrew hour (Mark
15:25), but before this, he was in Pilate's court, in the morning (Mark 15:12).
Now the John account, shows Jesus, in Pilate's court, during the 6th Roman hour.
Now Jesus was in Pilate's court, before the 3rd Hebrew hour, in the morning in Mark, which could, and I believe would have been, during the first Hebrew hour, the
first Hebrew hour is equalled to 6 to 7 a.m., and John's account shows Jesus in Pilate's court, during the 6th Roman hour, which is equalled to 6 a.m., so really, both
accounts harmonise with each other in what they say, just one used the Hebrew time table, and the other the Roman time table, and that's it.
Now we get to the next question, "Was Jesus crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal or the daytime after?".
Well let us quote the scriptures.
Mark 14:1217
(12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the
passover?
13 And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. 38 / 150
14 And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my
(12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the
passover?
13 And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.
14 And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my
disciples?
15 And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.
16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.)
John 13:12
(1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which
were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;)
John 13:2930
(29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give
something to the poor.
30 He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.)
John 18:2628
(26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?
27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but
that they might eat the passover.)
John 19:1415
(14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but
Caesar.)
So here are the scriptures, and before I go on, I want to delve more into this issue of the passover, so to make sense of things, and one key part of scripture, is found in
the Mark scripture which says:"And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover".
So the question that I ask is this, when was the passover?
Well let us quote scriptures, and then we will see what all of this means.
Exodus 12:18
(18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.)
Leviticus 23:58
(5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.
6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.
7 In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. 8 But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the
seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.)
Deuteronomy 16:68
(6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the
season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.
7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents.
8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein.)
So the passover, was on the 14th day, of the 1rst month, and what was another name that was attributed to this passover day?
Well I want to quote a scripture in Luke, which shows things, in an awesome, clear way.
Luke 22:112B
(1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.
3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
5 And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.
6 And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.
7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.
9 And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare?
10 And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he
39 / 150
entereth in.
8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.
9 And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare?
10 And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he
entereth in.
11 And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
12 And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.)
Another name that was attributed to the passover, was also "The feast of unleavened bread".
Now on the day of the passover, they would have the passover lamb of course, but also unleavened bread.
Now it would be for 7 days, that they would eat unleavened bread.
Now also the 15th day of the first month, was also called the "feast of unleavened bread", and from this point, there were 6 days of eating unleavened bread, in this
feast, but if you include the passover, there were 7 days of eating unleavened bread.
So the 14th day was distinguished as the "passover" and "the feast of unleavened bread", but the 15th day, was distinguished as only being "the feast of unleavened
bread".
So now we know when the passover was (14th day), but now let us make sense of what Mark , Luke, and John are referring to, in their accounts.
First we will deal with, the Mark and Luke accounts.
Let us quote portions of the verses in Mark and Luke.
Mark :"And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover...", Luke :"Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed" ,
Mark :"...his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?" , Luke :"...Go and prepare us the passover, that we
may eat".
It is pretty evident, by these scriptures, that the day of Christ's last supper, was the passover.
Now some might argue this fact, because first of all, the passover was a day of doing no servile work, nor buying and selling, yet Jesus says this, on that day:
Luke 22:3538
(35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an
end.
38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.)
Now there are many who believe that the part were Jesus said "it is enough", was basically saying, that they did not get what he meant (which I believe is what it is
saying).
It seems that Jesus was telling them, by selling their garment and buying a sword, that this was meant in a spiritual way, and at times Jesus said things in a spiritual way,
but of course also in a physical way.
So it is hihgly likely that this was meant in a spiritual way, rather than a physical way.
Jesus obeyed the passover, for he came to fuflfil the law, and would not have told the disciples to do something against the passover.
Now if you read what it says in Mark and Luke but even Matthew, it is talking about the feast of unleavened bread, which was the passover, which was on the 14th
day, of the first month.
And notice that if you read these 3 gospels, it talks about Jesus calling it the passover, and you can conclude that Mark , Luke and Matthew, were covering Jesus'
aspect of the passover, which was the true passover.
Now in John, it is different, John never once covers Jesus mentioning the passover, during this time, but rather, what John was covering, was the Jews (as a whole), of
that time's view.
Let us quote parts of John.
John :"...Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come", John :"...and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should
be defiled; but that they might eat the passover" John : "And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews...".
Now the part that says:"They themselves" is referring to the Jews.
Now the Jews of Jesus' time, were backslidden long ago from God's ways, and they were saying that on the day of Christ's crucifiction, was when the passover was
on, and they were preparing for it, which they would eat of it at even, but at this moment, Jesus was before Pilate, and it is this same day that he died.
Now the passover that Jesus observed, was not on the same day of his death, but rather the day before.
So why did the backslidden Jews, observe the passover on the 15th day rather than the 14th day as Jesus did?
Well there may have been some confusion in their minds, because there was the Hebrew calendar and also the Roman calendar, and there may have been a conflict in
their minds concerning when the passover should be held. 40 / 150
Well there may have been some confusion in their minds, because there was the Hebrew calendar and also the Roman calendar, and there may have been a conflict in
their minds concerning when the passover should be held.
So really there is no conflict at all, in these accounts, for the Mark and Luke accounts (even Matthew), covered the true passover, which showed Jesus' view of the
passover, and John covered the backslidden Jews' view of their held passover.
So we have answered both questions, which the John accounts covered the Roman time system and the backslidden Jewish passover, and Mark etc. , covered the
Hebrew time system and the true passover which was Jesus' view.
Now unto the next, socalled contradiction.
Contradiction #59(How many members of the house of Jacob came to Egypt? (a) Seventy souls (Genesis 46:27). (b) Seventyfive souls (Acts 7:14).)
Refutation:Well let us go to the bible.
Genesis 46:2627
(26 All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six;
27 And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.)
Acts 7:14
(14 Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.)
Genesis 46:20
(20 And unto Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him.)
So all the souls, besides Jacob's sons' wives (the wives were not included in the list), were 66 (which came from Jacob's loins (Genesis 46:26)), so that's the 66 part
covered, and these were the ones that travelled to Egypt with Jacob.
Now we get to the 70's part. So 66 from Jacob's "loins" traveled with him to Egypt, but in overall of his "kindred", there were 70, and this 70 number includes people
who were already in Egypt which were Joseph, and his 2 sons Manasseh and Ephraim (Genesis 46:20) which were born in Egypt, and also it included Judah which
went on before Jacob to Egypt (Genesis 46:28), which means that Judah was already there.
So the 66 were the one's who traveled to Egypt with Jacob, but the 70 included the 66 + Joseph, his 2 sons, and Judah, which were already in Egypt.
Now we get to the Acts account of things. Now the Acts account, says this:"Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and
fifteen souls".
Now we know whom the 70 refer to, but who are these extra 5???
So 66 traveled with Jacob which were of his loins, and there were already 4 of his kindred, already in Egypt, which brings things to 70.
Now the Genesis account says:"all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten". I believe that this is referring to all the souls that
either came, or came to be into Egypt, for Manasseh and Ephraim came to be into Egypt, but never had to go to Egypt, but their dad Joseph, did have to go to Egypt,
though at a young age, which he became a leader in Egypt, which Jacob knew not until this time, for he thought his son was dead.
And here's an interesting thing, concerning the word "came" in Genesis 46:27, which it shows this, in the Strongs concordance.
H935
‫בּוא‬
bô'
bo
A primitive root; to go or come (in a wide variety of applications): abide, apply,
attain, X be, befall, + besiege, bring (forth, in, into, to pass), call, carry, X
certainly, (cause, let, thing for) to come (against, in, out, upon, to pass), depart, X
doubtless again, + eat, + employ, (cause to) enter (in, into, tering, trance, try),
be fallen, fetch, + follow, get, give, go (down, in, to war), grant, + have, X
indeed, [in]vade, lead, lift [up], mention, pull in, put, resort, run (down), send,
set, X (well) stricken [in age], X surely, take (in), way.
So it seems that the word "came", in the bible, was mostly used to a direction people were going but also to come to be, in a certain place, as in being born etc.
So in some cases, the Hebrews used wordings in a slitly different way that we would use them today, but for the most part, it was basically the same.
Now the Acts account, I believe, just added, more of Joseph's kindred, which came to be through him. Which were 5 of Joseph's grand sons (1 Chr 7:1421).
So these 3 numbers of 66, 70 and 75, are very explanable.
41 / 150
So because of this, it can be clearly seen, that there is no true contradiction here, for it was just adding additional information in the various numbers, and that is all.
So these 3 numbers of 66, 70 and 75, are very explanable.
So because of this, it can be clearly seen, that there is no true contradiction here, for it was just adding additional information in the various numbers, and that is all.
Contradiction #49(Did Jesus bear his own cross? (a) Yes (John 19:17). (b) No (Matthew 27:3132).)
Refutation:Well let us quote scriptures to see what they say, and also let us quote additional scriptures, from Mark and Luke, and then we will see the whole
picture.
John 19:1618
(16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.)
Matthew 27:3135
(31 And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.
32 And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.
33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,
34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and
upon my vesture did they cast lots.)
Mark 15:2022
(20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.
21 And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.)
Luke 23:26
(26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.)
First of all, John says this:"...And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull", yet Matthew says this:"...they found a man of Cyrene, Simon
by name: him they compelled to bear his cross", So firstly, Christ was bearing his own cross towards the place of the skull, now Matthew also says this: "led him away
to crucify him", So if he was led away to be crucified, they obviously, were headed somewhere.
Now Mark says this:"led him out to crucify him", and Luke says this:"as they led him away".
So during this leading away of Christ towards crucifixion, is when Christ was bearing his cross towards the place of the skull, but along the way, probably near the
beginning of the Golgotha hill, they compelled a Simon, to carry Christ's cross, the rest of the way.
So really, they both (Christ and Simon) carried Jesus' cross.
So everything compared together, and taken in context, shows forth no contradictions.
(And one key word is "who passed by", which is talking about Simon passing by Jesus, which at this point, Christ was bearing his own cross.)
So let us go to our next Socalled contradiction to cover.
Contradiction #48(What did Jesus say about Peter's denial? (a) "The cock will not crow till you have denied me three times" (John 13:38). (b) "Before the cock
crows twice you will deny me three times" (Mark 14:30). When the cock crowed once, the three denials were not yet complete (see Mark 14:72). Therefore
prediction (a) failed.)
Refutation:Well let us quote scriptures.
John 13:38
(38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.)
Mark 14:30
(30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.)
Mark 14:6672
(66 And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:
67 And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
68 But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
69 And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
70 And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.
71 But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when
he thought thereon, he wept.)
42 / 150
71 But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when
he thought thereon, he wept.)
Luke 22:34
(34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.)
Now, let us quote portions, of these verses, which John says:"...The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice", and Luke says:"...the cock shall not crow this
day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me".
Now what about Mark, what does it say?
Mark says this:"...Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice".
Well first of all, the accounts of John and Luke, in Jesus saying " the cock shall not crow until though hast denied me 3 times" , is not specific concerning the amount of
times the cock shall crow, but the Mark account, shows a specific number which is "the cock crow twice" , so the Mark account is specific in numbers wise,
concerning how many times the cock shall crow, but John and Luke, shows no specific number, just that the cock shall not crow, until though hast denied 3 times.
Now it is obvious that from John and Luke, that the cock crew, after Peter denied Jesus 3 times.
So obviously the cock crew after the 3 denials, which Mark does not deny this.
The difference with Mark is, that he specifies that not only will the cock crow, but he will do so twice.
And in Mark, the first crow came after the first denial (Mark 14:68), and the last crow, after all 3 denials.
So what Mark's account adds, is additional information of what happened.
Now what John and Luke are focusing on, is just the last crow, which was the main crow, which made Peter realise his wrong, and remember what Christ said, for in
their accounts, they just cover the main crow.
Luke says:"......the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me", which he was focusing on the main crow, and this same cock
that crowed, did crow once after the first denial, but did not do the main crow, which made Peter realise his wrong, until after all 3 denials.
I believe that God allowed John and Luke to write their accounts, in their way because, the last or main crow was of more importance than the first, thus them putting
emphasis on the last crow.
So in truth, at least concerning the main or last crow, the cock did not crow until all 3 denials came to pass, so in the sense of emphasis being put on a peticular crow, in
that sense, their is no contradiction.
(note: it is possible that when Peter somehow gave his accounts to John and Luke (of when the actual crows took place), that he only told them of the main, last crow,
because that was the one that hit him the most, and the Holy Ghost would have inspired them to focus on that last crow, and Peter's account to Mark, was to let Mark
know, of all the crows that was crowed, which filled in the details of what happened.)
It is possible that cocks have a type of precrow, and a maincrow, which if the case, would make sense in having a main focus on the one specific crow.
And what Jesus was covering, is basically that before the cock crow 2 times Peter shall deny him 3 times, which within these 3 denials, the cock will crow twice, and
concerning the 2nd crow, Jesus was saying that the cock won't crow, that specific main crow, until all the actual denials are done, so if you put all the verses together,
you would basically get this complete message.
And I know without a shadow of a doubt, the bible to be the preserved word of God, for I am experiencing him, first hand.
Contradiction #50(Did Jesus die before the curtain of the temple was torn? (a) Yes (Matthew 27:5051; Mark 15:3738). (b) No. After the curtain was torn, then
Jesus crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last (Luke 23:4546).)
Refutation:I love to quote scriptures, so let's do that.
Mathew 27:5052
(50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,)
Mark 15:3739
(37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.)
Luke 23:4447
(44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
47 Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.) 43 / 150
45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
47 Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.)
Now it is very important to read the scriptures, within their context, and also in the way things are said.
Firstly, in Matthew, it says this:"...when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. ...And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top
to the bottom;".
Now notice the word, and "behold", this was a statement said to bring attention to people, of what was just happening upon Christ giving up the ghost, it was pointing
to an imediate event, something that was happening, as Christ gave up the ghost, that is why it says, and "behold", which would be like saying, John was eating
crackers, and behold, Jen was also eating crackers.
Now let us go to the Mark account.
This is what it says:"... Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost... And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom." , so in the Mark
account it just shows Christ giving up the ghost, and then a phrase with the word "and" in it follows, so the phrasing in Mark is not as strong a statement, as Matthew, of
behold, and just shows the phrasing of "and the veil of the temple was rent in twain..." after Christ giving up the ghost.
Now we get to the Luke account, which says:"...And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. ...And when Jesus had cried with a loud
voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" , now in the phrasing of Luke's account, it just talks about how the veil of the temple was rent in the midst,
and then simply proceeds to talk about what Jesus cried out when he commended his spirit into the father's hands.
In the Luke account, it is not the 2 events following each other in order, but rather the 2 events being talked about.
The Matthew account, actually clinches everything together of how things happened, by using the word "behold" which showed an imediate action being done, with
Christ giving up the ghost.
Mark and Luke mention these events, but Matthew is the one, that clearly shows how the events took place, which was sudden, so no, there is no contradictions here,
between these scriptures, just things presented in different manners.
And the truth is, is that the veil was rent in twain, in a sudden fashion, as Christ gave up the ghost.
Contradiction #46(The Gospels say that Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did the tree wither at once? (a) Yes. (Matthew 21:19). (b) No. It withered overnight (Mark
11:20).)
Refutation:Here again, let us go unto the scriptures.
Mark 11:1022
(10 Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.
11 And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto
Bethany with the twelve. 12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs
was not yet.
14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.
15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the
moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.
19 And when even was come, he went out of the city.
20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.)
Matthew 21:921
(9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in
the highest.
10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?
11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of
them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they
were sore displeased,
16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected
praise?
17 And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.
18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.
19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever.
And presently the fig tree withered away.
20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!
44 / 150
21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall
say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.)
20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!
21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall
say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.)
Let us compare, each scriptures together, so to make sense of things.
First of all, in the Mark account, (verse 10) it mentions: "Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest" ,
now the Matthew account mentions this (verse 9)"...Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest."
Now we go to verse 11 in Mark which says:"And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple:...", well the Matthew account (verse 10) says this:"And when he
was come into Jerusalem,...".
So Mark mentions the fact that Jesus entered Jerusalem, and he also went into the temple, now the Matthew verse mentions how he went into Jerusalem, so both
mention Christ going into Jerusalem. Now the Mark account also mentions Christ going into the temple, but does not show specifically what happened in the temple,
but Matthew does, which we will mention, the verses that talk about this.
Here is what Matthew verses 12 to 16, says:
"12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of
them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they
were sore displeased,
16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected
praise? "
So here Matthew fills in the gap of what happened in the temple, but Mark just mentions of Jesus going in the temple, which shows proof, at this point that he did,
which shows Matthew and Mark, harmonizing with each other.
So now we get to Mark 11:12 which says:"And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: , which Matthew 21:18 says this:"Now in the
morning as he returned into the city, he hungered." , so these scriptures harmonise also, in what they say, and verse 17 of Matthew, actually mentions also this city of
Bethany. So here Jesus and his disciples, had come back from Bethany, and were headed towards Jerusalem.
Now we get to Mark 11:1314 which says:
"13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of
figs was not yet.
14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.".
Well this is what Matthew 21:1920 says:
"19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever.
20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!".
So the Matthew account shows that the fig tree withered right away, and the disciples seen what happened, right away, and saw that the fig tree had withered, and they
marvelled.
Now Jesus' response to their marvelling was this (Matthew 21:2122):
"21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall
say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.".
So now we go to Mark 11:1521 which says:
"15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the
moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.
19 And when even was come, he went out of the city.
20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away. "
So in the Matthew account Jesus had already cast people out of the temple, before he got to the tree which withered, but it appears, that from the Mark acount, he did
this a second time, which was a time after the tree withwered, which the message he said in the temple, to the people, which was done after he overthrew the tables
was a similar message to the first time, which was :" My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.", and it is possible
that Jesus repeated this message, because sos to reinforce this message.
And in the Matthew account the disciples noticed that the tree withered right away, which they marvelled, and I believe that even though they noticed that the tree
withered right away, and saw it, and aknowledge it, even though that was so, I believe that they marvelled so much about it, that they got to a point of even being in
doubt of what they saw, for the Mark account shows that the next day they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots, and Peter says: "Master, behold, the fig tree which
45 / 150
thou cursedst is withered away", so it is either that all the disciples were still in doubt of what they saw, or it was only Peter who was in doubt, thus having to
And in the Matthew account the disciples noticed that the tree withered right away, which they marvelled, and I believe that even though they noticed that the tree
withered right away, and saw it, and aknowledge it, even though that was so, I believe that they marvelled so much about it, that they got to a point of even being in
doubt of what they saw, for the Mark account shows that the next day they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots, and Peter says: "Master, behold, the fig tree which
thou cursedst is withered away", so it is either that all the disciples were still in doubt of what they saw, or it was only Peter who was in doubt, thus having to
aknowledge again, that the tree hath withered, and then, just like the first time, Jesus reinforces the faith message he told them the first time, which was:" If ye have faith,
and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall
be done. "
And in the Mark account, Jesus added a bit more to his faith message, even mentioning forgiveness (Mark 11:2526).
And Matthew 21:23 collaborates with Mark, in the sense of showing that even after the tree withered away, that Jesus went into the temple, for a second time.
So in these accounts we have seen that there are no contradictions whatsoever, and it is important to compare scriptures with scriptures.
Now it is said that Matthew at times tends to put things in spiritual order rather than in chronological order, and at times I have found this to be true, but not always, and
alot of times, such as in what we have covered, it is in a chronological order.
Next..
Contradiction #36(Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals? (a) One a colt (Mark 11:7; cf. Luke 19:35). And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw
their garments on it; and he sat upon it." (b) Two a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7). They brought the ass and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat
thereon.")
Refutation:Let's quote scriptures.
Mark 11:7
(7 And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.)
Luke 19:35
(35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.)
Matthew 21:27
(2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.
4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.)
John 12:1415
(14 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written,
15 Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.)
John makes it clear, on what Jesus sat on, which was an ass's colt, or a baby donkey, and of course Luke says: "...they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set
Jesus thereon" and Mark says: "...and he sat upon him".
Each one of these verses (John, Mark, Luke), show that Jesus sat on an baby donkey, or colt.
Now we get to the Matthew part.
Here is what Matthew says:"...thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass", also it says: "...and put on them their clothes, and
they set him thereon".
Now John, Mark and Luke, focus mainly on the animal that Jesus mainly rode, which was the colt, but Matthew shows forth that clothes was set forth on both the colt
and the ass (the mom). Why was the ass also needed?
Possibly because the colt was still in need of his mom, so to accommodate that need, they brought the mom also. And also to give the colt a break from time to time,
Jesus would ride on the ass, but he mainly rode on the colt though.
So there is no real contradiction here, just Matthew describes the event, in more detail.
Contradiction#32(How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ? (a) Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17). (b) But a careful count of
the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1:1216).)
Refutation:Well in this moment, I want to show what Mathhew 1:17, actually says, which it is very important to read the wording of it.
Matthew 1:17
(17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the
carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.)
46 / 150
So yes from Abraham to David (Matthew 1:26), you count 14 generations, and from the David point to the carrying away into Babylon, you count from David to
(17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the
carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.)
So yes from Abraham to David (Matthew 1:26), you count 14 generations, and from the David point to the carrying away into Babylon, you count from David to
Josias (Matthew 1:611), which adds to also 14 generations, which when Josias was carried away into Babylon, he had just begotten Jechonias, and Jechonias started
the next generation.
And now we get to the last 14 generation count. The last generational count goes from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ, which starts with the new generation
of Jechonias unto Christ, which you exactly count 14 generations, so if you count the generations as the bible shows you to count them, you count exactly 14
generations in all 3 generational counts.
Now the author of the 101 bible contradictions, concerning the last count, must have counted from Salathiel to Christ.
Now remember, the first generational count was from Abraham to David, but the next was from David to Josias, so here too you count David, and the last was from
the newly formed Babylonian captivity generation of Jechonias.
So no true contradiction here, we must just be careful to read what it says, and how it says to count these generations.
Contradiction#14(How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple? (a) Three thousand six hundred (2 Chronicles 2:2) (b) Three
thousand three hundred (1 Kings 5:16).)
Refutation:In this refutation, I will just simply quote, a quotation I found on the net, which explains it in a simple way.
(Simple. Solomon has appointed 3,300 as overseers, and an additional 300 to be reserves that would take the place of any of the 3,300 that became sick. The scribe
who recorded the number of overseers in 1 Kings 5:16 recorded only the overseers on duty, not the extra 300 in reserve. The scribe who recorded the number of
overseers in 2 Chronicles 2:2 recorded all 3,600, including the 300 reserves.)
So here would be an explanation of what these 2 scriptures are talking about, which shows that these scriptures do not contradict each other at all, just one covering a
certain aspect of things, and another covering another aspect of things, and that's it.
Contradiction#4(God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine? (a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13). (b) Three (1 Chronicles 21:12).)
Refutation:Well let us go to scriptures.
2 Samuel 24:1114
(11 For when David was up in the morning, the word of the LORD came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying,
12 Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.
13 So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies,
while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.
14 And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.)
1 Chronicles 21:913
(9 And the LORD spake unto Gad, David's seer, saying,
10 Go and tell David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.
11 So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee
12 Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of
the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall
bring again to him that sent me.
13 And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man.)
So both Samuel and Chronicles say:"...I offer thee three things, choose thee one of them", and now we get to the other parts.
Now in Samuel, it asks things, in the form of a question, such as:"Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?", but in Chronicles, it states things in the form
of actions, such as:"Either three years' famine".
So let us put both scriptures side by side to each other, and see how things fit.
Samuel:"Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?" , Chronicles:"Either three years' famine;" , Samuel:"or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies,
while they pursue thee?" , Chronicles:"or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;" , Samuel:"or that there
be three days' pestilence in thy land?" , Chronicles:"or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying
throughout all the coasts of Israel." .
Now God obviously said all of these things, but the Samuel account, refers to things, that God asked David "if" he should do these things, and Chronicles covers things
that, God was going to "actually" do.
One is "Shall" I give 7 years famine, and the other is I "will" give 3 years famine.
Now of course the choice was David's to choose which action he wanted God to do.
So really, the difference here is not in a form of contradiction, but rather in the form of things God was implying to do, and things God was going to actually do, that is,
upon David's decision, and really that is all it is referring to.
And anyhow, the decision that David took was for the 3rd option, which accompanied pestilence (2 Samuel 24:15).
47 / 150
Next.
And anyhow, the decision that David took was for the 3rd option, which accompanied pestilence (2 Samuel 24:15).
Next.
Contradiction#2(In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel? (a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9). (b) One million, one hundred thousand (1
Chronicles 21:5).)
Refutation:Let's show forth , what these scriptures say.
2 Samuel 24:89
(8 So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.
9 And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men
of Judah were five hundred thousand men.)
1 Chronicles 21:5
(5 And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword:
and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.)
So in this peticular socalled contradiction, it shows in Samuel 800,000 fighting men, but in Chronicles, it shows 1 100,000 fighting men.
The key words in Samuel, are the words, "valiant men", these men were fighting men, or soldiers, for they drew the sword.
Now Samuel calls all these 800, 000 "valiant" men.
Now the Hebrew word, for the word "valiant", is the word "khah'yil".
Now the word "khah'yil", has many meanings, which it means:" valiant, (great) forces, valour, strength, strong, substance, train, an army, etc.
These valiant men obviously were strong, and trained men, it seems they were seasoned soldiers, and that is what Samuel included in his census, but as far as
Chronicles is concerned, it does not specify "valiant" men, but just all of them that drew the sword, battle seasoned or not, so the Chronicles account, for Israel, of men
of war, included the valiant, and the not so seasoned men, that drew the sword.
It is very important to read the context of a scripture, to see what words are there, and what words are not there.
Now in our next socalled contradiction, we will be discussing the same verses, but rather than the Israel side of things (which at one point, Judah and Israel were their
own kingdoms), we will discuss the Judah side of things.
Contradiction#3(How many fighting men were found in Judah? (a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9). (b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (1 Chronicles
21:5).)
Refutation:Well let us go to these scriptures.
2 Samuel 24:89
(8 So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.
9 And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men
of Judah were five hundred thousand men.)
1 Chronicles 21:5
(5 And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword:
and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.)
So the Samuel side of things, says that:"...and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men", and the Chronicles side, says:"...and Judah was four hundred
threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword".
So one is 500 000 war men, and the other is 470 000 war men.
And it is clear from the Chronicles side of things, that the census was not complete, for it says this in 1 Chronicles 21:6.
1 Chronicles 21:6
(6 But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab.)
The reason why, the Levites were not numbered, is because for one thing, it was abominable to Joab, but also because it says this in Numbers 7:5.
Numbers 7:5
(5 Take it of them, that they may be to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; and thou shalt give them unto the Levites, to every man according to his
service.)
The Levites were to do alot of tasks concerning the tabernacle, and they were chosen for priest, and were set aside by God for such like duties.
Also it says this in Numbers. 48 / 150
The Levites were to do alot of tasks concerning the tabernacle, and they were chosen for priest, and were set aside by God for such like duties.
Also it says this in Numbers.
Numbers 2:33
(33 But the Levites were not numbered among the children of Israel; as the LORD commanded Moses.)
Now this verse was not a verse that consisited of things in David's day, but rather in Moses day, but if you look at the many army censuses, in the bible, you often see
the Levites excluded from peticular censuses mentioned (Numbers 2:133, Numbers 1:250 etc.) , but were included in other types of censuses (Numbers 3:39,
Numbers 4:4649 etc.).
So the Levites were excluded of course in both the Chronicles census, and the Samuel census.
Now the other tribe that was excluded from one of the censuses, was the tribe of Benjamin.
Benjamin was not included in the Chronicles' census account, but was included in the Samuel census account. And it is said of Benjamin that his people remained
faithful to the Judaic kingdom.
So the Chronicles side of things, mentions 470 000 men, which excluded Benjamin, but Samuel mentions 500 000 men, which included 30 000 men, from Benjamin.
So really everything meshes perfectly together, no contradiction whatsoever!!!
(note: often times, people under 20 years old were not reckoned as being part of the army (Numbers 1:3, 1 Chronicles 27:23 etc.))
Contradiction#13 (In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die? (a) Twentysixth year (1 Kings 15:33 16:8). (b) Still alive in the thirtysixth year
(2 Chronicles 16:1).)
Refutation:Well let us cover this peticular socalled contradiction, one step at a time.
First of all, I want to establish, the amount of years, Asa reigned in Jerusalem.
1 Kings 15:911
(9 And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah.
10 And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom.
11 And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.)
2 Chronicles 16:13
(13 And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign.)
So one thing we can confer, is that both Kings and Chronicles, agree that Asa reigned in Jerusalem 41 years, for that is how long his Kingly reign in Jerusalem was.
So it says that King Asa reigned in Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, for 41 years, so now we will check out other scriptures, and see if the rest of Chronicles and
Kings match up, concerning King Asa, and to see if king Asa may have had another type of reign somewhere else, other than Jerusalem.
So it is confirmed that he strictly reigned in Jerusalem for 41 years.
Now let us show forth scriptures from 2 Chronicles.
2 Chronicles 14:1
(1 So Abijah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his stead. In his days the land was quiet ten years.)
2 Chronicles 14:6
(6 And he built fenced cities in Judah: for the land had rest, and he had no war in those years; because the LORD had given him rest.)
2 Chronicles 14:9
(9 And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand, and three hundred chariots; and came unto Mareshah.)
2 Chronicles 14:10
(10 Then Asa went out against him, and they set the battle in array in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah.)
2 Chronicles 15:810
(8 And when Asa heard these words, and the prophecy of Oded the prophet, he took courage, and put away the abominable idols out of all the land of Judah and
Benjamin, and out of the cities which he had taken from mount Ephraim, and renewed the altar of the LORD, that was before the porch of the LORD.
9 And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon: for they fell to him out of Israel in
abundance, when they saw that the LORD his God was with him.
10 So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa.)
2 Chronicles 15:16 49 / 150
10 So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa.)
2 Chronicles 15:16
(16 And also concerning Maachah the mother of Asa the king, he removed her from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove: and Asa cut down her idol,
and stamped it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron.)
2 Chronicles 15:19
(19 And there was no more war unto the five and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa.)
2 Chronicles 16:16
(1 In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah, and built Ramah, to the intent that he might let none go out or come in to
Asa king of Judah.
2 Then Asa brought out silver and gold out of the treasures of the house of the LORD and of the king's house, and sent to Benhadad king of Syria, that dwelt at
Damascus, saying,
3 There is a league between me and thee, as there was between my father and thy father: behold, I have sent thee silver and gold; go, break thy league with Baasha
king of Israel, that he may depart from me.
4 And Benhadad hearkened unto king Asa, and sent the captains of his armies against the cities of Israel; and they smote Ijon, and Dan, and Abelmaim, and all the
store cities of Naphtali.
5 And it came to pass, when Baasha heard it, that he left off building of Ramah, and let his work cease.
6 Then Asa the king took all Judah; and they carried away the stones of Ramah, and the timber thereof, wherewith Baasha was building; and he built therewith Geba
and Mizpah.)
2 Chronicles 16:1213
(12 And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to
the physicians.
13 And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign.)
So in the Chronicles account, we can see that for one thing, that in Asa's days there was 10 years of peace (which I believe that he started reigning as king of
Jerusalem, so to replace Abijah, after 10th year of these 10 years of peace, as we will see later), and sometime after the 10 years and the beginning of his reign in
Jerusalem, he had a war with this Zerah the Ethiopian, which may have been in his 15th year as king of Jerusalem, and in his 15th year, they gathered themselves
together at Jerusalem, and Asa removed his mom Maachah from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove: and Asa cut down her idol, and stamped it,
and burnt it at the brook Kidron.
And then sometime after this and maybe some other war (highly likely Asa's 26th year (1 Kings 16:68)), there was no more war, that is until the 35th year of Asa's
reign, and in his 39th year he got sick, and died in the 41rst year of his reign.
Now we have seen that according to 2 Chronicles, that Asa reigned in Jerusalem for 41 years, and remember that it was in "Jerusalem" for 41 years. And it appears
from other scriptures, which we will cover, that Asa may have had a pre or coreign, possibly with his father and others, somewhere other than Jerusalem, which there
was 10 years of peace, and then once these 10 years were done, he would have started to reign as king in Jerusalem, which would mean that Asa as a whole, with the
pre or coreign, plus the 41 years as king of Jerusalem, would equal to 51 years.
Now let us go to these scriptures.
1 Kings 15:16
(16 And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days.)
1 Kings 15:2528
(25 And Nadab the son of Jeroboam began to reign over Israel in the second year of Asa king of Judah, and reigned over Israel two years.
26 And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the way of his father, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin.
27 And Baasha the son of Ahijah, of the house of Issachar, conspired against him; and Baasha smote him at Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines; for Nadab
and all Israel laid siege to Gibbethon.
28 Even in the third year of Asa king of Judah did Baasha slay him, and reigned in his stead.)
Now remember that the 2 Chronicles scripture talks about a 10 year time of peace, with there being no war, but 1 Kings mentions how king Asa and king Baasha, had
war between themselves all their days, and when did Baasha come into power? In the 3rd year of king Asa.
So if there was a 10 year peace during Asa's time, with there being no war, and king Baasha started to reign in the 3rd year of Asa, which between Asa and Baasha,
they had wars all the time, which would not have been a time of peace, then obviously, this 3rd year reign of Asa (which is when Baasha came in), which is part of his
41 year reign in Jerusalem, is not referring at all to the years of the ten years peace, which the 10 years peace, would have had to have been a type of co or prereign
that Asa had before he became king of Jerusalem, and Baasha, became king I believe near the end of Asa's 3rd year, which they may have started an early war in the
4th year of Asa.
Now the first 3 years of Asa's reign as king of Jerusalem potentially could have been part of the 10 years peace, but as we will see by another scripture, that this is not
so.
And also in the scriptures above, it mentions this person of Nadab which he began to reign over Israel in the second year of Asa, and his reign was for 2 years, yet after
Nadab's reign, it says that Baasha began to reign as king of Israel, in the 3rd year of Asa.
Now how can this be, if Nadab began to reign in the second year of Asa, yet reigned for 2 years, and Baasha begins to reign in the 3rd year of Asa??? 50 / 150
Nadab's reign, it says that Baasha began to reign as king of Israel, in the 3rd year of Asa.
Now how can this be, if Nadab began to reign in the second year of Asa, yet reigned for 2 years, and Baasha begins to reign in the 3rd year of Asa???
Well this is the way I see it, and first of all, I believe that Nadab began to reign, at the beginning of Asa's second year, and that he ended his reign near the end of Asa's
3rd year, which he could have reigned for say, 23 months and say 5 days, or it could have been 22 months and 30 days etc,. which what I believe happened, is instead
of saying that he reigned for say 23 months and 5 days, they rounded it off to 2 years, so 2 years is basically an approximation, in this peticular case.
Infact people today often do approximations.
Now here are other interesting scriptures.
1 Kings 15:9
(9 And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah.)
1 Kings 14:20
(20 And the days which Jeroboam reigned were two and twenty years: and he slept with his fathers, and Nadab his son reigned in his stead.)
So Asa started to reign, in the 20th year of Jeroboam, and Jeroboam reigned for 22 years, so 2 years into Asa's reign, Jeroboam died, and at the beginning of
Jeroboam's 22 nd year (which is when he died), which was the beginning of Asa's second year, is when Nadab started to reign.
So now we go unto this king Baasha.
Now this king Baasha, started to reign near the end of Asa's 3rd year.
1 Kings 16:68
(6 So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah: and Elah his son reigned in his stead.
7 And also by the hand of the prophet Jehu the son of Hanani came the word of the LORD against Baasha, and against his house, even for all the evil that he did in the
sight of the LORD, in provoking him to anger with the work of his hands, in being like the house of Jeroboam; and because he killed him.
8 In the twenty and sixth year of Asa king of Judah began Elah the son of Baasha to reign over Israel in Tirzah, two years.)
1 Kings 15:33
(33 In the third year of Asa king of Judah began Baasha the son of Ahijah to reign over all Israel in Tirzah, twenty and four years.)
So it seems that some time during Asa's 26th year reign, is when Baasha died, and Baasha himself reigned as king of Israel (and not of Judah) for 24 years, so his reign
started near the end of Asa's 3rd year, so if you add say 4 + 24 it equals to 28, so yes Baasha reigned over all Israel in Tirzah, 24 years, but could have one of these
years been a type of reign, to were there was confusion in Israel, to whom was really reigning as king, wether it was Nadab or Baasha, and it is very obvious that there
was a conflict between Nadab and Baasha,
so that is why I believe that it says that he reigned 24 years, because maybe of this confused year and conflict between Baasha and Nadab, but if you count the rest of
the 23 year reign, from near the end of Asa's 3rd year, you would get unto Asa's 27th year, so roughly speaking, Baasha would have reigned from near the end of
Asa's 3rd year, to near the end of of Asa's 26 th year, just being shy of reaching Asa's 27th year.
So it's obvious that Baasha died during Asa's 26th year.
Here is an interesting quote.
(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)
(aasha bāásha ‫בּעשׁא‬, ba‛shā', “boldness”): King of Israel. Baasha, son of Ahijah, and of common birth (1Ki_16:2), usurped the throne of Nadab, the son of
Jeroboam, killed Nadab and exterminated the house of Jeroboam. He carried on a long warfare with Asa, the king of Judah (compare Jer_41:9), began to build
Ramah, but was prevented from completing this work by Benhadad, the king of Syria. He is told by the prophet Jehu that because of his sinful reign the fate of his
house would be like that of Jeroboam. Baasha reigned 24 years. His son Elah who succeeded him and all the members of his family were murdered by the usurper
Zimri (1Ki_15:16; 1Ki_16:1; 2Ch_16:1). The fate of his house is referred to in 1Ki_21:22; 2Ki_9:9. Compare ASA; ELAH; ZIMRI. )
Now we get to the 2 Chronicles 16:1 scripture, which we will show forth, verses 15.
2 Chronicles 16:15
(1 In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah, and built Ramah, to the intent that he might let none go out or come in to
Asa king of Judah.
2 Then Asa brought out silver and gold out of the treasures of the house of the LORD and of the king's house, and sent to Benhadad king of Syria, that dwelt at
Damascus, saying,
3 There is a league between me and thee, as there was between my father and thy father: behold, I have sent thee silver and gold; go, break thy league with Baasha
king of Israel, that he may depart from me.
4 And Benhadad hearkened unto king Asa, and sent the captains of his armies against the cities of Israel; and they smote Ijon, and Dan, and Abelmaim, and all the
store cities of Naphtali.
5 And it came to pass, when Baasha heard it, that he left off building of Ramah, and let his work cease.)
Now I do believe that the bible is totally accurate, and that the only true errors are just spelling mistakes, which you can still know what a verse is saying, even in the
spelling mistakes, and God said he would preserve his word, which he did, and it says that in the 36th year of Asa, which here should be an "comma," , Baasha king of
Israel came up against Israel, now how can this be? If Baasha was already dead in Asa's 26th year? 51 / 150
Now I do believe that the bible is totally accurate, and that the only true errors are just spelling mistakes, which you can still know what a verse is saying, even in the
spelling mistakes, and God said he would preserve his word, which he did, and it says that in the 36th year of Asa, which here should be an "comma," , Baasha king of
Israel came up against Israel, now how can this be? If Baasha was already dead in Asa's 26th year?
Well here, it was counting Asa's reign from the 10 years peace co or prereign, with the first 26 years of Asa's Jerusalem reign, which adds to 36 years, and I believe
that the reason why this peticular 36th year is mentioned was so to show proof of a co or prereign, which meshes perfectly with the 10 years prereign.
So yes indeed, Baasha died in Asa's 26th year as king of Jerusalem, but if you add the 10 years prereign with the 26 years, you get 36 years, which in this way,
Baasha died in Asa's 36th year which combines the 10 years prereign, and the 26 years of part of his Jerusalem reign.
So you can see that there is absolutely no contradiction here whatsoever.
Finally now unto, the more difficult socalled contradictions to deal with, from H. M. Baagil.
II Kings 8:26 II Chronicles 22:2
(Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.) (Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.)
Question: Was he twentytwo years old??? Or was he fortytwo years old??? Which is correct??
Refutation: Well let us get into it, right away.
Let us show forth what these scriptures say with also verses before and after, and then go on to other scriptures, so to see the whole picture of what it is talking about.
2 Kings 8:2529
(25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri
king of Israel.
27 And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the LORD, as did the house of Ahab: for he was the son in law of the house of Ahab.
28 And he went with Joram the son of Ahab to the war against Hazael king of Syria in Ramothgilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram.
29 And king Joram went back to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Syria. And
Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Joram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick.)
2 Chronicles 22:16
(1 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the
eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.
2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
3 He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab: for his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly.
4 Wherefore he did evil in the sight of the LORD like the house of Ahab: for they were his counsellors after the death of his father to his destruction.
5 He walked also after their counsel, and went with Jehoram the son of Ahab king of Israel to war against Hazael king of Syria at Ramothgilead: and the Syrians smote
Joram.
6 And he returned to be healed in Jezreel because of the wounds which were given him at Ramah, when he fought with Hazael king of Syria. And Azariah the son of
Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Jehoram the son of Ahab at Jezreel, because he was sick.)
So it talks about Ahaziah being 42 years when he began to reign, in 2 Chronicles, but in 2 Kings it says that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign, now yes
both scriptures mention the same events that happened afterwards, concerning the one year reign of Ahaziah, but what does these 2 different ages refer to?
Well before we go there, I want to quote something from the International Standard bible encyclopedia.
(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)
(...I. Ahaziah
Son of Ahab and Jezebel, eighth king of Israel (1 Ki 22:51 through 2 Ki 1:18).
1. His Reign
2. His Character
A good name does not insure a good character. Ahaziah, the “Godsustained,” served Baal and worshipped him, and provoked to anger Yahweh, the God of Israel,
Just as his father before him had done. He appears to have been weak and unfortunate, and calamities in quick succession pursued him.
3. The Revolt of Moab
Ahab had sought the good and became an enemy to the best. His house and the nation suffered the consequences. “Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of
Ahab.” Ahaziah appears to have been too weak to offer resistance. The Moabite Stone dates the revolt in the days of Ahab. No doubt it began at the time of Ahab's
last campaign against Syria.
4. His Maritime Alliance
52 / 150
4. His Maritime Alliance
According to 1Ki_22:48 f Ahaziah attempted to form an alliance with Jehoshaphat of Judah to revive the ancient maritime traffic, but failed. According to 2Ch_20:35
37 the alliance was consummated, in consequence of which the enterprise came to nothing. See JEHOSHAPHAT.
5. His Sickness and Death
Ahaziah suffered a severe accident by falling through the lattice in his upper apartment in Samaria, and lay sick. As a worthy son of Jezebel and Ahab, he sent
messengers to consult Baalzebub, the god of Ekron, regarding his recovery. But Israel belonged to Yahweh. Accordingly the messengers were met by the prophet
Elijah who for the last time warns against the corrupting moral influences of the Baal religion. “Thus saith Yahweh, 'Is it because there is no God in Israel, that thou
sendest to inquire of Baalzebub, the god of Ekron?' Therefore thou shalt not come down from the bed whither thou art gone up, but shalt surely die” was the message
which he sent back to the embassy, and the death of the king speedily followed. ...
...II. Ahaziah
Sixth king of Judah (2Ki_8:2529; 2Ki_9:16 f = 2Ch_22:19); also written Jehoahaz (2Ch_21:17; 2Ch_25:23), which is merely a transposition of the component parts
of the compound. The form “Azariah” (2Ch_22:6) is an error, fifteen Hebrew manuscripts and all the versions reading Ahaziah.
1. His Brief Reign
Ahaziah, youngest son of Jehoram, began to reign in the twelfth year (2Ki_8:25) of Jehoram of Israel. ...
...2. His Character
(Compare 2Ki_8:27; 2Ch_22:3, 2Ch_22:4.) In view of the disaster which befell the royal house (2Ch_21:16, 2Ch_21:17), the inhabitants of Jerusalem placed
Ahaziah the youngest son upon the throne. That “he walked in the way of the house of Ahab” is exemplified by Chronicles to the effect that his mother, the daughter of
Jezebel, counseled him in the ways of wickedness and that the house of Ahab led him to his destruction. The influence of Jezebel was at work in Judah. Ahaziah
dedicated “hallowed things” to Yahweh (2Ki_12:18), but he did evil in Yahweh's eyes.
3. His Alliance with Jehoram of Israel
(Compare 2Ki_8:28, 2Ki_8:29; 2Ch_22:5, 2Ch_22:6.) Ahaziah cultivated the relations which had been established between the two kingdoms by Ahab. Accordingly
he joined his uncle Jehoram of Israel in an expedition against Hazael, king of Syria. Ramothgilead was captured and held for Israel against the king of Syria
(2Ki_9:14). However, Jehoram of Israel was wounded and returned to Jezreel to be healed of his wounds. It appears that the army was left in charge of Jehu at
Ramothgilead. Ahaziah apparently went to Jerusalem and later went down to Jezreel to visit Jehoram. In the meantime Jehu formed a conspiracy against Jehoram.
4. His Death
...According to the account in Kings, Ahaziah who is visiting Jehoram, joins him in a separate chariot to meet Jehu. Jehoram suspecting treachery turns to flee, but an
arrow from the bow of Jehu pierces his heart and he dies in his chariot. Ahaziah tries to escape, but is overtaken near Ibleam and mortally wounded by one of Jehu's
men. He fled to the fortress of Megiddo, where he died. His servants conveyed his body in a chariot to Jerusalem, where he was buried....)
So the bible mentions 2 Ahaziahs, which both of these are not the same, and one was the 8th king of Israel, and the other was the 6th king of Judah, which I wanted to
mention this so that there is no confusion between whom the 2 are.
Now Ahaziah was the youngest son of Jehoram, now some say that Jehoram was 40 years old when his son Ahaziah began to reign in Judah, now was that really so?
2 Chronicles 21:5
(5 Jehoram was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.)
2 Chronicles 21:1220
(12 And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of David thy father, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of
Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah,
13 But hast walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and hast made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go a whoring, like to the whoredoms of the house of
Ahab, and also hast slain thy brethren of thy father's house, which were better than thyself:
14 Behold, with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people, and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods:
15 And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.
16 Moreover the LORD stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians, that were near the Ethiopians:
17 And they came up into Judah, and brake into it, and carried away all the substance that was found in the king's house, and his sons also, and his wives; so that there
was never a son left him, save Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons.
18 And after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease.
19 And it came to pass, that in process of time, after the end of two years, his bowels fell out by reason of his sickness: so he died of sore diseases. And his people
made no burning for him, like the burning of his fathers.
20 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in
the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.)
2 Chronicles 22:12
(1 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the
2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.)
53 / 150
So it is quite obvious by these scriptures that Ahaziah's father, Jehoram was indeed 40 years old, when Ahaziah his youngest, began to reign, and obviously died at 40,
2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.)
So it is quite obvious by these scriptures that Ahaziah's father, Jehoram was indeed 40 years old, when Ahaziah his youngest, began to reign, and obviously died at 40,
thus the throne falling upon his youngest son (because of the others being killed), so it is obvious that Ahaziah could not have been 42 years old when he began to reign,
for his dad was 40 years old (though dead), but him being 22 years old, makes total sense, so the 2 Kings 8:26 account is indeed the true age that Ahaziah was when
he began to reign, but what is this 42 years old thing that Chronicles mentions?
Well the only thing that I can see, which you can see by comparing scriptures with scriptures, what something is saying, is that it may be that this 42 years old thing was
allowed by God to be in the bible, so to show forth how some people were deceptive back then, and it may be that the people that told the ones who wrote
Chronicles, this 42 years old thing, was doing so because they may have had a certain agenda, and maybe they wanted to boost up Ahaziah's age, so the people would
respect him more, and things get reconciled with the Kings scripture of 22 years old, of what the true age was, but the Chronicles version, especially in this peticular
case, is there to show forth how some of the people back then were, which was deceptive.
God does not hide the events that took place back then, and how they took place, and everything gets reconciled by comparing scriptures with scriptures, of what
something is saying and is not saying, so I do not believe it was a scribal error, but rather something that God wanted us to see, of how some people were back then.
And now unto our last socalled contradiction.
II Kings 24:8 II Chronicles 36:9
(Jehoiachim was eighteen years old when he began to reign and he reigned in (Jehoiachim was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three
Jerusalem three months.) months and ten days in Jerusalem.)
Question: Was he eight years old or was he eighteen years old????? Question: Did he reign for three months only or for three months & ten days???
Refutation: Well here, let us just simply show forth these scriptures, and things it says afterwards.
2 Kings 24:815
(8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan
of Jerusalem.
9 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done.
10 At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged.
11 And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it.
12 And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon
took him in the eighth year of his reign.
13 And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king's house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon
king of Israel had made in the temple of the LORD, as the LORD had said.
14 And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none
remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.
15 And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king's mother, and the king's wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity
from Jerusalem to Babylon.)
2 Chronicles 36:914
(9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the
LORD.
10 And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah
his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.
11 Zedekiah was one and twenty years old when he began to reign, and reigned eleven years in Jerusalem.
12 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD his God, and humbled not himself before Jeremiah the prophet speaking from the mouth of the LORD.
13 And he also rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God: but he stiffened his neck, and hardened his heart from turning unto the LORD
God of Israel.
14 Moreover all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the LORD which he
had hallowed in Jerusalem.)
Well the events that are spoken of , after it shows forth the age of Jehoiachin, are very similar in both Chronicles and Kings, so it is pretty obvious, that they are both
speaking of the same time.
Now it says in the Kings version, that Jehoiachin reigned for 3 months being of the age of 18, but the Chronicles version mentions him reigning for 3 months and 10
days, with being of the age of 8 years old.
Now I believe that at the point, when Nebuchadnessar besieged Jerusalem in this case, is when Jehoiachin reigned for 3 months, at the age of 18, so when the events of
both Chronicles and Kings happened, which is events mentioned after it mentions Jehoiachin's age, I believe that in these events, that this was Jehoiachin's 3 month
reign at the age of 18.
So if that is the case, which it is, then what is this thing concerning Jehoiachin reigning at the age of 8, for 3 months and 10 days?
Well the only thing that I can see, which does not contradict anything, is this, is that here it was mentioning of how that Jehoiachin, may have had a pre or coreign with
someone, at the age of 8 years old, for 3 months, and this was just mentioning that event, which was probably done so to give him experience, but the things mentioned
afterwards, were events that happened, when Jehoiachin was 18 years old, which he reigned for 3 months, and that is what I believe it is referring to, which really
contradicts nothing.
54 / 150
afterwards, were events that happened, when Jehoiachin was 18 years old, which he reigned for 3 months, and that is what I believe it is referring to, which really
contradicts nothing.
So here we have it, the socalled contradictions area, finally done with.
At this time, now that we have covered the socalled contradictions area, I want to cover things concerning Mohammad, Allah (the Muslim god), the Quoran, the
Mormons, cults and the bible.
Now let's go to comparisons concerning Mohammad.
Mohammad
First of all, let us get into a bit of history, concerning Mohammad.
(http://prophetofislam.com)
(Muhammad ibn (son of) Abdullah ibn (son of) Abdul Mutalib, was born in the year 570 C.E. (Christian Era) in Makkah, Felix Arabia (today: Saudi Arabia) and he
died in 633 C.E. in Yathrib (today: Madinah, Saudi Arabia).
A. His names: When he was born, his grandfather, Abdul Mutalib, gave him the name Muhammad. And it means "praised one" or "praising one." He was later called
"AsSaddiq" (the Truthful)...)
How did Mohammad get the revelation of the Quoran?
(The Qur’an[1] (Arabic: ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ‬ alqur’ān, literally “the recitation”; also sometimes transliterated as Quran, Qur’ān, Koran, Alcoran or AlQur’ān) is the central religious
text of Islam. Muslims believe the Qur’an to be the book of divine guidance and direction for mankind, and consider the original Arabic text to be the final revelation of
God.[2][3][4][5]
Islam holds that the Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad by the angel Jibrīl (Gabriel) from 610 CE to his death in 632 CE.[2][6][7] It further believes the Qur’an was
written down by Muhammad's companions while he was alive, although the prime method of transmission was oral. It maintains that in 633 CE, the written text was
compiled, and in 653 CE it was standardized, distributed in the Islamic empire and produced in large numbers.[8] The present form of the Qur’an is regarded as God's
revelation to Muhammad by Muslim believers.)
Now in my observation of cults, often times, their religion or group was started by a certain peticular man getting a socalled revelation by God.
Now here is a comparison of 2 religions, having one man (one of each religion) getting peticular revelations from they say, God.
Mohammad (Muslims) Joseph Smith (Mormons)
(http://www.alazhr.com/lib/prophet/ch6/link2.htm) (Encyclopedia Wikipedia)
(The Quran was revealed through Prophet Muhammad. A physical change came (Joseph Smith
over the Prophet, like one in a trance, each time he received a revelation. These
utterances were written down immodiately by the Companions on any available (Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) was the founder of the
writing material. The written pieces were distributed among the Muslims and many Latter Day Saint movement, also known as Mormonism, and an important
committed them to memory. Under the directions of the Prophet himself, the religious and political figure during the 1830s and 1840s. In 1827, Smith began to
chapters and verses were arranged by the soribes according to significance and gather a religious following after announcing that an angel had shown him a set of
not in chronological order. Each Surah (chapter) was given a distinctive heading golden plates describing a visit of Jesus to the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
and contains a varying number of Ayats (verses), and they are thus of very In 1830, Smith published what he said was a translation of these plates as the
unequal size. Muhammad used to make reference to chapter and verse whenever Book of Mormon, and the same year he organized the Church of Christ.
he quoted the Quran or asked a reciter to do so. Soon after the death of the
Prophet, many of the reciters of the Quran were killed during the battle of First Vision Main article: First Vision
Yamamah, and in order to safeguard against any possibility of the Quran being
lost, Abu Bakr, the first Caliph (successor of Muhammad), ordered the written In 1832 (when he first recorded the experiencethough he had recounted the
pieces to be collected together and kept in a chest. This was done in less than two event to close family and friends soon after the original event), Smith said that as a
years after the death of the of Abu Bakr, copies of the Quran were transcribed fourteenyearold in 1820, he had received a theophany, an appearance of God
and Osman employed the same Zaid ibn Sabit and other reliable scribes to do the to man, an event that Latter Day Saints commonly call the First Vision. Smith
work. Osman with the help of twelve presons, with Ali at their head, all of whom recorded several accounts of this experience,[2] and the version later canonized
knew the whole of the Quran by heart, supervised and tested the accuracy of the by the LDS Church was first publicly revealed in 1838.[3] Smith said that he had
transcriptions as the work was proceeding. These authentic volumes, with the seal been concerned about what denomination to join and prayed in a nearby woods
and signature of Osman, were distributed within eleven years of the death of the (now called the Sacred Grove). There he had a vision in which he saw God the
Prophet, to such distant lands as Iraq, Persia, Syria, Palestine arid Egypt. Thanks Father and his Son, Jesus Christ as two separate, glorious, resurrected beings of
to the care of early Muslims, every copy of the Quran today is exactly word for flesh and bone. They told him that no contemporary church was correct in its
word as it was uttered by the Prophet.) teachings, and that he should join none of them.[4]...)
Book of Mormon
( The Book of Mormon is a sacred text of the churches of the Latter Day Saint
movement. It was first published in March 1830 by Joseph Smith, Jr. as The
Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates
55 / 150
Taken from the Plates of Nephi.[1] According to Smith, the book was originally
written in otherwise unknown characters referred to as "reformed Egyptian" on
movement. It was first published in March 1830 by Joseph Smith, Jr. as The
Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates
Taken from the Plates of Nephi.[1] According to Smith, the book was originally
written in otherwise unknown characters referred to as "reformed Egyptian" on
golden plates that he discovered in 1823 and then translated. The plates, Smith
said, had been buried in a hill near his home in Manchester, New York, where he
found them by the guidance of an angel, the spirit of an ancient American prophet
historian, named Moroni....)
Many religions, cults etc. are usually based on the revelations of one man, but the difference between the bible and these religions, is in this case, that the bible was
revealed to many men, and I believe this was done for the sake of no one particular man, being able to claim to having the whole revelation of God, but when one man
is focused on, the glory and focus tends to be on them, and that is why I believe that God, reveal his word to many people, prophets etc. so that no one man could get
the glory.
The thing with cults is, is a peticular man is the usual focus and gets the glory.
God knows men's hearts, it is easy for a man to get puffed up, and because of this, I believe that God chose to reveal the revelations of the bible, to many people, such
as Moses, Paul, David etc.
The God of the bible is a wise God in every way!!!
He does not want any man to get any of his glory!!!
Now let's compare Mohammad's life with the Quoran.
Mohammad's life The Quoran
Had many wives Permits many wives
(www.readingislam.com) (Surah 4:23 AnNisa')
(Who Were the Prophet's Wives? Prophet Muhammad married 12 wives in his ( 2. To orphans restore their property (When they reach their age), nor substitute
life. When he died he had 9 wives. (your) worthless things for (their) good ones; and devour not their substance (by
mixing it up) with your own. For this is indeed a great sin.
They have a very special status in the hearts of Muslims as the "Mothers of the 3. If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women
Believers," as the Qur'an instructs, and they are the source of a great amount of of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal
wisdom which they learned while living close to such a great man. justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that
will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.)
Perhaps you'd like to research a bit to find their beautiful stories, so here are their
names: (Surah 33:50 AlAhzab)
Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, (50. O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid
Sawdah bint Zam'ah, their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war
À'ishah bint Abi Bakr, whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts,
Hafsah bint Ùmar ibn AlKhattab, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with
Zaynab bint Khuzaymah, thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the
Umm Salama, Prophet wishes to wed her; this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large);
Zaynab bint Jahsh, We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives
Juwayriah bint AlHarith, whom their right hands possess; in order that there should be no difficulty for
Umm Habibah, thee. And Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.)
Safiyah bint Huyay ibn Akhtab,
Maymunah bint AlHarith, (Surah 33:53 AlAhzab)
Maria the Copt.)
(53. ... Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah.s Messenger, or that ye
should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in Allah.s sight
an enormity.)
Surah 4:3, only allows for a Muslim to have at the maximum 3 or 4 wives, why
was Muhammad allowed more? Well many Muslims believed that because he was
a prophet, he was a priviledged one, and married many for a bunch of peticular
So here it shows that Muhammad had 12 wives, which most Muslims believe, reasons.
which I have looked at many Muslim comments on this.
Surah 30:50 says this:"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to
Now why was Muhammad allowed to have 12 wives? whom thou hast paid their dowers...", their Allah obviously by this verse, allowed
Muhammad to have his many wives, it says, to whom he hast paid their dowers.
And how many wives were Muslims allowed to have, according to the Quoran?
And of course by Surah 33:53, it shows that Muhammad's wives could not be
Was Muhammad a priviledged one? given to others after him, that is when they would become widows, for that is
enormity to their Allah.
So it is obvious that the Allah of the Quoran, had favourtism towards Mohammad,
56 / 150
and Mohammad was a priviledged one of being able to have more wives than
others.
So it is obvious that the Allah of the Quoran, had favourtism towards Mohammad,
and Mohammad was a priviledged one of being able to have more wives than
others.
All of this really makes me wonder of the true intentions of Mohammad and the Quoran, because it seems like a very convenient gospel for Mohammad, and in some
cases, he seems to be an exempt one.
Is the Quoran really about a person named Mohammad, who wanted to impose his gospel upon other people? Or his god?
Because this exemption, priviledged stuff, seems very bizarre, and does get people questioning Muhammad's motives.
It does not seem like a very honest gospel to me, and I am being truly honest about this.
Now I want to cover, just one more, Muhammad, Quoranic, comparison, and then I will cover a biblical and Quoranic comparison.
Mohammad's life The Quoran
(www.readingislam.com) (Surah 23:91 AlMuminun)
(The Prophet's own father had died just before his son was born, and Muhammad (91. No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were
lost his mother and then his grandfather while still young, so he was taken into the many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and
care of his paternal uncle Abu Talib.) some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah. (He is free) from the (sort
of) things they attribute to Him!)
Muhammad did not get to know his father, for he died before he was born, and at The God of the Quoran has no son, and is not a father to anyone.
a young age, so did his mother and grandfather. He got partially raised by his
mom, but especially by his uncle. Muhammad was basically fatherless, is there a similarity between Muhammad's
life, and the description of his god?
Because of Muhammad not knowing his father, and basically being without father,
could this have motivated his taughts, concerning his god being a father to no one?
The Muslim religion seemed a very convenient religion for Muhammad, as I said before, and here there seems to be striking similarities between Muhammad's life and
the description of his god, as being a father to no one, are we getting a look into the mind of Muhammad here?
Did he have a feeling of being fatherless?
Well one thing I can't deny is that some things in the Quoran, seem to fit the life of Muhammad.
Now let us go to a biblical and Quoranic comparison.
The Bible The Quoran
Ephesians 6:20 (Surah 17:111 AlIsra')
(20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I (111. Say: "Praise be to Allah, who begets no son, and has no partner in (His)
ought to speak.) dominion: Nor (needs) He any to protect Him from humiliation: yea, magnify Him
for His greatness and glory!" )
James 2:23
(Surah 4:125 AnNisa')
(23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was
imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.) (125. Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to Allah,
does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For Allah did take
Romans 8:16 Abraham for a friend.)
(16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of (Surah 23:91 AlMuminun)
God:)
(91. No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were
1 Peter 2:9 many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and
some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah. (He is free) from the (sort
(9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar of) things they attribute to Him!)
people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of
darkness into his marvellous light:) (Surah 5:18 AlMa'ida)
1 Timothy 1:2 (18. (Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his
beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but
(2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God men, of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He
our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.) punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens
57 / 150
and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)")
(2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God men, of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He
our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.) punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens
and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)")
Now the god of Islam, is not that personable, yes he will call his servants friends,
The God of the bible is very personable, you can get to know him in a deep way, but it is not based on a deep relationship, but rather just performance. He does
and have a deep relationship with him. God is so personable that he calls all they not call his followers children, ambassadors etc., a man cannot call him father, and
that follow him a child, son, daughter, and also he calls us friends, ambasadors, an the list goes on. You cannot get to know their god in a deep relationship, as you
holy priesthood, an holy nation, and a host of other things, and we can, in return know the God of the bible. Not very personable if you ask me.
call him father!!!! It is a loving father and son relationship, but in the case of God
being a greater and deeper love, than human love. That is a God you can get
familiar with, and can actually feel the care, and yes even though God chastises
believers, and seeks to draw unbelievers to himself (not by force), he still makes
believers feel a sense of worthiness, by him accepting us as ambassadors for him
etc., I am honoured by that.
What kind of God would you want to serve, a God you can know in a deep way, that is very personable? Or a god that is not that knowable, and is not that
personable?
Now here is an interesting quote, from a Muslim, concerning their god and Muhammad.
And it seems to be a very general Muslim view, as I researched, and saw similar views in other Muslim websites.
Here it is:
(www.islamiclearningmaterials.com (email))
(...You ask: Does Allah lead the people by giving them his instructions to follow?
When I think of the word "lead" as you used it in this question, I think of a person or individual.
If we take the above question with the followup question: "Or does he lead by example also?" it sounds even more "human."
I prefer the word "guide". Now, if you say "Does Allah guide the people by giving them His instructions to follow?" I can answer that with a definitive "YES." Allah
has given us His instructions in the Quran and in the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The Quran is a guide to living a moral and righteous life,
and attaining the blessings of Allah.
But the followup question poses a problem. When one uses the phrase "lead by example" they are usually indicating that a person sets an example with their
behavior that others should follow. For instance, a boss may lead by example by coming in to work early every day. When the employees see this behavior, some of
them may be inclined to imitate the boss.
This cannot apply to Allah. In order for anyone to lead by example, there must be a pattern of behavior that can be witnessed and imitated. But we cannot see Allah.
And we cannot imitate Allah.
However, Allah has sent us an example to follow in the person of Prophet Muhammad, may Allah be pleased with him. The Quran, which is the word of Allah,
verifies this fact in the following verses:
And obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad), and beware and fear Allah. Then if you turn away, you should know that it is Our Messenger’s duty
to convey (the Message) in the clearest way.
Chapter 5 verse 92
You have an excellent model in the Messenger of Allah, for all who put their hope in Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah much.
Chapter 33 verse 21
Prophet Muhammad is the best example Muslims should aspire to imitate.
...To conclude, we cannot follow the example of Allah. That is impossible. We follow His teachings and obey His instructions. And we follow the example of His last
prophet, Muhammad, peace be upon him.)
I just have to say, wow!!! to that. Their god isn't even an example to them, yet their greatest example, is a priviledge man who is allowed to have 12 wives.
Muhammad's example is the one to attain to ???
How does this differ with the God of the bible?
Well let us compare this thing about their Allah, not being a god of example, with the God of the bible.
The God of the Bible The god of the Quoran 58 / 150

The God of the Bible The god of the Quoran
Genenesis 3:21 (Surah 7:1927 AlA'raf)
(21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and ( 19. "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things)
clothed them.) as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."
20. Then began Satan to whisper suggestions to them, bringing openly before their
Genesis 2:23 minds all their shame that was hidden from them (before): he said: "Your Lord
only forbade you this tree, lest ye should become angels or such beings as live for
(2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he ever."
rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God 21. And he swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser.
blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all 22. So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their
his work which God created and made.) shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the
garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: "Did I not forbid you
Exodus that tree, and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy unto you?"
23. They said: "Our Lord! We have wronged our own souls: If thou forgive us not
23:12 and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, we shall certainly be lost."
24. ((Allah)) said: "Get ye down. With enmity between yourselves. On earth will
(12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that be your dwellingplace and your means of livelihood, for a time."
thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, 25. He said: "Therein shall ye live, and therein shall ye die; but from it shall ye be
may be refreshed.) taken out (at last)."
26. O ye Children of Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover your
Hebrews 7:13 shame, as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness,
that is the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive
(1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met admonition!
Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 27. O ye Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you, in the same manner as He
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation got your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their raiment, to expose their
King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; shame: for he and his tribe watch you from a position where ye cannot see them:
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of We made the evil ones friends (only) to those without faith.)
days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest
continually.) (Surah 22:37 AlHajj)
John 13:1315 (37. It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah. it is your piety that
reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for
(13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. His Guidance to you and proclaim the good news to all who do right.)
14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash
one another's feet.
15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.)
The God of the bible, is an example to the church, in every way shape or form!!!
First of all God killed an animal so to make coats of skin for them, and in essence, this was an example for men of what was to come, which was animal sacrifices so to
cover men's sins.
The bible says "...without shedding of blood is no remission..." (Hebrews 9:22).
Now blood represented life, infact the bible says this:"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your
souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." (Leviticus 17:11).
Without blood, a person or animal cannot live, and under the old covenant, they had to do animal sacrifices (mainly sheep, which represented innocence), which
covered the sins of the people, but could not totally cleanse the conscience of the person, that is why God (Jesus) had to come, for he was a perfect sacrifice, and his
perfect blood, could now cleanse a person totally clean from sin.
Remember that blood represented life, and Jesus gave his life so that we may have life, that is a power filled life, that is free from sin.
And even though he shed his blood on the cross, Jesus also brought a portion of his blood to Heaven to pour it on the Heavenly altar, in heaven (Hebrews 9:1112).
And now the portion of his blood that he brought to heaven, gets poured out, in a spiritual form, within our souls, and about our spiritual hearts, that is as people receive
his salvation.
So that is how God chose to redeem man, he chose to use something that represents life, which through Christ, he actually gave us life.
The gospel is about true freedom and true life, in Christ.
So God was an example to men, in the form of making the first sacrifice, which he clothed Adam and Eves' nakedness physically, but it also pointed to the covering of
their sins spiritually, which was a patern for men to eventually follow, through animal sacrifices.
Also God was an example to men, in the form of priesthood, for Melchisedec is known to refer to Jesus, which under the old covenant God (Jesus) appeared for a
brief moment as a man, in the form of a high priest, which I believe he did so, so to be an example to the people of priesthood.
Another example, that God gave to man was resting on the 7th day, and it is not that God needed rest, but that he did so, so to be an example to men, so to have a day
of rest, and under the old covenant, they were commanded to rest on the 7th day, they had 6 days of work, and one day of rest.
59 / 150
The God of the bible, just doesn't talk about doing things, but he also gives an example for men of how to do things, and how to follow after his example, God puts the
Another example, that God gave to man was resting on the 7th day, and it is not that God needed rest, but that he did so, so to be an example to men, so to have a day
of rest, and under the old covenant, they were commanded to rest on the 7th day, they had 6 days of work, and one day of rest.
The God of the bible, just doesn't talk about doing things, but he also gives an example for men of how to do things, and how to follow after his example, God puts the
peddle to the metal, unlike some other gods, who do not even bother to be an example to men.
It is better to lead by example, than just dictate and talk about things.
And even yet again, God through the person of Jesus, showed us how to walk the walk, and Jesus, who was actually God , died for our sins, now that is a God who
loves, and wants us to know without a shadow of a doubt, of how we ought to follow him.
Now that is a God that cares, in every way shape or form, unlike the god of the Quoran.
Now concerning the god of the Quoran, yes mercy is mentioned concerning him, but he does not lead by example, and yes he clothed Adam and Eve, but it had
nothing to do with a blood sacrifice, or something for men to follow, for the sake of some type of redemption, for the Muslims do not believe in redemption, through the
blood of Jesus, it is redemption, without blood, or redemption without life!!!
Even though it is said they must have faith in the Quoran, which they say is Allah's words, their god is pleased more in piety, or obedience, rather than giving someone
life, through himself.
It is a works based salvation.
Now yes in the bible , the God of the bible loves obedience etc, but it is obedience, through us seeking for his life and strength, so we can accomplish what he asks, it is
life through another person's life, that is through Christ Jesus. It is not life in our works and obedience, and getting merrits therein.
Men are very clever, in saying things, so be careful in reading things concerning religion, for some things appear to be the same thing, but deep study often reveals the
true truth.

Now let us go on, unto other parts of this study.
Let us cover stuff concerning the trinity, and what some of the religions say, concerning how that doctrine, to them is false, and showing forth the truth of the trinity, and
what the bible says.
Trinity
There is a big attack going on, concerning the doctrine of the trinity today, infact quite a bit of religions speak against it, or just do not acknowledge it.
Here we will cover just a few of them.
So here are religions, cults etc., who speak against the doctrine of the trinity or just do not acknowledge it.
Muslim religion Jewish religion Jehovah's Witnesses United Pentecostals Hinduism Bhudism Sikhism
(www.answering (www.basicjudaism.org) (www.watchtower.org) (www.upci.org) (www.hinduwebsite.com) (www.buddhanet.net) (www.realsikhism.com)

christianity .com)
(...# Monotheism (...Thus, the true God is (...In distinction to the (...Brahma, Vishnu and (...QUESTION: Do Buddhists (...Sikhs do not believe
(... The Koran states Judaism is based on readily distinguishable doctrine of the Trinity, Mahesa constitute the believe in a god? ANSWER: in any trinity. As Guru
unequivocally, that God strict unitarian from the many false the UPCI holds to a trinity of Hinduism. No, we do not. There are Granth Sahib (the Holy
is just one (indivisible) monotheism, the belief gods. He is the almighty oneness view of God. It Brahma is the creator, several reasons for this. The Scripture of Sikhs)
and that no one can be in one God. God is Creator of the universe, views the Trinitarian Vishnu is the preserver Buddha, like modern states on its first page,
held equal to God. This conceived of as eternal, including planet Earth concept of God, that of and Siva is the destroyer. sociologists and first line, and first word,
forms the very heart and the creator of the and mankind upon it. He God eternally existing as They are assisted in their psychologists, believed that “God is One.”...
the basis of the system universe, and the source has a unique personal three distinctive duties, by their consorts, religious ideas and especially
...God is the greatest
called Islam. The of morality. name—Jehovah, or persons, as inadequate or associated goddesses the god idea have their origins
spirit of all and our soul
Christian articles of # God is one The idea Yahweh. He is no part of and a departure from the namely, Saraswathi, in fear. is a part of God. Our
GodIncarnate, Son of of God as a duality or a mysterious triune god, consistent and emphatic Lakshmi and Parvathi ...all have the potential to soul has been separated
God, Holy Trinity, trinity is heretical for or Trinity...) biblical revelation of respectively.... develop into a Buddha – a from God and it’s
clearly violate the Jews to hold; it is God being one... perfected human being.... dignity remains in
oneness of God that considered akin to ...The UPCI teaches that ...To the question ... As the Buddha says: No one
merging back with God.
Islam teaches...) polytheism....) the one God who whether these gods are saves us but ourselves, No oneThe purpose of this life
revealed Himself in the different, the answer is can and no one may. ... is to become one with
Old Testament as both yes and no. They God, to merge in the
Jehovah revealed are different because, (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do One whom we
himself in His Son, from human point of _Buddhists_believe_in_god) originated from....)
Jesus Christ.....) view they perform
different tasks, have ...But Buddhists are not bound
qualities and energies to any belief structure or
that differ widely from dogma, so some buddists are
one another and also atheists and some are theists
control different worlds (believe in God). Whether or
that seem to set widely not there is a god or gods is
apart. But as we have not important in buddhism...
mentioned earlier, at the
highest level they are the (http://amidatrust.typepad.com)
three aspects of the one
and the same supreme (...So the Buddhist trinity is
Reality....) three bodies of one person
whereasw the Christian trinity
is three persons....) 60 / 150
Reality....) three bodies of one person
whereasw the Christian trinity
is three persons....)
So the Muslims speak against the trinity, saying that their Allah has no equal and is one, the Jews also speak against the trinity.
Now the group known as the Jehovah's Witnesses also do not accept the doctrine of the trinity, nor do the United Pentecostals, which are known as a oneness group,
which believe that the Father, son and Holy Ghost, are all Jesus.
Now Hinduism has a certain type of trinity, but it is not the same as the trinity of the bible, nor do they aknowledge the biblical God as a trinity, and their trinity, is 3
gods, yet these 3 seperate gods, all eminate from the one, and they have a host of many gods.
Now the Buddhists on the other hand have no need for a god, they have a certain type of trinity which there are three bodies of one person. They are their own
salvation, and can become a Bhuda.
Now we go unto the Sikh side of things. The Sikhs do not also, believe in the trinity, they say that God is one, and that our soul is part of God.
Now what about Catholicism?
Well here is a kind of tricky question, yes they acknowledge the trinity, in a certain fashion, and they will say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are 3
persons, yet one God, yet if you look at their other doctrines, they lift up extremely highly Mary, and they do to a certain extent saints, and even the Pope.
But I want to mainly deal, about what they say about Mary.
Here are quotes of what they say of Mary.
(www.catholicpages.com)
(... Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into
heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin
and death.
Pius XII Munificentissimus Deus
As part of the infallible declaration that the Virgin Mary was assumed into Heaven, Pope Pius XII also defined that she was crowned Queen of the Universe.
Thus, as with Our Lord, who is at once our Lord and our brother, she is our tender and loving Mother, and our Glorious and Honourable Queen. ...)
(http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2005/09/marymotherofgod.html)
(...Above all, we know that Mary is not just the Mother of God but also our mother as well because Jesus gave her to us: "When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and
the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that
hour the disciple took her into his own household" (John 19:2627)...)
(www.catholicplanet.com)
(...Pope John Paul II: “Dear brothers and sisters! Let us turn our eyes to the Immaculate, all Holy and all Fair. May Mary, our Advocate, Mother of the ‘King of
Peace’, who crushes the serpent's head, help us...
...Pope Leo XIII: “The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine
grace...
...Pope Leo XIII: “She it is from whom is born Jesus; she is therefore truly His mother, and for this reason a worthy and acceptable ‘Mediatrix to the Mediator.’...
...The feminine role called “Mediatrix” is to be a helper to the Mediator. Christ mediates between God and humanity; Mary merely assists Christ. Mary participates in
Christ’s mediation, but she herself does not mediate....
...Mary’s role as Advocatrix is not to advocate for us before God, but to assist Christ in His role as our Advocate before God. The Virgin Mary participates in
Christ’s work of advocacy, but she does not, in any way whatsoever, act as an advocate herself....)
(www.catholicdoors.com/songs/marian/maria011.htm)
( (this is part of a song sung to Mary called:"SING OF MARY, PURE AND LOWLY". They sing many songs to Mary.)
...Sing of Mary, pure and lowly,
Virgin mother undefiled,
Sing of God's own Son most holy,
Who became her little child.
Fairest child of fairest mother,
God the Lord who came to earth,
Word made flesh, our very brother,
Takes our nature by his birth. ...)
(www.romancatholic.com)
(...We believe that Mary is the New Eve. She was conceived without "Original Sin" being redeemed by Christ her Son through anticipation of His redemption and the
Merits He won upon the Cross. We call this privilege of His Grace the Immaculate Conception. She was preserved from sin her entire life in keeping with her dignity
as Mother of God and Spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was a virgin, perfectly integral, untouched, and undefiled, before, during and after the conception and
miraculous birth of Jesus her only begotten Son. She remained a virgin until the end of her life on earth, at which time she was Assumed by God into Heaven, body
and soul. She is Mother of the Church and our Mother. We invoke her under the titles of Mediatrix and Queen....) 61 / 150
as Mother of God and Spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was a virgin, perfectly integral, untouched, and undefiled, before, during and after the conception and
miraculous birth of Jesus her only begotten Son. She remained a virgin until the end of her life on earth, at which time she was Assumed by God into Heaven, body
and soul. She is Mother of the Church and our Mother. We invoke her under the titles of Mediatrix and Queen....)
(www.thecatholicrosary.com)
(...# Begin by making the sign of the cross. Then say the Apostle's Creed.
# Recite the Our Father.
# Recite a Hail Mary on each of these three beads asking for faith, hope, and charity.
# Recite the Glory Be followed by the Our Father. Then announce or focus on the first mystery depending on the day of the week as explained below.
# Say 10 Hail Mary's, one for each bead of the decade.
# Say a Glory Be and a Fatima Prayer. Then announce or meditate on the second mystery. Finally say the Lord's Prayer.
# 10 Hail Mary's.
# Glory Be, Fatima Prayer, Meditate on the third Mystery, and say the Lord's Prayer.
# 10 Hail Mary's.
# Glory Be, Fatima Prayer, Meditate on the fourth Mystery, and say the Lord's Prayer.
# 10 Hail Mary's.
# Glory Be, Fatima Prayer, Meditate on the fifth Mystery, and say the Lord's Prayer.
# 10 Hail Mary's.
# Glory Be, Fatima Prayer, Hail Holy Queen, and then the Rosary Prayer. End with making the Sign of the Cross)
Now Catholicism prays to Mary, and they say that it is praying to her, so she can pray for them, on their behalf, to Jesus!!! There are tons of prayers, on the Internet,
called Marian prayers, so there is no doubt that they truly do pray to her, which some say they pray through her, but in true honest reality, they pray to her, for they ask
her to pray for them in some fashion, and say words of honor to her etc.
Does the bible allow us to pray to Mary or the dead saints?
Well for one thing, as I read, how Catholicism says that Mary never died, and that she was sinless, and a coredemptrice, and mediatrix, advocatrix, after a certain
sense etc.
Now there is no where in the bible, that shows us that we can pray to Mary, no not one place.
What about prayer to the dead saints?
Deuteronmy 18:911
(9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an
enchanter, or a witch,
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.)
A consulter of familiar spirits, is someone who seeks to invoke or pray to the dead, for something, which is not really a dead person, but an evil spirit.
God forbids us to consult or have someone to pray to the dead for us, it is an abomination to God.
So the Mary of Catholicism, was sinless and never died, and they say they do not worship Mary, yet there are all kinds of veneration songs, sung to her, now that is
quite an hyprocritical statement, for they truly, in honest truth, worship her, and they can say all they want, concerning how they do not worship her, but their actions
contradict what they say, their actions speak louder than their words!!!
Mary is also called the Mother of humankind, but also the "mother of God"!!!
First of all, yes Mary gave birth to Jesus, but she did not give birth to him as God, but rather as a man, she never gave birth to the God side of Jesus, for Jesus always
was, so to claim that she was the mother of God, is a claim, that almost makes her higher than God, and that is just the truth, you have to take it at face value of what it
really is saying.
Also they call Mary "the queen of heaven".
Well there was a person called the queen of heaven, in the bible, and this is what the bible has to say about it.
Jeremiah 7:1719
(17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings
unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?)
There are a few verses that mention the queen of heaven, and all of them speak negatively about the queen of heaven, and God calls this another god.
Catholicism truly has it's roots, from the ancient Babylonian religion, of Semiramis, which was called the "queen of heaven", and Nimrod. And they had a child called
Tamuz, which was known as the sun god. The first pope, which is said to be Constantine (and not Peter), was said to have converted to Christianity, but was the one
who brought paganism, and what he said was Christianity, and merged them together, and it is said that Constantine secretly worshipped the sun god, Tammuz.
Tammuz is mentioned in the bible, by the way, which is found in Ezekiel 8:1315.
62 / 150
So Catholicism claims to believe in the trinity, which they affirm it, after a certain way, but do not only pray to God, but to the dead saints, and Mary, and in truth have
Tammuz is mentioned in the bible, by the way, which is found in Ezekiel 8:1315.
So Catholicism claims to believe in the trinity, which they affirm it, after a certain way, but do not only pray to God, but to the dead saints, and Mary, and in truth have
elevated Mary, to basically Godhood, now they will deny this, but by the things they do towards her, and claims they make of her, and actions they do towards her, is
this not godhood?
Actions, at times, do speak louder than words.
So you can see that most cults out there are against the doctrine of the trinity, and Catholicism, claims the trinity, but have contradictory thoughts, and their salvation is
not the same as the salvation of the bible, as we will see, later on, and their god is not the same as my god, or the God of the bible, for they have different thoughts and
belief systems.
Now let us cover, and clearly show that the bible does indeed teach the doctrine of the trinity, and we will do so, simply by quoting scripture.
1 Jonh 5:78
(7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.)
It mentions how that, the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost, are one, ans also it mentions how the Spirit, the water, and the blood, agree in one.
All 3 agree in one, but also the 3, of verse 7, are one.
In what way is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost one?
Well some might say, well aren't Christians and God one?
John 17:11
(11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me,
that they may be one, as we are.)
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in fellowship, and so can a Christian be one in fellowship with God, but the 3 persons of the trinity (Father,Son,Holy
Ghost), are not just one in fellowship, but also one as in being God, and I will prove this, with our next scriptures.
Now none of them (Father, Son,Holy Ghost) are mentioned as being a seperate God, the bible clearly shows that there is only one God.
Now let us go unto these scriptures.
2 Peter 1:17
(17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased.)
Here it shows, how The Father is God (God the Father).
Now what about the son?
Matthew 1:23
(23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.)
This is talking about Jesus, which is known as "God with us", so he is also known as God, and I can show other verses, concerning the Son, but this will suffice.
Acts 5:34
(3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied
unto men, but unto God.)
Here it mentions how Aninias lied to the Holy Ghost, and how that this person (the Holy Ghost), he had lied to, was God.
So it is associating the Holy Ghost, with being God.
So the trinity, which is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are not only one in agreement, or fellowship, but they are also, "One God" !!!
The doctrine of the trinity is biblical!!!
Now let us go on, unto covering what certain religions believe, on the doctrine of "original sin".
Original Sin
There also seems to be a big attack among many religions today, concerning the doctrine of original sin.
63 / 150
Here we will get into what many of the large religions and other (Mormons), say about the doctrine of "original sin".
There also seems to be a big attack among many religions today, concerning the doctrine of original sin.
Here we will get into what many of the large religions and other (Mormons), say about the doctrine of "original sin".
Muslim religion Jewish religion Mormons Bahai faith Hinduism Bhudism Sikhism
(www.alislam.org) (www.shirhadash.org) (www.mormonbeliefs.org) (www.bahai.org) (www.hindubooks.org) (www.buddhanet.net) (www.sikhspirit.com)
(...Islam disagrees with (...It's not a concept we (...Mormons do not (...The Bahá'í Faith does (...Hinduism does not (...Buddhist teachings (...Sikhs do not believe

Christianity on the usually connect with believe in original sin. not therefore accept the believe that human expound no beginning in original sin, nor in any
Doctrine of Redemption. Judaism, as Judaism does Mormon doctrine teaches concept of "original sin" beings suffer from any and no end to one's evil being such as Satan.
The Doctrine of not believe that Adam that babies are born or any related doctrine original sin or inherent existence or life.... God has no enemy or
Redemption is based on and Eve's sin of innocent and have no which considers that fault in their nature, ... The idea of sin or opposite. Humans are
the Doctrine of the disobedience was passed need of baptism until people are basically evil which must be corrected original sin has no place inherently prone to
Original Sin: that mankind down and inherited by all they reach an age when or have intrinsically evil by an external influence in Buddhism... succumb to temptations.
had been condemned by their descendents. Nor they are accountable for elements in their or special grace. On the ...There is no almighty God created all and gave
God because of the sin of do we, as Jews, believe their own actions,...) nature....) contrary, Sanatana God in Buddhism....) people free will. Evil
Adam and Eve which was that each of us is born a Dharma teaches that our occurs when the ego
consequently inherited sinner, because each of original nature is pure takes over....)
by their children. Islam us was born of a sexual goodness, Being
denies the whole and thus, to some ConsciousnessBliss,
Doctrine of the Original Christian thinkers, sinful and that we are all
Sin;...) act...) inherently one with God.
The Hindu concept of sin
is one of uncleanliness,
the accumulation of
something extraneous
that must be removed for
us to return to our
inherent purity....)
So we can see that the Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Bahai faith, Hindus, Bhuddists, and Sikhs, all deny the doctrine of "original sin".
Now the Jehovah's Witnesses, and Catholicism, in the respect of "original sin", seem to agree with this doctrine.
Now all the religions that I commented about, on original sin, up above, with even further study and reading; I found that all of them, consider that we were all born
good, and the Muslims say that we were all born Muslims.
And of course, some say we were born innocent, well in truth, we were not born good, but we were born, in a certain aspect, all innocent.
What do I mean by this? Well as far as committing acts of sin, we were born innocent of that, but as far as being born without a sin nature, that is not so, for we were
all born with a sin nature.
Now let us go to scripture to validate these thoughts.
Let's start with the beginning.
Genesis 3:113
(1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of
every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit
thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God
amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 12 And the man said, The
woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.)
So Eve mentions how they could eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit which is in the midst of the garden, God said they may not eat, nor touch it,
lest ye die.
The death it is talking about here, was a death that would happen, right after the eating of that peticular fruit, it happened imediately.
What death could of happened in such an immediate way, upon Adam and Eve, eating the fruit? It was a spiritual death, to were their spirits, were no longer in
fellowship with God like before the fall.
Sin had crept in, therefore the sin nature, now being there new nature, which caused them to have a deadened spirit.
So that is the immedaite death that happened, and as a result, death would gradually come to the body as well, and because of that original sin, a man's spirit is
spiritually dead, and his body ages, and eventually dies.
64 / 150
Now lets see, what the serpent said, through Satan, to Eve.
So that is the immedaite death that happened, and as a result, death would gradually come to the body as well, and because of that original sin, a man's spirit is
spiritually dead, and his body ages, and eventually dies.
Now lets see, what the serpent said, through Satan, to Eve.
The serpent said:"...Ye shall not surely die...For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good
and evil." .
That was Satan's biggest lie (after a certain sense), thou shall be as "gods". Satan is always trying to get men to exalt themselves above God, he is always trying to get
men to think that their good deeds, or their knowledge, can save them, thus men making themselves as a god.
Satan also said:"thou shalt not surely die" , yet in truth, man did die spiritually, and also now man's body would age and then eventually die as well.
Now here is another lie that Satan mentions in Genesis.
"And ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil".
Satan was tempting Eve to eat of this tree, so to get the knowledge of good and evil.
Now why was God so against this?
Because first of all, before the fall, man was walking harmoniously with God, and they knew no evil, and they had a perfect relationship with God, God's presense had
to have been with them in a perfect way, man was sinless, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, pointed to man's independence from God, being able to do
things their own way, through their own knowledge of good and evil, which brought about a self dependence, rather than an harmonious relationship with God
(dependence upon God).
Satan wanted man to be his own god, in control of his own life, but God did not want that, for he wanted man's good, and not his harm, but God did allow man to have
a free will, whether to choose to serve him or not.
This type of dependence on self, produces self righteousness, being one's own god, being in control of one's destiny, or this "I will do what I want" attitude.
Today we see this selfish, independence from God, attitude all over the place, with things such as "self" confidence, "self" reliance, self, self, self!!! And phychology
promotes this heavily.
Now a Christian has his self worth in Christ, and boast in Christ, the one who is salvation, and his confidence is in Christ, and this brings great, humble confidence, and
joy and true happiness.
And all of the cults, in one form or another, promote some type of self salvation, as we will see in the grace section, which is 2 subjects below.
They promote the same attitude as Satan!!! Is that really a coincidence???
And see, all of the religions mentioned up above, speak against "original sin", it's like they feel their good enough.
Wow.
Man truly needs, the empowerment of grace in their lives, they truly need God, the one who made us, and truly knows best.
We do not know better than God, even though man sometimes thinks he does.
Now let us cover, the praying to or for the dead part of this study, and see what 7 religions say about this.
Praying to or for the dead
So let us see the views, that 7 religions have concerning praying to, or for the dead.
And does it match up with scripture?
Well let us see.
Muslim religion Jewish religion Mormons Roman Catholicism Hinduism Bhudism Sikhism
(www.islamiclearningmaterials (www.chabad.org) (www.religionfacts.com/ (www.prayrosary.com) (www.hindunet.org) (www.thaiworldview.com) (www.allaboutsikhs.com)

.com (email)) mormonism/practices/
(...A Jew is not baptism_for_the_dead.htm) (...Since the practice (...Hindus generally (...During Buddhist ceremonies, (...To a Sikh, birth and
(...Muslims are allowed to permitted an of praying for the cremate their dead. Thai people pray for dead death are closely
pray FOR the dead. We are intermediary. There (...Baptism for the dead by souls of the deceased the body of the relatives or give food to monks associated, because they
allowed to pray for our must be nothing proxy (or "vicarious is based upon the departed is given a in the name of dead relatives. It are both part of the cycle
Muslim family members and between the Jew and baptism") is an ordinance doctrine of Purgatory bath and dressed in gives good deeds to dead of human life, Ava
friends. We are allowed to G- d. Nevertheless, practiced by members of which was abandoned fresh clothes. spirits and help them to shorten Guvan, which is seen as
pray for those Muslims who as previously The Church of Jesus Christ by the Reformers in Fragrant the time to wait for next life....) transient stage towards
died while fighting for Islam. established, it is of Latterday Saints and the sixteenth century, sandlewood paste is Nirvana, complete unity
Generally, we are allowed to permissible for a Jew other Mormon and is now practically applied to the (http://buddhism.sgforums.com) with God. Sikhs thus
pray for any Muslim, dead or to ask another Jew to denominations. (It is also unknown among their corpse, which is believe in reincarnation.
alive. In fact, Muslims are be an intermediary found among the followers, the latter are then decorated with (...In Buddhism context, the Mourning is therefore
obligated to make a quick between him and Mandaeans of Iraq and naturally at a loss to flowers and chanting of sutras during these discouraged, especially
prayer for Prophet G- d. ... Iran, some of the Neo understand the garlands, followed 49 days is a way we in the case of those who
Muhammad (may Allah be ...Rabbi Shik then Apostolic congregations of Catholic custom of by a small amount communicate to the dead to have lived a long and full
please with him) every time extends this to the Europe, and some Native praying for their of gold dust remind them of Buddha's life. The death ceremony
65 / 150
his name is mentioned. See, I deceased, as well. American religions.) In the departed brethren, or sprinkled on teaching and the importance of may be split into two
just did it myself. And of According to the Mormon rite of baptism for as it is commonly different parts of the letting go of attachment, so that parts; Saskar, the
prayer for Prophet G- d. ... Iran, some of the Neo understand the garlands, followed 49 days is a way we in the case of those who
Muhammad (may Allah be ...Rabbi Shik then Apostolic congregations of Catholic custom of by a small amount communicate to the dead to have lived a long and full
please with him) every time extends this to the Europe, and some Native praying for their of gold dust remind them of Buddha's life. The death ceremony
his name is mentioned. See, I deceased, as well. American religions.) In the departed brethren, or sprinkled on teaching and the importance of may be split into two
just did it myself. And of According to the Mormon rite of baptism for as it is commonly different parts of the letting go of attachment, so that parts; Saskar, the
course we all know that Talmud and the the dead, a living person called, "the devotion head and face. After they could be free from samsara cremation and the Antim
Prophet Muhammad (may Zohar, those acting as a proxy is to the poor souls." some purificatory eventually and move on to one Ardas, the final prayer at
Allah be pleased with him) is righteous souls who baptized by immersion in The Scriptures scriptural chants of the paradise land of the the end of the Bhog
dead. However, we are not have passed on from typical Latterday Saint encourage us to pray and worship rituals, buddhas or bodhisattvas. Of ceremony.Death At a
allowed to pray for non this world are still fashion. The ordinance is not only for one the body is placed course, the teachings is for the Sikh's deathbed,
Muslims who die without very much in touch performed only in temples. another on earth, and on the funeral pyre living as well, to understand relatives and friends read
accepting Islam, even if that with their students The prayer accompanying to invoke the facing either north impermanence....) Sukhmani Sahib, the
person happens to be a family and family and care the baptism differs from intercession of the or south. Psalm of Peace,
member. We are not allowed for them and their typical wording in that it saints and angels, but A close relative of (http://thantamanlac.com) composed by the fifth
to pray TO the dead at all. problems. We states that the baptism is they encourage us to the departed lights Guru Arjan Dev Ji, to
Praying TO the dead, is petition them to pray being performed for and in pray for the souls of some kindling and (...What we can do to help the console themselves and
considered SHIRK which on our behalfand behalf of a deceased our deceased brethren walks around the dead person is called the dying person. When
means associating partners they do and often person whose name has as well. In the second pyre chanting a "transference of a death occurs, they
with Allah. This is the gravest their prayers are been submitted for that Book of Machabees it prayer for the well consciousness". For 49 days exclaim 'Waheguru', the
sin any person can commit....) more effective than ordinance. Any member of is narrated that after being of the after the person’s death, every Wonderful Lord. Wailing
our own. After all, we the Church who is at least Judas had defeated departed soul. Then day or at least every week, we or lamentation is
often don't fathom 12 years old may be Gorgias, he came with he lights the funeral should perform some rituals in discouraged. For
the seriousness of baptized for the dead. his company to bury pyre after touching which we simply direct our cremation, the body is
these problems from Young men must hold the the Jews slain in the the mouth of the good thoughts toward him/her, first washed and dressed
our limited priesthood....) battle. "Making a departed with and recite some Sutra and with clean clothes
perspective as much gathering, he sent kindling. Dharani such as the Heart Sutra, complete with the Five
as they might from (http://scriptures.lds.org/ twelve drachmas of The body of a the Dharani of the Most K's (in case of baptized
their much more lofty dc/127) silver to Jerusalem for Hindu saint is not Compassionate One, the Sikhs). If the death
view.... sacrifice to be offered usually cremated RebirthinPureLand Dharani occurs in a hospital, the
...The Zohar states (...5 And again, I give unto for the sins of the but put in a grave or etc....) body is taken home for
this as well, when it you a word in relation to dead." He did not buried in water. ...) viewing before the
tells us that the the baptism for your dead. regard their sins to be funeral....)
tzaddik is here with 6 Verily, thus saith the Lord grievous, "because he
us after his passing unto you concerning your considered that they (Amolak Singh (email))
even more than dead: When any of you are who had fallen asleep
before. During his baptized for your dead, let with godliness had (...Question:Do sikhs
lifetime, the tzaddik there be a recorder, and let great grace laid up for pray to dead people
was limited within a him be eyewitness of your them." The sacred (saints), or do they also
physical body. Now baptisms; let him hear with writer then expresses pray for dead peoples'
he has transcended his ears, that he may testify the doctrine involved souls?
those limitations.... of a truth, saith the Lord; herein: "It is, answer:Hi, They
...This is the ...) therefore, a holy and normally do on the
fundamental wholesome thought to funeral ceremony day....)
reasoning behind pray for the dead, that
beseeching those in they maybe loosed
the grave to from their
intercede on our sins." (12:4346)....)
behalf. And this, in
fact, has been the
common practice in
Jewish communities
around the world....)
So we can see, that Muslims are allowed to pray "for" dead Muslims, but not "for" dead non Mulsims (who did not accept Islam), and as far as praying "to" the dead is
concerned, they are not allowed, at all to pray "to" the dead.
Now what about the Jews?
The Jew is not permitted an intermediary. There must be nothing between the Jew and God. But they are allowed to pray to dead Jews, and petition them to pray on
their behalf. So they do have a form of praying to the dead.
Now unto Mormons. The Mormons have baptisms for the dead, which a living person acts as a proxy, and in the baptism, they have a prayer said on behalf of the
dead person, which is praying for the dead. So the Mormons do pray "for" the dead.
Now we go to Catholicism.
Well Catholicism, prays for the dead, and to the dead. Here is what, one of their quotes say: "The Scriptures encourage us to pray not only for one another on earth,
and to invoke the intercession of the saints and angels, but they encourage us to pray for the souls of our deceased brethren as well."
Do Hindus also pray for or to the dead?
At funerals, they tend to chant a prayer for the well being of the departed soul. So they do pray "for" the dead.
What about Bhudism, what do they believe about this?
They do have some kind of prayer for the dead, in were they direct seemingly good thoughts towards the direction of the decease, so they do have some form of
praying for the dead.
And now unto Sikhism.
At funerals, the Sikhs do pray for the departed love one, and at a person's death bed they tend to say this "Psalm of Peace", composed by the fifth Guru Arjan Dev Ji,
to console themselves and the dying person, and in their funerals, lamentation is discoursged. So they do have a form of praying for the dead and it seems even to the
dead.
Now what does the bible say about praying to or for the dead? 66 / 150
dead.
Now what does the bible say about praying to or for the dead?
Deuteronomy 18:911
(9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an
enchanter, or a witch,
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.)
As I said in the trinity part of this study, a consulter of familiar spirits, is someone who seeks to invoke or pray to the dead, for something, which is not really a dead
person, but an evil spirit
Christians are forbiden to pray to or invoke dead people. And nowhere in scripture does it show that we are allowed to pray for or to dead people.
This is what the bible says, about people that are dead.
Luke 16:1931
(19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented
in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art
tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would
come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.)
First of all, the rich man which was in hell, could not go to were Lazarus was, which was in Abraham's bossom, which is also known as paradise (paradise was not
heaven, and under the old covenant believers went to this paradise, but after Christ resurection etc. people could then go to heaven). Hell and this paradise was/is
under the earth, and there was a great gap between the 2 places.
No one could bring comfort to the rich man's torments. So he asked if Lazarus could go warn his brethren that were alive, so they do not go to this place of torment,
but Abraham told him: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead".
Yes people can be raised from the dead, but cannot in their spirits, espescially if in hell, go to earth and visit people.
This is what the bible says about people in hell.
Matthew 22:13
(13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.)
In hell, there shall be torment, fire, but also darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth. Now I will quote a part, of a verse.
Mark 9:43
(43 ...to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:)
So if hell has a fire that shall never be quenched, then obviously, there is no relief to this quenching fire, and if people in hell, would be able to go on earth in their spirits,
they would have obviously some kind of relief to this quenching fire, but they cannot, for there is no relief for them, they stay there and suffer, and reap what they have
sown on earth.
So it is obvious that people in hell cannot come to earth, now what about people in heaven?
Well in truth, even people in heaven have not been known to go to earth by their spirits, and there is absolutely no scriptural evidence of any that were dead physically,
that came down from "heaven" to earth. Now of course Jesus was dead, but rose from the dead, and his body is no longer in the grave. And he appeared with his
body, but in a glorified form.
Now there is one example of a dead person visiting Israel, that was in "Abraham's bossom" (which is not heaven), but no examples of someone that was physically
dead and was in "heaven", that visited earth with his spirit. Now this person (which was in Abraham's bossom), I believe got special permission from God, to go see
Israel, now let us go to this verse.
Luke 9:2835
(28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. 67 / 150
29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.
Luke 9:2835
(28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.
29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.
30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:
31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.
32 But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.
33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one
for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.
34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud.
35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.)
Now this event happened, before Jesus died on the cross, and rose from the dead. And it shows how Elijah and Moses, were there with Jesus, appearing before Peter,
John and James.
Now Elijah (also Enoch), was indeed in heaven, protected by God, but Elijah never as of yet died, and he will come back to earth and die, in a period that the book of
Revelation calls, the tribulation period, which as not yet occured.
Now of course Moses had already, long passed away, in this time of Jesus, and God allowed him to come out of paradise, very briefly, I believe so he can see the
promised land, for when he lived, he was not able to enter, so it was a special privilege of God that enabled Moses to see the promised land here, and it was not
because the dead are now roaming the earth, for they truly are not, for today they are either in heaven, or in hell.
There are alot of shows today, such as Paranormal State, that think that they are communicating with the dead, but really they are communicating with evil spirits, and
evil spirits are very easily, able to deceive humans.
And we must remember, that they are spiritual beings. They can easily act as dead men, and play on men's emotions.
Now some use a certain verse, which I will show, to say that calling up the dead, is ok.
Now let us quote these verses.
1 Samuel 28:918
(9 And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land:
wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?
10 And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.
11 Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel.
12 And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.
13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. 14 And he said unto her,
What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the
ground, and bowed himself.
15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God
is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall
do.
16 Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the LORD is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?
17 And the LORD hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the LORD hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David:
18 Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the LORD, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the LORD done this thing unto thee this day.)
First of all, king Saul here was in the wrong in calling up a lady who calls up familiar spirits, so to get these "familiar spirits" to reveal something to her.
Infact in the pass, God had people that called up familiar spirits, wizards etc. killed, and they were an abomination to him.
And then after Saul gets this woman to call up familiar spirits, this woman describes what she saw, and she said, she saw gods ascending out of the earth (God is not
for other gods), and then Saul, for some reason asked what form is he of, and she said an old man cometh up etc. , and then Saul said (not God), that he perceived it to
be Samuel.
And then the one that Saul perceived to be Samuel, spoke to Saul, now wether it was true the woman or not, it does not go into detail, but I know if you look at
modern people, who call up the dead, the socalled dead, usually speak through the person.
So this supposed Samuel, said :"for the LORD hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David: Because thou obeyedst not the
voice of the LORD..." , so he did say the truth to Saul, of how his kingdom was given to another, and evil spirits can tell the truth at times, but it is in order to deceive,
and they already knew (infact many humans did, for it was already proclaimed), that David would get the kingdom, so it was an easy task, for evil spirits to say the truth
here.
And I can tell you one thing, is that God would never allow, someone (Samuel), which at the time was in the under the earth paradise, to be called up to earth, by
means of something that is an abomination to him, God does not bless sin, or abominable things, nor does he participate in them.
So this spirit was a familiar spirit, and not Samuel's very spirit, and it identified itself as Samuel.
God does not hide the way things happened in the bible, he shows what actually happened, and in the way it happened.
And God does not go against his will.
So no, the dead are not roaming around the earth, but evil spirits are, and many have been filmed on video camera, through programs such as Paranormal State etc.
etc. etc., and there is tons of evidence, all over the world, everywhere in the world, of haunted houses, or the socalled dead appearing in either schools, houses, hotels
68 / 150
etc.
So no, the dead are not roaming around the earth, but evil spirits are, and many have been filmed on video camera, through programs such as Paranormal State etc.
etc. etc., and there is tons of evidence, all over the world, everywhere in the world, of haunted houses, or the socalled dead appearing in either schools, houses, hotels
etc.
There is just too much evidence to ignore the existance of spirits, or evil spirits.
We should not at all call upon the dead, or pray to or for the dead, for we only pray to God, for only he can answer prayer, and it is faith in God, and not faith in dead
people, and when a person dies, he/she has already made their decision, in either going to heaven or hell, nor more prayer is needed for them, for they are were they
are suppose to be.
Is it a coincidence that most religions, do not adhere to God's command of not calling on the dead? And is it a coincidence, that their is no biblical passage that tells us
to pray for the dead?
Satan is a deceiver, and if something is against God's ways, be sure in some form or way, Satan will be for those ways, and is it a coincidence that evil spirits, often use
the image of dead people, to deceive people, in appearing as them?
Well it is important to take heed to what the bible says, and the bible reveals hidden darkness, and things that go against it.
So now let us go unto the grace part of this study.
Grace
Now I will cover what diverse religions, say about what their salvation is all about, and what they say saves them, and what grace is.
Muslim religion Jewish religion Mormons Roman Catholicism Hinduism Bhudism Sikhism
(www.islamreligion.com) (www.beingjewish.com) (mormon.lds.net) (www.catholic.org) (www.boloji.com (www.buddhist (www.sikhspectrum.com)

/hinduism/036.htm) tourism.com)
(...Islam teaches that (...Judaism has always (...Many churches say (...By means of his (...The Christian idea of
salvation is attained by held that we do not need no act is ever required to Church Christ makes his (Author:Ed Viswanathan) (...One has to work for grace is the generosity
God’s Grace, and that that sort of salvation, for get into Heaven, and yet grace available to all. salvation oneself and of God in forgiving
God bestows His Grace we are not doomed or those churches nearly Only in this application (...Hindu salvation therefore, cannot blame man’s sins outside the
upon those who have damned at birth. We are always say you must of redemption to mankind concept is different from others for the same. The Old Testament law,
both inner belief and not doomed or fated to accept Jesus as your is the redemptive action Christian salvation salvation depends on the within which no one
good works. The sin. Quite the contrary. Saviorwhich is an act. of Christ completed. The concept. Hindu salvation good deeds of a could find salvation
difference, then, between The Torah says: "If you The question really doctrine of the is known as Self person....) because men are all evil.
Western Christianity and do good, won't there be comes down to, then, sacraments is the Realization. In Hindu In Sikhism it seems to be
Islam is not that one special privilege? And if how many acts are doctrine of the second salvation a person (www.buddhanet.net) similar, but with a major
religion believes inner you do not do good, sin required, not whether any part of God's way of realizes that he is not the point of difference:
faith is important while waits at the door. It lusts are required at all. The salvation to us. It deals body, but the immortal (...Some claim that god is Vahiguru’s grace is His
the other does not; after you, but you can Book of Mormon clarifies with the holy signs which soul (Adman) within. necessary in order to generosity to a man in
indeed, both Western dominate it." (Genesis the Mormon point of Christ instituted as the That is the reason why give man salvation. But revealing to him the
Christianity and Islam 4:7) In other words, you view on this complicated vehicles of his grace....)Hindu salvation is known this argument only holds enriching potential
believe that inner belief is can do good, and if you subject: For we labor as self realization or good if you accept the within himself by which
the most integral factor do, things will be better diligently to write, to (www.catholicity.com) "Realizing that he is the theological concept of he may have salvation.
for attaining salvation. for you. If you do not do persuade our children, Immortal self and not the salvation and Buddhists (“Through grace lone
The difference is that good, sin wants to be and also our brethren, to (...The sacraments are perishable body. In do not accept such a cometh salvation” –
Islam teaches that partners with you. But believe in Christ, and to necessary for salvation Hindu salvation the concept. Based on his Fourth stanza; “By His
although belief is the you can control sin, you be reconciled to God; for (Council of Trent). Each identity of the soul is lost own experience, the grace some are saved” –
most important factor, it can control your evil we know that it is by bestows by a special when it attains Buddha saw that each Second stanza). In
is not the only one. In desires, and you can be grace that we are saved, "sacramental grace", by salvation.... human being had the Christianity, men must
order to attain salvation, good. So we have free after all we can do.” (2 which the Spirit ... Similarly, when a capacity to purify the become aware of their
inner belief must be will, and that is what Nephi 25:23) A few transforms the person seeks after God mind, develop infinite inherent evil to achieve
coupled with good Judaism has always verses later, the writer recipients....) according to Hinduism, love and compassion and salvation. Sikhism
works....) believed, because that is adds: “we are made alive becomes One with God perfect understanding. teaches that men find
what the Torah teaches. in Christ because of our when he attains He shifted attention from salvation by realizing
The Torah does not teach faith; yet we keep the law salvation. Hinduism the heavens to the heart their inherent good. The
or even mention that because of the never ever boasts and encouraged us to crux of the matter is
we are "born in sin," or commandments.” Let’s monopoly on salvation. find solutions to our basic difference between
that we are fated to sin. think about what all this In fact, as per Hinduism, problems through self the two conceptions of
Just the opposite. We means. To a Mormon, any one even an atheist understanding....) man....)
have the ability to Grace means to be can attain salvation....)
choose. Which means resurrected, to live
that we can be good, or forever, and to be able to
we can be evil. It's up to be forgiven of our sins....)
us. And if can be good,
that means we can be
righteous....)
So we can see that the biggest religions of the world, and a lesser in size religion (Mormons), all have a certain idea of what salvation is.
Now to the Muslim, it is inner belief with good works that saves you; and on the Jewish side, it just seems in being good, not much to do with grace, that they are saved
The Mormons mention, in the comments up above, that "Many churches say no act is ever required to get into Heaven, and yet those churches nearly always say you
must accept Jesus as your Saviorwhich is an act."
Well I will comment on that. Well first of all Yes to get truly saved you must do an act of accepting Jesus or Christ's salvation, but this act, is not an act of good works,
but rather a receiving of a free gift, which you cannot earn or merrit by good works, and say someone would offer you a gift, and you received it, you would not have
worked for it, but rather you would have just accepted the gift, well true biblical salvation, comes as a result of receiving the free (not earned) gift, and as a result of
receiving the free gift, salvation comes in a person, and then a person is saved.
Jesus is that salvation, and salvation comes as a result of receiving the gift, and it is not the receiving itself, but rather the result that came about, after we have received.
69 / 150
So now that we have cleared that up, let us see what the Mormons say saves them. Here is a quote from the book of Mormon, stated in the Mormon comments above:
Jesus is that salvation, and salvation comes as a result of receiving the gift, and it is not the receiving itself, but rather the result that came about, after we have received.
So now that we have cleared that up, let us see what the Mormons say saves them. Here is a quote from the book of Mormon, stated in the Mormon comments above:
"for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." .
It is a Grace plus all that we can do (works), salvation.
Now we go to Catholicism. They believe in a type of works, grace salvation also, which part of their salvation is had through the sacraments, which one of them is
infant (baby) baptism. Their is also these communions that children participate in, such as the first communion, and also for children or adults, there is the confessional
etc. etc. etc., and in their sacraments, they say there is the graces of God in them.
Truly, it is not a grace only salvation, but grace plus the sacraments or plus works.
Now the Hindu salvation, happens when a person realizes that he is not the body, but the immortal soul, which is called self realization; and the Bhuddist salvation is
a type of good works salvation, in were each human being have the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding.
Now we go unto the Sikh type of salvation, which says:"that men find salvation by realizing their inherent good", they mention a type of grace, but through realizing their
inherent good, rather than repentance through faith. It is not a receiving of grace, but rather a realization of their type of goodness grace, that is already in man.
So what are they (Sikhs) saved from? Who knows!!!
So all of these religions, in one form or another, focus on a type of works salvation, or some type of goodness they already possess, which is not at all compatible, to
the salvation found in the bible, and alot of their salvation ways, are very similar to each other, in the sense of having a type of works salvation, or works plus grace, or
man having some part in their salvation.
The grace that God talks about, in the bible, is unique, and not compatible in any way, shape or form, with these religions' ways of salvation.
Now let us dwell a bit, on the biblical way of salvation, and biblical grace.
Ephesians 2:810
(8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.)
This is talking about, biblical salvation, and in truth, even alot of Christians, do not even know what God's grace is truly for.
Its "by grace", "by grace", "by grace", that we are saved, "through" the means of "faith".
God's type of saving grace, or saving faith, has nothing to do with this type of "mental assertion" gospel, sometimes seemingly promoted, in parts of the church.
Mental assertion itself, can never bring salvation, nor change a person, but rather this is what the bible says:
Romans 10:910
(9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.)
To get God's salvation, it is not a ritualistic "mental assertion", and confessing Christ with your mouth, but rather, truly believing that God was raised from the dead,
from the bottom of your heart, and thus resulting in a confession with your mouth, thus resulting in salvation coming into you, and saving you.
God wants to win your whole heart, rather then just convince or persuade one's mind.
How many are truly born of the Spirit today? Who knows, but I bet you not as many as say they are.
Now some might say, well what about the book of James, which says this:
James 2:1418
(14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it
profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.)
Saving faith, has evidence to it, but works themselves do not save a person, even works of any kind, but if someone is walking in true saving faith that justifies us before
God, it will have legs to it, there will be evidence of the change in a person, and it will result in works.
So Ephesians says:"not by works, lest any man should boast", but James says:"though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?", so how do we
reconcile these statements?
Well very easily, for these statements are not contradicting each other, but rather showing different things, concerning how we are not saved, and the evidence of true
faith, or salvation.
70 / 150
We are not saved by works, but true saving faith, will produce works, and really that is all it is referring to.
Well very easily, for these statements are not contradicting each other, but rather showing different things, concerning how we are not saved, and the evidence of true
faith, or salvation.
We are not saved by works, but true saving faith, will produce works, and really that is all it is referring to.
And it is referring to, a specific type of work, and not just any works, but rather works that are produced in a man's life, as a result of a change that Christ has brought
in man's life.
It is the works of Christ, that God wants man to walk in (upon being saved), rather than the works (man motivated) of man.
Here is an interesting verse.
1 Corinthians 13:3
(3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.)
Charity, here is well known to refer to the word "love", and I read how a certain teacher of the word, said that, the King James bible people, may have used the word
"charity" to refer to love, because charity refers to an action.
Love is an action word, but it is not just an action, for this verse says that, you can give all that you have to the poor, and have no "love"!!!!!!!
Even though you can feel love, love itself, is not just a mere feeling, nor is it just a mere action, but rather, it is a rightly motivated action (empowered by the grace of
God).
And the love that God wants for man to walk in, is not the love of man, but rather the love that God places into man, at salvation.
And salvation is not just going to heaven when you die, but salvation brings about a whole new life, and there are whole benefits to salvation, it is a whole package deal,
if you want to say.
Our salvation sets you free not only from the sins you commit from time to time, but also from the very nature of sin, that is what salvation brings, freedom from sin, a
pure conscience, a pure heart, right motives etc.
In grace, there is unmerrited favour, no doubt about it, and grace is also deeper than just that, but it empowers you to live an holy or Christian life, it empowers you!!!
In Ephesians it says "for by grace are you saved, through faith...not of works lest any man should boast", but also it says:"for we are his workmanship, created in Christ
Jesus unto good works".
Through Jesus' life, when we got saved, we received a new spirit, and Christ dwelt (and still does) in us, which brought about salvation, and this salvation was to
empower us, to walk in good works, but specific good works and not works themselves, which is in the works of Christ.
Matthew 11:2
(2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,)
When we (Christians) received Christ, at salvation, we were as saved as we will ever be, but upon salvation, we must seek to bring our salvation walk, to our standing
in Christ (were we already stand), therefore a Christian is always going from faith to faith, and grace to grace.
It is not just receiving grace at salvation, but rather continuing in his grace, from start to finish.
Romans 11:22
(22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also
shalt be cut off.)
We must continue in his goodness, and not our goodness, and if you continue in his salvation provision, it will continue to bring a change in you.
That's grace, that's grace, that's grace!!!!!!!
Grace from start to finish, and yes God is patient with his children, but children of God, do not take his salvation for granted, you cannot save yourself by your
goodness.
Some might say, but doesn't God require you to obey his word, and doesn't obediance bring salvation?
Well yes it is true that God requires obediance, no ifs or buts, but this obedience comes about as we yield our wills to him, and as we walk in harmony with his grace, it
is not obedience based on merrits, but rather obedience based on love, or walking in the freedom of God, knowing we are saved or the redeemed of the Lord, it is
obedience with confidence, and in that type of obedience, God is well please, but in a merrits type obedience, God is not well please.
So that is more what the fullness of salvation by grace is, and it is quite different from the salvation that these cults promote, which is based on either "self" realization,
"self" works, "self" goodness, self, self ,self, self!!!
Doesn't this sound like a selfish salvation?
But God's true salvation of grace, actually saves us from something, and is a "selfless" salvation, rather than "selfish" or "self righteousness" salvation. Now let us go unto
what the views of modern Satanism, the Occult, and the New Age movement, are.
71 / 150
Satanist religion, New Age movement, and the Occult
But God's true salvation of grace, actually saves us from something, and is a "selfless" salvation, rather than "selfish" or "self righteousness" salvation. Now let us go unto
what the views of modern Satanism, the Occult, and the New Age movement, are.
Satanist religion, New Age movement, and the Occult
Satanist religion New Age movement The Occult

(known as modern Satanism: Anton Lavey (according to Share International (Benjamin Creme), (the Occult: according Aleister Crowley
Satanism) who promote Maitreya) Occultism)
Trinity Trinity Trinity
(Satanic bible) (ShareInternational (email)) (www.thelemicstudies.com)
(...Baphomet represents the Powers of Darkness (...Is the Holy Trinity masculine? (Share International (...Interesting topic. You ask, "how does Thelema

combined with th goat. In its "pure" form the magazine July/Aug. '84) The Holy Trinity combines consider “being”?" Crowley addresses the idea of
pentagram is shown encompassing th points of the star the masculine (spirit) and the feminine (matter) aspects Being in at least two places explicitly. The first would
three points up, two pointing down symbol and the relation between spirit and matter the Christ be the '0' chapter of Book of Lies where it is written
Satanism the pentagram is also used, but since aspect. It is in this sense that the Christ is the Son of "The Ante Primal Triad which is NOTGOD." He
Satanism represe man, or the opposite of spiritual GodFatherMother God.... comments, "This is the negative Trinity; its three
nature, the pentagram is inverte head of the goat its ...So God is impersonal. Nevertheless, that statements are, in an ultimate sense, identical. They
horns, representing duality, thrust upwards points transcendent God is manifest in every aspect of harmonise Being, Becoming, NotBeing, the three
inverted, or the trinity denied. The Hebraic figures creation, including ourselves....) possible modes of conceiving the universe." In Liber V
around symbol which stem from the magical teachings vel Reguli, Crowley spends some time analyzing the
of the Kabala, sp serpent of the watery abyss, and (www.shareinternational.org) word LAShTAL, which refers to Nonbeing (LA),
identified with Satan. These fig points of the inverted Being (AL), and Becoming (ShT) in the form of a
star. The symbol of Baphomet is placed on the wall (...They are a sign not only of the Christ’s return, but Hegelian dialectic, no less. Crowley writes, "We affirm
above the altar....) also of the group of which the Christ is the head, on our altars our faith in ourself and our wills, our love
which includes Jesus Himself. The Master Jesus, as of all aspects of the Absolute All. And we make the
(Satanism pdf (by:Freddy Davis)) He is known in the Hierarchy of Masters, has been Spirit [shin] combine with the Flesh [teth] into a single
living in the outskirts of Rome since 1989. He is one letter, whose value is 31 even as those of LA the
(...God of the first group of Masters to come into the world Naught, and AL the All, to complete their NotBeing
Church of Satan: There is no literal supernatural being. with the Christ. The Christ and Jesus are not the same and Being with its Becoming, to mediate between
Material reality is all that exists....) individual. The Lord Maitreya embodies, in His own identical extremes as their mean—the secret that
Being, what we call the Christ Principle, the Christ sunders and seals them." The essential idea is that
Original Sin Consciousness, the second aspect of the Christian Being and Nonbeing are dualistic labels to describe
trinity, the energy of love. He overshadowed and reality, becoming mediates between them though they
(Satanic bible) worked through His disciple Jesus for three years, are all linked as the 'ThreeinNaught' (Book of Lies,
from the baptism to the crucifixion.... ch.11) You write, "Our primary relation with the
(...THE seven deadly sins of the Christian Church are: ...But what is the mind? It is nothing less than the world is not a theoretical one, but a practical one. "...
greed, pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust, and sloth. blueprint of creation. It is not personal. It is universal, ...Satan in general is the secret self in terms of
Satanism advocates indulging in each of these "sins" as like energy. In spiritual language, energy is the Spirit Thelema which includes the highest heights and the
they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional while mind is the Holy Ghost. The Master (Maitreya) lowest depths. It is Tiphareth on the Tree of Life.
gratification.... says it is like a ghost because it can appear in any Satan relates to Set (Egyptian) as well as the concept
... form. It can be a human being, a snake, or fire. of Sat (Hindu). Its a complex symbolism that changes
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, Anything and everything in creation is in the mind. If from place to place... In 'Liber Samekh' Crowley
instead of love wasted on ingrates! the Self is goaded by energy into the trap of mind then writes, "Now this word SABAF, being by number
5. Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the the Self will be caught up in the cyclic evolution known Three score and Ten 2, is a name of Ayin, the Eye,
other cheek! as Karma (cause and effect). None the less , the Self and the Devil our Lord, and the Goat of Mendes. He
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, has to undergo the experiences of the mind in order to is the Lord of the Sabbath of the Adepts, and is
instead of concern for psychic vampires! evolve to the point of full Selfrealization. The mind, of Satan, therefore also the Sun, whose number of
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, course, can act like God and control and manipulate Magick is 666, the seal of His servant the BEAST...
sometimes better, more often worse than those that the energy to achieve anything. But these psychic or But again SA is 61, AIN, the Naught of Nuith; BA
walk on allfours, who, because of his "divine spiritual magical powers can be very destructive.... means go, for Hadit; and F is their Son the Sun who is
and intellectual development", has become the most ...God always works through agents. Always. This is RaHoorKhuit." In Magick Without Tears he writes,
vicious animal of all! true for every manifestation of God. As soon as God ""The Devil" is, historically, the God of any people that
8. Satan represents all of the socalled sins, as they all comes into incarnation, manifests itself at whatever one personally dislikes. This has led to so much
lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification! ...) level, it works through some agency or other. Itself, it confusion of thought that THE BEAST 666 has
is unmanifest and yet is immanent in everything that is preferred to let names stand as they are, and to
(myweb.tiscali.co.uk/zeenaphile/index.htm) manifest. The Christ is an agent. The Christ is not proclaim simply that AIWAZ the solarphallic
God. When I say, `the coming of Christ', I don't mean hermetic "Lucifer" is His own Holy Guardian Angel,
(... La Vey declared, “Rather than cleanse the child of the coming of God, I mean the coming of a divine and "The Devil" SATAN or HADIT of our particular
‘original sin’, as in the Christian baptism imposing man, a man who has manifested His divinity by the unit of the Starry Universe. This serpent, SATAN, is
unwarranted guilt’s, we will glorify her natural and same process that we are going through the not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods of our
intensify her lust for life.” Who better to be baptised in incarnational process; gradually perfecting Himself race, knowing Good and Evil; He bade "Know
such a public ceremony than LaVey’s own daughter, through the initiatory process; gradually becoming Thyself!" and taught Initiation. He is "the Devil" of the
Zeena? With her soft blonde hair and engaging smile, more and more divine.... Book of Thoth, and His emblem is BAPHOMET, the
she captivated reporters with the image of such an ...To me, God is the sum total of all that exists in the Androgyne who is the hieroglyph of arcane perfection.
angelic child being dedicated to the Devil. ...) whole of the manifested and unmanifested universe. The number of His Atu is XV, which is Yod He, the
That unmanifest when in incarnation, manifest is Monogram of the Eternal, the Father one with the
(Satanism pdf (by:Freddy Davis)) the Christos, the Christ Principle, the great Mother, the Virgin Seed one with allcontaining
evolutionary principle. That energy, because it is an Space. He is therefore Life, and Love. But moreover
(...3. What is a human being? (Humanity) energy there isn't anything else is not a man, but his letter is Ayin, the Eye; he is Light, and his Zodiacal
Church of Satan: Humans are simply the most highly manifests through men. Maitreya, the Christ, is the image is Capricornus, that leaping goat whose
evolved animal life in the world... embodiment of that principle on this planet. God can attribute is Liberty....)
...6. How do we know what is right and wrong? only work through agents. The degree of divinity 72 / 150
(Morality) manifested is entirely dependent on the status of the (http://aidanmaconachyblog.blogspot.com)
Church of Satan: Humans are simply the most highly manifests through men. Maitreya, the Christ, is the image is Capricornus, that leaping goat whose
evolved animal life in the world... embodiment of that principle on this planet. God can attribute is Liberty....)
...6. How do we know what is right and wrong? only work through agents. The degree of divinity
(Morality) manifested is entirely dependent on the status of the (http://aidanmaconachyblog.blogspot.com)
Church of Satan: There is no transcendent basis for agent, the closeness of the agent to the divine mind
morality. Humans are simply a highly evolved form of through atonement. This is the origin of Hierarchy.... (...In order to understand who Crowley really was
animal life. The survival of the fittest is the rule of life ...Curiously enough, we don't often get this question. and what his ideas are really about you have to go to
and whatever an individual needs to do to accomplish This is probably the most difficult question to answer. his writings, in particular Liber AL Vel Legis, the
this is acceptable and appropriate....) Who am I to say what God is? If I can say anything Qabalistic text 777 and a range of other titles listed
about it at all, I would say that in a sense there is no here. In Liber Oz we find the following
such thing as God, God does not exist. And in another uncompromising assertion "There is no god but
sense, there is nothing else but God only God man"....)
Prayer to or for the dead exists....
...Christ ― A term used to designate the head of the (LIBER DCCCXXXVII THE LAW OF LIBERTY)
(Satanism pdf (by:Freddy Davis)) Spiritual Hierarchy; the World Teacher; the Master of
all the Masters. The office presently held by the Lord (...LIBER DCCCXXXVII
(...4. What happens to a person at death? (Death) Maitreya. ... 2 ìCome forth, o children, under the stars, & take
Church of Satan: At death, the individual simply ...Monad/Self ― Pure Spirit reflecting the triplicity of your fill of love! I am above you and in you. My
ceases to exist....) deity: (1) divine Will or Power (the Father); (2) Love ecstasy is in yours. My joy is to see your joy.î 1 Later
Wisdom (the Son); (3) active Intelligence (the Holy She explains the mystery of sorrow: ìFor I am divided
(Satanic bible) Spirit). The spark of God resident in every human for loveís sake, for the chance of union. ìThis is the
being.... creation of the world, that the pain of division is as
(...The Satanist shuns terms such as "hope" and ...Spirit ― As used by Maitreya, a term meaning the nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.î 2
"prayer" as they are indicative of apprehension.... sumtotal of the energies ― the life force ― animating Rejoice with me, all ye people! At the very head of
...Just as the Satanist does not pray to God for and vitalizing an individual. Also used, more the Book stands the great charter of our godhead:
assistance, he does not pray for forgiveness for his esoterically, to mean the Monad which reflects itself in ìEvery man and every woman is a star.î 1
wrong doings. In other religions, when one commits a the soul.... We are all free, all independent, all shining gloriously,
wrong he either prays to God for forgiveness, or ...Lucifer is the name of a great Angel, not an upstart each one a radiant world. Is not that good tidings?
confesses to an intermediary and asks him to pray to in heaven who revolted against God and was put Then comes the first call of the Great Goddess Nuit,
God for forgiveness for his sins. The Satanist knows down into the nether regions as the Devil. That is a Lady of the Starry Heaven who is also Matter in its
that praying does no good, confessing to another complete misinterpretation. Lucifer means light, and deepest metaphysical sense, who is the infinite in
human being, like himself, accomplishes even less comes from the Latin lux, lucis, meaning light. It is the whom all we live and move and have our being. Hear
and is, furthermore, degrading.... name of the Angel Who ensouls the human kingdom; Her first summons to us men and women:
...A little child learns that if he wishes for something every person, therefore, is a fragment of Lucifer. 1 [AL I. 3.] ...)
hard enoug meaningful. Wishing indicates desire, According to the esoteric teaching, the human souls
whereas prayer is acco Scripture has twisted desire individualized 18andahalf million years ago. Lucifer, (Book of lies ,Aleister Crowley)
into lust, covetousness, and gree desire, lest you lose the Oversoul, diversified itself, and each fragment
touch with the first ingredient in the perfo temptation, became individualized. These individualized human (...In line 5, we come to an important statement, an
and take that which tempts, whenever you can!... souls descended from the soul plane into incarnation. adumbration of the most daring thesis in this book
...THE BOOK OF SATAN The ‘fall’ of Adam and Eve from paradise is the Father and Son are not really two, but one; their unity
symbolic representation of this event; it has nothing to being the Holy Ghost, the semen; the human form is a
IV do with the Devil or with Lucifer as an evil entity, but nonessential accretion of this quintessence....)
with the divine nature of humanity itself as souls....
1. Life is the great indulgence death, the great ...Satan is not a man but a symbol. He symbolizes our (www.sonic.net)
abstinence. Therefore, make the most of life HERE own separative, selfish, lower nature which, in the
AND NOW! ...) main, we hide by rationalizing it and seeing our (...in Crowleyan Thelema...only a "sexual duo" of
motives (through the fog of illusion called glamour) as Babalon and >the Beast, and the Trinity of Nuit, Hadit
(Encyclopedia Wikipedia) love, truth, brotherhood, etc., while they are nothing of and RHK/HPK, which encompasses >more than just
the kind. One of the most important functions of sexuality, and is not "allmale." ...)
(...In his most important essay, "Satanism: The Feared Maitreya, in this world cycle, is to help free humanity
Religion", the Church of Satan's current leader Peter from the illusions of glamour (which is illusion on the Original Sin
H. Gilmore states: Satanists do not believe in the astral planes) and thus free them from living in thrall to
supernatural, in neither God nor the Devil. To the ‘‘satan...) (www.hermetic.com/crowley/mwt
Satanist, he is his own God. Satan is a symbol of Man /mwt_69.html)
living as his prideful, carnal nature dictates. The reality Original sin
behind Satan is simply the dark evolutionary force of (...For one thing, I have yet to learn who told the "lie."
entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the (www.shareinternational.org) It was not until Rousseau that we had the nonsense
drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living about the "noble savage." But it is at least true that
things. Satan is not a conscious entity to be (...My question would be: who set in place the sense man's deepest instincts, being natural and necessary,
worshipped, rather a reservoir of power inside each of sin that needs God’s forgiveness? The teachings of are, for him, "right." It is true that an artificial society
human to be tapped at will. Thus any concept of the Church since the beginning have emphasized the creates artificial crimes; but this is not "Original" Sin;
sacrifice is rejected as a Christian aberration—in idea of original sin ... on the contrary. What's that you say? I laugh! I
Satanism there’s no deity to which one can sacrifice.... ...For the first time, the human souls were wondered when you were going to pull me up, and
...Greater magic is most commonly divided into three individualized. As the soul is perfect, the soul plane is send me packing to my Skeat about what "Sin"
categories: destruction, lust, and compassion. Each is a kind of paradise. The myth of Adam and Eve means. O.K. Police routine does beat the gifted
considered a basic motivation for all actions, and symbolizes this descent from paradise into incarnation. amateur. Sin, astonishingly, means real! Curtius tells us
Satanic ritual is said to fall into these three categories. Because the soul can manifest only imperfectly through "Language regards the guilty man as the man who it
LaVey elaborates on methods for focusing these the lower vehicles — mental, astral and physical — it was." Then, what is "guilt"? A.S. gylt, trespass; in our
motivations. For destruction, one can either act out or is, in a sense, descending into imperfection or 'evil' as own Thelemic language, "deviation from (especially in
destroy a person symbolically in order to vent their it is called in the Bible. It is not evil in any good/bad the matter of excess, trespasser) the True Will."
anger and hatred. Lust rituals involve masturbation and sense but is imperfect relative to the soul level. For the Please take notice that most of the words which
orgasmic overtones. Compassion rituals concern Masters there is only imperfection and perfection. denote misconduct imply wandering, either from the
sadness and crying is encouraged. Overall, full self There is no such thing as 'sin.' Sin is a relative home or from the path: error, debauch, wrong
expression is encouraged in Satanic ritual. Much imperfection. But the Christian groups have focused (=twisted), wry, evil (excessive) detraquer, go astray,
emphasis is placed on evocation and music. The last everything on sin, good and bad....) and several others. So I too leap into the breach with
73 / 150
part of The Satanic Bible is dedicated to invocations Curtius, and point out that "Language itself asserts the
sadness and crying is encouraged. Overall, full self There is no such thing as 'sin.' Sin is a relative home or from the path: error, debauch, wrong
expression is encouraged in Satanic ritual. Much imperfection. But the Christian groups have focused (=twisted), wry, evil (excessive) detraquer, go astray,
emphasis is placed on evocation and music. The last everything on sin, good and bad....) and several others. So I too leap into the breach with
part of The Satanic Bible is dedicated to invocations Curtius, and point out that "Language itself asserts the
and the nineteen Enochian Keys, originally written by Prayers for or to the dead doctrine of the True Will." But what says The Book of
John Dee. Music is encouraged because it is said to the Law? It is at pains to define Sin in plain terms:
easily manipulate one's emotions, which contributes to (http://philologos.org) "The word of Sin is Restriction. ..." (AL I, 41). From
the overall success of the rituals....) the context it seems clear that this refers more
(...Humans are gods, if only they knew it. But Creme especially to interference with the will of another....
Grace clarifies that when people pray, they are not to pray to ...On reading this, I note that I passed over with
themselves, but to "the God within" or the "God deserved contempt the theory of "original sin" in the
(Satanic bible) immanent". This is their higher godself whom they do sense which you probably meant me to take: the
not yet know as their self. God being in all, this higher defect deliberately implanted in man by "Old
(...THE BOOK OF SATAN self is in union, or "atonement", with other selves Nobodaddy" with no better object than to prepare the
higher up in their spiritual evolution ancient spirits grotesquely tragic farce of the "Atonement." I will
IV who have mastered their godhood and "ascended" merely remark that no idea at once so base and so
into "a higher vibration" (no longer needing bodies). contemptible, so bestial and so idiotic, can challenge
1. Life is the great indulgence death, the great These beings, who already know their higher selves as its ignoble absurdity. Rotten with sexperversion, it is
abstinence. Therefore, make the most of life HERE god, are divine from our standpoint. They know of our a noisome blend of sadism and masochism based on
AND NOW! race's condition and have offered mankind their help in the most abject form of fear. The only argument for it
2. There is no heaven of glory bright, and no hell evolving into godhood. So in practical terms, prayer is is that it ever did exist; but it does not exist for
where sinners roast. Here and now is our day of directed to these higher beings as though to "God", wholesome minds....)
torment! Here and now is our day of joy! Here and and responses are "transmitted" from them. Since they
now is our opportunity! Choose ye this day, this hour, are united with the Divine, the enlightened worshiper is (http://lib.otousa.org/libri/liber0220.html)
for no redeemer liveth! expected to accept their every word as Divine Truth,
3. Say unto thine own heart, "I am mine own even if it seems like nonsense or contradicts what they (...Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law....)
redeemer." said yesterday. If he does so, the recipient will gain
4. Stop the way of them that would persecute you. Let knowledge, power, health and inner peace, and come (www.aleistercrowley.com/libri/lxxvii/index.html)
those who devise thine undoing be hurled back to closer to his own godhood. In response to human
confusion and infamy. Let them be as chaff before the need, some of these Masters become "Avatars" by (...Man has the right to kill those who would thwart
cyclone and after they have fallen rejoice in thine own occasionally taking up residence on the physical plane these rights. "the slaves shall serve."AL. II. 58 ...)
salvation. within a human host, known as "incarnation" (in their
5. Then all thy bones shall say pridefully, "Who is like own body) or "overshadowing" (sharing the body with Prayers for or to the dead
unto me? Have I not been too strong for mine another soul). There are different degrees of
adversaries? Have I not delivered MYSELF by mine overshadowing, ranging from divine impressions (www.lashtal.com)
own brain... (resulting in channeling and dictation of "wisdom"
...THE BOOK OF SATAN literature) to the host actually "stepping out" of his (...Crowley and his followers believed that they could
body to allow the "master" full control....) summon the spirits of the dead, through animal
V sacrifice and pagan rituals....)
Grace
1. Blessed are the strong, for they shall possess the (LIBER DCCCXXXVII THE LAW OF LIBERTY)
earth Cursed are the weak, for they shall inherit the (www.shareinternational.org)
yoke! (...Later, concerning death, He says: ìThink not, o
2. Blessed are the powerful, for they shall be (...A drug addict has inwardly divorced himself from king, upon that lie: That Thou Must Die: verily thou
reverenced among men Cursed are the feeble, for life. He has given in. The way to restore hope is to shalt not die, but live. Now let is be understood: If the
they shall be blotted out! restore meaning to his life: he has to gain a new view body of the King dissolve, he shall remain in pure
3. Blessed are the bold, for they shall be masters of of himself, a sense of his own worth. The first thing is ecstasy for ever.î 3 When you know that, what is left
the world Cursed are the righteously humble, for to help him raise his selfrespect. Selfrespect but delight? And how are w live meanwhile? ìIt is a lie,
they shall be trodden under cloven hoofs!... gradually becomes selfawareness and eventually, this folly against self. [Ö] Be strong, o man! lust, enjoy
...Therefore, never attempt to convince the skeptic according to Maitreya, Selfrealization, which is the all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God
upon whom you wish to place a curse. Allow him to aim of all ... shall deny thee for this.î 4 ...)
scoff. To enlighten him would lessen your chance of ...Q. Is this (Maitreya's) way the only way to so
success. Listen with benign assurance as he laughs at called salvation? Does Maitreya have exclusive rights Grace
your magic, knowing his days are filled with turmoil all to the salvation business?
the while. If he is despicable enough, by Satan's grace, (LIBER DCCCXXXVII THE LAW OF LIBERTY)
he might even die laughing!...) A. I think you will find that, unlike the established
fundamentalists of today, Maitreya will not claim any (...And what are the conditions of this joy, and peace,
(Encyclopedia Wikipedia) exclusive rights to the path to salvation. He comes as a and glory? Is ours the gloomy asceticism of the
Teacher. We must save ourselves through response to Christian, and the Buddhist, and the Hindu? Are we
(...In the Satanic Bible, Anton LaVey describes Satan the teachings, not by following Him as 'the only walking in eternal fear lest some sin should cut us off
as a motivating and balancing dark force in nature....) way'.... from grace? By no means. ìBe goodly therefore: dress
..."The Self is endless. Awareness is endless. Mind, ye all in fine apparel; eat rich foods and drink sweet
(Satanism pdf (by:Freddy Davis)) spirit and body have a beginning and an end...The wines and wines that foam! Also, take your fill and will
destiny of one and all is to be, one day, free of mind, of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye
(...Salvation spirit and body. This in itself becomes salvation." (SI will! But always unto me.î 3 This is the only point to
Church of Satan: There is no external god and no 9/89,8)... bear in mind, that every act must be a ritual, an act of
afterlife. The best humans can hope for is enjoyment in ...Detachment is the most powerful ‘drug’. It becomes worship, a sacrament. Live as the kings and princes,
this indulgence in carnal pleasure in the present, rather so effective that it immunizes the Self from the crowned and uncrowned, of this world, have always
than hope for the future, is the highest aim....) processes and proceedings of mind, spirit and body. lived, as masters always live; but let it not be self
Without detachment there is no salvation.... indulgence; make your selfindulgence your religion.
... As awareness grows, it guides the Self which can ...)
then use the mind, spirit and body with intelligence.
Balancing energy and environment is the key to (www.aleistercrowley.com/libri/x/index.html)
salvation....
...The Christian era saw their growth, and our age, the (...10. This is the nature of the Work. 11. First, there
74 / 150
Age of Maitreya, will see a planetary unfolding, are many and diverse conditions of life upon this earth.
Balancing energy and environment is the key to (www.aleistercrowley.com/libri/x/index.html)
salvation....
...The Christian era saw their growth, and our age, the (...10. This is the nature of the Work. 11. First, there
Age of Maitreya, will see a planetary unfolding, are many and diverse conditions of life upon this earth.
brought by the grace of those Sacred Beings who In all of these is some seed of sorrow. Who can
influence our evolution from beyond, and who, from escape from sickness and from old age and from
time to time, walk among us with the gift of Their death? 12. We are come to save our fellows from
presence.... these things. For there is a life intense with knowledge
...Without detachment there is no salvation. The and extreme bliss which is untouched by any of them.
Prayer for the New Age, given by Maitreya, can lead 13. To this life we attain even here and now. The
people to experience that Self within who is detached adepts, the servants of V.V.V.V.V., have attained
from mind, spirit and body. (Maitreya, Maitreya’s thereunto. 14. It is impossible to tell you of the
Teachings – The Laws of Life)...) splendours of that to which they have attained. Little
by little, as your eyes grow stronger, will we unveil to
you the ineffable glory of the Path of the Adepts, and
its nameless goal. 15. Even as a man ascending a
steep mountain is lost to sight of his friends in the
valley, so must the adept seem. They shall say: He is
lost in the clouds. But he shall rejoice in the sunlight
above them, and come to the eternal snows....
...17. We shall bring you to Absolute Truth, Absolute
Light, Absolute Bliss. ...
...22. We therefore who are without the chains of
ignorance, look closely into the heart of the seeker
and lead him by the path which is best suited to his
nature unto the ultimate end of all things, the supreme
realization, the Life which abideth in Light, yea, the
Life which abideth in Light....)
So here I have covered, what a certain, very popular, Satanist, New age, and Occult group's beliefs are concerning the trinity, original sin, prayers for or to the dead,
and grace are.
Now there are different Satanist groups, and they do not all have the exact same beliefs as the "Church of Satan", but in alot of aspects, they do, such as a type of
selfish life, and some type of honour towards Satan, and some of the other groups, believe in some type of life after death, in certain respects.
Now the Church of Satan, is a very popular, and influencial, satanic group, and very well known.
Now the beliefs that we have covered concerning the Church of Satan, is that first of all, concerning the trinity, they have on their altar, this type of pentagram,
encompassing th points of the star three points up, two pointing down symbolizing Satanism, and on the pentagram there is the inverted head of the goat its horns,
representing duality, thrust upwards points inverted, or the trinity denied.
So they deny the trinity, and to the Satanist he is his own God.
Also they say: There is no literal supernatural being. Material reality is all that exists.
Now concerning original sin, this is what La Vey declared, “Rather than cleanse the child of ‘original sin’, as in the Christian baptism imposing unwarranted guilt’s, we
will glorify her natural and intensify her lust for life.”, and also they say: "There is no transcendent basis for morality. Humans are simply a highly evolved form of animal
life. The survival of the fittest is the rule of life and whatever an individual needs to do to accomplish this is acceptable and appropriate."
So they do not agree with the doctrine of original sin.
What about praying for the dead?
Well as far as death is concerned, this is what they say:"At death, the individual simply ceases to exist" , but they do have a type of invocation, which they say, that they
disagree with prayer and that it is useless, yet invocation is a type of prayer, and it seems that what they pray for, is to gain strength from Satan, in order to increase
their lust for life. But as far as praying for the dead is concerned, they do not pray for or to them, for after death you cease to exist, according to them.
Now what about there view of grace or salvation?
Well they say this, about themselves: "I am mine own redeemer" , and "Let them be as chaff before the cyclone and after they have fallen rejoice in thine own salvation
".
Concerning the word grace, they mention, to go by "Satan's grace", which is probably Satan's empowerment in their increasing lusts.
And also, here is another of their quotes:"There is no external god and no afterlife. The best humans can hope for is enjoyment in this indulgence in carnal pleasure in the
present, rather than hope for the future, is the highest aim".
Now we go unto the New Age movement view of these things. And yes, in the New Age movement their are certain disagreements as well, between the different
organizations, but generally, they do have alot of similarities, and alot of things that are identical.
And I chose Share International for their increasing world wide influence, and their promotion for this man called "Maitreya".
Now here is their view of the trinity.
75 / 150
Here is one of their quotes:"The Holy Trinity combines the masculine (spirit) and the feminine (matter) aspects and the relation between spirit and matter the Christ
Now here is their view of the trinity.
Here is one of their quotes:"The Holy Trinity combines the masculine (spirit) and the feminine (matter) aspects and the relation between spirit and matter the Christ
aspect. It is in this sense that the Christ is the Son of GodFatherMother God....".
So they have a type of sonFatherMother God. God to them , in some form is both male and female, and yet also in their other quotes, they talk about different
aspects of God, such as the Holy Spirit being the mind, and the Christ being the energy of love. Also another thing they say is this:"God is the sum total of all that exists
in the whole of the manifested and unmanifested universe."
And then again, because God is this certain type of energy, which every man has, man also can become his own god, infact here is a quote: "Humans are gods, if only
they knew it. ".
So the trinity they proclaim, is not the same as the trinity of the bible, which is not both male and female, and is not a mere energy.
Now here is their view on "original sin".
Here is one of their quotes:"Because the soul can manifest only imperfectly through the lower vehicles — mental, astral and physical — it is, in a sense, descending into
imperfection or 'evil' as it is called in the Bible. It is not evil in any good/bad sense but is imperfect relative to the soul level. For the Masters there is only imperfection
and perfection. There is no such thing as 'sin.' Sin is a relative imperfection."
So it is pretty obvious that they are against "original sin", for, for them "sin" doesn't even exist!!!
What about praying to or for the dead, what is their view on this?
Well, here is what they say:"This is their higher godself whom they do not yet know as their self. God being in all, this higher self is in union, or "atonement", with
other selves higher up in their spiritual evolution ancient spirits who have mastered their godhood and "ascended" into "a higher vibration" (no longer needing bodies).
These beings, who already know their higher selves as god, are divine from our standpoint. They know of our race's condition and have offered mankind their help in
evolving into godhood. So in practical terms, prayer is directed to these higher beings as though to "God", and responses are "transmitted" from them."
So it is obvious, that they pray to the dead, who no longer need bodies, who realise, according to their doctrine, that they are gods.
Now we go unto their version of salvation, and grace.
Well here is a certain quote of theirs:"The first thing is to help him raise his selfrespect. Selfrespect gradually becomes selfawareness and eventually, according to
Maitreya, Selfrealization, which is the aim of all".
The goal is self realization.
And they say that there are many ways to salvation, which ultimately fits into this self realization thing.
Here is another description of their salvation:"The destiny of one and all is to be, one day, free of mind, spirit and body. This in itself becomes salvation."
And in the end, it has something to do with realization and attainement after death, and here is a final quote:"Without detachment there is no salvation."
It is not a grace type salvation, but rather a selfish salvation, through realization of self, or your self inner god.
And now finally, we get to the Occult, version of things. Now here to, in the Occult, there are varying differences among different groups, but all seem to have a
common goal. I chose to cover Aleister Crowley's views, because of his popularity, and also the wide spreading of his views.
In reading his views, at times it was difficult to comprehend alot of it, but finally I eventually got clearer quotes, and got some understanding on his views.
I have read how he had this type of black mass, and some say the originators of the original black mass, was started by the Catholic church.
And anyhow, let us cover his views, on the doctrine of the trinity.
He seemed to have mentioned a few trinities, which one was:"the Trinity of Nuit, Hadit and RHK/HPK", but as far as the Christian trinity was concerned, he says this
of the Father, Son and Holy ghost: " Father and Son are not really two, but one; their unity being the Holy Ghost, the semen; the human form is a nonessential
accretion of this quintessence."
It is said that in the black mass, Crowley would use the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but the way he viewed them, was not as 3 persons, yet being one
God, but rather the Father and Son, were not 2 but one, and the Holy Ghost was a type of semen, which is not at all compatible to the Christian view.
So Crowley's view of the trinity, was not the same as the bible view of the trinity.
So now we go to his view of "original sin".
Here is what he says: "But it is at least true that man's deepest instincts, being natural and necessary, are, for him, "right." It is true that an artificial society creates
artificial crimes; but this is not "Original" Sin; on the contrary."
Here are more of his quotes:"The word of Sin is Restriction. ...", " I note that I passed over with deserved contempt the theory of "original sin" ".
So he deffinetly was against the doctrine of "original sin", even being contemptible about it.
What about praying for or to the dead? What was his view?
76 / 150
What about praying for or to the dead? What was his view?
Well here is a quote:"Crowley and his followers believed that they could summon the spirits of the dead, through animal sacrifice and pagan rituals".
So in a certain form, they did pray to the dead.
Now what about his view of grace or the salvation message?
Well here are some quotes:"Are we walking in eternal fear lest some sin should cut us off from grace? By no means" , "make your selfindulgence your religion" , "First,
there are many and diverse conditions of life upon this earth. In all of these is some seed of sorrow. Who can escape from sickness and from old age and from death?
12. We are come to save our fellows from these things." , "We therefore who are without the chains of ignorance, look closely into the heart of the seeker and lead him
by the path which is best suited to his nature unto the ultimate end of all things, the supreme realization, the Life which abideth in Light, yea, the Life which abideth in
Light....)".
It seems like some type of supreme realization type of salvation, and in certain ways, similar to the New Age movement.
So these are the views concerning the trinity, original sin, prayers for or to the dead, and grace or salvation.
Here is what these groups say, about Satan or Lucifer.
Satanism: "...To the Satanist, he is his own God. Satan is a symbol of Man living as his prideful, carnal nature dictates. The reality behind Satan is simply the dark
evolutionary force of entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living things. Satan is not a conscious entity
to be worshipped, rather a reservoir of power inside each human to be tapped at will...."
(note: Satan is not a negative thing to the Satanist, but rather the power that gives them enablement, in their lustful pleasures. This dark power is something good to
them.)
New Age movement:"...Lucifer is the name of a great Angel, not an upstart in heaven who revolted against God and was put down into the nether regions as the Devil.
That is a complete misinterpretation. Lucifer means light, and comes from the Latin lux, lucis, meaning light. It is the name of the Angel Who ensouls the human
kingdom; every person, therefore, is a fragment of Lucifer....
...Lucifer, the Oversoul, diversified itself, and each fragment became individualized. These individualized human souls descended from the soul plane into incarnation.
The ‘fall’ of Adam and Eve from paradise is the symbolic representation of this event; it has nothing to do with the Devil or with Lucifer as an evil entity, but with the
divine nature of humanity itself as souls....
...Satan is not a man but a symbol. He symbolizes our own separative, selfish, lower nature which, in the main, we hide by rationalizing it and seeing our motives
(through the fog of illusion called glamour)...".
(So the New Age movement does not view Lucifer as being the devil, and Lucifer though being a great angel, is part of the divine humanity of man called souls, and is
not an evil entity, and concerning Satan, he is just viewed as man's lower nature.)
Occult: "...This serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods of our race, knowing Good and Evil; He bade "Know Thyself!" and taught
Initiation. He is "the Devil" of the Book of Thoth, and His emblem is BAPHOMET, the Androgyne who is the hieroglyph of arcane perfection....
...Satan in general is the secret self in terms of Thelema which includes the highest heights and the lowest depths....
...the solarphallichermetic "Lucifer" is His own Holy Guardian Angel, and "The Devil" SATAN or HADIT of our particular unit of the Starry Universe...."
(So nothing negative said about Satan here, and it is said that Satan is not the enemy of man, but he who made gods of man, and also he says that Lucifer is his own
guardian angel, and that Satan has something to do with our particular unit of the Starry Universe.)
So none of them say something peticularly evil of Satan, and say different (but not negative) things concerning Lucifer.
So to the New Age movement, Satanism, and the Occult, Satan is not an evil being.
Now yes, according to the bible, when Satan was known as Lucifer, he was a perfect angel, and the name Lucifer was not a negative name, for it meant: "morning
star", but as soon as Lucifer fell from heaven, God now called him the "Devil" or "Satan", which Satan means: "an oponent, the arch enemy of good, or even adversary",
and the word Devil means: "false accuser, slanderer".
The very meanings of the words Satan and Devil, are totally negative, yet these 3 groups do not say anything of negativity of him, and it is important to view Satan, for
what he truly is, which is a false accuser, arch enemy of good etc.
Is this a coincidence that these 3 groups, do not put any truly negative alliance to Satan?
Oh no it is not!!!
And yet most religions, would agree with their views on at least being against the trinity, praying to the dead (with the exception of Satanism), being against original sin,
and some type of self salvation.
They may not agree in their methods, or doctrines of what they consider as being God, and approaches of prayer etc., but in the aspect of being against these doctrines
or believing it differently than the bible, there are very real similarities.
The Muslims for instance, speak against the trinity, pray for dead Muslims (and not to the dead as these groups do (exception Satanism)), speak against original sin,
and have a type of self works + their grace salvation (which Satanists also proclaim a type of grace).
The Jews speak against the trinity and original sin, pray to dead Jews to intercede on their behalf, and have a selfish works salvation, not much at all to do with a
certain type of grace.
Roman Catholicism mention the trinity of the bible as being 3 persons yet one God, but deify Mary as the Mother of God, and being sinless, and worship her, and they
speak for "original sin", but pray to and for the dead, and they also have a certain selfish works salvation + their type of grace, and yet part of their salvation is found in
77 / 150
infant baptism, and as a baby, they cannot choose to receive Christ as their saviour.
certain type of grace.
Roman Catholicism mention the trinity of the bible as being 3 persons yet one God, but deify Mary as the Mother of God, and being sinless, and worship her, and they
speak for "original sin", but pray to and for the dead, and they also have a certain selfish works salvation + their type of grace, and yet part of their salvation is found in
infant baptism, and as a baby, they cannot choose to receive Christ as their saviour.
Hinduism has a different type of trinity, but do not acknowledge the trinity of the bible as it is, and they deny the doctrine of original sin, and pray for the dead, and
have some type of self realization salvation, much like the New Age movement.
Bhudism the Bhuddists have no need for a god, and are their own salvation, and they deny the doctrine of "original sin", and pray for the dead, and believe in a self
type salvation.
Sihkism speaks against the trinity, and deny the doctrine of "original sin", and they also pray for the dead, and have a type of self realization salvation, also likened unto
the New Age movement.
Now the Satanist, New age, Occult, groups mentioned in this study, pray to the dead, but not for the dead, as far as I know, but the bible clearly shows not to invoke
the dead, and it never tells us to pray for the dead.
And are all these original sin, trinity etc. similarities, just coincidences?
Oh no, they are not.
This is what the bible says about God, and what he is not.
1 Corinthians 14:33
(33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.)
God is not the author of confusion, and if he is not, and Satan is the opposite of him, then obviously, the author of confusion, is none other then Satan!!!
And that is why their are so many religions today, so Satan can bring confusion to the people, in seeing which is the right one, and the more religions there are, the more
confusion he can bring, and notice what he does, he always brings similar messages, but varies them a little, and twists them, in order for people not to uncover his
plans, so they think their religion is different, when really it is not, it just has alot of different names, variations, and certain differences, but this is so, so to camouflage,
his deceits.
The only one that varies from these ways, is the bible, for the bible is totally against all of these ways, in every way shape or form. Is this also a coincidence?
No, No , No !!!!!!!
Satan's name does not mean adversary for nothing !!!
There are no coincidences, and Satan is even doing a good job in the church, in confusing God's ways.
Now let us go unto other parts of this study, which will be the final section.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
The bible is very trustworthy, you need not to doubt it's message, it's message is from God. And before we finish this study, I want to cover things concerning the word
"religion", "Christianity", and other things, and then this will conclude this study.
The word "religion"
The word religion, in the dictionary, means (thefreedictionary):
" 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."
The way this word is usually taken today, is in describing a type of instution, or system you belong to, such as: Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Hinduism, Muslimism
etc.
Now what does the word "religion" mean, in the word of God?
Well first of all, we will mention verses, that talk about man made religion.
Acts 26:5
(5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.)
Galatians 1:13
(13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:)
Galatians 1:14
(14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.)
78 / 150
Now Paul, before he got converted, was part of a strict sect of the Jewish religion, which was the Pharisees.
(14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.)
Now Paul, before he got converted, was part of a strict sect of the Jewish religion, which was the Pharisees.
The Jews, because of not keeping in God's ways, eventually formed their own religion, which became Judaism, and had many Phariseeic principles, and Jesus was not
pleased with their doctrines. Now the word Judaism is not found in the bible, but the fact that it mentions a Jewish religion, shows that the Jews had made up their own
religion, but it was not constituted by God, and nowhere in the bible, does it show, God ordaining such a religion.
Paul was mentioning of being under this Jewish religion, when he was not saved, and he was persecuting the church, there is nothing positive, in the bible, concerning
the Jewish religion, and in the old testament, there is absolutely no mention of this religion, nor of God bringing it about.
Now we will go to what God says, is religion to him.
James 1:2627
(26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.)
So a pure and undefiled religion before God, is to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world's sins, and if you keep
yourself unspotted, you will also bridle your tongue, meaning you just won't speak just any words that may come to you, but you will take control of your tongue, and
speak wholesome, loving words.
So that is pure and undefiled religion, which brings a pure religion, and this refers to an action, and not an institution or religious system, but just rather an action done
towards God and men. And these actions ought to be done in love and through the grace of God.
So to be religious can be positive or negative, depending on what someone means, and the positive aspect, is referred to an action, through the grace of God, and the
negative aspect of it, is to be part of a religious institution or system, which in truth is man made, for that is not religion to God!!!
So true Christianity, itself, is not a religion, now it brings about a pure and undefiled religion in a Christian's life, but a Christian is what someone that is saved is, and
religion is something that he does.
Pure religion is something that he does, or should do.
So religion to God is not Catholicism, Christianity, Mormonism etc., but rather it is the action that results from being a Christian.
So true Christianity is not a religion, but rather it is something you become as a result of being saved, which in tern results in pure religious actions.
The word Christian means: "follower" of Christ, or "of" Christ.
That is a good meaning, and just as a Canadian is of Canada, and is not Canada, so is a Christian, "of " Christ, and not Christ.
Here is a scripture, with the word Christian in it.
Acts 11:26
(26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much
people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.)
Now it is said of this scripture, that it was pagans or maybe worldly people that first called believers Christians, and some say this was a negative thing, but in truth, how
is it negative? It means a follower of Christ? And all that must of really happened, is that they saw them act like Christ, thus them calling them Christians, and that is all,
that's not negative but rather positive.
Here are other scriptures with the word Christian in it.
Acts 26:28
(28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.)
1 Peter 4:16
(16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.)
These are the only verses with the word Christian in it, in the whole entire bible, which is a good, positive word.
Now the word Saint is mentioned quite a bit in the bible, which refers to both dead, and alive Christians.
The Catholic church, only mention the word saints, to someone who is now dead, and who may have done some miracle, but biblically speaking, that narrow view, is
not biblical. When someone is saved, he is a saint, he does not have to be perfect, just washed in the blood of the lamb, and then onced saved, you work on allowing
Christ to conform you to his image, so that you actually act as a saint should act.
Now at this moment I want to compare, what the word of certain man made religions, mean, and of course the Godly word of Christian.
Now every religion (man made), has a name it goes by, and I want to show forth what these actual words, actually mean.
First of all, let us cover the word Muslim. 79 / 150
Now every religion (man made), has a name it goes by, and I want to show forth what these actual words, actually mean.
First of all, let us cover the word Muslim.
Now the word Muslim means :"submission", or the "total surrender of oneself to God ".
This word, is an action word, rather than something you can actually become, people can submit to God, but people cannot become a submission, so in retrospect,
being a Muslim, in the sense of becoming an action, does not make any sense.
Now what about Roman Catholicism ?
Well the word Roman obviously refers to someone that is from Rome, but the word Catholicism means:"universal". So in retrospect, you can say that a Roman
Catholic, is a Roman Universal, or a Universal Roman.
Did God really want people to become Roman universals? Because for one thing, there is nothing in the word, that says to become Roman universlists, just Christians,
saints, believers etc.
Could this word have eventually come from the Roman Empire itself, which was a world conqueror? The word Roman Universal, implies spreading a type of Roman
doctrine all over the world, and it becoming the universal doctrine, which implies some type of conquering, and in truth if you look at Roman Catholic history, they have
tried to conquer through persecutions, and now through ecumenicalism.
Why a Roman? And why Universal? Was God trying to promote a racial doctrine? No of course not, for he never started the Roman Catholic church, which we will
get more into later.
Now unto the word Jew.
The word Jew is someone that comes from Judah, and eventually it became synonimous with being an Israelite. So this word actually makes sense, in what someone
could be.
Jehovah's Witness, well this is actually self explanatory, which is just simply being a witness of Jehovah, which in an of itself, is not bad, and is possible to be a true
one.
So these are just a few of the religions' titles that they go by, which some make common sense, and one does not, and the other well implies a type of Universal
spreading of it's doctrine.
No I am not for the Jehovah's Witnesses, but their word itself makes sense.
And of course the word Christian means:"follower or of Christ", and a person can easily become a certain type of follower.
Now let us talk a bit about the Christian church.
Christianity
Now alot of people, especially unbelievers, ask today, well which church is the right church? Well also they ask, which Christian church is the right church, there are
many denominational churches today, and they do not all agree, so which one is the right one?
Sometimes alot of Christian ministries just shun such comments, but you know what? I think it is a very legitimate question, because if Christians are truly honest with
themselves, there is alot of confusion in the church, which Satan is the author of confusion.
1 Peter 4:17
(17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?)
Judgment must start at the house of God first, and if we allow God, to show us were we err, then God can change us, and we can be a tremendous witness to the
world.
There are too many, denominational, defending churches, rather than standing for Jesus, churches.
Really, what is so glorious about denominations? Did your denomination save you? Nope, only Christ can save a person.
The only denominations, that I know of, which were in Jesus' day, were the Pharisees and the Saducees, and Jesus did not say very much good about them.
How should leaders, lead the church? And what does the bible say the head of the church is?
Mark 10:3744
(37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye
be baptized:
40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.
41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John.
42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones
80 / 150
exercise authority upon them.
40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.
41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John.
42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones
exercise authority upon them.
43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.)
Ephesians 5:23
(23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.)
Well Ephesians, shows very clearly, who is the head of the the church, and it is not the pastors nor the elders, and the type of leadership, the leaders should have, is not
in a type of lordship over the body, but rather it is in a sense of doing service or ministry, in an humble attitude, with a caring and servant's heart, rather than lording it
over the flock.
The way many assemblies are set up today, is in a type of hierarchy, were often times, the leadership (which we need leaders), is put in a higher place than the flock,
but this should not be, for every persons part is equal in God's site, and a leader just happens to have a leadership role and that is all, they are there to build up the
flock, so they have a deeper relationship with God and really that is the main goal.
1 Peter 5:5
(5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and
giveth grace to the humble.)
Alot of pastors out there, love the part that says submit yourselves unto the elder, but they tend to forget the part that says, submit yourselves unto one another, and not
just unto the elder.
The body of Christ, is suppose to work as a family, were everyone's part, is respected, and allowed, and this submission, is not neccesarily a submission to were you
obey everything someone says, irregardless to what they say, but rather it is a submission of servanthood towards one another.
Simply because we love each other, and seek each other's good. Do what the Lord tells you to do, listen to his voice, and be ye willful servants towards one another.
Hebrews 13:1617
(16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not
with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.)
What is it talking about here concerning, they that have rule over you? Well it is not talking about someone lording it over the flock, but rather someone who (the
leadership) is ruling well the flock, but in a servant's attitude, and not a type of lord it over the flock, self righteous attitude, were he can do no wrong, and your a piece
of manure.
Someone who rules well in a leadership role, is not a ruler of the flock, but rather a perfecter of the flock.
Ephesians 4:1112
(11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:)
Prophets, Apostles etc. were given to perfect the saints in their faith, and bring the flock in a type of accountability before God, or even God's word, and not before
them.
The accountability is God's word!!!
1 Timothy 5:1
(1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;)
Now the word elder, is referring to a few things in the bible, and at times it refers to the office of an elder, and at other times, it refers to the elderly. Now in this case, it
seems to refer to an elderly Christian, because of what it says, in the next verse, which is 1 Timothy 5:2, which talks about elderly women.
And I know that some pastors use this scripture sometimes, so to say that you cannot rebuke a pastor, but they should look at what another scripture, in the same
chapter, also says about this, which says:
1 Timothy 5:1721
(17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by
partiality.)
So an elderly Christian can be rebuked, but the reason why it says, accept not an accusation concerning an elder, except it be before two or three witnesses (2 or 3,
who witnessed this happen), is because you have to be sure that the peticular accusation, is true, but if you see them sin, in front of you, then rebuke them before all!!!
81 / 150
Wow, that is a strong statement!!!
So an elderly Christian can be rebuked, but the reason why it says, accept not an accusation concerning an elder, except it be before two or three witnesses (2 or 3,
who witnessed this happen), is because you have to be sure that the peticular accusation, is true, but if you see them sin, in front of you, then rebuke them before all!!!
Wow, that is a strong statement!!!
Alot of preachers manipulate the word, before their flock, why? Because they want to control the flock. And some leaders say, that only elders are aloud to rebuke a
pastor, or elder Christian etc., but the bible, in the case of this scripture, is talking about, whatever Christian sees an elder sin, for them to rebuke them before all.
And concerning all Christians, the bible says to rebuke, reprove, exhort, with all longsuffering and doctrine.
Yes there may be times, that the leadership, and not certain parts of the flock, will be chosen to correct a pastor, and in certain cases, it should be that way, but that
does not mean, that only they are priviledge to do so, and Christian, only do so, as the Lord directs, and in love.
We are all called to proclaim the gospel, but we are not all called to preach or teach the gospel, in the sense of being a pastor, teacher etc.
Is it biblical, the way most churches (especially denominational), ordain pastors today?
Well in truth, for the most part, in denominational circles (which I previously was a part of), they usually have a type of "vote" "in" your pastor type of system.
And here I am dealing with the church, and not the government.
Now how were people ordained in the bible?
1 Timothy 4:14
(14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.)
Acts 1:2326
(23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.)
Acts 9:46
(4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou
must do.)
Concerning giving forth, or what is known as casting out there lots, it was a type of thing they threw, and whoever it fell upon, that was the one chosen. This casting of
lots, was not a voting system, nor was it even voting, for it was just the casting of something, and were ever it lay, or pointed to, that person would be the chosen one.
Now God called people to leadership, through various ways, and in the case of Paul, it was God directly speaking to him, and later on, with further briefing, a man
named Ananias, gave him further briefing concerning God's will (Acts 9:1017). So sometimes men are called to leadership by direct speech from God, and other times
it is by the laying on of hands of the leadership, or it can be by prophecy, through a person. Now in the case of Mathias, there was 2 Godly men, and they were praying
about , which one should replace Judas Iscariot, and they cast their lots, and it happened to fall upon Mathias, which became an apostle.
Absolutely no voting system whatsoever here. But today's denominational churches as a whole, have adopted a voting system, rather than just let God be God, and let
him do the calling, by the means he chooses.
Some might say, well how will you know if so and so, is called of God? Well I could tell you one thing, it won't be by a voting system, and what a church needs, is not
a bunch of man made systems, but rather spiritual discernment.
What ever happened to trusting God? Unless people do not know how to trust in God any more. God does fulfill his word, and you can trust him.
God is well able to preserve his church, but we must walk in harmony with him, and he will do so.
God's intention was not a democratic church, which is done: by the people, through the people, and for the people. We need God's grace and empowerment, and not
man's empowerment.
God's way is: by God, through God, and for God. Do all to the glory of God. God is truly for the people, and he knows best, of how to bring true goodness to the
people.
Alot of people search for what is the truth, for who is the real God, and often times, they already have a preconceived idea of what he should be like, and often times
these people want God their way, rather than wanting God his way.
God is a loving God, and his way is better than our way, and he should know best, for he created man!!!
The church itself should not operate as an organization, but rather as an organism.
Organism means (merriamwebster):"2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a
living being".
It is operating as a spiritual family unit, and not as an institution. 82 / 150
living being".
It is operating as a spiritual family unit, and not as an institution.
Now there are many Christian organizations, such as feed the hungry type organizations, but as far as the establishment of the church is concerned, it was not meant to
become an organization, but rather to remain an organism.
What about the ordination of ministers through bible colleges? Well in the bible, no one was ordained through bible colleges, but rather it was done through laying on of
hands through prayer, and revelation of the Holy Spirit, and through God speaking directly to the person, and in things such as casting lots, because they were not sure
which of the 2 Godly men, should have the apostleship, and they prayed before even doing so.
Now bible colleges may have their place, which hopefully would build a Christian up in the faith, but it was never meant as means of ordaining ministers, for God does
the calling, and not bible colleges.
They may not have had bible colleges back then, but irregardless to this, God does the calling and not men, a bible college cannot take God's place for ordination, nor
did God institute it to do so, for God is the same, yesterday, today and forever.
And remember that God will not share his glory with any man!!! Nor any bible college!!!
Some might say, well the law requires that we get a certificate from a known bible college etc. etc. etc.
Well yes, we must obey the laws of the land, but not if that peticular law is against the way God does things.
First of all, let us look at things, in the perspective, of Peter and Paul's days.
The church, in these days got persecuted, and even by the Romans, and would the government of that day, accept a preachers license from Paul? I sincerely doubt it,
and God never instituted the church to fucntion in that way. So what if no church today, accepted you in having a preachers license, and you were truly walking with
God and called of God, would that mean that you should not listen to God's will for you?
By all means no!!! And frankly God never instituted the church to work in that way, so why would God change his ways now???
Like I said, obey the laws of the land, that is except if it contradicts the bible, or God's ways of doing things, for God is not going to budge from his ways.
Often times, the church tries to fit God into a worldly mould.
In truth, there is a true division in the church today, and here is an interesting scripture.
1 Corinthians 1:1213
(12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?)
In truth, many Christians fit in this category, some may not say word for word that they are of this, or that preacher, but sometimes you can tell that it is so.
This also reminds me of the many denominations there is, such as I am a Pentecostal, I am a Baptist, I am an Anglican, I am a Brethren, I am a Methodist, and the list
goes on and on and on and on.
Minister, are you willing to give up your denomination, and just walk in the simplicity of the gospel? Or are you making too much of a big wage, so you do not dare to
come out? Are you a preacher that cares? Or are you an Hireling? What is most important to you? Your denomination? Or God? Because I tell one thing,
denominations are not making a big impression on the world.
Is it about growing your denomination? Or is it just simply about souls?
Are churches willing to drop their denominations, neal before God, and just be open to him, so to eventually be able to work with other churches that are of common
agreement with God, for the common goal? Because if that is the true goal, then the church can ba a mighty impact on this earth, but as a whole I know it won't do so,
but it is possible for as many churches as possible to do so, for with God there is always a way.
This is what it says of the church in our days.
2 Thessalonians 2:14
(1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.)
Now in the bible, it mentions the coming day of the Lord, which is known as the second coming, and also there is the coming day of the Lord, that is known as the
rapture. In this passage (verse 1), it is referring to the coming day of the Lord "the rapture" or "catching away".
Why do I say this?
Because, for one thing, it is talking about the coming of the Lord, and our gathering together unto him, and at the rapture, Jesus shall come, but he shall stop at a certain
point in the clouds (no one on earth shall see him), and the church, shall be caught up to him, to meet him in the clouds (1 Thessalonians 4:1518), but at the second
coming, the church comes down to earth with him, to reign for a thousand years with him, and he shall reign as King on earth.
83 / 150
So Thessalonians 2:1, first mentions the words:"coming of our Lord Jesus Christ", and then mentions the words:"gathering together unto him", but at the second coming,
point in the clouds (no one on earth shall see him), and the church, shall be caught up to him, to meet him in the clouds (1 Thessalonians 4:1518), but at the second
coming, the church comes down to earth with him, to reign for a thousand years with him, and he shall reign as King on earth.
So Thessalonians 2:1, first mentions the words:"coming of our Lord Jesus Christ", and then mentions the words:"gathering together unto him", but at the second coming,
it shall be people going with him, on earth.
Now verse 2 mentions that this coming day of Christ, refers to a single day, for it is written day, in singular.
So now we go to verse 3, for it is written:"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day (singular) shall not come, except there come a falling away first".
So this day, which is when the church shall be gathered unto him, shall not come except there be a falling away first.
What it is saying, is this, the rapture (catching away) cannot happen, until the falling away first happens.
And what will happen, some time after the falling away, is that the church shall dissapear to meet Christ in the air, and on earth there will be a 7 year tribulation period,
and then the second coming will come to pass.
The word "falling away" here, in the Greek, means:"Defection from truth, apostasy". And this is talking about the church, which many of the churches today, are falling
away from God's truths, and going unto another gospel, and some are so worldly, that they think that they can win the world, by the means of being like the world, or
using worldly means to gain the lost, when they should focus on being more like Christ, and yes the world will hear these worldy ministries, to a certain degree,
especially if it appeals to their lustful desires (not meaning sexual in this case).
But many times the world can tell a true Christian from a phony Christian, and frankly, worldly church, why do you want to give the world, what they already have?
The church today, is doing the same thing as the Jews, for in the old testament, Christ was prophesied to come, and it prophesied how he would come, and when he
came, the Jews as a whole rejected him, and did not recognise him, and today, in a similar manner, the church, is gradually going away from Christs ways, and are
failling to recognise his ways, and he is gradually becoming vague to them.
Here is am interesting song, of what in part, is happening.
("Slow Fade" CASTING CROWNS)
(...It's a slow fade when you give yourself away It's a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
When you give yourself away People never crumble in a day It's a slow fade, it's a slow fade
Be careful little ears what you hear When flattery leads to compromise, the end is always near Be careful little lips what you say For empty words and promises lead
broken hearts astray...
...It's a slow fade when you give yourself away It's a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
When you give yourself away People never crumble in a day Daddies never crumble in a day Families never crumble in a day
Oh be careful little eyes what see Oh be careful little eyes what you see For the Father up above is looking down in love Oh be careful little eyes what you see...)
This is a very scripturally sound message, and the church should take heed to what this song is saying.
Let yourself be revived in the Lord, let that first love, come back.
Now I want to go to 2 Thessalonians 2:34 once again.
(3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.)
So 2 things must happen, before the catching away can take place, firstly there must be a falling away from truth (apostasy), and secondly that man of sin (the
antichrist), in whom he is, will be revealed, and I believe that he is alive today, and it seems that he has already been revealed, and this person who gets revealed before
the rapture, shall exalt himself above all that is called God, which will be done approximetely 3 1/2 years, into the 7 tribulation period.
So what it is saying is this, that the man of sin, who gets revealed in whom he is, before the rapture, is this same man, that shall exalt himself above all that is called God,
during the middle of the tribulation period.
First, the man of sin gets revealed, some time after that, the rapture takes place, and then the 7 year tribulation commences.
Now it is said of the Jews, that their eyes concerning whom the antichrist is, shall happen at the mid point of the tribulation period, but for the church, it happens,
before the rapture takes place.
So right now let us deal with 2 more isssues, concerning the church.
Issue number 1, will be eternal security, or the onced saved, always saved gospel, and issue number 2 will be bible versions.
Eternal Security
The question, would be, can a Christian lose his salvation? According to eternal security, or onced saved always saved, you cannot, well I would challenge these type
of Christians, to be honest with all of God's word, and do not be tied down by a peticular doctrine, but compare the word with the word, to see if it is true or not, and
if it is not true, than it can potentially be an harmful doctrine to the church. 84 / 150
The question, would be, can a Christian lose his salvation? According to eternal security, or onced saved always saved, you cannot, well I would challenge these type
of Christians, to be honest with all of God's word, and do not be tied down by a peticular doctrine, but compare the word with the word, to see if it is true or not, and
if it is not true, than it can potentially be an harmful doctrine to the church.
Christian, let's just have an honest study here.
Here are some of the favourite onced saved, always saved, scriptures, and trust me, I believe these scriptures also, but along with other scriptures.
Hebrews 13:5
(5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.)
John 3:36
(36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.)
Ephesians 4:30
(30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.)
John 6:3940
(39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.)
Ok, let us cover these verses, one by one, so the Hebrews verse, says how God would never leave the Christian, nor forsake him.
Ok now we get to the next scripture, from John, which says that:"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life".
So now we cover the Ephesians verse, which says:"ye are sealed unto the day of redemption".
So now to the John scripture which says:"all which he hath given me I should lose nothing".
Ok so the Christian does have a strong assurance of salvation, but we have to remember what these scriptures say, and for one thing, it says:"God will never leave us,
nor forsake us" , now God may not, because he's always there to thrust us forward, but can we leave him and forsake him, and cause him to leave us, even though he
does not want to do so? Well we will see with other scriptures.
Now what about, Christians having everlasting life? Well yes a Christian has everlasting life, but remember, it says that, "he" that believeth, has everlasting life, can you
cease believing and still have everlasting life?
Ok what about being sealed unto the day of redemption? Well ya the Christian is sealed unto the day of redemption, the Christian is, but what if he ceases to be a
Christian, then is he still sealed?
No to the next one, God says that everything that he has given Jesus, that Jesus should lose nothing, well ya every one that is in Christ won't be lost, that is every one
that the Father gave him, that was given to him, as remaining his servant, would not be lost.
So let us go to scriptures, that can prove what I am saying, now can a Christian leave and forsake God? 2 Timothy 2:1113
(11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.)
The word deny here, is like a type of forsaking.
Deny (Websters) means:" 5. To reject; to disown; not to receive or embrace."
To forsake (Websters) means:"2. To abandon; to renounce; to reject."
This scripture is talking about a Christian which is someone that is alive with him, and it says that if "we" the ones that are alive with him, deny him, he will deny us, so
then how does the verse I will never leave you nor forsake you apply then? Well it is a conditional thing, and it's not that God wants to leave, but it's that we force him
to leave, by denying him. And Jesus is still trying to knock at the door of the person's heart, yet if we do not leave him in, he won't force his way in.
God does not force us to stay saved, that is why he gave us a free will!!!
Ok now can you stop believing God, and lose your everlasting life?
Romans 11:2022
(20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also
shalt be cut off.)
Here it is talking about Israel's unbelief, and then God turns to the church, and says do not be high minded, but fear, and then verse 22, mentions what he shows to the
church which it says: and toward thee goodness , and then it says: "if" thou continue in his goodness. 85 / 150
Here it is talking about Israel's unbelief, and then God turns to the church, and says do not be high minded, but fear, and then verse 22, mentions what he shows to the
church which it says: and toward thee goodness , and then it says: "if" thou continue in his goodness.
The only way you can be in his goodness, is if you are in him, and he was saying to people in the church, who were already walking in the goodness of God, to not be
high minded, and to continue in his goodness, lest thou also be cut off, or not be spared.
That is severe stuff, and the context it was talking about, was unbelief!!!
Now can someone lose his seal or salvation, onced saved?
Revelation 3:1416
(14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.)
This church was one of the seven churches that John, is said to have founded, and John was sending a letter to the seven churches, which he would travel to, in Turkey,
these were church plants, which some eventually fell into bad doctrine, and others kept in good faith.
So this was addressed to people who were Christians, but were going unto another gospel. They had now become lukewarm for God, neither cold nor hot, using
God's name , yet wanting the ways of this world, thinking that riches is godliness. And here are other verses, that refer to this same church.
Revelation 3:1920
(19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.)
Now God told this church to repent, and he said that as many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. It is clear in other scriptures, that God chastises believers at times. And if
they would not repent, God would spue them out of his mouth, and in truth, in order for God to spue you out of his mouth, you had to be in him at one time or another.
And if this church would repent, God would be supping with them, which would mean he would be back in them. This was a church founded by one of the disciples,
these were believers who had gone astray, that God was talking to, and church history proves it, and even the way these scriptures are written prove it, but of course
people will deny this of course, for they always do.
So yes you can lose your salvation or your seal, and I will prove it with yet more verses.
So now can Jesus lose you?
Hebrews 10:2627
(26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.)
If you look at the context of these scriptures and read scriptures, that are beforehand, you will see that there is absolutely no doubt, of who it is talking about here,
which is believers.
This is talking about they who have received the knowledge of the truth, and when someone tends to go into unbelief, and yet deeper into unbelief, he tends to also get
deeper into sin, and bit by bit wants to sin willfully, and it says that if we sin willfully, than there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of
judgment and fiery indignation, which is hell. Now some will say, well this is absurd, for we all sin willfully? Well in truth, Christians should not want to sin, and yes it
happens, but there is a difference between struggling in sin, and dilliberately wanting to sin, and not care for repentance afterwards. And Hebrews was talking to Jewish
believers, it was not talking to unbelievers, and the book of Hebrews is for the church, whether Hebrew or not.
The writter of Hebrews, included himself, in the "if" we sin willfully list.
So you definetely can be lost, and the question I have for the onced saved always saved, is this, onced your saved, can you continue in your own goodness, and stay
saved?
Remember that there is no salvation in us, but only in Christ.
And no we do not have to continually get resaved, but if you totally turn away from Christ, which usually happens gradually, you do have to return to Christ, and have
Christ's salvation come back inside of you. Onced saved, God does take you were your at, and grace sets you free from sin, and does not make you free in sin, there is
a whole lot to salvation, than just going to heaven.
And oh yes, I have more scriptures.
James 1:1416
(14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.)
Now James here, was talking about man being tempted, and he says that when sin is finished, or taken to it's end, it bringeth forth death, then he goes on to say, do not
err, my beloved brethren.
86 / 150
Now this was talking about spiritual death, for it was obvious that all men would die physically, and James was saying these scriptures to the brethren, about when sin is
finished, it bringeth forth death, so why would John mention this to the brethren, of not erring in this way, if it was not possible for a Christian, to die spiritually, then why
err, my beloved brethren.
Now this was talking about spiritual death, for it was obvious that all men would die physically, and James was saying these scriptures to the brethren, about when sin is
finished, it bringeth forth death, so why would John mention this to the brethren, of not erring in this way, if it was not possible for a Christian, to die spiritually, then why
the warning?
Was it just to fill up space?
Now I got an even stronger scripture, which I will now quote.
Revelation 3:5
(5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father,
and before his angels.)
It says here that he that overcometh...he will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but what if you do not overcome? Well obviously, this was just talking to
overcomers, about not being blotted of his book, so someone that does not overcome, obviously would be blotted out, out of his book. And the only way someone
can be blotted out, out of his book, is if his name appeared in his book before.
Now I have heard a person say that, everyone's name, from birth, is written in the lamb's book of life, but is that true?
Revelation 17:8
(8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose
names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.)
It says about these unbelievers, that their names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, which means that they were never in the book.
So that clarifies that. Now the bible does say, about children who have not reached the age of understanding that such is the kingdom of God, and perhaps if they were
to die at this tender age, there names would be written in the book of life then, but it is obvious that not all men's names have been written in the book of life.
This onced saved always saved doctrine is very dangerous for the church's health, and in some, it has produced a life not concerned with sin, and a do as thou wilt life
style, and I have seen it bring alot of condemnation, on people that may have slipped into some sin, and they say, well they were probably never saved in the first place,
God does give us a free will, and yes God's choice is for all men to be saved, for he chose us, but the bible also says "choose ye this day, whom ye shall serve".
God's choice is that none would perish, but along with that being his will, we also have to go along with that choice, in the fact of choosing his salvation. We must listen
to his voice, that is the pricking of our hearts, so to come to him, and that is what happpened at salvation.
Now here is another verse, which will have tremendous clarity, on what it is talking about.
James 5:1920
(19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.)
This is talking about, if any brethren, which is a brother in Christ, err fron the truth, and one convert him, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way
shall save a soul from death!!! From death!!! From death!!!
It is calling this brother that erred from the truth, a sinner, and in truth, a Christian is a sinner saved by grace.
And in one sense, according to other scriptures, Christians are not sinners, but in a sense of not being 100% perfect in every way, we are sinners.
Now this scripture is talking about, saving this brother's soul from death!!! This is obviously not talking about physical death, but spiritual death.
So yes a Christian can die spiritually, if he gradually goes away from Christ's ways, and gradually ceases to believe. You can reject Christ's salvation, if you want to, for
you have a free will, God will not force you to stay saved.
And alot of these onced saved always saved people, do not really understand, in a big way the grace of God.
Why is there so much division in the church? Well for one thing, the various teachings people have come under, possibly through their lack of studying the scriptures,
and lack of honesty towards all scripture. But also the many various bible translations have brought a lot of division in the church.
Right now I will comment on some of the differences, in verses, concerning bible translations, and also on some of the divisions.
Bible Versions
Some of the scriptures, that are not taken very seriously in the church today, are found in Proverbs 30:6, and Revelation 22:1819 and Deuteronomy 4:2, which say :
Proverbs 30:6
(6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.)
Revelation 22:1819
(18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are
87 / 150
written in this book:
Revelation 22:1819
(18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are
written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from
the things which are written in this book.)
Deuteronomy 4:2
(2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I
command you.)
Proverbs says : "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar", and what does the bible say about liars?
Revelation 21:8
(8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake
which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.)
Now this lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, shall be the last resting place or place of abode, for unbelievers, and that is were liars shall be cast, and this will
happen at the great white throne of judgment, which happens after Christ's 1000 year reign on earth. Now this lake of fire, is not referring to hell, but rather it is a place
that God shall cast both hell and the dead therein, into this lake of fire (Revelation 20:1415).
At this point in time, every one shall be before the great white throne judgment of God, some on his side, others not on his side, and while this is taking place, this
present earth shall be burned up, and God shall create, a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21:1).
So if liars shall be cast into the lake of fire (Revelations 21:8) , then this verse of not adding to his word (Proverb 30:6 (which talks about being found a liar)), should be
taken very seriously!!!
And concerning the book of Revelation (Revelations 22:1819), it says concerning if any man adds to this book,...God shall take away his part out of the book of life,
which this verse shows that you can have yourself taken away from the book of life, which is were believers names are written, which shows that the onced saved ,
always saved doctrine, to be wrong.
God can take away something he has given!!!
And Deuteronomy shows, to not add or take away (diminish), from his word.
Today these statements are taken very litely, even in bible translations, which some will say, ah it's alright, that bible may take away from that verse, but the same
doctrine can be found somewhere else, that is an attitude, of carelessness before God, and it is such attitudes, that lead to backslidding.
Now let us get into comparing different bible versions.
King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

Version
(1 John 5:68) (1 John 5:68) (1 John 5:68) (1 John 5:68)
(1 John 5:68)
(6 This is he that came by water (6 This is the one who came by (6 This is He Who came by (68 Jesus—the Divine Christ!
and blood, even Jesus Christ; water and blood—Jesus Christ. (6 This is the One who came by (with) water and blood [His He experienced a lifegiving
not by water only, but by water He did not come by water only, water and blood, Jesus Christ; baptism and His death], Jesus birth and a deathkilling death.
and blood. And it is the Spirit but by water and blood. And it not with the water only, but withChrist (the Messiah)not by Not only birth from the womb,
that beareth witness, because is the Spirit who testifies, the water and with the blood It (in) the water only, but by (in) but baptismal birth of his
the Spirit is truth. because the Spirit is the truth. is the Spirit who testifies, the water and the blood. And it ministry and sacrificial death.
7 For there are three that bear 7 For there are three that testify: because the Spirit is the truth. is the [Holy] Spirit Who bears And all the while the Spirit is
record in heaven, the Father, 7 For there are three that testify:
witness, because the [Holy] confirming the truth, the reality
the Word, and the Holy Ghost: 8 the Spirit, the water and the Spirit is the Truth. of God's presence at Jesus'
and these three are one. blood; and the three are in 8 the Spirit and the water and 7 So there are three witnesses baptism and crucifixion, bringing
8 And there are three that bear agreement.) the blood; and the three are in in heaven: the Father, the Word those occasions alive for us. A
witness in earth, the Spirit, and agreement.) and the Holy Spirit, and these triple testimony: the Spirit, the
the water, and the blood: and three are One; Baptism, the Crucifixion. And
these three agree in one.) 8 and there are three witnesses the three in perfect agreement.)
on the earth: the Spirit, the
water, and the blood; and these
three agree [are in unison; their
testimony coincides].)
The main thing here, in 1 John 5:68, I want to focus on, is the verse that says:"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost: and these three are one. ".
Now this is one of the verses, that is used to show forth that God is 3, yet one God (3 persons, one God).
These 3 are one!!!
But if you compare this verse, which is in the King James Version, with the other bible translations, you can see that only the Amplified bible, mentions this phrase, but
the other translations, completely have it removed, Why remove such an important verse? 88 / 150
But if you compare this verse, which is in the King James Version, with the other bible translations, you can see that only the Amplified bible, mentions this phrase, but
the other translations, completely have it removed, Why remove such an important verse?
This is one of the main scriptures used to prove the trinity (but not the only one).
These bibles lessen the fact that, not only is the Godhead in agreement, but they are actually one!!!
It's a scary thing to mess around with God's word, these men who made these translations, weren't very careful with the word.

Version
(Romans 16:12) (Romans 16:12) (Romans 16:12) (Romans 16:12)
(Romans 16:12)
(1 I commend unto you Phebe (1 I commend to you our sister (1 NOW I introduce and (12 Be sure to welcome our
our sister, which is a servant of Phoebe, a servant of the church (1 I commend to you our sister commend to you our sister friend Phoebe in the way of the
the church which is at Cenchrea: in Cenchrea. Phoebe, who is a servant of the Phoebe, a deaconess of the Master, with all the generous
2 I ask you to receive her in the church which is at Cenchrea; church at Cenchreae, hospitality we Christians are
2 That ye receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the 2 that you receive her in the 2 That you may receive her in famous for. I heartily endorse
Lord, as becometh saints, and saints and to give her any help Lord in a manner worthy of the the Lord [with a Christian both her and her work. She's a
that ye assist her in whatsoever she may need from you, for she saints, and that you help her in welcome], as saints (God's key representative of the church
business she hath need of you: has been a great help to many whatever matter she may have people) ought to receive one at Cenchrea. Help her out in
for she hath been a succourer of people, including me.) need of you; for she herself has another. And help her in whatever she asks. She
many, and of myself also.) also been a helper of many, and whatever matter she may deserves anything you can do
of myself as well.) require assistance from you, for for her. She's helped many a
she has been a helper of many person, including me.)
including myself [shielding us
from suffering].)
Now let us comment on Romans 16:12.
Now in this scripture, I want to mainly deal with a peticular scripture, which mentions the servant Phoebe.
The KJV, NIV, and NASV, all mention Phoebe as being a servant of the church in Cenchrea, but the Amplified, mentions her as being a deaconess, but the Message,
calls her a representative of the church at Cenchrea.
First of all, the words representative and servant, do not mean the same thing, so there is a contradiction here.
Now what about the words servant and deaconness?
Here is what the word servant means in Romans 16:1, in the Strong's concordance.
(Strong's concordance)
(G1249
διάκονος
diakonos
deeak'onos
Probably from διάκω diakō (obsolete, to run on errands; compare G1377); an
attendant, that is, (generally) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties);
specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess):
deacon, minister, servant. )
Now how do we know which of these definitions, up above, this scripture is referring to? Is it a servant, an attendant, a minister, a pastor, or a deacon?
Well let us go unto another scripture, with the same word diakonos, used as servant, and see the way it is used.
John 12:26
(26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.)
The word servant, in this verse is the same Greek word as diakonos, and it appears a few other times, in the new testament, which are John 2:9, John 2:5, Matthew
22:13, Matthew 23:11, Mark 9:35.
The word servant in John 12:26, is definetely not talking about a person that is in the office of a deacon, for it is talking simply about if any man serve him, which is
talking about a man ,any man, serving God. It is not talking about an office, but rather servanthood.
And I truly believe that the King James people, got it right with the word "servant" concerning Phebe, and I want to prove it, by doing something that the word tells us
to do, which is compare the word with the word. 89 / 150
And I truly believe that the King James people, got it right with the word "servant" concerning Phebe, and I want to prove it, by doing something that the word tells us
to do, which is compare the word with the word.
Now why does this Phebe issue interest me? Because there are many churches, because of this Phebe verse, that say that women can be deacons, pastors etc.
Now here is a scripture on the qualifications of a deacon.
1 Timothy 3:813
(8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.)
The Greek word for deacon here, when it appears as the word deacon, rather than servant, is also the word "diakonos". And I believe that when the King James
translators, wrote the word "diakonos" as the word servant in the Phebe verse etc., it was rightly translated, and when it was used as the word "deacon", that it was
also rightly translated.
And it is obvious that not all who become born again, which are servants of God, are called to the office of a deacon. The word deacon appears in a masculine form,
and it says for the deacons to " be", "be" means, for them to "be" this. It says that for the deacons to "be" the "husbands", "husbands", "husbands", of one wife, and not
the "wife" of one husband.
An office of a deacon, is a leadership role, in the form of servanthood, in the church; yes women can have a servant's heart, and can be used mightily of God, but they
cannot assume a leadership role in the form of a deacon, or even of an elder.
Why? Well for one thing, it says for the deacons to "be", the husband, which shows it must be the man, God gives no exeption here.
Now let us go to the office of an elder, and other verses so to see, what it says about what an elder should be, and if a woman, can assume a type of leadership role in
the church, via the church offices.
Titus 1:59
(5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.)
It talks about ordaining elders, and that for them to "be" the husbands of one wife, here again it's referring to the man, no exceptions ever mentioned, and we should be
wise not to add or take away from his word!!!
Sometimes the reason some ordain women , is because they may have heard her preach before, and got a good feeling etc.
But ordination, should not be done on good feelings, even though in truth, God does give feelings, but so does the devil.
It should be done by biblical means, and by prayer and the leading of the Spirit.
Here is what a scripture says concerning women as leaders of the church.
1 Timothy 2:1214
(12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.)
What is it meaning here? First of all, it is not referring to women to be in complete silence, for other scriptures show that they can prophesy, sing spiritual songs etc.
I truly believe they can lead in worship, even prayer, and the bible shows evidence of women sharing the gospel with the lost, and showing a certain Christian, a more
perfect way, which was to build up this man's faith. Women can share things in the congregation, but they cannot assume the leadership responsibility of a teacher in the
church, for it says "I suffer "not" ", not means "not" here, there is no exceptions here, I suffer not a woman to "teach", means exactly what it says, and no, no pastor or
elder has the authority to overide this, why?
Because it is God's word, and God never gave authority for pastors etc. to overide this.
God is either God, or you are your own god.
So women cannot have the role of leadership such as that of a teacher, or pastor (which pastors do teach), nor of deacons or elders, God never said they could, nor
does he mention the female counterpart in these offices.
So just by using God's method, of knowing what scripture says, which I compared scriptures with scriptures, we can see what it is talking about, which I have added
nothing, nor substracted from the word.
Now there is a scripture that shows that women can teach children though, but not the congregation as a whole.
90 / 150
Also it says for women not to usurp authority over the man, which some pastors take as saying, well I gave her authority to be a teacher of the congregation, or elder,
Now there is a scripture that shows that women can teach children though, but not the congregation as a whole.
Also it says for women not to usurp authority over the man, which some pastors take as saying, well I gave her authority to be a teacher of the congregation, or elder,
or deacon, so then she is not usurping authority over the man, first of all pastor, you have no authority to do this. Not ussurping authority over the man, means here, for
her to take her rightful position, as a women, and not to take a position that does not belong to her.
Women have a great role, in the church, and to a degree, they can be in the work force, though the man should be the main bread winner, and concerning this peticular
issue, I will leave it at that for now.
Leadership roles in the church, has become a big divider in the church, and most (not all), believe in women pastors etc.
And yes I believe that women have been mistreated in the past, with for one thing, not being able to vote in the political government (I am referring to the political
government and not the church here), but in the mistreatment of women, it gave way to the feminist movement, to were women do not want the role that God has given
them, in their lives.
What a tradgedy.
And this same feminist attitude is showing up in the church, and I say to the Christian men, love your wives, but also take up the role God has given you.
So this is one of the divisive doctrines that is dividing the church today, and if you do not like a bible, than you can get a bible that will sooth your doctrine, that itself is
fallacy!!!

Version
(Luke 4:4) (Luke 4:4) (Luke 4:4) (Luke 4:4)
(Luke 4:4)
(4 And Jesus answered him, (4 Jesus answered, "It is written: (4 And Jesus replied to him, It (4 Jesus answered by quoting
saying, It is written, That man 'Man does not live on bread (4 And Jesus answered him, "It is written, Man shall not live and Deuteronomy: "It takes more
shall not live by bread alone, but alone.'" ) is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT be sustained by (on) bread than bread to really live.")
by every word of God.) LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.'") alone but by every word and
expression of God.)
Now, here in these comparisons, you can see that only the KJV, and the Amplified, mention the phrase, but by every word of God.
It is talking about not just to live by bread, but by every word of God.
Why does the NIV, NASV, and the Message, want to completely remove this phrase?
This lessens God's message.
It was said that the reason new translations were made, was so to translate the word to more modern english, but in truth there was a bigger purpose than that, and the
way Satan works, is usually by adding little lies, here and there, and by watering down the message of the word, by various translations , which with the next translation,
it becomes even more watered down, which you can see in the Message bible, if you read through it. Satan just doesn't always come out as a boogy man, but more
than not, as an angel of light.
If there was a true bible, that was translated to modern english, and was accurate, and retained it's message, and say it was called the Charles Finney bible, and it was
accurate, and not watered down, than yes I would say that the KJV and the Finney bible, are good bibles, but I truly see no evidence of this, and in truth, the KJV is an
accurate bible, and the old english, is not really that hard to comprehend, even children can be taught to read it and understand it, and my family is living proof of this.
Some may say it's hard, but I tell you, you can comprehend it, sometimes in certain cases, it may take a dictionary, and of course asking the Holy Ghost to reveal it to
you.
It's totally possible, but you must believe that it can be though, and all things are possible through Christ.

Version
(Acts 8:3637) (Acts 8:3637) (Acts 8:3637) (Acts 8:3637)
(Acts 8:3637)
(36 And as they went on their (36 As they traveled along the (36 And as they continued (3639 As they continued down
way, they came unto a certain road, they came to some water (36 As they went along the road along on the way, they came to the road, they came to a stream
water: and the eunuch said, See, and the eunuch said, "Look, they came to some water; and some water, and the eunuch of water. The eunuch said,
here is water; what doth hinder here is water. Why shouldn't I the eunuch said, "Look! Water! exclaimed, See, [here is] water! "Here's water. Why can't I be
me to be baptized? be baptized?") What prevents me from being What is to hinder my being baptized?" He ordered the
37 And Philip said, If thou baptized?" baptized? chariot to stop. They both went
believest with all thine heart, 37 [And Philip said, "If you 37 And Philip said, If you down to the water, and Philip
thou mayest. And he answered believe with all your heart, you believe with all your heart [if baptized him on the spot. When
and said, I believe that Jesus may." And he answered and you have a conviction, full of they came up out of the water,
Christ is the Son of God.) said, "I believe that Jesus Christ joyful trust, that Jesus is the the Spirit of God suddenly took
is the Son of God."]) Messiah and accept Him as the Philip off, and that was the last
Author of your salvation in the the eunuch saw of him. But he
kingdom of God, giving Him didn't mind. He had what he'd
your obedience, then] you may. come for and went on down the
And he replied, I do believe that 91 / 150
road as happy as he could be.)
Jesus Christ is the Son of God.)
kingdom of God, giving Him didn't mind. He had what he'd
your obedience, then] you may. come for and went on down the
And he replied, I do believe that road as happy as he could be.)
Jesus Christ is the Son of God.)
I want to deal with the phrase, here that says: "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God."
Now the KJV, NASV, and the Amplified, concerning this peticular phrase, say similar things, but the NIV, and the Message, leave it completely out.
So you do not get the full story, which can prevent someone who hears this message, in not getting the full message, and even robbing them of a potential blessing.

Version
(Matthew 20:16) (Matthew 20:16) (Matthew 20:16) (Matthew 20:16)
(Matthew 20:16)
(16 So the last shall be first, and (16 "So the last will be first, and (16 So those who [now] are (16 "Here it is again, the Great
the first last: for many be called, the first will be last.") (16 "So the last shall be first, last will be first [then], and those Reversal: many of the first
but few chosen.) and the first last.") who [now] are first will be last ending up last, and the last
[then]. For many are called, but first.")
few chosen.)
Here the KJV and the Amplified, mention the phrase for many are called, but few are chosen, but the NIV, NASV, and the Message, completely leave it out!!!
Today, alot of Christian ministers, do not take the word seriously anymore, they just take these things as removing a phrase in the bible as clichers.

Version
(Revelation 1:11) (Revelation 1:11) (Revelation 1:11) (Revelation 1:11)
(Revelation 1:11)
(11 Saying, I am Alpha and (11 which said: "Write on a (11 Saying, I am the Alpha and ( 917 I, John, with you all the
Omega, the first and the last: scroll what you see and send it (11 saying, "Write in a book the Omega, the First and the way in the trial and the
and, What thou seest, write in a to the seven churches: to what you see, and send it to the Last. Write promptly what you Kingdom and the passion of
book, and send it unto the Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, seven churches: to Ephesus and see (your vision) in a book and patience in Jesus, was on the
seven churches which are in Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia to Smyrna and to Pergamum send it to the seven churches island called Patmos because of
Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto and Laodicea.") and to Thyatira and to Sardis which are in Asiato Ephesus God's Word, the witness of
Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and to Philadelphia and to and to Smyrna and to Jesus. It was Sunday and I was
and unto Thyatira, and unto Laodicea." ) Pergamum and to Thyatira and in the Spirit, praying. I heard a
Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, to Sardis and to Philadelphia loud voice behind me, trumpet
and unto Laodicea.) and to Laodicea.) clear and piercing: "Write what
you see into a book. Send it to
the seven churches: to Ephesus,
Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira,
Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea."
I turned and saw the voice.
I saw a gold menorah with
seven branches, And in the
center, the Son of Man, in a
robe and gold breastplate, hair
a blizzard of white, Eyes
pouring fireblaze, both feet
furnacefired bronze, His voice
a cataract, right hand holding
the Seven Stars, His mouth a
sharpbiting sword, his face a
perigee sun.
I saw this and fainted dead at
his feet. His right hand pulled
me upright, his voice reassured
me:)
The KJV and the Amplified, mention the words "I am the Alpha and Omega", but the NIV, NASV, and the Message, leave it totally out.
And I have noticed that the Message bible, is written differently than the others, which it tends to put alot of verses together, rather than one by one, which in itself is not
wrong, but it can confuse the reader, which is an heavily watered down bible, in the first place.

Version
92 / 150
(Philippians 2:6) (Philippians 2:6) (Philippians 2:6) (Philippians 2:6)
Version
(Philippians 2:6) (Philippians 2:6) (Philippians 2:6) (Philippians 2:6)
(Philippians 2:6)
(6 Who, being in the form of (6 Who, being in very nature (6 Who, although being (58 Think of yourselves the
God, thought it not robbery to God, did not consider equality (6 who, although He existed in essentially one with God and in way Christ Jesus thought of
be equal with God:) with God something to be the form of God, did not regard the form of God [possessing the himself. He had equal status
grasped,) equality with God a thing to be fullness of the attributes which with God but didn't think so
grasped,) make God God], did not think much of himself that he had to
this equality with God was a cling to the advantages of that
thing to be eagerly grasped or status no matter what. Not at
retained,) all. When the time came, he set
aside the privileges of deity and
took on the status of a slave,
became human! Having become
human, he stayed human. It was
an incredibly humbling process.
He didn't claim special
privileges. Instead, he lived a
selfless, obedient life and then
died a selfless, obedient
death—and the worst kind of
death at that—a crucifixion.)
The NIV, NASV, and the Amplified, all say something similar, which is "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,".
Now the KJV shows something totally different, which it says: "thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
In the other translations, he could not grasp this equality, but in the KJV, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God, nothing about not grasping something.
Now the Message, says this :" He had equal status with God but didn't think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not
at all. "
The Message seems to have it's own little twist to things.
But in truth Jesus did not count it robbery to be equal with God, and even though that was so, he still did not make a reputation of himself, and took the form of a
servant, even though he knew he was equal with God (Phillipians 2:7).

Version
(Isaiah 14:12) (Isaiah 14:12) (Isaiah 14:12) (Isaiah 14:12)
(Isaiah 14:12)
(12 How art thou fallen from (12 How you have fallen from (12 How have you fallen from (12 What a comedown this, O
heaven, O Lucifer, son of the heaven, O morning star, son of (12 "How you have fallen from heaven, O lightbringer and Babylon! Daystar! Son of
morning! how art thou cut down the dawn! You have been cast heaven, O star of the morning, daystar, son of the morning! Dawn! Flat on your face in the
to the ground, which didst down to the earth, you who son of the dawn! You have How you have been cut down underworld mud, you, famous
weaken the nations!) once laid low the nations!) been cut down to the earth, to the ground, you who for flattening nations!)
You who have weakened the weakened and laid low the
nations!) nations [O blasphemous, satanic
king of Babylon!])
Now here, only the KJV bible mentions the word Lucifer.
Lucifer means "morning star", now Jesus himself is known as the "bright and morning star", and not just as the " morning star".
Now the NIV mentions morning star, and the NASV in similar fashion, and the the Amplified and the Message, mention the word "daystar".
I believe that God's true intention here was to relay the name of who it refers to here, rather than the meaning of the name.
Now there is someone I know named Bethany, her name means "poor house", so should I call this person, by the meaning of their name, which is "poor house"? Or
should I call her by her name, which is Bethany? Well I believe the same applies here.
The intention was to know the name of who it refers to , rather than just the meaning of the name.
And people have heard of Lucifer, there is no doubt.

Version
(2 Samuel 21:19) (2 Samuel 21:19) (2 Samuel 21:19) (2 Samuel 21:19)
(2 Samuel 21:19) 93 / 150
(19 And there was again a (19 In another battle with the (19 There was again war at (19 At yet another battle with
Version
(2 Samuel 21:19) (2 Samuel 21:19) (2 Samuel 21:19) (2 Samuel 21:19)
(2 Samuel 21:19)
(19 And there was again a (19 In another battle with the (19 There was again war at (19 At yet another battle with
battle in Gob with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son (19 There was war with the Gob with the Philistines, and the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan
Philistines, where Elhanan the of JaareOregim the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan son of Jaareoregim, a son of Jaar, the weaver of
son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Bethlehem, killed Goliath the
Bethlehemite, slew the brother Gittite, who had a spear with a the Bethlehemite killed Goliath Gittite, whose spear shaft was Gittite whose spear was as big
of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of shaft like a weaver's rod.) the Gittite, the shaft of whose like a weaver's beam.) as a flagpole.)
whose spear was like a spear was like a weaver's
weaver's beam.) beam.)
The King James Version, shows Elhanan slaying the brother of Goliath, but all the other versions, yes every one of them, say Elhanan slew Goliath himself, when it is
well known that David slew Goliath.

Version
(Daniel 3:25) (Daniel 3:25) (Daniel 3:25) (Daniel 3:25)
(Daniel 3:25)
(25 He answered and said, Lo, (25 He said, "Look! I see four (25 He answered, Behold, I see (25 "But look!" he said. "I see
I see four men loose, walking in men walking around in the fire, (25 He said, "Look! I see four four men loose, walking in the four men, walking around freely
the midst of the fire, and they unbound and unharmed, and the men loosed and walking about midst of the fire, and they are in the fire, completely
have no hurt; and the form of fourth looks like a son of the in the midst of the fire without not hurt! And the form of the unharmed! And the fourth man
the fourth is like the Son of gods.") harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!) looks like a son of the gods!")
God.) fourth is like a son of the
gods!")
The KJV shows the phrase:"and the form of the fourth, is like the son of God ", but the other translations, show forth that "the fourth looks like a son of the gods
(plural)".
And in the KJV, the word God is with a capital G, and in the others it is with a small g.

Version
(Matthew 5:44)
(44But I say unto you, Love (44 But I tell you: Love your (44 But I tell you, Love your (4347 "You're familiar with the
your enemies, bless them that enemies and pray for those who (44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who old written law, 'Love your
curse you, do good to them that persecute you,) enemies and pray for those who persecute you,) friend,' and its unwritten
hate you, and pray for them persecute you,) companion, 'Hate your enemy.'
which despitefully use you, and I'm challenging that. I'm telling
persecute you;) you to love your enemies. Let
them bring out the best in you,
not the worst. When someone
gives you a hard time, respond
with the energies of prayer, for
then you are working out of
your true selves, your God
created selves. This is what
God does. He gives his best—
the sun to warm and the rain to
nourish—to everyone,
regardless: the good and bad,
the nice and nasty. If all you do
is love the lovable, do you
expect a bonus? Anybody can
do that. If you simply say hello
to those who greet you, do you
expect a medal? Any runof
themill sinner does that.)
The KJV says:" bless them that curse you" , yet all the others, leave this completely out!!!

Version
(Matthew 6:13)
(13 And lead us not into (13 And lead us not into (13 And lead (bring) us not into (713 "The world is full of so
temptation, but deliver us from temptation, but deliver us from (13 'And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from called prayer warriors who are
evil: For thine is the kingdom, the evil one.) temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the prayerignorant. They're full of
94 / 150
and the power, and the glory, evil. [For Yours is the kingdom kingdom and the power and the formulas and programs and
temptation, but deliver us from temptation, but deliver us from (13 'And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from called prayer warriors who are
evil: For thine is the kingdom, the evil one.) temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the prayerignorant. They're full of
and the power, and the glory, evil. [For Yours is the kingdom kingdom and the power and the formulas and programs and
for ever. Amen.) and the power and the glory glory forever. Amen.) advice, peddling techniques for
forever. Amen.]') getting what you want from
God. Don't fall for that
nonsense. This is your Father
you are dealing with, and he
knows better than you what you
need. With a God like this
loving you, you can pray very
simply. Like this:
Our Father in heaven, Reveal
who you are. Set the world
right; Do what's best— as
above, so below. Keep us alive
with three square meals. Keep
us forgiven with you and
forgiving others. Keep us safe
from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge! You can do
anything you want! You're
ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes.
Yes. )
The KJV, NASV, and the Amplified, have the phrase: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." in them.
But the NIV and The Message, do not even have this phrase, and the Message seems to have a message of it's own.

Version
(Luke 9:56) (Luke 9:56) (Luke 9:56) (Luke 9:56)
(Luke 9:56)
(56 For the Son of man is not (56 and they went to another (56 For the Son of Man did not (5556 Jesus turned on them:
come to destroy men's lives, but village.) (56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but "Of course not!" And they
to save them. And they went to come to destroy men's lives, but to save them [from the penalty traveled on to another village.)
another village.) to save them."] And they went of eternal death]. And they
on to another village.) journeyed on to another village.)
Here the KJV, NASV, and the Amplified, mention the phrase: " For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
But the NIV and the Message, do not even mention it.
Now some talk about there being footnotes in the NIV, and in truth not every NIV bibles have footnotes, and in truth why in footnotes? Why not in the bible itself?
Sometimes people use such arguments, in order to justify their bibles.
I will not say who cares about what this or that bible says, for I care!!! And so should the Christian, and even God cares about his holy word !!!

Version
(Mark 11:26) (Mark 11:26) (Mark 11:26) (Mark 11:26)
(Mark 11:26)
(26 But if ye do not forgive, (26 ......) (26 But if you do not forgive, (26...... )
neither will your Father which is (26 ["But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in
in heaven forgive your neither will your Father who is heaven forgive your failings and
trespasses.) in heaven forgive your shortcomings.)
transgressions."])
The KJV, NASV, and the Amplified, mention the phrase:"(But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.) ", but the NIV
and the Message, do not even have this scripture.
It's missing!!!

Version
(Mark 9:46) (Mark 9:46) (Mark 9:46) (Mark 9:46)
(Mark 9:46)
(46 Where their worm dieth (46 ......) (46 ......) (4348 "If your hand or your
not, and the fire is not (46 [where THEIR WORM foot gets in God's way, chop it
quenched.) DOES NOT DIE, AND THE off and throw it away. You're
FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.]) better off maimed or lame and
95 / 150
alive than the proud owner of
quenched.) DOES NOT DIE, AND THE off and throw it away. You're
FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.]) better off maimed or lame and
alive than the proud owner of
two hands and two feet, godless
in a furnace of eternal fire. And
if your eye distracts you from
God, pull it out and throw it
away. You're better off one
eyed and alive than exercising
your twentytwenty vision from
inside the fire of hell.)
Now this is reffering to hell, and the KJV and NASV, mention how their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, but the Amplified and NIV, do not even have
this scripture.
Now the Message, does not seem to mention it either, and can be confusing in the way that it puts it's scriptures.
So that is one of the things that is bringing divisions in the church, and to justify one's doctrine, one will tend to go with a bible, that jives with their thoughts, but we must
take God at his word, irregardless if one understands it or not, or if it jives with your thoughts or not.
The KJV has proven itself in countless revivals, and God said that he would preserve his word.
Psalms 12:67
(6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.)
The fruits that the King James bible has brought forth, is part and proof, of it being the word of God. And this in a great way!!!
And why would you want a watered down bible anyway?
Now I want to just cover one more thing, before, I get to our next subject, which is on the word "FEELING".
In the churches today, there are alot of extremes, and I see one of these extremes, in the realm of feelings.
First of all, the one who gave us feelings is God, so feelings all by themselves are not wrong.
Some churches, either are totally or somewhat against feelings, and others drum up feelings, were it is all about feelings.
Now every man has 5 senses, but also we have senses in our spirits.
Here are verses to prove this.
Acts 17:27
(27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:)
Psalms 34:8
(8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.)
Revelation 3:13
(13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.)
These are very good verses concerning senses. Just listen to what they have to say.
It's says to feel after God, so you can feel, with your spirit, after God, and the psalms verse talks about to taste and see, which is done through our spirits, and notice
what it says after this tasting and seeing, blessed is the man tha trusteth in him.
So there is evidence of feelings or senses to our salvation, and salvation is not dead and stagnant, it is alive. You can claim the peace of God all you want, if do not not
feel it to some degree or sense it in your heart, the truth is, the peace of God isn't truly there.
We cannot be pretenders, and some might say well I have the peace of God all over me, even though he is full of torment inside and on the outside, and he may well
say that he is just living by faith (in a flippant way), well the truth is, is faith has evidence, and you can feel love, joy, peace and such like. God is not an emotionless
God, and God's feelings are pure and not out of whack, but our feelings, especially the 5 senses of the flesh, sometimes get out of whack.
Yes it is true that we do not put our trust in our feelings, but in putting our trust in God, there will be evidence of feelings, and sometimes the devil or evil spirits, put bad
feelings upon us, so to get us to stop trusting the Lord, and sometimes it is the chastisement of the Lord, that is upon us, so it is important to have spiritual discernment,
so to know what is going on inside of us, God is not against feelings, for he gave us feelings, but we must learn to rightly appropriate them, and to keep them in a rightful
check.
96 / 150
It's not that we suppress all feelings, as some churches do, there is absolutely no victory in this, and it won't really produce confidence, and true faith, but neither is it
drumming up feelings, so to put on show. The feelings that God produces in us, are pure, and brings about a genuine joy, and not a drummed up joy, and brings about
check.
It's not that we suppress all feelings, as some churches do, there is absolutely no victory in this, and it won't really produce confidence, and true faith, but neither is it
drumming up feelings, so to put on show. The feelings that God produces in us, are pure, and brings about a genuine joy, and not a drummed up joy, and brings about
humbleness, and true feelings of peace.
Faith is not mental assertion, which produces a dead faith, but faith brings about true evidence and results.
One of the extreme drum up feelings groups that I have seen, is this group called the Vineyard, which some would growl like dogs, laugh their heads off, for no
apparant reason, and all kinds of weird noises, it reminded me of hypnotist shows, that hypnotis put on, which they make people sometimes do funny things, like
growling like a dog etc. , and there are also charismatic groups who tend to drum up emotions by their, show driven preaching, and then there is these rock n roll type
churches who drum up emotions by their music.
Now on the other extreme, is the no emotions groups, and you have groups like some of the Brethren groups, and some of the Baptist groups, to were almost any
emotions in the service is frowned upon, and I have been to one of their assemblies, and it was pretty dead, and very monotone, is wasn't real, it was pretty fake.
The church needs to wake up and not go on extreme binges (spiritually speaking), we need to trust him, and we need leaders who are grounded on the word, and who
are truly called of God, not through bible college, but a genuine calling of God, and we need to be under God's system, and not man's system, this is what the word
says, and please church, start believing this scripture.
Psalms 127:1
(1 A Song of degrees for Solomon. Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in
vain.)
Leader let the Lord build the church, yes do your part, but walk in harmony with God and do not fight against his ways.
Church get out of dead churches because it won't profit you, nor will it profit non believers.
And church also get out of dead, drum up emotions, churches, because it won't profit you, and will actually deceive you, and could do so towards unbelievers who are
desiring to receive Christ.
Make sure that your church is first of all, being builded by Christ, and that the leaders are Spirit filled, and that the system is God's system.
God only honors his ways, and yes there is no perfect church, but at the same time, you need to follow his ways and not compromise his ways.
The way sometimes this saying of "there is no perfect church", is used, is in a very dangerous way, to were they compromise the word, and then they keep on saying,
ah there is no perfect church, and it is getting worse, and they compromise some more, until they are trapped, and do not see a way out, or are just blinded by their
own ways.
How valuable is God's word to you?
Churches need to drop their denominations, and need to be sensitive to God, so that churches can eventually work together, under the banner of Christ alone, rather
than denominationalism, for God wants all (100%) the glory!!!!!!!
For the most part, this won't happen, because of the falling away, but in some degree, this will happen, and I believe can always happen to a greater degree.
Praise God to the churches, which will allow this to happen, and trust me alot of unbelievers are fed up of today's Christianity, and denominationalism, and the divisions
within the church.
Now no we must not compromise the word for the sake of unity, for that is death, it must be genuine unity, true unity, and not hypocrite unity.
And through Christ all things can happen, but how many are willing? That is the question.
The pride of man doesn't always die quickly.
Now let us get unto our next subject, which is the Catholic church.
Catholicism
If you look at the world religions today, you see Roman Catholicism under what is called the Christian religion, and Catholicism (that is without counting what else is
considered Christian) is considered to be the 2nd biggest religion, which Muslimism has just recently surpassed Catholicism, though still very close to each other in size,
and some might think, because of the size of the religion, that it must be the right religion.
(note: Catholicism + whatever else is considered to be Christian, is still the largest religion.)
But I must ask, does size always equal truth?
Matthew 7:1314
(13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 97 / 150
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.)
Matthew 7:1314
(13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.)
God never gave a verse that shows that numbers equals truth, but rather it says that the way that leadeth unto life is actually narrow, and few there be that find it.
So it is obvious that God is not into numbers, and more people are on the broad way to hell, than the narrow way that would eventually lead to heaven.
Now it is claimed that Peter was the first pope, is that true?
Matthew 16:1519
(15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven.)
Now the Greek word for Peter, is Petros, which means, "a (piece of) rock" , or a small rock or pebble. Now the word rock, as in the phrase "upon this rock", is a
different Greek word, which is Petra, which means, "a (mass of) rock" , or a massive rock or bedrock.
Peter mentioned that Jesus was the Christ, and Jesus was saying that upon this rock, the Christ, will I will build my church, and the next scripture, that we will quote,
will prove that Jesus is the rock.
1 Corinthians 10:4
(4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.)
The word rock here, in 1 Corinthians 10:4, is the same word rock as Matthew 16:18, which in the Greek is Petra, which means "a (mass of) rock" , or a massive
rock. So the rock of Matthew 16:18, is the same as the rock of 1 Corinthians 10:4 (petra), which shows that the rock that God built his church on, was the Christ, or
Christ Jesus the rock!!!
Now the keys of the kingdom of heaven, are referring to spiritual keys, in the sense to were we have access to the heavenly holy of holies, to were, when we pray and
do spiritual warfare, what we bind on earth, is also bound in heaven, and I know that evil spirits and the devil have access to heaven to accuse us before God. And of
course we can loose through prayer, the Holy Ghost, which he works for us, through us, and even on our behalf. God answers our prayers.
The keys of the kingdom was not only for Peter, but for all disciples, or followers of Christ. It was not a type of keys for the Popish office.
Now was Peter really the first pope, and who truly got the first title of pope?
(hissheep.org)
(...The excavators knew well that the emperor Constantine had built a church in honour of Saint Peter in the 320s AD and the transverse walls inside the tombs were
clearly part of the foundations of that church. But the way in which the tombs had been damaged and filled in indicated that Constantine had been determined to build
his church on precisely that alignment on the Vatican Hill. He had in effect sawn off the top of the hill and deposited it further down to create a vast platform on which to
build his basilica. But there could only be one reason for this: there was something on the hill that he wanted to preserve and place in the focal point of his church. The
excavators had discovered that the street of tombs which Constantine had destroyed was leading straight under the high altar....)
(biblestudying.net)
(...The Pontifex Maximus
Having determined then that the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal authority and Roman primacy did not originate with Jesus Christ we must turn to our secondary
question: where, then, did the RCC get this teaching? Unlike the search for Scriptural origins for the doctrine of papal authority and Roman primacy the search for non
Biblical origins of this teaching are readily available from the imperial court of the Roman Empire. Both the title and structure of the Roman Catholic Church are directly
derived from the title and structure of the Roman imperial cult. One of the names that is often used to refer to the Roman Catholic pope is the title Pontiff. ...
..."Roman Catholicism The multiplicity and variety of papal titles themselves indicate the complexity of the papal office. In the Annuario Pontificio, the official Vatican
directory, the pope is described as bishop of Rome, vicar of Jesus Christ, successor of the prince of the Apostles, pontifex maximus ('supreme pontiff') of the universal
church, patriarch of the West, primate of Italy, archbishop and metropolitan of the Roman province, sovereign of the state of Vatican City, and servant of the servants
of God." Britannica.com
"Pontifex The title pontifex was used of Roman Catholic bishops and pontifex maximus of the pope by the end of the 4th century. In modern usage, both terms
generally refer to the pope." Britannica.com
Though the common term "pope" is used as a less official reference, the term Supreme Pontiff is an official designation. This term is used in various forms to refer to the
pope as well as things related to this office including: the Pontifex Maximus, pontificate, pontifical, Annurio Pontificio (the official Vatican directory), etc. And while the
term pope was not used to refer to the bishop of Rome until the 10th century, the term pontifex maximus is a title of much earlier origination. The title and concept for
the Roman papal office comes directly from the pontifex maximus, originally employed to refer to the high priest of the Roman paganism. Likewise, the Roman Catholic
college of bishops, which rule together with the pope, but in subordination to him, and from which the popes are elected, is also directly taken from Roman paganism.
...
98 / 150
...Therefore, in Roman Catholic theology the pope is the representative of Jesus Christ who physically rules over the earth in the place and authority of the Lord. This
college of bishops, which rule together with the pope, but in subordination to him, and from which the popes are elected, is also directly taken from Roman paganism.
...
...Therefore, in Roman Catholic theology the pope is the representative of Jesus Christ who physically rules over the earth in the place and authority of the Lord. This
idea is directly taken from the Roman imperial view of the emperor, who, like the Roman Catholic pope, was the pontifex maximus.
This office of pontifex maximus was held by emperor Constantine.
"Constantine the Great For a time it seemed as if merely tolerance and equality were to prevail. Constantine showed equal favour to both religions. As pontifex
maximus he watched over the heathen worship and protected its rights." Catholic Encyclopedia
It was Constantine's close associate, court theologian, and biographer, Eusebius of Caesarea, who is responsible for developing the organizational structure of the RCC
as well as the Roman Catholic understanding for how the Church should relate to the state. "Christianity Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260c. 340) was the court
theologian of Emperor Constantine the Great, who formed the Orthodox understanding of the mutual relationship of church and state. He saw the empire and the
imperial church as sharing a close bond with one another; in the centre of the Christian empire stood the figure of the Christian emperor rather than that of the spiritual
head of the church." Britannica.com
"Christianity Eusebius made this idea the basis of his political theology, in which the Christian emperor appears as God's representative on Earth in whom God himself
'lets shine forth the image of his absolute power.'" Britannica.com
Eusebius, modeled the Roman Catholic pontifex maximus, or pope, directly after the Roman imperial pontifex maximus, who was the vicar of Sol Invictus....)
(mtc.org)
(...Was Peter Ever in Rome?
The second avowal of the Roman hierarchy concerning Peter is that he was bishop at Rome from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D, when he was crucified under Nero. If Peter was
in Rome during those years, then the New Testament cannot be relied upon. There is not the faintest, slightest historical foundation for the fiction that Peter ever saw the
city of Rome.
1. Paul was converted about 37 A.D. He says in the first chapter of Galatians (Gal. 1:1318) that after his conversion he went into Arabia, "then after three years I
went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days." This takes us to 40 A.D., and Peter is still in Jerusalem.
2. Sometime during those days Peter made his missionary journey through the western part of Judea, to Lydda, to Joppa, to Caesarea, and back to Jerusalem (Acts 9,
10, 11). Then came the imprisonment under Herod Agrippa I and the miraculous deliverance by the angel of the Lord (Acts 12). Peter then "went down from Judea to
Caesarea and there abode" (Acts 12:19). Herod Agrippa died not long after these events (Acts 12:2023). Josephus says that the death of Agrippa occurred in the
fourth year of the reign of Claudius. This would be about 45 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine.
3. Paul writes in the second chapter of Galatians that fourteen years after his first visit to Jerusalem to visit Simon Peter he went again to see him. The first journey was
40 A.D.; fourteen years later brings us to 54 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine.
4. Peter returns the visit and goes to Antioch where Paul is working. This occasioned the famous interview between the two recorded in Galatians 2:1114. Peter is still
in the Orient, not in Rome.
5. After 54 A.D., and after the Antioch visit, the Apostle Peter makes an extensive missionary journey or journeys throughout the Roman provinces of the East. On
these missionary tours Peter takes his wife (I Cor. 9:5). They labor in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. So vast a work and so great a territory must
have consumed several years. This would take us, therefore, to at least 60 A.D., and Peter and his wife are still not in Rome but in the East.
6. In about 58 A.D. Paul wrote a letter to the church at Rome. In the last chapter of that epistle, Paul salutes twentyseven persons, but he never mentions Simon Peter.
If Peter where "governing" the church at Rome, it is most strange that Paul should never refer to him. Romans 1:13 shows that the church at Rome was a Gentile
church. At the Jerusalem conference (Gal. 2:9), it was agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles....
...Babylon and Rome
In I Peter 5:13, Peter says, "The church that is at Babylon saluteth you." Some suppose "Babylon" is a cryptic word for Rome. There is no evidence that Rome was
ever called "Babylon" until after the Book of the Revelation was written. The Revelation was written about 95 A.D., many years after the death of Simon Peter. If I
Peter 5:13 refers to Rome, then Simon Peter did not write the letter and we have a forgery in the Bible. ...
...Peter's method and manner of writing are in no sense apocalyptic. He is direct and matteroffact. That this man Peter, plain of speech almost to bluntness, should
interject into the midst of his personal explanations and final salutations such a mystical epithet, with no hint of what he means by it, is beyond credulity. Peter says the
elect in Babylon send greetings to the Jews of the Dispersion in Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. "Babylon" is no more cryptic than "Pontus," "Asia," or the rest.
He means what he says. His "Babylon" is the Babylon on the Euphrates. It is a part of that eastern world where Peter lived his life and did his work....
...Babylon in the time of Simon Peter was no longer a great world capital, but it was still inhabited by a colony of people, mostly Jews. Among those Hebrew friends he
won many to Christ, and those Jewish Christians sent greetings to their fellowJewish Christians in Asia Minor where Peter had previously done a blessed missionary
work....)
(jesusislord.com)
(...THE CONFUSION OF THE POPES
The Roman Catholic church claims it has an "Unbroken List of Popes from Peter to Today." It calls this List "the Title Deed of the Roman Catholic Church."
It either has a Title Deed or it does not. Either there is an Unbroken Line or there is not. If not, the Roman Catholic Church falls apart, and is proven to be a false
church, from which every member should be converted and put his faith only in Jesus Christ as allsufficient Saviour and Lord.
The fact is, there is no such thing as an "unbroken line!" No Title company in the world would insure the title of the Roman Catholic Church. It is hopelessly confused.
Four official Roman Catholic books give four different "Title Deeds!" They don't know if the actual number of the so called popes is 258, 261, 262, or less.
In 1947, the Vatican made changes regarding 74 popes. It removed "the little man who never was." Poor "pope" Donus had been listed as a pope in 973. But in 1947
the Vatican dropped him from its "unbroken line" its glorious "Title Deed." Why? Because they found he had never even existed! In addition, the Vatican dropped six
"popes," and removed the "sainthood" of four others! 99 / 150
In 1947, the Vatican made changes regarding 74 popes. It removed "the little man who never was." Poor "pope" Donus had been listed as a pope in 973. But in 1947
the Vatican dropped him from its "unbroken line" its glorious "Title Deed." Why? Because they found he had never even existed! In addition, the Vatican dropped six
"popes," and removed the "sainthood" of four others!
How can this be, since the Roman Catholic Church claims that saints are made by God in heaven? Ask your priest. Better still, bring him to THE CONVERSION
CENTER, and let us ask him these and other questions in your presence.
The following are three Roman Catholic approved publications, with information showing how utterly confused they are concerning this socalled "Title Deed."
THE FAITH OF MILLIONS author, John A. O'Brien, Ph.D. Copyright 1938, published by Our Sunday Visitor (Roman Catholic newspaper), Nihil Obstat Rev.
T. E. Dillon, Censor Librorum; Imprimatur, John Francis Noll, DD, Bishop of Fort Wayne.
List of popes, pages 6770. Total number of popes, starting with Peter, ending with Pius XII, 261.
Pope #137, John XIV; Pope #207, Martin V. Statement on page 70: "Of the 261 popes from St. Peter to Pius XII, 83 are honored as saints, 7 as blessed and 33
were martyred; they constitute a distinguished list of holy and saintly men, linking the Church with Christ and constituting the Title Deed of the Catholic Church the one
true Church of Jesus Christ on earth." ...)
(www.remnantofgod.org)
(...[BaalvsThe "Catholic" God]
INVENTED FOR THE PAGAN SUN GOD BAAL (ancient Babylonian religion)
...Title Pontifex Maximus name for chief head of the pagan Babylonian system of idolatry
CATHOLIC DOCTRINES OF THE VATICAN
...Pontifex Maximus one of the first names for the office of Pope...)
In the bible, there is nowhere whatsoever, of there being evidence of Peter, ever going to Rome. The Catholic church, claims that Peter was bishop at Rome from 42
A.D. to 67 A.D, which he died by the hands of Nero, being crucified upside down. Now Peter is claimed to be the first pope, and this office of pope, is not even
mentioned in the bible, but some say that the pope was known as the bishop of Rome, now there is an office of bishop in the bible, but what bishops were, is overseers
of the flock, and that office is also known as the office of an elder, which was not just for one man, but many men could have this office, and the popish office only one
man could hold this office, so the bishop's office, in the bible, certainly does not refer to the popish office.
Peter was no pope. And concerning were Peter was in between the years of 42 a.d. to 67 a.d., shows no reference to Rome, infact here is some of the places he was;
(about 45 a.d.) Sometime during those days Peter made his missionary journey through the western part of Judea, to Lydda, to Joppa, to Caesarea, and back to
Jerusalem (Acts 9, 10, 11). Then came the imprisonment under Herod Agrippa I and the miraculous deliverance by the angel of the Lord (Acts 12). Peter then "went
down from Judea to Caesarea and there abode" (Acts 12:19). Herod Agrippa died not long after these events (Acts 12:2023). Josephus says that the death of
Agrippa occurred in the fourth year of the reign of Claudius. This would be about 45 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine.
(54 a.d.)Paul writes in the second chapter of Galatians that fourteen years after his first visit to Jerusalem to visit Simon Peter he went again to see him. The first
journey was 40 A.D.; fourteen years later brings us to 54 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine.
(possibly 54 to 60 a.d.) After 54 A.D., and after the Antioch visit, the Apostle Peter makes an extensive missionary journey or journeys throughout the Roman
provinces of the East. On these missionary tours Peter takes his wife (I Cor. 9:5). They labor in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. So vast a work and
so great a territory must have consumed several years. This would take us, therefore, to at least 60 A.D., and Peter and his wife are still not in Rome but in the East.
So these are just some of the examples the bible shows, of were Peter was during those socalled years in Rome, which the bible never ever shows Peter in Rome now
it shows him having went to Babylon (which was in Iraq), but not Rome.
Now also concerning the popish list it is said that in 1947, the Vatican made changes regarding 74 popes. It removed "the little man who never was." Poor "pope"
Donus had been listed as a pope in 973. But in 1947 the Vatican dropped him from its "unbroken line" its glorious "Title Deed." Why? Because they found he had
never even existed! In addition, the Vatican dropped six "popes," and removed the "sainthood" of four others!
So is the Catholic's popish list really reliable? It seems like deception here to me, why change so many popes? The true first pope or Pontifex Maximus and founder of
the Roman Catholic church, was none other than Constantine, and the one who brought it's present structure was Constantine's close associate, court theologian, and
biographer, Eusebius of Caesarea, who is responsible for developing the organizational structure of the RCC as well as the Roman Catholic understanding for how the
Church should relate to the state.
What is well known to of happened, was that Constantine merged paganism with Christianity, and married this church with the state, or brought state and church
together, rather than state and church being seperate.
He was the true first pope, and if you look at history, you will find that Roman Catholicism, of when it talks about it in historical documents, you usually start to hear
about it, somewhere about the 300's to 400's a.d. .
And also in our quotes, it shows forth that the office of pontifex maximus, which brought forth this popish office, existed in Babylonian times (Nimrod's Babylon), but
the first to hold this office, to were Catholicism came into existance, was Constantine.
Now some might say, well what about Peter's bones? haven't they found them in Rome?
Well let us quote, some articles, and see what they have to say.
(hissheep.org)
(...So where is Peter? The aedicula was clearly built over an old grave and the alignment of this grave with graves Theta and Gamma suggests, I think, that it dates to
100 / 150
around the same time: the last third of the first century. In the second century, the Christians of Rome built something grander. But the complex had a flaw; a crack soon
(hissheep.org)
(...So where is Peter? The aedicula was clearly built over an old grave and the alignment of this grave with graves Theta and Gamma suggests, I think, that it dates to
around the same time: the last third of the first century. In the second century, the Christians of Rome built something grander. But the complex had a flaw; a crack soon
developed in the Red Wall and so in the second or third century the Graffiti Wall was built to support it. On this wall pilgrims scratched very abbreviated, symbolic and
perhaps secretive messages (off and on during the second and third centuries there were outbursts of persecution). One of these visitors expressed the immanent
presence of Peter in the aedicula by writing "Peter is in here". The persecutions came to an end in 312 when Constantine captured Rome and he marked the site of the
burial of Peter by building a huge church over the aedicula....)
(...Bones transferred in 1942
In 1942, the Administrator of St. Peter's, Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, found remains in a second tomb in the monument. Being concerned that these presumed relics of a
saint would not be accorded the respect they deserved, and having little understanding of correct archeological procedures, he secretly ordered these remains stored
elsewhere for safekeeping.[16] After Kaas' death, Professor Margherita Guarducci discovered these relics by chance. She informed Pope Paul VI of her belief that
these remains were those of St. Peter. Bone testing revealed that the remains belonged to a man in his sixties. On June 26, 1968 Pope Paul VI announced that the relics
of St. Peter had been discovered. ...
...Possible Ossuary of Saint Peter in Jerusalem
In 1953, two Franciscan monks discovered hundreds of first century ossuaries stored in a cave on the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem. The archaeologists claimed to
have discovered the earliest physical evidence of a Christian community in Jerusalem, including some very familiar Biblical names. The name inscribed on one ossuary
read: "Shimon Bar Yonah" Simon, the Son of Jonah, the original Biblical name of the Disciple Peter." [17] The 43 inscriptions discovered in the Dominus Flevit
cemetery between May 1953 and June 1955 were published with photographs by P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik in 1958.....
...The Annuario Pontificio gives the year of Peter's death as A.D. 64 or A.D. 67. Early church tradition (as indicated below) says Peter probably died at the time of the
Great Fire of Rome of the year 64. Margherita Guarducci, who led the research leading to the rediscovery of Peter’s tomb in its last stages (19631968), was of the
opinion that Peter died on October 13 A.D. 64 during the festivities on the occasion of the “dies imperii” of Emperor Nero. This took place three months after the
disastrous fire that destroyed Rome for which the emperor wished to blame the Christians. This “dies imperii” (regnal day anniversary) was an important one, exactly
ten years after Nero acceded to the throne, and it was ‘as usual’ accompanied by much bloodshed. Traditionally, Roman authorities sentenced him to death by
crucifixion. According to the apocryphal Acts of Peter, he was crucified head down. Tradition also locates his burial place where the Basilica of Saint Peter was later
built, directly beneath the Basilica's high altar....)
So there are 2 possible ideas of what could of happened to Peter, that his bones are either in Rome or in Jerusalem, and then maybe again, it could be that neither of
them are him. The only way to really know is to somehow have DNA evidence, by somehow testing the bones, but against what would you compare it to? Well
anyhow, there is no biblical proof that Peter ever went to Rome. Now there are claims that he was crucified upside down in Rome, and who started this claim? Who
knows, but it has been recorded as historical fact.
It is very obvious that Peter was no pope, and that he was not even called to minister there, evidence wise, and there should be evidences of some sermon he must
have preached there, but I can almost guarantee that historical wise, if you do the research, I do not believe that you will even find one, and in the book of Romans Paul
never ever mentioned Peter, as a leader there, infact he never ever mentioned Peter as being there.
Say that it is true that Peter did die in Rome, does that in itself prove that Peter was the first pope?
No not at all, all it would mean is that he died there, and that's all it would mean.
Now let's go on in this study, and cover a bit concerning the Roman Catholic baptism.
Now, one of the things that the Roman Catholic church claims, is that part of their salvation, is found in the sacrament of infant water baptism, which they sprinkle a little
water on the child.
One scripture they might use, so to show that water baptism saves you, is this one which I will quote.
1 Peter 3:2122
(21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by
the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.)
First of all, in the new testament, it talks about 3 specific types of baptisms, and not just one.
The baptism that it speaks of , in 1 Peter 3:21, is not water baptism, but rather what happened to us when we got saved, which we got ourselves a good conscience
before God, and what this baptism (which means to be "fully immersed") did, through Christ's resurection, is bring about a death of the old man with the old nature (sin
nature) , and we arose as new men, with a new nature and a new life (Romans 6:4, Romans 6:58, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Ephesians 4:2224 etc.).
When I received Christ as Lord and Saviour of my life, and repented of my sins, a change happened in me, I got fully immerse in the Holy Ghost, and my old man died,
and was out of commision, in my life, and a new man arose, and I began to live a new life. That's salvation.
Now yes water baptism is important, and is even a commandment of God, but it is not what saves you, but rather just another step of faith, in your faith walk. Water
baptism is an outward confession to show people, that you are going on with the Lord, and it shows forth what happened inside of you, when you got saved, which
when under the water, it represents you dying with Christ, and when you arise from the water, it represents you living with Christ, in newness of life.
The 3rd baptism is what is called the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which the initial evidence, is speaking with either another tongue (a tongue you know not, such as
maybe Chinese or Cree, but someone else knows (Acts 2:4)) or an unknown tongue (a tongue only known to God (1 Corinthians 14:2)), and it also endues you with
power to witness. 101 / 150
The 3rd baptism is what is called the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which the initial evidence, is speaking with either another tongue (a tongue you know not, such as
maybe Chinese or Cree, but someone else knows (Acts 2:4)) or an unknown tongue (a tongue only known to God (1 Corinthians 14:2)), and it also endues you with
power to witness.
Now this baptism is also required by God, but it is not what saves you, but is part of God's salvation package.
You can be saved and going to heaven, without the baptism of the Holy Ghost, but that does not mean it is not neccesary, and a Christian should strive to get it, and if
you go forward in faith, God will ultimately lead you in that pathway, of receiving the Holy Ghost baptism, and it is for all believers, it is not a choice, but a place that
God will ultimately lead you to. Put it this way, you need it.
This is what the bible says concerning this promise of the Holy Ghost baptism.
Acts 2:3339
(33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and
hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.)
If you look at the context of this, concerning the part which says, "and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye
now see and hear", is speaking of Acts 2:4, which speaks of speaking in other tongues, which was what they were seeing, and hearing with their own ears.
And Peter was telling certain people that they had to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ ....., and they would receive the promise of this gift of the Holy
Ghost, so ultimately, upon salvation, God will lead you towards this gift, and these peticular people , I believe received the gift, right away after salvation, but it is not so
with every believer though.
Now to whom was this promise, that they could see and hear given to? Well the promise is unto anyone who receives him, even unto their children, and to all that are
afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. So the promise was not only for back then, but for as many as the Lord shall call, which it's for anyone, wether
then or now.
I do not know how many Christian people, can say that tongues is automatically of the devil, and it was for back then, when the bible does not say this.
Myself, before I received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, I was saved, and had already heard of that baptism, but I know a person, who was saved (and still going
strong) who had never heard of that baptism, and yet one day the Holy Ghost came upon him, and he began to speak in tongues, and did not know what was
happening, but later he found out.
Here are other scriptures which talk about the baptism of the Holy Ghost, with the initial evidence, being speaking in tongues, which can be another tongue, or an
unknown tongue.
Acts 19:27
(2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on
Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve.)
Acts 10:4448
(44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy
Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.)
So here are 2 examples of , people receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and it followed with speaking in tongues, and in the Acts 19 case, they were already
believers of course , and had firstly got baptised in water, and then baptised in the Holy Ghost.
Now in the case of Acts 10, they first got baptised with the Holy Ghost baptism, then got water baptised. So God has no peticular order on this, which the main thing,
is to want to receive of these things and be obediant to him.
Acts 8:1418
(14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,) 102 / 150
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,)
Act 9:1718
(17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as
thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.)
Now these are other verses of people being baptised in the Holy Ghost, and in the case of Acts 8, it just mentions that they received the Holy Ghost, but mentions not
the results that took place, but there is evidence that shows that something was seen, for this Simon saw evidence of them receiving the baptism, for otherwise he could
not say the statement he said.
In the case of Saul (Paul), it shows him receiving the Holy Ghost, it shows him receiving his sight, but does not get into detail, concerning his receiving of the Holy
Ghost, and it is evident, that in the many verses that we have quoted, that evidence or something was seen, which showed evidence, of the baptism of the Holy Ghost
being received, which when it did show the results of the initial evidence, tongues, always followed, but speaking the word with power, is also another evidence.
Now some say, by the next scripture I will quote, that tongues have ceased, when the bible was complete, with the final book of Revelations.
Is that so?
(8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.)
Well do you remember what Acts 2:39 says about the promise of the Holy Ghost baptism with tongues?
It says this:"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."
The promise is to as many as the Lord shall call, so with that in mind, let us go to what is meant by tongues shall cease, when that which is perfect is come.
That which is perfect, is referring to the coming of the Lord, which is the rapture, for that is when the church shall no longer need tongues, and that is when the church
shall not just know in part, but in full. Now for the Jews that go into the 7 year tribulation period and get saved, and receive tongues, their tongues will cease at Christ's
second coming (which I will not comment on this aspect of it, in this study, though there are other verses, to prove this).
So as many as are called, can experience tongues.
Did Jesus need to be baptised in the Holy Ghost, in order to start his 3 year ministry?
John 1:2933
(29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the
same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.)
So the Spirit (Holy Spirit) descended upon him, and abode upon him, and this happened when Jesus got baptised by John the Baptist, and came out of the water (Luke
3:2122).
And it would be Jesus who would baptise people in the Holy Ghost, and at this point in time, the Holy Ghost baptism, did not accompany speaking with tongues, until
the whole new testament plan, of Jesus going back at right hand of the Father would take place, and God sending back the Holy Ghost, and from the book of Acts on,
it was evidenced with speaking in tongues.
So Jesus started his ministry, with the Spirit baptism, and Jesus was everything via the church offices, with the exception of deacon, which he was a teacher (John 3:2),
a prophet (Matthew 13:57), a pastor or sheppard, and bishop (1 Peter 2:25), an apostle (Hebrews 3:1), and Jesus no doubt, was an evangelist, which there can be
many examples of his life concerning this.
So Jesus was all of the 5 fold ministry, which are : an apostle, prophet, teacher, evangelist, pastor.
Now Jesus was also a bishop, and what the word bishop means, is "overseer", and an overseer, oversees the affairs of the church, they are watchmen.
Who does this type of work?
Well the 5 fold ministry does.
And the office of a bishop, is the same thing as the office of an elder (Titus 1:57).
Now all of the 5 fold ministry, is in the office of an overseer or elder, but not all elders, are part of the 5 fold ministry, some elders are, and others aren't.
So Jesus was all of these, and he started his ministry with the infilling of the Holy Ghost, and he is our example, so then if he started his ministry with the infilling of the
Holy Ghost, should not all of the 5 fold ministry, be filled with the Spirit, in order to start their ministry? 103 / 150
So Jesus was all of these, and he started his ministry with the infilling of the Holy Ghost, and he is our example, so then if he started his ministry with the infilling of the
Holy Ghost, should not all of the 5 fold ministry, be filled with the Spirit, in order to start their ministry?
Now it says concerning the overseer, that if a man (1 Timothy 3:12) desire the office of a bishop, "he" desireth a good work. it calls the bishop an "he" in 1 Timothy
3:1. And it says that this "he" must be, ... the husband of one wife. It is not giving a choice here, it shows that it must be a man, for only a man can be an husband.
So an overseer can only be a man, and the overseers of the church is the 5 fold ministry, now some may say that what about the prophetesses in the bible? Well if you
look at these verses, there is absolutely no evidence that these women were called prophetesses by God, but in truth, the reason men may have called them
prophetesses, is because of the way they were used of God, which they may have prophesied alot.
So no, the 5 fold ministry belongs to the man.
Now one scripture that men use in order to say that women can be part of the 5 fold ministry, is found in our next scripture.
Galatians 3:2628
(26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.)
Now the baptism it's talking about here is the spiritual baptism that happens at salvation, and here it does not speak at all about the roles of man or women in any way ,
shape or form, but rather it is just showing that anyone can be saved whether Jew, Greek, free, bond, male, female , and that we are all one, and that is all, and the
people that use this for the offices of the church, and I know some that do, and yet love the Lord, obviously have a certain agenda in this peticular area, simply because
the scripture is taken out of context, and doesn't match up with their claim, please pastor be honest, do not fear women, just follow God and take him at his word.
Now let's get back to the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Now concerning the first seven deacons (which were men), even they had to be filled with the Spirit, before they could walk in their ministry (Acts 6:14).
Now that I have covered this baptism of the Holy Ghost stuff, let's get back in mentioning, just a few more things concerning the Catholic church.
Now here are a couple of verses to ponder on.
1 Timothy 4:13
(1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.)
Matthew 23:9
(9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.)
Now I know, concerning priest in the Catholic church, there is a practice called celibacy, which they have a rule to were priests in certain conditions, and areas of the
Catholic church, to were they are forbidden to marry, and some have been ordained as priest that are married, but this is not done everywhere, but if someone who
never married becomes a priest, after ordination, he is forbidden to marry.
God says that this forbidding of marriage etc., is doctrines of devils.
Now concerning the Matthew part, it is not referring to men calling their dads father, for in the bible you can find many examples of this, yet God was never against this
type of father calling, but I believe this is referring to father calling, in a spiritual sense, to were your calling spiritual leaders father in the form of a title, and that is what
they truly do in the Catholic church, and God is against that.
Only God has the spiritual title of Father!!!
Now I just want, to go to one more part of this study, concerning Catholicism, which I will cover things concerning on what they and others say about being either gods
or little christs, and also on the one world religion that is now forming.
Here is a quote from the New age movement, concerning how men are gods.
This quote is found in my prayers for or to the dead section, of the new age movement.
(...Humans are gods, if only they knew it.
...This is their higher godself whom they do not yet know as their self. God being in all, this higher self is in union, or "atonement", with other selves higher up in their
spiritual evolution ancient spirits who have mastered their godhood and "ascended" into "a higher vibration".)
Now here is a quote from the Catholic church, about Christians being little christs.
(catholicwisdom.stblogs.com)
(...This, in its essence, is what St. Thomas a Kempis meant in his famous classic, “The Imitation of Christ”. To “imitate Christ” is to become “little christs”. In Latin, the
word “Christianus” in fact means a “little Christus” [little Christ]. This great mystery of our configuration to Christ is what the Catholic Tradition has so appropriately
referred to as “Deification” [the becoming of God]. This does not mean, literally, ,that we become God, or even equal to God. What it does mean is that we become so
configured to Godliness that Christ fully lives within us.)
104 / 150
Here are interesting quotes, from this group called the Faith movement, in Christian circles.
referred to as “Deification” [the becoming of God]. This does not mean, literally, ,that we become God, or even equal to God. What it does mean is that we become so
configured to Godliness that Christ fully lives within us.)
Here are interesting quotes, from this group called the Faith movement, in Christian circles.
(letusreason.org)
(..."Earl Paulk states "Just as dogs have puppies and cats have kittens, so God has little gods .... Until we comprehend that we are little gods and we begin to act like
little gods, we cannot manifest the Kingdom of God.' (Earl Paulk, Satan unmasked 1984 pp.9697)
...Benny Hinn said, "God came from heaven, became a man, made man into little gods, went back to heaven as a man. He faces the Father as a man. I face devils as
the son of God. Quit your nonsense! What else are you? If you say, I am, you’re saying I’m a part of Him, right? Is he God? Are you His offspring? Are you His
children? You can’t be human! You can’t! You can’t! God didn’t give birth to flesh…You said, "Well, that’s heresy." No, that’s your crazy brain saying that." (Benny
Hinn, Our Position in Christ #2—The Word Made Flesh ( Orlando Christian Center, 1991 ) ...)
(watchman.org)
(...Kenneth Hagin has asserted, "man...was created on terms of equality with God, and he could stand in God's presence without any consciousness of inferiority.... He
made us the same class of being that He is Himself.... He lived on terms equal with God.... The believer is called Christ, that's who we are; we're Christ" (Zoe: The God
Kind of Life, pp. 3536, 41).
..."God's reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself...He was not a little like God. He was not almost like God. He was not subordinate to God
even" (Copeland, Following the Faith of Abraham, 1989, Tape #013001). He also proclaims, "You don't have a God in you ‹ you are one!" (Copeland, The Force of
Love, 1987, Tape #020028). )
How do I know these Faith movement teachings are true? Well I use to watch one (and others) of these preachers, which is Kenneth Copeland, and I did not bear
witness with him, and have went to one of his crusades, and I probably watched him for the first and maybe second year of my Christian walk.
So the New age movement says that we are a god, but we do not always realise our higher selves, and the Catholic church, says we are little Christs, and they say that
in the Latin that Christian means "little christ", but in the original Greek language of the new testament, it does not mean this, for it means "follower of Christ", there is a
big difference between being a little christ, and being a follower of Christ!!!
Now the writter of the Catholic quote, may have the right idea in what he is saying, but nevertheless, it is still wrong, for we are not Christ, nor even "little christs" but
rather followers of Christ.
And of course, the Faith movement, says we are types of little gods, and one thing we have to remember, is that, if we say that we are "little christs", and we know that
Christ is God, then we are almost saying that, we are "little gods".
Tell me in truth, what would be the difference?
This is what the bible says:
Galatians 2:20
(20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who
loved me, and gave himself for me.)
When we become a Christian, Christ comes in us, gives us a new heart, and as we yield ourselves to him, he starts to live through us.
Now our souls, is what makes us unique, from one another, it is our character, and makes us who we are, for it makes the fact that I am an individual personality, and
makes me Gilles (for that is my name), so in the sense of individuality, I still remain Gilles, but now I have a new heart, with the love of God in it, and because of this, I
am a new man, and the way Christ lives through me, is by me, allowing Christ's love (not my love) to flow through me, and when it does, it truly is Christ, living through
me, or through the person of Gilles.
I still remain who I am, but with Christ living through my life.
I am not a little god or christ, and never will be, I am just an individual, who happens to allow Christ to live through him, and the bible says that God is love!!!
There are some who will say that, well what about the sciptures that mention the word: "gods" in it, which refer to people or even angels?
Doesn't this show that we are little gods?
Well ok, let us go these scriptures.
Psalms 97:67
(6 The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory.
7 Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.)
Psalms 138:1
(1 A Psalm of David. I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee.)
Psalms 82:18
(1 A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. 105 / 150
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.)
John 10:3339
(33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,)
First let us deal with psalm 97:7, which says: "Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods."
Here it was talking about, first of all people who were confounded by graven images, and God says to these people, "worship him, all ye gods". These people were as
gods unto themselves, for they were independant from God, but God, wanted these gods (self trusting people), to turn to him and worship him.
Every man, that is not serving God, is as a god unto themselves, which was the message that Satan brought in the garden of Eden,which was:" thou shall be as gods,
knowing good and evil", which pointed to independance from God. If we are trying to save ourselves, then we are our own gods.
Now we go unto our next scripture, which is psalms 138:1, which says: "A Psalm of David. I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise
unto thee."
Here, all David was saying, is this, that even though David, was surrounded with people that served many gods, David would still sing praise to God, in the midst of
them. And at this time some were on David's side, and others were not, and Israel got split into 2 kingdoms.
Now we go to the Psalm 82, and John, scriptures.
Here are some of the quotes, from Psalm 82, verses 1 to 8.
"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods" , "How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?" , "They know
not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: " , "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." , "But ye shall die like men, and
fall like one of the princes."
Not very positive words here concerning these gods. Now God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, which could refer to angels that are serving God, and then it
says he judgeth among the gods, which I believe it's referring to wicked men, who are gods unto themselves.
Now alll men because of creation, are children of the most High, but spiritually speaking we are not all children of the most High.
Now God says of these gods, that they shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes, which is not something positive at all!!!
It says in the bible, that God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.
And lastly John 10:3339, was speaking to Jews who were rejecting him, and Jesus mentioned the Psalms scripture to them, that how they were gods (the Jews), and if
you read verse 39, there was not a very positive response to this, and other things that he said.
There is only one true God, all other gods are false gods, but also you can make of yourself a god, infact all men without god, are in a certain sense, gods because of
them not serving God or not having a relationship with him.
So no, there is only one true God, to be worshipped, and as a servant of God, God is not trying to make gods out of us, for he wants us to get away from these ways.
So the New age movement, and Faith movement, say that we are gods, thinking it to be a positive thing, and the Catholic church, says that a man becomes a "little
christ".
Now let's ge into, this thing that concerns Roman Catholicism's ecumenical movement.
There is a one world religious movement going on today, which involves the world religions and the Catholic church, but also the New age movement has a plan and
desire to, in some form, to bring about a type of unity (false unity).
Now I want, at this time, to quote articles, which concern the Catholic ecumenical movement.
(Enccyclopedia Wikipedia)
(...Before the Second Vatican Council
Main article: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
The Catholic Church sees itself as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, founded by Christ himself. Its teachings state the proper Church of Christ is identical
with the Catholic Church, thus excluding all other Christian religious groups and churches.llllll Ecumenism takes as it starting point that Christ founded just one Church,
not many churches; hence the Roman Catholic Church has as its ultimate hope and objective that through prayer, study, and dialogue, the historically separated 106 / 150
bodies may come again to be reunited with it. Before the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church defined ecumenism as a relations with other Christian
The Catholic Church sees itself as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, founded by Christ himself. Its teachings state the proper Church of Christ is identical
with the Catholic Church, thus excluding all other Christian religious groups and churches.llllll Ecumenism takes as it starting point that Christ founded just one Church,
not many churches; hence the Roman Catholic Church has as its ultimate hope and objective that through prayer, study, and dialogue, the historically separated
bodies may come again to be reunited with it. Before the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church defined ecumenism as a relations with other Christian
groups in order to persuade these to return to a unity that they themselves had broken. [1] Pursuit of unity, thus understood, was always a principal aim of the
Church....
...Since the Second Vatican Council
Main article: "Subsistit in" in Lumen Gentium
Main article: Dominus Iesus
The aim of the Second Vatican Council, as its initiator, Pope John XXIII, stated, was to seek renewal from within the Church itself, which would serve, for those
separated from the see of Rome, as a "gentle invitation to seek and find that unity for which Jesus Christ prayed so ardently to his heavenly Father." [2] The Council
opened up an era of earnest endeavour not only to explain to others the Church's teaching, but also to understand their outlook. While the Roman Catholic Church sees
itself as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Christ himself, it recognizes that elements of salvation are found in other churches also. The Second
Vatican Council's document, Lumen Gentium, 8, states that the sole church of Christ as "subsists in or exists in" rather than simply "is identical with" the Catholic
Church: Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are
forces impelling towards Catholic unity. The Roman Catholic Church has, since the Second Vatican Council, reached out to Christian bodies, seeking reconciliation to
the greatest degree possible.... )
(www.catholicnewsagency.com)
(...Dei Verbum
By Vatican II ...
...CHAPTER III
SACRED SCRIPTURE, ITS INSPIRATION AND DIVINE INTERPRETATION
11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For
holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:1920, 3:1516), holds that the books of both the Old and New
Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have
been handed on as such to the Church herself. ...)
(www.catholicnewsagency.com)
(...Pope Benedict commits to bridgebuilding with world religions; calls on leaders to ‘Put out into the deep’
Vatican City, Apr 25, 2005 / 12:00 am (CNA). Setting the stage for what many hope will be a continuation of Pope John Paul II’s dialogue with world religions, Pope
Benedict met this morning with members of various Christian Churches and ecclesial communities, as well as of nonChristian religious leaders who had come to Rome
for yesterday’s inauguration Mass. The new Holy Father told delegates of Orthodox Churches, Eastern Orthodox Churches and the ecclesial communities of the West,
how "welcome" their presence was both at yesterday Mass in St. Peter's, and during the funeral for Pope John Paul II. He told them that these acts "went well beyond
a simple act of ecclesial courtesy. ... Your participation in the mourning of the Catholic Church for his death showed how true and how great is the common passion for
unity." "In greeting you,” Pope Benedict said, “I would like to thank the Lord, Who has blessed us with His mercy and has infused in us a sincere disposition to make
His prayer 'ut unum sint' our prayer." Speaking in French, the Pope stressed the need for true ecumenism, calling today’s meeting "significant as it permits the new
bishop of Rome, pastor of the Catholic Church, to repeat to you, with simplicity, 'Duc in altum' (Put out into the deep)." The Holy Father also wished to "reaffirm the
irreversible commitment" undertaken at Vatican II and since, to stay "on the path towards full unity desired by Jesus for His disciples.” “Your presence, dear brothers in
Christ,” he said, “beyond what divides us and throws shadows over our full and visible communion, is a sign of sharing and support for the bishop of Rome, who can
count on your support to follow" this path. He then turned to those he called “dear friends from different religious traditions," and said in English: “I thank you sincerely
for your presence at the solemn inauguration of my pontificate.” The Pope expressed his particular gratitude to members of the Muslim community saying that, “I
express my appreciation for the growth of dialogue between Muslims and Christians, both at the local and international level.” He assured them “that the Church wants
to continue building bridges of friendship with the followers of all religions, in order to seek the true good of every person and of society as a whole.” ...)
(http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au)
(...In the first half of his papacy at least, John Paul II takes a much less sanguine view of other religious traditions. He achieves this partly through advancing the teaching
of Vatican II with regard to the theology of the Holy Spirit. Lumen Gentium developed a theology of the Spirit with respect to the Church and its mission in the world;
Gaudium et Spes highlighted the role of the Spirit in terms of spiritual values and human aspirations in secular culture. However, little attention is given to developing a
theology of the Spirit with respect to the religious traditions. In his very first encyclical, John Paul II refers to the "one Spirit of truth" uniting all religions (Redemptor
Hominis 1979, 6)....)
So we can see by the various articles, up above , that the Vatican II council was for one thing, set up to bring other Christian churches, back in their fold, or in their
type of unity, but also it is for the bringing of all religions in a certain unity, and in truth, just by looking at the news, you can see increasing ecumenical Catholic meetings,
with the religions of the world.
And you can see, in one of the Catholic News Agency articles, with the title Dei Verbum, that it mentions the Catholic church, as the mother church, which is really a
well known saying of the Catholic church.
So what type of unity is it trying to bring, in still being known as the "Mother Church"?
One interesting scripture, is this.
Revelation 17:5
107 / 150
(5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE
Revelation 17:5
(5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE
EARTH.)
This was talking about a woman (Revelation 17:4), which had a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS... .
This was referring to a spiritual woman , who was a spiritual harlot.
Who is this harlot, and were is she seated?
Revelation 17:9
(9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.)
So she sitteth on 7 mountains. The Greek word, for the word mountain here, is the word: "Oros" which means: "(to rise or rear), a mountain (as lifting itself above the
plain), hill, mount (ain)".
Well what is Rome seated on ?
(ezinearticles.com)
(...Rome, the capital city of Italy, is historically known as ‘City of Seven Hills.’...
...In the beginning, all the seven hills were occupied by different small hamlet and were not grouped or recognized as a city called Rome. The residents of the seven hills
started participating in a series of religious games which started bonding the groups together. The city of Rome thus came into being as these separate settlements acted
as a group, draining the marshy valleys between them and turning them into markets. Rome became the most beautiful city in the world that soon started governing the
whole world. Five out of seven hills of current Rome are populated with monuments, buildings and parks. The Capitoline now hosts the Municipality of Rome and the
Palatine Hill is an archaeological area. The monuments of Rome still stand as a reminder of Rome as one of the greatest centers of western civilization. ...)
(...Of the seven hills of current Rome, five (Aventine, Caelian, Esquiline, Quirinal and Viminal hills) are populated with monuments, buildings, and parks. The Capitoline
now hosts the Municipality of Rome, and the Palatine Hill is an archaeological area....)
So Rome is known as the city of "Seven Hills", and is seated on 7 hills, which I have read that some call it 7 small mountains, now Roman Catholicism came from
Rome, and it's headquarters is the Vatican city, which is a city, within the city of Rome.
Well the Woman of Revelation, is seated on 7 mountains, could the Roman Catholic church, be this woman?
Well another thing that this woman is called, is the MOTHER, the Catholic church calls herself the MOTHER CHURCH, is this just a coincidence?
And this woman is peticularly called the "MOTHER OF HARLOTS".
Harlot here is in a spiritual sense, which is referring to spiritual harlotry, which is seducing people with her false doctrines and ways.
She is the (definite article) MOTHER of the many harlots, or the many religions bringing false ways into this world .
Well the Roman Catholic church, which is known as the MOTHER CHURCH, through ecumenicalism, is seeking about to bring all religions together, which
remember, she calls herself the MOTHER CHURCH.
There is absolutely no coincidences here, and know one thing, is that it was the Roman Empire which brought great persecution to the church, and it was through them
that the Catholic church came about anyhow, so obviously, it is not, the true church of Christ.
And another group, that is trying to bring the world religions, as being one, is the New age movement.
Here are some quotes.
(TinWiki.org)
(...Maitreya
Maitreya or "Lord Maitreya" is a religious world teacher whom has been prophesied and promoted by Benjamin Creme, Chief Editor of Share International. According
to Creme, Maitreya says he does not come to start a new religion. His plan is to aid humanity with our problems, inspire us to share, implement justice and freedom,
and ultimately create world peace. He claims that he will inaugurate the new time by teaching us who we really are, about our past and future, and about the art of self
realization. While he claims to come in peace, it is claimed that he does plan to eventually establish a New World Religion bringing eastern and western traditions
together....
...Share International claims that the unseen Maitreya prefers to be known as the World Teacher and that he is who all major religions have been expecting to return.
Benjamin Creme points out that many major religions expect the return of a religious teacher, who will inaugurate a new time and/or religion. Hindus await the coming of
the Kalki avatar of Vishnu, Shia Muslims the Imam Mahdi, Jews the Messiah, Christians the Christ, Zoroastrians the Saoshyant, and the Buddhists expect the Maitreya
or "The Buddha of the Future." Share International literature claims that all of these different prophecies or expectations of a future great teacher are actually about the
same teacher, and that Maitreya is that one expected teacher....)
(users.stargate.net)
108 / 150
(...According to Benjamin Creme and other followers, Lord Maitreya is the Master of All Masters, the head of a spiritual Hierarchy of enlightened men. (Jesus Christ is
said to be a member of this Hierarchy, charged with overseeing the Christian religion.) As the World Teacher, Maitreya embodies the "Christ Principle", and has
(users.stargate.net)
(...According to Benjamin Creme and other followers, Lord Maitreya is the Master of All Masters, the head of a spiritual Hierarchy of enlightened men. (Jesus Christ is
said to be a member of this Hierarchy, charged with overseeing the Christian religion.) As the World Teacher, Maitreya embodies the "Christ Principle", and has
overshadowed great men of the past, such as Jesus, to give humanity direction on its way to evolutionary fulfillment. It is believed that the time of his reappearance is at
hand, and in preparation, he has taken on a personal body and is living in London in an inconspicuous fashion until the time is right. Maitreya's followers say that at his
public appearing, men from all religions will accept him as the particular Anointed One, Messiah or Christ expected by their various faiths....)
(livemint.com)
(... Shirin Said:
Yes! He is Here on earth with an incredible Message! It shows the way to bring the Peace on earth, how to bring together all religions to One Path under One God,
how to set up equal justice for all, explains creation and history (HisStory) and it just makes so much sense. There is no need for religious conflict when the dogmas
within each religion are dropped and the pure truth of God is revealed. This new Revelation is scriptural and prophecied to come here at this end time. read it free at
www.maitreya.org THE HOLIEST OF THE HOLIES (THOTH) THE LAST TESTAMENT Better yet,,,come on board and lets spread the message! The wait is
over! ...)
So these new age people of Benjamin Creme and Maitreya, are wanting to establish a New World Religion, bringing all the religions together as one, in their certain
type of path.
Will Catholicism and the New age movement, at some point join forces to bring about this One World Religion?
Well here is an interesting scripture.
Revelation 17:7
(7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads
and ten horns.)
This woman, is that same woman, that is known as the Mother of Harlots, and this beast that carrieth her, is known to be the antichrist.
And careful study will show this to be true.
Now does this Maitreya fellow, resemble the Antichrist?
Well we will just go into some of the ressemblances.
First I will mention a few scriptures concerning the Antichrist, and then show things about Maitreya, and comment on the ressemblances.
Daniel 11:3738
(37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and
pleasant things.)
Daniel 11:2123
(21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by
flatteries.
22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.
23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.)
Revelation 13:18
(18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.)
Now I will quote things that concerns Maitreya, and one comment from Benjamin Creme, on how God is an energy (Creme is the main promoter of Maitreya).
(information from: Moshiahni July 5, 2000)
(His Grandfathers were all religious leaders, but his father was not a member of the clergy and not a strict Muslim. In high school....demanded to be shown God. When
no one could, he became an atheist.)
(www.maitreya.org)
(...About The Maitreya
A1 Tehran, Persia (Iran).
A2 – He was born at 5:00 AM, November 8, 1944.
A3 His birth name was Muhammad Hussein. This fulfills the expectation of Muslims that His name will be Muhammad.
A4 – He received the names Maitreya and Vigi Kumar from His Spiritual Teacher. His wife gave the name Joseph to Him. The name Emmanuel evolved from his pen
name Manny. He received His Heavenly name as part of The Holy Name ! For more detail, read "How He Became Maitreya." ...)
(www.heisback.com.au) 109 / 150

name Manny. He received His Heavenly name as part of The Holy Name ! For more detail, read "How He Became Maitreya." ...)
(www.heisback.com.au)
(...The Lord Maitreya is the embodiment of the energy of Love, or the Christ Principle....
...With Their great leader Maitreya, the World Teacher at Their head, They will inspire the creation of the new, more appropriate structures which will allow men to
live and work together in peace....)
(www.shareinternational.org)
(...Long awaited by all faiths under different names, Maitreya is the World Teacher for all people, religious or not. ...)
(truedsicernment.com)
(...Awaited by all faiths under different names, Maitreya is the Christ to Christians, the Imam Mahdi to Muslims, Krishna to Hindus, the Messiah to Jews, and Maitreya
Buddha to Buddhists. He is the World Teacher for all, religious or not, an educator in the broadest sense....)
(maitreyaedu.org)
(...There are many instances on the earth plane in which choice has created war, pain, hurt, and even killing. For instance when a woman finds herself with child and
makes the choice not to keep it but to have the pregnancy terminated, IT IS HER CHOICE! Nobody has the right to judge her except the energy of the God force....)
(www.maitreyateachings.org)
(...Connect to the Higher Self part of you if you have difficulty in letting go of that negative energy. Ask the Higher Self part of you for help, and ask the Masters, or if
you believe in it, the God force! ...)
(www.shareintl.org)
(...To me, God is the sum total of all that exists in the whole of the manifested and unmanifested universe. That unmanifest when in incarnation, manifest is the
Christos, the Christ Principle, the great evolutionary principle. That energy, because it is an energy there isn't anything else...)
Now let's make sense of all this. And I have found even more ressemblances than this, concerning the antichrist of the bible, and Maitreya, but I felt that, in this study,
this would suffice.
Now Daniel 11:37, says this about the antichrist, that:"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify
himself above all" , well in the Maitreya articles, it says this:"His Grandfathers were all religious leaders, but his father was not a member of the clergy and not a strict
Muslim. In high school....demanded to be shown God. When no one could, he became an atheist".
The context of this verse is, it's talking about not regarding "gods", and it says that he will not regard the god of his fathers, and Maitreya in our quote, shows no regard
towards his grandfathers god, nor his dad's (though not a strict Muslim, but nevertheless Muslim) god.
Also it says that he will not regard the desire of women, it does not say that he will not desire women, but rather it says that he will not regard the desire of women,
which points to women desiring something. I believe in the context it's speaking of, that it is talking about, any god that women may try to push on him (the antichrist),
so to regard that god, which the antichrist will not regard that god, and he will exalt himself above all gods.
Now here is another quote of the Daniel verse, but this time quoted partially, :"nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all" , now we go to some of
Maitreya's titles: "Emmanuel, the World Teacher, the Christ, Imam Mahdi, Krishna"
He has more titles than even this, but it surely is a good start.
Now we go to Daniel 11:38, which says: "...shall he honour the God of forces..." , now here are quotes from Maitreya himself: "...the energy of the God force..." ,
"...the God force!...", now here is one from Creme: "...God is the sum total of all that exists ...That energy, because it is an energy ...".
So Maitreya does honor a god of force, which is also known as an energy, and if you study it further, you will realise that their god, is not just an energy, but is full of
different energies, their god is a god of forces!!!!!!!
Now we go to Daniel 11:21 which says: "...they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries....", now
here it is talking about, not when the antichrist shall march into Jerusalem, but before this, which shows him using a type of peace and flattery, well what does it say
about Maitreya? "...Maitreya, the World Teacher at Their head, They will inspire the creation of the new, more appropriate structures which will allow men to live and
work together in peace....".
Maitreya is doing a very good job, in fitting the description of the antichrist, and it does not end there.
And now we get to Revelations 13:18 which says: "...Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six
hundred threescore and six." , and in truth, Maitreya's name adds up to 666, both in the Hebrew and Greek, and here is a website you can go to, for this type of info:
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVkusRzq4Xo"
So we can see that the ressemblances between the antichrist and Maitreya are remarkable!!!
And yes I am very aware of how many people have certain claims of who the antichrist is, and some have said that Obama is the antichrist (which is bogus) , still others
have said that it is Bill Gates, and I have read one time of someone saying that it is David hasselhoff (the guy from knight rider), and also one that is mentioned is this
historical figure named Latinos, but none of them truly fits the description of the antichrist, but Maitreya fits him to a tee.
110 / 150
Now here is a tid bit that some Christians might want to know, which it says at the maitreya.org website that (about Maitreya): "Maitreya is the lion of the tribe of Juda,
have said that it is Bill Gates, and I have read one time of someone saying that it is David hasselhoff (the guy from knight rider), and also one that is mentioned is this
historical figure named Latinos, but none of them truly fits the description of the antichrist, but Maitreya fits him to a tee.
Now here is a tid bit that some Christians might want to know, which it says at the maitreya.org website that (about Maitreya): "Maitreya is the lion of the tribe of Juda,
as Hebrews and Christians expect their Messiah to be: from the lineage of king David! He is also from the lineage of prophet Muhammad (a Sayyed), as Muslims
expect their Messiah to be!".
Now it is for sure known that Maitreya (Muhammed Hussein (original name)), was born in Iran, but concerning Maitreya being part of the lineage of king David in
some way, who knows, but that is the claim of maitreya.org.
Now how can I link the vile person it speaks of in Daniel 11:21, with the beast of Revelation chapter 13, as being the same person?
Well by comparing Daniel 11:3133 with Revelation 13:57, which the Daniel scriptures speaks of how he "shall pollute the sanctuary of strength" , and how " the
people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by
flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days." , well on the Revelation side, it says "to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle" , and also it says "And it was given unto
him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them".
Now here are the similarities in these verses, concerning God's tabernacle or sanctuary of polluting it or blaspheming it, and of people who know their God or the
saints, which they shall fall by the sword etc. or be overcome.
Now in Daniel 11:31 it also says this " and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate" , and this abomination that maketh desolate, is also mentioned in
Matthew 24:15, and Mark 13:14, which all of them mention this abomination of desolation, as standing somewhere, which Matthew calls it "stand in the holy place",
which is known to be the Jewish temple, and right now the Jews do not have a temple, but some do have plans already made, so to build another temple.
So what is this abomination of desolation, that shall make the temple desolate, as it stands in the temple?
Well you have to go Revelation 13:1415 which I will quote.
Revelation 13:1415
(14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the
earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of
the beast should be killed.)
It is an image made to the beast, which shall stand in the temple, and this will make the temple be as it were desolate.
So all of these scriptures can be linked together, in the ways that I have shown, so to show that the beast of Revelation, is also the vile person of Daniel.
Now some say that this abomination of desolation event has already happened, but if you go to the Mark scriptures which speaks of this abomination of desolation, and
quote verses found a little later in chapter 13, which speaks of this same time, it says this:
Mark 13:2426
(24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.)
The time, some people say the abomination of desolation took place, is a.d. 70, but if it would have taken place then, then after that tribulation time, people should have
seen Christ coming on earth, Christ's second coming to reign on earth should have taken place, but it did not.
Now from Mark 13:513, I believe that it is referring to a double prophecy, which would refer partly to the first part of the tribulation period, and partly to the a.d. 70
period, but from the abomination scripture (verse 14) and on, it strictly refers to the last part of the tribulation period, which goes on to the second coming of Christ.
And if you compare the a.d. 70 history, which the temple was destroyed then, with the abomination of desolation, and verses afterwards, you can see that it does not fit
like a glove.
Now here is an interesting scripture.
Mark 13:24
(2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?)
Now I will quote, the Matthew version of this question.
Matthew 24:13
(1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming,
and of the end of the world?)
So the Mark version of the question, goes like this:"tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?".
111 / 150
Now the Matthew version of the question, describes it in more detail, which says this:"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and
So the Mark version of the question, goes like this:"tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?".
Now the Matthew version of the question, describes it in more detail, which says this:"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and
of the end of the world?".
First of all, what were the disciples responding to? They were responding at the fact that Jesus said:"See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, There shall not
be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down".
So if we just take the Mark account, of their question to Jesus, saying "when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?".
You can know that, it's talking about, the buildings of the of the temple, that not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Now in a.d. 70, the temple was truly destroyed, but also Mark chapter 13, also talks about Christ's second coming, so even though the buildings of the temple (plural)
were destroyed in a.d. 70, does that mean that every single stone was not left upon one another?
No not really, and for this prophecy to be completely fulfilled, the rest of the stones (how many still remain) will be thrown down at Christ's second coming, which will
be the stones of the a.d. 70 temple buildings.
So from Mark 13:513, it's referring to events leading up to the a.d. 70 destruction of the temple, but also to the first half of the 7 year tribulation period, which leads
up to the time of the abomination which maketh desolate, and this abomination which maketh desolate, is not referring to the destruction of the temple, but rather to a
setting up of an image in the temple (the newly rebuilt temple, which shall be built), and from the abomination of desolation time, it goes from the last half of the 7 year
tribulation right up to the second coming (Mark13:1430, Matthew 24:1534).
These events (tribulation, second coming), are speaking of soon coming events!!! And the abomination of desolation has not yet taken place, and neither has the
antichrist marched into the newly built temple (which shall be built, in the coming future).
Now at this moment, I want to go to interesting scriptures which mentions the beast, but also a person called the false prophet.
Revelation 13:45
(4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war
with him?
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.)
Revelation 13:1114
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound
was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth,
that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.)
Revelation 19:20
(20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast,
and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.)
So you can see that this other beast that does miracles before the first beast, in Revelation 19:20, is called the false prophet.
Now the dragon it speaks of in Revelation 13:4, is referring to the devil, and the beast is reffering to the coming antichrist (1 John 2:18), which ressembles this person of
Maitreya.
Now who will be this false prophet?
Well let us go to another scripture first.
Revelation 17:3
(3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten
horns.)
Remember this woman? This woman is the whore of Revelation which we have covered (Revelation 17:15), and she is seated on 7 mountains or hills, but also
Revelation 17:15 shows us that the waters were the whore sitteth, are peoples, tongues etc., which means that she is world wide, and it is obvious that the Roman
Catholic church is world wide.
It talks about this woman riding (sitting upon) the beast, will the Roman Catholic church usher in the antichrist to power, and give him her support? And who is this false
prophet?
Well here is something very interesting, concerning what the Vatican hill means, and some of it's history.
(...The Vatican Hill is not one of the famous seven hills of Rome, although it was included within the city limits of Rome during the reign of Pope Leo IV,... 112 / 150

...Before the Avignon Papacy (13051378), the headquarters of the Holy See were located at the Lateran Palace. After the Avignon Papacy the church administration
(...The Vatican Hill is not one of the famous seven hills of Rome, although it was included within the city limits of Rome during the reign of Pope Leo IV,...
...Before the Avignon Papacy (13051378), the headquarters of the Holy See were located at the Lateran Palace. After the Avignon Papacy the church administration
moved to Vatican Hill and the papal palace was (until 1871) the Quirinal Palace, upon the Quirinal Hill. Since 1929, part of the Vatican Hill is the site of the State of the
Vatican City. However, the cathedral of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is not St. Peter's in the Vatican, but Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano, which is extra
territorially linked, as indicated in the Lateran Pacts signed with the Italian state in 1929, with the Holy See....
...The Lateran Palace, formally the Apostolic Palace of the Lateran (Italian: Palazzo Laterano), is an ancient palace of the Roman Empire and later a Papal residence.
Adjacent to the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano, the cathedral church of Rome, Italy, the Lateran Palace is now occupied by the Museo Storico Vaticano which
illustrates the history of the Papal State. Formerly, the palace was home to the more important Lateran Museum....)
(dictionary.babylon.com)
(...Vatican Hill
(in Latin, Vaticanus Mons) is the name given, long before the founding of Christianity, to one of the hills on the side of the Tiber opposite the traditional seven hills of
Rome. It may have been the site of an Etruscan town called Vaticum.
In the 1st century A.D., the Vatican Hill was outside the city limits and so could feature a circus (the circus of Nero) and a cemetery. St. Peter's Basilica is built over
this cemetery, the traditional site of St. Peter the Apostle's grave. There was another cemetery nearby, which was opened to the public on 10th October 2006 to
commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Vatican Museums.[1] The Vatican Hill is not one of the famous seven hills of Rome, although it was included within the city
limits of Rome during the reign of Pope Leo IV, who between 848 and 852 A.D. expanded the city walls to protect St. Peter's Basilica and the Vatican. Thus, Vatican
Hill has been within the walls and city limits of Rome (until the Lateran Treaties in 1929 it was part the rione of Borgo) for over 1100 years. ...)
(www.encyclopedia.com)
(...The Vatican stands on Vatican Hill (not one of the ‘seven hills’ of Rome) whose Latin name was Mons Vaticanus from vaticinator ‘prophet’ or ‘soothsayer’. The
soothsayers were located here in Roman times and the hill took its name from them....)
This source of encyclopedia.com, is truly a neutral source, and in the past, from an actual Italian dictionary, which was a type of Italian/english dictionary, it showed a
similar definition.
Some say it just means prophet, rather than soothsayer, but one thing is sure, either way, it pointed to, and came from a word which pointed to a type of pagan
prophet, for in that time of Rome, in truth, it would have been a type of prophet not approved of God, for they were 100% pagan then.
So the word Vatican hill, means "the hill of the soothsayer, or prophet" , a soothsayer, predicts the future, but by trying to sooth people in a false manner, this is what
the word has to say about soothsayers.
Micah 5:12
(12 And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thine hand; and thou shalt have no more soothsayers:)
The word Vatican is of pagan origin, but the Vatican would obviously try to make it say something positive, when really, it is what it is.
The word does not say something positive concerning soothsayers, and infact, a soothsayer is actually a false prophet, so you can call the Vatican hill, the "hill of the
false prophet"!!!
Is this just a coincidence?
Could the false prophet of Revelation, be reffering to a certain pope?
Well I can tell you one thing, the pope can sure give someone power?
Now let us put the Catholic and bible similarities, side by side.
Roman Catholic church The Bible
The Mother church The Mother of Harlots
Rome known as the city of 7 hills. (which some call 7 small mountains) Seated on 7 mountains
Vatican hill, hill of the false prophet The false prophet
Now there are even more similarities than this, but this will suffice.
And note one thing, is that Roman Catholicism comes from Rome, and Rome is known as the city of 7 hills.
Now what about the similarities between Matreiya and the bible?
Maitreya The Bible
Honors god of forces Shall honor god of forces
Does not honor god of fathers Shall not honor god of his fathers
Already has a bunch of titles such as the Christ and Emmanuel Shall exalt himself above all gods
(Note that in the New Age Movement, you are a god) It is the number of a man, and his number is 666 113 / 150
His name adds up to 666, both in the Hebrew and Greek Shall come in peaceably
Does not honor god of fathers Shall not honor god of his fathers
Already has a bunch of titles such as the Christ and Emmanuel Shall exalt himself above all gods
(Note that in the New Age Movement, you are a god) It is the number of a man, and his number is 666
His name adds up to 666, both in the Hebrew and Greek Shall come in peaceably
A man of peace
There are more similarities than this, but this to, will suffice.
If you compare Catholicism and the New Age Movement,with Nimrod's ancient Babylonian religion, you will see similarities with the Nimrod religion, and a code name
for Rome is truly Babylon, and it does not refer to physical Babylon but spiritual Babylon, or mystery Babylon, or religious Babylon.
(Note (concerning the New Age movement): the New Age movement is becoming more and more popular, all the time, and more of it's products or things are being
sold in stores, and one popular person that is in this movement, today, is Oprah Windfrey.)
So is Catholicism really a Christian church?
There are alot of contradictions with this religion and the bible, and the salvation messages are not the same.
Now let us go on to the creation part of this study.
Creation
Now at this point, I want to talk about, the creation of the world, or what you would call creation science.
There is all kinds of theories out there, of how the world was created, one extremely popular theory, is that of evolution.
Right now I want to quote an article, which talks about, humans and chimpanzees, which there was a test done with humans and chimpanzees in their genetics.
Here is the quote.
(trueauthority.com)
(..."Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap
of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change." Human Genome Project, Quantitative A
Disproof of Evolution, CEM facts sheet. Cited in Doubts about Evolution? And as a writer for the Smithsonian concedes: "just a few percentage points can translate
into vast, unbridgeable gaps between species." ...)
So their is a big gap between chimps and humans, it's gaps that cannot be bridgeable, it is said that only the change of 3 nucleotides is fatal. And this is considered
the closest monkey, to ever be linked to humans, which the gap is wide.
So do humans truly come from monkeys? Or did God create man? Was man always a man?
Well the word science means this:
sci·ence (sī′әns) noun
(1.Archaic the state or fact of knowledge; knowledge
2. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied )
So science is something that is observed, and the closest observation genetics wise, that has been made, that comes closest to humans, is the chimpanzee, which 48
000 000 nucleotides seperate them, and only the change of 3 can be fatal. So there is a huge gap here, and there has not been any observable evidence of an animal
coming to at least 2 nucleotides in difference, with the human being.
So really, is this theory that man came from monkeys, really observable science?
No, not really.
Now here is another take on this same subject.
(Acts & Facts (ICR) vol. 38 no. 6)
(...The supposed fact that human DNA is 98 to 99 percent similar to chimpanzee DNA is actually misleading.
The availability of the chimp genome sequence in 2005 has provided a more realistic comparison. It should be noted that the chimp genome was sequenced to a much
less stringent level than the human genome, and when completed it initially consisted of a large set of small unoriented and random fragments. To assemble these DNA
fragments into contiguous sections that represented large regions of chromosomes, the human genome was used as a guide or framework to anchor and orient the
chimp sequence. Thus, the evolutionary assumption of a supposed ape to human transition was used to assemble the otherwise random chimp genome.
At this point in time, a completely unbiased whole genome comparison between chimp and human has not been done and certainly should be. Despite this fact, several
studies have been performed where targeted regions of the genomes were compared and overall similarity estimates as low as 86 percent were obtained. Once again,
keep in mind that these regions were handpicked because they already showed similarity at some level. The fact remains that there are large blocks of sequence
anomalies between chimp and human that are not directly comparable and would actually give a similarity of 0 percent in some regions. In addition, the loss and
addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps and vice versa. This is difficult to explain in evolutionary terms since the
gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNAfrom an evolutionary perspective
appear first in gorrilas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?...)
114 / 150
So whether human's DNA is 98 to 99 percent similar to Chimps, or 86% similar to chimps, still there is a wide gap, and at a 1.7% difference, there still lies 48 000 000
gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNAfrom an evolutionary perspective
appear first in gorrilas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?...)
So whether human's DNA is 98 to 99 percent similar to Chimps, or 86% similar to chimps, still there is a wide gap, and at a 1.7% difference, there still lies 48 000 000
nucleotides, that seperates human from chimp.
Now at this moment I want to get a bit into carbon dating, and how God created the earth.
Is carbon dating, really accurate?
(www.creationscience.com)
(...Radiocarbon ages less than 3,500 years old are probably accurate. However, before accepting any radiocarbon date, one should know how the technique works,
its limitations, and its assumptions. One limitation is that the radiocarbon technique dates only material that was once part of an animal or plant, such as bones, flesh, or
wood. It cannot date rocks directly. To understand the other capabilities and limitations of radiocarbon dating, we must understand how it works and consider the
flood. Most carbon atoms weigh 12 atomic mass units. However, roughly one in a trillion carbon atoms weighs 14 atomic mass units. This carbon is called carbon14.
It is also called radiocarbon because it is radioactive (but not dangerous). Half of it will decay in about 5,730 years to form nitrogen. The other half will decay in
another 5,730 years, and so on. Cosmic radiation striking the upper atmosphere converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen each year into radiocarbon (carbon14). Most
carbon14 quickly combines with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which then spreads throughout the atmosphere. Plants take in carbon dioxide,
incorporating in their tissues both carbon14 (unstable) and normal carbon12 (stable) in the same proportion as they occur in the atmosphere. Carbon14 then moves
up the various food chains to enter animal tissue—again, in about the same ratio carbon14 has with carbon12 in the atmosphere. When a living thing dies, its
radiocarbon loss (decay) is no longer balanced by intake, so its radiocarbon steadily decreases with a halflife of 5,730 years. If we knew the amount of carbon14 in
an organism when it died, we could attempt to date the time of death. The key questions then are: “Has the atmospheric ratio of carbon14 to carbon12 changed in
the past, and if so, why and how much?” The assumption usually made, but rarely acknowledged, is that the ratio of carbon14 to carbon12 in the atmosphere before
the industrial revolution1 has always been the same—about one in a trillion. Actually, that ratio may have been quite different. For example, a worldwide flood would
uproot and bury preflood forests. Afterward, less carbon would be available to enter the atmosphere from decaying vegetation. With less carbon12 to dilute the
carbon14 continually forming from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, the ratio of carbon14 to carbon12 in the atmosphere would increase. If the atmosphere’s ratio
of carbon14 to carbon12 has doubled since the flood and we did not know it, radiocarbon ages of things that lived soon after the flood would appear to be one half
life (or 5,730 years) older than their true ages. ...)
So really how accurate is it? It is obvious that with some of the dating, there are theories and assumptions made.
And I know that alot of scientists today get all these strange dates of how something is millions of years old, but really how do they really know? Or do they have an
agenda, and want things to be this way?
Some will hold unto their millions of years old claims no matter what you tell or show them..
The way God created the world , at the beginning, is that he spoke things into existance, and formed man of course from the dust of the ground. Adam was made a
man, yet he was 0 years old, yet he was a man, that probably looked like in his thirties, well what about the trees and the original mountains? They were both 0 years
old at creation, yet the trees or some of them may have looked like hundreds of years old, and the mountains may have looked like thousands of years old. Are most
mountains today, the original mountains of creation?
Well who knows how many of them would be, and if they would be dated somehow, they would appear older than what they actually are, and how long does it take
for mountains to form? Who knows, but one thing I do know, is that God created fully intact mountains at creation, and normally it would take quite a bit of years, even
life times, to form such mountains.
Now what about the moon? God would have spoke it into existance, and it would be a fully formed moon, and when created would have been 0 years old, yet would
probably look like it would be probably thousands of years old or more.
So could this be one of the reasons why there are such bogus dates today? I would not doubt it at all.
What I want to get into, right now is , things which concern Noah's ark, and dinosaurs.
Let us go to scriptures.
Genesis 7:14
(1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of
the earth.)
Genesis 7:710
(7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.)
So Noah was to bring seven couples of each of the clean beasts, into the ark, and one couple of the unclean beasts, and the way they would be brought into the ark,
would be 2 by 2, or one couple at a time.
The animals that lived in the water, were not part of these animals, such as squid, fish etc. 115 / 150

would be 2 by 2, or one couple at a time.
The animals that lived in the water, were not part of these animals, such as squid, fish etc.
How many types of breeds of animals were there at the time of the flood, I do not know for sure, but the next quotes will surely be very interesting.
(drdino.com)
(...The most common question asked about the validity of Noah's ark is, "How could millions of different animals fit on one small boat?"
* First, there were not millions of animals. Not every "kind" of animal was needed to be on board. According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would
have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board....
* Making the generous assumption that the average animal size is as large as a sheep, and between 2 and 7 of each kind of animal were taken, 16,000 sheepsize
animals, at the most, would have been on board. This number could have been as low as 2000 if the Biblical "kind" is equivalent to the family level of modern animal
classification. These numbers include every known living and extinct type of mammal, bird, amphibian, and reptile.
* This was no small boat. Noah and his family had over 100 years to construct a vessel longer that a football field and three stories high. The total space available was
equivalent to 522 railroad stock cars. A stock car holds 240 sheep so the ark could have held 125,000 animals.
* At most, only 40% of the total space was needed for all of the animals! The remainder would be used for food and storage. ...)
(www.answersingenesis.org)
(... Weekly News Q: Can speciation occur quickly? A: If the account of Noah’s Ark in the Bible is true, then two of every kind of land animal (and seven of some)
came off Noah’s Ark in the Middle East. For instance, two members of the dog kind walked off the Ark. Then, as the number of dogs increased, eventually the
population split up and different groups formed. As the gene pool was split up, different combinations of genes—inherited from the original dogs—would end up in
different groups. Thus, different species would form, such as dingoes, wolves, and so on.
Evolutionists have often insisted that such a process happens slowly, and therefore, the Bible can’t be right when it says that the land animals came off the Ark only
about 4,300 years ago. But in the journal Science, a report stated: “These examples say that natural selection can cause a population to change very quickly and hint
that speciation could [occur] very quickly …”
Once again, true operational science confirms the biblical history. The account of Noah’s Ark in the Bible fits with real observations, including natural selection and
speciation. ...
...I was a science teacher in the public schools in Australia. I explained these changes to my students this way: ‘See these animals here?’ ‘Yes, sir.’ ‘What are they?’
‘Well, there’s dingoes, coyotes, jackals, fox, Great Danes, Chihuahuas, St. Bernards, and poodles.’ ‘Okay, what do we call these animals?’ ‘Well, they’re called dogs,
sir.’ ‘Alright, so what are they?’ ‘Dogs.’ ‘Well, what are they today?’ ‘Dogs.’ ‘What will they be tomorrow?’ ‘Dogs.’ ‘Well, students, do you thing that’s evolution?’
‘Well, no sir. That’s just dogs.’ The students are right. You start with dogs and fnish with dogs. You see, if evolution was true, you should have dogs changing into
something totally different. And that’s what you don’t see. If you walk into a museum, you’ll be shown variations in moths, in dogs, in cats, and they say this is
wonderful evidence for evolution, but all you see are dogs, cats, and moths!
How do we understand these changes in dogs, then? The answer’s in Genesis. God created distinct kinds of animals, but with the ability to have great variation within a
kind. ...)
(www.answersingenesis.org)
(...The Bible and “Race”
Working from a biblical worldview, Christians will agree that all humans on earth today are descended from Noah and his wife, their three sons and their wives (and
before that from Adam and Eve).2 Noah and his family (a total of 8 people) possessed genes for the variety of skin colors we observe today. The Tower of Babel, a
few generations after the Flood, led to a large interbreeding group being divided into small, interbreeding groups. The resulting groups would have different mixes of
genes for various physical features. By itself, this dispersion would ensure, in a short time, that there would be certain fixed differences in some of these groups (called
“races” today). The environment, as mentioned above, would impact the existing gene combinations so that the physical characteristics of each group would tend to suit
their environment. The people groups went to areas that presented different climates. (After the Flood, the dispersed peoples faced a climate and environment that
were drastically altered from the preFlood world.) Those who went to colder climates and had dark skin within their group would probably suffer a Vitamin D
deficiency, like rickets, for in an area of less sunlight (the skin produces Vitamin D from sunlight), the person would be at a disadvantage. Colder climates would tend to
favor those with lighter skin; as a result, darkskinned people would not be as healthy and have fewer children, and over time, their numbers in the cold region would
shrink. The population would eventually become lighter skinned. Conversely, those with darker skin, who went to warmer areas and its additional sunlight, would cope
much better (e.g., skin cancer would be less common), and it would be the lighterskinned people who would see their population decrease there, and a darker
skinned population would result. This population shift of becoming lighter or darker should not be called an adaptation in an evolutionary sense, for the population did
not develop anything new in its DNA that enabled the people to cope with a new environment. All basic factors for skin color were present in the first created humans,
Adam and Eve, and no new genetic information has been added since. The dominant features of the various people groups resulted from different combinations of
previously existing created genes (if anything, there could be minor degenerative changes, coming via mutations). The original genetic information found in the first
couple has been either reshuffled or gone downhill (degenerated), but has not been added to. ...)
(www.christiananswers.net)
(...In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles,
such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and
barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the
insects could have survived outside the Ark.
How many animals needed to be brought aboard?
Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well
documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out
116 / 150
that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have
Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well
documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out
that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have
been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.) Noah's Ark.
Copyrighted, Eden Communications. But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the
most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average
animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average doubledeck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus,
three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to
make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space. ...)
(creation.com)
(...Biblical creationists recognize that intrabaraminic (within kind) changes may occur over time. Such changes may be related to God’s provision and help animals
survive in particular environments. Other changes are recognized as being degenerative and the result of the Curse (Genesis 3, Romans 8:19–23).5 However, the
evolutionary notion that all living things have a common ancestor and throughout history have gained new organs and complex, wellintegrated biochemical pathways is
rejected. Both the historical accounts of Scripture and the pattern of changes seen in the real world are in direct conflict with moleculestoman evolutionary ideas....
... The biblical record
The Bible is not primarily a book about biology. However, it is completely true in all that it presents and it makes comments that relate to biology. Thus, it is essential to
examine it to properly develop models regarding animal origins and relationships. Within the English language, the term ‘cattle’ has changed somewhat in meaning over
the years. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines cattle as ‘Beasts or quadrupeds in general’ that are used in Man’s service. It further states that ‘In its primary sense, the
word includes camels, horses, asses, all the varieties of domesticated horned beasts or the bovine genus, sheep of all kinds and goats, and perhaps swine. In this
general sense, it is constantly used in the scriptures.’7 Early historical narratives in the Bible were written in Hebrew, so a look at Hebrew words, including their
definitions and how and where they are used, can give us a solid base for understanding what the Bible teaches. There are a number of Hebrew words that have been
translated as cattle. The first is ‫בהמה‬ (behēmâ), which is often translated ‘cattle’ in English translations.8 It is used 190 times beginning in Genesis 1:24.9 Strong’s
Concordance defines it as ‘any large quadruped or animal’.10 The Brown, Driver, & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon reports a range of meanings: from ‘beasts (collectively
used of all animals)’ to ‘cattle, livestock (used of domestic animals)’ to ‘wild beasts’.11 ...)
Now here is another scripture which concerns the animals of the time of the flood, that involves the word, after their own "kind".
Genesis 7:1315
(13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his
kind, every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.)
So the word kind, is referring to not the different type of species within a certain animal kind, but rather to just the species of the animal, such as the dog family, or the
original dogs which brought forth all other types of dogs such as coyotes, foxes, domestic dogs etc.
Now I will explain a bit deeper, so to make sense of all of this.
First let us look at the human race.
Now all of the human race of today, comes from the 8 flood survivors of Noah's ark. What was their color of skin? Well some say they may have had a medium type
of skin color, probably a very tanned looking type.
Now when do I believe, that humans, were starting to form into many types of skin colored people?
Genesis 11:19
(1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of
the whole earth.
5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they
have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad
upon the face of all the earth.)
This was the time of the tower of Babel, when men had already populated the earth, in a great way, after the flood; at that time they were all of one speech, and they
wanted to build a tower that reaches heaven, which represented them wanting to reach heaven their own way, which is really what they were trying to do, and God
hated what they were doing, because they were not putting their trust in him.
So what God did, is cause a division to come about in the human race, by confounding their language so that the people could not understand each other, which caused
the people, say who spoke "a certain language" to go with the people that spoke the same language as them.
And also it caused people, to travel to diverse parts of the world with their people, or people who spoke the same language.
So they formed a people in isolated places of the world. 117 / 150
And also it caused people, to travel to diverse parts of the world with their people, or people who spoke the same language.
So they formed a people in isolated places of the world.
And at this time of the dividing of languages, is when I believe that the different skin colored people, eventually came to be, which they adapted to their new
environnements, and as they adapted to their new environnements, I believe somehow withint their genes, they gave birth to children who had a skin color that was
better adapted to their environnement, and that is when the different types of skin colored humans began.
So somehow God provided these genes in man.
Here are interesting facts, is for one thing that 2 black humans will give birth to a black human, and 2 white humans will give birth to a white human, , but on rare
occasions, I have heard of 2 white people giving birth to a black human, which makes me think that with this real example (observational proof), it shows forth a
possibility of genes carrying different colored pigments somehow, but the overall division of the human race, of different colored pigments, or shades, was already
establishsed sometime after the tower of Babel.
And often times what happens to the human race, also happens to the animal race.
And that is what I believe happened to the animal race, which possibly either right after the flood or after Babel, animals spread to various different parts of the world,
or isolated parts of the world, they became adapted to their environnements, and through their genes, it somehow caused a type of reaction which would eventually give
birth to animals which would be more adapted to their environnements, and maybe one of the factors were their diet, and of course environnement.
So the original dog for example, would have spread all over the world, and because of their diet, and peticular environnement, it somehow caused their genes, to give
birht to dogs more adapted to their environnments, which some became foxes, dingos, coyotes etc. , so the dog family was established in the overall, at this time, and of
course since then, humans have interbred many types of dogs to form new types of dogs.
All dogs have similar DNA types, but with slight variations.
So that is how the dog race was established, and all animal races for that matter. And the word cattle, in the Genesis 7:14 verse, in this peticular scripture, is reffering to
horses, camels, buffalos etc.
And of course the original buffalo or ox (whatever one came first), brought about the different types of buffalos etc. we see today.
Different types of the same kind, can breed with different types of the same kind, and for example, I once seen a nature program, which was very recently, to were
there is this place were sometimes grizzly bears and polar bears, sometimes encounter each other, and they have found a different bear type, which was a whitish
brown, and found out that a grizzly bear and a polar bear had mated.
And one thing to also remember, is that after the flood, the environnement of the world had drastically changed.
Now in every person and animal, God has placed within them, an "immune system" , which brings adaptability to humans and animals, which alot of times, it can be a
gradual adaptability.
Now some might say, concerning evolution, how that humans are evolving into something else, and they could say, well just look at the tree man?
Well first of all the tree man, may have become the way he is, by either a type of wart, disease or mutation, and if you observe him, and his life, you can see that this
tree like stuff is not producing anything good in his life, it is even producing truly negative results, and this tree man has sons, and his sons did not become tree men, but
rather were born ordinary children, and some might say that humans are evolving into migets, (I thank God for midgets and the tree man, for God loves them and has a
plan for the whosoever) but in truth, midgets because of the way their body is formed, sometimes get complications, and often times have to get a type of surgery.
If these things prove evoltution, then maybe some people are evolving into people who have palsy? But in truth palsy (just using this as an example) is a disease and not
something positive, for it causes a negative reaction to the body.
Now let's go on.
Now the question might be asked, how did animals get along with each other in the ark, if there were canivores among them?
Well first, let us start with the beginning.
Genesis 1:2731
(27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding
seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for
meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.)
So in the beginning, men nor animals ate meat, for their meat was herbs, and of course it is mentioned fruit as well.
So animals and men were vegetarians in the beginning, and I believe at the time of creation, that men or animals, did not need meat, but after the fall, as time went on,
men and some animals began to eat meat.
When did this happen?
118 / 150
Well we have the answer in the bible.
When did this happen?
Well we have the answer in the bible.
Genesis 9:13

(1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the
fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.)
Now the very first time that God allows man to eat meat, was after the flood, when Noah's ark finally rested on land once again, and that is when man began to
gradually eat meat, for they could have eaten some of the clean beasts right away, because there were 7 couples of them, but they also obviously allowed the beasts to
populate somewhat, and fish wise, there would have been plenty of them to eat.
Usually, as I said before, when something falls on man, it tends to fall on animals also, such as, both animals and man eating herbs, both after the fall, being able to die
etc.
Well this is the time, I believe that certain animals eventually became carnivores, which as the animals migrated to their places they were destined to go, the animals who
eventually became canivores, possibly, had one day gotten the taste of blood, and fish would have been plentious for them to eat, but as far as say deers etc., they
would have had to populate somewhat, and when they did so, it is then, that possibly the canivore animals eventually got a tatse for their blood or their meat.
So in the ark, animals obviously would have gotten along, for all were vegetarians, but after they left the ark, some gradually became carnivores.
Now let's go to the next question.
Another question might be, well what about dinosaurs?
Well what about dinosaurs?
What happened to them?
Well there are a few things that could have happpened, but for the most part, they mostly died off in the flood, and today if you observe the dinosaur fossils, you could
see that they are found all over the world, which I believe that it was Noah's world wide flood that caused all these dinosaurs to be spread all over the world like they
were.
What did Noah bring into his ark?
Well it is said that Noah may have brought baby dinosaurs on the boat, rather than full adults, which God only said to bring in a female and a male, but did not specify
an age, and it appears that there may have been many dinosaur "kinds", which could not interbreed; take for example the tyrannosaurus rex, and the triceratops, they
are totally different in shape, form, and in many ways, which I believe they were different kinds of dinosaurs, and is it possible that dinosaurs did populate to a certain
degree after the flood, and did spread around the world, to form different types of dinosaurs within their kind? It is highly possible that this also took place, but
nevertheless, obviously at some point, they did have a period of extinction, which of course most of them died in the flood, but who knows how many died after the
flood, and how much they populated after the flood?
And of course it would make sense to bring in baby dinosaurs, which all animals on the ark would have been vegetarians.
And if tyrannosaurus rex, was a vegetarian before the flood, did he eventually become a carnivore after the flood? Well yes this to is very possible.
So after the flood, some of the dinosaurs may have survived for a while, but obviously eventually became extinct.
Have some of the dinosaurs survived even unto our day? Well I know that there are alledge sittings, such as the Lock Ness monster, and others, but are these people
really seeing these water type dinosaurs? Who knows, maybe yes, maybe no, but if there are some, they are obviously on the verge of total extinction.
Next I will quote very interesting articles, concerning dinosaurs.
(www.apologeticspress.org)
(...The Doheny Expedition
In the late 1800s, Samuel Hubbard, honorary curator of archaeology at the Oakland, California, Museum of Natural History, was excavating ancient Indian dwellings in
the Hava Supai Canyon in Arizona. On the walls of the canyon where the Indians’ ancestors once lived, Dr. Hubbard found elegant drawings of an elephant, an ibex, a
dinosaur, and other animals. He stated concerning the dinosaur drawing: “Taken all in all, the proportions are good.” He further suggested that the huge reptile is
“depicted in the attitude in which man would be most likely to see it—reared on its hind legs, balancing with the long tail, either feeding or in fighting position, possibly
defending itself against a party of men” (as quoted in Verrill, 1954, pp. 155ff.). Dr. Hubbard also noted: The fact that some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a
dinosaur on the walls of this canyon upsets completely all of our theories regarding the antiquity of man.... The fact that the animal is upright and balanced on its tail
would seem to indicate that the prehistoric artist must have seen it alive (1925, pp. 5,7, emp. in orig.). ...
...The Monster of Troy
The February 26, 2000 issue of Science News contained an article that diligently attempted to defuse a potential bomb within the evolutionary camp (Hesman, 2000).
Sitting inside the Boston Museum of Fine Arts is an ancient Greek vase. This vase is covered by a series of somewhat unusual paintings, including one that is
bewildering to both archaeologists and evolutionists. The vase portrays a monster that possesses the head of a dinosaur. And, to make matters worse, the images on
the vase depict men and dinosaurs as coexisting. ...
119 / 150
...Human Footprints with Dinosaur Tracks?
bewildering to both archaeologists and evolutionists. The vase portrays a monster that possesses the head of a dinosaur. And, to make matters worse, the images on
the vase depict men and dinosaurs as coexisting. ...
...Human Footprints with Dinosaur Tracks?
Consider also that in 1983, researchers reported in the science and engineering news section of The Moscow News that they had discovered what appeared to be a
human footprint in 150millionyearold Jurassic rock, next to a giant, threetoed dinosaur footprint. The article stated: This spring, an expedition from the Institute of
Geology of the Turkmen SSR Academy of Sciences found over 1,500 tracks left by dinosaurs in the mountains in the southeast of the Republic [Turkmen Republic—
BH/BT]. Impressions resembling in shape a human footprint were discovered next to the tracks of prehistoric animals (see “Tracking Dinosaurs,” 1983, 24:10).
Naturally, this report has received precious little attention, given the mindset of evolutionists. ...)
(www.s8int.com)
(..."Believe it or not, dinosaur footprints, and the footprints of man, are found in the same strata, in the very same formation, in some cases only 18 inches apart, at a
geological dig in Glen Rose, Texas, called the Paluxy River Bed. The ancient footprints of "man" at the site are found to be evenly spaced, and go under overhanging
shale formations, continuing under the formations, and have been excavated. ...)
I do truly believe that man and dinosaurs walked the earth together at one time, and there are all kinds of dinosaur pictures that have been made on rocks, were did
they get the idea; to do these pictures or paintings?
And human tracks have been found beside dinosaur tracks, not just a couple of times, but many times, as I have read in other articles.
No I do not believe in this millions of millions of years stuff, I believe the bible to be accurate, and believe that the earth is only approximately 6 000 years old.
Now here is another interesting article, which talks about reptiles.
(www.s8int.com)
(...Wyatt on Giant Animals
The following is excerpted from an article in Ron Wyatt's Newletter.
"The Bible says that before the flood, men lived as long as 900 years and then some. If men lived that long, why wouldn't the animals? And if they did live that long,
note this next fact: "...a reptile has the potential of growing throughout its life..." Unlike other animals, the reptile has no "cutoff" mechanism whereby it stops growing in
size. So, even if reptiles lived only half as long as preflood men, we would have to expect gigantic reptiles before the flood. John MacKay once told me that crocodiles
(or was it alligators?) grew at the rate of 20 or so feet per 100 years. If that's the case, there should be giant alligators fossils, right?
In 1991, alligator bones were found on the banks of the Amazon Riverthe skull was almost 5 feet long. Based on this, scientists estimated its height to have been 8 feet
(when walking) and its length 40 feet (the size of a railroad boxcar). "Professor Carl Frailey, from Overland Park, Kansas, said the creature probably weighed around
12 tonnes. `This would make it about a tonne heavier than Tyrannosaurus Rex... the mightiest of dinosaur predators', he said." In short, if reptiles today lived longer,
they would be "dinosaurs" in a few hundred years." ...)
Now here would be a solution concerning why animals may have been bigger at one time, but also I believe that a less polluted atmosphere may have also played a role
in this.
And at this moment, another thought comes into mind, which is something which concerns the reptile family, which in the reptile (as in the dinosaur family) family, there
are different kinds of reptiles, which there are turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodiles, and you know that these cannot interbreed, but within the turtle family, there are
different types of turtles, as within the crocodile family, the snake family etc. etc. etc.
Well I believe it would be the same within the dinosaur family, which the Tyrannosaurus Rex, and the triceratops were different "kinds" of dinosaurs, but it could be
possible that different "types" of triceratops, came on the seen, or different "types" of Tyrannosaurus Rexs came on the seen.
Now here are scriptures that may even refer to dinosaurs, which some say were called dragons in the past, which was before they became known as dinosaurs in
1841, so here are the scriptures Job 40:15–19 (which some say this was an elephant or hippo, but it sure does not describe one), Job 41:134, and often times it
compares Satan to a dragon, Revelation 12:9, and here is another interesting scripture Isaiah 27:1, which may be also a comparison of Satan to these creatures.
So now unto our next question.
How did the animals travel to different parts of the world?
Well first let us go to some interesting scriptures.
Genesis 1:711
(7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was
so.)
Genesis 1:22
(22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.) 120 / 150

Genesis 1:22
(22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.)
So God obviously created seas (plural), and he says that: "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.
Was the dry land at the beginning somehow all connected?
Well there was obviously seas (plural), so if the land was connected together, there would obviously be some type of seperation, in order to form seas.
But was it only seperations to were land was still connected, but seperated in the sense, much like the Mediterranean sea seperates land?
Because the way the scripture is written, it appears that land was all connected in some form.
So if land was all connected, but seperated by seas, then there would have been an really huge ocean, that is connected to various seas, and examples for that could
be, the Mediterranean sea, the Red sea, the Black sea, the Yellow sea, the Baltic sea etc.
Some of the original seas could have even been connected by rivers, and what about lakes? How did they form? Well God may have made lakes in the beginning, but I
know here it mentions seas, which the ocean of that time, no doubt was included as being one of the seas, but could it be that alot of the lakes that are formed today,
happened during Noah's flood? And could it be that certain fish were somehow driven towards places which would form a lake, and as the waters dried up, they
eventually were subject to live in this lake, they were driven to?
I do not doubt this to be so, and if you observe the different species of fish out there, alot of them seem to fit there environnement, and you can see fish of China, and
alot of fish there, do not seem to ressemble fish anywhere else, maybe they are a different type of another fish, and there are animals all over the world that seem to
have a uniqueness concerning their peticular environnement, which would fit with this "kind" of animal, eventually producing a same "kind" of animal, but with a slight
"variation", which seems to help them blend in their environnement.
The bible does not contradict true observational science, it only confirms it, and there is evidence of humans, which we are all of the same kind, for we are the human
race, to were 2 white people produced a black person?
Is this just a coincidence?
And yes for the most part, things like this do not happen any more, but maybe in a small proportion., or rarities, and some changes are due to abnormal mutations
which has nothing to do with evolution, but rather with abnormalities.
So how did the animals travel to other parts of the world, after the flood?
Well for one thing, the flood would have been a very devastating event, it could have caused various amounts of typhoons, hurricanes, maybe even tornados somehow,
and earthquakes.
This would have been very devastating, and it could even (as a result of earthquakes etc.) of seperated the lands we now know of today, and after the flood, lands may
have been seperated, but were not that far apart at this point in time, which would make it easier for animals to travel to those lands, maybe having to swim a bit, but
the land being much closer than what it is today.
Now what about Koala bears, how would they have traveled to Australia? Well at the time, I believe that animals that became canivores, did not automatically do so
right away, but eventually became canivores, and it is possible that some of the animals traveled on the backs of other animals, which would solve this mystery.
So due to the fact that when land was first seperated, it may have still been close to other lands, but as time went on, the land seperated further, even unto what they
are today, which some lands are extremely seperated from each other today, which would solve all this confusion today, about how the animals traveled to different
lands.
So that is what I believe happened, and it makes total sense, and does not contradict in any way of how things appear today.
Now to the next question.
How did they survive in the ark?
Genesis 6:1821
(18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.)
Well here it shows that God had them store food in the ark, but how did Noah preserve the food on the ark so that it does not go bad, knowing that they were about a
year on the ark?
Well maybe they had a way of preserving things, that we do not know about, and maybe somehow he was able through the seeds of the vegetables, fruits etc., to have
a certain way of making things grow if needs be, although God could have also done a miracle, if they ran out of food.
So these are possibilities, of what could have happened, and I believe that Noah was a smarter man then we think, God may have given him wisdom, concerning
vegetables etc. that we know nothing about.
Now it may be said, how did Noah and all the animals survive, with just one window in the ark?
121 / 150
Well I do not know how the oxygen got in, maybe it had something to do with the way the boat was built, but then again, God could have put oxygen within the boat,
Now it may be said, how did Noah and all the animals survive, with just one window in the ark?
Well I do not know how the oxygen got in, maybe it had something to do with the way the boat was built, but then again, God could have put oxygen within the boat,
and if God can split a red sea, God can surely do this.
Evolutionists are always trying to disprove the bible, and one thing is, is they have control, in the overall media, so who knows how many things they are hiding from the
public.
So now let us go unto the archeology part of this study.
Archeology
Is there archeological evidence for the bible?
Well yes plenty, and I will quote just some of them.
(www.faithfacts.org)
(...Archaeology and the Old Testament
* Ebla tablets—discovered in 1970s in Northern Syria. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the
Patriarchal accounts are genuine. In use in Ebla was the name "Canaan," a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early
chapters of the Bible. The tablets refer to all five "cities of the plain" mentioned in Genesis 14, previously assumed to have been mere legends. ...
* Confounding earlier skeptics, but confirming the Bible, an important discovery was made in Egypt in 1896. A tablet—the Merneptah Stela—was found that mentions
Israel. (Merneptah was the pharaoh that ruled Egypt in 12121202 B.C.) The context of the stela indicates that Israel was a significant entity in the late 13th century
B.C....
* The Hittites were once thought to be a biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered in Turkey....
* Crucial find in Nuzi (northeastern Iraq), an entire cache of Hittite legal documents from 1400 B.C. Confirms many details of Genesis, Deuteronomy, such as: (a) siring
of legitimate children through handmaidens, (b) oral deathbed will as binding, (c) the power to sell one's birthright for relatively trivial property (Jacob & Esau), (d) need
for family idols, such as Rachel stole from Laban, to secure inheritance, (e) form of the covenant in Deuteronomy exactly matches the form of suzerainty treaties
between Hittite emperors and vassal kings. ...
* In 1986, scholars identified an ancient seal belonging to Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the prophecies of Jeremiah (Jer. 45:11)....
In 1990, Harvard researchers unearthed a silverplated bronze calf figurine reminiscent of the huge golden calf mentioned in the book of Exodus....
* In 1993, archaeologists uncovered a 9th century B.C. inscription at Tel Dan. The words carved into a chunk of basalt refer to the "House of David" and the "King of
Israel." And the Bible's version of Israelite history after the reign of David's son, Solomon, is believed to be based on historical fact because it is corroborated by
independent account of Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions....
* It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's
palace was discovered in Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded in the palace walls! Even more, fragments of a stela (a
poetic eulogy) memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself....
* Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablet
was found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son....
Archaeology and the New Testament
* The New Testament mentions specific individuals, places, and various official titles of local authorities, confirmed by recent archeology. Luke sites exact titles of
officials. (Titles varied from city to city so they are easily checked for accuracy.) Lysanias the Tetrarch in Abilene (Luke 3:1)—verified by inscription dated 1429 A.D.
Erastus, city treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23)—verified by pavement inscription. Gallio—proconsul of Achaia (Greece) in A.D. 51 (Acts 18:12). Politarchs ("city
ruler") in Thessalonica (Acts 17:6). Chief Man of the Island on Malta (Acts 28:7). Stone Pavement at Pilate's headquarters (John 19:13)—discovered recently. Pool at
Bethesda— discovered in 1888. Many examples of silver shrines to Artemis found (Acts 19:28). Inscription confirms the title of the city as "Temple Warden of
Artemis". Account of Paul's sea voyage in Acts is "one of the most instructive documents for the knowledge of ancient seamanship."
* Diggers recently uncovered an ossuary (repository for bones) with the inscription "Joseph Son of Caiaphas." This marked the first archaeological evidence that the
high priest Caiaphas was a real person. According to the gospels, Caiaphas presided at the Sanhedrin's trial of Jesus....)
There are alot more archeological finds than these, but I wanted to show forth, just some of them, and the bible is proving itself to be true, just by even archeological
means.
They are continuously finding more proofs of the bible, by archeological discoveries.
A good place for archeological books, and some other things, would be: http://www.dod.org
Now let us get to our next subject.
Prophecy and end time prophecy
"Jesus"
Now here I will mention prophecies concerning, how the bible foretold of a coming Messiah, and I will show forth his coming as a suffering servant and saviour, and
then his second coming on earth.
First let us start from the beginning.
Genesis 3:1216
(12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. 122 / 150
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou
(12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou
go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and
he shall rule over thee.)
Now the serpent beguiled Eve, but it was through Satan that he did so, and here is a scripture that shows Satan with the title of serpent.
Revelation 12:9
(9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels
were cast out with him.)
Satan inherited this name of serpent, because of what had happened in the garden of Eden, which Satan, through a real serpent, deceived Adam and Eve, and from
then on earned himself the name or title of serpent.
Now verse 15 of Genesis chapter 3, says: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou
shalt bruise his heel. "
So there is 2 seeds it's talking about here, the seed of the serpent (the devil), and the seed of the woman.
And in essence the devil planted a bad seed to the heart of Eve, which brought about spiritual death or the sin nature.
This is what it says concerning Satan.
John 8:44
(44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in
him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.)
So the devil is known as the father of lies!!!
So the seed of the devil is the sin nature, which brought spiritual death to mankind.
Now whom is the seed of the woman referring to, which shall crush Satan's head?
Well who got victory over sin, for mankind, or who delivered man from spiritual death, or the sin nature, or Satan's realm?
Acts 26:1718
(17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among
them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.)
Hebrew 2:14
(14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had
the power of death, that is, the devil;)
Romans 6:511
(5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.)
It was Christ (Jesus), for what he did on the cross, is he set us free from the power of Satan, or the power of spiritual death, and our old man which has the sin nature,
was also nailed to the cross.
It says in Romans 6:6, "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed."
Now were does sin come from? Does it really come from the body?
Matthew 15:1820
(18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.)
123 / 150
The heart, is the center of a man's spirit, and that is were the sin nature lies, in man's old hearts.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.)
The heart, is the center of a man's spirit, and that is were the sin nature lies, in man's old hearts.
Now if you do not allow, as a Christian, the thoughts of the old spiritual man, to reign in your life, then the body that puts sin into action (the body of sin) will be in a
sense destroyed.
Romans 6:1213
(12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members
as instruments of righteousness unto God.)
You either (as a Christian) allow your body to be an instrument of sin, or of righteousness.
So on the cross, Jesus delivered man from the power of sin, to reign in their lives, but of course you must receive God's salvation.
As an unbeliever, you only have a spiritually dead spirit, but as a believer, you have an old man (the deadened spirit, which has the sin nature), and a new man, which
has the life of Christ in it.
Now the old man, sin nature, has been put out of commission in a Christian's life, but sometimes has to be put down once in a while.
Now the seed of the woman, which shall crush the serpent's head is this Christ (Jesus), which in a sense, by defeating Satan's domminion and the sin nature, he crushed
Satan's head, or power, to reign in a person's life, that is as they receive God's salvation.
If Jesus crushed Satan's head, by providing salvation to mankind, which sets them free from Satan's dominion, then how did Satan bruise Jesus' heal?
Well when Jesus started his journey to Golgotha, which he started to carry his cross, within this journey, I believe is when Jesus started bearing our sins upon his body,
and he brought our sins to the cross, and had them nailed to the cross, which so to pay for our redemption.
When Jesus started to bear our sins on his body, that is when I believe Satan in a sense, bruised Christ's heal, for it was the power of sin, or even Satan's power, that
he was bearing upon his body.
Even though Satan knew he would be defeated, Satan still probably stubbornly thought that Jesus was a goner, but Jesus was not a goner for he got the victory for us
over the realm of sin, Jesus was a perfectly sinless sacrifice, he never became sin perse, for us, but rather a sin offering for us.
Now the bible says that the wages of sin is death, and ever since man's fall, God expected man to to obey his laws, but even though God knew no man could fulfil his
word, he still expected them to obey his word, but wanted to show man that he needed God , and why Christ was sent, was so to fulfil something man could not, which
was the law, so since it was man that needed salvation, and God required man to obey his laws, their needed to be a man, that came, that could fulfil the law, so that
man could be brought back into fellowship with God, and that person was Christ Jesus, which was perfect man, and perfect God.
Now there was a point on the cross, were the Father forsook his son for a little bit, and at the point of Christ bearing our sins on his body, and having them nailed to the
cross, and finally, having the Father forsake him temporarily, is when in a sense, Satan bruised Jesus' heal, but when it was all done, Satan in a sense, actually got his
head crushed!!! For his power over mankind (as they receive God's salvation), was rendered powerless!!!
Now this prophecy was written in the book of Genesis!!! This was way before Jesus came on the scene, yet it was prophesying of the coming Messiah, who would
come of the seed of the woman, which Jesus was put in Mary by the Holy Ghost, and brought into the world through Mary.
Is this prophesy just a coincidence? Well let us go and see other Messianic prophesies, and see if they match up.
Old Testament Prophecy New Testament Fulfillment
* Micah 5:2 * Luke 2:47
(2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the Born in Bethlehem (4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of

thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called
that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
old, from everlasting.) 5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with
child.
6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were
accomplished that she should be delivered.
7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in
swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was
no room for them in the inn.)
* Isaiah 7:14 * Matthew 1:23
(14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a Born of a virgin (23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a

virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being
Immanuel.) interpreted is, God with us.)
* Isaiah 53:12 * Mark 15:2728
(12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he Crucified with thieves 124 / 150

(27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right
shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out hand, and the other on his left.
* Isaiah 53:12 * Mark 15:2728
(12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he Crucified with thieves (27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right

shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out hand, and the other on his left.
his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; 28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was
and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the numbered with the transgressors.)
transgressors.)
* Zechariah 9:9 * Matthew 21:25
(9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of He comes riding upon an ass, (2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and

Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and and a colt straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose
having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt them, and bring them unto me.
the foal of an ass.) 3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath
need of them; and straightway he will send them.
4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
the prophet, saying,
5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto
thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.)
* Psalms 34:20 * John 19:3236
(20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.) No bones broken (32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of

the other which was crucified with him.
33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead
already, they brake not his legs:
34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and
forthwith came there out blood and water.
35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he
knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be
fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.)
* Psalms 22:1718 * Matthew 27:3536
(17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. Soldiers gambled for his coat (35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots:

18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They
vesture.) parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they
cast lots.
36 And sitting down they watched him there;)
* Isaiah 53:3 * John 1:11
(3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and Rejected by his own people, (11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.)

acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; the Jews
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.)
Are all of these just coincidences? And I can tell you that there are way more Messianic prophecies than these, but I wanted to just quote a few of them.
Alot of these prophecies, from proclamation to fulfillment, are thousands, or close to a thousand (give or take), years apart.
Now the Jews have for a long time departed from the ways of God, as a whole, as a nation; now there were remnants of Jews that always followed God, but in the
overall, they have been backslidden from God, even ever since the Babylonian captivity.
When Jesus came on the scene, the Jews rejected him as Messiah, for they did not expect a suffering Messiah to come on the scene, but just rather a conquering king,
to come on the scene, but they failed to see the suffering servant part of the Messiah, and yes Jesus will come as king one day, at his 2 nd coming, but first he had to
come as the suffering servant.
Here is a scripture that mentions Jesus' second coming.
Isaiah 9:67
(6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty
God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and
with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.)
Now here it mentions Christ birth, which was during his first coming, but also his governmental reign on earth, which will happen at his second coming.
Revelation 20:4
125 / 150
(4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the
word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and
Revelation 20:4
(4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the
word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and
reigned with Christ a thousand years.)
And this peticular reign of Christ shall last for a thousand years.
Now is their secular evidence, that Christ even ever lived?
Well yes there is, and here are some quotes.
(www.towardssuccess.com)
(...Tacitus "The crucifixion was recorded by the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote less than a hundred years after Christ. Writing about the Roman Emperors
from Nero to Trajan, Tacitus mentions the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64 and Nero's attempt to place the blame for it on the Christians. Tacitus then wrote that
"Christus [the Latin spelling of Christ], from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands
of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition [referring to Christianity], thus checked for the moment, again broke out only in Judea,
the first source of the evil, but even in Rome..." (Annals, XV, 44). "...
...Josephus "Reference to Jesus is also made by the Jewish historian, priest and general Flavius Josephus, who was born about A.D. 37. Writing about the death, in
Jerusalem, of James, Josephus casually speaks of him as "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" Antiquities of the Jews, XX: 9,1)."...
...Pliny the Younger "During the later first century and in the second century A.D., persecution of the Christians was common in the Roman Empire. An early
reference to Christ was made by Pliny the Younger, who was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. He wrote letters to Emperor Trajan inquiring about how Christians
should be dealt with. One such letter, written about A.D. 111113, shows both Caesar and governor accepted that Jesus Christ lived and that his followers, when
publicly accused, were put to death if they did not renounce their belief in Christ and curse him."...)
(www.gotquestions.org)
(...Thallus "Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18)."...
...Babylonian Talmud "The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing
sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy."...
..."Mara BarSerapion "Mara BarSerapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was
put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers."...)
Now these are just some of the evidences of Jesus having lived on this earth.
So then there is secular evidence for Christ.
Now let us go unto other types of prophecies.
"The rapture and end time prophecy"
There is an event, in the bible, which many call the "rapture".
Some might say that this doctrine is not biblical, just simply because the word rapture itself, does not appear in the bible, but one thing, one should look at, is, first of all,
what does the word "rapture" actually mean?
Rapture (thefreedictionary.com):
(1. The state of being transported by a lofty emotion; ecstasy.
2. An expression of ecstatic feeling. Often used in the plural.
3. The transporting of a person from one place to another, especially to heaven.)
So one of the meanings, of the word rapture, is being transported from one place to another, which would be a catching away, or being caught up to somewhere else,
and really that is all that the word rapture means .
I guess why some people started calling this soon future event, the rapture, is possibly because for one thing for what the word means, and another reason may be
because it's sort of catchy, and shows a distinct event, showing something different from the second coming.
Now here is a scripture, which shows forth the "rapture".
(15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.)
It says: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout...and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up
together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air...".
So the Lord descends, and the dead people's bodies shall be caught up in the air, and changed, and shall be with the saints in heaven's spirits, and the people that are
126 / 150
alive at that time, and are in Christ, shall be caught with them, to meet the Lord in the air, and their bodies will be changed to uncorruptible bodies.
together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air...".
So the Lord descends, and the dead people's bodies shall be caught up in the air, and changed, and shall be with the saints in heaven's spirits, and the people that are
alive at that time, and are in Christ, shall be caught with them, to meet the Lord in the air, and their bodies will be changed to uncorruptible bodies.
Now here is a scripture that shows this bodily change.
1 Corinthians 15:38
(38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.)
Now I quoted this scripture, just to show the context of what this chapter is mainly talking about, which is the body, and now unto our main scripture.
(51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is
swallowed up in victory.)
Now at the rapture, Christ does not touch the earth, for he comes, stops somewhere in the air, and the Christians shall meet him in the air, but at the second coming, the
saints just come down to earth with him.
So that is the rapture.
Now we will go unto scriptures concerning things that precede the rapture, certain types of signs, and other things.
Let us go unto the book of Thessalonians.
(1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.)
Now in verse 1, Paul is speaking to the Thessalonians, and is bringing a certain subject to their attention, which is of Christ's coming, and them gathering together unto
him.
Now the Thessalonians already knew of this event of Christ's coming, and them gathering together unto him, for Paul had written a previous letter to the Thessalonians,
which mentions this event, which is found in 1 Thessalonians 4:1517.
So the Thessalonians had no doubt of what Paul was talking about here.
And what was happening, is that there were some spreading confusion in the body of Christ (the church) at that time.
Which these confusions, probably caused some to get rid of all their possesions and possibly animals etc., also possibly everything they owned, and to some it may
have caused them to get rid of their jobs, and not work anymore.
The Christian should still continue to provide for his familly even though in our day the rapture is near, but also it is important to be ready for the rapture, in preparing
our hearts to meet him.
Now in Paul's day, they were saying that the day (singular) of Christ is at hand, which probably caused some to do the things which I have mentioned up above.
Now Paul came to correct this, and mentioned to the Thessalonians that there are other events that must happen, before this takes place.
Now verse 1, was not said to Israel perse, but rather to the church, which it was speaking of a time to were Christ would come, and the church would be gathered
unto him, and there is no doubt whatsoever of what it's talking about here, which is the rapture of the church!!!
And note, that the word day (verse 2), is mentioned in singular.
So what must happen, before the rapture takes place?
2 Thessalonians 2:3
(3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;)
So a falling away must first take place, and also the man of sin must be revealed. 127 / 150

So a falling away must first take place, and also the man of sin must be revealed.
Now some might say: "well that can't be, for my pastor says that the antichrist shall be revealed after the rapture?", well I will tell you one thing, it is good to study the
scriptures out for yourself, and not just go by," because this or that person said so".
I do not care what anybody has to say about the scriptures that is except I know that it matches up with the scriptures, now yes I will hear somebody out, but that does
not mean I will necessarily agree.
What does the word "falling away" mean in the Greek?
The Greek word is "Apostasia", which means:"Feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly the state), (“apostasy”): falling away, forsake."
This was speaking of the church, which would (a good chunk) fall away from the simplicity of the gospel.
And to fall away from something, you first have to be in something.
So first a falling away had to happen, but also the revealing of the antichrist, of whom he is, would also be revealed.
I believe that the falling away, has happened in our day, and all you have to do, is just look at all the dead churches today, and I truly believe that this bringing the
church into apostasy, started at the Vatican 2 council of churches, which brought about a modern day ecumenicalism, so to try to bring Catholics and Protestants
together, but under the true guise of Catholicism.
Since then apostasy as infiltrated the church in a great way, to were many churches do not stand on certain things they use to stand on, and certain things they use to
stand against (preaching against false doctrines, such as the false ways of Catholicism).
When did the Vatican 2 council happen?
(Wikipedia encyclopedia)
(...The Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, or Vatican II, was the twentyfirst Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church. It opened under Pope John
XXIII on October 11, 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI on December 8, 1965. At least four future pontiffs took part in the council's opening session: Cardinal
Giovanni Battista Montini, who on succeeding Pope John XXIII took the name of Paul VI; Bishop Albino Luciani, the future Pope John Paul I; Bishop Karol Wojtyła,
who became Pope John Paul II; and Father Joseph Ratzinger, present as a theological consultant, who became Pope Benedict XVI.[1][2]...
...The Catholic Church engaged in a comprehensive process of reform following the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).[383] Intended as a continuation of Vatican
I, under Pope John XXIII the council developed into an engine of modernisation, making pronouncements on religious freedom, the nature of the church and the
mission of the laity.[383] It also permitted the Latin liturgical rites to use vernacular languages as well as Latin during mass and other sacraments.[384] Christian unity
became a greater priority.[385] In addition to finding more common ground with Protestant Churches, the Catholic Church has again discussed the possibility of unity
with the Eastern Orthodox Church.[386] Changes to old rites and ceremonies following Vatican II produced a variety of responses. Although "most Catholics ...
accepted the changes more or less gracefully", some stopped going to church and others tried to preserve the old liturgy with the help of sympathetic priests.[387] The
latter form the basis of today's Traditionalist Catholic groups, which believe that the reforms of Vatican II have gone too far. ...)
(thefreeonlinedictionary.com)
(.... Vatican II the Vatican Council in 19621965 that abandoned the universal Latin liturgy and acknowledged ecumenism and made other reforms...)
(www.spiritwatch.org)
(...The modern ecumenical movement is promoted generally by the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church. It gets most of its momentum from the
Roman Catholic Pontifical Council on Ecumenism. Their PURPOSE was verbalized succinctly at Vatican II. Speaking of dialogue with separated brethren, the
following plan was recorded: The results will be that, little by little, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered, in
a common celebration of the Eucharist, into the UNITY OF THE ONE AND ONLY CHURCH (Documents of Vatican II by Flannery, p. 456). The World Council
of Churches has contributed to the breaking down of doctrinal standards for many denominations and has promoted the ecumenical movement; however the WCC is
now drawing closer and closer to the Catholics because the Roman Church has AUTHORITY, vested in an infallible pope. ...)
(www.religioustolerance.org)
(...Largely as a result of the changes brought about by Vatican II, ecumenical dialog has permeated much of Christendom in recent decades. This includes various
LutheranRoman Catholic dialog groups which have tackled the justification question since the early 1970's. The 1998 Joint Declaration was largely based on the
efforts of those groups. Partial agreement was jointly reached between the Lutheran World Federation (ILWF) and the Roman Catholic Church. The Joint Declaration
had been circulated among the 124 Lutheran denominations who formed the Federation; a significant majority approved the document. In 1998JUN, the Lutheran
World federation Council unanimously approved the Joint Declaration. Also in 1998JUN, Cardinal Edward Cassidy, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting
Christian Unity, responded on behalf of the Vatican. He said: "I wish to stress that the consensus reached on the doctrine of justification, despite its limitations, virtually
resolves a long disputed question at the close of the 20th century, on the eve of the new millennium." In 2006JUL, at its general assembly in Seoul, South Korea, the
World Methodist Council added its approval. The assembly consists of representatives of 76 different Methodist communities worldwide, and is held every 5 years.
13 ...)
These articles put together, sort of gives you the bigger picture of the Vatican 2 council, which was planned so to get other Christian groups to get into this false type of
unity with Catholicism.
So that is what has been happening in our days, and the falling away is here in a great way.
So now we get to the second thing that has to happen, before the rapture can take place, which is the revealing of the antichrist.
128 / 150
Let us go unto certain verses.
So now we get to the second thing that has to happen, before the rapture can take place, which is the revealing of the antichrist.
Let us go unto certain verses.
(3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.)
So the first thing that happens before the rapture can take place, is the falling away, and the second thing, is the revealing of the antichrist, and verse 4 is just showing
forth what this man that shall be revealed shall do, which he shall oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth
in the temple of God shewing himself that he is God.
So verse 4, is just showing what this revealed man shall do.
Now we get to verse 6, which says "And now ye know what witholdeth that he might be revealed in his time".
Now withold means: "to hold down (fast), in various applications (literally or figuratively): have, hold (fast), keep (in memory), let, X make toward, possess, retain,
seize on, stay, take, withhold."
It's like something that is holding back something else.
And this thing that is holding something back, is definetly not referring to the rapture, for then it talks about the antichrist being revealed in his time.
So what is this thing that witholdeth referring to?
Well the phrase says:" And "now ye know" " , if they "now" know, then obviously Paul just mentioned to them something, that enables them to now know.
Well what did Paul just mention?
Well he mentioned that before the rapture could take place, their must be a falling away first, and then the antichrist gets revealed.
So the rapture cannot take place unless these 2 events happen, but what was witholding, so that the antichrist could be revealed in his time? Well obviously, the
apostasy had to first happen, so that he could eventually be on the scene, or in the time of his coming.
So that is the reason why Paul could now say to the Thessalonians, "and now ye know what withholdeth" , why? Because he had just told them what it was.
It is this apostasy that eventually ushers in the antichrist.
And it would have to be sometime after this apostasy is setup, that this antichrist would be revealed.
And I truly believe that this apostasy was setup through this Vatican 2 council, which happened in between 19621965.
So we know that, what it was that was witholding the revealing of the antichrist in his time, was this apotasy, and now we get to our next scripture.
(6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,)
Verse 7 and part of 8, says:"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked
be revealed..."
So verse 6 is referring to something that the Thessalonians now know what it is, that just simply witholds the revealing of the antichrist, until that is, it happens, and then
the antichrist can be revealed, but verse 7 is talking about something different, which it is talking about something that letteth, that must be taken completely out of the
way, in order for the antichrist to be revealed.
The word letteth means:"to hold down (fast), in various applications (literally or figuratively): have, hold (fast), keep (in memory), let, X make toward, possess, retain,
seize on, stay, take, withhold."
It has the same meaning as the withold word, and uses the same Greek word, which is "katechō".
So what is this "he" who now letteth, letting until he be taken out of the way?
Well some have said that it is referring to the church, when it gets caught up in the rapture, which this is bogus, for the whole context of what this chapter is talking
about contradicts this all by itself, and the antichrist will be revealed before the rapture takes place, so it obviously is not reffering to the church, and besides the church
is referred to as a bride in the bible, which would be feminin (a sort of she).
Still again, there are others who say that the "he" is referring to the Holy Ghost being taken out of the earth at the rapture, which this is also bogus, for as I said before,
the antichrist must be revealed, before the rapture, and yes the Holy Ghost is a "he", but the Holy Ghost will still be on earth, saving people after the rapture, and the
latter day outpourring of the Spirit, started in the book of Acts, and will go even unto the second coming (Joel 2:2832). 129 / 150
Still again, there are others who say that the "he" is referring to the Holy Ghost being taken out of the earth at the rapture, which this is also bogus, for as I said before,
the antichrist must be revealed, before the rapture, and yes the Holy Ghost is a "he", but the Holy Ghost will still be on earth, saving people after the rapture, and the
latter day outpourring of the Spirit, started in the book of Acts, and will go even unto the second coming (Joel 2:2832).
Yes the Holy Spirit may hinder wickedness from going full swing on the earth, but he sure does not hinder the antichrist from being revealed, for one of the jobs of the
Holy Ghost, is to reveal hidden darkness .
So first before we deal with the word "letteth", I want to deal with the phrase: "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work".
Now this is referring to something that was already working in Paul's day, it was called, the mystery of iniquity, and the word iniquity, is referring to "sin".
So here it is talking about there being a mystery to "sin".
And if we read the context of this chapter, it is talking about, a person that is called "the man of sin", and what will this man of sin do? He shall exalt himself above all
gods!!!
Now I believe that this mystery of sin, that it is referring to here, which was working in Paul's day, is referring to the original lie of Satan, which he told men that they
would be as gods, knowing good and evil, and in truth, men did become as their own god, and this not in the way of being some powerful god, but rather in the way of
independance from God. Satan tried to make them believe that they would actually be as God!!! This world as a whole, is truly antichristian, and this mystery of iniquity
is referring to men being as their own god, independant from God, which is basically the spirit of antichrist!!!
Now this spirit of antichrist, is what has been working in Paul's day, but also even ever since the fall of man, and ultimately, this spirit of antichrist (1Jn 4:3) is what will
eventually bring on the scene the antichrist (1Jn 2:18), which shall exalt himself above all gods!!!
The bible says this about the word Jesus (which is the Christ).
2 Corinthians 11:4
(4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye
have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.)
Not every Jesus that a person may mention, is actually the Jesus of the bible, for if you just look at their doctrine, often times you will see that it is not in harmony with
the gospel. It is easy to make for ourselves another Christ, and we can even say that Christ as come in the flesh, and alledge that we are referring to the Christ of the
bible, but if our doctrines are not in harmony with the way Christ thinks, then which Christ are we talking about?
Now let us go back to the "he" who now letteth, scripture.
(7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:)
So we know that before the rapture can take place, there must first be a falling away, or apostasy, that begins to happen, and that the antichrist should be revealed, and
this apostasy was withholding the revealing of the antichrist, until that is, it came to pass, and this is what ushers the antichrist on the scene, for you need iniquity to
increase on the earth, in order for people to receive the antichrist, and this spirit of iniquity is also instrumental in ushering the antichrist on the scene, so now we get to
this, "he" who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way part, so who is he who now letteth, but shall be taken out of the way, which prevents the Wicked
from being revealed?
Well we have to remember the context of this chapter and to what it is talking about, which is wikedness , apostasy and the like (things of like nature).
Was there something concerning the apostasy (which I believe began at Vatican 2), that had to be taken out of the way, in order for the full apostate plan to be on the
scene, which would ultimately result, in the revealing of the antichrist?
Well actually yes, I believe there was.
Now we have to remember that, he who now letteth (which was hindering in Paul's time), is referring to an "he".
What was hindering in Paul's time?
Well first of all, we have to remember what the context of the scriptures here are, which is talking about apostasy, that Wicked, the man of sin etc.
And before I cover this issue, of who was hinderring in Paul's time, which had something to do with the apostasy, I want to cover something concerning whom people
of the past, said the falling away, of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 was reffering to.
Now some people, believe that the "falling away" that is mentioned in 2 Thessalonians, is referring to when Constantine came on the scene to finally merge Christanity
and paganism together so to form Roman Catholicism, and here are quotes of what happened during that time (in part), and concerning what a peticular group said
concerning this "falling away".
(endtimepilgrim.org)
(...Let us pause here and ask ourselves a question. Have there been watershed moments in past church history when the ecclesiastical powers of established
Christianity have bought into grievous compromise with the world and its systems? There most certainly has been. The prototypical accommodation that the church
made was back in 325 A.D.. At that time the church was invited to "go up" to sit at covenant table with the Roman Caesar Constantine. There is no question that the
Council of Nicea was a watershed moment in church history. The compromise with the worldly powers led western civilzation into the Dark Ages for one thousand
years. After a millennium of darkness, Gutenberg's printing press and the work of Bible translators brought the first glimmers of the gospel light back into mainstream
130 / 150
Europe....)
made was back in 325 A.D.. At that time the church was invited to "go up" to sit at covenant table with the Roman Caesar Constantine. There is no question that the
Council of Nicea was a watershed moment in church history. The compromise with the worldly powers led western civilzation into the Dark Ages for one thousand
years. After a millennium of darkness, Gutenberg's printing press and the work of Bible translators brought the first glimmers of the gospel light back into mainstream
Europe....)
(...The Great Apostasy ...
...2 Thessalonians 2:312 was held also to refer to a coming great apostasy....
...The Anabaptists of the Protestant Reformation believe that the Church became corrupt when Constantine I ended the persecution of Christians with the Edict of
Milan,...)
Now yes there was a great apsotasy that happened during the time of Constantine, which Constantine deceived many Christians in making them believe that he had
converted to Christianity, but really just merged paganism with Christianity to form the Roman Catholic church, and this caused alot of Christians to depart from the
faith (and accept pagan doctrines), and this was the time known in church history as the dark ages, which is said to of lasted for 1000 years.
No doubt this was a great time of darkness, a big time of apostasy, but is 2 Thessalonians really referring to this peticular apostasy?
Well let's go back to that verse.
2 Thessalonians 2:3
Well as I said before, this scripture is talking about a time, to were this falling away, would happen, before the "rapture" of the church would take place, and there is
another event, which would follow this falling away, which is the revealing of the antichrist, now when does the revealing of the antichrist, take place?
2 Thessalonians 2:6
(6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.)
Well when he is on the scene, or comes in his time.
So first the antichrist must be on the scene, in order to be revealed, which will happen before the rapture, but also what will happen to the antichrist, when he comes in
his time?
Revelation 19:1620
(16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together
unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all
men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast,
and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.)
The beast (the antichrist), at Christ's second coming (King of Kings, Lord of Lords), shall be cast alive into the lake of fire.
Well one thing is for sure, is that the second coming as never ever taken place, at any time, for if it would of, then Christ should have been reigning on earth for 1000
years.
Revelation 20:6
(6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign
with him a thousand years.)
So it is pretty obvious that the "falling away" of the Constantine era, was not the falling away mentioned in 2 Thessalonians, for if it was, then not long after, there should
have been a revealing of the antichrist, and also the "rapture" should have taken place, the tribulation period should have taken place, the second coming should have
taken place in this antichrist's life time, and Christ should have started his reign on earth, so it is pretty obvious that it's not talking about this, isn't it?
So then, who is he that now letteth (in Paul's time), reffering to?
Well it is reffering to an "he", which lead to the apostasy, in our time, which our modern day apostasy began at Vatican 2, which was for the bringing of the protestant,
or Christian churches, back to the mother church, under socalled unity, which is known as the ecumenical movement.
And this apostasy, as brought about a lukewarmness in some of the Christian or protestant churches, and has eventually lead to these type of agreements, to were
Catholics and Christians, or people known as Christian leaders, to sign these documents called: "Evangelicals and Catholics together".
Here is a link concerning this document: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicals_and_Catholics_Together"
Some of the signers, are people such as:" J.I. Packer, Pat Robertson etc." and the authors of this document were, Charles Colson and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus
(Catholic).
Also there was a second document made, which some of the signers were:" Bill Bright, Max Lucado etc.".
131 / 150
Here is another link, concerning this issue: "http://www.seekgod.ca/ect.htm"
Also there was a second document made, which some of the signers were:" Bill Bright, Max Lucado etc.".
Here is another link, concerning this issue: "http://www.seekgod.ca/ect.htm"
So now we get to the issue of "He who now letteth, will let until he be taken out of the way, then shall that Wicked be revealed".
Who is this "he"?
Well first of all, in the Roman Catholic section of this study, I mentioned of how people say this or that person is the antichrist, which one of them I mentioned was this
historical figure of "Lateinos".
Now I do not believe he is the antichrist, and for very good reasons, which one being that the antichrist must be revealed in his time.
Now I want to quote a few things concerning this "Lateinos".
(www.nobodyleftbehind.net)
(...Latinus
(Greek: Lateinos)
Latinus was the reputed founder of the Latins. The Latins were the majority of the population of Rome from its foundation. Latin became the official language of the
Roman Empire and later the official language of the Roman Catholic Church. ...
...Irenaeus lived during a part of the fulfillment of Revelation 13 but before the fulfillment of other parts. Situated in that historical context, he found it significant that the
name of the kingdom then in power had the value of 666 in Greek. He did not claim that Lateinos was the definite solution to 666, but only a possibility. It was too
early in time for him to be definitive....
... The name Lateinos agrees with and further confirms that conclusion. Latinus (the Latin spelling) was the reputed founder of the Latin race; thus, we have the name of
an individual man. Even if history cannot conclusively prove he was the father of the race, nevertheless, it is widely known that Latin is a designation of a people, a
kingdom, individuals in that kingdom, a language, and a church....)
(www.ridingthebeast.com)
(...Lateinos [Greek] In the Latin form, Latium Latinus, and Lateo, means "to lie hid". From the Chaldean word Lat, "to lie hid"....)
(amazingdiscoveries.org)
(..."Lateinos" (L=30,A=1, T=300,E=5, I=10,N=50,O=70,S=200) meaning "latin speaking man". ...)
Now the word Lateinos means in the Greek, to "lie hid", and it points to the Latin speaking man, so generally speaking, it speaks of Latin speaking men.
Irenaeus may have been wrong in thinking that this may be the antichrist, but did he in some way hit on something of biblical interest?
Well another word that is very interesting is the word "mass".
What does the word "mass" actually mean?
(www.merriamwebster.com)
(...mass
Pronunciation: \ˈmas\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English mæsse, modification of Vulgar Latin *messa, literally, dismissal at the end of a religious service, from Late Latin missa,
from Latin, feminine of missus, past participle of mittere to send
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the liturgy of the Eucharist especially in accordance with the traditional Latin rite
2 often capitalized : a celebration of the Eucharist
3 : a musical setting for the ordinary of the Mass...)
So one of the meanings of the word mass, is the dismissal at the end of a religious service, and also it points to the celebration of the Eucharist.
If you put the general meaning of the word Lateinos and the word "mass" itself together into a phrase, this is what you could get:
"The Latin speaking man of the mass" !!!
Who are the Latin speaking men of the mass?
Well usually Catholic priests.
Now there is no doubt, this is referring to an "he", which individual Catholic priest men, are an "he".
Now how does this tye in with "he" who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way? 132 / 150

Now there is no doubt, this is referring to an "he", which individual Catholic priest men, are an "he".
Now how does this tye in with "he" who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way?
Well first of all, how old is the Latin language?
(The Latin language, a brief history of it's development)
(...Latin is known from as early as 500 b.c., in and inscription on a gold fibula or safetypin, which reads:
manios med fhefhaked numasio
"manius (the maker) me made for numerius (the recipient)"
This hardly looks like Latin except to this linguist, but by 300 b.c. Latin appears in a form which we can recognize,...)
So you can see that the Latin language, existed way before Paul or Jesus came on the scene, even as early as 500 b.c. .
Now let us go into stuff which concerns the "mass" itself.
(www.cmri.org)
(...“The beginnings of the Roman Mass are found in the writings of St. Justin (150 AD) and St. Hippolytus (215 AD). Latin finally replaced Greek as the official
language of the Empire. By the year 250 AD, the Mass was being said in Latin throughout most of the Roman world. This included the cities in North Africa and
northern Italy such as Milan. The Church in the western empire adopted Latin for the Mass by 380 AD. The Latin Canon as we know it was finished by 399 AD....
...Although the Latin Mass dates back to 150 AD, the advent of the New Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) on March 22, 1970, by Paul VI has caused the it to be offered
by fewer priests. Nevertheless, traditional Catholic parishes are opening and many are returning to the Mass as they remember it and as Christ left it....)
(...In the history of Christianity, the African Rite refers to a now defunct Catholic, Western liturgical rite, and is considered a development or possibly a local use of the
primitive Roman Rite. It used the Latin language....
...The African liturgy was in use not only in the old Roman province of Africa of which Carthage was the capital, but also in Numidia and Mauretania in fact, in all of
Northern Africa from the borders of Egypt west to the Atlantic Ocean....
...Christianity was introduced into proconsular Africa in the latter half of the second century AD, probably by missionaries from Rome, and then spread rapidly through
the other African provinces. Although the language of the African Rite was Latin, it was modified by the introduction of many classical "Africanisms". Since it had been
in use for at least more than a century before the Roman Church changed its official liturgical language from Koine Greek to the Latin idiom, it is probably the oldest
Latin liturgical rite. ... )
(www.catholic.org)
(...The Mass is the complex of prayers and ceremonies that make up the service of the Eucharist in the Latin rites. As in the case of all liturgical terms the name is less
old than the thing. From the time of the first preaching of the Christian Faith in the West, as everywhere, the Holy Eucharist was celebrated as Christ had instituted it at
the Last Supper, according to His command, in memory of Him. But it was not till long afterwards that the late Latin name Missa , used at first in a vaguer sense,
became the technical and almost exclusive name for this service.
In the first period, while Greek was still the Christian language at Rome, we find the usual Greek names used there, as in the East. The commonest was Eucharistia ,
used both for the consecrated bread and wine and for the whole service. Clement of Rome (d. about 101) uses the verbal form still in its general sense of "giving
thanks", but also in connection with the Liturgy (I Clem., Ad Cor., xxxviii, 4: kata panta eucharistein auto ). The other chief witness for the earliest Roman Liturgy,
Justin Martyr (d. c. 167), speaks of eucharist in both senses repeatedly (Apol., I, lxv, 3, 5; lxvi, 1; lxvii, 5). After him the word is always used, and passes into Latin
( eucharistia ) as soon as there is a Latin Christian Literature [ Tertullian (d. c. 220), "De pr scr.", xxxvi, in P.L., II, 50; St. Cyprian (d. 258), Ep., liv, etc.]. It remains
the normal name for the sacrament throughout Catholic theology, but is gradually superseded by Missa for the whole rite....
...The question of the change of language from Greek to Latin is less important than if might seem. It came about naturally when Greek ceased to be the usual language
of the Roman Christians. Pope Victor I (190202), an African, seems to have been the first to use Latin at Rome, Novatian writes Latin. By the second half of the third
century the usual liturgical language at Rome seems to have been Latin (Kattenbusch, "Symbolik", II, 331), though fragments of Greek remained for many centuries....
...All these were destined to be supplanted in the West by the classical name Missa . The first certain use of it is by St. Ambrose (d. 397). He writes to his sister
Marcellina describing the troubles of the Arians in the years 385 and 386, when the soldiers were sent to break up the service in his church: "The next day (it was a
Sunday ) after the lessons and the tract, having dismissed the catechumens, I explained the creed [ symbolum tradebam ] to some of the competents [people about to
be baptized ] in the baptistry of the basilica. There I was told suddenly that they had sent soldiers to the Portiana basilica. . . . But I remained at my place and began to
say Mass [ missam facere coepi ].
......)
(www.crystalinks.com)
(...While Latin remained the main written language of the Roman Empire, Greek came to be the language spoken by the welleducated elite, as most of the literature
studied by Romans was written in Greek. In the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which later became the Byzantine Empire, Latin was never able to replace Greek,
and after the death of Justinian Greek became the official language of the Byzantine government.[84] The expansion of the Roman Empire spread Latin throughout
Europe, and over time Vulgar Latin evolved and dialectized in different locations, gradually shifting into a number of distinct Romance languages. Although Latin is an
extinct language with very few remaining fluent speakers, it remains in use in many ways, such as through Ecclesiastical Latin, the traditional language of the Roman
Catholic Church and the official language of the Vatican City. ...)
Now the official language in certain aspects of the Roman empire was Latin, but religious wise (and in other ways), at least at the beginning, was Greek.
Now the first known Roman or Latin mass, is dated at 150 a.d., which then it may have been spoken in Greek (the service that is), and this was possibly the first
known actual model of what became the Latin mass, and the first known people of the Roman Empire to have their mass in Latin, is said to be they of the "African rite",
and it is said that Pope Victor I (190202), an African, seems to have been the first to use Latin at Rome. 133 / 150
Now the first known Roman or Latin mass, is dated at 150 a.d., which then it may have been spoken in Greek (the service that is), and this was possibly the first
known actual model of what became the Latin mass, and the first known people of the Roman Empire to have their mass in Latin, is said to be they of the "African rite",
and it is said that Pope Victor I (190202), an African, seems to have been the first to use Latin at Rome.
And even though there were types of masses before a.d. 397, the first use of the word "mass", to were it was called the mass, is for sure known to be used by the year
397 a.d., which is shown through the person of Ambrose.
Now let us get to the Eucharist aspect of the mass, was there evidence of a type of eucharist ceremony, taking place even before the time of this Justin person of the
time of a.d. 150?
Well let us go see.
(www.yadayahweh.com)
(...But don't be too rash. The centerpiece of the Catholic Mass is the consumption of a wafer that is directly related to idolatry based as it is upon the religious rituals
first celebrated in Babylon, and later in Egypt, and pagan Rome. All the Messiah suggested during His last Passover meal, was that we should remember Him within the
full prophetic symbolism of the Miqra's of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits all of which Catholics ignore. The way the "Blessed Sacrament of the
Eucharist" is practiced, and its connection to cannibalistic "Transubstantiation, where the bread is actually turned into the body of the Lord," and to the "Luminous
Mysteries of the Rosary" represents "the practice of idolatry." Even the Priest's paganinspired celibacy, has been shown to lead directly to "an indulgence in sexual
immorality."...)
(www.hddgodsministry.com)
(...Sun worship dominated Egypt. Egyptian priests practiced "transubstantiation", claiming to be able to transfer the sun god Osiris into a circular wafer. In rituals
prefiguring Catholic Mass, the faithful then ate the "body" of their god to nourish their souls. The letters IHS on the sunshaped wafers stood for Isis, Horus, Seb (later,
Roman Catholics claimed they were the first three letters of Jesus' name in Greek)....)
(www.indiaforum.com)
(...The ancient polytheistic religions of Egypt, Persia, Babylonia and eventually Rome increasingly consolidated their pantheons of deities under a single primary god,
usually a Sungod. The Egyptians believed in a transubstantiation of their Sungod Ra into a diskshaped wafer that could be eaten in a sacred ritual. The Persian
Mithra (Roman Mithras) held special prominence as god of day (light) and the only son of the God of Heaven. But some time before the 5th century B.C. the Persian
prophet Zoroaster taught a dualism based on the conflict between the God of Heaven and the God of Evil. Humans could choose between good (light) or evil
(darkness) and on judgement day be sent to Heaven or Hell based on their choices....)
(www.mailarchive.com)
(...The largest pagan religious cult which fostered sun worship in the Greek and Roman worlds on December 25 was the cult of Mithraism. They called it "the Nativity
of the Sun." ...)
(amazingdiscoveries.org)
(...The rebirth of the sungod was celebrated by the eating of round bread in Babylonian times, and was common in the worship of Mithraism, Osiris worship, and is the
same as that being practiced in Catholicism today. Historian Bishop says: The round wafer, whose ‘roundness’ is so important in the Romish Mystery, is only another
symbol of Baal, or the sun. ...)
(...The Mithraic Mysteries or Mysteries of Mithras (also Mithraism) was a mystery religion which became popular among the military in the Roman Empire, from the
1st to 4th centuries AD. It is best attested in the cities of Rome and Ostia and in the Roman provinces of Mauretania, Britain, and in the provinces along the Rhine and
Danube frontier....)
Now this type of eucharist celebration dates back way before Jesus was even on the scene, even unto Nimrod's Babylonian days.
So in Babylon, they celebrated the rebirth of the sungod by the eating of round bread, and this tradition spread throughout the world, even unto this cult called
Mithraism, which started in Persia, and eventually spread through the Roman empire world.
Now Catholicism has this pratice called transubstantiation, which they say that the bread becomes the literall body of Christ, and the wine becomes the literall blood of
Jesus, and yes they say they do this in remembrance of the Lord, but they also say it actually (the bread) becomes his body, well this type of practice of
transubstantiation dates back even unto Egyptian times, which the Egyptian priests claimed to be able to transfer the sun god Osiris into a circular wafer, which on their
wafer they had the letters IHS which stood for Isis, Horus, and Seb, and Catholicism has these same letters (IHS) on their eucharest, which they say stands for Jesus in
the Greek, but really how do they get Jesus out of this? Is it just a coincidence that they have the same letters? I think not!!!
So a type of eucharist mass, is an etremely old celebration, dating back even to Nimrod's Babylon, and so is transubstantiation extremely old.
Now what Jesus established at his last supper was not this type of transubstantiation, eucharist mass, but rather the bread represented his body, and the wine
represented his blood, which was to be done in remembrance of him, or of what he was about to do, which was die on the cross for our sins.
The bread does not turn into his literall body, and Catholicism celebrates the transubstantiation pagan mass, and not truly the Lord's supper of the bible.
It's mass is founded on paganism.
Now let's get back to that scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:78 134 / 150

Now let's get back to that scripture.
So, so far we can see that Catholicism had a mass, which borrowed alot off of cults, and a popular cult in the Roman empire was Mithraism, which had a type of wafer
ritual, and somehow transubstantiation was also brought in, which dates to at least Egyptian cults, but the mass being said in Latin, dates back to at least 190202 a.d. .
Now in Paul's time, what was known as the mass, did not exist but there were types of masses, in a certain respect, which was so, through cults like Mithraism, which
had a wafer ritual. Now most services in Paul's day were in Greek, but is there evidence, that maybe some of the cults in Paul's day, had services, or said some type of
prayer in Latin?
Well yes there is evidence of a certain type of prayer in Latin, and in truth, the Roman Empire, was full of worship of other gods, it was indeed pagan.
So here is the evidence.
(penelope.uchicago.edu)
(...An excellent plastic illustration of the Precatio Terrae may be found in the allegorical relief of Tellus Mater, from the walls of the Ara Pacis Augustae decreed by the
Senate to the emperor Augustus in 13 B.C. It is symbolic of peace and plenty, and characteristically representative of the fusion of Eastern with Western elements in
GraecoRoman art....
...Precatio Omnium Herbarum
Nunc vos potentes omnes herbas deprecor. exoro maiestatem vestram, quas parens tellus generavit et cunctis dono dedit: medicinam sanitatis in vos contulit
maiestatemque, ut omni generi identidem humano sitis auxilium utilissimum. hoc supplex exposco et precor: velocius huc huc adeste cum vestris virtutibus, quia, quae
creavit, ipsa permisit mihi, ut colligam vos; favit hicf etiam, cui medicina tradita est. quantumque vestra nunc virtus potest, praestate medicinam bonam causa salutis.
gratiam, precor, mihi praestetis per virtutem vestram, ut omnibus in rebus,g quicquid ex vobis ego fecero, cuive homini dedero, habeatis eventus bonos et effectum
celerrimum. ut semper mihi liceat favente maiestate vestra vos colligere, . . . . . . . . . . . . ponamque vobis fruges et grates agam per nomen Matris,h quae vos iussit
nascier.i ...
A Prayer to All Herbs
With all you potent herbs do I now intercede; and to your majesty make my appeal: ye were engendered by Mother Earth, and given for a gift to all. On you she has
conferred the healing which makes whole, on you high excellence, so that to all mankind you may be time and again an aid most serviceable. This in suppliant wise I
implore and entreat: hither, hither swiftly come with all your potency, forasmuch as the very one who gave you birth has granted me leave to gather you: he also to
whom the healing art is entrusted has shown his favour.5 As far as your potency now extends, vouchsafe sound healing for health's sake. Bestow on me, I pray, favour
by your potency, that in all things, whatsoever I do according to your will, or for whatsoever p347man I prescribe, ye may have favorite issues and most speedy result.
That I may ever be allowed, with the favour of your majesty, to gather you. . . and I shall set forth the produce of the fields for you and return thanks through the name
of the Mother who ordained your birth. ...
...There are, by the way, a lot of things online purporting to be ancient Roman prayers; some of those I've seen are nothing of the sort, inventions no more ancient than I
am, and in the crudest kind of pidginLatin. The two on this page, however, are the genuine article,...)
Now this was a prayer that was in existence in emperor Augustus' day, which was in Latin, so there is here evidence of some Latin prayers being said, which this was
even before the time of Jesus, now most services were said in the Greek during Paul's time, but there is evidence of there being Latin prayers being said even before the
time of Paul, and there were many cults in the Roman empire which had their own type of services or mass (Mithraism for example), and I truly believe there must have
been some of the services said at least in part, in Latin, or at least Latin prayers being said, and evidence shows that there were indeed Latin prayers said, even before
Paul's time.
So there was something in Paul's time, that was hindering, and this thing that was hindering in Paul's time, did not need to be taken out of the way in Paul's time, for it
would have to be a time to were the antichrist is alive, for it to be removed, and what was happening is this, is that the influence of these Latin prayers in some type of
service, with the combination of the Mithraic wafer ceremony influence, was developing into what eventually became the "Latin mass".
So there was some form of Latin prayer, in some type of service of some kind, which shows that the "Latin speaking man of the mass", was in evidence in some form
even before Paul's days, but in Paul's days, this was in development stage, which eventually became, the official "Latin mass".
The word Latin means to: "lie hid".
Interesting isn't it !!!
And in a sense, the Latin speaking man of the mass, was sort of lying hid in Paul's time, and was in gradual development, and in truth, the Roman empire worshipped
many gods, and even had a priesthood set up, even before Paul's time, even Jesus' time.
Infact it was pagan Rome which eventually brought forth Roman Catholicism.
Here is proof of their priesthood, and worship of other gods.
(www.romanempire.net)
(...The origins of Roman Religion
135 / 150
Most of the Roman gods and goddesses were a blend of several religious influences. Many were introduced via the Greek colonies of southern Italy. Many also had
(...The origins of Roman Religion
Most of the Roman gods and goddesses were a blend of several religious influences. Many were introduced via the Greek colonies of southern Italy. Many also had
their roots in old religions of the Etruscans or Latin tribes. ...)
(...The influence of the books brought eastern gods such as Apollo, the "Great Mother" Cybele, and Ceres, as well as Greek pagan beliefs, into the Roman pagan
religion. Because the verses were written in Greek, the keepers would always be helped by two Greek translators. The books were destroyed when the Temple of
Jupiter burned down in 83 BC. Because of this, the Roman Senate sent messengers in 76 BC to find similar prophecies and replace them. The prophecies were
gathered especially from Troy, Erythrae, Samos island, 'Africa' (that is, modern Tunisia), and from Sicily and Tibur in Italy. After they brought the new collection to
Rome, Roman priests separated what they thought was true, but threw others out of the collection. ...
...The College of Pontiffs or Collegium Pontificum (collegium in Latin means a board or committee rather than an educational institution) was a body of the ancient
Roman state whose members were the highestranking priests of the polytheistic state religion. The college consisted of the pontifex maximus, the Vestal Virgins, the
Rex Sacrorum, and the flamines. The College of Pontiffs was one of the four major priestly colleges, the others being of the augurs, the priesthood of the fifteen, and the
seven feasters. The title pontifex comes from the Latin for "bridge builder," a possible allusion to a very early role in placating the gods and spirits associated with the
Tiber River, for instance. Also Varro sites this position as meaning "able to do". The pontifex maximus was the most important member of the college. Until 104 B.C.,
the pontifex maximus held the sole power in appointing members to the other priesthoods in the college. The flamines were priests in charge of the cults of the 15
"official" gods in the Roman religion. Each priest was responsible for his own god. There were 3 major flamines: those of Jupiter (flamen dialis), Mars (flamen Martialis)
and Quirinus (flamen Quirinalis). There were 12 minor flamines, Caramentalis, Cerialis, Falacer, Floralis, Furrinalis,Pulatualis, Pomonalis, Portunalis, Volcanalis,
Volturnalis, and two other unknown. The Vestal Virgins were the only female members of the college. They were in charge of guarding Rome's sacred hearth, keeping
the flame burning inside the Temple of Vesta. ...
...As the most important of the four priestly colleges, the college of pontiffs’ duties involved advising the senate on issues pertaining to the gods, the supervision of the
calendar and thus the supervision of ceremonies with their specific rituals, and the appeasement of the gods upon the appearance of prodigies...)
So you can see that there was a priesthood set up way before Jesus even came on the scene, and the office of pontifex maximus was already set up, which is said to
be the popish office, but the true first pope of Catholicism, and not pagan Rome, was Constantine, for Catholicism never existed until the time of Constantine, but the
priestly and pontifex set up, was already put in place, way before Jesus came on the scene, it is said that even in Babylonian times, there was this pontifex type office
set up.
Now let us get a bit in the history of the Latin bible.
(...The Vulgate is an early Fifth Century version of the Bible in Latin, and largely the result of the labors of Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382
to make a revision of old Latin translations. It became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. In the 13th
century it came to be called versio vulgata, which means "common translation". There are 76 books in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate Bible: 46 in the Old
Testament, 27 in the New Testament, and three in the Apocrypha....)
(www.sacredbible.org)
(...Jerome's Latin Vulgate was translated by Saint Jerome from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in the late 4th and early 5th century. Saint Jerome was not the first to
translate the Bible into Latin. In the centuries before Jerome, there were many varied translations of the books of the Bible into Latin. Jerome consulted with these texts
in addition to translating from the Hebrew and Greek. Saint Jerome actually was responsible for three different versions of the Bible in Latin. The older Latin versions of
the Bible, those that predate Saint Jerome's versions, are called Vetus Latina, meaning "Old Latin." During the time of Saint Jerome, there were almost as many
different versions of the Bible in Latin as there were copies of the Bible in Latin. Pope Damasus I ordered Jerome to work on an updated Latin version of the Bible in
order to address this problem. ...)
(...There was no single "Vetus Latina" Bible; there are, instead, a collection of Biblical manuscript texts that bear witness to Latin translations of Biblical passages that
preceded Jerome's...)
(My Catholic faith, Louis Laravoire Morrow)
(...When in the fourth century St. Jerome was ordered by pope Damasus to gather all existing texts of the bible, and translate them into Latin, there were some 35, 000
ancients copies....)
Here I wanted to show a bit of history , concerning the Latin bible, and the famous Latin Vulgate bible, was made by Jerome in the late 4th century, early 5 th century,
but he was not the first to translate the bible into Latin, he may have used some type of Greek, Hebrew manuscripts, which there were 35 000 types of biblical texts,
and also he was to update the Latin versions which were already existant in his day, which the older Latin versions were called "Vetus Latina", and there were many
different versions, and when were all these older Latin versions made? I do not know, but the various different "old Latin" versions, could differ in there dating period
from each other, and how many of them were old testamnet translations? Who knows.
So we can see that the Latin speaking man of the mass (in some form), was in formation, and hindering the revealing of the antichrist in Paul's day, why hindering in
Paul's day? Because first, these wafer ceremonies (Mithraic), and prayers said in Latin, had to be combined, so to eventually form the official Latin mass, but also, once
it became fully formed, there would be a day, that in some form, the Latin speaking man of the mass, would be removed, so that sometime afterwards, the antichrist
could be revealed.
Now there is this thing called the "Latin rite", and for the longest time, the mass was just spoken in Latin, but was there a day in history, to were this Latin rite (or
obligationary rule), was removed, so that priest could speak the mass according to their own languages?
Well yes there is, here are some quotes.
136 / 150
(www.usatoday.com)
Well yes there is, here are some quotes.
(www.usatoday.com)
(...The document Benedict issued in July removed restrictions on celebrating the socalled Tridentine Mass, the rite celebrated in Latin before the liberalizing reforms of
the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s paved the way for the new Mass used widely today in local languages. Following the 1960s reform, the Tridentine rite could
only be celebrated with permission from local bishops an obstacle that supporters of the old rite said had greatly reduced its availability. In a gesture to such
traditional Catholics, Benedict removed that requirement in his document, saying parish priests could celebrate the Tridentine Mass if a "stable group of faithful"
requested it. ...)
(Enccyclopedia Wikipedia)
(...The aim of the Second Vatican Council, as its initiator, Pope John XXIII, stated, was to seek renewal from within the Church itself, which would serve, for those
separated from the see of Rome, as a "gentle invitation to seek and find that unity for which Jesus Christ prayed so ardently to his heavenly Father." [2] The Council
opened up an era of earnest endeavour not only to explain to others the Church's teaching, but also to understand their outlook. While the Roman Catholic Church sees
itself as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Christ himself, it recognizes that elements of salvation are found in other churches also. The Second
Vatican Council's document, Lumen Gentium, 8, states that the sole church of Christ as "subsists in or exists in" rather than simply "is identical with" the Catholic
Church: Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are
forces impelling towards Catholic unity. The Roman Catholic Church has, since the Second Vatican Council, reached out to Christian bodies, seeking reconciliation to
the greatest degree possible....
...Latin remains the main official language of the Holy See....
...Although Latin is the traditional liturgical language of the Roman (Latin) Church, the liturgical use of the vernacular has predominated since the liturgical reforms that
followed the Second Vatican Council. The Church law currently in force for the Latin Church stipulates that the Sacrifice of the Mass may be carried out in the Latin
language or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved.[3] The exclusive use of Latin in liturgical celebrations is retained in an
authorized extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, commonly called the "Tridentine Mass"....)
(www.independent.ie)
(... TRADITIONALIST Catholics in Ireland have welcomed Pope Benedict's approval of their use of the old Latin Mass which was replaced in the 1960s by English
and other national languages. But the papal decision may cause difficulties for clergy who have either not studied Latin or have forgotten the classical language which
was used universally before its removal by the Second Vatican Council, which met from 196265. ...)
(Why the tradiotional Latin mass? a sermon by fr. Louis Kerfoot)
(...In 1969 Paul VI announced his new rite of the mass, and in 1970 that new rite was imposed upon the world...)
(Fatima the third secret of Fatima..., by Christopher A. Ferraro, ESQ.)
(...No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the mass....)
So what happened, was that the 1960's vatican 2 council, had brought certain types of changes in the Catholic church, which lead to the removing of the Roman
(Latin) rite, in the mass, to were the mass, was no longer under the restriction of only being able to hear the mass in Latin, but Vatican 2 provided priests and gave them
a type of freedom to speak the mass in the peoples' language, rather than in the restricted Latin.
And the official proclamation of this change of restriction, was announced in 1969 by pope Paul VI, but enforced in 1970.
Now the present pope (pope Benedict), was not necessarily going against the decree of priests being allowed to speak the mass in their own language, but was trying
to bring back the traditional Catholics of the Latin mass, by allowing them, on certain conditions, to have their mass in Latin, but this was not a restriction of the spoken
mass in any language though, the pope was just trying to bring those alienated Catholics from the Vatican 2 decisions, back in their fold..
So yes there was something removed in the past, that obviously for some reason or another, was preventing the revealing of the antichrist, and I believe that the Vatican
2, was a setting up of the apostasy in our days, and it is said that their Latin Vulgate bible is a counterfeit bible, and at this time they already had many different Catholic
bibles in many languages, but now were allowed to use their own languages in the mass, and now in their mass, they could correlate with their bible in their own
language.
The apostasy was fully set up, and now it was time to remove the "Latin speaking man of the mass" as a restriction, so that any priest could speak the mass in their own
language, and the people could now understand them.
And through these things in some form, the Catholic church is trying to bring the protestant church back to the socalled mother church.
Now are there contradictions between the Catholic bible and the KJV?
Well yes there are, and I will quote some scriptures side by side, between the Douay Rheims bible, and the King James bible, but also I want to put other Catholic
bibles, side by side to these, along with the N.I.V .
King James Version DouayRheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible New International Version

(Catholic bible) (Catholic bible) (Catholic bible)
Matthew 5:44
Matthew 5:44 Matthew 5:44 Matthew 5:44 Matthew 5:44
(44 But I tell you: Love your
(44 But I say unto you, Love (44 But I say to you, Love your (44 But I say this to you, love (44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who
137 / 150
your enemies, bless them that enemies: do good to them that your enemies and pray for those enemies, and pray for those persecute you,)
(44 But I tell you: Love your
(44 But I say unto you, Love (44 But I say to you, Love your (44 But I say this to you, love (44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who
your enemies, bless them that enemies: do good to them that your enemies and pray for those enemies, and pray for those persecute you,)
curse you, do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that who persecute you;) who persecute you, )
hate you, and pray for them persecute and calumniate you:)
which despitefully use you, and
persecute you;)
Well here you can see that the N.I.V, the N.J.B and the N.A.B are pratically identical to each other, all three leave out the words "bless them that curse you, do good
to them that hate you" , now for the Douay Rheims bible, it leaves out the phrase: "bless them that curse you", why do these 4 bibles leave these words or phrases out?
God says not to add or take away from his word, we should fear the Lord!!!
Now let's go to our next comparison.

Matthew 6:13
(13 And lead us not into
(13 And lead us not into (13 And lead us not into (13 And do not put us to the (13 and do not subject us to the temptation, but deliver us from
temptation, but deliver us from temptation. But deliver us from test, but save us from the Evil final test, but deliver us from the evil one. )
evil: For thine is the kingdom, evil. Amen.) One.) the evil one. )
and the power, and the glory,
for ever. Amen.)
Now in this comparison, the D.R.B, N.J.B, N.A.B, and the N.I.V all leave out the phrase: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever."
Now why is this phrase left out? What is the reason for this?
God would obviously not approve of this.
And is it their kingdom that Catholicism is trying to bring about on earth?
Now unto our next comparison.

Genesis 3:15
Genesis 3:15 Genesis 3:15 Genesis 3:15 Genesis 3:15
(15 And I will put enmity
(15 And I will put enmity (15 I will put enmities between (15 I shall put enmity between (15 I will put enmity between between you and the woman,
between thee and the woman, thee and the woman, and thy you and the woman, and you and the woman, and and between your offspring and
and between thy seed and her seed and her seed: she shall between your offspring and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head,
seed; it shall bruise thy head, cursh thy head, and thou shalt hers; it will bruise your head and hers; He will strike at your and you will strike his heel." )
and thou shalt bruise his heel.) lie in wait for her heel.) you will strike its heel.) head, while you strike at his
heel. )
What I want to mainly concentrate on here, is the phrase, as it is written in the King James version, which says: " it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel".
The N.J.B, N.A.B, and N.I.V, say something similar, but both the N.A.B and the N.I.V use the words "he" and "his", which shows that it is referring to something
masculine, but the N.J.B uses the words "it" and "its" which does not tell us whether it is referring to something masculine or feminine here.
Also it says in the N.J.B, N.A.B and the N.I.V that "you will strike his (its) heel", but the King James says: "and thou shalt bruise his heel", now the words "strike" and
"bruise" does not mean the same thing, for a strike is not a bruise, and a bruise is not a strike, but certainly, you need to be striken in order to get a bruise.
Now the Douay Rheims says something different, which it says: "and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel", which lying in wait for an heel, and bruising and striking it, are
not referring to the same thing at all, for lying in wait and striking are not the same thing, and lying in wait and bruising are not the same thing.
In the "it shall bruise bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" scripture, the King James mentions the words "it" and "his" which shows a masculine relation, but the
Douay Rheims, concerning the seed itself, mentions the words "she" and "her", which is feminine, which is truly referring to something different, which I know that the
Catholic church elevates Mary, in a really big exalted way.
Now here are quotes concerning what is said about this verse, according to Catholicism.
(www.hol.com)
(...Genesis 3:15 is widely recognized as what is the called the protoevangelium, that is to say, the first proclamation of the coming Savior to redeem a fallen human race.
As such, it holds a very important place in scripture, and as you might imagine, is something Satan would like to corrupt or distort. I have recently purchased a copy of
the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims, a reproduction of the 1899 edition that bears the Imprimatur of James Cardinal Gibbons, dated September 1, 1899. This is how
Gen 3:15 is translated in the Douay Rheims: 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie
in wait for her heel. 138 / 150
the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims, a reproduction of the 1899 edition that bears the Imprimatur of James Cardinal Gibbons, dated September 1, 1899. This is how
Gen 3:15 is translated in the Douay Rheims: 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie
in wait for her heel.
The margin note for that verse reads as follows Ver 15 She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin; others read
it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head. ...
... Alphonsus Liguori, a doctor of the Catholic church:
Not only is the most Blessed Virgin Queen of heaven and of all the saints, but she is also Queen of hell and all evil spirits: she overcame them valiantly by her virtue.
From the very beginning God foretold the victory and empire that our Queen would one day obtain over the serpent, when he announced that a woman should come
into the world to conquer him: "I will put enmities between you and the woman. . . ." (Gen 3:15) Who could this woman be but Mary, who by her fair humility and holy
life always conquered him and beat down his strength? The Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ was promised in the person of that woman, as St. Cyprian remarks, for
God did not say "I place enmities," as if to refer to Eve, but "I will place" to point to Mary in the future. The Septuagint says, "And he will crush your head," while the
Vulgate version has it, "she will crush your head." This is the [pg. 50] sense known by St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and a great many others. However, it
really does not matter, whether the Mother crushes the head of the serpent through her Son, or the Son overcomes Lucifer through His Mother who brought Him into
the world to effect this. As St. Bernard remarks, this proud spirit, in spite of himself, was beaten down and trampled under foot by this most Blessed Virgin. As a slave
conquered in war, the devil is forced to obey the commands of this Queen.
Source: The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus Liguori (16961787), Edited and abridged by Msgr. Charles Dollen, copyright 1990 by the Society of St. Paul,
published by Alba House, New York, pages 49, 50. ...
... The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart that to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in may
wonderful way the Virgin's supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This the
did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at
the beginning of the world God announced the merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankindwords by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful
serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, "I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed" (Gen 3:15) taught
that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: that his most Blessed Mother, the
Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence just as Christ, the
Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the hand writing of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the
most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with evil serpent, and most completely
triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.
― Pope Pius IX, December, 8, 1854....)
(http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:zM_8B4HYbL4J:cafetheology.org/2007/06/21/mysteriouspassageoncrus)
(...Around 382 A.D., Pope Damascus I ordered St. Jerome — one of the great doctors of the Church — to revise the Bible and translate it into common (or
“vulgate”) Latin. The Latin Vulgate improved on several translations and became the definitive, officially promulgated Bible version of the Roman Catholic Church by
the Fifth Century. It was translated directly from the Hebrew, not from Greek.
This translation has it as “she will crush your head.”
And that had been the translation, in many Catholic versions, for 1,600 years. The change to “he” has been in the New American Bible since 1970, when the text was
granted an imprimatur by Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle of Washington. One was seen as Christological (’He”), the other as Marian “she.” “It” was rather neutral, including
but not limiting the war to Jesus — Who indeed did crush the Head of the serpent at Calvary. The phrase about enmity between the devil and the woman remains the
defining phrase....)
(http://catholicism.org/marytheheadcrusher.html)
(...The ancient prophesy of Genesis 3:15 (”she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel”), has long been interpreted by Catholics to be a reference to
the Virgin Mary. This goes back at least to the time of Saint Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373)....)
(http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.1/ihaveaquestion.html)
(...In the Book of Genesis 3:15 God speaks to the serpent after the fall of Adam and Eve into sin, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed
and her seed; He shall crush your head and you shall lie in wait for his heel." This is a correct translation of the original Hebrew text and the traditional text of the
Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. But two ancient translations, the Latin Vulgate (revised by St. Jerome) and the ancient Coptic version (Coptic is the Egyptian
language used prior to the Arab Muslim invasions), read, "She shall crush your head." But current editions of the Bible in modern languages, translations from the
original languages, all follow the translation "He shall crush." Now, in order to understand why Our Lady is depicted crushing the serpent, you need to know that the
whole of Christian tradition in any language of East or West interprets that passage as a prophecy of the coming of the Messiah or Savior, Jesus Christ, the "seed of the
woman." He is the Second or New Adam, and His Mother Mary, because she was completely free from sin, both original and actual, is the new Eve, the only woman
who has a perfect enmity with the devil. This passage, sometimes referred to as the Protoevangelium (Greek = "first Gospel") is the first announcement of the Good
News of Salvation after the Bad News of Sin and Death. Many popes, including the Pope John Paul II, have repeatedly interpreted this passage in a prophetic sense,
referring to Christ and Mary. ...)
So we can see that the Catholic church says that both Jesus and Mary are the crushers of Satan's head, and they take the Douay version as being Mary and the New
American bible as referring to Jesus, but how can they honestly do this? This verse is either an he or she and not both.
Is Catholicism using it's bibles (D.R.B, N.J.B, N.A.B), to bring Protestants or Christian groups, under it's ecumenical unity movement? I believe and know they are,
and there is alot of evidence out there to prove this.
Now let us go unto our next comparison.
King James Version DouayRheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible 139 / 150

New International Version
Now let us go unto our next comparison.

Luke 24:4547
Luke 24:4547 Luke 24:4547 Luke 24:4547 Luke 24:4547
(45 Then he opened their minds
(45 Then opened he their (45 Then he opened their (45 He then opened their minds (45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the
understanding, that they might understanding, that they might to understand the scriptures, to understand the scriptures. Scriptures.
understand the scriptures, understand the scriptures. 46 and he said to them, 'So it is 46 And he said to them, "Thus it 46 He told them, "This is what
46 And said unto them, Thus it 46 And he said to them: Thus it written that the Christ would is written that the Messiah is written: The Christ will suffer
is written, and thus it behooved is written, and thus it behoved suffer and on the third day rise would suffer and rise from the and rise from the dead on the
Christ to suffer, and to rise from Christ to suffer and to rise again from the dead, dead on the third day third day,
the dead the third day: from the dead, the third day: 47 and that, in his name, 47 and that repentance, for the 47 and repentance and
47 And that repentance and 47 And that penance and repentance for the forgiveness forgiveness of sins, would be forgiveness of sins will be
remission of sins should be remission of sins should be of sins would be preached to all preached in his name to all the preached in his name to all
preached in his name among all preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning from nations, beginning from nations, beginning at Jerusalem.)
nations, beginning at nations, beginning at Jerusalem.) Jerusalem. Jerusalem. )
Jerusalem. ) )
So we can see here that, 4 of theses bibles, concerning this peticular verse are saying the same thing, but as concerns the Douay Rheims, it talks of "penance" and
remission of sins having to be preached, rather than "repentance" being preached.
Now Roman Catholicism has a certain "penance" doctrine, now what is this doctrine all about?
Well here are some quotes.
(catholic.org)
(The Sacrament of Penance Penance is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in which forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is granted through the
priest's absolution to those who with true sorrow confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same. It is called a "sacrament" not simply a function or ceremony,
because it is an outward sign instituted by Christ to impart grace to the soul. As an outward sign it comprises the actions of the penitent in presenting himself to the
priest and accusing himself of his sins, and the actions of the priest in pronouncing absolution and imposing satisfaction. This whole procedure is usually called, from one
of its parts, "confession", and it is said to take place in the "tribunal of penance", because it is a judicial process in which the penitent is at once the accuser, the person
accused, and the witness, while the priest pronounces judgment and sentence.)
(/www.justforcatholics.org)
(...Penance
Sadly Catholic tradition distorts the biblical concept of repentance. Repentance is substituted by "doing penance" a punishment inflicted on oneself to atone (make
satisfaction) for sin.
To be fair, Catholicism also speaks of penance as an inner attitude "that disposition of the heart in which we detest and bewail our sins because they were offensive to
God." We readily concur that genuine repentance is expressed by sorrow, and such acts as prayer and fasting, and that repentance results in "fruit" good works that
grow out of a changed mind.
The big problem with the Catholic doctrine is the intended purpose of such acts: penance is performed to make satisfaction for sin, as can be verified from the following
citations from official Catholic sources:
* "Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must 'make satisfaction' for or
'expiate' his sins. This satisfaction is called 'penance.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1459).
* Penance "is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as a vindicatory punishment for former sins" (Council of Trent,
14:8).
* "Satisfaction or penance is that prayer or other good work which the confessor enjoins on the penitent in expiation of his sins" (Catechism of Pius X, Sacrament of
Penance).
Accordingly, even though a person is genuinely contrite and having confessed his sins, he is still required to atone for sin by performing various works of penance in this
world and by suffering in purgatory after death. He is not fit to enter heaven until he has made complete satisfaction....
...Purgatory is also an integral element of the Roman Catholic penitential system. According to the Church, every sin credits temporal punishment to the sinner’s
account. Acts of penance, suffering, and indulgences debit this account. Since sinners may not make full satisfaction for sin in this life, purgatory in the afterlife is
necessary to balance the ledger....)
So their doctrine of penance, is some type of thing you do, so to have some type of justification, such as confessing your sins to a priest, which their is a type of
absolution that happens through the priest, and there is also a type of suffering for sin in "penance", and some type of suffering for the people in purgatory, so to one day
get them out of there, so repentance and making penance, are 2 different things, and in repentance, your not trying to justify yourself in some way, what you are doing is
just simply being sorry for your sin, and believing that God will forgive your sin; your basically putting your trust in what he did on the cross, in his shed blood, which
forgives sin.
Now in the Catholic bibles up above, it appears that their trying to say that repentance and penance are the same but if you observe Catholic doctrine, in honest truth,
you know they are not the same, their is no salvation in the Catholic ordinances, and no true peace on top of that.
140 / 150

Acts 2:38
Acts 2:38 Act 2:38 Acts 2:38 Acts 2:38
(38 Peter replied, "Repent and
(38 Then Peter said unto them, (38 But Peter said to them: Do (38 'You must repent,' Peter (38 Peter (said) to them, be baptized, every one of you,
Repent, and be baptized every penance: and be baptized every answered, 'and every one of "Repent and be baptized, every in the name of Jesus Christ for
one of you in the name of Jesus one of you in the name of Jesus you must be baptised in the one of you, in the name of Jesus the forgiveness of your sins.
Christ for the remission of sins, Christ, for the remission of your name of Jesus Christ for the Christ for the forgiveness of And you will receive the gift of
and ye shall receive the gift of sins. And you shall receive the forgiveness of your sins, and your sins; and you will receive the Holy Spirit.)
the Holy Ghost.) gift of the Holy Ghost. ) you will receive the gift of the the gift of the holy Spirit. )
Holy Spirit.)
Here to, 4 of the 5 bibles, concerning this peticular scripture, are basically saying the same thing, but the Douay Rheims, instead of saying the word "repent", it mentions
the words to "do penance", which of course is referring to the Roman Catholic doctrine of penance.

1 John 5:7
1 John 5:7 1 John 5:7 1 John 5:7 1 John 5:7
(7 For there are three that
(7 For there are three that bear (7 And there are Three who (7 So there are three (7 So there are three that testify:)
record in heaven, the Father, give testimony in heaven, the witnesses,) testify,)
the Word, and the Holy Ghost: Father, the Word, and the Holy
and these three are one.) Ghost. And these three are
one.)
This will be our last comparison.
So here the King James, and Douay Rheims, are basically saying the same thing, but the N.J.B, N.A.B and the N.I.V, totally leave out the part of the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost being one, and them bearing record in heaven.
Why is this so?
Is the N.J.B, N.A.B and the N.I.V somehow being used to bring Catholics and Protestants (or some type of Christian), together, and even the world religions together
in a certain type of ecumenical (false) unity?
I believe it is so, and know it is so.
I see what is going on just by observance.
Now let us get back to our Thessalonian scripture.
So he who now letteth, until he be taken out of the way, is referring to the Latin speaking man of the mass, which was letting in Paul's day, in some form, and when the
Vatican 2 council was established, which made way for the modern day apostasy, there was a discussion concerning the Latin restriction of the mass, to be taken out of
the way, and in 1968, it was proclaimed that the priests etc. could now speak the mass in their language, and in 1970, this taking away of this restriction, was put into
force.
So the scriptures say that: " "he" (the Latin speaking man of the mass), will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked be revealed...." .
So the wicked, which is referring to the antichrist, gets revealed some time after this event of "he" who now letteth being taken out of the way, well was there a person
that came on the scene, whom sometime after 1970, received a name, which would add up to 666, and fit the description of the antichrist?
Well yes there was, and I have covered this person, in the Roman Catholic part of this study, and his birth name is Muhammad Hussein.
He is known as Maitreya, and here is information of when he received his spiritual name of Maitreya.
(www.maitreya.org)
(...So Maitreya went to his room. The Archareya had instructed how to meditate, "Go and close your eyes," and things like that. He went up there and meditated. He
started using the mantra and thinking about its meaning... It was a wonderful thing that happened. It was one of the best meditations he has ever had. He felt that Light
was going out of his head and body. He opened his eyes and everything was Light. He went downstairs in the dormitory and was grabbing people, "Hey, can you see
God?" Of course they didn't know what he was talking about. This occurred August 15, 1974.
141 / 150
The fall semester was to start sometime in September. Maitreya was thinking about moving out of the dormitory. A person from California came to join Satish so they
was going out of his head and body. He opened his eyes and everything was Light. He went downstairs in the dormitory and was grabbing people, "Hey, can you see
God?" Of course they didn't know what he was talking about. This occurred August 15, 1974.
The fall semester was to start sometime in September. Maitreya was thinking about moving out of the dormitory. A person from California came to join Satish so they
could start an Ananda Marga Center in Scranton. They wanted to get a place together and start a Center. Maitreya also wanted to leave and probably get a big house
and share it with a couple of other students. So, he started to look for a house. ...
...Maitreya started living with Satish and the other person. He was now with these people who had been meditating for years. They started talking about the teachings
of Baba. Baba was their spiritual teacher....
...That spring he finished his MBA and was accepted for continuing his doctorate in business in three universities. He chose to go to Mississippi State University
because they accepted him unconditionally. The other universities were in Pennsylvania: Penn State and Temple University. If he had stayed in that state, he would have
been almost in the same situation as before. By going to Mississippi, however, Maitreya was forced to completely change his environment away from the support and
friendship of likeminded people. ...
...It was Wednesday. Wednesday passed, Thursday passed, Friday they went to the retreat site in the evening, nothing. The retreat started that night. Maitreya said he
was really upset that he was not giving him his name, "It has been three days. What is he doing? Come on."
So Maitreya went early in the morning Saturday (interesting it was Sabbath!) just as he woke up. He rushed to Rudranath’s room and said, "What is my name? Are
you going to give me my name or what?" Rudranath said, "OK, your name is Maitreya." Maitreya couldn't even pronounce it correctly, so Rudranath wrote it down for
him. Maitreya asked, "What does that mean? What does Maitreya mean?" He said, "It means The Compassionate One." Maitreya said, "OK" and he walked out,
saying to himself, "OK, my name is Maitreya, that is my spiritual name." Maitreya didn't know what the word "compassionate" meant, so he went to the dictionary to
find out. It said that compassionate means to have compassion, to have mercy, to have all those things. It didn't sound good [laughter]. He really didn't like it too much.
The other people had names like Shivamurtti, which means "statue of Shiva" or Ishvara Dave, "the controller of the universe," and things like that. All of them seemed
beautiful to be or become. But Maitreya, the compassionate, did not seem very interesting.
Actually the next week after that, Maitreya had to go to Memphis, Tennessee. He had to do a couple of things there. So he went to Memphis, and this spiritual
teacher, Rudranath, was there. Maitreya said, "I want to talk to you, I don't like this name. I want you to change it." Rudranath said, "No, I can't, that is it. I gave it to
you and you're going to stick with it." Maitreya said, "No, I don't want this." Rudranath said, "That is it. If you don't want it, don't use it. But that is what I gave to you
and that is going to stay with you." Maitreya has said that now, when he thinks about it, he is amazed at how he became so involved in such a name trip, but of course,
there is a reason for everything. A few weeks later Maitreya received a letter from the other teacher and he gave him the name Vigi Kumar. Vigi means, "youthful."
Kumar means, "prince." So Vigi Kumar means, "the young prince." Maitreya said, "Wow, that looks better [laughter]. I'm going to use the name Vigi Kumar instead of
Maitreya." So he was using both names and telling the people that he liked Vigi Kumar better, but without any exception all told him that he should accept Maitreya
over Vigi Kumar, because being compassionate is a greater virtue than thinking you are a young prince. This was in the spring semester. Maitreya finished his courses in
June, and in July there weren't any courses scheduled for the summer that he could take. Ananda Marga had their headquarters in Denver, Colorado. ...
...Eventually, by the end of the two months, he decided to keep the name Maitreya instead of Vigi Kumar. So his spiritual name was established as Maitreya....
... Sounds like after his name was established to be Maitreya, his relationship with Ananda Marga start to crumble!...
...Maitreya called Ananda Marga and said, "Well, this is the opportunity that came up, and I think that I am going to take it." Of course, they were a little disappointed
but they said, "Fine." So at that point he was almost completely disconnected from Ananda Marga. So he stayed that fall. This was the year 1976. ...)
If you read the articles in between the mentioned 1974 date to the 1976 date in it's entirety found at maitreya.org, you will see that the events in between seem to
follow, and you can get a pretty fair assumption of when he received his spiritual name of Maitreya, which is highly likely, in 1976, because of the way the events
follow.
So this Muhammad received his spiritual name most likely in 1976, if not in late 1975, which was about 6 years after the Latin in the mass, as a restriction, was taken
out of the way.
Some people think that he (the antichrist) has to march in the temple in order to be revealed, but the bible does not directly show this, but it does show 3 things, that
shows how you will be able to know, whom the antichrist is, and now I want to cover these 3 things.
1. The antichrist's name will add up to 666 (Revelation 13:1718).
2. The antichrist has to be on the scene (2 Thessalonians 2:6) .
3. The person who is the antichrist, his life will match up to the life of the antichrist (Daniel 11:38, Daniel 11:37, Revelation 17:1011 etc.)
Now let us go back to the Thessalonians scripture.
So the wicked gets revealed after he who now letteth, is taken out of the way, and then the rest of verse 8, is talking about what the Lord shall do to this wicked whom
shall be revealed, which at his second coming, he shall destroy him with the brightness of his coming.
Now to the Jews, it may be that they will realize that the person to whom the antichrist is, that when he shall march in the temple, that that is when they will realize that
that person is the antichrist, and maybe they will calculate his name, but there will be people who realize whom the antichrist is, even before the rapture takes place.
Now the rapture and the second coming are 2 seperate events, even though they are both known as the coming of the Lord.
Now let us compare, the 2 Thessalonians scripture of 2:1, with part of the rapture scripture, and afterwards with a verse that mentions the second coming.
2 Thessalonians 2:1 1 Thessalonians 4:1517
(1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and (15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and
by our gathering together unto him,) 142 / 150
remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of
(1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and (15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and
by our gathering together unto him,) remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of
the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in
the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.)
So in both scriptures, it mentions the Lord coming and then people being caught up or risen to him or gathered to him, it shows the first thing to be the Lord coming,
and then people gathering together unto him, now let us go unto comparing a second coming verse with the Thessalonians scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:1 Revelations 19:1419
(1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and (14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses,
by our gathering together unto him,) clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the
nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of
the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF
KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying
to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves
together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of
mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of
all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered
together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.)
The Thessalonians verse of course mentions the Lord coming and people gathering together unto him, but the Revelations scripture mentions his armies following him to
earth, or coming down with him to earth, these 2 events of the coming of the Lord are 2 different events and they are described in 2 different ways.
Now Matthew 24, talks about both the rapture and the second coming, and in this chapter both of these events are just known as the coming of the Lord, it is said that
(and I can see this to be accurate) the coming of the Lord happens in 2 parts, or that there are 2 parts to the coming of the Lord.
Now Matthew 24:426, speaks of the tribulation period, and Matthew 24:2733 speaks of the second coming, and the event of the second coming in this scripture and
the event of the rapture, are both mentioned as being the coming day of the Lord, but are both different, because of what will happen, and what the state of the world
will be in, on those different parts of the coming of the Lord, and the rapture scriptures of Matthew 24, are found in Matthew 24:3651.
Now here is how the state of the world will be, before the rapture.
Matthew 24:3651
(36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to
be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.)
It talks about how that the day of the coming of the Lord, shall be likened as the way the days of Noe (Noah) were, which they were eating and drinking, marrying and
giving in marriage, they were unconcerned with the coming flood, many even laughing at it, , they were just busy doing their own thing, well today even though there
maybe some amount of turmoil in the world, their are alot of people just doing their own thing, and unconcerned with the coming of the Lord, even laughing at the very
taught., well we are living in such days.
Now concerning the second coming, the world will be very different than this, the world will be in total turmoil, it won't be people just simply doing their own
thing, marrying, drinking etc., but rather it will be total turmoil, now let us go unto second coming verses, which is the second part of the day of the coming of the Lord.
Revelations 19:1119
(11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 143 / 150
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
(11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the
fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together
unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all
men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.)
Zechariah 14:15
(1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth
into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward
the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the
days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.)
This doesn't sound like people just doing there own thing, and marrying and giving in marriage, for people on the earth shall, at the second coming, see the Lord coming
with his saints, and there shall be great fear in many ways, and on top of what happens in these scriptures, just before the second coming comes to pass, there will have
also bean poured out the 7 vials on the earth, which is extreme tribulation (Revelations 16:121, Revelations 17:118).
Wow, dreadful events aren't they (concerning the 7 vials)!!! And even though Noah's event did actually occur, it is also in a certain sense, a foreshadow of things to
come, such as God told Noah and his family etc. , to go into the ark, because wrath was about to come on the earth (a world wide flood), and in the ark they were
protected from the flood, they were not consumed by the flood, and they were raised, in a sense, above the earth (above the ground), through the flood waters as
tribulation was poured on the earth, well in a similar manner, the rapture first will happen, and then wrath shall be poured out upon the earth, and in Noah's case after
the wrath was over, and the floods abated, Noah finally came back down on land, which there would have been great death on the land, but at the same time it was a
new start for humanity, well in like manner, after the tribulation period ceases, and Christ comes down with his saints, there will be great death on earth, but once Christ
touches the earth it will be a new start for the remaining humans on earth, and it will usher Christ's millenial reign of peace, for he is the prince of peace.
Now is there evidence in the scriptures that the rapture will take place, before the time of the tribulation period?
Well in truth, yes there is, and let us go to these scriptures.
(10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.)
(1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.
8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.)
Revelations 3:10
(10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon
the earth.)
So it says in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 that Jesus delivered us (speaking of the church) from "the" wrath to "come" !!!
It says "the" wrath, which some believe that this verse is speasking of the general wrath of God, but the truth is, is it is not simply speaking of his general wrath but
rather "the" wrath, a specific time of wrath, and the word "the" means, the definite article.
And it is talking about a "wrath" to "come", to "come", is talking about a futuristic wrath, which points to a specific wrath which will take place, which of course is in the
future.
So in what way has Christ delivered the church from this futuristic wrath?
Well some say that Christians will still go through this tribulation wrath period, but God will protect them in the midst of the wrath, now yes God can do this, and does
so in many out comes, but this peticular scripture I believe is talking about a total deliverance to were the church is not even there, but has been caught up to Christ.
144 / 150
Can I prove this?
Well some say that Christians will still go through this tribulation wrath period, but God will protect them in the midst of the wrath, now yes God can do this, and does
so in many out comes, but this peticular scripture I believe is talking about a total deliverance to were the church is not even there, but has been caught up to Christ.
Can I prove this?
Well what if I can show you another scripture that has an association with Christ's coming and this wrath period?
Well 1 Thessalonians chapter 5, for one thing mentions that how the Lord shall come as a thief in the night, but how that that day should not overtake the Christian as a
thief, because of not being in darkness, but being in the light, and than later it says that, God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus
Christ, why? Because we are not children of darkness, and it is children of darkness that shall go through the tribulation period, but the church itself is not appointed to
wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, and what many people do not realise is that the rapture will complete the salvation of the Christain, which when
we get born again, we receive a new spirit and our minds get renewed, and of course healing is brought to our lives in our bodies, but at the rapture, it will be the
complete salvation of our bodies, to were they no longer get old and die, for they will be incoruptible bodies, and what happens at the rapture is a type of ressurection
to our bodies, and a catching away of our spirits and souls to meet Christ in the air, if alive during that time, which is soon.
So in this scripture there is an association with the coming of the Lord and the wrath of God, but concerning the going through the tribulation view of the futuristic wrath,
there is no association in scripture with the going through tribulation view.
And now we get to the Revelations scripture.
The Revelations scripture says this:"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the
world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."
The hour of temptation, is reffering to a definite, specific hour, which shall come upon the world, for the sake of trying them that dwell on the earth, but believers which
of course hast kept the word of God's patience will be kept or spared from it.
The church is not to go through the tribulation period, for they will be raptured before it takes place at Christ's coming, which spares them from the wrath, or hour of
temptation, and there are 2 examples in the past, of God having people dissapear so to bring them to heaven, which were Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), and Enoch (Genesis
5:24), so there is evidence of certain raptures taking place, before this coming rapture takes place.
God has used this rapture method, before in the past.
Here is an interesting scripture.
Revelations 4:1
(1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up
hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.)
Now if you read Revelations chapter 3, you will see that it is talking about the seven churches, and the seven churches were churches in John's day, which alot of them
or maybe all, he may have originally established, but some fell into gross doctrine and John was correcting these things, but also the spirit, or similar ideas or ways of
thinkning, are still here in present day churches, and Revelations chapter 3 also represents the church age, that is from then until now, until the rapture takes place, and
then we go unto chapter 4, which says: "...Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter." , which it is talking about things that must happen after
the church age, and here John was having a vision, and God was telling him, come up hither, which is also taken, to represent the rapture of the church which ends the
church age, and after the church age, begins the tribulation period, and verse 1 also says: "and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.", which is showing John
things that will happen after the church age, which is what will happen in the tribulation period, and in chapter 5, it mentions these things called the 7 seals (Revelations
5:1), which will take place in the tribulation period.
Now the word church or churches, is not mentioned anywhere after Revelations chapter 3, that is with the execption of Revelations 22:16, which is really just a
summary of the book of Revelations, and not talking about the tribulation period, but from chapter 4 unto chapter 21, it has extremely alot to do with the tribulation
period, and also the millenial reign and new heavens and new earth etc., and also the first half of chapter 22(and not the last half, which is a summary), has to do with
the new earth.
The church will be in heaven during the tribulation period.
Now some say that the tribulation period shall last for seven years, and others say it will last for 3 1/2 years, now let us see which of these views is true.
Now the main reason why, some say that the tribulation period will last 3 1/2 years is because of Matthew 24:1521 , which says:
Matthew 24:1521
(15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.)
Here it talks about the abomination which maketh desolate, and when this time happens, verse 21 says that for "then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the
beginning of the world..." and it is known by a certain scripture which we will cover that when the antichrist marches in the temple, he shall persecute them which
receive not the mark, and from that time to the second coming of Christ, there shall be 3 1/2 years, so because it says the word "great tribulation" at the point in time of
the abomination which maketh desolate, they say that the whole tribulation period shall be 3 1/2 years, but I will prove this to be wrong, for yes the last 3 1/2 years of
the wrath of God, shall be "great tribulation", but that does not mean that God's wrath shall not be poured before this time, just not being as great a tribulation time as
the last 3 1/2 years. 145 / 150
the abomination which maketh desolate, they say that the whole tribulation period shall be 3 1/2 years, but I will prove this to be wrong, for yes the last 3 1/2 years of
the wrath of God, shall be "great tribulation", but that does not mean that God's wrath shall not be poured before this time, just not being as great a tribulation time as
the last 3 1/2 years.
There are a few scriptures I can show to prove that the tribulation period shall be 7 years long, but I will only use two scriptures to show forth this.
Revelations 11:37
(3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all
plagues, as often as they will.
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill
them.)
Now these two witnesses shall prophesy 1270 days which equals to 3 1/2 years in a 360 day year calendar, and in the middle point of tribulation, which is when the
abomination which maketh desolate happens, that is when the antichrist persecutes the people who got saved in the tribulation time (the saints), and that is when he shall
kill these two witnesses, which I believe will lead many to Christ. Now these two witnesses were prophesied to come even in Zechariah 4:1214, and these were
standing before the God of the earth, in Zechariah's days, and the only two that I know of, who were standing before the God of the earth in old testament times, is
Enoch and Elijah.
So there is the first half of the tribulation period covered, and in truth people will realise that God's wrath has been poured out way before this event of the two
witnesses being killed, for it says this in Revelations 6:17 "For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?", and this was said during the time of
the sixth seal being poured out, which was said as a result of all the previous seals that was poured out, and at this point they finally realised that God's wrath was being
poured out on the earth, and at this point we have not yet reach the middle part of the tribulation, nor the time of the abomination of desolation.
So now we get to the last half of the tribulation period.
Revelations 12:46
(4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for
to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.)
Rev 12:1316
(13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half
a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.)
Now these scriptures may even deal with dual prophesies, but I want to deal with just one of the prophesies, which speaks of a woman, which refers to a remnant of
Israel, which upon the dragon's persecution, shall flee into the wilderness, which it is said that they shall flee to the mountains (mountains of Edom presumably, Mark
13:14), and that they shall be helped somehow by the earth, and in the mountains of Edom, there is a place, in the mountains, that is called Petra, which right now is
being prepared in such a way to house people, and people do not know why they are doing this, and to Petra there is a small entrance way.
And it is said: "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and
threescore days." .
Interesting scripture isn't it!!! A place prepared of God!!! and from the persecution time, which is the mid point of the tribulation period, there shall be 1270 days,
which equals to 3 1/2 years, which the woman will be nourished, and be in this place prepared of God, for 3 1/2 years, which is the last part of the tribulation period,
so if you add 3 1/2 years + 3 1/2 years, it equals to 7 years !!!
There is another scripture in Daniel that covers this 7 years stuff, but these scriptures that I have mentioned, will suffice.
So the tribulation period, is known in the bible as the "Wrath of God", the "Hour of temptation" etc., and only the last half is known as "great tribulation".
Now before I go on, I want to mention one thing about the "falling away", or apostasy, and it concerns the depth of how this apostasy is coming about, or evidence of
it.
Now I have mentioned this "Evangelicals and Catholics together" document, but there are alot more things than this happening, even with such organisations as 100
Huntley Street, TBN, and Billy Graham.
Now 100 Huntley Street has had priest (Catholic) on it's program, and TBN which does not stand very strongly, has priests from time to time on it's program, and Billy
Graham who use to stand against the whore of Revelation, no longer has a strong stance against her.
And here is a recent type of recantation by a well known Christian leader, by the name of John Hagee.
(www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15525.html)
(...John Hagee, a televangelist sought out by John McCain for political support, has repeatedly gone after the Roman Catholic Church, calling it, among other things,
“the great whore” and “a false cult system.” 146 / 150
(...John Hagee, a televangelist sought out by John McCain for political support, has repeatedly gone after the Roman Catholic Church, calling it, among other things,
“the great whore” and “a false cult system.”
As of today, Hagee feels bad about it.
John Hagee, the controversial Evangelical pastor who endorsed John McCain, will issue a letter of apology to Catholics today for inflammatory remarks he has made,
including accusing the Roman Catholic Church of supporting Adolf Hitler and calling it “The Great Whore.” “Out of a desire to advance greater unity among Catholics
and Evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful,” Hagee wrote, according to an
advanced copy of the letter reviewed by Washington Wire. “After engaging in constructive dialogue with Catholic friends and leaders, I now have an improved
understanding of the Catholic Church, its relation to the Jewish faith, and the history of antiCatholicism.”
In the letter, addressed to Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League and one of Hagee’s biggest critics, Hagee pledges “a greater level of compassion and respect
for my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.” ...)
Now in truth, the pope in Hitler's time, did truly support Hitler at the beginning of the war, and I have talked to a Catholic about it, who can honestly admit this, which
this person lived in that time, it is a well known truth, and of course some Catholics will say well, there was some good popes, and some bad popes, and I will leave
this part of this discussion at that.
Less and less Christian assemblies are standing for truth these days, and the apostasy is very strong!!!
So now that we have this rapture stuff, tribulation stuff, and this apostasy stuff covered, let us go unto other prophesy stuff, and then finally unto our topic of "miracles".
So some of the signs of the coming of the Lord, the rapture, is the "falling away" and the "revealing of the antichrist" in who he is, now is there other types of signs out
there, to were it shows that we are heading towards the time of the "tribulation period".
Well for one thing, is that in order for the antichrist to march into Israel, Israel for one thing had to become back a nation, and of course in order for the antichrist to
march in the temple, the Jewish temple will have to be rebuilt.

Well Israel wasn't it's own nation ever since the captivity or Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon, and the next scripture will be an interesting scripture.
Ezekiel 36:24
(24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.)
If you read the context of this chapter (chapter 36), you will see that this scripture is talking about Israel, and only part of this scripture has been fulfilled, that how God
would bring them back to their land, and this happened in the year 1948.
Now in the future they will get back all their land, and shall return unto serving God, but part of this prophesy has been fulfilled, in the sense that they got in part, back
their land and are a nation again.
Here is info on when they got back their land, which was in 1948.
(www.findingdulcinea.com)
(...On May 14, 1948, the Jewish People’s Council met at the Tel Aviv Museum and announced the creation of the state of Israel.
New State Immediately Challenged The declaration read: “This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in
their own sovereign State.”
The new country created at the museum that day was the first modern Jewish state, and its birth ended British colonial rule over Palestine, according to the Israel
Ministry of Foreign Affairs....)
(www.alphanewsdaily.com/Warning 1 Israel Jerusalem.html)
(... Israel Back in Her Land as a Nation . . . in 1948!
Judah (Israel) was taken into captivity by the Babylonians in 606 B.C. They were released from captivity 70 years later by the Persians in 536 A.D., exactly as the
prophet Jeremiah had prophesied, but their land was still under the control of the Persians. The Persians were later conquered by the Greeks, and the land of Israel
remained under Greek control. The Greeks were then conquered by Rome and the land of Israel remained under Roman control. After failed rebellions against Rome
around 70 A.D. and another around 100 years later, the Romans removed the Jews from the land of Israel, dispersed them around the world, and renamed the land
'Palestine' after the enemies of Israel. Then, after 2,500 years, for the first time since the Babylonian captivity in 606 B.C., the world watched as Israel once again
appeared on the world map as a sovereign nation, on May 14, 1948 ...)
So one of the signs of the coming tribulation is for one thing, Israel has to be back a nation in order for the antichrist to march into the nation of Israel.
Another sign of the coming tribulation, has to do with this next scripture I will mention.
Revelations 13:1617
(16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.)
Now today there is in existance a technology to were a chip can be planted under the skin, which could eventually be used for buying and selling, well this scripture we
147 / 150
have just mentioned, is talking about receiving a mark "in" the right hand, or "in" the forehead, well this chip is implanted in the skin which can be implanted in the right
hand or in the forehead, and this technology can store information in it (the chip that is), which could eventually be used for buying and selling, is this all a
Now today there is in existance a technology to were a chip can be planted under the skin, which could eventually be used for buying and selling, well this scripture we
have just mentioned, is talking about receiving a mark "in" the right hand, or "in" the forehead, well this chip is implanted in the skin which can be implanted in the right
hand or in the forehead, and this technology can store information in it (the chip that is), which could eventually be used for buying and selling, is this all a
coincidence!!!!
The technology of this mark of the beast system is in actual existance through this chip!!!
And the antichrist will use this technology to his advantage.
Now let us go unto another scripture.
Revelations 13:1415
(14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the
earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of
the beast should be killed.)
Now this peticular scripture is talking about the person known as the false prophet, and that how he shall cause an image to the beast to be made, and it is this image
which will make the temple desolate, and it says of this image, that it shall speak and that life shall be given unto it.
Now the next quote shall be very interesting indeed.
(www.christiandiscountshop.com)
(...Image Of The Beast, Peter & Paul Lalonde.In this incredible documentary video, you'll explore: How virtual reality and holograms are setting the stage for the image
of the beast. How lightningfast technological developments are advancing faster than we can understand them....)
Could this technology of holograms, be the technology used to make a live image that speaks?
Well put it this way, this is the only generation that has been able to make images that speak and look alive, so there is in existance today, a technology that can bring
into reality this alive, speaking image of the beast.
Now there are many more prophecies than this, but I think it will suffice in this study, and we can see things that never existed before, being in existance today, such as
holograms and the chip implant, which makes possible for the mark of the beast and the image of the beast to come to pass.
So now let us go unto the miracles part of this study.
Miracles
God's word is very awesome, and in this study we have seen how reliable the bible is, and how much evidence there is of it, and now I want to show forth more proof
of the bible through was is called miracles, does God still do miracles today?
Sure he does, but there is what is called false miracles and true Godly miracles.
Here is a scripture concerning false miracles.
Revelations 16:1314
(13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of
God Almighty.)
So here it is showing that devils can work miracles, which is done in order to deceive, which you can call false miracles.
Now here is another scripture, which is very interesting.
Matthew 7:2123
(21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful
works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.)
These people were people who used God's name, for they said that they done their things in his name, and what they proclainmed they done is cast out devils in his
name, and in his name done many wonderful works, but these were people that God never ever knew, that is why it says "I never knew you", now it does not say just
simply: "I know you not", which adds the possibility that God once knew them before, but rather it says: "I never knew you".
So some get deceived by I believe devils, that make them think that they have some type of miracle powers, and make them think that they cast out devils in his name,
but really did not.
Satan and demons are very cunning, and they often times try to duplicate moves of God, and here are examples of miracles of demons and miracles of God.
Exodus 7:1012 148 / 150

Satan and demons are very cunning, and they often times try to duplicate moves of God, and here are examples of miracles of demons and miracles of God.
Exodus 7:1012
(10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his
servants, and it became a serpent.
11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.)
Exodus 7:2022
(20 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the
sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.
21 And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of
Egypt.
22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.)
So you can see that devils try to duplicate God's miracles, but God's miracles are more powerful than Satan's and demons' miracles.
There are alot of false moves of God today, and then of course there are genuine moves of God also which are few.
And in truth, there has been alot of people upon coming to Christ whom have been instantly delivered from drugs, and yes in the world people have stopped taking
drugs and have brought a type of morale standard in their lives, which is just but a band aid solution and not a true complete solution, and the solution that God brings
to a man, is even deeper than just morales, but it is a complete setting of someone free from the inside out, and only God can do this.
Now let's go on.
So now I want to get into examples of modern day miracles that God has done.
In my own life, God has healed me from asthma, and has done many things via him moving in my life, and there was a time to were I and others were praying for this
Scotish pastor, whom I onced had as my pastor, and we were praying for God to protect him on his trip, and I specifically prayed for angels to protect him, and when
he arrived from his trip he told us that at one point of his trip, they were about to cross a bridge, and a tractor trailer was headed strait for them, and they heard a bang,
and felt something move them to the side, and perceived that it was an angel, and after the tractor trailer moved accross the bridge, they were back on the road as if
they never left the road, and his daughter and grand son was with him, which can vouche concerning what had happened.
Another thing is, is there was one time to were I was gathered with a bunch of believers for fellowship, and there was some type of oppressing spirit among us, and I
began to sing the song: "I command you Satan in the name of the Lord, take up your weapons and flee...", and not long after, or during, the oppressing spirit left.
Now concerning my wife, she had told me of a time to were she and her aunts etc., were praying for her cousin, which one of her lungs was extremely small, at a very
abnormal size, and what happened is, is it grew back.
There was also a time to were my wife was attacked by an evil spirit, which was chocking her and eventually she was able to speak the name of Jesus and it left.
Now concerning my Father in law Don, he had told how that he was led of the spirit to lay hands on a certain person, and they recovered from their sickness, and also
there was a time to were Don and his wife were looking for his son Danny, and did not know were Danny and his wife had moved to, so they prayed to God to show
them were he was, and had no clue were he was, and God brought them strait to him, and he felt it was at a certain place (which God told them to stop at a certain
place, as they traveled), and they went to check, and it was surely that place were Danny was.
Now concerning my youngest brother, there as been many times to were he has went fishing, and the motor of the boat went on the bum, and he and whoever was with
him, prayed for the motor and it worked.
Now I have a friend named John, and he is a believer, and in the past (which he was a believer then), he had never heard of what the bible calls speaking in tongues,
and one day, I believe it was in a service, he had told me, that the Spirit came upon him and he began to speak in tongues, and I have another wonderful friend in the
Lord, by the name of Dustin, to were God has brought a big change in his life, and another friend of mine, by the name of Peter who has experienced a nice move of
the Spirit in his life, which I have had really great prayer times with him.
So God leads in many ways, but his ways never stray from the ways of the bible, and I have shown proofs of miracles in peoples' lives, and also movings of the Spirit in
peoples' lives, and I can mention loads of testimonies if I want to, of people being healed of cancer, and even people being raised from the dead in our days, people
have testimonies of God's miracles and movings of his Spirit all over the world, but I believe what I have mentioned will suffice.
And one thing to remember is this, Satan and evil spirits do miracles in order to deceive, but God does miracles, for the good of the person, simply because of love,
and because he cares, which is to be done to his glory.
And now we get to the conclusion of this study, which is on my final thoughts.
Last thoughts
So what was this study all about?
Well it is called "Who? Which God?".
And we have given plenty of evidence, of what God's intentions always were, which he wanted man to be dependant on him, and to walk in harmony with him, and to
have fellowship with him.
After Adam's fall, man needed a redeemer, and under the old covenant they were still saved by faith, but could not get the fullness of God's salvation, in having a totally
149 / 150
new spirit (and not just making for themselves new hearts, in a sense by obediance) to were they could be totally set free in their conscience, and they needed Jesus for
have fellowship with him.
After Adam's fall, man needed a redeemer, and under the old covenant they were still saved by faith, but could not get the fullness of God's salvation, in having a totally
new spirit (and not just making for themselves new hearts, in a sense by obediance) to were they could be totally set free in their conscience, and they needed Jesus for
this to be.
And when Christ accomplished his work, and men were finally able to be born again, they were eventually called Christians, simply because people saw that they had
Christ in them, and Man made Christianity into a religion, and not God, God's pure and undefiled religion, is basically the actions we do, and not who we are, it is
evidence of our walk, and yes you can be a genuinely religious person, in the right sense, which is evidence of your walk, and a Christian, or ambassador for Christ etc.
is what you actually are.
Some say that God established a religion through the Jews, but if you look at the bible, you cannot see this, and what God really established in the Jews (which you can
see evidence of this in the bible) is a nation, that's what God established, a nation!!! He established a nation that would glorify him!!! That would bring a witness to his
name!!! And to a certain degree, they were, but in a big way they failed miserably.
Men are always trying to establsih religions.
Now let's look at that religion scripture once again.
James 1:27
(27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.)
As I said, religion is an action before God, that is a pure and undefiled action.
All religons that we call religions, are man made religions, yes even what is called "Christianity" today, but true Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship with God,
which can produce a pure and undefiled religion, and there is nowhere in the bible were God says that our relationship with him is a religion!!!
Christianity is a way of life, which it is the new birth that makes us Christians, but it is not our actions that make us Christians, but rather our actions shows evidence of
our Christianity, and it is God's empowerment that enables us to be and walk as Christians, but religion itself is just the actions, but the empowerment, enables us to
obey God in his strength, in his empowerment, which he gives, and of course we will never know the full strength of God, but he does empower us, and it is this grace
that makes us Christians, but the actions themselves is what is known as religion, and not the empowerment.
The difference is the source by which we live.
I have shown alot of evidence concerning how the bible is true, no other socalled spiritual book can claim evidence like the bible shows.
I pray that you may surrender your life to Jesus (if not saved), he is worth serving and he will make himself known to you, you just need to receive him as the Lord and
saviour of your life, and ask him to forgive you of your sins, and he will make you a new man, and will nake himself real to you.
There is no special magic prayer, of how to say the prayer, but say it in your own words, acknowledging him, repenting, accepting him, and you will be saved.
And it is important to really mean what you say.
Amen.
150 / 150

What God

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What God

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Who? Which God?

Contradiction #35 (Would Jesus inherit David's Contradiction #26 (Who was the father of Joseph, Contradiction #27 (Jesus descended from which

The God of the Bible The god of the Quoran 58 / 150

Muslim religion Jewish religion Jehovah's Witnesses United Pentecostals Hinduism Bhudism Sikhism

(www.answering­ (www.basicjudaism.org) (www.watchtower.org) (www.upci.org) (www.hinduwebsite.com) (www.buddhanet.net) (www.realsikhism.com)

Muslim religion Jewish religion Mormons Bahai faith Hinduism Bhudism Sikhism

(www.al­islam.org) (www.shirhadash.org) (www.mormonbeliefs.org) (www.bahai.org) (www.hindubooks.org) (www.buddhanet.net) (www.sikhspirit.com)

(­...Islam disagrees with (­...It's not a concept we (­...Mormons do not (­...The Bahá'í Faith does (­...Hinduism does not (­...Buddhist teachings (­...Sikhs do not believe

Muslim religion Jewish religion Mormons Roman Catholicism Hinduism Bhudism Sikhism

(www.islamiclearningmaterials (www.chabad.org) (www.religionfacts.com/ (www.prayrosary.com) (www.hindunet.org) (www.thaiworldview.com) (www.allaboutsikhs.com)

Muslim religion Jewish religion Mormons Roman Catholicism Hinduism Bhudism Sikhism

(www.islamreligion.com) (www.beingjewish.com) (mormon.lds.net) (www.catholic.org) (www.boloji.com (www.buddhist­ (www.sikhspectrum.com)

Satanist religion New Age movement The Occult

Trinity Trinity Trinity

(Satanic bible) (Share­International (email)) (www.thelemicstudies.com)

(...Baphomet represents the Powers of Darkness (...Is the Holy Trinity masculine? (Share International (...Interesting topic. You ask, "how does Thelema

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

King James Version New International Version New American Standard Amplified bible The Message

(www.heisback.com.au) 109 / 150

(...The Vatican Hill is not one of the famous seven hills of Rome, although it was included within the city limits of Rome during the reign of Pope Leo IV,... 112 / 150

The animals that lived in the water, were not part of these animals, such as squid, fish etc. 115 / 150

(22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.) 120 / 150

(2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the Born in Bethlehem (4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of

(14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a Born of a virgin (23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a

(12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he Crucified with thieves 124 / 150

(12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he Crucified with thieves (27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right

(9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of He comes riding upon an ass, (2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and

(20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.) No bones broken (32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of

(17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. Soldiers gambled for his coat (35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots:

(3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and Rejected by his own people, (11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.)

So a falling away must first take place, and also the man of sin must be revealed. 127 / 150

Now how does this tye in with "he" who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way? 132 / 150

2 Thessalonians 2:7­8 134 / 150

King James Version Douay­Rheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible New International Version

King James Version Douay­Rheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible New International Version

King James Version Douay­Rheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible New International Version

King James Version Douay­Rheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible 139 / 150

King James Version Douay­Rheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible New International Version

King James Version Douay­Rheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible New International Version

King James Version Douay­Rheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible New International Version

Exodus 7:10­12 148 / 150

You might also like

(www.answering (www.basicjudaism.org) (www.watchtower.org) (www.upci.org) (www.hinduwebsite.com) (www.buddhanet.net) (www.realsikhism.com)

(www.alislam.org) (www.shirhadash.org) (www.mormonbeliefs.org) (www.bahai.org) (www.hindubooks.org) (www.buddhanet.net) (www.sikhspirit.com)

(...Islam disagrees with (...It's not a concept we (...Mormons do not (...The Bahá'í Faith does (...Hinduism does not (...Buddhist teachings (...Sikhs do not believe

(www.islamreligion.com) (www.beingjewish.com) (mormon.lds.net) (www.catholic.org) (www.boloji.com (www.buddhist (www.sikhspectrum.com)

(Satanic bible) (ShareInternational (email)) (www.thelemicstudies.com)

2 Thessalonians 2:78 134 / 150

King James Version DouayRheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible New International Version

King James Version DouayRheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible New International Version

King James Version DouayRheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible New International Version

King James Version DouayRheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible 139 / 150

King James Version DouayRheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible New International Version

King James Version DouayRheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible New International Version

King James Version DouayRheims Bible New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible New International Version

Exodus 7:1012 148 / 150