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.

The Importance of Repentance

I haven't mentioned repentance much on this blog.  In fact, a quick search will reveal only four posts where I use the word "repent" or "repentance" (not counting this one).  But while I may not mention it much, I have actually been teaching it the whole time, but not directly.  How?  It has to do with the definition of "repent".  In Ezekiel 14:6, God defines repentance as turning away from idolatry.  And in Ezekiel 18:30, God defines repentance as turning away from your transgressions of his law.  So repentance is defined as forsaking your ways that are contrary to God's law.  If you had asked me what the definition of repentance was a year ago, I would have said that it's regret or remorse over your sin, which is actually not far from the truth.

One interesting thing to note about these passages is that the Hebrew texts literally say "turn back, turn back".  The word for "turn back" is used twice in a row, which is a classic Hebrew idiom emphasizing the importance of what is being said.  The Hebrew word in question is "sub", which is used not only in the context of turning from sin, but also in literal contexts.  The translators, in translating the passages as saying, "repent and turn back", are preserving the definition of repent.

In my post about sins not covered by the blood of Jesus, I ask, "But if anyone uses that [forgiveness by stopping rebellion against God's law] as an excuse to start deliberately doing what they know is sinful, because they can later 'stop and repent', is that repentance even genuine?"  The answer to this question is actually another question:  Do they genuinely hate the fact that they used God's mercy as a license to sin?  Like what I said in that post, genuine believers do not want to sin.  So the one that says, "I can sin now and repent later", follows through with their plan to deliberately sin, and asks for forgiveness afterwards, but without forsaking their "I can sin now and repent later" mentality, then that person's repentance is not genuine.  Only when they forsake that "sin now, repent later" mindset will that person be truly repentant of their sin.

In another post, where I refuted the claim that Christians sin every day in thought and deed, I noted that a Christian who does not yet know God's requirements may indeed sin every day, but those who know God's commandments will rarely sin.  I even mention repentance at the end of that post when I say that when we become aware of our sins and repent, God forgives us.

I should make a quick note that I probably should not have stated that the blood of Jesus covers sins.  Since Jesus does not cover sins, but takes them away entirely.  There is a big difference.  In those posts, when I used "cover", I used it to indicate the types of sins that are eligible for forgiveness, and did not give any thought about the implications of the other type of covering.  What I did correctly point out in those posts, is that repentance is a prerequisite for forgiveness.

Now that I've mentioned that repentance is required for forgiveness, I'm liable to get an objection from someone who will say, "that is works salvation", or, "salvation is by faith alone".  Neither of those assertions are actually true.  I'll summarize here:  Jesus said, "unless you repent, you will likewise perish" [Luke 13:3 & 5].  Paul taught that salvation is by faith apart from works [Romans 3:28], not by faith alone.  And the only time we find "faith alone" in Scripture is when James refutes it [James 2:24].  Maybe that should be a future post.  Besides, nobody is saying that your works are what saves you.  But works can certainly keep you from being saved, as the Bible makes very clear in many places.  Read the Bible carefully.

Also, consider the Parable of the Prodigal Son.  The prodigal son represents someone who forsakes God, then later comes back to God and is accepted back into the family even though the son is not deserving of such acceptance.  The father in the parable represents our Heavenly Father, who will accept those who return to him and even celebrate our returning to him, though we do not deserve it and even acknowledge that we do not deserve any such favors.

There are many more instances in Scripture warning us to repent, which I encourage you to search for yourself.  In conclusion, without turning from disobedience to obedience to God's commandments, there is no forgiveness of sins or salvation.  But also that God will accept, and even celebrate, all who come to him in repentance, and believe in his son.

Change of Heart, Change of Style

A while ago, on social media, a posted a rather harsh reply to something that a pastor posted, and got rebuked for not making my reply in a loving way.  After a long time thinking, I realized that those who rebuked me were right, but I couldn't find the post again to give my response accepting the rebukes.  In light of this correction, I'm not only going to change my style when I correct Christians on social media, but also when I post on this blog corrections of false doctrine.  I want my posts to come off as being made with a loving attitude regardless of whether it's encouragement, questioning, correction, rebuke, or exposing deceivers.  This is something I should have been doing from the beginning since it is a command of our Lord Jesus the Messiah.  Now because I don't edit or delete any posts that have been published on this blog, you will be able to see this transition.

Now, there is another change I'm going to be making to how I write blog posts.  Previously, when I've been exposing false teaching, referring to articles or posts from others, I would omit linking the post or naming those who teach those false teachings.  This was done because I did not want to lend them any credibility by naming those who teach such things or linking to their articles.  I now believe this to be wrong.  So there will be blog posts in the future where I link directly to the articles I'm refuting, along with naming the ones teaching those false things.

The Body of Christ is NOT the Church

The Body of the Messiah consists of those who believe that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah (Christ) and have put their trust in him for their salvation.  It is often stated that this body of believers is the Church.  In actuality, the Church is a different entity entirely.  A quick look into the origin of the word Church reveals that the word is derived from the words for "circle" or "circus".  But the Greek word translated as "Church" (ekklesia) is a compound word that literally means "to call out".  What does a circle have to do with being God's called-out?  Nothing.  And isn't it interesting that a doctrine so core to Christianity that it was in the name was lost to history over the millennia.  Then again, the Truth does have a way of sneaking its way through.  Because rather than being called out from worldly practices and teachings, the Church instead embraces them, "claiming them for Christ" and advocating or even mandating said things.

Jesus established the Ekklesia (called-out) in AD 30.  In AD 325, Constantine established the Church.  It was still probably called "ekklesia" back then because the Catholic Church hijacks everything, but that is the definitive point in history where it stopped being the Called-Out and started being the Circus.  Constantine's establishment was made as a means of controlling the Body of the Messiah by keeping them from the practices that God ordained (eg: 7th Day Sabbath) and in slavery to idolatry.  And the doctrine of this establishment has changed over the centuries with each change of doctrine bringing about a reinterpretation of Scripture to suit that change.  They have even changed some "New Testament" passages on rare occasion, such as Mark 16:9-20, which are not in the original manuscripts.

One important detail is that "the Church" (as far as my usage of the word is concerned) is not the Catholic Church or any particular Protestant denomination, or anything else that calls itself a "Church".  That's right, it's independent of the Catholic Church because it is a system rather than an organization.  Constantine established both the organization and the system.  Both of which have evolved over the years, but in different ways.  The organization evolved to "claim for Christ" the various pagan practices that surrounded it while the system evolved to better keep people from wandering too far from Catholic doctrine, so that they don't rediscover the freedom that comes from keeping God's Law.  The most notable point in this evolution is the weaponization of apologetics (both the weaponization and apologetics are for future posts).

This system of course does have "gatekeepers" among both Catholics and Protestants.  (The "gatekeepers" within the Catholic Church shouldn't be a surprise as the Catholic Church is what created the system in the first place.)  You can identify these "gatekeepers" quite easily:  Just challenge or outright deny any doctrine that has very little, if any, biblical support (it does not have to be any of their core doctrines) and watch them forget how to use apologetics to defend said doctrine.  Actually, even that isn't necessary.  Because in some cases where a doctrine is being challenged or outright denied, but has extensive biblical support, the evidence brought against the doctrine is often itself another doctrine held by the system.  When this happens, a false doctrine is used as evidence that a true doctrine is actually false doctrine.  Since the Church believes both of these doctrines to be true or is incapable of letting go of either one, they are unable to provide an adequate defense of the true doctrine, even though one does exist.

Where does the above-mentioned scenario happen?  That is exactly the scenario playing out among those who believe that Paul was a deceiver.  The Church and those who hold that Paul was a deceiver both hold to the false doctrine that Paul taught against God's Law.  The Church holds to the doctrine that Paul was a legitimate Apostle of Yeshua.  But Paul's alleged teaching against God's Law is the evidence that Paul was a deceiver.  The Church is incapable of proving that Paul was a legitimate Apostle simply because it is a system designed to keep people from God's Law of Liberty.  And proving that Paul was legitimate would prove that the Church is the real deceiver.

On a final point:  These "gatekeepers" have an advantage that no other system has.  What is this advantage?  Jus ask:  Why would anyone who believes they will burn for eternity for lying lie to the masses?  That is the advantage that they have in their deception!  And that is also the perfect cover-up for the system of deception, regardless of whether the ones teaching that liars burn for eternity actually believe their own doctrine.  It's important to note that not everyone who uses the Church's talking points is part of the system.  Remember:  This is a system of deception.  There are going to be people who fall for their deceptions.  This is one reason why we need to test everything [1 Thessalonians 5:21], so that we only accuse the deceivers of being deceivers.

In conclusion, the Body of Believers are the "Called-Out" of God.  We are those who have been called out of sin and idolatry and we should refer to ourselves as such.

Is Observing the Biblical Feasts a Sin?

One question one might ask would be "how could observing the Biblical feasts be a sin?"  The answer to that is rather simple:  If God gave specific instructions in his law concerning their observance, and we observe them outside of those instructions, then the observance itself is a sin.  Which would also mean that if it is currently impossible to meet those conditions, then observing the feast would always be a sin.  But surely this can't be the case, right?

Well, someone cited Deuteronomy 12 as the proof that this is exactly the case for all of the feasts in Torah.  And since we're supposed to test everything [1 Thessalonians 5:21], this naturally includes seemingly counter-intuitive claims like the one someone made somewhere around the time of the Feast of Tabernacles.  Oh, and also our own stances on the observance of these days.  And whenever we find that something we are doing is a sin, we should stop doing it.  The relevant passage starts in verse 5 of Deuteronomy 12:

[5] But you shall seek the place where the Lord your God chooses, out of all your tribes, to put His name for His dwelling place; and there you shall go. [6] There you shall take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, your vowed offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. [7] And there you shall eat before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice in all to which you have put your hand, you and your households, in which the Lord your God has blessed you. [Deuteronomy 12:5-7; NKJV]

It's pretty clear from these verses that everyone shall bring their offerings up to a single place where Yahweh chooses to put his name.  From there to verse 28, we are warned not to make any tithes, offerings, or sacrifices in any place except that which Yahweh chooses to put his name.  But that we can freely eat meat anywhere we desire so long as we do not eat the blood.  Yahweh's appointed times certainly have requirements to bring sacrifices and offerings.  So at the very least, if one cannot make it to whatever place Yahweh chose to put his name, then it is sinful to offer said offerings.  Note that from Deuteronomy 12 alone, it would be the offerings that are sinful to offer, not the observance of the feasts.  To see if there are any commandments that would make observing the feasts themselves sinful, we must look to the commandments concerning those feasts.

Before we look into these commandments, one might be tempted to simply invoke Deuteronomy 12:32 and/or Deuteronomy 5:32 and be done with it.  But invoking these verses in this instance wouldn't do much good on their own.  For example, it may be viewed that the claim that we should only observe the feasts in Jerusalem (the place Yahweh chose to put his name) is adding to God's commandments.  Invoking Deuteronomy 12:32 in this instance would actually backfire for the person making such a claim as it would appear to others like he/she is themselves adding to Yahweh's law.  Likewise, invoking Deuteronomy 5:32 and leaving it at that would simply beg the question:  "How are we deviating from God's commandments?"

Anyone who invokes Deuteronomy 12:32 challenges their opponent to prove that their claims of what is or is not sinful is not an addition to or subtraction from Torah.  But anyone who invokes Deuteronomy 5:32 must be able to back up their claims with Torah or will themselves be on the receiving end of the Deuteronomy 12:32 challenge.  By the way, Deuteronomy 5:32 would definitely apply to observing Yahweh's feasts outside of the rules that he established in his Law.  So let's now take a look at what the Law says concerning these feasts.

The first relevant passage is in Leviticus 23, which opens by declaring that the feasts contained within that chapter are Yahweh's feasts.  In other words, those feasts and only those feasts are to be used to honor God.  And yes, that does mean even Hanukah and Purim should not be used to honor God.  In this chapter, there is no hint that there is only to be one place where the feasts are celebrated.  But that doesn't mean there aren't any.  It's just not here.  There are however, in Exodus 12:43-49, instructions concerning who may or may not eat the Passover.  But also no instructions on any one specific place.

Then we have Numbers 9:1-14, which concern how the Passover is to be kept if one is not able to do so at the appointed time.  This also does not specify a single place where the Passover is to be observed.  It does however, not give any requirements for keeping the Feast of Unleavened bread that comes immediately afterwards.  Numbers 28-29 have the most comprehensive set of instructions concerning Yahweh's appointed times, but again, there is no indication that they are to be celebrated only in one place.  But we haven't finished going through Torah to see if there are any instructions that would prohibit us from observing these times outside of that one place.  However, the commands in Deuteronomy 12 concerning the offerings would definitely make impossible to fully-observe the feasts outside of that one place.

Deuteronomy 16 is where we start seeing instructions explicitly restricting where we may observe Yahweh's appointed times.  So let's just quickly list-off the feast, the verses, and the type of restriction of location (if any).

1. Passover [Deuteronomy 16:1-8]:  Passover must be sacrificed at the location God chooses.
2. Feast of First Fruits:  No location restrictions.
3. New Moon Feasts:  No location restrictions.
4. Feast of Weeks [Deuteronomy 16:9-12]:  Must be observed at the location God chooses.
5. Feast of Trumpets:  No location restrictions.
6. Day of Atonement:  No location restrictions.
7. Feast of Tabernacles [Deuteronomy 16:13-17]:  Must be observed at the location God chooses.

Well, there we have it!  Three of the feasts are only to be observed at the location that Yahweh chooses.  The Passover, the Feast of Weeks (aka:  Pentecost), and the Feast of Tabernacles.  There is no indication that any of the special Sabbaths may be ignored if one cannot come to the location God chooses.  As for the rest of the observance, it is indeed a sin to observe those three feasts outside of the place God chooses.  And the place that Yahweh chose to put his name is Jerusalem.  Today, most people simply cannot go to Jerusalem three times a year.  But there is coming a time when all nations will go up for the Feast of Tabernacles [Zechariah 14:16-19].

By the way, I was not expecting these results in the slightest.