Monday, February 26, 2018

A Member Reminder...


Church Member Bill of Rights

The following are basic human, religious and spiritual rights any person has as a member of any and all religious organizations or church congregations.  
You have the right to expect the church to keep your personal contributions private and should be able to expect that any who deal with such things for accounting purposes will do the same.
You have the right to expect that your membership in any church or congregation is not contingent on how much you give or do not give.
You should also expect that jobs, positions, opportunities or offices are not given based on the amount anyone gives to the church.
You have the right to say I can only give this even if it is not a tithe of your income gross or net.
You have the right not to be spiritually judged or have your loyalty or sincerity questioned based on what you are able or unable to give financially to the church.
You have the right to ask a Pastor if he checks tithes and offerings for any of the above reasons before giving to a church.
You have the right to say "I'm tired and won't be there, " to any and all activities, plays, fundraisers, studies, seminars, prayer groups, rehearsals, practices and sermons.
You have the right to say "I don't care about that."
You have the right to question the advice, counsel or sermon of any minister, elder, deacon or any other person in authority.
You have the right to question authority and to still expect to be allowed to attend your church.
You have the right to question a minister who declares himself one or both of the Two Witnesses of Revelation, a Prophet, the Supreme Watcher of Mankind for God, The Only True Apostle in this Age and any other title or position he can come up with to impress you as to why you need to support him.
You have the right to suggest a pastor get spiritual or psychological help should the need arise. You have the right tell him that the congregation is noticing a trend here.
You have the right to ask why the church believes what it does when the Bible might say otherwise, or why the Bible says something that the church practices that seems scary, weird, inappropriate for this time, out of date or controlling.
You have the right to notice that ministers often quote scriptures out of context 
You have the right to ask all the "how can that be," "how could that happen," "why does it say this here and that there," questions you can come up and expect an intelligent answer. If you are told that you are using human reasoning, ask the pastor what kind of reasoning he uses. If he says "God's," find another church.
You have the right to not want elders, deacons or your friends accompanying the minister on visits to your home to talk to you.
You have the right to discuss or not discuss your life with the minister as you see fit.
You have the right to expect absolute confidentiality and for your story not to show up in the sermon next week, even though "I won't say the name."
You have a right to be called ahead of time when the pastor wants to ask about stopping over.
You have the right, when he calls to say, "I'm tired," "I'm busy," "No, but I appreciate the call," without repercussions.
You have the right to keep a dirty home, grass not mowed perfectly, an older car, red in color and kids that don't say "yes sir, nice to see you sir," in just the right way.
You have the right to watch and read what you wish even if the pastor just got done bashing that particular program, movie or book from the pulpit in his sermon on "Demons in Your Home--Six Ways to Assure Your Eternal Death."
You have the right to ask the pastor not to call on you at work, even if you own the business.
You have the right to say, "I can't afford to take you to lunch." "I can't afford to give you free wood or brick." "I can't afford to fix your house up free," "I can't fix all your teeth," to your pastor should he expect professional courtesies, even if he offers to do your funeral free.
You have a right to expect free use of your church for weddings and funerals.
You have the right to expect these usages are not dependent on you, your parents or children living a sinless life six months prior to the date of the event.
You have the right not to answer questions your pastor may ask you or your children about your sexual practices. If he insists, then insist that you all share together.
You have the right to not let the pastor inform you as to who you can and cannot date or marry.
You have the right to enjoy your sexuality free of church or pastoral approval. Something that is wrong for the pastor is not necessarily wrong for you in how you express yourself to your partner. There is no Bible prohibition against....well you know. And if there were, you'd have the right to disagree with that too.
You have the right to not share which or if you are taking medications or treatment of any sort with the pastor.
You have the right to take such medication and receive said treatment and not be judged as having a lack of faith or trust in God to heal you.
You have the right to seek professional help without informing your Pastor of the nature of the help and you have the right to not be helped solely by the pastor under threat of repercussions.
You have the right to insist the pastor get professional help should the need arise and the man is causing more harm than good. You have the right to remind him that God does not directly speak to him nor express His will only through the mind of the pastor and that makes you uncomfortable if he thinks that is so.
You have the right to be wrong about a many things.
You have the right to believe you are correct about many things without repercussions. 
You have the right not to care about everything that others think you must care about to be a good Christian.
You have the right to tell the pastor he is wrong, mistaken or exaggerating.
You have the right to dress as you wish, wear the jewelry you wish and make up you wish or not wish without being labeled a whore or a goody goody.
You have the right to feel that dressing as if it was still 1957 and only watching Disney Movies or How the West Was Won as proof of your pureness is baloney.
You have the right to not be told that the best times for entertainment, movies and TV was when the Pastor was a boy.
You have the right to like the food he does not like and to not like the foods he does. You have the right to like the schools he doesn't and not like the ones he does.
You have the right not to bear your soul to the ministers wife.
You have the right to like or not like, agree or not agree with the ministers wife.
You have the right to not view the world through the pastor's eyes morally or politically. You have the right to hate the war while he believes the war in Iraq is God's will and thinks it's all in the Bible.
You have the right to expect him to speak clearly where he thinks the Bible speaks for us today and to walk slowly and drink cool water where it doesn't.
You have the right to tell the pastor that that is his opinion and not necessarily the only true opinion on earth.
You have the right for you, your children, your partner and your friends to be themselves.
These are but a few of the rights any member of any Church, congregation or religious organization has. In short, you have the right to not be required to check your brains, your insights, your perspectives and your free will at the door to be welcome and a member of any church.

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a silly list.

Most churches, not just the ACOGs, function on the premise that when you join their church you voluntarily waive some of those "rights" in order to receive the "benefits" the church offers, such as "salvation" (aka "pie in the sky, by and by, when you die, but pay and obey the church NOW!"). The same could be said about workplaces or families. Someone who insisted on all of those "rights" would become very lonely, vey quickly.

Percy K. Euttodd said...

"Church member...rights" LOL. There's an oxymoron for ya.

Anonymous said...

There is a scripture that says no man can snatch you from your Father's hands. That means abusive jerks in the ministry can't separate you from God. Once you realize this you can walk away from them.

Anonymous said...

You have the right to expose atrocities committed by the Allies without being called reprehensible, Adolf, or an evil supporter of the Beast Power.

True Bread said...

I knew this was written by Dennis after I read the first sentence.....you need help dude.



T

DennisCDiehl said...

Someone who insisted on all of those "rights" would become very lonely, vey quickly.

That's the point. And they'd thank themselves for not letting others mind their business for them in areas that are actually matters of choice and personal preference. The church leader/minister types are so used to being able to mind the business of others and make the rules of engagement they have forgotten the basics of what is their business at times and what is not ever. IMHO

These may be "silly" expectations to you, but then you may be used to giving up your power to others

DennisCDiehl said...

...but I know what you mean. Pull these babies out on the local minister or grand leader and duck.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the list Dennis. That such rights are considered 'silly' is to be expected. Constantly violating these rights twists peoples sense of normalcy, such that they feel that they are doing nothing wrong.

Your list are natural God given rights, but people like 6.06 PM have grown accustomed to 'cheating,' hence the hostility.
Also what redneck 6.06PM is hiding is that he/she is religious about their own rights being respected. It is not 'we all have no rights' but rather 'you have no rights, but I have all rights.' It's a monstrous double standard.

That you would quickly be lonely if you assert these rights has some truth. Some people are not interested in you unless they can abuse you. But should one be in such a 'relationship?'

My observation is that the long term benefits of being a member of any group is zero or negative. Short term people can benefit, but not long term.

Byker Bob said...

Now, if only we could get church leaders to recognize these as being self-evident, inalienable rights, as exemplified by similar rights enumerated in the founding documents of our country!

They wouldn’t do this. It checks and/or removes their power, which is most likely their entire raison d’etre!

BB

Anonymous said...

PS
One qualification about the value of group membership. Alexis de Tocqueville in his famous 'Democracy in America' noted that America was a nation of associations. There were associates for a multitude of purposes. However those were better times. It wasn't the end time 'perilous times will come..' generation.

Anonymous said...

Thankfully, the church I attend (Presbyterian) doesn't poke it's nose in the private affairs of each member of the congregation.

Anonymous said...

I didn't realize how screwed up and utterly dysfunctional my life was in Armstrongism until I left and joined a "worldly" church.

My new church, which Armstrongites would look down upon, is so loving and NORMAL.

I was at my ACOGs headquarters for over a decade so maybe I experienced the worst of it (although I always thought being at HQs should have made it BETTER not worse).

People in the world are so much kinder, considerate and more loving than people in these ACOGs.

Praise my loving Father for opening my eyes and bringing me out of that brood of vipers.

DennisCDiehl said...

True Bread said...
I knew this was written by Dennis after I read the first sentence.....you need help dude.

Normally TB, I resist responding to personal digs and I can't find a first sentence that could provoke you, or anyone in one, but here goes.

"I knew this was given True Bread after the opening line of his program where he said "This is True Dead, I mean Bread." I've watched your YouTube sermons...you need help "dude."

I have always taught younger therapeutic massage students not to refer to adults as "dude" as it reflected a unprofessional relationship and the client would probably disappear.

Gordon Feil said...

You have the right to tell him that.

Gordon Feil said...

"You have the right to question a minister who declares himself one or both of the Two Witnesses of Revelation, a Prophet, the Supreme Watcher of Mankind for God, The Only True Apostle in this Age and any other title or position he can come up with to impress you as to why you need to support him."

That's not a right. It's a duty, as are some of the other rights.

Connie Schmidt said...

Control is based on need.

You will always diminish your rights by conceding to "need".

If you want to maintain your rights, then learn to only "need" Jesus , and count everything else coming from religion as either supplemental or superfluous.

Near_Earth_Object said...

If you believe that the source of salvation is somehow in certain human agents, you are literally prostrate in terror before these agents. And the human agents can treat you with all kinds of indignity and you do not have a Bill of Rights but a Bill of Fears.

The beginning point of this fear and mistreatment is theological. Herbert and his minions were quick to tell us that the only way to salvation was through Herbert's concocted Millerite church. Once again, this is an example of a pelagianistic, Jesus Plus Cult in which the blood of Christ is inadequate and must be supplemented by the correct church membership. And it conflates the Invisible Body of Christ with a humanly organized denomination.

Jim Jones did the same thing to his people. Vernon Howell did the same thing to his people. It is a tired story.

The greatest desire that men have is not for drugs, sex, wealth and other hedonistic indulgences but control of other men's minds. Look at history.

Percy K. Euttodd said...

Anon6:06PM wrote:
"What a silly list."

Sounds like something an abusive person, or else someone who has never known anything other than abuse, would say. "What? You? Have rights? How silly!" Or perhaps, "What? Me? Have rights? How silly!"

Anon6:06PM wrote:
"Someone who insisted on all of those "rights" would become very lonely, vey quickly."

Perhaps Anon6:06PM could give us a few of the line items he finds most unreasonable and objectionable.

My guess is that Anon6:06PM, if he were to even try to identify anything specifically wrong with this list, would be unable to justify it without sounding very silly.

Dennis Diehl said...

I felt Bill of Rights sounded better Than Bill of Duties

Anonymous said...

Not to rain on your bill of rights but I have heard UCG ministry sermons condemning people upholding their rights.

Anonymous said...


PCG Bill of Rights: You have the right to abandon your family members and hang out with old sex perverts instead. You have the right to remain silent about being abused and slandered in the PCG.

RCG Bill of Rights: You have the right to change your major doctrinal beliefs as often as Dave tells you to--no more and no less. You have the right, and the duty, to hand over everything you own to Dave.

COG-PKG Bill of Rights: You have the right to read Ron's prophetic fantasy fiction books, and to financially support his family's lifestyle of travelling, shopping, and dining out.

CCG Bill of Rights: You have the right to listen to a mentally challenged, self-appointed, false prophet. You have the right to look to demon-influenced pagans for answers to prophetic trivia questions.

nck said...

Reading NEO's summary, Budhism suddenly seems the most rational religion to me.

Nck

Anonymous said...

BB
The Founding Feathers didn't have the concept of rights quite right in the declaration of independence. This was because slavery wasn't considered wrong even in the states where it was legally forbidden at that time. So the documents 'all men have certain inalienable rights including the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' should read 'because men have a alienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (the trunk of the moral tree), certain rights (freedoms of action) follow.' as in Dennis's list.
I didn't work this out. It's on certain philosophical sites.

Anonymous said...

12:12, did these sermons explain why Paul was wrong to insist on his rights as a Roman citizen?

Donnie said...

Dennis,

I thought it was a good list for the most part. I think your premise is mostly true. Your list reminds me a little bit of what Jesus was laying down to the Pharisees. I'm certainly not saying you are like Jesus. He did go after them with some fervor. We could probably split hairs on a few. I think that is ok.

I do wonder what the source of the rights might be though.

Byker Bob said...

Or, 1:05, as Dr. Condoleeza Rice, one of my faves has said, “America was born with a couple of birth defects.”

BB

Byker Bob said...

At Ambassador College, one of my dorm mates ebulliently shared the “fact” that at AC we didn’t have rights! We just had privileges.

He was a “Joe-Gung-Ho AC” type, and I certainly expected him to one day become an evangelist, but actually never even saw his name on any of the ministerial lists. Good for him! As an AC student, not being sent into the field can be the ultimate recommendation!

BB

Retired Prof said...

NCK opines that Buddhism seems the most rational religion. I wouldn't know; I never checked out Buddhism in detail. I was never a seeker like some of my friends in college, or like Dennis. So after shaking the dust of Ambassador College off my feet, I had no impulse to find some different religion to fill the void. Armstrongism left no void to fill, any more than a sack of feed I have just put down after carrying it as long as I can hold up leaves a void. It was much more satisfying to construct a worldview of my own, using as building material everything I learned by both study and experience and putting the structure together according to what I considered rational principles.

A few years ago, after I had been operating within my DIY worldview for many years, I fell into conversation with another middle-aged guy at a dedication for a nature reserve. We covered topics relating to how humanity fits into the rest of nature and how individual human beings should behave within that matrix of relationships. After we had been talking for a while, he wondered if I was a Buddhist, like he was.

So if that guy's intuition was right, and if my reasoning brought me to valid conclusions, NCK might be onto something here.

Anonymous said...

12.12 PM
Ministers condemn rights because they believe that they have all rights and others have none. They are very vindictive if any of their own rights are violated. This is a bully trait that is easily discernible in everyday life.

Christ Himself was very assertive. One example, when asked by the Pharisees if He was the Messiah, He asked them whether John was sent by God, and hence refused to answer their question.

It seems that your reference point is 'what the daddy ministers have said.' I remind you that a Christian is one who exercises intellectual independence ('prove all things') and follows Christ. No wonder Dave Pack has succeeded in robbing blind his members.
Ministers condemning rights is the fox talking to the chickens.

Anonymous said...

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

John 10:29.

Anonymous said...

People in the world are so much kinder, considerate and more loving than people in these ACOGs.

Depends on the ACOG and who you are dealing with in the world. Also depends on which ACOG minister you get.

Jack in the bean stock said...

You have the right to question the official version of history.

True Bread said...

Dennis said:

Normally TB, I resist responding to personal digs and I can't find a first sentence that could provoke you, or anyone in one, but here goes.

"I knew this was given True Bread after the opening line of his program where he said "This is True Dead, I mean Bread." I've watched your YouTube sermons...you need help "dude."

I have always taught younger therapeutic massage students not to refer to adults as "dude" as it reflected a unprofessional relationship and the client would probably disappear.

February 27, 2018 at 5:53 AM


Listen up dude...

You and I will NEVER have a professional relationship, unless you have a desire for advanced flight training. YOU are the one tossing around the "personal digs" as you like to insult others who find your diatribes about atheism offensive. I think recently you told me to go watch a Pee Wee Herman movie....classy. So you have no grounds to whine when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine. I quit Banned for a couple of months due to another one of your boorish spewings on atheism and your "Aron Ra" freak videos.

But thanks for watching my bible studies...hope you learned something...and I don't "preach" or give sermons...that's for WCG ministers, sucking wealth out of gullible sincere humans, to do...isn't that how you made your living for 26 years...?? I have never asked for money, or for anyone to follow me. When I give a study, it is basically like ground school for scripture, much like what I do for my aviation students when teaching flight. You clearly do not understand how you come across in your screeds because you do not read them...we do. From what I have read, you sound like you have not given up your mantle of WCG "Pastor" but you try to make us believe you have...Your insults sound EXACTLY like what a WCG "pastor" would say...eg: Dave Pack, who attacked me. I'm reminded of the exodus after reading your insult about "True Dead"....like you can take the Israelite out of Egypt...but you can't take the Egypt out of the Israelite....does that shoe fit....dude...???

I'm sure you thought you were clever after your "True Dead" insult...but you're not insulting me. I call my studies "True Bread" after John 6:32...so basically you are attacking the author of that verse. One day we will see who truly is alive, and who is "dead"...sooner rather than later, I'd imagine given current world events and prophecy...oh wait...you reject prophecy and think Daniel was written last weekend...my bad.

If you're gonna dish it out,dude...you better be ready to take it...



Todd

Dennis Diehl said...

TB. Why after reading the first sentence do you think I need help? What is it about church members having rights that made you think I needed help? Your comment implied this topic proved I was , to you, somewhat defective. Explain your thinking behind your initial comment to me please.

DennisCDiehl said...

I wasn't trying to insult you Todd with "True Dead" I was quoting your introduction to your talk "True Bread: Grace. The Madness of the Worldwide Church of God" where you opened by saying, "This is True Dead...Bread..." Perhaps it was being cheeky but your cryptic crack about "Get help Dude " provoked the counter response of perhaps you also needed help with your presentations. I obviously touched a nerve in you on many topics.

I still maintain that an adult who calls adults "dude" does not help the cause of being taken as seriously as they might wish to be taken.

As I asked in another comment, the initial problem I had was what it was about the first sentence in the posting that told you it was "Dennis" and that I needed to get help. Help with what? A mental exam for posting member rights? Why would posting this provoke you to say I needed "help"?


nck said...

Retired Prof
Thanks for your personal and authentic comment. It seems Budhism involves a lot of introspection, knowing the self, observation of all things natural and common and come to some conclusion on how they are all connected.

All that hipster yoga fashion is just a means of coping with stress invoked by our culture and linear christian thinking process. It's like mental weight lifting or excersise without the philosopy.

If it wasnt for Dr Hoehs involvement at What Thai, I would probably have left wcg at age 15 when I was first exposed to Hermann Hesses musings on Siddhartha. Siddhartha showed that any way to "a good life", nirwana, enlightenment or whatever your definition involved suffering.

When that fact is accepted it becomes clear when others are still attached and therefore suffer.

Am I on to something? Of course I am. As long as people on this blog comment that I hold mutually exclusive viewpoints, contradictory takes on life, appear to be illogical, I KNOW that I am on the right path of discovery. This blog serves that purpose, whereas others are clouded by linear convictions that will perpetuate their suffering. Well perhaps until they encounter that boatman at a dedication of a nature reserve that takes them across the river in which everything is floating, floating, floating.........

(note: I am not a "budhist", I call myself an observer)

Nck

True Bread said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NO2HWA said...

True Bread:

I deleted the post above because it had your phone number on it. I did not think you wanted that spread around. Please feel free to repost the entire message, or I can do it...without the phone number.

Anonymous said...

Since this post is titled 'A Member Reminder...', Ex 20:3 states 'You shall have no other gods before me'. The 'before me' comes from the Hebrew 'al-panaya' which is better translated 'before my face'. Are we coming before our heavenly Father with another god? Isa 43:11 says 'I, even I, am the LORD (YHVH), And besides Me there is no savior'. We were taught before that in Ps 110:1 ('The LORD/YHVH said to my Lord/l'adoni..') the all caps LORD is referring to the Father which is correct. Unfortunately, we were taught incorrectly that the 'Lord' is Adonai and refers to Jesus. Adoni is different from adonai. Adoni refers to a man/human, notice how Jacob addressed Esau in Gen 32:4 (adoni=lord).

Christianity is NOT a monotheistic religion. Although ACOG does not believe in the trinity, it believes in more than one god 'being' which is the same. Trinitarians refer to their belief as mystery of the trinity. It is a mystery even to them.

Which is blasphemy to say, 'Jesus in NOT god' or 'Jesus is god'? Can you prove in the scriptures (Jewish bible according to 2Tim 3:16) the divinity of Jesus?

I'm sorry if this is offensive and hurtful. Truth can be painful. Please study your bible.

DennisCDiehl said...

Anonymous said...
Since this post is titled 'A Member Reminder...', Ex 20:3 states 'You shall have no other gods before me'. The 'before me' comes from the Hebrew 'al-panaya' which is better translated 'before my face'. Are we coming before our heavenly Father with another god?"

Well, that was an interesting Segway! lol. However, I agree. Christianity is hardly monotheistic . And a good read beginning in Genesis with the original Canaanite God El and his Council of the Gods (Elohim) who are the focus of "Let us make man in our image..." thru the evolution of YHVH from a mountain God assigned to Israel ,replacing El is fascinating and hardly monotheistic either.

Deut 32:8-9

When the Most High (’elyôn) gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated humanity, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage."

That this scripture was left in the OT is a miracle in itself. Speaking of Miracles....Members have rights!:)

Anonymous said...

Hi Dennis :)

Please note how Abram qualified El Elyon with YHVH (Gen 14:22) when he spoke to the king of Sodom who was an idolater. Contrast this with Melchizedek using just El Elyon (Gen 14:19-20) when blessing Abram. They, Melchizedek and Abram, worshiped the same God, YHVH El Elyon, no need to identify which one.

Genesis chapter 14
v18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he (Melchizedek) was the priest of God Most High
(El Elyon).
v19 And he (Melchizedek) blessed him and said:
“Blessed be Abram of God Most High (El Elyon), Possessor of heaven and earth;
v20 And blessed be God Most High (El Elyon),
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” And he (Abram?) gave him a tithe of all.
v21 Now the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give me the persons, and take the goods for yourself.”
v22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have raised my hand to the Lord (Yehovah), God Most High (El Elyon),the
Possessor of heaven and earth,
v23 that I will take nothing, from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take anything that is yours, lest you should
say, “I have made Abram rich’—
v24 except only what the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men who went with me: Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre;
let them take their portion.”

Notice also how ambiguous who is giving the tithe, follow the he - him in the verses. Abram said he would not take anything from the king of Sodom. If Abram was the one who gave the tithe, what did he tithe from? If Melchizedek gave the tithe, notice what's the reaction of the king of Sodom in the next verse. He tried to outdo Melchizedek by offering Abram all the goods. It's not unheard of rewarding one who's returning recovered stolen property. It's possible that the tithe was just 10% of the goods Abram was returning to Melchizedek.

YHVH is found more than 6000 times in the Jewish bible (Leningrad Codex) compared with Adonai which is only 601 entries. A ratio of more than 10:1. An average of 6 YHVH entries per OT page. No wonder even ex-pope Benedict wanted catholics to stop using Yehovah or Yahweh in liturgies and just use Lord. Ex 3:14-15 states '...YHVH Elohim ..., This is my name forever and this is my memorial (mention) to all generations'.

Yes, Elohim just means a powerful being in contrast with what HWA (copied from other sects and) taught. Judges and angels were called elohim.

I'm sure you are familiar with these, but for those who are not:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Canaanite_Religion
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cana/hd_cana.htm

Shalom, my friend :)

DennisCDiehl said...

Anon 451 Or is that Fahrenheit 451 heating things up a bit? :)

It's an interesting topic for sure but that there were multiple gods in the Pentateuch promoted by various writers is a fact.

You might enjoy http://contradictionsinthebible.com/are-yahweh-and-el-the-same-god/



Donnie said...

Dennis,

’elyon is the abbreviated form of the divine name El Elyon (God Most High).

Makes me wonder where you learned your poor interpretations and translations of Hebrew literature?

On a side note: I wonder where you and your friend get your notion of how Christians understand the Trinity? Must be from someone like HWA or some other Judizer?

I wonder if you understand the difference between apprehension and comprehension? It's a mystery to me.

Donnie said...

Dennis,

You might enjoy http://contradictionsinthebible.com/are-yahweh-and-el-the-same-god/

You might try reading this:
https://www.nas.org/articles/Ask_a_Scholar_What_Does_YHWH_Elohim_Mean

Ariel Ben Noach said...

I will not discuss the anonymous authorship of the gospels and half of the writings attributed to Paul. I will not speculate on how many decades after Jesus' death was Mark written. Nor will I attempt to identify which part of Mark Matthew and Luke copied and where they got the Q sayings. I will not mention Ehrman's YT videos on how the divinity of Jesus started. Don't watch Carrier's YT videos on Jesus' mythology.

The original Passover was not an atoning sacrifice. Was there laying on of hand(s) like in the Atonement and the Sin Offering? None. Was the entire household protected or just the firstborn? The Passover was specific to the firstborn. Only the author of John/Revelation associates Jesus with the passover lamb. Since Jesus' legs were not broken, he claims this fulfilled the requirement for the lamb. How about the requirement that the lamb should be without blemish? (Let's skip the 1 year old part.) The gospels describe Jesus' body scourged and beaten. Don't forget the fact that he was circumcised which according to Philippians 3:2 a form of mutilation. Now, please don't say that without blemish is a spiritual type. The author of John just used a physical type with the bone not broken. This is the problem with typological prophecy. To what extent is it a type?

Isa 7:14 is about the young woman who is already pregnant. It is not about 'a virgin who will conceive'. How can a conception be a sign? A rainbow is a sign even if it is not a supernatural event.

You don't need blood for the forgiveness of sin. One can offer flour in lieu of animal as trespass sacrifice. There is no sacrifice for intentional sin. Repentance is required.

Can salt lose its flavor? No. Salt is a stable compound. Google it. I wonder if this question has any connection with the permanence of Salt covenants - Lev 2:13. Num 18:19 and 2Chr 13:5.

The author of Hebrews claims God disregarded the nation of Israel. Read Jer 31:32,35-37. Also, he said the Aaronic priesthood was replaced by the priesthood of Melchizedek. Ex 40:15 describes Aaronic priesthood as everlasting or perpetual. Does Ps 110:4 really say 'order of'? The Hebrew word is dibrati from dibrah which means word, spoken, saying ...Check the NRSV margin for alternate reading ('...forever, a rightful king by my edict'). The JPS 1985 has it as '... forever, a rightful king by my decree'. The Septuagint translated dibrati in Ps 110:4 as Greek 'taxin' which the Brenton's translated as 'order'. But other occurrences of 'taxin' were translated as speech, reason, word or call upon. The original Septuagint, Proto-Septuagint, was only the Greek version of the Pentateuch. Do you trust the Greek translation more than the original language?

Was Paul really a disciple of Gamaliel? Read Gamaliel's attitude towards christians (Acts 5:38-39). Also, why would Paul, a pharisee, went to the high priest? Most high priests came from Sadducee families. They controlled the second temple.

Matthew and Luke both have genealogies of Joseph (yes, Luke's is that of Joseph not Mary). Was such an idea going around when Paul admonished christians not to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies (1Tim 1:4).

You can find the above materials and more on the web. Just Google 'counter missionary'. Please understand that the counter missionary work started as a response to the growing effort of fundamentalist christian organizations (including Jews for Jesus, Messianic Jews and other christian groups pretending Jewish) which aggressively target Jews for conversion. The Jews are just defending their language, bible and faith. Anti-semitism is found in the writings of NT, church fathers and reformers.

Dennis Diehl said...

You got it ABN