What Romans 14 Really Means

Romans 14 is often used to justify willfully transgressing God's law concerning food (eating that which God says is not food), the Sabbath (by changing it to Sunday), and the Appointed Times (by replacing them with man-made holidays such as Christmas and Easter).  Romans 14 starts by saying, "Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not to have quarrels over opinions." [Romans 14:1; NASB]  Right away, we can see that Paul is writing about matters of opinion.  That is, about matters that Scripture does not address.  So whatever Paul says we are not to judge others for, we must interpret it in light of the fact that neither Torah, nor Yeshua (Jesus) has addressed it.  Of course, I wouldn't be writing a whole blog post on this if people were actually applying Romans 14 correctly.  And it turns out that, in typical fashion, the vast majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" use this chapter to claim that God's commandments are a matter of opinion.  And this time, they (usually) openly admit that they are saying that these commandments merely matters of opinion.

To further drive the point home, let's take a look at the next verse:  "One person has faith that he may eat all things, but the one who is weak eats only vegetables." [Romans 14:2; NASB]  The issue here is whether one should restrict oneself to eating only vegetables.  And in typical fashion, Paul doesn't give the full cultural context surrounding what it says.  It assumes that the reader knows the cultural context.  So what is the cultural context?  Simple:  In the Greek and Roman markets, some of the meats were sacrificed to idols, and many in the faith did not want to risk accidentally eating meats sacrificed to idols.  What I find interesting is how Paul is actually teaching people to do the opposite of what Daniel and his companions did concerning meats sacrificed to idols [Daniel 1:8:13].  There, Daniel and his companions are praised for refusing to eat meat that might have been sacrificed to idols.  But Paul says this is "weak in faith".  Torah does not prohibit one from eating meats that might have been sacrificed to idols, by the way.  But the fact that God rewarded Daniel and his companions in Daniel 1:8-16 should tell us how much God values going above and beyond what he requires.

Anyways, Romans 14:2 is twisted to justify ignoring God's dietary laws found in Leviticus 11.  Let's assume for a moment that Romans 14:2 is permission to eat pork in spite of God's very clear command not to.  What would that actually imply concerning Paul?  Well, Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 prohibits us from adding to or subtracting from God's commandments.  If the majority interpretation of Romans 14 is correct, then Paul is a false teacher for subtracting from God's commandments.  And they wonder why so many people are convinced that Paul is a false teacher.  Remember, Torah interprets the "New Testament", not the other way around.  Fortunately, since the very first verse of Romans 14 explicitly states that these concern only matters of opinion, Paul is not guilty of false teachings.

The next verse states:  "The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him." [Romans 14:3; NASB]  In other words, the ones who don't concern themselves with the fact that the market meet may have been sacrificed to idols, and the ones who do concern themselves with it, are to get along with each other.  Since the context is in matters of opinion, this applies to all matters not addressed by God's law.  And never applies to matters in which God's law explicitly permits, requires, or prohibits something.  The next verse likens judging others on matters of opinion to judging another person's servant.  In this case, it's God's servant you are judging, whom Paul says will stand, not fail, for God is able to make them stand.

Continuing onto the next verse (Romans 14:5), we read:  "One person values one day over another, another values every day the same. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. [NASB]".  Keeping in mind that Paul cannot subtract from God's law without becoming a false teacher, and that the passage concerns matters of opinion, these days that are or are not being valued over another are not the Sabbath or God's appointed times in Leviticus 23.  So what can they refer to?  How about what days we are to fast on?  That's right, Paul is addressing quarreling over which days are to be set aside for fasting.  By the way, in Luke 18:9-14, Jesus tells a story about two men praying.  One of which, a Pharisee, boasts about his self-righteousness.  And among the boasts is about the fact that he fasts twice a week.  Who told them to fast twice a week?  Certainly not God.  But since the Pharisees make such a big deal about fasting so often, it is not at all a stretch to think that people may have set aside specific days of the week to fast on, while others did not.  It's also not a stretch to conclude that people would quarrel about which days (if any) that one should fast on.  Romans 14:5 is clearly a condemnation of such quarrels.  But it cannot be a condemnation against condemning holidays that God did not appoint to serve God with.  The Israelites learned the hard way what God thinks of human beings appointing holidays on his behalf.  Twice!  By the way, Romans 14:6 proves that Paul is explicitly addressing fast days, as he outright states that the one who eats does so for the Lord, and the one who fasts does so for the Lord.

Romans 14:7-13 drives home the point that we will all give an account to God of ourselves and concludes that, "Therefore let’s not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this: not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s or sister’s way." [Romans 14:13; NASB]  But far be it for those who want to excuse sin to not take this prime opportunity to twist Scripture to do exactly that.  The plain meaning of this text, given the context, is to not judge others for having opinions that differ from yours, not to cause others to sin, not to cause distress to those who have differing opinions from you, and to not compel someone who go against their own conscience when their conscience is not contrary to God's law.  But instead of following Paul's instructions, they weaponize it.

So in what ways do they weaponize Romans 14:13?  First, we need to understand that they weaponize Romans 14:2 and claim that those who obey God's commands to abstain from pork are "weak in faith" while those who are unfaithful to God by willfully disobeying him are "strong in faith".  That alone tells you everything you need to know about where their heart is.  Obedience is labeled as "weak" while rebellion (which is idolatry) is labeled as "strong".  So for Romans 14:13, when is comes to stuff like enforcing unbiblical dress codes on everyone, they will say (for those instances) that men are weak, and that women who don't cover themselves are causing men to stumble.  In other words, they play the weak ones as a way to compel everyone to conform to their human standards.  And it's not just in areas such as "modesty", though that is the most common area that Romans 14:13 is weaponized.

So, when it's convenient for themselves, they condemn being "weak in faith" (while ironically claiming that they aren't condemning "weakness of faith").  And when it's convenient for themselves, they demand that we always conform to those who are "weak in faith" so that we "do not cause them to stumble".  But verses 2 and 13 aren't the only verses in Romans 14 that are weaponized.  We'll get to those in a moment.

In verse 14, the NASB says, "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to the one who thinks something is unclean, to that person it is unclean."  If you read the footnotes, you'll see that the word translated as "unclean" literally means "common".  So the NASB translators admit that they used the wrong word for this passage.  What's the difference?  "Unclean" is the word used by God to declare something as unfit for human consumption.  "Common" is the word used in that day by man to declare something as unfit for human consumption.  I do find it interesting that even then, the Pharisees distinguished between God's rules and their rules by using the word "common" for their own rules.  Otherwise, verse 14 would say something like "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing that God has not declared unclean is unclean in itself; but to the one who thinks something is unclean, to that person it is unclean."  If even the Pharisees didn't dare to conflate their own rules about what to eat or not eat with God's commandments about what to eat and not eat, then why have our translators and teachers done this by changing the very thing they say is literally the "word of God"?

By the way, verse 14 is used to justify eating things that God says we are not to eat, even though this would be a clear violation of the command to not subtract from God's commandments.  Here's how the NASB should have rendered this verse:

"I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is common in itself; but to the one who thinks something is common, to that person it is common."

And we can see from using the correct translation that Paul is not at all saying that God's dietary regulations have been abolished.  Rather, he is saying that we do not have to comply with human rules.

In verses 15 and 16, Paul says "[15] Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. [16] Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil" [NKJV].  These seem like contradictory instructions at first, to not destroy a fellow believer with one's choice of food and to not let that which is good be spoken of as evil.  But there is a hint at the beginning of verse 15:  "Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food..."  Perhaps this is because of what is being served to them.  We need to also keep in mind what was said at the beginning of the chapter:  "The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him" (Romans 14:3; NASB).  It is likely that Paul is instructing us to not compel others to go against their own conscience in matters of opinion.  The specific matters of opinion being addressed here are (a) which days of the week are fast days, and (b) whether one is allowed to eat meat that could have been sacrificed to idols, but one does not know for sure have been sacrificed to idols.

Once again, none of these passages apply to any matter that God explicitly commanded us to do or not to do.  If you do something that God's law forbids, then you sin.  If you do not do something that God's law requires, you also sin.  But if you do something that God's law does not forbid, or do not do something that God's law does not require, then you do not sin.  If two people have opposite opinions on something that God's law neither forbids or requires, then that is when Romans 14 applies.  It is in these cases where Paul is saying that neither person is to judge the other.  And if we take a look at Deuteronomy 4:2 or 12:32, we can see quite clearly that the real sin is adding to and subtracting from God's commandments.  If you require something that God's law does not require, or forbid something that God's law does not forbid, and call that requirement a command of God, then you sin.  Likewise, if you permit that which God's law forbids or make optional that which God's law requires, then you also sin.

Although we aren't quite done with Romans 14, if I were to summarize it, it would be this:  Romans 14 is correcting those who judge others for doing that which is contrary to their own opinion.  We can certainly discuss our opinions and why we have them.  But we should not be elevating them to the same level as God's commandments.  Instead, we should do our best to get along in spite of our differences in opinion.

By the way, Romans 14:17-19 tells us why we should do all of this:  "[17] for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. [18] For the one who serves Christ in this way is acceptable to God and approved by other people. [19] So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another" [NASB].  Our goal is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, not nit-picking on matters of opinion.  While it is clear here that it is wrong to go out of your way to offend those who's opinions differ from your own, it is also clear that it is wrong to compel others to conform to your opinion so that you are never offended.

Romans 14:20 says "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense."  The word translated as "offense" is also translated as "stumbling".  Using what we've learned so far in this chapter, "stumbling" here refers to going against your own conscience, even if what you are doing is permissible according to Torah.  And the next two verses reiterate that point, closing with, "[22] ... Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. [23] But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin." in verse 22-23.

If you approve of something that Torah is silent on, then you shall have no doubts about doing what you approve of.  If you do it with doubt, then you sin.  Not because you have transgressed Torah, but because you have done something contrary to your conscience.  And your conscience serves to keep you from transgressing God's commandments, and to keep you on the path of righteousness.

Some may try to claim that "whatever is not from faith is sin" means that we can do things contrary to Torah, so long as it's done "from faith".  But this line of reasoning quickly falls apart at the slightest bit of scrutiny.  For example, can we lie as long as it's "from faith"?  Can we steal as long as it's "from faith"?  Can we commit adultery as long as it's "from faith"?  If you answer "no" to any of these questions, then you answer "no" to everything that is contrary to Torah.  In fact, the definition of sin is the transgression of Torah (1 John 3:4).

If someone decides they should fast once or twice a week, they do it to the Lord.  And if someone never fasts, they do it to the Lord.  If someone decides to eat only vegetables, they do it to the Lord.  If someone decides to eat meat, they do it to the Lord.  Likewise, the woman who's standards of "dressing modesty" requires them to cover all of their legs, arms, and torso does so to the Lord.  And the woman who's standards of "dressing modestly" permits them leave their legs and arms uncovered, and show cleavage, does so to the Lord.  The one who uses technology on the Sabbath does so to the Lord, as does the one who abstains from using technology on the Sabbath.  The one who plays games on the Sabbath does so to the Lord, as does the one who abstains from playing games on the Sabbath.  And the same rule applies to all matters in which Torah is silent.

The one who is quick to judge and is easily offended should learn to get along and not be easily offended.  The one who seeks to offend others should stop seeking to offend others and learn to accommodate others where the accommodation asked for is reasonable.  And accommodation shall not be demanded outside of any setting that you are not in charge of.  That includes pressuring those who are in charge to demand accommodation.

Kirk Cameron Triggers the Apologetics Industrial Complex

You might have heard by now that a popular minister by the name of Kirk Cameron has abandoned the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment in favor of the Annihilationist view of the Final Judgement.  In doing so, he inadvertently triggered what the YouTuber Idol Killer calls the "Apologetics Industrial Complex" somewhere in this playlist responding to Mike Winger on Penal Substitutionary Atonement.  Anyways, here's the full video that has caused such an uproar among apologists.  I encourage you to test all things (as Paul commanded in 1 Thessalonians 5:21), from what Kirk and his guest says in this video, to your own beliefs, to the responses that Kirk has gotten from those who disagree with him.  Test them all against Scripture.

Now, if you read my blog, you will know exactly what my views are concerning the Final Judgement.  However, the purpose of this post is to point out the kind of response you should expect to get from self-proclaimed "Christians" if you don't hold to every doctrine that the Church (not Scripture) says you are to uphold.  And, to drive home the point, here's a relatively short list of every doctrine that will get this type of response whether its biblical or not:

• The Trinity
• The Deity of Jesus
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• Salvation by Faith Alone
• Scripture Alone
• Biblical Inerrancy/Infallibility
• Christ Alone
• Clothing-Based Modesty (Body-Concealment)
• New Covenant Abolishing Torah (or parts of Torah)
• Eternal Conscious Torment
• Very Broad Definition of Lust
• Sunday Sabbath
• Christmas, Halloween, Easter, etc., not Pagan
• Total Depravity
• Humans Born in Sin
• Monogamy Only

Some of the doctrines listed above are true while others are only partially true or outright false.  But you will get the same type of response regardless if you dare to deny even one of them.  With rare exception, denial of any of these teachings will result in the Apologetics Industrial Complex questioning whether you are actually a Christian, accusing you of compromising or changing the gospel, being "weak in faith", being led by the flesh, invoking the "slippery slope" (among other fear-mongering tactics), or likening you to a cult such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, among other things.

What happens when they quote the Bible to prove what you say is wrong?  Well, they will not listen to any of the passages you quoted in support of your views.  Rather, they will quote passages and simply assert that they "clearly prove you wrong".  They won't even know or care if you already quoted the exact same passage in defense of your view.  To them, the only thing that matters is asserting their own interpretations of Scripture as if the interpretations they assert are what Scripture actually says.  It's not about truth to them, it's about control!

Let's talk a bit about the "slippery slope" that they love invoking so much.  They will assert that if you reject one thing, it'll lead to you rejecting Jesus himself.  This is the pretext that the Apologetics Industrial Complex uses to justify kicking and screaming for every inch of ground regardless of how relevant that ground actually is to the gospel.  It's a fear-mongering tactic used to control the masses, and to pressure the one who has abandoned one of their teachings back into line.  But a little bit of critical thinking goes a long way to defeating these fear-mongering tactics.

First:  There are instances where some have abandoned one or more of the above doctrines who also would later reject their faith.  And the Apologetics Industrial Complex will use these examples to say "the slippery slope is real", but will not examine the details as to why that thing happened.  Again, because this isn't about the truth, but about control.  So why would someone who rejects one of the above doctrines go on to reject the faith altogether?  One reason is that the Apologetics Industrial Complex drove them to it through one of their tactics mentioned above (such as likening that person to a cult).  It's really quite simple:  The person in question wanted a reasoned argument for returning to the one item he rejected, but instead got vitriol, and errantly concluded that there is no rational defense for any of the teachings that he holds to.

A second reason why someone might abandon the faith after abandoning one or more of the above doctrines is due to deception.  The adversary is opportunistic, and someone who lacks discernment will very easily be led astray after learning that one of the things they believed was a lie.  This is especially true if they learn that several things that they were taught were actually lies.  And the more a person who lacks discernment learns about his beliefs being lies, the more likely that person is to be deceived into thinking that the faith itself is a lie.  Of course, the Apologetics Industrial Complex has no interest in teaching discernment.  In fact, they seem to be interested in shutting it down.  And yes, I am accusing mainstream apologetics ministries of deliberately creating the conditions necessary for someone to be easily deceived into abandoning the faith.  Basically, if you are unwilling to be their puppet, especially if you've been towing the line like a champion, then they want you to lose your salvation.

By the way, if you are ever reading Scripture and something doesn't seem to be lining up, you should by no means suppress that feeling.  Rather, you should investigate the matter carefully with Scripture.  For such a feeling is usually an indication that what you were taught is actually contrary to what you are reading in Scripture.  You should also pray for discernment and wisdom so that you will not be led astray in your search for the truth.  Do not assume that what you've been taught is a lie, and do not assume that what you've been taught is the truth.  But test it against Scripture, ask for answers to the questions that you have (testing those against Scripture too), and decide for yourself what you believe rather than relying on others to tell you what to believe.

Kirk Cameron should certainly stick by his convictions and not allow himself to be pressured into recanting.  For his convictions are the result of investigating the Scriptures for himself.  If he does recant, let it be because of what he has found in Scripture rather than pressure from the Apologetics Industrial Complex.  And if he doubles down, let it be because of what he has found in Scripture rather than just for the sake of going against the crowd.  For one should stick to their beliefs because of Scripture, and one should change their minds because of Scripture.  And let the same rule apply to all who seek the truth.

By the way, here's the same list of doctrines that were listed at the beginning of the article, with doctrines that I reject being crossed out, and what I actually believe in square brackets if applicable.

• The Trinity
• The Deity of Jesus
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement [Debt Forgiven, Not Paid]
• Salvation by Faith Alone [Faith Apart From Works]
• Scripture Alone [STRICTLY]
• Biblical Inerrancy/Infallibility
• Christ Alone
• Clothing-Based Modesty (Body-Concealment) [Character-Based Modesty (Clothing Irrelevant)]
• New Covenant Abolishing Torah (or parts of Torah) [New Covenant is Torah Written on Our Hearts]
• Eternal Conscious Torment [Annihilationism]
• Very Broad Definition of Lust [Lust is Coveting and is Addressed by the Tenth Commandment]
• Sunday Sabbath [Saturday (The True Seventh-Day) Sabbath]
• Christmas, Halloween, Easter, etc., not Pagan
• Total Depravity
• Humans Born in Sin
• Monogamy Only

Charlie Kirk Murdered

On Wednesday, September 10, 2025, during a public debate at the Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, a sniper shot and killed Charlie Kirk.  First off, my condolences to the wife and children of Charlie Kirk, who should not be going through what they are having to go through.  May Yahweh give them the financial, emotional, and spiritual support to push through this difficult time.  Also, since the first person that was apprehended by the police was not the murderer, may Yahweh protect him from further harm and bring to light those who are actually guilty of this crime.

What we witnessed on Wednesday was not just some random psycho taking a shot at Charlie, like what happened to Iryna Zarutska on August 22, 2025.  It was a well-planned, public execution of Charlie Kirk, just like what they tried to do to Donald Trump during a Pennsylvania rally on July 13, 2024.  And it was done for the same reason:  Charlie Kirk stood in the way of the Globalist agenda simply by bringing to light the violence being perpetrated by liberals, and promoted by politicians and mainstream media outlets.  Violence that is explicitly against those who disagree with the leftist ideologies agenda.  The purpose of these public executions is to provoke a civil war.  But thank God that the people are simply not falling into that trap.  There is no excuse for promoting or perpetrating violence against those who simply disagree with your views or say things that you don't like, no matter how strong the disagreement is.  None!

Charlie Kirk was also very vocal about his faith in Jesus.  And I have no doubt that this is one of the reasons why he was targeted for assassination.  But for those who truly take up their cross and follow Yeshua (Jesus), our hope is not in this life which is here today and gone tomorrow.  Our hope is in the resurrection to eternal life.  And at the resurrection of the righteous, Yeshua will certainly not neglect to give the reward he promised to those who are killed on account of him (Matthew 5:10-12).  It is also important to remember that all things work together for good for those who love the Lord (Romans 8:28).  So while the murder itself is a bad thing, and the murderer should get the death penalty, good things will come about as a direct result of this murder, as God will see to it that it happens.  And in fact, we are already seeing this play out.  What the Globalists intended for evil, God is using for good.

As believers in the Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah, one of the most important things we can do is pray for Charlie Kirk's family.  And if that's the only thing you can do to help, then that is all that is asked of you.  Remember:  The prayers of the righteous are powerful and effective (James 5:16)  But if you are in a position to help in other ways, then you should do that in addition to praying.  Also, while this may not sound appealing, you absolutely should be praying for those who perpetrated this crime, and for those who promote and celebrate violence, that such people may be brought to repentance.  For Yeshua commanded us to do such things (Matthew 5:43-48).  And for those who aren't a believer in Yeshua, now is the time, before you die, to start believing in him.  Upon doing so, God will forgive you of your sins, and spare you from perishing in the Lake of Fire on Judgement Day.  For God accepts all who repent and wills everyone to live and not die (John 3:16).

IQ World Record Holder Exposed!

You may have heard of YoungHoon Kim on X, the self-proclaimed world record IQ holder.  In the pinned post, he claims to have an IQ of 276.  And if you scroll down his main profile page, you'll find he parrots all of the mainstream Christian talking points, and Young-Earth Creationist (I am also YEC) talking points.  There's just one problem, and I'll let this video I found explain it:

Yeah, YoungHoon Kim made-up his IQ score.  But nearly every Christian (including myself) fell for him.  While I don't agree with all of his talking points, I did fall for his claims that (a) he's the certified world record IQ holder, and (b) that he's a Christian.  Looking back on it, I should have been able to identify the red flags that the video pointed-out and investigate myself.  But I didn't.  In fact, it would seem that hardly anyone did.  They all failed to "test al things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21), as did I.

By the way, one point brought up in the video is that apologetics ministries were promoting him and didn't do anything to verify his claims before doing so.  Here's a question:  Why?  The answer is quite simple:  The man is parroting all of their most important talking points (most apologetics ministries that I know of are YEC, by the way) under the perceived authority that comes from being known as the world's smartest person.  They're looking to justify themselves in the eyes of man.  This is a trait that everyone has by default and resurfaces from time to time.  But you can bet that these same ministries would be blasting him if he was parroting atheist talking points under the perceived authority of the world's smartest person.

Now, let's take a look at some of these posts and see for ourselves that this man is speaking out of pride (for some reason, these X posts don't seem to be embedding properly):

From the world's highest IQ record holder : Truth spreads through the voice of @joerogan. Thank you Joe Rogan for following me. pic.twitter.com/Nj3gCKyOOn

— YoungHoon Kim (@yhbryankimiq) June 29, 2025

Notice that he starts off each post with "From the world's highest IQ record holder..."  Almost all of his posts begin this way.  He wants you to believe him just because he's (allegedly) the smartest person in the world.  In the best case scenario, this is simply pride talking.  Even if he does hold the record for highest IQ, that does not mean you should forgo testing everything.  As far as you should be concerned, anyone who starts their posts of with any claim of authority, be it a PhD or an IQ record holder, it is the equivalent of saying, "Suchandsuch is true because I say it is.  Don't try to verify my claims."

Even if this man is speaking with integrity, that doesn't mean he's always going to be right.  If he's prideful (which he is), that pride will one day result in him being wrong in the most obvious and most embarrassing way possible.  One must always be careful to keep one's own pride in check before it destroys one's credibility.  And once one's credibility is destroyed, it's hard to rebuild it.  Remember that God opposes the proud (James 4:6).  So even those who speak the truth will be brought low by God if they become puffed up with pride.

Now what about the claim that Truth speaks through Joe Rogan?  Well, I don't pay attention to Joe Rogan and I am not familiar with any of his teachings, so I am not in a position to say one way or another if he is telling the truth.  That is something that you will have to test yourself.

Here's another one of his posts:

As the world's highest IQ record holder. I conclude. Evolution is a scam. Only Creation is the truth revealed by God. https://t.co/3SpaL1MW1c

— YoungHoon Kim (@yhbryankimiq) June 29, 2025

Same pattern of claiming authority to get you to uncritically accept his claims.  This time, in declaring evolution is a scam.  Mr. Kim is absolutely correct that evolution is a scam, and that only the Biblical account of Creation is the truthful account of Creation.

Here's another post:

From the world’s highest IQ record holder: Abortion is murder. No exception. No excuse. Because God said, “Do not kill.”

— YoungHoon Kim (@yhbryankimiq) June 29, 2025

Same pattern.  But this time, his claim is not entirely correct.  While it is true that abortion, without exception, is murder, and it is true that there is never an excuse for abortion, what is not true is the claim that God said, "Do not kill".  The actual commandment is "Do not murder".  The KJV got it wrong in Exodus 20:13.

This simply proves the point that we should still test everything that anyone says.  Being the smartest person in the world doesn't mean you know everything.  And there is a big difference between knowledge and intelligence.  No matter how much knowledge you have, you will always be wrong about something and not know something.  But what you do not know, someone else probably does know.  But even the collective knowledge of all mankind does not know everything.

Now, I actually do not blame him for getting this one wrong.  Not everyone can study everything.  And I do not expect most Christians to do a deep study on the Hebrew or Greek texts of Scripture.  Nor do I expect most Christians to know how to do that.  I would like for all Christians to know how to do that (and I encourage you to do so), as it would make my job a lot easier and (more importantly) increase the level of discernment among Christians.  But that is just not going to happen.  And for all intents and purposes, whether the command is a blanket prohibition against killing or just an explicit prohibition against murder isn't going to affect most Christians.

Let's now take a look at another one of his posts:

From the world's highest IQ record holder: I had severe depression and anxiety disorder. I even tried to end my life. But when I met Jesus, everything changed. He healed me and set me free. I’m living proof that Jesus is God. He is the only way.

— YoungHoon Kim (@yhbryankimiq) June 28, 2025

Here, he shares a bit of personal testimony.  But here is also where I think his pride shines through the most.  Because he is trying to get you to accept everything he says by claiming at he beginning to be the record IQ holder.  This simply is not needed for personal testimony.  In this case, I'm not quite sure he's giving a personal testimony.  Since he's puffed himself up full of pride, this may actually be a call for help.  But I would love for this to be personal testimony.  And if I'm wrong, and it is personal testimony, then this is fantastic.

But what's going to happen when more and more people wake up to the fact that he's lying about being the official IQ record holder?  All his fame will disappear.  Apologetics ministries will quietly unpublish all of their articles about him, or make an example out of him about the difference between professing faith and living faith.  Atheists and other enemies of Christianity will use him as proof that Christians need fraudsters to uphold their faith.  And it will be a massive blow to the credibility of Christianity that this man was uncritically accepted by so many Christians.

Also, being cured of depression and anxiety isn't proof that Jesus is God.  Especially not by itself.  In fact, that one claim alone exposes a huge lapse in critical thinking on Mr. Kim's part.  For someone with the (allegedly) highest IQ in the world, he made a huge blunder that would be expected from someone with just an average IQ or lower.  And don't IQ tests measure a person's critical thinking skills among other things?  I believe that this statement alone proves his IQ isn't nearly as high as he claims it is.

If you really want proof that Jesus is God, look no further than the record of Jesus fulfilling every prophecy concerning his first coming (many of them are impossible to fabricate), including all of the miracles that he was to perform, and him teaching and practicing the law of God perfectly and according to its intended meaning.  That, coupled with the fact that Scripture points to Jesus as the one that the prophets spoke about as being "God with us", proves that Jesus is God.

Miracles by themselves cannot prove that Jesus is God.  Fulfillment of prophecies alone cannot prove it.  Rising from the dead doesn't prove it.  Raising others from the dead cannot prove it.  Even teaching and practicing the law perfectly cannot prove it.  It is all of those things combined with the necessary statement from the prophets that the Messiah would be "God with us" that proves that Jesus is God.  Had the prophets never said that he would be "God with us", then Jesus would not be God.

By the way, we're not very far in this man's timeline (even though I have skipped over many of his posts), and we have already found a major example of his pride getting in the way of his intelligence.  Assuming that his intelligence is as high as he wants us to believe it is.  Ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

Let's take a careful look at a couple more posts:

As the world's highest IQ record holder, I believe President Donald Trump is the smartest president in all of human history, with an estimated IQ of 200. pic.twitter.com/qITiQ84oOQ

— YoungHoon Kim (@yhbryankimiq) June 27, 2025

Here, he's using his alleged IQ record to claim that somebody else (Donald Trump) is the smartest person in the world.  Mr. Kim is outright saying that he is both the smartest person in the world and not the smartest person in the world in the same post!  And if Trump is the smartest at an IQ of around 200, then it's impossible for Mr. Kim to have an IQ higher than Trump's IQ.  This one post alone (in my opinion) proves the grift, and is a lousy attempt at false humility.  The irony is that (in my opinion at least), Trump is actually much smarter than Mr. Kim.  Mr. Kim has become instantly famous, but his fame is going to quickly unravel, probably fading into obscurity quickly.  Trump built-up his fame in such a way that it will last for generations.  Whether or not you agree with what Trump is doing is irrelevant here.  There can be no doubt that Trump is more intelligent than Mr. Kim on this point alone.

Okay, here's the last post we're going to cover:

My entire faith stands on this absolute truth: The Bible is the perfect Word of God. Therefore, it is 100% truth, 0% error.

- Highest IQ Record Holder

— YoungHoon Kim (@yhbryankimiq) June 26, 2025

For those who don't know, I actually tested the Biblical inerrancy claim and found it to be both unbiblical and false.  I've even made a couple posts here and here, the latter of which goes into detail about a claim used to "prove" inerrancy.  In short, the Bible isn't perfect, nor does it claim to be perfect.  Nor is everything in the Bible the "word of God", and that's actually a good thing.  And your faith certainly should not stand on the Bible being perfect.  Rather, it should stand on the Bible being trustworthy, because it is trustworthy, in spite of the fact that it's not perfect.  Though, the number of errors in Scripture is so low that rounding to the nearest percent almost certainly yields a result of 0%.

Review his timeline while you still can.  I've been scrolling far beyond the post I quoted above, and cannot find one instance of him correcting a single mainstream Christian doctrine.  Not one post.  And it's not like there's a lack of incorrect doctrine within mainstream Christianity.  Even if you disagree with me on Biblical inerrancy (which is your right, especially if you have studied Scripture for yourself to draw your own conclusions), we should at least agree that mainstream Christianity is going to get something wrong eventually.  Right?  So why does it seem that he does not use the implicit authority that comes from having the highest IQ to correct errors in mainstream Christian doctrine?  Perhaps it's because he's seeking praise from men.

If he wasn't outright lying about his IQ, I would conclude that this man is an infant in the faith and letting his pride get in the way of growing in the Messiah.  And that he needs to be taught humility.  The most intelligent people are the ones who, upon receiving correct, test the correction, and upon learning that it's true, take it to heart, accept it, and put it into practice.  Those who seek attention and pride will be brought low, even if they are right about everything else.

But the fact that he actually is lying about his IQ record status proves that he isn't practicing the Christian faith.  And if he somehow doesn't know that you're not allowed to lie for Jesus (not surprising, since most apologists do exactly that, but at least try to appear humble), his response to being exposed will tell us everything about the sincerity of his faith.  If he accepts correction, and changes his ways, he is a genuine Christian.  If he rejects correction, especially repeated correction, continuing in his lies, then he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

When Apologists Claim Christianity is Idolatry

Of all the people you expect to make the claim that Christianity is idolatry, who would be your last pick?  Try apologetics ministries.  Because they pretty much do exactly that, but in a round-about way that you're not likely to catch, but which a Jew will almost certainly catch.  Have you ever heard the claim that, "the Jews don't worship the same god that Christians do because they don't worship Jesus"?  Guess what:  Any Jew that understands God's law will take this as an open admission that Christians serve a different god than the one that brought them out of Egypt.  Of course, the same people who make such a claim will also state that Jesus is the same God that brought Israel out of Egypt.  But this isn't going to help much.  This would have made a great entry into my 5 Inconsistencies With Church Doctrines post.

Let's examine the first claim from the perspective of a religious Jew who has even just a basic understanding of the Deuteronomy 13 Test.  A religious Jew believes he/she is worshiping the God who brought the descendants of Jacob out of the land of Egypt.  This God then have the nation of Israel his law, which includes instructions on how to test a teacher.  These instructions state that if anyone comes in the name of another god, you are not to listen to that teacher.  Now, here comes your mainstream "Christian" apologist from a very popular apologetics ministry who claims that the Jews and Christians do not worship the same god.  Do you see the problem here?

So now we have the religious Jew who believes that he/she is worshiping the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  And we have the Christian, who also believes that he/she is worshiping the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  And in one "careless" statement, the "Christian" apologist has caused both of them to believe that the other worships a false god.  In other words, the apologist has caused the Jews to believe that Christianity is the epitome of idolatry!  Thus the apologist has just made it that much harder.  Because according to Deuteronomy 13, anyone coming in the name of another god (aka:  exactly what the apologist claims every Christian is doing) is to be put to death.  Obviously, not a good way to win a Jew to the Lord.

If we want to win a devout Jew to the Lord, we need to do it in a way that does not cause them to think that we are coming in the name of a different god, yet does not compromise the truth.  Does such a way exist?  Yes.  Actually, two ways that I can think of.  The first is to prove that the Jews do not, in fact, worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  We can do that by pointing out the more subtle definition of idolatry in Deuteronomy 13:  Disobedience.  That's right, Deuteronomy 13 defines obedience as serving Yahweh, and disobedience as serving other gods (aka: idolatry).  Though I seriously doubt this approach will work for the simple reason that most who profess being Christian make every excuse in the apologetics book to avoid obeying God's law.  Have fun winning them over by making them think you're a hypocrite.  Most apologists are probably not going to use that approach anyways because they know very well the implications of Deuteronomy 13.

The second way is to prove that the God who brought Israel out of Egypt is the same God that sent Yeshua (Jesus).  Or if you insist on being more picky than the original apostles on how you present things (there's something for a future post), prove that Yeshua is the God that brought Israel out of Egypt.  Not only are these things true, and easily proved from just the Old Testament alone, but it also has the added benefits of (a) not making Christianity look like idolatry, and (b) not making Christians look like hypocrites.

Here's another point to consider:  Upon learning that "Jews and Christians don't serve the same god" (assuming for a moment that the claim is true), did you assume that Christians serve the right god while the Jews do not?  Because it can also be the case that it's the Jews who serve the right god while the Christians do not, or that neither the Christians nor the Jews serve the right god.  Those who make the claim that "Jews and Christians don't serve the same god" are counting on you to make the assumption that Christians serve the right god while Jews serve the wrong god.  They are also counting on you to not even consider the possibility that neither serve the right god, or to even know what it truly means to serve God.

So what does it mean to serve God?  I already answered that when I referenced the Deuteronomy 13 Test.  Serving God means obeying him and keeping his law/commandments.  So it's those who keep God's commandments truly serve him.  And this should give you something else to consider:  Since Deuteronomy 13 is teaching you how to test the teachers and prophets when it defines disobedience as idolatry, it means that anyone who claims to be the Messiah must teach obedience to God's law, also called "Torah" in Hebrew, which literally means "instructions".  Such a person must also himself keep the Torah.  Any messiah that does not both keep and teach Torah, by definition, cannot be the son of God.

Here's another point to consider:  Just because you serve someone named "Jesus" (aka: "Yeshua"), doesn't mean you serve the right Jesus, for there are many counterfeits.  So how do you know you're serving the right one?  You actually already have your answer:  The one you obey is the one you serve (Romans 6:16).  So if you put Yeshua's teaching in the Bible into practice, and obey his commandments, then you are by definition, serving the son of God.  Jesus is also the example of how to obey Torah.  And since he outright commanded us to obey God's law, you cannot be serving Jesus without also keeping Torah.

So if saying Christians and Jews don't serve the wrong way to evangelize, then what's the right way?  Well, we already have part of the answer.  Both Jews and Christians claim to worship the God of the Bible, also referred to as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  And apologists do a very good job of showing how Yeshua fulfilled all of the "Old Testament" prophecies concerning his first coming.  That's already a pretty good start.  But we also need to approach the issue as if both Christians and Jews do serve the same god.  Because in the mind of the Christian, Christians do serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  And in the mind of the Jew, Jews do serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Here comes the part that most Christians will not like:  We must stop dressing Yeshua and those who were around him in that day in pagan clothing and symbolism, and dress them in the Jewish clothing of that day.  For Yeshua (Jesus) was born a Jew and lived as a Jew, having Jewish parents and practicing Jewish customs in strict accordance with Torah (Yeshua did not practice any Jewish customs that were contrary to Torah).  We must also stop claiming that Yeshua abolished the law, as he clearly said he did not come to abolish it, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).  If we no longer have to keep the law (the law was never about salvation, by the way), then Yeshua did the opposite of fulfilling the law.  By the way, another thing most Christians won't like is the fact that following in Yeshua's example means doing what Yeshua did [1 John 2:6].

While there will be some success in reaching out to Jews without actually walking as Yeshua walked, you certainly aren't going to be provoking them to jealousy by hanging onto all of your Golden Calves.  In other words, our effectiveness at bringing God's elect to salvation is directly tied to how we portray Yeshua.  But the moment a Jew comes across a Christian apologist saying that Christians and Jews do not serve the same god is the moment that our witness to God's chosen people becomes entirely ineffective to all Christians until we can first prove that Christians and Jews do indeed serve the same God.  And woe to anyone who deliberately sabotages any attempt at Jewish outreach.