Conversation with a Protestant antinomian

The following a rough dialogue with a man I occassionally talk to on Paltalk, I have changed his name to antinomian protestant, I am Berhane Selassie

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Did you know In the year 432 The worship of Mary is instituted. The term "Mother of God" originated at the council of Ephesus and was bestowed upon Mary….(1 Tim 2:5 KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

BerhaneSelassie: tHAT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT

BerhaneSelassie: EPHESUS TOOK PLACE IN aD 431

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: lol

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: FACTUALLLY incorrect?...lol

BerhaneSelassie: THE TERM THEOTOKOS LOOSELY TRANSLATEDION "MOTHER OF GOD" IS FOUND 200 YEARS BEFORE EPHESUS

BerhaneSelassie: 1 TIMOTHY 2;5 IS IRRELEVANT

BerhaneSelassie: ARE ALL PROTESTNTS AS DISHONEST AS YOU?

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Do you know that the Only times you see the term Mother of God that is speaks of the Wicked & Ungodly?

BerhaneSelassie: the term mother of God never appears in the Bible

BerhaneSelassie: te closest is "mother of my Lord" found in Luke 1:43

BerhaneSelassie: which the term "mother of God" is based on

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: That is because ther is no such thing as Mother of God

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: GOD IS ETERNAL

BerhaneSelassie: are you going to admit all of the claims you made were factually wrong?

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: He has NO MOTHER...NO Beginning & NO END

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: no

BerhaneSelassie: or you will you a typical deceptful missionariy mascarading as truth in the name of God?

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: the year 432 The worship of Mary is instituted.

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: FACT

BerhaneSelassie: not true

BerhaneSelassie: council was in 431, and Mary and the saints were already long venerated

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: The RCC Keeps on Changing their doctrines to suit their false beliefs

BerhaneSelassie: not true

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: They are the Nicolaitans of the Bible whom GOD HATES

BerhaneSelassie: since you get all of your facts wrong so far

BerhaneSelassie: why should i believe you when you come with the "gospel"?

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Just like In the year 600 The Latin language was imposed upon the mass by Gregory I….(2 Cor 3:12 KJV) Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

BerhaneSelassie: Nicolaitians were the followers of Deacon Nicolaos in ACts 6:5

BerhaneSelassie: he was the source of a wicked sect---he let men have sex with his wife

BerhaneSelassie: The Latin Mass was long established for 300 years before Gregory

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: "nikao" which means "conqueror" and "laos" which means "people." When the two words are combined, it means "conqueror of the people." ....Or to Rule the Laety

BerhaneSelassie: The Mass was not made into Latin in the west til AD 215

BerhaneSelassie: and it was the lanuage of the people

BerhaneSelassie: even in AD 600

BerhaneSelassie: THats a false definition and ignores the fact that people often have names that means stuff

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: The RCC set up the Pope seat and tried to implement the Apostolic succession which is Totally Unbiblical

BerhaneSelassie: Apostolic sucession is done in the bible, Read Acts 6:5, Acts 13:2-5, 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:5ish

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Never

BerhaneSelassie: it was even done in the OT, the reason why your chruch is false is because it lacks the imposition of hands that derives fromthe apostles

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: The one that really is a hoot is when In the year 998 Fasting on Friday and during Lent was introduced…..(1 Tim 4:3 KJV) 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.

BerhaneSelassie: Some anti hierarchical Protestants like to push the myth that the Catholic Church is the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation 2:

    But you have this in your favor: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.-Revelation 2:6

    Likewise, you also have some people who hold to the teaching of (the) Nicolaitans.-Revelation 2:15

They claim Nicolaitian means "nico" =over, and "laitian"=laity, so they claim Nicolaitan refers to a system when there is a difference between clerics and the laity, a hierarchy. This interpretation is new, it was probably invented by Scofield.

The fact is Nicolaitans is a group named after a man named Nicholas, just a people are called Christians in the Bible. The name Nicolas is a Greek new testament name:

    masc. proper name, from Gk. Nikholaos, lit. "victory-people," from nike "victory" + laos "people."-Etymoline.com

My interlinear explains the name means "conquer people." Could this sect be named after a man named Nicholas? Well there is a Nicolas in Acts 6:5

    The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the Holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.--Acts 6:5

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Before the RCC said you would go to Hell for eating meat on Fridays....Now you don't???

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: lol

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: WOW

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Who are these guys?

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Only ONE Thing can send you to Hell

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Tell your Pope this for me

BerhaneSelassie: καὶ ἤρεσεν ὁ λόγος ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ πλήθους, καὶ ἐξελέξαντο Στέφανον, ἄνδρα πλήρης πίστεως καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου, καὶ Φίλιππον καὶ Πρόχορον καὶ Νικάνορα καὶ Τίμωνα καὶ Παρμενᾶν καὶ Νικόλαον προσήλυτον Ἀντιοχέα,--Acts 6:5

BerhaneSelassie: notice the name there is Νικόλαον

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Rejecting JESUS FULL PAYMENT for ALL your sins apart from your works & the Roman Catholic Church

BerhaneSelassie: its a compound word, nikoand laos---just like Revelation 2

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: If anyone is trusting in ANY Part of the Roman Catholic church as a means of Helping them gain Heaven....They Cannot & WIll NOT Make it.

BerhaneSelassie: STOP JUMPING AROND

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: I pray you see this Berhane & TRUST JESUS ALONE to Save you.

BerhaneSelassie:            ἀλλὰ τοῦτο ἔχεις, ὅτι μισεῖς τὰ ἔργα τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν, ἃ κἀγὼ μισῶ. --rEVELATION 2:6

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: are you beginning to see how religiously deceived these poor Catholic popes are? and How they are leading you to HELL?

BerhaneSelassie: notice the word Νικολαϊτῶν resembles the Νικάνορα of Acts 6:5

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Berhane..... Stop with all the excuses

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: TRUST JESUS

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Not the RCC

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: The Popes and Priests and RCC cannot and will NOT HELP

BerhaneSelassie:  ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: The one that really is a hoot is when In the year 998 Fasting on Friday and during Lent was introduced…..(1 Tim 4:3 KJV) 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.

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: The Sacraments cannot help

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: your good works cannot help

BerhaneSelassie: the problem with this is 1) lent was already long established for 100s of years before this

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: The MASS cannot help

BerhaneSelassie: 2) Christ speaks of his apostles fastng

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: NOTHING but FAITH ALONE IN JESUS ALONE WILL SAVE YOU

BerhaneSelassie: 3) 1 timothy 4 addresses heretics that reject these meats completely, like judaizers

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Berhane......TRADITION will NOT HELP

BerhaneSelassie: a false gospel and false information helps no one--except for you to gain false converts

BerhaneSelassie: Jesus instituted Sacraments, HE even said Baptism saves

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Berhane..... Are you trusting in JESUS FULL PAYMENT For ALL YOUR SINS ALNE To Get you to Heaven....Or is it someone or something else?

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Think about it

BerhaneSelassie: i dont believe in your "full payment" idea, you believe in a wicked penal substitution

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Either your Faith is in CHRIST FULL PAYMENT for ALL your sins on the Cross...... Or it is not

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: Then you will wind up in Hell

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: sadly

BerhaneSelassie: did Jesus pay it in full for me already?

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: because your Sins CANNOT & WILL NOT EVER BE PAID FOR if they have not already

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: ALL YOUR SINS

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: EVERY SINGLE ONE

BerhaneSelassie: then why do i have to so soemthing to be saved?

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: ALL you can do to Have His Full Payment Applied to your account is to BELIEVE HE DID IT FOR YOU... APART from ANY HUMAN EFFORT or Religious Rituals.

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: You don't have to DO anything ....JUST BELIEVE

BerhaneSelassie: wait, so if i dont accept----JEsus paid a payment, and I will have to pay it in hell?

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: When you BELIEVE JESUS PAID IT ALL FOR YOU.... THEN YOU RECEIVE GODS FREE GIFT of ETERNAL LIFE that Moment!

BerhaneSelassie: ok, but if i dont, i wll have to pay the payment in hell?

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: You won't PAY ANthing in Hell.....That is the Consequence of your Rejection of JESUS Payment

BerhaneSelassie: so you changed you theology already since i talked to you before?

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: HELL is the Destination for all those who Reject the Payment Jesus made for them

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: No

BerhaneSelassie: why does Matt 5 say the guard will put you in jail til you PAY the last PENNY?

BerhaneSelassie: Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny. --Matthew 5:26

ANTINOMIAN PROTESTANT: What is the verse you are misunderstanding and thinking speaks of Salvation?

BerhaneSelassie: Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him.q Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. 26Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.

BerhaneSelassie: the context of this is HELL, just look what Jesus says before --you go to hell fo calling "fool" in verse 22, and you go to hell in verse 29 for committing sexual sin

BerhaneSelassie: PRISION IS HELL

Seed of the Woman--Christ & Christians

The purpose of this article is to show a couple of things in Genesis 3:15(16):
1) Christ is the Seed of the Woman
2) All Christians are the Seed of the Woman
3) The Woman is Mary, therefore all Christians are the sons of Mary.
4) The term "seed of the woman" does not refer to the Virgin Birth.

First of all, the text of Genesis 3 concerning the woman and her seed:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'--Genesis 3:16

Now for the Hebrew Text according to the Masoretic Text (notice the word seed, zar'akah, is in red):

וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית, בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ:  הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ, וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב

Here is the Greek Text of the same verse in the Septuagint with the word seed, spermatos, in red:

καὶ ἔχθραν θήσω ἀνὰ μέσον σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν--Genesis 3:15, LXX 

To address claims of corruption concerning the Latin Vulgate, we have it too:

inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius--Genesis 3:15, Latin Vulgate (old, by St Jerome)     

The term "seed" in Genesis 3:15 is written with a singular ending and not the plural, however, this does not prove it is not plural in meaning, since often Hebrew words are singular in form and plural in meaning. Take for instance the word day-- "yom."  The word is singular, the word with a plural ending would be "yommim."  But when the word has a definite number and its over 20 the "im" suffix is not used as in the phrase.  Similar can be seen with the word night--Laylah. This was pointed out to me by a Hebrew professor.

then I abode in the mount forty days יוֹם  and forty nights לַיְלָה..... --Deuteronomy 9:9

וָאֵשֵׁב בָּהָר, אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לַיְלָה

So we see the Hebrew suffix does not REALLY prove a thing when Genesis 3:15's zar'akah does not have a plural ending. This means "seed" here could possibly carry the meaning of "seeds." This point can be shown by looking at similar verses. Notice also, that theses verses refer to a woman and her "seed." So the idea of "the seed of the woman" does not refer to the Virgin Birth at all.

And the angel of the LORD said unto her: 'I will greatly multiply thy seed זַרְעֵךְ, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.-Genesis 16:10

And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her: 'Our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of ten thousands, and let thy seed זַרְעֵךְ possess the gate of those that hate them.'-Genesis 24:60

We see these woman have a "seed," and the word "seeds" is not used, even though the context of them show the woman will have many descendants, not just "one."

In fact, the New Testament accepts the reading that the word "seed" in Genesis 3:15 is plural in meaning as we see in the Book of Revelation:

Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her seed, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.--Revelation 12:17

Notice, it has "the woman" and "her seed." The word for seed here is spermatos, the same word the LXX has above for Genesis 3:15.  The word here is also "singular" though its clear there are multiple children being referred to here.  This is referring to Genesis 3:15, since Revelation 12 also refers to the dragon as the "ancient serpent." This shows the Apostle John accepted the plural reading of Genesis 3:15.  Furthermore, this demonstrates Mary is the woman of Revelation 12, since its generally accepted even among Protestants that she is the woman of Genesis 3:15.  Keeping this in mind, it would not be a surprise that Jesus would refer to His own mother as "woman," especially in St John's Gospel.

As far as the reading that the woman is doing crushing, I inquired a Jewish professor about this--and he confirmed the text of Genesis 3:15 can be read that both the woman and her seed will stomp on the head of the serpent.

In fact, many Protestants like James White and others of his ilk accuse the Vulgate of mistranslating a clear thing in Genesis 3:15, they assert "it clearly says hu, not hi" in the Hebrew text, therefore it cannot be read as "she" but only "he." This argument backfires on them for several reasons 1) it shows their lack of knowledge concerning the Hebrew Bible, especially the Hebrew language, 2) it shows they assume the tradition of the Masoretic texts diacritics (vowel pointings) as being original, which is somewhat ironic, since its from post biblical rabbinical Judaism.

There are some before St Jerome that understood the person to crush the head was to be a "she" like Philo of Alexandria (a Jew that lived in the same time as the New Testament and also wrote in Greek following the LXX), who thought it was the woman's mind.

And the expression, "He shall watch thy head, and thou shalt watch his Heel,"{93}{#ge 3:15.} is, as to its language, a barbarism, but, as to the meaning which is conveyed by it, a correct expression. Why so? It ought to be expressed with respect to the woman: but the woman is not he, but she. What, then, are we to say? From his discourse about the woman he has digressed to her seed and her beginning. Now the beginning of the outward sense is the mind. But the mind is masculine, in respect of which one may say, he, his, and so on. Very correctly, therefore, does God here say to pleasure, that the mind shall watch your principal and predominant doctrine, and you shall watch the traces of the mind itself, and the foundations of the things which are pleasing to it, to which the heel has very naturally been likened. --Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation III

Going back to my points about the Hebrew language and the Masoretic tradition, the Hebrew text did not have the vowel marks until about 1500 years ago, before that in the original Torah there were no vowels, furthermore, in the Torah the modern spelling for the Hebrew word for she is only used 8 times, and only 2 of those are in Genesis. The modern spelling used only 8 times is , הִיא hi, however, the other spelling for the same word is הִוא hi spelled with a vav instead of the yod (which the modern spelling has).  Now, the Hebrew word for the masculine/neuter "he" is the Hebrew word הוּא hu.  This significant since the word for she and he both appear the same in the Torah and were spelled identical since biblical Hebrew does not have the vowel marks, so the word for 'he' (a male) הוּא hu and a 'she' (a female) הִוא hi would both appear with the same letters as הוא.  If you do not believe me, here are a few examples where הוא means "she" and not "he", just a few verses before Genesis 3:15 we read:

 וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם:  הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה עִמָּדִי, הִוא נָתְנָה-לִּי מִן-הָעֵץ וָאֹכֵל.--Genesis 3:12

And the man said: 'The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she [הִוא hi] gave me of the tree, and I did eat.'--Genesis 3:12

 If we were to take away the vowel points, we would not know if הוא refers to a man or a woman, other than from context since it refers to the "woman" and the verb following it is in the feminine "she gave."  This archaic spelling for she is also found in Genesis 3:20, 4:22, 7:2, 10:12, 12:14, 12:18-19, 14:7-8, 19:20, 19:38, 20:2, 20:5 and so on. In total the feminine הוא is used a total of 124 times in 117 verses and ONLY in the Torah. So, if anything its amazing the two times הִיא  appears in the book of Genesis appear at all! So the argument behind Genesis 3:15 being "he" instead of "she" cannot rely on the word at all, but it would have to look at if the masculine or feminine is used in the rest of the sentence.

12th Century English Bible

Here is a Bible in the Vernacular (English) which Protestants tell us did not exist because the "evil Catholic Church" didn't want people learning the Bible.

http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_claudius_b_iv_f001r

Its a translation of the Torah and the Gospels.  Notice the excellent drawings.

Nephilim, the Sons of God, Church Fathers: Angels or Men?

Update: I made a youtube video on this topic, its more in depth than this article

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was brought up in Paltalk that the ante Nicene Fathers believed the "sons of God" referred to fallen angels in Genesis 6.  This is mostly true, especially in the case of Tertullian. However, not ALL of them believed the sons of God were angels.  For example, we have Sextus Julius Africanus who was a contemporary of Tertullian, unlike Tertullian he was familiar with the Biblical languages even Hebrew.

He is Julius' commentary on Genesis 6:

When men multiplied on the earth, the angels of heaven came together with the daughters of men. In some copies I found "the sons of God." What is meant by the Spirit, in my opinion, is that the descendants of Seth are called the sons of God on account of the righteous men and patriarchs who have sprung from him, even down to the Saviour Himself; but that the descendants of Cain are named the seed of men, as having nothing divine in them, on account of the wickedness of their race and the inequality of their nature, being a mixed people, and having stirred the indignation of God. But if it is thought that these refer to angels, we must take them to be those who deal with magic and jugglery, who taught the women the motions of the stars and the knowledge of things celestial, by whose power they conceived the giants as their children, by whom wickedness came to its height on the earth, until God decreed that the whole race of the living should perish in their impiety by the deluge.--Fragment 2, Extant Works of Julius Africanus

 We see here that he follows in line with the standard interpretation of today, that the Sons of God are the Sons of Seth, and the daughters of men are from Cain.

St Ephraim the Syrian writing in the late 4th century says similar in regard to Genesis 6, this is important since St Ephraim's reading of the Scriptures follows traditional rabbinical reading, even at that time there were some rabbis that held to this interpretation, though even in Judaism the predominant reading was "sons of God" referred to the angels. 

"He called the sons of Seth sons of God, those who, like sons of Seth, had been called "the righteous people of God." The beautiful daughters of men whom they saw were the daughters of Cain who adorned themselves and became a snare to the eyes of the sons of Seth. Then Moses, said, they took to wife such of them as they chose, because when they took them, they acted very haughtily over those whom they chose. A poor one would exalt himself over the wife of a rich man and an old man would sin with the one who was young. The ugliest of all would act arrogantly over the most beautiful.....The mighty men who were born were born to the feeble tribe of Cain and not to the mighty tribe of Seth. The house of Cain, because the earth had been cursed so as not to give them its strength, produced small harvests, deprived of its strength, just as it is today that some seeds, fruits, and grasses give strength and some do not. Because, at that time, they were cursed and sons of the cursed and were dwelling in the land of curses, they would gather and eat produced that lacked nutrition, and those who ate these were without strength just like the food that they ate. As for the Sethites, on the other hand, because they were the descendants of the blessed and were dwelling in the land along the boundary of the fence of Paradise, their produce was abundant and full of strength. So too were the bodies of those that ate that produce strong and powerful....After Moses spoke about the mighty men who were born into the tribe of Cain, whose women, even though beautiful, were nevertheless smaller than the sons of Seth...--Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Genesis page 135-136

Regardless how many early Christians read sons of God as the sons of Seth, is irrelevant, my point is simply to established that the Seth interpretation was not a post Nicene invention, but rather a preexistent, though less favored interpretation.

Addendum:

Taking the view of fallen angels mating with humans can be problematic for other areas of theology. For instance, Christ when He resurrected and appeared to His disciples clarified He isn't a ghost, literally 'spirit.'

being amazed, and becoming frightened, they were thinking themselves to see a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do reasonings come up in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that I am He; handle Me and see, because **a spirit does not have flesh and bones** as you see Me having.” --Luke 24:37-39

As you see, Christ says a ghost/spirit doesn't have flesh and bone. Angels are simply a type of spirit, demons are just fallen angels, nothing suggests they acquired a body, in fact the gospels show the closest they do is possess human bodies like a virus since it doesn't have it's own body.

If spirits such as angels do have flesh and bone, then this makes Christ a liar and falsified the Gospel's reasoning why Christ is not a ghost, which per 1 Corinthians 15 means the faith is in vain and we remains in our sins.

Likewise, it contradicts Christ's statement that angels do not marry.

Before the 7th Day Adventists said Jesus is Michael-Baptists did

Today, there are only two prominent Protestant sects that claim Jesus is Michael--the Jehovah Witness and the Seventh Day Adventists.  The JW's seeming to have had their beginnings in the SDA.  Concerning their Jesus is Michael doctrine, I first got informed of this from reading an article on articulifidei about a years ago. I have found more on Baptists teaching this.  In fact, Miller, who was a forerunner to the Adventists and really started the whole End of the World craze--was a Baptist and published his stuff in Baptist magazines. But anyway, here is the writings of a 18th century Reformed Baptist commentary, John Gill, of course reformed is just fancy talk for Calvinist (as it tends to be), the only real difference between a reformed baptist and a Calvinist is a reformed baptist tends to reject infant baptism. Anyway, John Gill, long before the Seventh Day Adventists and their barell of heresies, conspiracy theories, slander and misinformation said this:

Michael and his angels fought against the dragon:
by whom is meant not a created angel, with whom his name does not agree, it signifying "who is as God"; nor does it appear that there is anyone created angel that presides over the rest, and has them at his command; though the Jews seem to imagine as if the angels were ranged under several heads and governors, of whom they make Michael to be one; --John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, Revelation 12:7

And at that time shall Michael stand up
The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; who is as God, as the name signifies, truly and really God, and equal in nature, power, and glory, to his divine Father: "he shall stand up"; which is not to be understood of his incarnation, or manifestation in the flesh, for this refers to times long after that; yet neither of his personal appearance in the clouds of heaven, and standing upon the earth in the latter day; but of his spiritual presence among his people, and protection of them, and continuance with them: this respects the spiritual reigns of Christ, the Lamb's standing upon Mount Zion, and the 144,000 with him, ( Revelation 14:1 ) , and this will be at that time, when the eastern antichrist, the Turk, will be destroyed; for the words are closely connected with the last verse of the preceding chapter; and when also the western antichrist, the pope of Rome, will come to his end; for, as they rose, so they will fall, much about the same time; and then Christ will rise and stand up, as the glorious Head of the church, and as a triumphant Conqueror over all his enemies, and take to himself his great power, and reign, and that kingdom which of right belongs to him. The great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people;-John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, Daniel 12:1

Ofcourse, Gill could not end his heresies with his belief in limited atonement, or confusing an Archangel for the Lord, he had to also claim the Pope is the antichrist (of the west). 

We also see another Calvinist work--the Genevah study bible calling Michael Jesus/God:

(i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels.--Daniel 10:13 Geneva study bible

Regardless, Calvinists and Baptists tend to have an adverse reaction when show this doctrine was taught by a Reformed Calvinist long before people like Ellen G White or Charles Russell.

My Youtube videos!

I have converted some of my articles to youtube videos that I personally read and sometimes elaborate on. Also, I included videos of things I have not covered on this blog.  I have a few videos on Islam and the early Christians, too.

http://www.youtube.com/user/OrthodoxCatholic1

Matt Slick's Jesus is a cheater

A few weeks ago I was debating Matt Slick and other antiCatholics (who were Calvinists) about the atonement. I accused the Calvinist Jesus with getting off easy by paying the penalty of multiple eternities (in Hell) of the elects' sin in less than 3 days, Matt Slick answer sounded like Jesus cheated or was dishonest saying, it is due to the communication idiomatio, meaning to him whatever you say of one nature can be said of the other, ie in this case, although he suffered for a finite period as a man, because He is also God, He can have been considered to have suffered forever since God is eternal. (something along these lines) To me this sounds like their Jesus cheated. as if he said "I knew this was only a few hours, but let's call this forever and go to heaven."

But I have to give Matt credit, so far he has been the ONLY Calvinist to explain who Jesus paid the eternal damnation of the elect in a finite period of time--Jesus had to cheat, it is certainly more clever than the standard Calvinist response that "it is a mystery, God has not given this informtion to us." I have also contacted catholicnick on this matter, seeing as how he enjoys discussing the Calvinist atonement.

The word Judaizing

Some people that believe in keeping aspects of Mosaic law object to the term "Judaizer" or "Judaizing" saying it a made up term, and that its only used by Law (Torah) breakers.

However, the term Judazing is used in the New Testament, in fact, by St Paul himself

But when I saw that they were not straight forward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews [Ioudaizein]?-Galatians 2:14

Ἀλλ' ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον, τῷ Πέτρῳ ἔμπροσθεν πὰντων, Εἰ σύ, Ἰουδαῖος ὑπὰρχων, ἐθνικῶς ζῇς καὶ οὐκ Ἰουδαϊκῶς, τί τά ἔθνη ἀναγκὰζεις Ἰουδαΐζειν;--Galatians 2:14 


As we can see, St Paul used the word with the meaning "live like a Jew."  Sabbath keeping is never pushed by Apostles in the New Testament, it was only obligatory until Christ's death, and was tolerated afterwards in the New Testament as part of the transition period for the Jews accustomed to keeping the 7th day sabbath.

Protestant and the Pope's sheep

Today, a Protestant objected to the idea that the Pope can have spiritual sheep, saying that Christ is the shepherd. 

However, the fact is many Protestants, if not most, call their clergy "shepherd," since the word "pastor" is a synonym for shepherd.

pastor (n.)

mid-13c., "shepherd," also "spiritual guide, shepherd of souls" (late 14c.), from O.Fr. pastur "herdsman, shepherd" (12c.), from L. pastorem (nom. pastor) "shepherd," from pastus, pp. of pascere "to lead to pasture, graze," from PIE base *pa- "to tend, keep, pasture, feed, guard" (see food). The spiritual sense was in Church Latin (cf. Gregory's "Cura Pastoralis"). The verb in the Christian sense is from 1872.

People in the Church are called Shepherds (pastors):

And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors [poimenas] and doctors,--Ephesians 4:11

The Lord commands St Peter to be a Shepherd here:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”  He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep.--John 21:15-17

Obviously, Jesus is using a  metaphor of a shepherd here, telling St Peter to feed His lamb, tend His sheep, and to feed His sheep.  So, it is clear St Peter is being called to be a shepherd.  It seems to be even more so by the Greek word used by Jesus verse 16 (the second of the three blessings) the word for "tend" is the word poimaine Ποίμαινε, which has the same root as the word for shepherd in Ephesians 4:11, Jesus was literally saying "shepherd my flock."

St Peter commands his fellow clerics to be shepherds too.

Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind-1 Peter 5:2 KJV

The word the KJV translates as feed here is again the Greek for for shepherding, poimanate ποιμάνατε.  Meaning, St Peter is commanding them to shepherd.

Two verses later St Peter then calls Christ the Chief Shepherd, now wouldn't this imply that there would be lesser shepherds?

Conclusion: There is no reason to object to the Pope using a title of shepherd, since St Paul used the term for men in the Church (Ephesians 4:11 ie pastors), the Lord Jesus applied it to St Peter John 21:16, and St Peter applied it to clerics (1 Peter 5:2)

Catechism and Muslims salvation

I have heard many anti-Catholics say that the Catechism says "Muslims are saved!" Then they "prove" it with this CCC quote

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

I always wonder how this says Muslims are saved! All it does say is that the "plan of salvation" includes the Muslims. That just means God wants to save Muslims too, in fact God wants EVERYONE to be saved. The only people that should object to this are Calvinists because of their limited atonement doctrine.  This does NOT mean Muslims are saved or will be saved, it just means God WANTS everyone to be saved, the issue of Muslims actually being saved is not the issue of this paragraph at all.

The Catechism shortly after this paragraph states God wills all men be saved:

Missionary motivation. It is from God's love for all men that the Church in every age receives both the obligation and the vigor of her missionary dynamism, "for the love of Christ urges us on."³⁴³ Indeed, God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth";³⁴⁴ that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God's universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary. --Catechism of the Catholic Church 851

Notice the term "plan of salvation" is used here for EVERYONE too? Does this mean everyone is saved? Certainly not, otherwise evangelism is pointless. The only ones I can imagine that would object to the term "plan of salvation" would be Calvinists who believe God only wants a few people saved.

Each Shall die for his own sin

Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. -Deuteronomy 24:16

The idea that Christ died as if He commited our sin violates the Biblical teaching that each man be put to death for his OWN sins.  This verse, however, seems to only apply to adults, since young children in the Bible are put to death, or killed, because of their parents sins, as in the case of David's son, or the nations God commanded the Israelites to destroys.  Regardless, Christ could not have been put to death for the sins of others (at least justly!). Rather, Christ willingly laid down His own life for the sake of others, not that He should die as their substitute, but that by His righteous death, God would show mercy to mankind, thus allowing man forgiveness on the condition they repent of their sins.  After all, Christ did make several warning statements that certain sins would cause the soul to go to Hell forever, as we see in Matthew 5 with sexual sins, Matthew 6 with withholding forgiving your brother's sins and so on.

On another point, Deuteronomy 24:16 is a verse anti/counter-Missionary Jews use against Christians.  Their claim is legitimate, but only against baptistic and Calvinistic types of Christians that espouse this particular view of the atonement that says "Christ died in our place" or "He took the wrath of God in our place" and so on.  Rather, the Biblical Christ was a propitiation for the sins of the world, meaning His death provided MERCY for mankind. 

I have already written before that the idea of a penal substitution when logically followed out is a denial of Trinitarianism, or can be an affirmation of a sort of Arianism (since God cannot be forsaken by God), or some form of theology where Christ as a man and Christ as God are divorced (undoing the incarnation).

Calvinists try to prove a penaly substitution with verses like 2 Corinthians 5:21, or Isaiah 53 and so on.  When the fact is 2 Corinthians 5:21 by saying Christ "became sin for us" is an expression St Paul was using for a sin offering, and Isaiah 53 doesn't mean God treated Christ as if He had our sins, in fact Matthew 8:17 interprets this part of Isaiah as Jesus healing the sick and casting out demons:

When it was evening, they brought him many who were possessed by demons, and he drove out the spirits by a word and cured all the sick, to fulfill what had been said by Isaiah the prophet: “He took away our infirmities and bore our diseases.”--Matthew 8:16-17

Was the Levitical Priesthood Eternal?

Many people that subscribe to a group, or belief system that state the laws of the Torah of Moses are still in effect because they were declared to be "eternal," several times in the Torah and ought to be kept by Christians (or atleast Christians of Jewish Ancestry) have no problem admitting that the Levitical Priesthood was changed and abolished because of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

However, the Old Testament itself DOES call the Levitical priesthood "eternal," as we can see here with the incident of Phineas slaying the Israelite and the Midian woman.

וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו, בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם--תַּחַת, אֲשֶׁר קִנֵּא לֵאלֹהָיו, וַיְכַפֵּר, עַל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

and it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.' -Numbers 25:13

As we can see the priesthood is here refered to as כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם k'hunnat olam (kehunat olam).

After doing some searching I then found that the priesthood is described as eternal elsewhere too

וּמָשַׁחְתָּ אֹתָם, כַּאֲשֶׁר מָשַׁחְתָּ אֶת-אֲבִיהֶם, וְכִהֲנוּ, לִי; וְהָיְתָה לִהְיֹת לָהֶם מָשְׁחָתָם, לִכְהֻנַּת עוֹלָם--לְדֹרֹתָם.

And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto Me in the priest's office; and their anointing shall be to them for an everlasting priesthood [lich'hunnat olam] throughout their generations.' -Exodus 40:15

God said He would have His Eyes and Heart in the Temple FOREVER:

וְעַתָּה, בָּחַרְתִּי וְהִקְדַּשְׁתִּי אֶת-הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה, לִהְיוֹת-שְׁמִי שָׁם, עַד-עוֹלָם; וְהָיוּ עֵינַי וְלִבִּי שָׁם, כָּל-הַיָּמִים

 And now, I have chosen and consecrated this House that My name be there forever [ad-olam, עַד-עוֹלָם ], and My eyes and heart will be there at all times.--2 Chronicles 7:16

Now, how could He dwell there literally forever if there was  no temple for years at a time, and even today there has been no Temple for over 1900 years! God knew the future, "forever" just means for a long time!

Lamentation 3:6 in just about EVERY bible translation translate OLAM as "long"

בְּמַחֲשַׁכִּים הוֹשִׁיבַנִי, כְּמֵתֵי עוֹלָם

He hath made me to dwell in dark places, as those that have been long [olam, עוֹלָם] dead.

Psalm 143:3, similarly translates OLAM as "long"

הוֹשִׁבַנִי בְמַחֲשַׁכִּים,    כְּמֵתֵי עוֹלָם.

he hath made me to dwell in darkness, as those that have been long [olam, עוֹלָם ] dead.--Psalm 143:3

It is also interesting to note that King David said only the Levites were to carry the ark and serve before God 'forever'.

אָז, אָמַר דָּוִיד, לֹא לָשֵׂאת אֶת-אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים, כִּי אִם-הַלְוִיִּם:  כִּי-בָם בָּחַר יְהוָה, לָשֵׂאת אֶת-אֲרוֹן יְהוָה וּלְשָׁרְתוֹ--עַד-עוֹלָם.

Then David said, "It is not proper to carry the Ark of God except the Levites, for the Lord chose them to carry the Ark of God and to serve Him forever [olam]. "-1 Chronicles 15:2

So, even though, the Torah refers to the priesthood as being for "olam" this was not understood by the New Testament writers to mean it would never be abolished, as we see in Hebrews 7

When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well. --Hebrews 7:12

So, as we can see, since the Levitical priesthood of the Old Covenant was abolished as the book of Hebrews tells us, and the fact that the Levites no longer "serve" God forever, that olam, does not necessarily have to mean literally FOREVER.

Jesus is NOT the Holy Spirit

We know Jesus is not the Holy Spirit because:

"Filled with the Holy Spirit, Jesus returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the desert"-Luke 4:1

If the Holy Spirit is Jesus, why does this verse mention the Spirit filled Him?  Did Jesus fill Himself?

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.--John 14:16-17

 Why does Jesus speak of having the Father sending ANOTHER if Jesus IS the Holy Spirit?

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit--Matthew 28:19

If Jesus IS the Holy Spirit, why does He mention It separately in such a way? As if the verse said, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Son."

I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say: Come. And he that heareth, let him say: Come. And he that thirsteth, let him come: and he that will, let him take the water of life, freely.-Revelation 22:16-17

IF Jesus is the Spirit, why does Jesus speak, then it goes on to say the Spirit speaks?

One more reason I am not a Calvinist or an OSASer

The Scripture reads

There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.-2 Peter 2:1

Notice it clearly says the Lord "bought" or "ransomed" the false teachers who are going to Hell, thus not everyone Jesus died for will go to Heaven no matter what.

Here is the link to a Calvinist's response

It's really long winded and repetitive, scroll down to the last paragraph to get his answer to the text. Dr McMahon sums it up with the following: 

So to summarize the point here: false teachers are “saying” they are Christians, and “saying” they have been bought, but in fact are not bought at all. “Denying the sovereign Lord who bought them” is what they are saying about their lifestyle, though it is not true from the rest of the immediate context of the passage. The word “bought” means they are either saved (which we know false teachers are not saved so that cannot be the meaning of the passage) or they are “saying” they “they believe themselves to be saved” and ultimately are self-deceived. But it cannot mean that Christ bought them with His blood, and they reject that “offer” to eternal life.

Essentially, what he does is change the text from

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

to

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who THEY FALSELY CLAIMED bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

This seems to be the only theologically feasible answer to this text from his theological bias, in other words he knows it's not possible to lose salvation and he knows that Christ only died for the elect, therefore he knows the text cannot deny those two things since he knows his Reformed interpretation of Scripture is true.

Most Calvinists believe all those bought/ "paid for" by Christ are saved and will go to heaven no matter what.  This is negated by 2 Peter 2:1.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.-(2 Peter 2:1 ESV)

We see the Holy Scriptures telling us some people were bought by Christ, yet still go to Hell (swift destruction).   So, obviously, the penal substitution / Calvinistic / Reformed (and sometimes "evangelical") version of the atonement is FALSE.

This article was adapted from my post to catholic.com forum made a while ago