Thursday, April 22, 2010
This church claims that Jesus isn't God, but a created being. However, the scripture clearly states that Jesus said of himself, "I Am who I Am". He was referencing the Old Testament's Name of God. I discussed some of these issues with a pastor from this church when I lived on Guam, and it was amazing how he twisted the meaning of the scriptures around. Many cult leaders are pretty good at twisting the scriptures to mean what they want them to mean, but that doesn't mean that they are right in their conclusion. The Bible is clear that Jesus is God, the Bible is clear that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and the Bible is clear that Jesus rose again from the dead.
Any religion or church that claims that they are the true religion based on new information outside of the Bible is a false church.
The Inglesia points to their name as evidence that they are the true Church. You can't call yourself something and claim that you have the truth just because of your name. They claim that its emergence in the Philippines was prophesied in the Bible.
"Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you; I will say to the north, ‘Give up,’ and the south, ‘Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth.’"
The fact is, you can't make any conclusions about the Philippines based on this verse.
My warning to you is to be careful of false religions so you don't get sucked into a lie.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
The next thing a critic needs to remember is the “parol evidence rule” which says, “External, oral testimony or tradition will not be received in evidence to add to, subtract from, vary, or contradict an executed written instrument such as a will. This rule insists that the New Testament documents should be allowed to 'interpret itself' and not be twisted to external, extra-biblical data.”
The other rule to follow is “The hearsay rule” which states, “A witness must testify 'of his own knowledge', not on the basis of what has come to him indirectly from others i.e. hearsay. Were the writers on the New Testament documents eyewitnesses of the events that they recorded?”
You also need to follow “The cross-examination principle” which says, “The more a witness is subjected to close and searching cross examination, the more confidence we can place in their testimony. Were the witnesses of Jesus and his life subjected to severe opposition - hostile cross-examiners who would destroy the case of Christianity if the early Christian's testimony been contradicted by the facts?”
When you apply these principles to the New Testament, you will find that the New Testament is accurate and valid.
Plagiarism is a new concept that is only talked about in modern times. It definitely wasn’t an issue when the Bible was written. Matthew wrote first, later Luke wrote his Gospel and then Mark wrote his Gospel. The Atheist already has it wrong because Mark wrote his Gospel last. He used the Matthew and Luke books to write his Gospel, but so what? If someone is writing a reference book today, they might quote or use information from someplace else too, but does that mean the book is inaccurate? Luke was writing on his own understanding of the events. Just because he got some another source doesn't make his document inaccurate. Luke was a close friend of the apostles and that would make his testimony valid.
The Atheist website goes on to attempt to discredit the letters written by Saul. It looks like they forgot to discuss his conversion. They talk about how the letters don’t talk about the Gospels, but they forget to mention if the story of Paul is accurate. Paul was converted to Christianity after he persecuted Christians by a vision he had of Jesus. Apparently that evidence wasn’t important enough for them to mention.
Looking around at the Atheists website, they talk a lot about how no prominent Atheist ever converted to Christianity. However, that is not the case. I guess in there mind a prominent Atheist is someone who actually wrote something on Atheism. I think most people that are big time Atheist to the point where they invested their life to disprove Christian probably are lost causes anyway. The person who writes for the Atheist website I am sure would never be converted to Christianity. Someone who is that far into their hatred for Christians probably won’t ever convert. Like I said before, the Atheists are usually someone who had a bad experience with Christianity so they do everything they can to discredit it. They even go so far as to attempt to convince people that the most prominent man that ever lived didn’t even exists. However, there are many people who were Atheist, and who didn’t believe in God at some point in there life that did convert to Christianity. It is probably because they realized that there has to be something more to life then what we have today. There has to be a better place in this world then the killing, terrorism, and hatred that goes on in today’s world. These Atheists below are people who didn’t believe in a God, but didn’t sink so far into the hatred for Christianity that they became a lost cause. They eventually saw the truth and converted.
1) Steve Beren who was a former member of the Socialist Workers Party who became a conservative politician
2) Anders Borg
3) Whittaker Chambers who was a Communist and became a conservative writer
4) Francis Collins who was a Geneticist atheist until 27
5) Andre Frossard
6) Eugene D. Genovese who was a Historian Stalinist7) We also know that Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son became a Christian. The athiest will say that he wasn't a famous atheist. What is the definition of a famious atheist? An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. I guess they say that it only matters if the atheist wrote books about being an atheist and then converted. To me, an atheist is someone who was brainwashed into hating religion or God. Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son was completly brainwashed. He converted to Christianity because he realized, at a low point in his life, that there has to be someone smarter then man in this universe. Have you noticed that all of the famous atheist had a deep hatred for Christians? The atheist website will deny this, but every atheist website I have ever been to talks alot about trying to disprove Christianity. Jesus taught that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kindom of heaven. It is also hard for an arrogant atheist who denies that an the extremely complex universe was created my intelligence and not by some random chance to enter the kindom of heaven. The fact is that many people of all walks of life have converted to Christianity because they came to the realization of the truth.
You can see many more at this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_atheists
Some information is taken from:
The fact of the matter is this, Jesus did exist and he is a historical figure and anybody who attempts to say he isn't is ignorant of the facts.
Now Faith...is the art of holding on to things your reason 'has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods where they get off, you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of Faith. - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
>> Monday, October 6, 2008
The Atheists who do not believe that Jesus even lived completely discount the Old Testament Prophecies concerning him. Why would they take into consideration the Old Testament Prophecies concerning a man they don't even believe existed? The fact that Jesus didn't exist must be the greatest hoax in the history of man. Not only because he was lying about who he said he was, but that he didn't even exist. If they believed that he existed, then they would have to consider that he fulfilled these prophecies.
Some important prophecies he fulfilled:
1) He was betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9->Matthew 10:4)
2) He was sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12->Matthew 26:15)
3) Forsaken by his disciples (Zechariah 13:7->Mark 14:50)
4) Spit upon (Isaiah 50:6, Micah 5:1->Mathew 26:67)
5) Crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12->Matthew 27:38)
6) The conversion of the Gentiles to him (Isaiah 11:10, 42:1 ->Mt 1:17)
If Jesus existed, and these prophecies were written before they happened, then this is something that is very significant to the world. There are around 2500 prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus. The mathematical chance of them being fulfilled are 10 to the 2000 power.
Many of these prophecies were outside his control such as what his name would be called, where he was born etc. Before you can think these Prophecies could be true, you would have to consider that the Bible is accurate. You have to believe that the Old Testament was written before the New Testament, that Jesus existed, and that the text is reliable and hasn't been changed over time.
"All of the many examples of OT "predictions" of Jesus are so silly that one need only look them up to see their irrelevance". This quote is taken from the Atheist website at:
The Atheist completely discount these prophecies by calling them silly. It is more silly to think that this complex universe came into existence by chance and so many religions are based on a man that never existed. Now that is silly.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
I was raised Catholic and it was pretty hard to make the decision to leave.
When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."
After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
Can the Catholic Church claim that the Pope’s lineage goes all the way to Peter, the Apostle of Jesus. At one point in history there was actually no Pope. There was two Popes who ended up excommunicated each other.
The cardinals elected Urban to be the Pope, but he was unpopular when he attempted some reform. After 6 months, the cardinals declared his Papacy as invalid. They elected Clement VII to replace him. Italy, England, Poland and Hungary remained loyal to Urban while France, Scotland, Naples and the Spanish kingdoms supported Clement. Each Pope excommunicated the other Pope. So whoever was the valid Pope, the half of the world was condemned to hell while the other half was saved.
Friday, April 16, 2010
"Mary is the first saint, and holds high honor today, as she did in the early Church. Over the course of history, devotion to Mary has taken many forms, and even has been confused with worship. Church teaching has consistently placed Mary in the company of the saints, however."
The Catholic Church claims that Mary is just another Saint and the Catholic Church just respects and honors her. If that is the case, then why is it that they give her Godly attributes? They claim she isn't worshipped, but they say that she never died (Like Jesus) and they say that she was sinless (Like Jesus), and they say that she ascended into heaven (Like Jesus). They also claim that she never had sexual relations (Like Jesus) even though she was married (which anybody who is married should realize how hard this is to do). If Mary had all these attributes, then why isn't she worshipped? That would be my question. There are some serious theological issues with some of the view points that are placed onto Mary that needs to be analyzed.
When I was first having questions about the Catholic Faith, I looked all over the Bible trying to find where the Bible says that Mary was sinless, or that Mary ascended into heaven. I couldn't find it.
The Catholic answer to this problem would be:
"Are you aware that you are clinging to a Protestant tradition? There is no verse in Sacred Scripture that says all religious truth must be found explicitly in Scripture."
The Protestants are the people who hold the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, without errors or contradictions. The Catholic Church apparently doesn't hold to this view even though they read the Bible in every MASS. The question is this, where would the Catholic Church get other information outside the Bible that is inspired by God? I would also ask, if Mary was sinless and ascended into heaven, wouldn't that have appeared in the Gospels? Wouldn't that be almost as significant as some of the stuff that Jesus did? Don't you think the Apostles would have mentioned something so significant in the Gospels? So if this information about Mary isn't in the Bible, then where does it come from?
"At the Council of Trent in 1546, the veneration of Mary became official Catholic doctrine. She was declared sinless, and in 1854 Pope Pius IX added that her conception was immaculate as well, preserving her from original sin. The Vatican Council of 1870 ratified Mary's immaculate conception and further stated that the popes were infallible. Current doctrine. In 1950 Pope Pius XII decreed that Mary had been "assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." Vatican II calls Mary the "Mother of the Church" and partially credits her for the new birth. She is considered the "second Eve" in the same manner that Scripture calls Jesus the second Adam."
So the Catholic Church believes that the Popes has the power to add to the Bible any view point they choose. The reason why Protestants hold to the Bible is because we know the Bible is inspired by God because of the evidence. But, there isn't any evidence to support that the Pope is infallible. It is interesting to note that a Pope declares himself to be infallible. You don't think this is a little suspicious that a man declares himself to be infallible. If I started to go around telling my family and friends that I am infallible, they will think I am crazy. People will need to realize that only God is infallible. Even the Apostles were fallible. I mean, Peter and Paul had arguments. So if Peter was the first Pope, as the Catholic Church claims, was he infallible?
"All Have Sinned and Fall Short of the Glory of God"
This verse doesn't say except Mary or except the Pope, but everybody.
Mary sings a song in Luke 1:47:
my spirit rejoices in God my Savior...
In this verse, Mary sings a Song and calls God her Savior. If she is sinless, then what does she need a Savior for? The whole point of men needing a Savior is because we are sinners and have sinned against God. If Mary never sinned against God, then she doesn't need a savior.
Luke 2:22 says:
"...and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, 'A PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS.'"
In this verse when Jesus was born, Mary sacrificed pigeons for her sins. She was following the Jewish tradition recognizing that she was a sinner and needed to sacrifice for her sins.
You need to be very careful of adopting mans view points. Religions all over the world adopt view points made by man, but the only religious text that God has given to man to understand him is the Bible. Therefore, you need to study the Bible to learn truth. Truth is found in the Bible and not the other way around.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The Mormon Temple in UTAH.
The Bible says believers were first called Christians after Paul's ministry in Antioch.
Acts 11:26 "And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."
However, the Book of Mormon claims people were known by this title as early as 73 B.C.
Alma 46:15 "...yea, all those who were true believes in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come."
The Holy Ghost was bestowed on the Christians at the time of Pentecost.
Acts 2:1-4 "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. ... And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,..."
Yet the Book of Mormon claims that people received the gift of the Holy Ghost as early as 545 B.C.
("Doctrines of Salvation," vol. 1 pp 188-189.)
"And I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark and loathsome and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations."
"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."
2 Nephi 30:6
". . . a white and delightsome people."
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The author of this article is trying to convince Catholics that the theory of evolution is true, and it is supported by Catholic Theology.
I am not Catholic but my father raised my entire family Catholic. My dad is pretty conservative, but I think he gets confused on some of the issues regarding the Bible because of the liberal theology that gets spewed out of the Catholic church. There is one thing that the Catholic church is suppose to agree on with the Protestants and that is the Bible.
I have already talked about all of the major holes in the theory of evolution, but I don't understand why a Catholic, who claims to believe in God and the Bible, wants to spend his time trying to convince other Catholics of the theory of evolution.
This is one of the reasons why I left the Catholic church. The Catholic church has fallen into the trap of becoming just another liberal church that can't stand up for Biblical Truth. Quoting from the article: "I find most creationists who reject evolution wholesale really know nothing of the science that's behind the theory." This goes back to one of my prior posts. So are you telling me that no creation scientist knows anything about evolution? Give me a break! I wouldn't even say that about evolution scientists. I just think that evolutionist have adopted the theory of evolution because they just don't want to believe in a Creator. They have convinced themselves that order can come from chaos, and if you throw random molecules around long enough then maybe it will produce life.
It was pretty disappointing to hear how the Pope's have chosen to support the theory of evolution when they were able to stand their ground against abortion and gay marriage.
Either the Bible is true, or the Bible isn't true. You get to pick one or the other, but not both. The Bible clearly states that the earth was created in 6 days and on the 7th day, God rested. If each day is a million years, then the Jews who celebrate the Sabbath will be resting for a very long time.
Another quote from this site: "Humphreys is a Protestant young-earther who is not taken seriously by anyone in conventional science. Why a Catholic would refer to him I do not know."
Well, the reason why your Catholic brother is quoting from Humphreys is because he has a PHD in Physics. The guy is brilliant in my opinion and just because someone is a Catholic doesn't mean that they can't quote from a Protestant who is correct and supports his position. In my prior posts I mention many scientists that do not believe in the theory of evolution. The difference between them and the theistic evolutionist that this article is supporting is that the theistic evolutionist crumble under pressure. They are just people who compromise the truth to support their own agenda.
If you are Catholic, don't be deceived by articles like this. Catholics should still be standing up for the Bible and supporting the scriptures.
The Bible is what holds the answer, not man. Science is a bunch of people trying to examine the world around them to understand how it operates. But, often times they are wrong. The Bible is God's Word to man, and that is never wrong.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Theistic evolution believes that the earth is billions of years old. They might also believe that God created the world and then evolution took over. There are two theories that came from this way of thinking such as the “Day Age Theory” and the “Gap Theory”. Most theistic evolutionist would agree with the Darwinian timeline of events.
The Day Age Theory:
The Day-Age Theory, which suggests that the creation days in Genesis 1 were not literal, 24-hour days, but rather were long ages or eons of time. This theory was adopted because Christians thought that evolution has been proven; therefore, they needed long years to keep the Bible inline with evolution.
Jack Wood Sears, while also a professor at Harding University, wrote: “Science, as I indicated earlier, has seemed to indicate that life has been here much longer than we have generally interpreted the Bible to indicate” (1969, p. 97, emp. added).
From the Bible's point of view, if the writer of Genesis was attempting to say that a day was millions of years, he would have said so. The writer wouldn’t have said that the day was 24 hours if he meant something else. Also, the Sabbath only makes sense when the days are literal 24 hour days. How are the Jews suppose to keep the Sabbath Holy if the day for the Sabbath is a million years?
Whenever the writer really intended to convey the idea of a very long duration of time, they normally would use some such word as olam (meaning “age” or “long time”) or else attached to yom an adjective such as rab (meaning “long”), so that the two words together yom rab, then meant “long time.” But yom by itself can apparently never be proved, in one single case, to require the meaning of a long period of time, and certainly no usage which would suggest a geologic age (1974, p. 223, emp. in orig.).
The Gap Theory:
Another theory, which I thought was a dead theory, is the Gap Theory. I figured that this was a dead theory until I visited a church a few years ago where the preacher preached a sermon on the Gap Theory. I was pretty disappointed.
Genesis 1:1 says:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 says:
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The Gap theory says that there is a huge gab between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. They usually suggest that there are millions/billions of years between these two versus. Some people might even put the fall of Satan between these two periods. This was another significant attempt by theologians to reconcile the time scale of world history found in Genesis with the evolutionist theories that says the world is billions of years old.
This theory is held by many people who use the Bible study aids such as the Scofield Reference Bible, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, and The Newberry Reference Bible.
Some problems with this theory are:
Exodus 20:11 says, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day heaven.”
Where is the time for this gap in this verse? If there was a gap, then I think one of the inspired writers somewhere in the Bible would have mentioned it.
There are many other big issues with the Gap theory and if you are interested in them, you can visit this site: christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-gaptheory-problems.html.
My conclusion is this:
If you are a Christian, then stand fast to the teachings of the Bible and don’t compromise it under pressure. The evolutionist won’t respect us if we cave in to their atheistic theories. Science isn’t absolute, but the Bible is. The Bible has always survived over time and will survive until Jesus returns. The theory of evolution is cracking, and someday will collapse. A Christian should always be true to the scriptures for that is where the truth is found, not in atheistic science.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Many evolutionist try to suggest that creation science isn't real science.
What is the difference between a creation scientist and an evolution scientists? What makes true science? Is it because the creationist have faith, but evolutionist do not? I would argue that it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in creationism. Both sides seek evidence to support their points of view. It will be up to you to analyze the facts.
If a scientist converts to creationism, then some evolutionist would say it is because the scientist hasn't done anything significant. That kind of reasoning is redicoulous.
You can find qualified scientists in all areas of science that "DO NOT" believe in evolution. If you don't believe in evolution, then you would have to believe in God because there is no alternative.
Here are a list of evolutionists who have converted to creationism.Emeritus Professor
Tyndale John Rendle
Charle Lieberts (Chemist)
Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."
Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)
You can get more information from visiting the following websites.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
The definition of Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species.
These are the definitions that talkorigins.org website would define them as.
Creationist believes in Microevolution and specification.
A created kind has the ability to interbreed at the start, but eventually by the shuffling of genes and the loss of information, some of those in the kind are not able to interbreed and so different species arise. It is still the same kind. Creationists do not believe that one kind would evolve into another kind. What Macroevolution would say is that over millions of years, a cat can change into a dog or a monkey will change into a man. There is no scientific evidence that will demonstrate this. The evolutionists will use the fruit fly in many experiments to convince people of evolution. The evolutionist have documented over 3,000 mutations, but not once demonstrated a fruit fly mutating into another kind of insect. One example of a mutated fruit fly was one that mutated into a four-winged fruit fly and the evolutionist claimed it was a good mutation. However, the evolutionist forgot to mention that the fruit fly was severely impaired when it came to it actually flying.
Richard Dawkins, an influential evolutionist and atheist, was asked to provide one example where new information was added to DNA as observed by science in a debate. He avoided the question, but later submitted a three page argument where he still didn’t answer the question.
The animals that have traits that prevent them from surviving will have a loss of genetic code. The genetic code isn’t increased to change them into another kind as evolutionist would claim.
You will see studying this issue that many evolutions would say microevolution + time +X = macroevolution. So what they are saying is that some cat that adapts to their environment will some day, over million of years, change their DNA structure and become a totally different kind. No scientist can quote any examples seen in nature but all they can say is that it happens over time, and they think creationist live by faith.
Every example that evolutionist would try to show as a transitional form has another and more plausible explanation. There aren’t any credible examples of macro-evolution.
They don’t call it, “Darwin’s missing link” for nothing.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
However, many atheist have a tendency to attack people who do believe in a God (mostly Christians) which to me would seem to make atheist a little more than just a belief in “no God”. If you look at the atheists websites, you will find that they are always centered on what Christians would say about them. At the website infidels.org, they list common arguments for atheism. At least 9 of the 20 arguments are referencing what Christians would say. They mention no other religion but Christianity. Are they just an organization that is anti-Christian? If you visit the atheists.org website, you will see them state: “An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now-here on earth for all men together to enjoy.” Richard Dawkins is another atheist that spends his time attacking Christianity. I personally feel sorry for him since this pathetic earth is all he has to live for. I use the word pathetic because this world is filled with suffering and wars caused by man. it isn't in just today's society, but throughout history. Of course, the atheist blame it on religion.
The two arguments that convinces me that there is a God: moral absolutes and creationism. Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. Christians believe that God sets the moral code on how man should live. If someone else sets the moral code such as man, than how would we differentiate between people's different perceptions on what is right and wrong. Nobody can totally agree on what is right and what is wrong. That is why there must be a higher power giving us the moral code to live by. Is abortion right or wrong? Is murder right or wrong? Most everybody will say that murder is wrong, but abortion can be debated until people are blue in the face.
There is a higher power that has declared how man should live. Man is not capable of coming up with a good moral code by himself.