Sunday, December 28, 2014

This is a great article written on an Adventist website that explains why Adventists (Seventh-Day Adventists) are gullible and obsessed with conspiracy theories.

A portion reads

So why are Adventists attracted to conspiracy theories? The ones most attractive to Seventh-day Adventists involve religion, especially the subject of Last Day Events. If the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy writings give some details, they want more. But curiosity can be a very dangerous element. Adventists are especially vulnerable to theories of a New World Order because they want so badly to see any signs that might confirm their belief that Jesus is coming very soon and the dreaded Mark of the Beast is just around the corner. In my view people believe in New World Order because it is what people with their “itching ears” want to hear.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Why Catholics cannot be Scientologists

Scientology is a very deceptive "religion", especially to potential converts.  So as to ease the conversion process, they will inform you that can you keep your current religion and also join the Scientologist "religion."

Recently, I went to a Scientology tour and the guide informed me that there is a Baptist minister who was a Scientologist. This is obviously to make adopting Scientology seem harmless with no risks. I should mention that the minister they mentioned they claimed was somewhere around south Los Angeles (Compton I think), and just like many churches in Los Angeles they may have liberal leanings, just as there is a Baptist church in LA that's part of the Southern Baptist Convention that has recently adopted a stance in support of homosexual marriage. The Scientologist also informed me of Jews that practice Judaism and are Scientologist--which makes it very unlikely they are Orthodox Jews. However, all of this is just deception by Scientology.

Scientology is more associated with far eastern philosophy, if we should call it that, than any form of religion, Scientology books even admits to their Far East origin in "Church" writings. Scientology insists make does have a spirit, but practically ignores the concept of god, though they insist there is a god or something similar. It perhaps can best be described as a self help cult. The IRS fought the Church of Scientology tooth and nail to try to deny it tax exempt status as a religion and church, but eventually gave up. Some speculate because the government could not afford all the lawsuits and it would tie up resources.

There is an alleged report online where the Church of Scientology answers questions from the IRS saying they expect members to only follow Scientology scriptures to the exclusion of others.

Scientology believes in reincarnation, which is contrary to Christianity, in fact higher level Scientologists have to sign a Billion year contract, meaning they agree that when they die and reincarnate into another body will continue their work to advance scientology.

According to L Ron Hubbard's own son, L Ron Hubbard Jr (who renamed himself Ron DeWolf) said his father and Scientology was involved in black magic, the occult and Satanism. Watch the interview here, the black magic discussion starts at around 3:10.
My video:

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Ellen G White: on the Pope, Sabbath, her bad history

Remembering the official SDA writings state Ellen G White and her comments on scripture are inspired by God, I thought to look at what she says about the Pope since Seventh-Day Adventists are known for their pope obsessions--blaming him for everything and anything that's wrong in the world, the worst crime of all being "changing the Sabbath day to Sunday!"
I saw that the Sabbath was not nailed to the cross. If it was, the other nine commandments were; and we are at liberty to go forth and break them all, as well as to break the fourth. I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for he never changes. But the Pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws.--The Review and Herald, Experience and Views. July 21, 1851
This is the typical SDA interpretation of Daniel that says pope is the one spoken of:
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.--Daniel 7:25 KJV
She also makes the absurd statement that if God's law changed, then God changes! But the fact is we KNOW God did change the Law since He no longer requires a person to baptize themselves after touching a dead person, or declares a woman unclean after giving birth, or requiring physical circumcision on the 8th day of a male. Also, the problem there is no evidence the Pope ever changed the Sabbath day, all that Adventists can point to is a bunch of writings from magazines in the 19th century some of which are inaccurate, misleading, or fraudulent. Sometimes, they will point to a statement by early Christian writings talking about not keeping the Sabbath day, however, in either case, the SDA are never able to produce any actual evidence the Pope ever instructing the Church to cease observing a seventh day Sabbath and do a Sunday Sabbath. In fact, you will not find any reference in Catholic magisterium where Sunday is called the Sabbath day itself. Several early Catholic writings state they went to Mass on both the Sabbath and Sunday--showing Sunday was not considered by them to be the Sabbath day! The best Adventists can come up with is councils where Judaizers are addressed for keeping customs like the Sabbath, or a quote of 19th century bishop saying the Solemnity of the Sabbath was transferred, though not saying the Sabbath itself was! Its interesting the "prophet" Ellen cannot provide any evidence that it was the Pope that adopted the "Sunday Sabbath" as she would see it. Here is another statement I felt was riddled with errors in the same section:
For a number of years Milan was the capital of the kingdom of Italy, and since the fourth century it has surpassed Rome in extent, and in many respects in importance also. Here was the head of the church founded by St. Ambrose, whose diocese maintained its independence of the popes until the middle of the eleventh century. His diocese included not only the flourishing plains of Lombardy, but also the plains and mountain valleys of Piedmont, and the southern provinces of France. Although it is not to be supposed that the light of this people was entirely undimmed by the surrounding darkness of their age, still their faith was essentially Protestant, and in strong opposition to the Roman creed. --Ellen White, The Review and Herald, June 1, 1886, Visit to the Vaudois Valleys
It seems "God" has mislead the "Prophetess Ellen" once again! First, her description of St Ambrose's diocese of Milan included "also the plains and mountain valleys of Piedmont, and the southern provinces of France" is a massive exaggeration. We know this is inaccurate because St Ambrose wrote a letter to the church in Vercellæ (now spelled Vercelli), which is a city and province of Piedmont about how they need to select a new bishop to replace their now deceased bishop Limenius:

Ambrose, a servant of Christ, called to be a Bishop, to the Church of Vercellæ;, and to those who call on the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Grace be fulfilled unto you in the Holy Spirit from God the Father and His only-begotten Son. I am spent with grief that the Church of God which is among you is still without a bishop--St Ambrose, Letter 63, Letter to the Church of Vercellæ

Now, if Vercelli was part of St Ambrose's diocese why would he address it to "the Church of Vercellae" and then say they were still "without a bishop" if according to Ellen White, he, Ambrose, was their bishop?!

She states St Ambrose founded the Church of Milan, yet St Ambrose was the 11th bishop of Milan, not counting the Arian bishop he displaced named Auxentius (a man whom St Ambrose writes about in nothing but negative language). St Ambrose was elected bishop 374 and served until his death in 397. The Church of Milan is written before St Ambrose became bishop by St Athanasius of Alexandria who visited Milan and died in 373--before St Ambrose was even bishop of Milan!
But while they thought that they were carrying on their designs against many by his means, they knew not that they were making many to be confessors, of whom are those who have lately made so glorious a confession, religious men, and excellent Bishops, Paulinus Bishop of Treveri, the metropolis of the Gauls, Lucifer, Bishop of the metropolis of Sardinia, Eusebius of Vercelli in Italy, and Dionysius of Milan, which is the metropolis of Italy. --St Athanasius, History of the Arians, Part IV,  28. Second Arian Persecution under Constantius

St Athanasius plainly states before St Ambrose was bishop of Milan that Dionysius was! Since St Ambrose would not be elected bishop til after St Athanasius death! So the "Prophet" Ellen White is wrong, St Ambrose did not found the Church of Milan at all! We see Dionysius being mentioned as bishop by St Ambrose himself in his letter to the nearby bishopless church of Vercellæ.

White also makes the claim that the diocese of Milan "maintained its independence of the popes."  The only time the Milan church was independent in some sense was when it was ruled by a heretical bishop that were Arian like Auxentius, because of this heresy they rejected the bishop of Rome. Before Ambrose was made bishop, bishops from around the world accepted the Council of Sardica in AD 344 which gave the Bishop of Rome authority to judge bishops, settle disputes, or appoint judges, there is no reason why Milan would be any different.  In St Ambrose's funeral homily of his brother Satyrus, he writes about how important Satyrus thought communion with the Church of Rome was (note Satyrus was involved with the administration of the Diocese of Milan):
 But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church? And possibly at that place the Church of the district was in schism. For at that time Lucifer had withdrawn from our communion, and although he had been an exile for the faith, and had left inheritors of his own faith, yet my brother did not think that there could be true faith in schism. For though schismatics kept the faith towards God, yet they kept it not towards the Church of God, certain of whose limbs they suffered as it were to be divided, and her members to be torn. For since Christ suffered for the Church, and the Church is the body of Christ, it does not seem that faith in Christ is shown by those by whom His Passion is made of none effect, and His body divided.--St Ambrose, On the Death of Satyrus: Book I, 47
In St Ambrose's letter to Emperor Gratian he writes:
"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all the bonds of sacred communion."—St Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4(A.D. 381),in SPP,160
I have to wonder about White obsession with St Ambrose since he wrote that he was a priest and practiced things she would consider "Roman." She goes on to say the people of Piedmont were essentially Protestants, a claim she cannot prove, and a claim that the Waldensians even deny, who themselves claims to have been a 12th century breakaway group from the Catholic Church.

Let's continue on to another instance where the prophetess White writes of the Pope.
The Bible is presented to us as a sufficient guide; but the pope and his workers remove it from the people as if it were a curse, because it exposes their pretensions and rebukes their idolatry.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, Visit to the Vaudois Valleys, June 1, 1886
 This state is pretty ironic since the Seventh-Day Adventists have since then accepted White's Bible commentary as divinely inspired making them some sort of scripture (though they would object to it being called that):
Seventh-day Adventists believe that God inspired Ellen G. White. Therefore, her expositions on any given Bible passage offer an inspired guide to the meaning of texts without exhausting their meaning or preempting the task of exegesis (for example, see Evangelism, 256; The Great Controversy, 193, 595;Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 665, 682, 707-708; Counsels to Writers and Editors, 33-35). --Methods of Bible Study: Bible Study: Presuppositions, Principles, and Methods, 4.l (Methods of Bible Study) [Official statement]

Somehow, this is not a contradiction to Adventists.  Continuing on, White writes a typical statement of a Protestant from that error--Catholics tried to hide the Bible and were idol worshippers! Ignoring the fact Mass readings included different parts of the Bible, the 10 commandments were always standard teaching. Also, venerating icons and relics is not idolatry since idolatry is making physical objects divine representations of false gods. The practice of making images and statues was not forbidden either since in Exodus 25 we see God commanding Moses to make golden angel statues, then in Joshua 7:6 we see Moses' successor Joshua bowing to the Ark of the Covenant. Later on the Temple of Solomon itself contained lots of images and even larger angel statues.

Going on Ellen White mentions the Pope in passing in respects to her concept of God's law:
God’s will is expressed in his holy law. This is the only correct standard of righteousness, and if a man’s character stands in harmony with the Lord’s standard, his testimony may be received and relied upon; but if he stands in opposition to the requirements of God, he measures himself and others by his own finite, fallible standard, and may claim as much as does the pope of Rome.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, How do we Stand?, July 24, 1888
He then measures himself by his own finite standard, and may claim for himself as much as does the pope of Rome; but in the light of the detector of sin, his character may be wholly wanting.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, The Obedient Approved of God, August 28, 1894 
This is a shot White takes against the Pope, and appealing to common Protestant hatred of the Pope she says failing to keep or accept the Law makes you no better than the Pope. She's possibly mocking Vatican I also in referring to "fallible standard."

Going on:
 A former Wesleyan local preacher’s family are all interested, and thoroughly convinced of the truth. Even the children ask why they should “keep the pope’s Sunday when they know it is not the true Sabbath.”--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, The Australian Camp-Meeting, January 7, 1896
Ellen was smart, what better way to persuade your fellow Protestants something is wrong that associating it with their "boogey man" of the day--the Pope! Never mind the fact there's no evidence the Pope himself started Sunday worship.

Going on, she talks about the remission of sins and the pope:
Remission of sins can be obtained only through the merits of Christ. On no man, priest or pope, but on God alone, rests the power to forgive sins.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, The Remission of Sins, June 13, 1899
Ellen G White insists the Catholic concept of Confession is wrong and no one has the power to forgive sins, despite what John 20:22-23 says, in which she reworks it to be about ecclesiastical censuring:
Remitting sins or retaining applies to the church in her organized capacity. God has given directions to reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine. Censure is to be given. This censure is to be removed when the one in error repents and confesses his sin.--Ellen White, The Review and Herald, The Remission of Sins, June 13, 1899
 To her forgive sins does not mean forgive sins it means to "remove" a censure, and retain means to "reprove, rebuke, exhort," "censure." However, the Apostles already had this ability since its mentioned in Matthew 18, so they did not need this special event. She disables the text rather than deal with what it plainly states.

Let's look at another time she mentions the pope:
Through the Holy Spirit’s guidance the disciples would remember the lessons Christ had given them; and in their future work, their language would express the divine thought of God. Thus the truth would come down through pure channels, commending itself to the hearts of the receivers. Christ’s followers are to plant their feet, not on the word of pope or prelate, not on the word of the clergy, who mystify everything that is plain, and confuse the minds of the ignorant; they must place their feet upon the sure foundation.--Ellen G White, The Review and Herald, The Parable of the Sower, October 3, 1899 
This statement is itself somewhat ironic since Ellen's commentaries of the scriptures are considered inspired by the Seventh-Day Adventists and therefore to be studied.  So its just a switch and bait--don't follow them--what do they know!? Follow me instead!
Another step in papal assumption was taken, when, in the eleventh century, Pope Gregory VII. proclaimed the perfection of the Romish Church. Among the propositions which he put forth, was one declaring that the church had never erred, nor would it ever err, according to the Scriptures. But the Scripture proofs did not accompany the assertion. The proud pontiff next claimed the power to depose emperors, and declared that no sentence which he pronounced could be reversed by any one, but that it was his prerogative to reverse the decisions of all others.--Ellen White, The Great Controversy 1888, Page 57
First of all, though I do not know for sure if Gregory VII made statement of the "perfection of the Romish Church" and that it could "never erred, nor would, according to Scripture"  and that no sentence "could be reversed by anyone" but I can say dozens of popes,  and bishops Church Fathers long before him made that statement. The indefectibility of the church as a whole if found in the Church Fathers long before Pope Gregory VII. Also, Pope Gregory in his letters DO use scriptural citations for his claims by he ought to be obeyed and respected as Pope, for example
Since thou dost confess thyself a son of the church it would have beseemed thy royal dignity to look more respectfully upon the master of the church,-that is, St. Peter, the chief of the apostles. [Matthew 10:2] To whom, if thou art of the-Lord's sheep, thou west given over by the Lord's voice and authority to be fed; Christ Himself saying: " Peter, feed my sheep." [John 21:17] And again: " To thee are given over the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in Heaven." [Matthew 16:18] --Pope Gregory VII, Letter of Gregory VII. to Henry IV., December 1075
It seems Ellen White had in mind the "Dictatus Papae" which is uncertain if it was even written by Pope Gregory VII. In any case, the Dictatus had 27 points, ironically at one time the Seventh-Day Adventist church had "27 Fundamentals"--key doctrines they believed in from 1980-2005 when they added another making it 28 fundamentals.  Also, there is no indication the Dictatus Papae was a public document that was sent to people. Regardless, as I mention above claims of infallibility were not new, nor where Scripture passages for it unknown, just the Dictatus Papae does not cite them.

White in the some work goes on to says:
The advancing centuries witnessed a constant increase of error in the doctrines put forth from Rome. Even before the establishment of the papacy, the teachings of heathen philosophers had received attention and exerted an influence in the church. Many who professed conversion still clung to the tenets of their pagan philosophy, and not only continued its study themselves, but urged it upon others as a means of extending their influence among the heathen. Serious errors were thus introduced into the Christian faith. Prominent among these was the belief in man’s natural immortality and his consciousness in death. This doctrine laid the foundation upon which Rome established the invocation of saints and the adoration of the virgin Mary. From this sprung also the heresy of eternal torment for the finally impenitent, which was early incorporated into the papal faith.--Ellen White, The Great Controversy 1888, Page 58
 She says the heathen philosophers got much attention even before she thinks the papacy was established. Clearly, she disproves of listening to "pagan" and "heathen" philosophers. Who can be blame for this? St Paul actually!
“One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, "Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons."”—Titus 1:12 *He quotes the Cretan philosopher-poet, Epimenides of Knossos, who lived around the 6th Century BC
For 'In him we live and move and have our being,'—Acts 17:28a *Many attribute the first half to the philosopher-poet Epimenides of Knossos, who lived around the 6th Century BC  
as even some of your poets have said, 'For we too are his offspring.'—Acts 17:28b *This is a quote of the poet Aratus of Soli, a fellow Cilician of St Paul’s, from the 3rd Century before Christ.
 So we see quoting, read, and using "pagan" philosophers is not inherently wrong, otherwise St Paul corrupted the Bible.

As far as her other claims about the doctrines of immortality of the soul and consciousness after death--those too are taught in the Bible and were believed by the Jews of the time.
And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.--Matthew 10:28
Notice Christ says "destroy" rather than use "kill" when referring to damnation, showing even the damned are not wiped out of existence.

The claim about consciousness after death is refuted by the story of the Witch of Endor. Saul and Samuel where the Biblical text explicitly states the dead Samuel appears.
“An old man is coming up,” she said. “He’s wrapped in a robe.” Then Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed low out of respect, nose to the ground.

 “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Samuel asked Saul.

"I’m in deep trouble!” Saul replied. “The Philistines are at war with me, and God has turned away from me and no longer answers me by prophets or by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what I should do.”--1 Samuel 28:14-15

Also stories like Judas Maccabee meeting the Prophet Jeremiah and Jesus talking to Moses shows that soul sleep is not the case. Also Revelation 6:9
When he broke open the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered because of the witness they bore to the word of God. They cried out in a loud voice, “How long will it be, holy and true master, before you sit in judgment and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?”--Revelation 6:9-10
As far as Mary "worship", its interesting she praises St Ambrose in her writings yet St Ambrose said:
"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166
And why should I tell how great is the grace of virginity, which was found worthy to be chosen by Christ, that it might be even the bodily temple of God, in which as we read the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. A Virgin conceived the Salvation of the world, a Virgin brought forth the life of all. Virginity then ought not to be left to itself, seeing that it benefited all in Christ. A Virgin bore Him Whom this world cannot contain or support. And when He was born from His mother’s womb, He yet preserved the fence of her chastity and the inviolate seal of her virginity. And so Christ found in the Virgin that which He willed to make His own, that which the Lord of all might take to Himself. Further, our flesh was cast out of Paradise by a man and woman and was joined to God through a Virgin.--St Ambrose, Epistle LXIII: 33
 And eternal hell is taught plainly in the Bible in Daniel 12, the aforementioned reference in Matthew 10:28 and other places like Revelation.
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence. --Daniel 12:2
It is better for thee to enter lame into life everlasting, than having two feet, to be cast into the hell of unquenchable fire:--Mark 9:44 
 There is no indication that causes us to believe anyone will be wiped out of existence


Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Evidence the SDA teaches Jesus is Michael

Some who are Seventh Day Adventist, sympathetic, or just uneducated about them believe they do not officially teach that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. [As I mentioned several times before Jesus=Michael was a common Protestant doctrine among Calvinists and some Baptists until the 19th century] In a sense, this is true since their official website will you see very little about the Archangel being Jesus. I did find this:
Even before time on Earth began, the universe was engaged in a terrible conflict. John, the last living disciple of Jesus, described this conflict from what he saw in a vision while a prisoner on the island of Patmos. "There was war in heaven," he said. "Michael [another name for Jesus] and his angels fought against the dragon [Satan], and the dragon and his angels fought back" (Revelation 12:7).--A Lesson from History, Rodney Woods  [emphasis mine]
This is only a reference in passing. For more definitive proof the SDA states White is a prophet and her interpretation of the Bible is to be used since it was inspired by God. We see their official statement on Methods of Bible Study under Methods of Bible study 4.l says:
l.          Seventh-day Adventists believe that God inspired Ellen G. White. Therefore, her expositions on any given Bible passage offer an inspired guide to the meaning of texts without exhausting their meaning or preempting the task of exegesis (for example, see Evangelism, 256; The Great Controversy, 193, 595;Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 665, 682, 707-708; Counsels to Writers and Editors, 33-35). --Methods of Bible Study: Bible Study: Presuppositions, Principles, and Methods, 4.l (Methods of Bible Study) [Official statement]
The preamble of this statement says:
This statement is addressed to all members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church with the purpose of providing guidelines on how to study the Bible, both the trained biblical scholar and others. --Methods of Bible Study, 1. Preamble
Also, at the bottom of the statement on the webpage says:
This statement was approved and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee at the Annual Council Session in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 12, 1986

Their official Church Manual under their 28 Fundamentals also states about Ellen White:
"One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)."--Chapter 14: Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-Day Adventists, 18. The Gift of Prophecy, page 162. Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, Revised 2010. 18th edition. [pdf] [A smaller PDF of the relevant fundamental beliefs are found here]
The Adventists state this statement was lead by the Holy Spirit, but admit the Spirit might later cause them to better express their beliefs:
Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference Session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word."--Chapter 14: Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-Day Adventists, page 156. Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, Revised 2010. 18th edition. [pdf] [A smaller PDF of the relevant fundamental beliefs are found here]
So, its plainly clear that Seventh-Day Adventists must believe in the divine inspiration of Ellen G White's writings. (Interestingly. despite the SDA often saying the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, here they seem to make a church structure like the Catholic with Ellen White being the equivalent to the Pope, and the General Conference being equal to Ecumenical Councils,) Here is what the "prophetess" White says about Michael the Archangel [all writings are on an SDA website], remember according to the SDA her writings are "inspired" by God according to them:
The words of the angel, “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God,” show that he holds a position of high honor in the heavenly courts. When he came with a message to Daniel, he said, “There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince.” Daniel 10:21. --The Desire of Ages, page 99 (1898) Ellen G White
Again: Christ is called the Word of God. John 1:1-3. He is so called because God gave His revelations to man in all ages through Christ. It was His Spirit that inspired the prophets. 1 Peter 1:10, 11. He was revealed to them as the Angel of Jehovah, the Captain of the Lord’s host, Michael the Archangel.--Patriarchs and Prophets, Page 761. (1890) Ellen G White
Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, “The Lord rebuke thee.”--Early Writings, Page 164, Ellen G White [statement also found in The Story of Redemption, Page 206]
Michael, or Christ, with the angels that buried Moses, came down from heaven,--The Truth About Angels, Page 104, Ellen G White
 We see that since the Seventh-Day Adventists regard Ellen G White as a prophet with her writings inspired and "authoritative truth," and those writings teach Jesus is Michael, that logically this would make official Adventists doctrine to be Jesus is Michael.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Does Michael's Name mean He's God or Jesus?

The doctrine that Jesus is the Archangel is found among many Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, and was previously found among Baptists and Calvinists as I demonstrate in an older article. Part of the reasoning for this is the name itself. Here is an example of a commentary:
By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? --John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, Commentary on Jude 1:9 (Reformed Baptist, 1697-1771)
Generally, the name Michael has traditionally been understood as being a question "Who is like God?" and not a statement "who is like God." Ordinarily, the Hebrew word asher would be expected, though mi CAN be used (and rarely is).  Furthermore, why would Michael be Jesus if the name means "LIKE God", instead of "is God"? John Gill's reasoning sounds absurd by making "like" the same as "equal to," which he being a Trinitarian would mean in substance. The ka/cha in Michael is used through the Hebrew bible for similes--that is to compare something to something else, it would not be a comparison if the things being compared are the same! Daniel does call Christ one "like the son of man," however, it makes sense then since He was not yet man, so it would be most accurate to say He looked "LIKE a son of man", rather than "is a man." John Gill was full aware of the tradition among the Jews and Christians that Michael was a created angel (one among the 7 archangels), yet to fit his Reformed Baptist/Calvinistic theology it was necessary for him to abandon this and force a Michael=Jesus doctrine.

Regardless, even if the point was granted that "like" is the same as "is" or "equal to" and that the name is a statement and not a question, using the name as proof the angel is God would be presumptuous. We have names similar to Michael, in fact a book in the Hebrew bible is written by Micah, who's book bears his name--his name is an abbreviation which means "Who is like Yah?" (Abbreviated forms of names are often used in the Bible, even for prophets like Y'hoshua->Yeshua, Yeremyahu->Yeremiah) No one would assume the prophet Micah is God simply because of his name, and his name shows a name can be a question. [Also, there is another similar name Mishael.]Here are the 4 times the long form of Micah's name--Michaiah appears in the Hebrew Bible:
And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah מִיכָיָה] , and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying--2 Kings 22:12 KJV  
וַיְצַו הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת-חִלְקִיָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת-אֲחִיקָם בֶּן-שָׁפָן וְאֶת-עַכְבּוֹר בֶּן-מִיכָיָה וְאֵת שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר, וְאֵת עֲשָׂיָה עֶבֶד-הַמֶּלֶךְ--לֵאמֹר--II Kings 22:12 MT
And [certain] of the priests'sons with trumpets; [namely], Zechariah the son of Jonathan, the son of Shemaiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Michaiah  [מִיכָיָה] , the son of Zaccur, the son of Asaph:--Nehemiah 12:35 KJV 
 וּמִבְּנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים, בַּחֲצֹצְרוֹת--זְכַרְיָה בֶן-יוֹנָתָן בֶּן-שְׁמַעְיָה, בֶּן-מַתַּנְיָה בֶּן-מִיכָיָה, בֶּן-זַכּוּר, בֶּן-אָסָף--Nehemiah 12:35 MT
And the priests; Eliakim, Maaseiah, Miniamin, Michaiah, Elioenai, Zechariah, [and] Hananiah, with trumpets;--Nehemiah 12:41 KJV 
 וְהַכֹּהֲנִים אֶלְיָקִים מַעֲשֵׂיָה מִנְיָמִין מִיכָיָה אֶלְיוֹעֵינַי, זְכַרְיָה חֲנַנְיָה--בַּחֲצֹצְרוֹת--Nehemia 12:41 MT
Micah [מִיכָיָה]the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Zion shall be plowed [like] a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.--Jeremiah 26:18  
מיכיה (מִיכָה), הַמּוֹרַשְׁתִּי, הָיָה נִבָּא, בִּימֵי חִזְקִיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ-יְהוּדָה; וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-כָּל-עַם יְהוּדָה לֵאמֹר כֹּה-אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, צִיּוֹן שָׂדֶה תֵחָרֵשׁ וִירוּשָׁלַיִם עִיִּים תִּהְיֶה, וְהַר הַבַּיִת, לְבָמוֹת יָעַר--Jeremiah 26:18 MT
Also, Micah has another longer form--Michaiahu .
Here are the verses Michael's מִיכָאֵל name appears (13 times in 13 verses in the Masoretic Text) I will give the MT :

Of the tribe of Asher, Sethur the son of Michael [מִיכָאֵל] .- Numbers 13:13 KJV

לְמַטֵּה אָשֵׁר, סְתוּר בֶּן-מִיכָאֵל—Numbers 13:13 MT

And their brethren of the house of their fathers [were], Michael [מִיכָאֵל], and Meshullam, and Sheba, and Jorai, and Jachan, and Zia, and Heber, seven.These [are] the children of Abihail the son of Huri, the son of Jaroah, the son of Gilead, the son of Michael [מִיכָאֵל], the son of Jeshishai, the son of Jahdo, the son of Buz;---- 1 Chronicles 5:13-14 KJV 

The son of Michael [מִיכָאֵל], the son of Baaseiah, the son of Malchiah,-- 1 Chronicles 6:40 (25 in some) KJV

בֶּן-מִיכָאֵל בֶּן-בַּעֲשֵׂיָה, בֶּן-מַלְכִּיָּה--I Chronicles 6:40 (25) MT

And the sons of Uzzi; Izrahiah: and the sons of Izrahiah; Michael [מִיכָאֵל], and Obadiah, and Joel, Ishiah, five: all of them chief men.-- 1 Chronicles 7:3 KJV
And Michael [מִיכָאֵל], and Ispah, and Joha, the sons of Beriah--1 Chronicles 8:16 KJV
As he went to Ziklag, there fell to him of Manasseh, Adnah, and Jozabad, and Jediael, and Michael [מִיכָאֵל], and Jozabad, and Elihu, and Zilthai, captains of the thousands that [were] of Manasseh.-- 1 Chronicles 12:20 KJV
Of Judah, Elihu, [one] of the brethren of Did: of Issachar, Omri the son of Michael [מִיכָאֵל]:-- 1 Chronicles 27:18 KJV
And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael [מִיכָאֵל], and Shephatiah: all these [were] the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel.-- 2 Chronicles 21:2 KJV
And of the sons of Shephatiah; Zebadiah the son of Michael [מִיכָאֵל], and with him fourscore males.-- Ezra 8:8 KJV 

 וּמִבְּנֵי שְׁפַטְיָה, זְבַדְיָה בֶּן-מִיכָאֵל; וְעִמּוֹ, שְׁמֹנִים הַזְּכָרִים.--Ezra 8:8 MT

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael [מִיכָאֵל], one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.—Daniel 10:13 KJV

But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and [there is] none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [מִיכָאֵל] your prince.—Daniel 10:21 KJV

And at that time shall Michael [מִיכָאֵל] stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.-- Daniel 12:1 KJV

וּבָעֵת הַהִיא יַעֲמֹד מִיכָאֵל הַשַּׂר הַגָּדוֹל, הָעֹמֵד עַל-בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ, וְהָיְתָה עֵת צָרָה, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-נִהְיְתָה מִהְיוֹת גּוֹי עַד הָעֵת הַהִיא; וּבָעֵת הַהִיא יִמָּלֵט עַמְּךָ, כָּל-הַנִּמְצָא כָּתוּב בַּסֵּפֶר.--Daniel 12:1 MT 

Notice the name Michael is found in the Torah in Number 13:13 with the same spelling but for a human being, never is an angel called Michael in the Torah, would anyone ever suspect this man Michael was "equal to" or "like unto God" simply because of his name? NO! Also, notice Numbers was written about 1000 years before the book of Daniel, so Jews would have been familiar with the human Michael first, and not have any notion of a divine Michael who is equal to God.  Also, since the human Michael is named first what would his name be interpreted as a question or statement, ie "Who is like God?" or "Who is like God," the former would be blasphemous.  Also, there is the name in the Torah מִישָׁאֵל which means "Who (is) what God (is)?" (eg Leviticus 10:4) שָׁ being an abbreviated asher.  

Furthermore, the Bible states several times "who is like God":
There is none like God, O Jeshurun, who rides through the heavens to your help, through the skies in his majesty..--Deuteronomy 33:26 ESV (the KJV is less coherent but makes the same point)
 אֵין כָּאֵל, יְשֻׁרוּן:  רֹכֵב שָׁמַיִם בְּעֶזְרֶךָ, וּבְגַאֲוָתוֹ שְׁחָקִים--Deuteronomy 33:26 MT
And he said, To morrow. And he said, [Be it] according to thy word: that thou mayest know that [there is] none like unto the LORD our God.--Exodus 8:10 KJV (6 in some versions)

 וַיֹּאמֶר, לְמָחָר; וַיֹּאמֶר, כִּדְבָרְךָ--לְמַעַן תֵּדַע, כִּי-אֵין כַּיה*ה אֱלֹהֵינוּ--Exodus 8:10 (6) MT
Who [is] like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high--Psalm 113:5 (notice this is a rhetorical question! not a statement)
 מִי, כַּיה*ה אֱלֹהֵינוּ--    הַמַּגְבִּיהִי לָשָׁבֶת--Psalm 113:5
There are more verses on this matter.
The Ecumenical council of Nicea in AD 325 condemned the idea Christ is of "similar" or "like substance" to the Father, which would be consistent with the Scriptures statements of no one being "like God."
Also, unrelated to the name of Michael, the angel is called "one of the chief princes" in Daniel:
lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me--Daniel 10:13
Why would Jesus, or Michael be one of the chief princes--which shows there are OTHERS at the same level as Michael--certainly not the one who has preeminence over creation of Colossians 1!
1) Michael is a question, not a statement. It means "Who is like God?"
2) Michaiah is a Hebrew name that also appears in the Bible that means "Who is like Yah?" and is a name for humans like the Prophet Micah, yet no one believe his name indicates he is God. This also shows a name can be a question--like Michael.
3) Michael cannot be God since the name means 'who is LIKE God," why would God be called "like Himself." Several verses show no one is like God.
4) Michael was a name applied to humans in the Torah and else where, long before Daniel was written, yet no one suspects Number 13:13's Michael is like God!

Monday, August 4, 2014

Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt

Sarah Pratt was the first wife of Mormon Orson Pratt in the early Mormon church, Mormons accused her of adultery, however, the fact is her husband married multiple women, which Sarah was against, she would eventually begin to led the movement against polygamy in Utah and lead her children out of the Mormon religion. She accused Joseph Smith of having an abortionist at hand named Dr Bennett to kill any children that Smith would have through his polygamous wives.

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Attending a Mormon Sacrament and Fast and Testimony

I went to a LDS sacrament meeting. Some notes:

  1. 3 fairly old sounding hymns are sung, including the one about the "saints." In the hymnal I noticed some of the hymns in the Mormon hymnal include hymns by hymn makers Joseph Smith said were wrong and apostate (like Charles Wesley, a founder of Methodism, younger brother of John Wesley, on hymn 66 of the modern LDS hymnal, a few other hymns are included)
  2. More testimonies are often about how wonderful their fellow Mormons in the ward are, they all say they "know" the Mormon church is true, the prophet is true, the Mormon gospel is true etc, and will give little reasoning.
  3. One testimony by a ex fundamentalist woman admitted all the preconceived notions about Mormonism melted away and all their doctrines she was told when she found out they were nice people. She said she learned about Mormonism is that it should be about what they do and not what they say! Implying their beliefs do not really seem important as long as they are nice. She said her old friends stopped talking to her because of her conversion--ironically Mormons are known for doing the same to their apostates.
  4. Mormon testimonies are very emotional, in fact Kleenex boxes are automatically next to the podium.
  5. Jesus and God are not mentioned much in the testimony, except in passing, and all testimonies finish with "in Jesus Name. Amen."
  6. The Mormons in their testimony do allude to their preexistence in their testimony (the idea they had their soul before conception.)
  7. Mormon "communion" can be lead by teenage boys praying at a table in front of the congregation. They preach and pass around leaven bread cubes in special trays with handles on it. Then line up and return the trays to the front. Then for the cup--they do not use wine since Mormons do not drink alcohol, nor do they use grape juice like Baptists, but rather Mormons use water placed in tiny shot glasses and pass it around like the bread. 
  8. All the males wear a white dress shirt and tie, and maybe a coat.
  9. Women seem to be allowed to wear any color they would like.
  10. I noticed while people were giving their testimonies there was snoring.
  11. Testimonies are encouraged to be short and the Mormon bishop, or whoever is leading it is supposed to go first.
  12. The Mormon congregation was small, but the leader explicitly said most of them were converts.
  13. Mormon church interiors are fairly plain, though similar to a standard Protestant church, except with a large area for the choir in the front of the church behind where the ministers preaches.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

On praying to saints

This will be a more organized revision of my previous articles on this matter.

First, the common objections:

Objection 1) "The Bible says there is only one mediator between God and man(1 Timothy 2:5)--that's Jesus, so we cannot pray to any saint!"


Here is the text they are referring to:
For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.--1 Timothy 2:5-6
Let's assume the Protestant is right--that praying to a saint in heaven asking that they pray for us is a violation of the statement that Christ is the only mediator.  The issue with this assumption is that it would contradict the rest of the Bible on matters of asking others to pray for you. It is a double standard to say it's not a violation of the sole mediatorship of Christ to have a person on earth to pray for you, but it is a violation of it if that person is in heaven.  Why is the person in heaven a mediator but not the one in heaven? Generally, the answer they give to this is "well because one of them is dead." However, this response makes the issue of being a "mediator" a non-issue, so their problem is not that it is a violation of 1 Timothy 2:5 at all, but the location and physical status of the person being asked for prayer, since all Christians have a concept of asking others be it fellow church-goers or people they consider holy to pray for them. I will address their "dead" objection elsewhere.
As far as 1 Timothy 2:5--"His Mediation" is His priestly sacrifice, His office as Holy High Priest. The one mediator of the sacrifice by which we are redeemed as it continues "who gave himself a redemption for all", the New Testament calls Christ the Mediator of the New covenant as in Hebrews
he is mediator of a better covenant--Hebrews 8:6
Objection 2) "They are dead, they cannot hear you."
Answer:  This objection makes the assertion that the dead (saints) cannot hear. This may assume soul sleep, which I will deal with later.  Why should we assume God does not allow or grant power to saints in heaven to hear the needs of those on Earth?  We have good reason to believe the saints in heaven can hear the petitions of those on Earth. We are told by Jesus that the righteous are like angels in heaven and we know the angels know when man repents--we they in some sense are aware of their thought and prayers to God, so why cannot the righteous in heaven intercede for those on earth? 1 Corinthians 13 explains that the partial will pass away. Jesus also does not really consider them dead, since they are alive in Him, which to Christ is far greater than physical life.  Also, this argument does not work at all to asking Angels to intercede, since angels are not dead, and therefore it cannot be said "they are dead, they cannot hear."
Objection 3) "Prayer is a form of worship, therefore it would be idolatry"

Answer: This understanding is flawed. Prayer CAN be a form of worship, but does it necessarily have to be? Is it worship to ask God to heal aunt Sally? Certainly it is when the main purpose of their prayer is thanksgiving and glorifying God. 

Objection 4) "The dead know nothing!" (Ecclesiastes 9:5) [soul sleep]

Answer: A favorite verse used by soul sleepers, they want to limit the verse to this section of the sentence.  Here is the context of the verse:
For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope; for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. --Ecclesiastes 9:4-5
The first sentence says that "him that is joined to all the living there is hope" then the next verse says "the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything."  What this is saying is that there is something that the living can look ahead to---their death, whereas those who are already dead cannot look forward to any comparable death, since their fate is already sealed.

Objection 5) Mary would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to hear all those prayers at once!

Answer: No, omniscience is knowing all things, and omnipresent is being at all places! It might be possible that it be God's will for the righteous in heaven to know all things, or at least to the extent God wills it, 1 Corinthians 13 seems to imply something along the lines of man knowing all things. However, omniscience is not necessary nonetheless, its just knowledge of that petitions addressed to the particular saint that have to be known. Why should we assume God will not give this ability to the saints in heaven? He allowed man on earth to know the thoughts of others as in the case of Elisha, he know the thoughts and plans of the king of Aram (2 Kings 6:12), so its not something God is opposed to giving man the ability to do.  There is no need for omnipresence at all, since Elisha did not have to travel any distance to get this information.

Objection 6) It is forbidden to beseech the dead!


The commandment refers to seeking the dead, as in receiving counsel from them as in what King Saul did, the ancient Chaldeans would practice several forms of bizarre witchcraft using bones and stuff to try to summon the dead, my Syrian friend even insisted the word Chaldee comes from the word "magic", I have not been able to verify this elsewhere. Catholics ask the saints in heaven to pray for the Lord for them, we do not seek to get advice from them, we are not trying to lure them to use, nor do we ascribe some unique magical powers to them that are somehow independent of God, rather any power they have are directly from God, just as the bones of Elisha were.

Argument for Intercession of the Saints:

1) Christians are the body of Christ-the church
2) The body of Christ is one undivided body--not a mutant severed body.
3) St Paul teaches the body feels pain in the rest of the body and is able to seek help for it

4) God is able to give the saints in heaven any power He wants
5) Christ said the righteous dead are equal to angels
6) Angels can intercede, are cognizant of the doings of man on earth and can even deliver prayers to God
7) The angels in heaven rejoice over the repentance of one sinner
8) St Paul says at present on earth we see things partially, in the future the partial will pass away.
9) Saints in Revelation 6:9 are presented as asking for vengeance for their deaths
10) Christian, even Protestants have been known for addressing, rebuking Satan, a fallen angel (which they do not believe is forbidden to do)
11) IT would appear the Protestant view has the demons being allowed to be addressed but never God's host & saints in heaven

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Buddhist Hell!

Buddhism is often prayed as a hippie, progressive religion for people that vegetarians that wear sandals. It is interesting that Buddhists do have a concept of a fiery Hell, wherein the punishments of it are described make Jewish and Christian descriptions of hell look like bed time stories for small children.

The description in the article make it out to be levels of torment based on merits done it life, they note unlike Christian hell its not eternal--however, its lists punishments including being in a freezing, cracking state of disembowelment to being thrown in an oven for a mere 3 quintillion years, 3.39738624×1018 years--that's not taking into account there is reincarnation which probably means another chance of hell after a few years of life.

Buddhism's view of vegetarianism is not straight forward

Friday, July 25, 2014

The State of Israel paying for abortions

That Israeli government is now paying for all abortions for women 20-33 years old. 

Wonder what they have to do for the Fundamentalists to realize God is not on their side (nor their enemies' for that fact). Some fundamentalists admit they expect that land to embrace the great antichrist, yet they think that man and God may still bless them nonetheless!

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Ibn Kathir's fake history of Constantine

The following is based on the writings of the Sunni Muslim "historian" and Quran commentator Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Surah 3:55, found on google books volume 2, page 171 and on, and also on the Qtafsir website  The Tafsir Ibn Kathir will be in black, my words in blue.

And I will make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieve, till the Day of Resurrection

This is what happened. When Allah raised `Isa to heaven, his followers divided into sects and groups. Some of them believed in what Allah sent `Isa as, a servant of Allah, His Messenger, and the son of His female-servant.

The vast majority believed in this, only gnostics might object to the identification of him as "the son of His female-servant." Islam itself divided into sects shortly after Muhammad died, and even more wanted to leave Islam. The early Christians were given death threats for STAYING Christians, the early Muslims were given death threats for LEAVING Islam.
However, some of them went to the extreme over `Isa, believing that he was the son of Allah.
No one objected to this at all. How is this an extreme? People debated what "son of God" meant, no early Christians denied Jesus was the son of God since this was synonymous with "Christ" to them. We see in the 4 Gospel accounts Jesus own apostles and disciples call himself the "son of God," the demons and Satan call him "son of God," and even Jesus Himself refers to Himself as "the son of God." As we see in these verses:
Jesus Christ speaking of Himself (called Isa by Muslims):
Amen, amen I say unto you, that the hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.—John 5:25
John the Baptist (Yahya):
And I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God.—John 1:34
Archangel Gabriel (called Jibreel by Muslims):
And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.—Luke 1:35
Disciples/Apostles of Jesus:

“And they that were in the boat came and adored him, saying: Indeed thou art the Son of God.”—Matthew 14:33
“And the tempter coming said to him: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread."--Matthew 4:3
What have we to do with thee, Jesus Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?"--Matthew 8:29
Jesus’ Crucifiers (Roman centurions):
Now the centurion and they that were with him watching Jesus, having seen the earthquake, and the things that were done, were sore afraid, saying: Indeed this was the Son of God.—Matthew 27:54
So based on the fact that we have the 4 accounts of the Gospels telling us Jesus is the “Son of God” with Jesus saying so Himself in John 5:25 with that verse have all variants of it reading “son of God” we have no reason to think Jesus is anything besides the son of God! Any Muslim claim of corruption is baseless. Demonstrating ibn Kathir had little to no knowledge of the Gospels and probably derived all his information from ignorant Islamic sources.
Some of them said that `Isa was Allah Himself,

If by “some” he means Jesus’ own apostles, then yes:

Apostle Thomas speaking to Jesus Christ:
Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!—John 20:28
Apostle John:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.—John 1:1
St Thomas addressed Christ himself, yet Christ did not object to this identification at all, so either He allowed St Thomas to commit idolatry, or He really is God!

while others said that he was one of a Trinity.

Being the Son of God and God are necessary for the Trinity to be true, since we believe there is only One God and that Jesus is not the Father but born of the Father and the Holy Spirit also is God (and not an angel like Muslims foolishly assume) then for monotheism to be true and for them too all be God Trinitarianism must be true too. Other Christian before Constantine sometimes taught the 3 persons were really one person and that the Son is the Father and the Spirit is also, this too was rejected by our leaders like the Popes 100 before Emperor Constantine gathered the council of Nicea.

Allah mentioned these false creeds in the Qur'an and refuted them.

Reading how they state the creed seriously makes you wonder if “Allah” really knew what he was talking about at all.

The Christians remained like this until the third century CE, when a Greek king called, Constantine, became a Christian for the purpose of destroying Christianity.

4th century actually, and there is no evidence Constantine wanted to destroy Christianity. He did not formally become Christian however until his death bed when he was baptized.

Constantine was either a philosopher, or he was just plain ignorant.

Constantine was a military child, he was educated in Latin and Greek and philosophy, but does receiving some philosophical education make you a philosopher?

Constantine changed the religion of `Isa by adding to it and deleting from it. He established the rituals of Christianity and the so-called Great Trust, which is in fact the Great Treachery.

No clue what this “Great Trust” is. We have references to our rituals before Constantine. All of them can be found in the New Testament, and they are referred to before Constantine’s time in Christian writings.

He also allowed them to eat the meat of swine,

This was ALREADY done by Christians, since Christians do not follow dietary laws like the Jews did since we believe a new Law was established by Christ establishing a New Testament, in fact the New Testament explicitly states this in Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbaths—Colossians 2:16

Despite this by being written by St Paul, Muslims must admit at least this was done long before Constantine since St Paul lived in the 1st century.

changed the direction of the prayer that `Isa established to the east,

There is no tradition, no information about Jesus instruction people what direction they are to pray in the Bible, we are to assume He prayed facing the Temple as did all Jews at His time due to Solomon establishing it. The custom of praying facing East was known and established 100 years before Constantine:
our being known to turn to the east in prayer.—Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 16, c. AD 200
Praying facing East was a custom of Churches that were never inside the empire of the Romans like Persia, Ethiopia, and India.  Interesting ibn Kathir does not volunteer where Christians prayed facing before that.

built churches for `Isa, and added ten days to the fast as compensation for a sin that he committed, as claimed.

What fast, which fast? No information about the days added, or the sin! Convenient!

So the religion of `Isa became the religion of Constantine, who built more then twelve thousand churches, temples and monasteries for the Christians as well as the city that bears his name, Constantinople (Istanbul).

Temples were just how Christians referred to their church buildings at times, but ibn Kathir makes them sound different. His 12,000 number seems to be an exaggeration, but I cannot prove it.

Throughout this time, the Christians had the upper hand and dominated the Jews. Allah aided them against the Jews because they used to be closer to the truth than the Jews,

Does this make sense at all? Ibn Kathir says what a terrible person Constantine was for intentionally corrupting Christianity and that many Christians already confessed false creeds that he considers idolatry, yet Allah thinks this idolatry is closer to the truth than the non-idolatrous Jews? Christians did not have the upperhand over the Jews until AFTER Constantine.

even though both groups were and still are disbelievers, may Allah's curse descend on them.

Cursing people is an old Muslim pastime, whereas Christian pray for a person to repent and that God drive them to it, Muslims are prone to curse and damn in prayer.

When Allah sent Muhammad , those who believed in him also believed in Allah, His Angels, Books and Messengers in the correct manner. So they were the true followers of every Prophet who came to earth. They believed in the unlettered Prophet , the Final Messenger and the master of all mankind, who called them to believe in the truth in its entirety. This is why they had more right to every Prophet than his own nation, especially those who claim to follow their Prophet's way and religion, yet change and alter his religion. Furthermore, Allah abrogated all the laws that were sent down to the Prophets with the Law He sent Muhammad with, which consists of the true religion that shall never change or be altered until the commencement of the Last Hour

Muslims are proud of Muhammad’s lack of education, and this lack of education is reflected in the Quran.  Interesting that ibn Kathir accuses modern Christianity of being started by Constantine was may have been “plain ignorant” yet when calling Muhammad “unlettered” he does not refer to him as “plain ignorant” when we have more reason for that. The funny thing about this statement is it talks about Muhammad abrogating what other prophets taught, and Muhammad’s own religion does not change—despite much of the Quran being abrogated by other verses in the Quran and by things Muhammad said.

 Muhammad's religion shall always be dominant and victorious over all other religions. This is why Allah allowed Muslims to conquer the eastern and western parts of the world and the kingdoms of the earth. Furthermore, all countries submitted to them; they demolished Kisra (king of Persia) and destroyed the Czar, ridding them of their treasures and spending these treasures for Allah's sake. All this occurred just as their Prophet told them it would, when he conveyed Allah's statement

Muslims did an excellent job of conquering sparsely populated desert lands taking the Middle East and North Africa. Barely making any headway into Europe, they took Spain for hundreds of years only to lose it in the 15th century completely. They took some of the Balkans like Albania, which is now atheist. For a while Europe controlled much of the Middle East, almost all of Africa (except Ethiopia) and other lands, yet the Muslim religion “shall always be dominant and victorious.” Even in our present times the Muslims completely outnumbered the Israelis in war, yet the Israelis won and took some Muslim land! So much for always being dominant and victorious!