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

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.

How to Test Claims that Something is a Sin

When trying to determine whether something that is claimed to be a sin actually is a sin, you only need to ask these three questions:

1. Does Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy) have a direct command against it?
2. Does Torah list items that are permitted (or required) in a category that the item in question is in but is not on the list?
3. Is there a penalty associated with it, but without a direct or indirect command against it?

It really is that simple, as Torah alone defines what is right and wrong.  Whatever is contrary to Torah is sin and whatever is not contrary to Torah is not sin.  The Prophets do not define sin.  Jesus does not define sin.  The Apostles do not define sin.  Only the Law of Yahweh defines sin.  And for those who would say that Yeshua does define sin because he is God, let me remind you that if he is to live a sinless life as a human being, he must abide by the same Law that everyone else is expected to abide by.  If he were to teach what is contrary to Torah, then he would have sinned and his death on the cross would be useless for our salvation.  Therefore Yeshua does not define sin.

Also, I originally listed just the first two questions, and would have considered things that meet the criteria of the third question as things that God hates but does not forbid.  But while writing this post, I changed my mind, hence the third question.

Jesus said to live on every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).  And you're not living on it if you are adding to it or subtracting from it.  For the Law says in multiple places, such as Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 to not add to or subtract from God's commandments.  This means that once written, the Law of God is read only.  Nobody after that can in any way change the Law, not even Jesus after he rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.  The Apostle Paul said multiple times that Torah defines sin, such as Romans 3:20 and 7:7.  The Law itself defines sin in multiple places as transgressing the Law.

For any given thing that is claimed to be sinful, answering "yes" to one of the above questions proves the thing in question to be sinful.  If the answer to both questions is "no", then the thing in question is not sinful even if it is detrimental or believed to be detrimental.

The first question should be self-explanatory.  If God's Law has a direct command against something, then that something in question is a sin.  Theft, adultery, lying, murder, and slander are all sinful because the Law has a direct command against each of these.  The same for eating animals like pigs [Leviticus 11:7-8].  And if you think of twisting 1 Timothy 4:1 to claim that I'm teaching "doctrines of demons" (as some have done), then you would be calling God a demon, for God himself gave that command.

The second question is a bit more complex than the first.  There are some places in God's Law that list of a number of things in a category that are either allowed or required.  In these instances, whatever is in that same category that does not make the list is forbidden.  A good example of this is the list of holy days in Leviticus 23 that we are to use to honor God.  So even if it could be proven that Christmas and Easter did originate within Christianity, it wouldn't change the fact that those days are not on the list of holy days for honoring God, and are therefore sinful to partake in.  We may see those days as serving God, but that's not how God sees them.

There are some things that do not have a direct command against them (answer to question 1 is "no") or an indirect command against them (answer to question 2 is also "no").  This is where the third and final question comes in:  If God's Law also does not list a penalty for doing something (answer to question 3 is "no"), then the item in question is not a sin.  But if there is a penalty listed for doing something, then the item in question is a sin.  Otherwise, there would not be a penalty.

A good example of something that has a penalty listed, but no direct or indirect command against it is extramarital sex.  In Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, if an unmarried couple are caught having sexual relationships, then the man is required to pay the bride price to the woman's father, the two are required to marry (unless the father forbids it), and they are never allowed to divorce.  The bride price, can be multiple years worth of wages.  And if a woman had this type of sexual relationship, then presented herself as a virgin to another man and her deception was discovered, then the woman could die (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).

In any case where the answer to all three of these questions is "no", then the thing in question is permissible.  In fact, since Torah is described as "the Law of Liberty" in James 1:25, then we should approach things in a "freedom by default" manner.  That is, unless we can prove it goes against God's Law, we should allow it.  Some examples of things that are not against God's Law include dancing, games and sports, and gender-neutral bathrooms, lockers, etc.

There are some things that Yahweh technically allows, but also hates.  These things are often identified by whether God's Law has a provision for them, but also a lot of restrictions.  One example is divorce, where as I explained in a previous post, is intended to be done only in cases of unfaithfulness in marriage.  We also know that Yahweh hates divorce because of Malachi 2:16, where Yahweh explicitly states as much when speaking through one of his prophets.

To summarize:  If you cannot prove that something is contrary to God's Law either by (1) a direct command, (2) by not making a list of items allowed or required that are in the same category as the item in question, or (3) by not having any penalty for doing something, then regardless of how sinful you believe it to be or how much you object to it, that thing is not, I repeat, not, a sin.

I'll leave you with this exercise:  Exodus 20:26 says, "Nor shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it."  So what is the sin here?  Is it to build steps up to an altar, to approach the altar naked, or both?  Don't forget to prove your answer.

5 Inconsistencies in Church Doctrine

When it comes to doctrine, a lot of what the Church teaches (at least concerning conservative and fundamentalist churches and ministries) is perfectly consistent with other teachings by the Church.  And many of these teachings I actually agree with, even if a lot of my posts do spend a lot of time criticizing the Church for a lot of its teachings.  But I've also found, over the years, many teachings that are inconsistent with other teachings.  We will take a look at five of these inconsistencies and look to Scripture for the resolution.  This list is in no particular order, and there will be overlaps!

1. Obedience to God's Commandments

Most mainstream ministries will teach that because we have Yeshua, there is no need to keep God's Law.  They will often label this the "Old Testament Law" to further cement this point.  However, there are many commandments within the Law of God that the Church expects you to keep.  For example, "do not lie", "do not commit adultery", "do not covet", and "do not worship idols".

One "resolution" to this inconsistency is to assert that we only need to keep the commands that were reiterated in the "New Testament".  But those who make such claims fail to realize that if the Law no longer needs to be kept, then whether they are reiterated in the "New Testament" is irrelevant.  This rationalization however, proves that they know that there is a need to keep at least some of God's Law.  Bit it is still inconsistent with the doctrine that we don't need to keep his Law.

Another rationalization is to divide the commandments within the Law into three laws:  The "moral" law.  The "civil" law.  And the "ceremonial" law.  The claim is that the "moral" law applies to everyone, the "civil" law applies only to the land of Israel, and the "ceremonial" law only applied before Yeshua's work on the cross and that it's this law that we don't need to keep.  But this too conflicts with the core teaching that the body of the Messiah does not need to keep the Law of God.

Some will say that we only need to keep the Ten Commandments.  But every Christmas they put up a nativity with an image of Jesus in direct violation of the Second Commandment, which forbids the creation of an image of anything, anywhere!  Whoever sets up an image of Jesus is worshiping the image, not Jesus.  They also change the Sabbath (Fourth Commandment) from the seventh day (Saturday) to the first day (Sunday), which is literally named after the sun in the sky.  Whoever observes the first day of the week as the Sabbath worships a ball of plasma!  And changing God's Law is rebellion, not obedience!  And once again, if the Law is no longer needed, then neither are the Ten Commandments

In order to resolve the inconsistencies in the first two doctrines, the have made three additional teachings which also conflict with the first.  As I mentioned earlier, Christians know in their heart that that there are some laws that must be kept, proving false the doctrine that we don't need to keep God's Law.  So it's the heart and mind of man that testifies against this doctrine.  But we're going to look into Scripture to see for sure what we are supposed to do.  And just to prove the point, I will only use "New Testament" passages to prove just how false this doctrine really is.

Jesus himself said in Matthew 4:4 that man is to live on every word that comes from the mouth of God.  And in Matthew 5:17-20, he made such obedience mandatory for membership in God's Kingdom.  Note in verse 17 how "destroying the Law" and "fulfilling the Law" are framed as being mutually-exclusive.  If he didn't come to do away with it, then he must have come to teach it (I'm ignoring the Hebrew idiom here).  He also said in Matthew 19:17 that keeping the commandments is a requirement for "entering life".  And you can find numerous places where Jesus called-out the Pharisees for nullifying the Law of God for the sake of their traditions.  For example, Mark 7:5-13.  So according to Yeshua himself, we are to keep the Law of God.

What about Paul, whom the Church practically worships (funny how it's not Jesus who is treated as the ultimate authority of the Christian)?  In Romans 2:13, Paul says that it's those who keep the Law who will be justified before God.  In Romans 3:20 and 7:7, he says that the Law defines sin.  And in Romans 3:31, he states that we who believe in Jesus uphold the Law of God.  So much for Paul teaching against God's Law.

Let's see what James says.  In James 1:22-25, he says we should look into the perfect Law of liberty with the intent of obeying it.  And that if we do, we will be blessed in all that we do.  James 2:12 says we should act as if we will be judged by this law.  So James also teaches obedience to the Law.  Of course, if Jesus and the Apostles were teaching from the Law with the expectation for us to obey it, then we should expect to find many of the commandments being reiterated throughout the "New Testament".  And if the Law did not have to be followed (or should not be followed), then they would not be reiterating any of the commandments.

2. Biblical Inerrancy

One of the most blatant inconsistencies between two doctrines has to do with the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.  Which doctrine runs afoul of Biblical Inerrancy?  The doctrine that forbidding the consumption of certain meats (eg: pork) is a "doctrine of demons."  God's Law forbids us from eating pigs or even touching the dead bodies of pigs (Leviticus 11:7-8).  And Isaiah prophecies against such people in Isaiah 65:4 and 66:17, declaring that they will perish.  Yet because Paul wrote about those who forbid "certain foods" in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 (among other passages that are twisted by the Church), the Church insists that anyone who says we shouldn't eat pork (or other animals that God said to not eat) is teaching a doctrine of demons.

Think about it:  If the command not to eat certain animals is really a doctrine of demons, then it means that the Bible is in error about the origins of such commands, and the prophecies against those who break such commands.  If there is even one error in Scripture, then the Bible is by definition, not inerrant, and the inerrancy doctrine is therefore wrong.

On a related note, if 1 Timothy 4:1-5 means what the Church claims, then Paul is going against his own teachings that we should keep the Law of God.  We already went over this in the previous section.  It would also mean that if the Law and the Prophets are correct about the origin of the commandment and prophecies against those who break it, then Paul is the one who is wrong, and the Bible is not inerrant.  And if Paul is teaching both obedience to the Law and rebellion against it, one of those teachings is wrong by definition and the Bible is also not inerrant.  And it also lends credence to those who claim that Paul was a deceiver.  And if Paul was a deceiver, then the Bible is definitely not inerrant.

Peter warns us in 2 Peter 3:16 that Paul is hard to understand, and that uneducated people twist his words to their own destruction.  So the solution is an interpretation that is hard to see just by reading the passage, but is consistent with Paul's teaching of obedience to God's Law.  We'll start with the definition of "food".  Since Paul taught obedience to the Law of God and the Law of God tells us what is and is not food for us, the definition of food that Paul (and the other Apostles, and Jesus) is using is that which God's Law defines as food.  And guess what:  The Law explicitly states that pigs are not food.

Now that we know the definition of food that Paul is using, we can see that the "creatures of God" refers to the clean animals that God gave for us as food.  Although God made all animals, both the clean and the unclean, only the clean animals are referred to here as the "creatures of God".  Finally, we see that these animals are set apart by the word of God and by prayer.  If everything is set apart, then nothing is set apart.  The words "sanctified" and "holy" lose all of their meaning if everything is said to be set apart.  And the word of God (which is referring specifically to God's Law in this instance) did not set apart pigs as food.  What Paul is actually teaching against are teachings about food that are contrary to God's Law.

3. The Shame of Nakedness

I've covered the topic of nakedness a lot on this blog.  And a search through my posts will reveal that quite quickly.  But what about the shame of nakedness?  The Church teaches that before there was sin, there was no shame in being naked.  In fact, we read in Genesis 1 and 2 that mankind was designed to always be naked and that this nakedness was very good.  But in Genesis 3, Adam and Eve sinned, became ashamed of their nakedness, and after they failed to provide adequate clothing for themselves, God himself provided them with clothing.  The Church teaches that ever since then, there has been a universal shame of nakedness.  So where's the inconsistency:  Well, Jesus took away our sins by his blood, wiping-out the record of our transgressions.  Since our sins have been taken away, so has the source of our shame of being naked.  And the Bible says in numerous places that those who believe in him shall by no means be put to shame (1 Peter 2:6).  And in Romans 8:35, Paul says that nakedness is incapable of keeping us from God's love.

While I have been teaching for a long time on this blog that there is no requirement in Scripture to be clothed (except for the priests when they are performing their duties), I still didn't realize the inconsistency about the shame of nakedness before finding this article on the topic, which also inspired me to write this post on 5 of the Church's doctrinal inconsistencies.  If sin truly is the only source of the shame of nakedness as the Church teaches it is, then those who have had their sins taken away should not be ashamed of such a thing.  But the Church still teaches us to be ashamed of being naked because of sin.  The very sin that the Church rightly says is taken away by the blood of Jesus just by believing in him!  In my post on Genesis 3, I proved that it was the serpent who told Adam and Eve that they were naked.  That, by extension, means that the source of the shame of nakedness came from the serpent, not from the sin that they had just committed.

Just like with the first inconsistency I pointed-out, for this one, I'm only going to use the "New Testament" to expose the magnitude of this inconsistency.  And I'm also going to do it using the view that sin is the only source of the shame of nakedness.

When Yeshua came to Jerusalem on a donkey, many in the crowd took off their garments and laid them on the road before Jesus.  This is recorded in Matthew 21:8, Mark 11:7 (the Disciples put their garments on the donkey for Jesus to sit on), and Mark 11:8.  Many of these only had a single garment, yet took it off for Jesus, and Jesus accepted it.  This of course, is perfectly consistent with the teaching that the shame of nakedness comes from sin, because they were not actively sinning when they greeted their Savior and our Savior at the gates of Jerusalem.

In John 13:4, Jesus himself set aside his garments in front of the Twelve and proceeded to wash the feet of his Disciples.  This too is consistent with the doctrine that sin is the source of the shame of nakedness because Jesus never sinned and therefore had nothing to bring him shame.

In John 21:7 (after the resurrection of the Lord), Peter is fishing with his friends naked (go read the context).  This was actually common place back then, for a laborer to work without clothing.  And this may have also been the reason why Mary mistook Jesus for the gardener in John 20:15, for Yeshua left all of his grave clothes behind when he rose from the dead (Luke 24:12, John 20:6-7).  This of course is perfectly consistent with the doctrine that sin is the source of the shame of nakedness.

4. Avoiding Salvation by Works

It is often said that anyone who keeps God's Law is by definition, trying to work for his or her salvation.  And whoever teaches obedience to God's Law is by definition, teaching works-based salvation.  For some reason, the Church absolutely hates the idea of keeping God's Law and actively teaches that such things are not only not necessary, but also evil.  Now this overlaps with the first inconsistency listed in this post, because the Church actually teaches obedience to some of the commandments in God's Law (chiefly, the Ten Commandments) along with most, if not all, of Leviticus 18, among some other commands also found in God's Law.

Interestingly enough, nobody says that obedience to Yeshua's commandments is salvation by works, even though his commandments seem more difficult to keep than the Law of God.  For example, as pointed-out in my post on what Jesus meant by "but I say", Jesus linked coveting your neighbor's wife with committing adultery with her.  He also linked bearing a grudge against your neighbor with committing murder.

Now, when writing this post, I realized I made a mistake on the post I just linked.  I accidentally wrote:

So according to Jesus himself, anyone who nullifies the Law of God is guilty of sin.  This means that it can't be that Jesus is nullifying Deuteronomy 24:1 by forbidding adultery.

But I meant to say this:

So according to Jesus himself, anyone who nullifies the Law of God is guilty of sin.  This means that it can't be that Jesus is nullifying Deuteronomy 24:1 by forbidding divorce.

I'm going to be leaving that mistake in because I have a policy that once a blog post is published, it does not get any edits done to it for any reason.

Speaking of divorce:  As mentioned in that post right after the mistake, I mentioned that the intent of Deuteronomy 24:1 is being ignored.  The intent of the verse is to give provision to terminate a marriage in very specific situations (eg: a woman hiding any premarital indiscretions from her husband).  The Pharisees twisted it to allow for divorce for any reason.

So not only is Jesus teaching obedience to the Law, he's linking commandments together that are usually considered separately, making the Law harder to follow simply by keeping Jesus's commands.  But Jesus didn't make the Law harder to follow.  He simply exposed the intent of the Law and gave the correct interpretation of the Law, which is harder to follow simply because of human nature.  So if keeping our flawed understanding of God's Law is "salvation by works", then so is keeping Yeshua's commands.

But how exactly do with solve this inconsistency of obedience being salvation by works?  Simple:  There is absolutely zero Biblical support for the assertion that obedience to the Law of God is by definition, works-based salvation.  None!  In fact, those who make such assertions prove that they do not know God, and are lying when they claim to know him (1 John 2:3-4).  The Bible also says that keeping God's Law is by definition, loving God (1 John 5:2-3).  There's also the passages referenced for inconsistency #1.  And James 2:14-26 explains in detail how faith is made complete by our works and how works prove our faith.  It also refutes the "faith alone" doctrine, which is used to justify rebellion against God.  So we keep God's commands because we love God, not to somehow earn our salvation.  And this keeping of God's Law proves our faith.

5. To Sin or Not to Sin

One common objection to the teaching that Christians should keep God's Law is that we allegedly cannot keep it, so we shouldn't even try.  This overlaps with inconsistencies 1 and 4 quite a bit.  You might have heard the phrase, "you will sin every day in thought or deed", which I covered in a previous post.  Often, this saying will have a context that implies, "you're going to sin anyways, so don't even try to not sin".  These same people will also rightfully say that we should not lie, steal, murder, or commit adultery, for example.  Other examples of things that they will tell us not to do include "lusting" after a woman, becoming drunk, or judging others.  In some cases, they have many additional rules in place to try to avoid sinning, which are themselves considered sinful to break.

On one hand, they teach that we shouldn't try not to sin, because will will sin anyways, or because trying not to sin is "salvation by works".  And on the other hand, not only say that we should not sin, but that we should any situation where we could potentially sin at all costs.  But what does the Bible say?

Jesus said "sin no more" [John 5:14] and Paul said "do not sin" [1 Corinthians 15:34].  In John 9:21, we read that God does not listen to the sinner.  That explains the lack of healings in the Church.  And in Romans 6, we are told not to allow sin to have any power over us because we have been freed from sin.  In fact, he states that sin does not have any power over those who believe in the Lord Yeshua.  And 1 John 5:8 says that whoever is born of God does not sin.  Now who is it that says "you will sin every day in thought or deed"?  Oh right, the one who's mind is driven by the flesh instead of the spirit.  Such a person is unable to submit to God's commandments [Romans 8:7].  And that explains why conservative Christians have so many heretical rules to try to avoid sin.  They're treating the symptom instead of the cause.  The one who is delivered from will naturally keep God's Law and be able to avoid sinning.  And even when such a person does stumble (which is contrary to that person's nature), that person has an advocate with the Father [1 John 2:1].

Making Claims on the Bible's Behalf

If there's one thing that I've noticed while testing everything, it's the fact that the Church makes claims about what the Bible says about itself that, quite frankly, the Bible never makes!  These claims are made by the Church on behalf of the Bible, and if you dare to question whether the Bible makes these claims (or even claim that the Bible does not make them), then you are "undermining the authority of the word of God" (or something along those lines).  Responses like these are how the Church protects their doctrine from Biblical scrutiny.  Here are two of the claims that the Church makes about the Bible on the Bible's behalf:

1. The Bible claims to be the word of God.
2. The Bible claims to be inerrant.

Let's first take a look at the evidence that the Church provides to prove these claims about the Bible.  For the assertion that the Bible claims to be the word of God, some quote this passage:

For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. [1 Thessalonians 2:13; NKJV]

And that is how we get 100% proof that the Bible claims to be the word of God!  Never-mind the fact that Paul was referring to what he spoke to the Thessalonians when he was physically with them!  So what was Paul referring to?  Probably the Law of God and the writings of the prophets in order to prove that Yeshua is the Messiah, and also the Gospel of Yeshua the Messiah.

After reviewing all of the instances in the New Testament where the phrase "word of God" appears (71 times according to Bible Gateway), I have to conclude that every single one of those appearances is referring to the "Old Testament" or specific portions of the "Old Testament", such as the Law of God and the writings of the Prophets.  There is no evidence that the phrase "word of God" is used to refer to any of the "New Testament" writings.  And in fact, if you look at the book of Revelations, you will find that the "word of God" is actually distinguished from the "testimony of Jesus [the] Christ" (that is, the Gospel message of Jesus the Messiah).

On a side note:  While none of the "New Testament" writings claim to be the word of God, Yeshua did claim to be God and he proved his claims to be true.  This makes all of Yeshua's teachings the word of God by definition, even though the writers of the Gospels never claimed that their writings were the word of God.

In the so-called "Old Testament", we see the phrase "word of Yahweh" many, many times.  Each time, it refers specifically to something that God has spoken through his prophets, or sometimes the law of God.  And in the case of the writings of the prophets, the phrase "word of Yahweh" is used many times specifically to claim that what is being said (or is about to be said) is indeed the word of God.  But the phrase "word of God" in the "Old Testament" usually just refers to the Law of God.

Does the fact that these prophetic writings claim to be the word of God mean that the whole Bible is claiming to be the word of God?  Not at all.

By the way, some within the KJV only cult will use Proverbs 30:5 to prove that the KJV is the word of God.  The line of logic behind that claim is this:  "The KJV says every word of God is pure, therefore the KJV (and only the KJV) is the word of God."  With that line of logic, you might as well use every single appearance of the phrase "word of God" as proof that the Bible itself is claiming to be the word of God.

Another passage often used as proof that the Bible itself claims to be the word of God is this verse:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness [2 Timothy 3:16; NKJV]

What's the line of logic here?  The line of logic is that since the Bible is also called Scripture, this verse is the Bible itself claiming to be the word of God.  By the way, the word (singular) translated as "given by inspiration of God", literally means "God-breathed".  This fact is used to claim that God dictated every word that is in the Bible and that the Bible is therefore claiming to be inerrant.  But that's not what this passage is saying!  By the way, since we're on the topic of taking the Greek text literally, the word translated as "scripture" is the Greek word "graphe", which literally means "writing" or "document".  Have fun trying to explain that one away!

Actually, the "New Testament" outright tells us what it is referring to when it uses "graphe":

44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures [graphe]. [Luke 24:44-45; NKJV]

The "Scriptures" refer to the law of Yahweh, the writings of his prophets, and the Psalms.  Usually, when the word "graphe" ("writing") is used, it's referring either to the law of Yahweh or the writings of the prophets, but not the Psalms.  This passage is one of only a few exceptions to this rule.  In other words, the "New Testament" used the generic word for "writing" to refer only to the writings which were widely regarded as having a great deal of authority.  And we can see this usage clearly in 2 Peter 3:16.

Now, about the "God-breathed" part:  It does not necessarily mean that Yahweh dictated every word that's in the writings that Paul is referring to.  In fact, it is highly unlikely that this is the case at all.  While the parts that claim to be quoting Yahweh directly are this way (and probably a significant portion that is not claiming to be quoting Yahweh directly), there is no reason why this cannot simply refer to Yahweh guiding the process, or motivating those who seek truth to write what they have written.  Of course, there are places where Yahweh dictated what these documents should say.  And nothing that comes directly from the mouth of Yahweh is ever in error.  But the Bible never claims to be without error.

Now, is the Bible even capable of making claims about itself?  No.  Why?  Because the Bible is a book that was compiled from 66 individual books.  It has no content of its own and is therefore not able to make any claims about itself.  Instead, what we see is some of the books in the Bible claim to be the word of God.  And some claim that other books (which are also in the Bible) are the word of God.  But the Bible itself makes no claims about itself whatsoever.  In fact, even when all of the 66 documents which are now contained within the Bible were completed, the Bible still didn't exist until these documents were compiled into a single book.  Ironically, this compilation was done by the Catholic Church, which is pretty much the only work of the Catholic Church that has any instructional value on how to carry-out the will of Yahweh, as Yeshua warned.  Though the 66 documents that are in the Bible were widely accepted as having a high level of authority long before that happened.

The Indefensibility of the King James Only Doctrine

You will come across many untestable doctrines among Christians.  One of the most prominent of which is the one that claims that only the King James Version of the Bible is the written word of God, and is perfect, while all other translations are corrupt.  But all of the arguments used to support this doctrine assume that the KJV is perfect.  Remember this as we explore some common arguments used to support King James Onlyism:  All arguments start with the assumption that the KJV is perfect, rather than proving that the KJV is perfect.

Manuscript Conflicts

Some within the KJV only crowed will assert that the Textus Receptus, which is the Greek manuscript used to make the KJV translation, is perfect while the Alexandrian texts are corrupt.  This hides the assumption that the KJV is perfect, but the assumption is still there.  Because the Textus Receptus was used to write the KJV, they also assume that the Textus Receptus is perfect.  And since the Alexandrian texts do not perfectly match the Textus Receptus, they assume that those texts must be corrupt.  By the way, the Alexandrian texts come from Alexandria, Egypt.

For a moment, let's assume that the Textus Receptus is perfect.  The KJV does not perfectly reflect what the Textus Receptus says.  In fact, someone is making a list of every translation error of the KJV using the same texts used by the KJV.  I'm not going to take the time to count every item on that list.  But it's probably easily in the thousands range.

What about the conflict over the manuscripts?  Well, the Textus Receptus predates the KJV by less than 100 years!  It is derived from the Byzantine texts among others.  These manuscripts date back to the 5th century AD.  The other major line of manuscripts, the Alexandrian texts.  Many of these manuscripts date back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD.  There are older manuscripts which date back to the 1st and 2nd centuries AD.  By the way, this is just taking into account the manuscripts of the New Testament.

The Byzantine manuscripts (from which the Textus Receptus came) are considered to have pagan influence by today's scholars, and hold little weight when trying to determine what the original text says (we don't have the originals).  The Alexandrian texts however, are considered to be largely free of pagan influence.  That combined with the fact that they're much closer to the timing of New Testament events means that they carry a lot of weight when trying to determine what the original text said.

One of the manuscripts that the Textus Receptus is derived from is the Latin Vulgate.  If we take a look at the NIV's footnote for 1 John 5:7-8, we'll notice that late editions of the Vulgate add to the text.  So early texts say:

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. [NIV]

But the later texts (14th Century onwards), including Textus Receptus, say:

7 For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. [NIV footnote]

One argument used by the KJV only crowed is that the Alexandrian texts were changed and therefore corrupted.  If we apply the same logic to the line that the Textus Receptus came from, then we see that these manuscripts, and by extension, the Textus Receptus and the KJV, are also corrupt.  And this isn't the only place where newer editions of manuscripts added or changed something from the older editions.

Not-So-Divine Inspiration

The author of the Textus Receptus (literally "received text") believes that he was inspired by "some god" (that should tell you everything you need to know).  And the KJV only crowed believes that the translators for the KJV was inspired by God.  A view not shared by those who wrote the KJV.  Divine inspiration is nearly always conflated with divine guidance, and it is argued that God "would not inspire error".  That is to say, God would not guide people into error (which I agree with).  Note that I will distinguish divine inspiration from divine guidance, with inspire always meaning "to motivate" (so that we have a consistent definition), and having nothing to do with guidance.

So the KJV only crowed believes the translators for the KJV were guided by God to create a perfect translation of the word of God.  As mentioned earlier, this view is a view that even the authors of the KJV did not hold.  Both the preface and the marginal notes of the KJV prove that the the authors did not believe they were guided by God in any way.

Now let's take a look at who or what actually motivated the KJV.  As I said in my post exposing the conflation of inspiration with guidance, when God motivates someone to write something, he only motivates the one who wants the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  He will not motivate those who seek to push an agenda.  And the KJV is definitely politically-motivated.  For example:  When he gave instructions on how to translate the Bible, he stacked the deck against the Puritans, who were his political opponents.  And that's just scratching the surface of the political motivations behind the KJV.  Do I have to mention the fact that King Jame's Bible was the only translation allowed to be read in the Church of England?

Then there's the motivation of ego.  The name of one of Yeshua's disciples was Jacob.  But you won't know that from reading the KJV, which translates the Greek word "iakobos" as James instead of Jacob.  This word is the same as "iakob", which is a transliteration of the Hebrew word of "Ya`akov", which is Hebrew for Jacob.  The sad thing is that modern translations have not done anything to fix this deliberate modification of the Bible.  The same thing is probably true for the name of Yeshua's mother, which is Meriam.  The Greek word "Maria" is a transliteration of this Hebrew name.

Languages Change Over Time

Let's assume for a moment that the KJV is a perfect translation of a perfect manuscript.  What we now have is a translation that can be understood by those who read and speak 17th-century English.  But English has changed over the last 400 years.  Some words have drastically changed in meaning while others have been dropped from the English vocabulary altogether.  Even some of the English idioms that the KJV uses are no longer in use.  And if you do not understand certain words in the KJV, then the speaker has to tell you what those words mean.

Because Humans Say So

Many within the KJV only crowed don't even attempt to prove that the KJV is the "perfect word of God".  They expect you to believe it is because they say it is, or because teachers that came before them say that it is.  They also expect you to believe that all other English translations are corrupt and therefore not the word of God.  The proof that they are corrupt is the fact that they do not exactly match the KJV.  Some go so far as to claim that the manuscripts are corrupt, simply because they do not perfectly match the KJV.  They go even further and say that if you do not believe that the KJV is the perfect word of God, then you do not believe God's promise to preserve his word.

This type of argumentation is outright heretical!  For God never required us to believe anything without evidence.  Take a look at Deuteronomy 13 and Deuteronomy 18 for example.  God required people to test the prophets.  These tests are really quite simple:  Any teacher that speaks in the name of another god, or teaches those to walk in disobedience to God's Law, or who's predictions do not come true, are to be put to death.  In other words:  The prophets are to be believed based on evidence.  The same thing happened when Moses went to the elders of Israel after Yahweh sent him to bring Israel out of Egypt.  The elders were provided with evidence!  And let's not forget all of the things that Yeshua himself did to prove that he was the Messiah, and that his enemies tried to destroy the evidence!

Real faith requires evidence.  There is no such thing as blind faith.  And making KJV onlyism a "matter of faith" is nothing more than a cop-out to avoid having to prove that which you believe.  Such people do not have faith in the KJV.  They have merely blind belief in an unprovable doctrine.

Double Standards

One of the ways to "prove" that all English translations other that the KJV are corrupt is by applying different standards to these other translations than what they apply to the KJV.  One example is for when a translation uses the phrase "Jesus the Christ" instead of "Jesus Christ".  It's okay if the KJV uses the former, but if a different translation uses it, then it's proof that the other translation is "corrupted".

By the way, the phrase "Jesus Christ" implies that "Christ" is the last name of our Lord, which it's not.  "Christ" is a title, just like how "king" or "lord" is a title.  So the phrase "Jesus Christ" is always incorrect.  The phrases "Christ Jesus" and "Jesus the Christ" are correct.  The former because the title comes before the name, and the latter because the word "the" designates that the word that follows is not part of his name.  There is nobody in the Bible with the last name of "Christ".  And the same thing applies to the word "Messiah".  The difference between "Christ" and "Messiah" is that the former is derived from the Greek while the latter is derived from the Hebrew.

Another instance of hypocrisy among the KJV only crowed concerns their accusation that the translators of some of the modern Bibles (eg: the NIV) are sodomites.  Some make this accusation and use that as the sole basis for rejecting all modern translations.  Yet they do not use the same logic for King James (who is also accused of being a sodomite) and his Bible.  I have not yet seen any evidence that modern translators are sodomites (though it wouldn't surprise me if some of them are).  And there is only circumstantial evidence that King James was a sodomite (though it wouldn't surprise me if he was).  Either way, what makes a translation good or bad is how accurate the translation is, not whether the translators are accused of sexual immorality (or any other sin).

Degrading the Word of God

Many will claim that passages like Matthew 24:35 is a promise from God to preserve his word.  And they will use this in their assertion that you do not believe in God's promise if you do not believe that the KJV (and only the KJV) is the preserved word of God.  By the way, Matthew 24:35 is where Yeshua says "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."  What they fail to realize is how degrading this alleged promise is to the word of God!  Many who do not hold to the KJV only doctrine fall for the same trap for the Bible in general.

Yeshua said that Heaven and Earth will pass away, but his words will not.  By interpreting this passage as a promise from God to "preserve his word", then it inadvertently reduces the word of God to something that must be written onto material objects in order to exist.  Whatever God speaks is, by definition, the word of God.  The existence of the word of God is not dependent on whether these words are written down onto material things, or dependent on how accurately they are written down, or dependent on the continued existence of these material things which they are written on.  In fact, when Heaven and Earth pass away, these material things that we refer to as "the word of God" will pass away with the Earth.  Yet the word of God itself will not pass away.

It is convenient, and even accurate, to call the written record of what Yahweh has said "the word of God".  And it is accurate to call such writings "the written word of God".  And it is very clear that Yahweh always intended for the things he has said to be written down so that we may know what he has said.  But the word of God itself is immaterial, and exists independently of any material thing that records it.

Another thing to consider is this:  Even if passages like Matthew 24:35 is a promise to perfectly preserve the written record of what Yahweh had said, why would Yahweh preserve this record in a language that he did not speak his word in?  And only in this language that he did not speak in when his word was being recorded?  Why would he not have it preserved in the original language that he spoke to the people in?  Why would the people he chose to be a light to the nations not have his written word preserved in their native language?  Why would Yahweh wait 3,100 years to preserve his words in a language that didn't even exist when he was speaking to the Israelites?  The answer is simple:  He wouldn't.  His words would be written in whatever language he spoke them in, and it would be these writings which would be preserved.

Authorized by a Man

One point that the KJV only crowed brings up is the fact that it's the only "authorized" English translation of the Bible.  Guess who authorized it:  King James.  And as we've seen earlier, he had some political motivations for his Bible.  And it wouldn't matter anyways for several reasons.  The primary reason is that authorization by a human king is not the same as authorization by Yahweh.  And to the best of my knowledge, Yahweh has not said anything concerning which translation most accurately represents his word.  Also, the authorization only applies to the land of England, and possibly to territories controlled by England.  Finally, what happens if a future king of England writes a new English translation, and deauthorizes the KJV?  Will they say that we should only be reading from this new translation?  Or will they continue to stick with the KJV?

Lying for King James

Remember earlier when I pointed-out that the KJV only crowed assumes what they're trying to prove?  Well, using the KJV as the de-facto standard for what an English translation is supposed to say, the KJV only crowed will compare modern translations to the KJV and use the differences as proof that these translations are corrupted.  But the way they go about it is downright deceitful.

Have you ever heard of the "missing verses" of the NIV or other modern translations?  What the KJV only crowed doesn't tell you is that these "missing verses" are actually found in the footnotes, which explain that they are not found in the earliest available manuscripts, or that they are not found in some of the earliest available manuscripts.  In other words, the verses aren't "missing" at all.  In fact, not only are these verses still present in the footnotes, but these so-called "missing verses" are likely additions to the text made during copying.

So what's the reasoning for these modern translations not putting these "missing verses" in the text?  The reasoning is simple:  The earlier manuscripts have more weight than the later manuscripts.  And where multiple manuscripts carry the most weight, it is believed that people are more likely to add to the text than to subtract from it.  Of course, this doesn't matter to the KJV only crowed.  They want you to believe that all translations other than the KJV are part of a New Age plot to subtly introduce corrupted doctrines into the Body of the Messiah just because these translations are not the KJV.

In addition, some will make the KJV only doctrine a matter of salvation.  They will say that if you do not get your doctrines only from the KJV, then you are not saved because you are believing in a "corrupted" gospel.  Nevermind the fact that the KJV says that salvation is through faith in Yeshua ("Yeshua" is Hebrew for "Jesus" in case anyone gets any ideas).  So they make salvation a matter of believing in the KJV Bible rather than in Yeshua.

Meaning of Words

Here's one instance where I am partially going to side with the KJV only crowed.  Key word "partially".  That is on the point that if you change the words, you change the meaning of the text.  I say "partially", because this works both ways, and the KJV is not always the correct translation.  There are indeed many places where modern translations have a slightly different wording than the KJV which results in drastically different meanings.  But these changes make up for a very, very small percentage of the entirety of the Bible.

Different translations will have different places where these changes occur.  In probably the majority of cases, it's the KJV that is correct.  But there are some cases where the KJV is wrong.  For example, the word translated as "converted" in Acts 3:19 is "epistrepho", which means to "turn back" or "return".  There are many other cases where the change in meaning is inevitable due to how the English language itself has changed over time.  For example, the singular and plural forms of the word "you" is no longer in common use.  Another example is how certain words (eg: the word "suffer") change their meaning over time.  Suffer used to mean "to allow".  It doesn't mean that anymore.  In cases like these, the modern translations preserve the meaning of the passage.

Weaponizing Matthew 12:31

In Matthew 12:31, Yeshua states that blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.  For quite some time now, people have been claiming to have heard from the Holy Spirit various things.  Or claim that the Holy Spirit has done various things.  How do these people know it was the Holy Spirit?  They don't!  Because they don't know how to test the spirits.  Those who do know how to test the spirits will easily be able to find everything wrong with what the "Holy Spirit" is saying or doing, and prove that it's not actually the Holy Spirit saying or doing these things.  But what happens when these counterfeit spirits are exposed for what they really are?  Those who claim to have heard from the Holy Spirit invoke Matthew 12:31, and even 1 Thessalonians 5:19.  In other words, they will claim that you are blaspheming or quenching the Holy Spirit.

As with any doctrine that cannot withstand Biblical scrutiny, the wolves claiming that the Holy Spirit is speaking to them do not tolerate you testing the spirit to see if it's from Yahweh.  Instead, they claim that you have committed the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, or that you are quenching the Holy Spirit in order to silence those who know better, and to cause impressionable people to believe that whoever opposes them are in the wrong.  Of course, if any spirit claims to be the Holy Spirit but is not, then that spirit must be quenched and exposed for the fraud that it really is.  For no spirit that is from Yahweh will falsely claim to be the Holy Spirit.

Testing to see if a spirit is actually the Holy Spirit requires knowledge and a robust understanding of the Bible.  Especially of the Law of Yahweh, the Prophets, and the teachings of Yeshua.  A good understanding of what the Holy Spirit has done historically is also of great significance.  Particularly, what the Holy Spirit did as recorded in the book of Acts.  It's actually a shame that so few Christians have even read the Bible, let alone understand it.  And while I'm not claiming to have a perfect understanding of Scripture, I understand enough to know that the spirits claiming to be the Holy Spirit, are actually from the enemy!

Let me give you an example.  Paul's conversion.  What does Acts say happened to Paul during his conversion?  Acts 9:1-9 reveals that Paul fell to the ground!  The Bible does not reveal if it was the Holy Spirit that did this, but for the sake of the argument, let's say that it was (though I don't believe it was).  Notice that Paul was receiving correction from Yeshua when this happened.  If we take a look at instances in the book of Acts, instances where Yahweh isn't correcting anyone, we see that not one of them ever fell to the ground.  The only ones who fell to the ground were the ones receiving correction!  Think about that!  And also think about how those who allegedly have the Holy Spirit fall in such a manner that there is a very serious risk of injury.  Funny how the alleged proof that the Holy Spirit is doing those things can result in injury instead of healing, which is often what is promised.

When these counterfeit spirits aren't making an awe-inspiring display that fools the people into believing that they are the Holy Spirit, there's saying things which contradict what Yahweh revealed through his Law, the Prophets, and his son, Yeshua.  And they also contradict the accounts that the historical records give concerning the Holy Spirit's actions.  Records that Yahweh made sure were written by people of integrity!  These spirits are calling Yahweh a liar!  Among the lies that these spirits teach are vein repetition and counterfeit tongues (which numbs the brain, making them more susceptible to possession), that those who have the Holy Spirit can lose control over their bodies (that's actually demon possession), and prosperity gospel.

Of course, we can't forget the most basic test:

1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. [1 John 1:3; NKJV]

Nobody seems to test the spirit concerning this one basic thing, or other like it (eg: whether Yeshua is the son of Yahweh, or is the Messiah).  It's kind of important to get this information from the beginning, so that nobody will be deceived later on.

Bad Friday, Good Passover

Today is one of the instances where Good Friday and Passover land on the same day, in spite of the fact that the Catholic Church tried so hard to make sure that this didn't happen.  Good Friday is allegedly the day that Yeshua (Jesus) died.  The alleged date of this death is Friday, March 25, A.D. 33.  There are a few problems with this date, however.

First problem:

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. [Matthew 12:40; NKJV]

You can't get 3 days and 3 nights from a Friday burial and Sunday resurrection.  Some will claim that something taking up a part of the day is counted as taking a full day.  But this nullifies what Yeshua said concerning his (then) upcoming death and resurrection.  When you see something like what we have in the above passage, it means a specific number of full days and full nights.  In this case, 3 full periods of daylight and 3 full periods of night.  But from what we would call Friday evening to Sunday morning only gives 1 day and 2 nights in the grave.

But let's be a little generous and say that part of a period of daylight counts as the full daylight period, and part of a period of night counts as the full period of night.  How many days and nights would he be in the grave for given a Friday burial (just before or at sundown) and a Sunday resurrection?  2 days and 2 nights!  Yeshua would have to have died on Thursday in order for this to count as 3 days and 3 nights when using this unbiblical counting method.

So, what would a Thursday burial give us when requiring the full length of the daylight and night periods?  2 days and 3 nights.  Just one daylight period short of the full 72-hour period that he said he would be in the grave for.  So what would it take to get 3 days and 3 nights?  A Wednesday death with burial at sundown, and a resurrection on what we would call Saturday evening.  They would call it the evening of the first day.

Second problem:

The biblical new year is in the month of Aviv, which is now called Nisan (yes, the Hebrew calendar has been paganized).  Passover is on the 14th of Aviv.  This year, it happens to be today.  Take a look at where the 14th of Aviv lands in the year of A.D. 33.  It lands on Friday, April 1.  Good Friday didn't even land on the correct Friday that year!  It's exactly one week off.

Now, let's address a common argument used to defend the tradition of Good Friday:  That the next day was the Sabbath.  The fact of the matter is that the day after Passover is always a Sabbath, regardless of which day Passover falls on.  Aviv 14 is Passover, and Aviv 15 is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  This day is what is known as a "special Sabbath".  Aviv 21 is the 7th and last day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  It too is a special Sabbath.  So no matter which day of the week Passover falls on, the next day is still a special Sabbath.  The relevant passage is Leviticus 23:4-8.

Also, John 19:31 actually states that the next day was a special Sabbath.  While it's true that a special Sabbath can land on the weekly Sabbath, a special Sabbath can also land on any other day of the week.  There are a total of 7 special sabbaths in Torah.  Those that use the argument that it must be Friday because the next day is the Sabbath show that they do not understand Scripture.

The third problem is that Yeshua did not die in A.D. 33.  He died in A.D. 30.

Here is A.D. 30.  Notice the start of Aviv.  And notice where Aviv 14 lands.  It lands on Wednesday, April 3.  This is the exact day that it needs to land on in order to fulfill Yeshua's prophesy about him being in the ground 3 days and 3 nights.  Note that the Last Supper happened on what we would call Tuesday evening or Tuesday night.

Here is the sequence of events that happened:  On Tuesday night, Yeshua eats supper with his disciples for the last time.  He then goes out with his disciples to the Mount of Olives to pray.  It is there he is arrested.  The following morning, Yeshua is sentenced to death and sent to Golgotha where he is crucified.

At sunset, he is buried and the tomb is sealed.  The special Sabbath begins shortly thereafter.  On Thursday, nobody is working because of the special Sabbath.  After this, probably on Friday, a couple of women make plans to anoint Yeshua's body after the weekly Sabbath.  They don't do it today because it is preparation day for the weekly Sabbath, and they won't have enough time before the weekly Sabbath starts.

Finally, on what we call Saturday evening, Yeshua rises from the dead and is discovered the following morning.  This is the Feast of First Fruits, and Yeshua is the First Fruits of the dead.  It also fulfills his Matthew 12:40 prophesy.

Fourth problem:

Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it. [Deuteronomy 12:32; NKJV]

This is pretty straight-forward:  We are to serve Yahweh the way he commands us to serve him.  We are not to serve him our own way.

Good Friday seems to be an exception to the rule that the Catholic Church hijacks everything (don't count on that though).  A read through Scripture reveals that the disciples were not specific that Yeshua was in the ground 3 full days and 3 full nights.  They were also typically not specific on the time of day of his death and resurrection.  This lack of specificity, if continued, would naturally result in people believing that Yeshua was crucified on Friday and raised on Sunday.  And since I can't find anything on the exact origins of Good Friday, I'm going to conclude that this is what happened, and that the Catholic Church just ran with it.  And I also found that the name "Good Friday" is less than 800 years old.

If you want to remember Yeshua's death on the day that he died, then you should celebrate Passover according to all of the rules laid out in Exodus 12:43-49.  If you don't want to do that, that's fine.  Yeshua gave us something to remember his death by that nobody does.  It's called the "Lord's Supper".  This has been replaced with a cracker and one-ounce cup of grape juice called "Communion".  Also, Yeshua simply said "do this in remembrance of me."  So we can do this as often as we want.

Misunderstanding the Doctrine of Obedience

Have you ever heard the claim that "obedience to God's Law is by definition, salvation by works"?  Well, that's a lie!  According to Deuteronomy 13, those that love Yahweh obey his Law.  And those that rebel against his Law by definition, practice idolatry!  Is it possible that someone will keep Yahweh's Law as a means of salvation?  Yes.  But there are other reasons to keep the Law of Yahweh.  For example, to prove that you love Yahweh.  Or to prove that they believe in Yeshua.  Yeshua said that those who love him will keep his commandments (John 14:21).  And Yeshua commanded us to live on every word of Yahweh (Matthew 4:4).  You are not living on every word of Yahweh if you are rebelling against his Law!

This misunderstanding concerning obedience is understandable.  Simply put, the teaching that, "one cannot be saved so long is one is living in rebellion", can be easily misinterpreted as saying that it's the obedience that saves you, rather than faith in Yeshua.  For example, Hebrews 10:26 makes it clear that those living in rebellion have no atonement.  But it is also clear from other passages, such as Romans 3:19-20, make it clear that, even if one were to stop rebelling against Yahweh's Law, they would still not be saved!  And Yeshua said, "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men [Matthew 12:31; NKJV]."  So the one who stops their rebellion will be forgiven of their rebellion.

While this may look like salvation by works, it's not.  It only looks that way because living in rebellion will prevent you from being saved.  If someone stops rebelling against Yahweh's commandments, that does not automatically mean they are saved.  It just means they can be saved.  Salvation still comes from believing in Yeshua.  All this can be summed-up by the following saying:  "Obedience cannot save you, but rebellion will condemn you."  You might have also heard this saying:  "We do not keep the Law to be saved.  We keep the Law because we're saved."

There are some things that need to be addressed.  The ultimate reason that this misunderstanding exists is because Satan wants to keep us away from Yahweh.  And he does that by deceiving us into believing that the Law is bad, and that keeping it is bad.  Yeshua warned against this tactic when he said, "These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.  And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men [Matthew 15:8-9; NKJV]."  Their hearts are far from Yahweh because they do not keep his commandments.  So now you know that drawing close to Yahweh starts with keeping his Law.

There are of course human motivations for believing that obedience is salvation by works:  People do not like change!  They want to continue in their ways and their hearts deceive them into making excuses for continuing in what they now know is sinful.  This is an excellent example of the mind being governed by the flesh not being able to submit to Yahweh's Law, as Paul warned about in Romans 8:7.  For teachers, there is even more motivation to teach this:  Money and/or power!  Or rather, the love of money and/or power.  People generally have itching ears and will not tolerate anyone who does not tell them exactly what they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3-4)!  And guess what:  You can't maintain a Church building if nobody is there to give their "tithe" to the Church.  Then there are the wolves!  These teachers know the truth, and teach the opposite.  It is their job to make sure that you perish in the Lake of Fire!  By the way, the more people realize that God expects us to keep his Law, the more wolves will make themselves known.

The Catholic Church Hijacks Everything

When it comes to the teachings, practices, and traditions of the Catholic Church, you'd be hard-pressed to find something that actually did originate with them.  Actually, it's probably impossible to find a single thing that originated from the Catholic Church.  This is because of the Roman tradition of incorporating the traditions of surrounding cultures into their own.  The Catholic Church began as an extension of the Roman government, so it should come as no surprise that they continue that tradition.

Here's how this hijacking works.  When the Catholic Church wants to make "Christianity" look more appealing to the masses of whatever culture they encounter, they adopt the pagan practices of that culture and modify it to look more "Christian".  We know from Deuteronomy 12 that God does not accept his people worshiping him the way the pagans worshiped their gods.  Yet this is how we got Christmas, Easter, Good Friday, Halloween, Sunday Sabbath, etc.  All of these are pagan traditions modified to look Christian.

Not all practices come from the pagan cultures.  Some actually did come from Christianity, which came from Judaism.  The Catholic Church corrupts those practices as well.  Baptism is one example of a Christian practice that was hijacked by the Catholic Church.  Another example is the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Yeshua (Jesus), and some of his teachings.  Since the Catholic Church is trying to look Christian (though they are actually pagan), it should be expected that they hijack some Christian practices and teachings.  Because convincing deceptions use truth to gain your trust.  By the way, the Catholic's "Mary" is actually the pagan goddess Diana, which also makes the Catholic "Jesus" a pagan deity, which they make to look like the Jesus of the Bible.

Going off of Isaiah 1:12-15, we can clearly see that when we mix God's instructions with man's traditions, God counts all of it as man's traditions, and despises them!  Yet this is exactly what the Catholic Church has done with Yeshua.  When Isaiah proclaimed that all the feasts that Yahweh proclaimed to Israel were despised by the one who proclaimed them, the people must have been very confused as to why.  After all, God proclaimed them, so he must be pleased when we partake in them, right?  Unfortunately, they fell for the same trap that their ancestors fell for 1,000 years earlier:  When you make a golden calf to Yahweh, you aren't worshiping Yahweh, you're worshiping the calf!  Likewise, when you mix the practices that Yahweh commanded with human tradition, you're not practicing what Yahweh commanded, you're following human rules.  Isaiah 29:13 points this out quite clearly, which Yeshua later quoted in Matthew 15:8.

Because the Catholic Church hated the Jews, they did everything in their power not to adopt any of their practices (biblical or otherwise).  This is why instead of remembering Yeshua's death on Passover, they do it on Good Friday, and why Good Friday almost never falls on the same day as Passover.  This is also why they don't keep the Day of Atonement, or the biblical Sabbath (Saturday), or the Feasts of Trumpets, or any other day that God has appointed.  In fact, they even outlawed the observance of such days under penalty of death!  By the way, to the best of my knowledge, this is the only exception to the rule.

To summarize:  If something appears to have originated with the Catholic Church, then it is certainly a hijacked pagan tradition or teaching that has been modified to look Christian.  And even in the rare instances where the Catholic Church actually did invent something rather than adapting an existing pagan practice, it's still pagan because it came from the Catholic Church.  And any practice or teaching of the Catholic Church that appears to come from the Bible is certainly a corrupted version of what the Bible actually teaches.  Discernment is needed to distinguish between the Biblical teaching, and the Catholic counterfeit.