COMPARATIVE RELIGIONS ABOUT JESUS: FROM JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES TO TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION

COMPARATIVE RELIGIONS ABOUT JESUS: FROM JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES TO TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION
Articles
36

Muslims do not seem to realize that the Quran 32:13, & 12:103,106 to Muhammad & authoritative Islamic writings say only a very few people will be saved from hellfire including the fact that most Muslims will be damned. The Quran says most Muslims are hypocrites while Muhammad himself said only 1 out of every 100 will be saved. For documentation see "The Chances of Islamic Salvation?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJtRnOp7jzQ. 19 Reasons Why Many Honorable People Do Not Want to Be Muslims (see also the following videos: "Top Ten Reasons Muhammad Is Not a Prophet" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO8sZ1JyP1A, "Ten MORE Reasons Muhammad Is Not a Prophet" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4p7HuuhF8k, "50 Reasons Muhammad Was Not a Prophet (in Under Five Minutes)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q3f15NXrLI, "David Wood: Five Reasons the Quran Is Not the Word of God" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvlzlBov9zc, "Who Killed Muhammad?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6st_tFj6ouM, "Why Did Muhammad Wear Women's Clothing?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-50CraaniT0; also see www.AnsweringMuslims.com & www.MuslimHope.com). Ask a Muslim: have you ever wondered why many people who want to follow the truth, believe they cannot, in good conscience, become Muslims? This list not intended give all the support people have for every reason. This simply, in a respectful tone, to briefly describe some of the reasons, any single one of which, if true, would be sufficient to disqualify Islam. The references explain each reason. Islam Denies Words of Previous Prophets 1. Muslims reject words of previous prophets; the claim they are corrupted. Yet Sura 5:46-48 says Jesus confirmed the law and the gospel. The Dead Sea Scrolls have the Old Testament from the Jesus’ time. www.MuslimHope.com/DeadSeaScrolls.htm If Allah were not powerful to preserve the law of Moses and the gospel of Jesus, Allah would not be powerful enough to preserve the message of the Qur’an. If Allah could preserve the message of the Qur’an, He could preserve His Word before then too. www.MuslimHope.com/WhatEarlyChristiansTaughtSummaryGrid.htm 2. Islam rejects prophets teaching that God is a Father. This is affirmed by Jews, Christians, and frequently in the Old and New Testaments. www.MuslimHope.com/FatherhoodOfGod.htm While God is not a Father in a sexual sense, He is both an adopted Father to believers, and He specially begot Jesus before time began. God is clearly a Father in the copies of scripture we have at the time of Jesus. www.MuslimHope.com/DeadSeaScrolls.htm 3. Jesus taught that He is the Son of God and accepted Worship as God. The Qur’an rejects this. www.MuslimHope.com/JesusIsGod.htm. Even early pagan writers acknowledge this is what was taught. 4. Allah deceives – even all the followers of Christ. Yet the Bible says God does not lie (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:24) In the Qur’an Allah is the greatest of schemers, fooling all His early followers into thinking Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. www.MuslimHope.com/DeceptionInIslam.htm Some Errors in the Qur’an 5. Zul Qarnain: the sun does not set in a muddy spring www.MuslimHope.com/ZulQarnain.htm www.MuslimHope.com/AstronomyAndTheQuran.htm Muslim historians show that this idea in Sura 18:85-86, that the sun really goes down into a muddy spring at night, was literally believed, and misled Muslims until recently. 6. There was no mosque in Jerusalem in Mohammed’s alleged Night Journey (Sura 17:1) www.MuslimHope.com/NightJourney.htm The site in Jerusalem of the destroyed Jewish temple, and the future al-Aqsa mosque, was a garbage dump in Mohammed’s time, as documented by Muslims. Mohammed claimed to visit a building that did not exist. Non-Muslims would question why Palestinians felt the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade needed to exist. Changes in the Qur’an 7. Major rewrite: Daughters of Allah in Sura 53 www.MuslimHope.com/DaughtersOfAllah.htm Four early and seven later Muslim biographers document that Sura 53 originally said, "Have ye seen [the pagan goddesses] Lat, and ‘Uzza, And another, the third, Manat? These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries) Whose intercession is to be hoped for." The hadiths and Qur’an also admit that when Revelations came, Satan also sent counterfeit "whisperings" 8. Variants: Mohammed’s secretaries, ‘Ubai bin Ka’b and others had fewer or more suras. It is a falsehood when some Muslims say the Qur’an has no variants. www.MuslimHope.com/QuranVariants.htm While some Qur’anic verses were left in but abrogated (i.e. not to be followed after a brief time), the hadiths and Muslim historians document verses and even suras silently removed. The newly discovered early San’a/Yemeni Qur’an also showed many variants. Violence of Mohammed and Early Muslims 9. Mohammed ordered torture at least twice www.MuslimHope.com/WarInIslam.htm Kinanah bin al-Rabi’ was slowly burned because he did not want to tell where his treasure was. The other case was on a tribe that killed people Mohammed sent to tell them to drink camel urine for their ailments. 10. Mohammed ordered assassinations www.MuslimHope.com/Assassinations.htm 10a. Ka’b bin Ashraf maligned Allah and his messenger [i.e. Mohammed]. Ka’b bin Ashraf trusted the assassin, but Mohammed specifically allowed the assassin to say anything and betray him. 10b. Abu Rafi (probably for military reasons) 10c. Attempted of Abu Sufyan (Meccan general) 10d. al-Aswad (He claimed he was a prophet too, so Mohammed used violence to silence him.) 10e. Khalid bin Sufyan (Mohammed heard he was gathering a force) 10f. Yusar bin Rizam (Muslims killed him when they sensed he had second thoughts about becoming a Muslim, but Mohammed did not order this) 11. Mohammed spread Islam by the sword: Mohammed ordered surprise attacks on unsuspecting people. If Islam means "peace", why in a ten-year period were there about 82 battles? www.MuslimHope.com/WarInIslam.htm www.MuslimHope.com/BanuMustaliq.htm Islamic View of Women and Marriage 12. Women your right hands possess. Besides up to four wives, a Muslim man can have unlimited slave girls and captives for sex, even if they are unwilling. www.MuslimHope.com/WomenInIslam.htm www.MuslimHope.com/RightHand.htm 13. Women are less than men: not pray during their time of month, less intelligent, more in Hell. www.MuslimHope.com/WomenInIslam.htm Muslim scholar al-Ghazali (1058-1111 A.D.) listed 18 ways women are inferior to men. They include: A woman’s court testimony counts as half a man’s Men have multiple wives; women only one husband Woman cannot divorce so easily like men The wife must stay secluded at home A woman must keep her head covered Women cannot leave the house except with a near relative A woman cannot be a ruler or judge 14. Mustahil and Mu’tah – they sound disgusting After an irrevocable divorce, a woman must consummate a marriage with someone else before she can remarry the man. A mustahil is a man paid to perform this service. Mu’tah is temporary marriage, so that a man can marry a woman for a few hours, or longer, but it is not called prostitution. Sunnis say Mohammed permitted this for a period of time only, but Shi’ites say it is valid today, and this is practiced in Iran and other places. www.MuslimHope.com/WomenInIslam.htm 15. Why did Mohammed consummate his marriage with a 8 to 9 year old girl? www.MuslimHope.com/AishaNine.htm This has caused untold grief and physical problems of perforated uteruses for young Muslim girls in Africa and elsewhere. The Unusual Character of Mohammed 16. Why did he need so many wives? www.MuslimHope.com/WhyDidMohammedGetSoManyWives.htm His adopted son was commanded to divorce his wife Zainab bint Jahsh so that Mohammed could marry her. Other wives, Safiya and Juwairiyya bint Harith, were widows because Mohammed had their husbands killed right before. Some women declined Mohammed’s marriage proposals, and Muslim historians also document that Mohammed had some divorces too. Mohammed had concubines too. 17. Bewitched: How could a true prophet of God be under an evil spell? www.MuslimHope.com/Bewitched.htm This is documented in at least 11 places in the hadiths, which define the (Sharia) Law of Sunni Islam. 18. Odd Superstitions: The hadiths record that Mohammed taught the evil eye is a fact, after the call of nature must use an odd number of stones, clean your nose an odd number of times, recite prayers an odd number of times, apply collyridium or eyes an odd number of times. Put on your right sandal first and take off your left sandal first. Eat with your right hand because Satan eats with his left. www.MuslimHope.com/IslamAndScience.htm www.MuslimHope.com/IslamAndMedicine.htm 19. Torment of the grave was something that terrified Mohammed himself. This does not mean time in Hell, but in the actually grave site itself. Mohammed was fearful of this for others, his Muslim followers, and specifically for himself. www.MuslimHope.com/TormentOfTheGrave.htm For more information see www.MuslimHope.com John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Muhammad was the first Muslim terrorist & jihadist. Muslims have been waging a war of jihad for 1400 years ever since Muhammad did it first in Arabia which includes rape, murder, mass executions, torture, military conquest, beheadings, the institution of slavery (which includes Black African slavery & sex slavery), & the enforced imposition of Islamic Sharia Law on all conquered territories. The golden rule does not exist in Islam. Muhammed and his religion are against all unbelievers of Islam. When one reads the three Muslim authoritative sources that make up what Islam actually is, the Koran, the Sira (life of Muhammad) & the Hadiths (Sunni authoritative teachings & sayings of Muhammad) one discovers that Islam has a very important theological term called "kafir." Kafir is the Islamic term for a non-Muslim. The word "kafir" is not a neutral term but is rather one of the most negative & reviled words in any language as far as Islam is concerned & certainly leads to much religious bigotry.
Here's just a few references from the Muslim Qur'an in regards to how Muslims are to treat "kafirs" (all unbelievers in Islam):
1. A Kafir can be mocked (Qur'an, 83:34-36)
2. A Kafir can be beheaded (Qur'an 47:4ff)
3. A Kafir can be plotted against (Qur'an 86:15ff)
4. A Kafir can be terrorized (Qur'an 8:12ff)
5. A Kafir is not to be the friend of a Muslim (Qur'an 3:28ff)
6. A Kafir is evil (Qur'an 23:97ff)
7. A Kafir should be disgraced (Qur'an 37:18ff)
8. A Kafir is cursed (Qur'an 33:60ff)

Of the three main sources that comprise what Islam is namely the Qur'an, the Hadith & the Sira of Muhammad we find that 64% of the Qur'an talks about Kafirs & what to do with them, 81% of the Sira of Muhammad talks about Kafirs & what to do with them & 37% of the Hadith talks about Kafirs & what to do with them. Thus Mohammad says it is okay to lie & deceive unbelievers as much as is necessary to achieve the goals of Islam. There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
Quran (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Quran (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way..

Quran (9:3) – "…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…" The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Quran (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Quran (2:225) – "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Quran (3:54) – "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taqiyya – Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman – Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim.

Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by falsely claiming that they broke a treaty with their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims thus promises made to non-Muslims are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset. For more see our playlist at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1C7F68B548009FDD. Revelation 22:15 – "For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loves and makes a lie."

Someone on YouTube notified me that a person who had been using the YouTube name "Converted2Islam" & had for years been making many YouTube videos defending Islam as true while racking up over 38,000 subscribers has now renounced Islam. For proof of this see his video "Why I Left Islam" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR7_YQ53lfI&t=0s which at the time of this writing has over 355,000 viewings. The main reason changing his mind about Muhammad & Islam being true was Muhammad's allowance of Muslims to rape female captives even if they are married. Here's what the description text for Converted2Islam's video states, "
A female professor from the renowned Al-Azhar Islamic University in Cairo, Egypt, says Muslim men are allowed by Allah to rape non-Muslim women in order to “humiliate” them.
To the Muslims claiming I’m wrong for using the word “rape” in the video, as the Islamic Sources didn’t actually use the word “rape”. My response is: well I could have used the words “sexual assault” but I chose “rape” for the following reasons. Think about it, there is more than one way to rape a woman. A woman could be physically forced to have sex or she could be psychologically forced to have sex due to some kind of traumatic circumstances, similar to the women whom I mentioned in my video. Women who had been taken as war captives, women who had witnessed the horrors of battle, women who had just witnessed their husbands being defeated in war by Muslim soldiers, women who were worrying about the safety of their husbands who themselves had been taken captive. Ibn Katheer in his commentary on the Qur’an stated these Muslim soldiers wanted to have sex with these female captives. Perhaps these women had heard about those evil plans? Just imagine what they were going through? In this kind of situation starting a new marriage life with strange enemy soldiers would be the last thing such women would desire. Listen, I’m no psychologist, but common sense dictates that in a situation like that such women would have been emotionally or physiologically incapacitated. Such female victims of Islamic Jihad would be incapable of giving any sane honest consent to have sexual intercourse with any man other than her already existing husband. So there you have it, now you know why I used the word “rape” in my video. I believe it accurately describes the situation. When you force a divorce upon a terrified physiologically incapacitated woman and then you try to marry her to have sex with her, than I say that such a sexual encounter is not a valid marriage at all, but is basically rape. You don't need to say the word "rape" to convey the same meaning. "Islamic State tightens grip on captives held as sex slaves" at http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/islamic-state-tightens-grip-on-captives-held-as-sex-slaves/ar-AAi96Ta?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout."
Apart from the above description text by "Converted2Islam" our ministry "CAnswersTV" can't help but think that David Woods' excellent Christian ministry against Islam found at https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics had something to do with this situation (see also http://answering-islam.org/). For others reading this please notice that our ministry has a playlist called "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" with 76 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1C7F68B548009FDD and a website refuting Islam called www.MuslimHope.com. Titus 1:9-16

President Barack Hussein Obama (Barack is an African name meaning "blessed,"; his middle name Hussein is an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hassan, this name was not used in the pre-Islamic period, and is recorded to have been first used by the Islamic prophet Muhammad when he named his grandson Husayn ibn Ali, saying he had been commanded to do so by the archangel Gabriel; his last name is an ancient Kenyan surname found frequently among the Luo, the third largest ethnic group in Kenya – sources : Dictionary.com & Wikipedia) says Orlando jihad killer inspired by “propaganda and perversions of Islam.”

Exactly how was the Orlando jihad massacre a perversion of Islam? Obama didn’t say, of course. It would have been refreshing if he had actually addressed the fact that the Qur’an says: “If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.” (4:16) The Qur’an also depicts Allah raining down stones upon people for engaging in homosexual activity: “We also sent Lot. He said to his people: “Do you commit lewdness such as no people in creation committed before you? For you practise your lusts on men in preference to women: you are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds….And we rained down on them a shower of brimstone: Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!” (7:80)

Muhammad makes clear that Muslims should be the executors of the wrath of Allah by killing gays. A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” (Abu Dawud 38:4447) And: “Stone the upper and the lower, stone them both.” (Ibn Majah 3:20:2562)

Perversion of Islam? How? No Islamic apologist has yet explained why, if Muhammad said that Muslims should kill gays, that they actually should not do so.

In February 1998, the Taliban (who the Afghan immigrant father of the Orlando killer thought was great) who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered this punishment for three men convicted of sodomy:

On Wednesday, the Taleban ordered the execution of three men for sodomy in the southern town of Kandahar, southern Afghanistan. They were ordered to be buried alive under a pile of stones and a wall was pushed on top of them by a tank.

Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

Simple and clear reason says that executing homosexuals is wrong today, but where do the Taliban get the punishment of pushing a wall on the guilty men? Also, the article reports that while the religious police were meting out a flogging on a woman for fornication, a speaker chanted, "Thanks to God that we are followers of God not of the West." This devout Muslim understands the deeper, spiritual conflict—two religious systems are at work.

In its 1991 Constitution, Iran adopted the extreme punishment of execution for sodomy. Articles 108-113 say:

Sodomy is a crime, for which both partners are punished. The punishment is death if the participants are adults, of sound mind and consenting; the method of execution is for the Shari'a judge to decide.

Various authoritative Islamic hadiths confirm that homosexuals should be killed under Islamic sharia law. The hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran. The four most reliable hadith collectors and editors are Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875), Abu Dawud (d. 875), and Tirmidhi (d. 892), who was a student of Bukhari. The Quran and the hadith are the foundations for later legal rulings. But in the matter of homosexuality, the Quran is not as clear, so the hadith guides Islam more clearly. Here's just a couple of examples:

The Sunan Abu Dawud, named after its editor, is another reliable collection of hadith. Ibn Abbas reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: . . . "If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done" (vol. 3, p. 145, no. 4447).

The next one from the same collection says that an unmarried man who commits sodomy should be stoned to death: "Ibn Abbas said: if a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death" (vol. 3, p. 1245, no. 4448).

Finally, Muhammad Aashiq Illahi Muhajir Madani, a modern-day Mufti (jurist), wrote Illuminating Discourses on the Noble Quran, 2nd ed. trans. and ed. Mufti A. H. Elias, (Karachi: Pakistan, Zam Zam, 2003). In his commentary on Sura 4:15-16, he is open to the interpretation that the two verses speak of homosexuality, so he provides two hadith that he considers reliable, which deal with punishing homosexuals (vol. 2, pp. 365-69).

This early ruling repeats the one that homosexuals must be burned:

With regard to the method in which these people [homosexuals] are to executed, Abu Bakr after consulting with Ali and other Sahaaba [companions of Muhammad], ruled that they be burnt.

Mufti Madani’s next citation says that convicted homosexuals should undergo this terrible punishment (cf. Maududi vol. 2, p. 52, note 68):

. . . Ibn Abbas ruled that they be thrown headlong from the highest summit.

For more on the subject of Islam and homosexuality see the following: "Understanding the Ramadan Massacre at a Gay Nightclub in Orlando (David Wood)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a13Rj5yrAhg & http://www.answering-islam.org/Aut…/Arlandson/homosexual.htm.

Always keep in mind that there is no Golden Rule in Islam meaning Muslims only have to respect other people that they believe are true Muslims & all the rest are considered to be unbelievers (kafir) & can be lied to if necessary in any situation (for more on this see "Bill Warner, PhD: Sacred Deception — Taqiyya" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5TY5CPrzk).
Islamic ethics include deceiving the kafir. The doctrine of deception is found in the Sunna and the Qur'an. The Arabic name for sacred deception is called taqiyya. See also "What Is Taqiyya?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4wBeshTsw & the websites www.AnsweringMuslims.com & http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/. 2 Timothy 3:1-5

The key to understanding the relationship between the Christian and the Law is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to reveal to the Israelites how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments, for example). Some of the laws were to show the Israelites how to worship God and atone for sin (the sacrificial system). Some of the laws were intended to make the Israelites distinct from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law is binding on Christians today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23–25; Ephesians 2:15).

In place of the Old Testament law, Christians are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). If we obey those two commands, we will be fulfilling all that Christ requires of us: “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:40). Now, this does not mean the Old Testament law is irrelevant today. Many of the commands in the Old Testament law fall into the categories of “loving God” and “loving your neighbor.” The Old Testament law can be a good guidepost for knowing how to love God and knowing what goes into loving your neighbor. At the same time, to say that the Old Testament law applies to Christians today is incorrect. The Old Testament law is a unit (James 2:10). Either all of it applies, or none of it applies. If Christ fulfilled some of it, such as the sacrificial system, He fulfilled all of it.

“This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). The Ten Commandments were essentially a summary of the entire Old Testament law. Nine of the Ten Commandments are clearly repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day). Obviously, if we are loving God, we will not be worshipping false gods or bowing down before idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we will not be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them. The purpose of the Old Testament law is to convict people of our inability to keep the law and point us to our need for Jesus Christ as Savior (Romans 7:7-9; Galatians 3:24). The Old Testament law was never intended by God to be the universal law for all people for all of time. We are to love God and love our neighbors. If we obey those two commands faithfully, we will be upholding all that God requires of us.

Recommended Resources: The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology by Jason Meyer & see our playlist "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess" at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5316CC6F66F24283.

Our YouTube channel CAnswersTV (which stands for Christian Answers Television) features over 639 videos from a Biblical worldview organized according to topics. Our main channel can be accessed at https://www.youtube.com/user/CAnswersTV where all our videos & playlists are on display. Here are our available playlists:
1. "Popular Uploads" at https://www.youtube.com/user/CAnswersTV/videos?shelf_id=2&view=0&sort=p

2. "Dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Society" with 25 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40.

3. "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" with 73 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1C7F68B548009FDD.

4. "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 140 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715.

5. "Dealing with Darwin's Metaphysical Evolution Religion" with 21 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0703E78058346A52.

6. "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess" with 26 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5316CC6F66F24283.

7. "Dealing with Anti Trinitarians (UPC) & Early Church History" with 53 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9931642C7C8FFEAB.

8. "Dealing with "God Hating" Atheists, Agnostics, Know-It-Alls" with 21 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL640E505B96CD6B39.

9. "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" with 30 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2CDA855486B09128.

10. "Dealing with UFOs, Ghosts, Magic, Spiritual Warfare, Satan" with 19 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2CF1129D311BF9A6.

11. "Radio Shows with National Christian Authors & Music Vids" with 52 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF01B4264276D2990.

12. "Dealing with Black Muslims, Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam" with 25 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD3B79AA00CCF21B7.

13. "Dealing with Mormonism, The Con Man Religion of Joseph Smith, Jr." with 23 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11CD0EE613306BB5.

14. "Dealing with Hell, Lake of Fire, Unpopular Bible Doctrines" with 33 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE04A1D0DFE95B95E.

15. "Dealing with AntiChrist Cults, "New Age" & World Religions" with 45 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL69A3047B3497590A.

16. "Dealing with "Saved by Works & Baptism", "Church of Christ" with 75 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBD55090718DA6D3D.

17. "Charles H. Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, Our Spanish Videos" with 26 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE91032ED05E42487.

18. "End Times, Supernatural Prophecies, Tough Bible Questions" with 49 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL141F261EEFCFD536.

19. "Dealing with Predestination, Arminianism & Calvinism" with 82 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA932903698A56780.

We also have channels on Sermon Audio at http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_detail.asp?sourceid=christiananswers & http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Larry_Wessels. Although the 30 plus videos we have posted on www.SermonAudio.com are also on YouTube the thing that makes these particular videos of interest is that we have produced written transcripts of many of them which has helped quite a few people. Once you click on one of the transcribed videos scroll down to "Sermon Transcription" & choose your options: "View Transcript!," "Download PDF," or "Send to Kindle." Viewers also have the option of over 20 different languages to get the transcription in by going to the "Google Translation" option. Everything is free with nothing to buy. Here are just a few examples of some of our videos that have free transcriptions available:

"Early Christian Church History Proves Roman Catholicism False" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=113161415591,

"Divine Curse of the Hebrew Roots Movement – Replacing Jesus with the Old Testament" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=108151527437,

"Debate: Larry Wessels Versus Two Jehovah's Witnesses at a University Study Center" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=108141526191,

"Spiritual Counterfeit: ONENESS PENTECOSTALISM DENIES THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF TRINITY" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=52015115043,

"Unpopular Bible Doctrines #1: The God No One Wants To Know" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=311141259524,

"Islam's 1400 Year History of Violent Jihad For Sex Slaves, Money & Jew Hatred" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=324161224286,

"The Sovereignty of God Versus Man-Made Religions, Petty Emotionalism" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=52015125752,

"The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity- Part 3 (Answering Common Attacks Against the Trinity)" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=32416129330.

There are many more but this is just a small sampling of what is available at no charge.

Blessings to all. 2 Timothy 2:15, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

1 Peter 5:8, " Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:). See our playlist called "Dealing with Mormonism, The Con Man Religion of Joseph Smith, Jr." with 23 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11CD0EE613306BB5. Research the websites http://concernedchristians.com/ , www.MormonInfo.org, www.utlm.org, & for a host of other anti-Mormon websites see http://www.utlm.org/navotherwebsites.htm
Jude 22-23, "And have mercy on those who doubt; 23 save others by
snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating
even the garment stained by the flesh."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, known as the Mormons, teaches that God the father used to be a man on another planet, that he became a God by following the laws and ordinances of that God on that planet and came to this world with his wife (she became a goddess), and that they produce a spirit offspring in heaven. These spirit offspring, which includes Jesus, the devil, and you and me, are all brothers and sisters born in the preexistence. The preexistence spirits come down and inhabit babies at the time of birth and their memories of the preexistence are lost at the time. Furthermore, faithful Mormons, who pay a full 10% tithe of their income to the Mormon church through Mormon temples, have the potential of becoming gods of their own planets and are then able to start the procedure over again.

The Bible does not teach that God came from another planet, or that he has a goddess wife, or that we can become gods. In fact, the Bible clearly and definitely contradicts those teachings. But, the Mormon Church responds by saying that the Bible is not really trustworthy, that the true faith was lost, and that its leader, Joseph Smith, restored the so-called "true" Christian faith: god from another world, becoming gods, goddess mother, etc. Of course, the Mormon Church's claim is not true.

These teachings are documented from Mormon writers, not anti-Mormon writers:

1.Book of Mormon
The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 461.)
2.Devil, the
A.The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 192.)
B.Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)
3.God
A.God used to be a man on another planet (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333).
B."The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans…" (D&C 130:22).
4.God, becoming a god
A.After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354).
B."Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them," (DC 132:20).
5.God, many gods
A.There are many gods (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163).
B."And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light," (Book of Abraham 4:3).
6.God, mother goddess
A.There is a mother god (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443).
B.God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children (Mormon Doctrine, p. 516).
7.God, Trinity
The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).
8. Holy Ghost, the
The Holy Ghost is a male personage (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, Le Grand Richards, Salt Lake City, 1956, p. 118; Journal of Discources, vol. 5, p. 179).
9. Joseph Smith, Jr.
If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation [the context is the full gospel including exaltation to Godhood] outside the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670).
10. Heaven
There are three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial (Mormon Doctrine, p. 348).

Matthew 7:15

“The Islamic State, which now controls land greater than the land mass of Great Britain & is taking in over $1 million a day from its captured oil wells, says that they are going to flood the west with immigrants & they boast that they will have over 20,000 jihadi fighters mixed in with the immigrants so they can infiltrate the west with more terror attacks" came from Islamic expert Robert Spencer's video"Robert Spencer on ISIS: A struggle of life vs. death" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRwuiJDceYg (Robert Spencer has written two New York Times best-selling books (
The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, Regnery Press, 2006 (NYT bestseller list – 2006-10-29[48]) ISBN 1-59698-028-1The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades), Regnery Press, 2005. (NYT bestseller list – 2005-10-16[49]) ISBN 0-89526-013-1). For independent sources on the lSIS controlled land mass the size of Great Britain & all it's captured oil wells & finances from them see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-rise-of-isis-terror-group-now-controls-an-area-the-size-of-britain-expert-claims-9710198.html (see also https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=ISIS+has+land+the+size+of+Great+Britain&fr=ush-mailn_02&fr2=p%3Aml%2Cm%3Asb&hspart=att&hsimp=yhs-att_001&type=sbc_dsl); for the 20,000 jihadis see the article "Lebanese Education Minister warns: 20,000 Islamic State jihadis have infiltrated Syrian refugee camps" at http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/09/lebanese-education-minister-warns-20000-islamic-state-jihadis-have-infiltrated-syrian-refugee-camps; the ISIS magazine "Dabiq" (see http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq#) claimed that they would infiltrate the West with 20,000 jihadi fighters by creating a refugee flood of Muslims trying to enter western countries not only to spread Islam but to spread terror (to see all copies of the ISIS magazine "Dabiq" go to the site "Institue for Jihadi Research" at http://theinstituteforjihadiresearch.org/category/ad-dawlat-al-islaameeyah/dabiq-magazine/magazine-issues/). ISIS, the self-proclaimed Islamic state that's attempting to establish a caliphate across large areas of Iraq and Syria, publishes a glossy English-language propaganda magazine called Dabiq, complete with slick graphics and high-quality photos. Dabiq is one of the group's recruitment tools, coupled with its strong social media presence. The magazine, whose name references the location of Islam's mythical Armageddon (a town in northern Syria), bills itself as an "informative" source for the activities of ISIS fighters, while preaching on holy topics and issuing decrees. Its producers claim that Allah approves the message: ISIS has "not a mustard seed of doubt regarding this."
"If you can kill a disbelieving American or European…or an Australian or a Canadian…then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner." For more see Robert Spencer's video ""Robert Spencer on Why ISIS is Islamic" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw9lG83lr0s (this video also exposes the fact that Barack Hussein Obama was raised as a Muslim although now Obama may be more of a secular Marxist with very pro Islam leanings because of his own family history).
In any case, the fourth issue of Dabiq justifies all sorts of terrible things ISIS and its fighters may do in the name of Allah. Here are 10 of the worst examples, with quotations:
1. Sack other people's cities
"We will come to your homeland by Allah’s permission."
"We will conquer your Rome."
"We will not rest from our jihād until we are under the olive trees of Rome, after we destroy the filthy house called the White House."
2. Condemn other people's beliefs
"We will…break your crosses."
"And those who have disbelieved—unto Hell they will be gathered." (Although, to be fair, some Christians believe the same thing.)
"You are the best people for people. You bring them with chains around their necks, until they enter Islam."
3. Enslave people, in some cases to save ISIS's men from temptation
"We will…enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted. This is His promise to us…"
"Our children and grandchildren…will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market."
"The desertion of slavery had led to an increase in fāhishah [adultery, fornication], because the shar'ī alternative to marriage is not available, so a man who cannot afford marriage to a free woman finds himself surrounded by temptation towards sin."
4. Threaten and kill people
"You will not feel secure even in your bedrooms."
"You will pay the price when your sons are sent to wage war against us, and they return to you as disabled amputees, or inside coffins, or mentally ill."
"You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawāghīt [unbelievers]. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European—especially the spiteful and filthy French—or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be."
5. Turn women and children into sex slaves and concubines—those you don't kill
Yazidi "women could be enslaved unlike female apostates who the majority of the fuqahā’ [jurists] say cannot be enslaved and can only be given an ultimatum to repent or face the sword. After capture, the Yazidi women and children were then divided according to the Sharī'ah amongst the fighters of the Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations, after one fifth of the slaves were transferred to the Islamic State's authority to be divided as khums [taxes]."
“One should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffār [unbelievers] and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharī'ah that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Qur'ān and the narrations of the Prophet.”
6. Plunder
"His provision becomes what Allah has given him of spoils from the property of His enemy," because "wealth" was only sent to earth to create prayer and "people [with] obedience to Allah are more deserving of wealth."
"Send them very much, for it will end up as war booty in our hands by Allah's permission. You will spend it, then it will be a source of regret for you, then you will be defeated. Look at your armored vehicles, machinery, weaponry, and equipment. It is in our hands."
Allah "legalized war booty" for Muhammad and his ummah [nation]. "War booty is more lawful than other income for a number of reasons."
7. Murder civilians
[Americans]—"die in your rage."
"Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling."
"We did not come as farmers, rather we came to kill the farmers and eat their crops."
8. Ethnically cleanse
"It has become necessary for a trial to come, expel the filth, and purify the ranks."
9. Use suicide as a weapon
[Muslims] "are a people who through the ages have not known defeat. The outcome of their battles is concluded before they begin. Being killed—according to their account—is a victory. This is where the secret lies. You fight a people who can never be defeated."
10. Purport to help people even as you commit horrible atrocities (this follows the official Islamic doctrine of intentional deception for the cause of Allah & the advancement of Islam called Taqiyya (see the video "What Is Taqiyya?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4wBeshTsw).
Keep in mind that former Muslim from Iran Shahram Hadian who is now a Christian pastor (see his his videos "Answering Islam: The Influence of Islam in American Politics | Shahram Hadian" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogBKyEGHIlI or http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=117151913477 & "1. Answering Islam: True Face of Islam | Shahram Hadian" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUnosseuEI or http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=117151552120) says that based on a Georgetown University study & survey of actual Muslims after the 9/11/2001 attack (see "The True Goal of Islam | Interview with Shahram Hadian" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS5ICg55qp8, specically the 22:49 to 28:18 time mark of this video) between 30% to 35% of all Muslims actually take Islam seriously & are more strict in their interpretations of the Islamic Qur'an & the hadiths which is similar to the many Jihadi groups operating in the world like the Islamic State, Hamas, al-Qaeda, Boco Haram & others who try to spread Islam the way Muhammad did historically. On the other hand 65% to 70% of all so-called Muslims today would be classified as" hypocrites" under Islamic law and are only lukewarm to agnostic, secular or atheistic while they claim to be Muslims. Dr. James White (www.AOMin.org) has a fascinating video showing the contrast between these two groups called "Two Contrasting Views of Islam, and Then a Little on CRISPR (Jumbo Edition)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7zwdKpB9YE. Particularly notice the type of Muslim video representing the 65% to 70% Muslims at the 18:29 time mark of this video with the Muslim video put out by ISIS which represents the historic & literalistic interpretation of Islam held by the estimated 30% to 35% of Muslims at the 49:55 time mark. For more see the following websites: http://www.jihadwatch.org/, www.Answering-Islam.org, www.AnsweringMuslims.com, www.MuslimHope.com.

When it comes to Mormonism see our playlist "Dealing with Mormonism, the Religion of Mitt Romney & Utah" with 20 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11CD0EE613306BB5. Particularly notice our video "RISE OF THE CULTS: WHERE DID ALL THESE STRANGE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS SECTS COME FROM?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfVTXbFrvh8&index=10&list=PL11CD0EE613306BB5. 
Question: "What is Mormonism? What do Mormons believe?"  Answer: The Mormon religion (Mormonism), whose followers are known as Mormons and Latter-day Saints (LDS), was founded less than two hundred years ago by a man named Joseph Smith. He claimed to have received a personal visit from God the Father and Jesus Christ (Articles of Faith, p. 35) who told him that all churches and their creeds were an abomination (1 Nephi 13:28; Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith – History 1:18, 19). Joseph Smith then set out to "restore true Christianity" and claimed his church to be the “only true church on earth” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670; 1 Nephi 14:10). The problem with Mormonism is that it contradicts, modifies, and expands on the Bible. Christians do not have a reason to believe that the Bible is untrue or inadequate. To truly believe in and trust God means to believe in His Word, and all Scripture is inspired by God, which means it comes from Him (2 Timothy 3:16).

Mormons believe that there are in fact four sources of divinely inspired words, not just one: 1) the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly” (8th Article of Faith). Which verses are considered incorrectly translated is not always made clear. 2) The Book of Mormon, which was “translated” by Smith and published in 1830. Smith claimed it is the “most correct book” on earth and that a person can get closer to God by following its precepts “than by any other book” (History of the Church 4:461). 3) Doctrine and Covenants, containing a collection of modern revelations regarding the “Church of Jesus Christ as it has been restored.” 4) The Pearl of the Great Price, which is considered by Mormons to “clarify” doctrines and teachings that were lost from the Bible (Articles of Faith, p. 182–185) and adds its own information about the earth’s creation.

Mormons believe the following about God: He has not always been the Supreme Being of the universe (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321) but attained that status through righteous living and persistent effort (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). They believe God the Father has a “body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). Brigham Young taught that Adam actually was God and the father of Jesus Christ—although this teaching has been abandoned by modern Mormon leaders.

In contrast, Christians know this about God: there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6–8). He always has existed and always will exist (Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17). He was not created but is the Creator (Genesis 1; Psalm 24:1; Isaiah 37:16). He is perfect, and no one else is equal to Him (Psalm 86:8; Isaiah 40:25). God the Father is not a man, nor was He ever (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9). He is Spirit (John 4:24), and Spirit is not made of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).

Mormons believe that there are different levels or kingdoms in the afterlife: the celestial kingdom, the terrestrial kingdom, the telestial kingdom, and outer darkness (Mormon Doctrine, p. 348). Where mankind will end up depends on what they believe and do in this life (2 Nephi 25:23; Articles of Faith, p.79).

In contrast, the Bible tells us that after death we go to heaven or hell based on whether or not we had faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. To be absent from our bodies means, as believers, we are with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6–8). Unbelievers are sent to hell or the place of the dead (Luke 16:22–23). When Jesus comes the second time, we will receive new bodies (1 Corinthians 15:50–54). There will be a new heaven and new earth for believers (Revelation 21:1), and unbelievers will be thrown into an everlasting lake of fire (Revelation 20:11–15). There is no second chance for redemption after death (Hebrews 9:27).

Mormon leaders have taught that Jesus’ incarnation was the result of a physical relationship between God the Father and Mary (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115; Mormon Doctrine, p. 547). Mormons believe Jesus is a god, but that any human can also become a god (Doctrine and Covenants 132:20; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345–354). Mormonism teaches that salvation can be earned by a combination of faith and good works (LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 697).

Contrary to this, Christians historically have taught that no one can achieve the status of God—only He is holy (1 Samuel 2:2). We can only be made holy in God's sight through faith in Him (1 Corinthians 1:2). Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16), is the only one ever to have lived a sinless life, and now has the highest place of honor in heaven (Hebrews 7:26). Jesus and God are one in essence, Jesus being the only man who existed before physical birth (John 1:1–8; 8:56). Jesus gave Himself to us as a sacrifice, God raised Him from the dead, and one day everyone will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2:6–11). Jesus tells us it is impossible to get to heaven by our own works and that only by faith in Him is it possible (Matthew 19:26). We all deserve eternal punishment for our sins, but God's infinite love and grace have allowed us a way out. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

Clearly, there is only one way to receive salvation and that is to know God and His Son, Jesus (John 17:3). Receiving salvation is not done by works but by faith (Romans 1:17; 3:28). We can receive this gift no matter who we are or what we have done (Romans 3:22). “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Although Mormons are usually friendly, loving, and kind people, they are deceived by a false religion that distorts the nature of God, the Person of Jesus Christ, and the means of salvation.

(Editor’s note: many of the references in our articles on Mormonism are Mormon publications, such as Mormon Doctrine, Articles of Faith, Doctrines of Salvation, History of the Church, Doctrine and Covenants, and so forth. Others are from the Book of Mormon itself, e.g., books such as 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, and Alma.)

Question: "Are Mormons Christians? Are Mormons saved?"

Answer: Although Mormons profess to be Christians and say they believe the Word of God, there are many of their beliefs that contradict Christianity. In fact, Mormonism can be referred to as a cult, which can be defined as “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” Mormons say they are Christians, but because they reject foundational truths from the God’s Word, they are not.

Joseph Smith, who referred to himself as “The Prophet,” founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the mid-1800s. He claimed to have seen a vision of God the Father and God the Son, in which they denounced modern Christianity and appointed Smith to reveal and restore “true” Christianity (Articles of Faith, p. 182–185). Three years later, Smith alleged that the angel Moroni told him about some golden plates on which the Book of Mormon was written. In spite of Smith’s questionable background and proclivity toward bending the truth (see The Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism, New York, 1861; and Mormonism Unveiled, Painesville, Ohio, 1834), many believed Smith, and a new “religion” was born. Today, the members of the Mormon Church number in the millions.

The Book of Mormon is purported to be a new revelation, one that Mormons say is part of the new covenant to Israel and “another witness” to the truth of the Bible (History of the Church 4:461, 8th Article of Faith). Aside from the many theological conflicts with the Bible and historical and archeological fact, the writing of the Book of Mormon was shrouded in mystery and false claims. For example, Joseph Smith and his associates asserted that one Professor Charles Anthony of Columbia University verified the Egyptian characters on the golden plates. However, this same professor wrote a rebuttal letter soon after, saying that he never did any such thing and had, in fact, found the characters to be a hoax. In addition, many verses in the Mormon scriptures have been changed over the years, as the church leaders attempt to cover up something embarrassing in their past and to defend themselves against criticism. These facts alone are enough to cast much doubt on the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

One of the many areas in which Mormons fall short of saving faith is their belief that God is merely an exalted man who earned his position by good works (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). This directly contradicts the Bible, which states that God has existed in His position as God of the universe from eternity past (Revelation 1:8; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:15–16; Psalm 102:24–27). God was never a man (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9) and is the holy and powerful Creator of all things (Genesis 1; Psalm 24:1; Isaiah 37:16). Mormons also believe that they themselves can attain the status of gods in the afterlife through their works here on earth (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345–354). However, no man can ever become like God (1 Samuel 2:2; Isaiah 43:10–11; 44:6; 45:21–22), despite what the serpent told Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:5).

Mormons also believe that Jesus was a god, but not God Himself (Mormon Doctrine, p. 547; Articles of Faith, p. 35; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372). It is essential to Christian faith that Jesus is one with God and that He is God’s only begotten Son who became flesh (John 1:1, 14; John 3:16). Only Jesus’ oneness with God would have allowed Him to live a sinless, blameless life (Hebrews 7:26). And only Jesus Christ was able to pay the price for our sins by His death on the cross (Romans 4:25; Acts 4:12).

Those who follow the Mormon faith also believe that they can attain heaven through works (Doctrine and Covenants 58:42–43; 2 Nephi 9:23–24; Alma 34:30–35; Articles of Faith, p.92). While they claim faith in Christ, they also rely on following the commandments of the Mormon Church (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p 188; Mormon Doctrine, p. 670) and practicing good works (2 Nephi 25:23; Alma 11:37) in order to achieve salvation. The Bible is very clear on this point, stating that good works can never earn the way to heaven (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8–9; Titus 3:5) and that faith in Jesus Christ alone is the only way to salvation (John 10:9; 11:25; 14:6; Acts 4:12). Salvation by grace is incompatible with salvation by human works (Romans 11:6).

Sadly, many in the Mormon Church are unaware of the religion’s shady past, amended scriptures, and even the full doctrine of their church. Many Mormons who have discovered these things have left the church and come to a true saving faith in Jesus Christ. As Christians, we must treat Mormons with love and understand that they are among those deceived by Satan himself (1 Peter 5:8). Satan’s goal is to distort the truth, produce false assurance of salvation, and extend a deceptive hope of godhood (2 Corinthians 4:4).

Question: "How should Christians view the Book of Mormon?"

Answer: When Mormon missionaries (properly called Latter Day Saints or simply "LDS") come to your door, they will often offer a free copy of the Book of Mormon and tell you about its author, Joseph Smith. Smith, they will say, translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates he dug up in a hill in New York in the early 1800s. This is supposed to confirm his calling from God as the new prophet on the earth in these latter days. Further, they will tell you that the Holy Ghost will confirm the truth of the Book of Mormon by producing good feelings in you. Next will come the invitation to "read the Book of Mormon, pray, and ask God to show you it is true." Of course you must do this with sincerity, or it won't work.

Before you fall to your knees, there are some things you need to know that they are not telling you (and won't unless you ask). The first concerns many LDS beliefs that separate them from historical, orthodox Christianity. These are not found in the Book of Mormon. In fact, there is really very little in that book that is doctrinally disagreeable to orthodox Christians. The real meat of Mormonism is found in their other scriptures, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. These books, however, Mormons do not hand out at the door—and for good reason. If people knew up front what they were really going to be asked to believe (things such as God once being a man, denial of the Trinity, Satan being Jesus' brother, pre-existence of souls, etc.), they may not be quite so willing to put aside their skepticism.

The second thing to realize is that in accepting the Book of Mormon, one is, in fact, accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet. So what about this test of a prophet? Isn't it legitimate to "give this question up to God?" No, it isn't. This is because God has already revealed His test for would-be prophets, and it has nothing to do with prayer or feelings, and God has no obligation to answer prayers that He has already answered! We do not have to ask God whether or not we should rob a bank or murder someone. Rather, James 1:5 says, "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God . . . and it will be given to him." Wisdom is applied knowledge, not lack of it.

God never tells us to pray about what is true. When we want to know how tall a wall is, we don't pray about it; we get something that we know is true (a ruler) and compare it to the wall. The Bible, God's Word, is true. That is our measuring stick for truth. See Acts 17:11, for example, which describes a group of people who were considered noble because when Paul came to them with the Christian message they "received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so."

Feelings are unreliable because they are subjective, easy to produce, and are not meant to discover facts but to tell us how we feel about facts. Psychological persuasion techniques, intensity, eye contact, or mere desire can produce feelings that feel real because they are real! But real feelings are still just letting us know how we are reacting to something, not the truthfulness of that thing. The Mormon missionary handbook specifically details these techniques, and missionaries go through training on how to persuade people before they ever leave the house.

What are the biblical tests for a prophet? They are in God's Word: Deuteronomy 18:21-22 says, "You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." Did Joseph Smith ever claim "in the name of the LORD" that something would happen when it did not? Yes—many times, in fact.

Joseph Smith prophesied that New York would be destroyed if they rejected the [Mormon] gospel (D&C 84:114-115). He also prophesied that the rebellion of South Carolina and the War Between the States would result in war being poured out upon all nations; slaves would revolt; the inhabitants of the earth would mourn; famine, plague, earthquake, thunder, lightning, and a full end of all nations would result (D&C 87). Oddly, this prophecy is the one most often cited by Mormons to prove Joseph Smith's prophetic power!

Further, Deuteronomy 13:1-3 says that "if a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, ‘Let us follow other gods’ (gods you have not known) ‘and let us worship them,’ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul." Did Joseph Smith lead his followers to other gods? Yes.

Joseph Smith was a polytheist. History of the Church 6:474 records Smith stating, "I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods." Joseph Smith declared that "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345). This is clearly not the biblical God.

Galatians 1:6-7 says that people may be "turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all . . . trying to pervert the gospel of Christ." And Paul pronounced a curse upon them for doing so. In Romans 1:16 Paul tells us that the gospel is "the power of God unto salvation"—that's pretty important. Did Joseph Smith teach a "different gospel"? Yes.

Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon contains the "fullness of the gospel." The Book of Mormon says so itself in its introduction (see also Doctrines and Covenants 20:9; 27:5; 42:12; and 135:3). So what is the gospel according to Mormonism? It's a tough question for many LDS to answer. According to Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie, author of the book Mormon Doctrine, the gospel is "the plan of salvation [that] embraces all of the laws, principles, doctrines, rites, ordinances, acts, powers, authorities, and keys necessary to save and exalt men." In other words, the whole of Mormon theology. In the Mormon gospel we see belief + repentance + baptism + laying on of hands + temple work + mission work + church ministry + tithing + ceasing from sin + abstaining from the use of intoxicants and strong drinks and tobacco and caffeine + confessing Joseph Smith as Prophet + temple marriage + baptism for the dead + genealogy research . . . the list could go on and on and on. Only upon completion of all these things may Mormons attain to the third and highest level of heaven, thus achieving the ultimate goal of the Mormon gospel—godhood. (see McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 116-117; Book of Mormon [3 Nephi 27:13-21]; Doctrines of Salvation 1:268; 18:213; The 4th Article of Faith; Smith, Gospel Doctrine pg. 107; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 3:93; 3:247; 9:312; Gospel Principles 290; Doctrine and Covenants 39:5-6; 132:19-20). In essence, Christ's death means nothing more to a Mormon than the gaining of the ability to be resurrected so that his works may be judged.

While we cannot judge another person's motives, we can and must judge what a person does or says. Joseph Smith, and hence the Book of Mormon, fails the twin tests of Deuteronomy 13 and 18. God takes false prophets very seriously. Deuteronomy 13:1-3 says, "That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God…; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you." Deuteronomy 18:19-21 says, "If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death…" And Galatians 1:8-9 says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

The gospel is God's power to bring us to Him. He will not stand for those who pervert it. He has given us the ability and the responsibility to discern whether or not the gospel is being tampered with. We must carefully investigate the claims of the LDS if we are to follow what God has commanded. In fact, we are invited to judge by Mormons themselves: "Convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any" (LDS Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p.15).

(Editor’s note: many of the references in our articles on Mormonism are Mormon publications, such as Mormon Doctrine, Articles of Faith, Doctrines of Salvation, History of the Church, Doctrine and Covenants, and so forth. Others are from the Book of Mormon itself, e.g., books such as 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, and Alma.)

The reason Mormonism is not Christian is that it denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Here is a basic list of what true Christianity teaches as essential doctrine according to the Bible.
There is only one God in all existence (Exodus 20:1-4, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 8, 45:5). 
Jesus is divine (John 1:1, 14, 8:24, Col. 2:9).
Forgiveness of sins is by grace alone without works (Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 3:28, 4:1-5).
Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21, Luke 24:39).
The Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
Mormonism denies that there is only one God in all existence and also denies the forgiveness of sins alone in Christ alone. Therefore, it is outside Christianity. It is not a Christian religion.
Mormonism teaches . . .
Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation who was begotten in heaven as one of God’s spirit children (See the book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8). This is in strict contrast to the Biblical teaching that He is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator of all (John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17). Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time. Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is God in flesh, it teaches that He is "a" god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40). These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the Biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 8, 45:5). See Trinity for a correct discussion of what the Trinity is (See also, false trinity).
Because Mormonism denies the Biblical truth of who God is, who Jesus is, how forgiveness of sins is attained, and what the Gospel is, Mormonism is not Christian.
What else does Mormonism teach?
Mormon theology teaches that God is only one of countless gods, He used to be a man on another planet, He became a god by following the laws and ordinances of that god on that world, and He brought one of His wives to this world with whom He produces spirit children who then inhabit human bodies at birth. The first spirit child to be born was Jesus. Second (though this is disputed among Mormons) was Satan, and then we all followed. But, the Bible says that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 8, 45:5) and that God has been God eternally (Psalm 90:2)–which means He was never a man on another planet. Since the Bible denies the existence of other gods (and goddesses–there is a mother goddess in Mormonism), the idea that Jesus is the product of a god and goddess couple is rejected. The Bible tells us that Jesus–The Jesus of Mormonism–is definitely not the same Jesus of the Bible. Therefore, faith in the Mormon Jesus is faith misplaced because the Mormon Jesus doesn't exist.
Mormonism says Jesus' Sacrifice is not enough
Mormonism teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross itself (and receiving it by faith) is not sufficient to bring forgiveness of sins. It teaches that the forgiveness of sins is obtained though a cooperative effort with God, that is, we must be good and follow the laws and ordinances of the Mormon church in order to obtain forgiveness. Consider the late James Talmage, an LDS apostle who said, "The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil," (Articles of Faith, p. 432), and "Hence the justice of the scriptural doctrine that salvation comes to the individual only through obedience," (Articles of Faith, p. 81). This clearly contradicts the Biblical doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace through faith (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, 6:23, Eph. 2:8-9) and the doctrine that works are not part of becoming saved (Rom. 4:1-5) but a result of them (James 2:14-18).
To further confuse the matter, Mormonism states that salvation is twofold. It maintains that salvation is both forgiveness of sins and universal resurrection. So when a Mormon speaks of salvation by grace, he is usually referring to universal resurrection. But the Bible speaks of salvation as the forgiveness of sins–not universal resurrection. Where Mormonism states that forgiveness of sins is not by faith alone (2 Nephi 25:23, Moroni 10:32), the Bible does teach it is by faith alone (Rom. 3:28, 4:1-5). Both cannot be true.
Mormonism and the Bible
In order to justify its aberrant theology, Mormonism has undermined the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible. The 8th Article of Faith from the Mormon Church states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." This means that when the Bible contradicts Mormonism, the Bible isn't trustworthy. This allows them to say and teach whatever they want even when it contradicts Scripture.
Conclusion
Mormonism is not Christian because it denies that there is only one God, denies the true Gospel, adds works to salvation, denies that Jesus is the uncreated creator, distorts the Biblical teaching of the atonement, undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible, says that God used to be a man who came from another planet and we can become gods, and there is a goddess mother in heaven, etc.
CARM does not deny that Mormons are decent helpful people and that they do many good things.  But that isn't what makes someone Christian–nor does putting "Jesus Christ" in your title make you Christian if you deny who Jesus really is. Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (NKJV)
Notice that Jesus condemns those who combine their faith with their works in order to be saved. If you doubt that, see also Luke 18:9-14 where Jesus teaches the same thing again.
Becoming a Christian does not mean belonging to a church, doing good things, or simply believing in a god from another planet. Being a Christian means that you have trusted in the true God for salvation, received the True Jesus–not the brother of the devil, not the god of Mormonism, not the gospel of Mormonism. Becoming a Christian means believing the Gospel of Christ, who is God in flesh, 2nd person of the Trinity, who was sent by the Father, bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), died, was buried and rose again (1 Cor. 15:1-4). You must trust Jesus. Believe what He did. Put your faith in Him.
Mormonism is false and cannot save anyone.
Titus 1:9-16

Some of the best Christian material against the false religion of Islam is available by going to http://answering-islam.org/, http://www.answeringmuslims.com/ & http://www.muslimhope.com/. Some of the best Christian videos available on the internet against Islam can be found on https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics & YouTube videos by Christian Islamic expert Sam Shamoun at https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sam+shamoun (see also his articles at http://answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun.html, http://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/ &  http://answeringislam.net/Responses/index.htm). Christian Islamic expert Robert Spencer at https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=robert+spencer+islam & Christian apologist James White videos against Islam at https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=james+white+islam are also excellent resources for Christians seeking to refute the Muslim religion created by the false prophet Muhammad. Many may not know that Christian apologist Sam Shamoun has also written articles against the Jehovah's Witnesses. To read his many articles against the Jehovah's Witnesses please go to the following link – https://badmanna.wordpress.com/?s=sam+shamoun. Particularly notice his article series "The King James Version of the Holy Bible: The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Nightmare" beginning with Part 1 at https://badmanna.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/the-king-james-version-of-the-holy-bible-the-jehovahs-witnesses-nightmare-pt-1-a-post-by-sam-shamoun/.   There are also many videos by Sam Shamoun concerning Jehovah's Witnesses at https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sam+shamoun+jehovah%27s+witnesses. See also the many videos by Christian apologist James White concerning the Jehovah's Witnesses at https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=james+white+jehovah%27s+witnesses. See also our playlist "Dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Society" with 22 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40.    2 Timothy 4:2-5, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."

To deal with a major Muslim erroneous argument see our videos: "Why the Islamic Prophet Mohammad & the Baha'i Prophet Bahá'u'lláh are NOT in the Bible (Part #1)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP_cUAyn5R0 & "Muhammad is NOT in the Bible & the Bahai Bahaullah is NOT in the New Testament (Part #2)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prCmOfEc3Ok.  Please notice that we have produced 67 videos on the subject of Islam on our playlist called, "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" with 59 hours of teaching material at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1C7F68B548009FDD. Next please notice that we have created an entire website devoted to investigating the validity of Islam at http://www.muslimhope.com/. Besides our ministry, "Acts 17 Apologetics" (https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics) on YouTube has many useful videos on the subject of Islam such as: 1. "Who Killed Muhammad?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6st_tFj6ouM 2. "Top Ten Reasons Muhammad Is Not a Prophet" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO8sZ1JyP1A 3. "Ten MORE Reasons Muhammad Is Not a Prophet at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4p7HuuhF8k & 4. "Muhammad, Cross-Dressing, and the London Muslim Patrol" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlSknRlQSqs. Islam is a religion that we are well aware of & have investigated fully based on many years of research. Either all religions are false or only one of them can be true. Based on researched evidence, Islam is easily found to be completely false (see "The Quran, the Bible, and the Islamic Dilemma" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNAS0aaViM4).     Since Muslims the world over consider the Qur’an their book from Allah we need to check out its claims.   The numerous contradictions it contains can be categorized into six (6) groups: Scientific Contradictions Historical Contradictions Geographical Contradictions Theological / Ethical Contradictions Contradictions with the Biblical statement Internal Contradictions Scientific Contradictions Sura 27:18-19 records that King Solomon overheard a conversation between ants. This is scientifically impossible as ants use smell, not sound, to communicate and the context of the story indicates that this is not a miracle of Allah! Sura 51:49 reveals that everything was made in pairs. Whilst there are many things that are made in pairs, there are many that have no counterpart, and there are species where there is only one gender such as starfish and sea anemones. Sura 18:85-86 reveals that the Sun sets in a muddy pool. Historical Contradictions Sura 20:85-87, 95-97 reveals that a Samaritan molded the calf that the Israelites worshiped in Moses’ time. This is an historical impossibility as Samaritans wouldn’t exist for another 500-700 years. Sura 28:38 states that Haman was a chief minister of Pharaoh in Egypt. Historically, Haman was the minister of a Persian King, Ahasuerus, called King Xerxes I by the Greeks. He lived about a thousand years after the time of Moses, but the Qur’an says this Persian minister, Haman, lived in Egypt at the time of Moses. Sura 66:12 reveals that Mary [the Biblical Miriam and sister of Aaron and Moses] is the same as the virgin Mary [the mother of Jesus]. Some Muslim scholars try to explain that Mary was only a sister/daughter in a figurative sense because Aaron and Mary were both saints. To the ill-informed, it sounds plausible, but in fact this is not the case at all. Sura 3:32-35 relates that Imran’s [the father of Aaron] family was one of the preferred above all creation. Imran’s wife fell pregnant and gave birth to Mary, who became mother of Jesus. More than 1500 years separated Mary the mother of Jesus, and Miriam [Aaron and Moses’ sister]. Geographical Contradictions Sura 36:37/38 reveals that the sun goes to a place of rest at night. Baidawi said that the phrase, ‘the sun runs to a fixed resting place’, means to a certain limit at which its daily cycle comes to an end. Sura 18:86 Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. Even school children know that it is the earth that moves, not the sun. Sura 2:187 commands Muslims to fast between sunrise and sunset. How is this possible near the North and South Poles when the sun doesn’t go below the horizon for months at a time? Theological/Ethical Contradictions Sura 5:116; 4:171 and 5:73 reveal that Christians allegedly believe that there are three gods: God, Mary and Jesus. Consequently, Muhammad repeated over and over that God is one. However, no Christian believes that there are three Gods. In fact, they expressly deny it, while affirming their belief in the Trinity. Sura 6:12 reveals that people are to be blamed for belief and disbelief but, in Sura 10:100, Allah is responsible. In Sura 31:15, a Muslim is permitted to keep some sort of kindly relation with non-Muslim parents. However, in Sura 9:23, a Muslim is not allowed to befriend unbelieving parents. Sura 4:78 reveals that both good and evil come from Allah; but in Sura 4:79 only good comes from Allah. Adultery is forbidden in Sura 25:68 and 60:12. But in Sura 24:33, Allah allows non-forced prostitution and concubines in Sura 70:29-32. There is no compulsion in Islam according to Sura 2:256; but in Sura 9:5, 8:39, 65, and 67, Allah commands Muslims to fight against unbelievers until they either convert or die. Murder is forbidden in Sura 5:30 etc, but murder for the sake of Allah is permitted against unbelievers, e.g. Sura 9:5; 8:39, 65, 67; 2:191, 217 Contradictions with the Bible Because Muslims believe that the Christian Bible is corrupt, they have no problem with the Qur’an contradicting the Bible – but this denies that Allah is capable of protecting his word. Internal Contradictions Muhammad claimed to be the first Muslim (Sura 6:14, 161-164; 39:11-12). But in Sura 30:30 and 7:172 everyone is born a Muslim and many people are described as Muslims: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (2:127-133;3:67); Jesus (Sura 3:52); the disciples of Jesus (3:52; 5:110-111); Solomon (27:30-31, 42-44); Moses the first of believers (7:143); Moses’ mother (28:7); Aaron (7:121-122); others at the same time as Moses and Aaron (40:28-35, 36-38) and all Jews before they went astray (22:78) etc. In fact, all the prophets were Muslims (see Sura 2:140; 3:81). On the one hand there is a minimum age of marriage (Sura 4:6) [usually regarded as puberty or 15 years of age], but Sura 65:4 contains directives for the divorce of girls who are too immature to menstruate. Sura 2:221 forbids Muslims marrying non-Muslims but Sura 5:5 allows it. According to Sura 2:106 and 16:101, Allah changes his revelations with something better; but in 10:65, there is no change in the word of Allah. Sura 2:106 teaches that Allah causes people to forget his commandments/revelation whereas Sura 6:68 says the devil causes them to forget Allah’s command not to sit with disbelievers. In Sura 2:122; 2:47; 44:30-32; 45:16; Allah prefers Jews above all people, but in 62:6, it appears that he disapproves of them, threatening them with death and turning them into pigs and monkeys (Sura 5:60; 2:65; 98:6 etc). Sura 3:55 teaches those who follow Jesus [Christians] are above those who disbelieve till the Last Day and 2:62 teaches that Christians will not grieve on the Day of Judgment—but in 98:6 Allah reveals that Christians are the worst of all creatures and abide in hell. In Sura 4:48, 116 teaches that Allah can forgive every sin except ascribing a partner to him; but in 6:76-78 Abraham ascribed a star, the moon, and the sun to Allah, but Allah still forgave him. Moreover, in 4:153, the Israelites worshiped the calf and Allah forgave them. Muslims are to get truth and wisdom confirmed from Christians and Jews (Sura 10:94 and 5:47), but in Sura 9:30; 2:65; and 98:6, Christians and Jews are deluded! The Qur’an claims that none can change the Word of God. (Sura 6:115-116; 10:65; 18:27-28; 48:23). However, as seen earlier, the Qurán teaches that the Jews corrupted the words of the Scriptures (Sura 2:41/42; 3:71, 3:78, 4:46) and even Allah needed to change his words (Sura 2:106; 16:101) Sura 22:52 admits that Satan sometimes influences the content of the revelation, but Allah abolishes it. Conclusion These are just some of a plethora of internal contradictions. If God can so change his mind, his promises cannot be trusted with certainty. The God of Christians, however, cannot lie (Titus 1:2 etc.) and promises eternal life (Titus 1:2 and others). More than that, he promises that you can become a child of His (John 1:12). God makes many promises throughout Scripture, and asks to be held to them. The most important promise in Scripture is that "all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved." (Acts 2:21). See our YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/CAnswersTV for more information about the God Who actually exists in reality. John 14:6

Interestingly, when a Muslim says that the Bible has been corrupted, he's contradicting his own revelations. While Muslims today often claim that the Bible has been corrupted, the Qur'an says something completely different. In the Qur'an, Allah affirms the inspiration (3:3-4), preservation (6:114-115; 10:94; 18:27) and authority (5:47; 5:68) of the Christian scriptures. See our website www.MuslimHope.com (playlist "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1C7F68B548009FDD) & another excellent site www.AnsweringMuslims.com (see their videos "Muhammad and Aisha (His Pre Puberty Six Year Old Wife)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psznHJCFZ9c, "Why Did Muhammad Wear Women's Clothing?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-50CraaniT0, "David Wood: Five Reasons the Quran Is Not the Word of God" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvlzlBov9zc, "Muhammad Explains the Universe (Islam and Science, Part One)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7I0IAl88jg, "Muhammad Explains Human Reproduction (Islam and Science, Part Two)" at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7JuBivkNSA, "The Quran, the Bible, and the Islamic Dilemma" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNAS0aaViM4 & many others at https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics). See our video "MOHAMMAD'S THREE GODDESSES OF ALLAH: ISLAM'S "SATANIC VERSES" (QUR'AN 53:19-20)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAaYKH7NbNI&index=1&list=PL1C7F68B548009FDD. Muhammed's "Satanic Verses." Muslims often are very quick to tell others that God allowed the Bible to be corrupted. What they are implying is that the Qur'an today is the reliable word of God while the Bible is not. The Bible has many minor textual variants, but the evidence of any doctrinal changes in negligible. The Qur'an has more evidence of corruption in light of Ubai, abrogated verses, 'Uthman, and other Qur'anic problems. However, the most drastic Qur'anic doctrinal variation, brought up by Muslims themselves, is "the daughters of Allah". The Christian web site http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/sverses.htm says, "One of the most embarrassing events in Muhammad's life occurred when Satan put his words in Muhammad's mouth. Muhammad spoke Satan's words as the word of God. This event is documented by several early Muslim scholars and referenced in the Hadith and Qur'an." Embarrassed Muslims later changed the Quranic verses to something else.
This topic is one of the most controversial in Islam. Satan caused Muhammad to recite his words as God's words."
What Did the Qur'an Originally Say?
The Star Sura (Sura 53) verses 19-20 say, "Have ye seen Lat, and 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat?"
Allah was prominent in Pre-Islamic Arabia, as a god with three daughters: al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat. (Note that al- means "the".)
The four early biographers of Mohammed wrote that they verses originally were followed by:
"These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries) Whose intercession is to be hoped for."
Interpretation: Allah's daughters were considered heavenly beings of intercessors. High altitude Numidian cranes were a metaphor for them. An alternate reading for "is to be hoped for" (turtaja) is "is accepted with approval" (turtada). (From Alfred Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq's The Life of Mohammed p.166.
Al-Wahidi/Wakidi (died 207/823 A.D.) wrote Asbab al-Nozul. "On a certain day, the chief men of Mecca, assembled in a group beside the Kaaba, discussed as was their wont the affairs of the city; when Mahomet appeared and, seating himself by them in a friendly manner, began to recite in their hearing the 53 Sura…. 'And see ye not Lat and Ozza, and Manat the third besides?' When he had reached this verse, the devil suggested an expression of the thoughts which for many a day had possessed his soul; and put in to his mouth words of reconciliation and compromise, the revelation of which he had been longing for from God, namely; 'These are the exalted Females, and verily their intercession is to be hoped for.' The Coreish were surprised and delighted with this acknowledgement of their deities; and as Mahomet wound up the Sura with the closing words 'Wherefore bow down before God, and serve him' the whole assembly prostrated themselves with one accord on the ground and worshipped. … In the evening Gabriel visited him; and the prophet recited the Sura unto him. And Gabriel said, 'What is this that thou has done? Thou has repeated before the people words that I never gave unto thee'. So Mahomet grieved sore, …"
Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (died 923 A.D.) was a Shafi'ite Sunni who wrote a 38-volume Islamic History of the world until 915 A.D. He has been titled "the sheikh of commentators". He writes in volume 6 p.108-110, "When the messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe…. And when he came to the words: 'Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?' Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words: 'These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval [alternately: to be desired or hoped for].' When the Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced and were happy and delighted at the way in which he spoke of their gods, and they listened to him, while the Muslims, having complete trust in their prophet in respect of the message which he brought from god, did not suspect him of error, illusion, or mistake. … Then [later] Gabriel came to the Messenger of God and said, 'Mohammed, what have you done? You have recited to the people that which I did not bring to you from God, …'"
Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Matthew 7:15

1 Timothy 2:12, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." See links: "The Sheep Need Men to be Their Pastors – The Blasphemy of Women Pastors" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=112706102442, "Can Women Be Pastors?" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=59131749272 & "Unpopular Bible Doctrines #7: God Condemns Astrology, Witchcraft, & Sin; No Women Pastors Allowed" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql_obI6wA9w&index=12&list=PLE04A1D0DFE95B95E).
Question: "Women pastors / preachers? Can a woman be a pastor or preacher?"
Answer: There is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors/preachers. As a result, it is very important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women, and there are men who believe women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation.

The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11–12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (1 Timothy 2:13–14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors over men, which definitely includes preaching to them, teaching them publicly, and exercising spiritual authority over them.

There are many objections to this view of women in pastoral ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11–14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, then the majority of Jesus’ disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching men (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, the pastor of the church in Ephesus). Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, and women were the authorities in that branch of paganism—therefore, the theory goes, Paul was only reacting against the female-led customs of the Ephesian idolaters, and the church needed to be different. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention the standard practice of Artemis worshipers as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11–12.

A third objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words for “woman” and “man” in 1 Timothy 2 could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words is broader than that. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8–10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9–10)? Of course not. Verses 8–10 clearly refer to all men and women, not just husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a narrowing to husbands and wives in verses 11–14.

Yet another objection to this interpretation of women in pastoral ministry is in relation to women who held positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. It is true that these women where chosen by God for special service to Him and that they stand as models of faith, courage, and, yes, leadership. However, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue of pastors in the church. The New Testament Epistles present a new paradigm for God’s people—the church, the body of Christ—and that paradigm involves an authority structure unique to the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity.

Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla’s name is mentioned first, perhaps indicating that she was more prominent in ministry than her husband. Did Priscilla and her husband teach the gospel of Jesus Christ to Apollos? Yes, in their home they “explained to him the way of God more adequately” (Acts 18:26). Does the Bible ever say that Priscilla pastored a church or taught publicly or became the spiritual leader of a congregation of saints? No. As far as we know, Priscilla was not involved in ministry activity in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11–14.

In Romans 16:1, Phoebe is called a “deacon” (or “servant”) in the church and is highly commended by Paul. But, as with Priscilla, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Phoebe was a pastor or a teacher of men in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not for deacons (1 Timothy 3:1–13; Titus 1:6–9).

The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11–14 makes the reason why women cannot be pastors perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for,” giving the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11–12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived” (verses 13–14). God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. The order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22–33) and in the church.

The fact that Eve was deceived is also given in 1 Timothy 2:14 as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This does not mean that women are gullible or that they are all more easily deceived than men. If all women are more easily deceived, why would they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? The text simply says that women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church.

Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helps. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18–20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3–5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors to men. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them.

Women pastors – what does the Bible say?

The only way to have a productive dialogue on the women pastors issue is to discuss it biblically. Yes, undeniably, there are men whose views on the issue are clouded by chauvinism. At the same time, there are men and women on both sides of the discussion. So, it should never be assumed that one holds a particular view due to latent chauvinism. The issue should be decided based on what the Bible teaches, not on who can make the strongest ad hominem attack.
The key passage on the women pastors issue is 1 Timothy 2:11-12, which reads, "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." At its face, this passage is abundantly clear. Paul restricts women from teaching or having spiritual authority over men. While it is not explicitly laid out in the text, the focus seems to be on the concept of pastoring/shepherding. A pastor's duties are primarily teaching and leading. It is this shepherding role over men that God, through Paul, restricts to men.
There are several lines of argument against this interpretation of the women pastors issue in 1 Timothy 2:11-12:
(1) Women were uneducated at that time, and therefore not qualified to be teachers. The passage nowhere mentions education. Education is not mentioned as a qualification for church leadership in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 or Titus 1:6-9. If education was a requirement, few, if any, of Jesus' disciples would have been qualified.
(2) Paul was only dealing with Artemis worship at Timothy's church in Ephesus. The context, and all of 1 Timothy for that matter, nowhere mention Artemis or the prominence of women in the worship of Artemis. If there was a problem with women usurping authority over men in the church in Ephesus, Paul would have addressed it directly.
(3) Paul is referring to husbands and wives, not men and women. Wives are not to teach or have authority over their husbands. The Greek words could refer to husbands and wives, but the context indicates otherwise. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer? Are only wives to dress modestly (1 Timothy 2:8-10)? The immediate context indicates that men and women in general are the subject, not husbands and wives exclusively.
(4) There are women in the Bible who served in ways that contradict this interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, and Phoebe are the most commonly given examples. Ultimately, Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah are meaningless to the issue, as Paul is addressing leadership in the church. Leadership in old covenant Israel is not the subject at hand. In regards to Priscilla and Phoebe, the New Testament nowhere describes them serving in a way that contradicts 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, discipled Apollos in their home (Acts 18:26). Phoebe is simply identified as a servant/deaconess of the church (Romans 16:1).
(5) Galatians 3:28 says that men and women are equal in God's eyes. Men and women are absolutely equal in God's eyes, but that is not the issue. The subject of Galatians 3:28 is equality in Christ, equal access to the salvation Christ offers. Men and women, Jews and Gentiles, slave and free are absolutely equal in this context. Church leadership is not the subject of Galatians 3:28. Further, we cannot take one verse and use it to cancel out another verse. Both Galatians 3:28 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 are absolutely true. They do not contradict each other.
If education, culture, or marriage are not the reason for the restriction on women in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, what is the reason? The answer is given in the next two verses: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived" (1 Timothy 2:13-14). The order of creation and the nature of the fall impacts spiritual leadership in the church, and in the family (see Ephesians 5:22-33). Women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men because women were created to be "helpers" to men and because Eve was deceived into sin. Through creation, and because of the Fall, God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church.
So, what exactly does this mean practically? What are women restricted from doing? The clear implication is that women are not to serve in any role which involves the authoritative spiritual teaching of men. By this definition, the role of teaching pastor/shepherd is reserved for men. This is confirmed in the two passages which deal specifically with the qualifications for church leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Church leaders are described as the "husband of one wife," "a man whose children believe," and "men worthy of respect."
Rather than focusing on what ministries women are restricted from, the focus should be on the multitude of ways God calls and gifts women to serve. Women are nowhere restricted from proclaiming the gospel to the lost (Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15). Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). Women are nowhere restricted from teaching children. Women seem to excel, far beyond men, in some of the spiritual gifts and fruit of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12; Galatians 5:22-23). Women being restricted from spiritual teaching authority over men is not a punishment. Rather, it is a refocusing to the ministries, skills, and gifts God with which blesses women.
Question: "What roles can women fill in ministry?"
Answer: Women in ministry is an issue upon which Bible-believing Christians can and do disagree. The point of separation centers on the passages of Scripture that forbid women to speak in church or "assume authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12; cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34). The disagreement is whether or not those passages were relevant only to the era in which they were penned. Some contend that, since there is neither “Jew nor Greek . . . male nor female . . . but you are all one in Christ” (Galatians 3:28), women are free to pursue any field of ministry open to men. Others hold that 1 Timothy 2:12 still applies today, since the basis for the command is not cultural but universal, being rooted in the order of creation (1 Timothy 2:13-14).

First Peter 5:1-4 details the qualifications for an elder. Presbuteros is the Greek word used sixty-six times in the New Testament to indicate “seasoned male overseer.” It is the masculine form of the word. The feminine form, presbutera, is never used in reference to elders or shepherds. Based on the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, the role of an elder is interchangeable with the bishop/pastor/overseer (Titus 1:6-9; 1 Peter 5:1-3). And since, according to 1 Timothy 2:12, a woman should not “teach or exercise authority over a man,” it seems clear that the position of elders and pastors—who must be equipped to teach, lead the congregation, and oversee their spiritual growth (1 Timothy 3:2)—should be reserved for men only.

However, elder/bishop/pastor appears to be the only office reserved for men. Women have always played a significant role in the growth of the church, even being among the few who witnessed the crucifixion of Christ when most of the disciples had run away (Matthew 27:55; John 19:25). The apostle Paul held women in high regard, and in many of his letters to the churches he greeted specific women by name (Romans 16:6, 12; Colossians 4:15; Philippians 4:2-3; Philemon 1:2). Paul addresses these women as "co-workers," and they clearly served the Lord to the benefit of the whole church (Philippians 4:3; Colossians 4:15).

Offices were created in the early church to fit the needs of the body. Although many modern churches interchange the positions of elder and deacon, they were not the same office. Deacons were appointed to serve in a physical capacity as the need arose (Acts 6:2-3). There is no clear prohibition against women serving in this way. In fact, Romans 16:1 may indicate that a woman named Phoebe was a respected deaconess in the church at Rome.

There is no scriptural precedent that forbids women from also serving as worship leaders, youth ministers, or children’s directors. The only restriction is that they do not assume a role of spiritual authority over adult men. Since the concern in Scripture appears to be the issue of spiritual authority rather than function, any role that does not bestow such spiritual authority over adult men is permissible.
Question: "What does the "husband of one wife" phrase in 1 Timothy 3:2 mean? Can a divorced man serve as a pastor, elder, or deacon?"
Answer: There are at least three possible interpretations of the phrase “husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2. 1) It could simply be saying that a polygamist is not qualified to be an elder, a deacon or a pastor. This is the most literal interpretation of the phrase, but seems somewhat unlikely considering that polygamy was quite rare in the time that Paul was writing. 2) The phrase could also be translated “one-woman man.” This would indicate that a bishop must be absolutely loyal to the woman he is married to. This interpretation focuses more on moral purity than marital status. 3) The phrase could also be understood to declare that in order to be an elder/deacon/pastor, a man can only have been married once, other than in the case of a remarried widower.

Interpretations 2) and 3) are the most prevalent today. Interpretation 2) seems to be the strongest, primarily because Scripture seems to allow for divorce in exceptional circumstances (Matthew 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:12-16). It would also be important to differentiate between a man who was divorced and remarried before he became a Christian from a man who was divorced and remarried after becoming a Christian. An otherwise qualified man should not be excluded from church leadership because of actions he took prior to coming to know the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior. Although 1 Timothy 3:2 does not necessarily exclude a divorced or remarried man from serving as an elder/deacon/pastor, there are other issues to consider.

The first qualification of an elder/deacon/pastor is to be “above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2). If the divorce and/or remarriage results in a poor testimony for the man in the church or community, it may be the “above reproach” qualification that excludes him rather than the “husband of one wife” requirement. An elder/deacon/pastor is to be a man that the church and community can look up to as an example of Christ-likeness and godly leadership. If his divorce and/or remarriage situation detracts from this purpose, perhaps he should not serve in the position of elder/deacon/pastor. It is important to remember, though, that just because a man is disqualified from serving as an elder/deacon/pastor, he is still a valuable member of the body of Christ. Every Christian possesses spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-7) and is called to participate in edifying other believers with those gifts (1 Corinthians 12:7). A man who is disqualified from the position of elder/deacon/pastor can still teach, preach, serve, pray, worship, and play an important role in the church.
Question: "What are the responsibilities of deacons in the church?"
Answer: In the New Testament, the word usually translated "serve" is the Greek word diakoneo, which literally means "through the dirt." It refers to an attendant, a waiter, or one who ministers to another. From this word we get the English word “deacon.” We first see the word "deacon" used this way in the book of Acts. “And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables” (Acts 6:2). The men who were giving themselves to feeding the flock by preaching and teaching realized that it wasn’t right for them to leave those activities to wait tables, so they found some other men who were willing to serve, and put them in place to minister to the church’s physical needs while the elders or pastors ministered to their spiritual needs. It was a better use of the resources they were given, and a better use of everyone’s gifts. It also got more people involved in serving and helping one another.

Today, for the biblical church, these roles are essentially the same. Elders and pastors are to “preach the word…reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2), and deacons are to be appointed to take care of everything else. In a modern church, this might include taking on administrative or organizational tasks, ushering, being responsible for building maintenance, or volunteering to be the church treasurer. It depends on the need and the gifts of the available men.

The responsibilities of a deacon are not clearly listed or outlined; they are assumed to be everything that does not include the duties of an elder or pastor, which is to preach, teach, and exhort. But qualifications for a deacon’s character are clearly outlined in Scripture. They are to be blameless, the husband of one wife, a good household manager, respectable, honest, not addicted to alcohol and not greedy (1 Timothy 3:8-12). According to the Word, the office of deacon is an honor and a blessing. “For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 3:13).
Is God/the Bible sexist?  Sexism is generally defined as one gender having dominance over another and is usually applied to men dominating women. Because the Bible includes many references to women that appear demeaning from our contemporary context, some conclude that God and/or the Bible are sexist. Is this true?

The time period of the Old Testament included a cultural system that was patriarchal. Rather than viewing men and women as created in God's image as the Bible states (Genesis 1:27), women were typically seen as less important than men in society. This is part of fallen human nature in which people lived in ways contrary to God's design. To discover and develop the view God has given for the roles of men and women in society, we must look to Scripture.

Though in Old Testament accounts many references to women appear sexist from our modern perspective, two things must be considered before making such an accusation. First, many references in the Bible that appear sexist are simply stating actions that took place without reference to whether they were right or wrong. For example, in Judges 11 Jephthah appears to have sacrificed his own daughter to keep a vow he made to the Lord. Scripture does not state that God approved this action; it only records it as a fact of history.

Second, many references to women that appear sexist based on contemporary standards were appropriate or even better than the norm of the original cultural setting. For example, 1 Timothy 2:9 says Christian women should not adorn themselves with braided hair. Why not? In that time, braided hair was associated with the practices of immoral women in the area. Further, braided hair as understood in that cultural context was a costly, extravagant luxury. However, even in a time when women's rights were different than today, there are several biblical accounts of women being treated with dignity and respect above the level of cultural norms. For example, Jesus publicly spoke with a Samaritan woman at a well, something that even she noted as uncommon (John 4:9). Jesus also allowed women to serve among His followers (including Mary and Martha and Mary Magdalene), and even appeared first to women after His resurrection rather than to men.

Far from being sexist, Scripture presents both men and women in high regard. In the beginning, woman was made in God's image, complementing man as a helper with him. She would serve as woman, wife, mother, and various other roles.

In the Old Testament, women are seen in many influential roles. In addition to Eve, the mother of all people, Scripture speaks highly of Abraham's wife Sarah, Isaac's wife Rebekah, Deborah who served as a judge in the book of Judges, the mother of Moses, Miriam the sister of Moses, Ruth the faithful Moabite, Hannah the mother of Samuel, and Queen Esther who saved the Jewish people.

In the New Testament, women served in prominent roles as well. Mary the mother of Jesus is presented as an ideal servant of God. Four women are mentioned by name in the family lineage of Jesus. Mary's relative Elizabeth obediently raised John the Baptist. Many women also served Jesus during His ministry, with Mary Magdalene in particular noted. Several women existed among the 120 first followers of Jesus in the upper room when the church began (Acts 1—2) and led in a variety of roles within the early church. While it is unlikely that women served as apostles and did not serve as elders, some women served as prophets or at least gave prophecies. Acts 21:8-9 shares, "On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied."

Further, the New Testament speaks highly in favor of strong families and discourages divorce, something that culturally hurt women greatly at the time of writing. James 1:27 is exemplary of Scripture's instructions to care for widows, those women without husbands to provide for the needs of their family.

Though some portions of the Bible may appear sexist, the overall teaching of Scripture presents a beautiful view of women that provides much insight for today. 
Question: "What does the Bible say about the form of church government (polity)?" 
Answer: The Lord was very clear in His Word about how He wishes His church on earth to be organized and managed. First, Christ is the head of the church and its supreme authority (Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; Colossians 1:18). Second, the local church is to be autonomous, free from any external authority or control, with the right of self-government and freedom from the interference of any hierarchy of individuals or organizations (Titus 1:5). Third, the church is to be governed by spiritual leadership consisting of two main offices—elders and deacons.

“Elders” were a leading body among the Israelites since the time of Moses. We find them making political decisions (2 Samuel 5:3; 2 Samuel 17:4, 15), advising the king in later history (1 Kings 20:7), and representing the people concerning spiritual matters (Exodus 7:17; 24:1, 9; Numbers 11:16, 24-25). The early Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, used the Greek word presbuteros for “elder.” This is the same Greek word used in the New Testament that is also translated “elder.”

The New Testament refers a number of times to elders who served in the role of church leadership (Acts 14:23, 15:2, 20:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14) and apparently each church had more than one, as the word is usually found in the plural. The only exceptions refer to cases in which one elder is being singled out for some reason (1 Timothy 5:1, 19). In the Jerusalem church, elders were part of the leadership along with the apostles (Acts 15:2-16:4).

It seems that the position of elder was equal to the position of episkopos, translated “overseer” or “bishop” (Acts 11:30; 1 Timothy 5:17). The term “elder” may refer to the dignity of the office, while the term “bishop/overseer” describes its authority and duties (1 Peter 2:25, 5:1-4). In Philippians 1:1, Paul greets the bishops and deacons but does not mention the elders, presumably because the elders are the same as the bishops. Likewise, 1 Timothy 3:2, 8 gives the qualifications of bishops and deacons but not of elders. Titus 1:5-7 seems also to tie these two terms together.

The position of “deacon,” from diakonos, meaning “through the dirt,” was one of servant leadership to the church. Deacons are separate from elders, while having qualifications that are in many ways similar to those of elders (1 Timothy 3:8-13). Deacons assist the church in whatever is needed, as recorded in Acts chapter 6.

Concerning the word poimen, translated “pastor” in reference to a human leader of a church, it is found only once in the New Testament, in Ephesians 4:11: “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.” Most associate the two terms “pastors” and “teachers” as referring to a single position, a pastor-teacher. It is likely that a pastor-teacher was the spiritual shepherd of a particular local church.

It would seem from the above passages that there was always a plurality of elders, but this does not negate God’s gifting particular elders with the teaching gifts while gifting others with the gift of administration, prayer, etc. (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11). Nor does it negate God’s calling them into a ministry in which they will use those gifts (Acts 13:1). Thus, one elder may emerge as the “pastor,” another may do the majority of visiting members because he has the gift of compassion, while another may “rule” in the sense of handling the organizational details. Many churches that are organized with a pastor and deacon board perform the functions of a plurality of elders in that they share the ministry load and work together in some decision making. In Scripture there was also much congregational input into decisions. Thus, a “dictator” leader who makes the decisions (whether called elder, or bishop, or pastor) is unscriptural (Acts 1:23, 26; 6:3, 5; 15:22, 30; 2 Corinthians 8:19). So, too, is a congregation-ruled church that does not give weight to the elders’ or church leaders’ input.

In summary, the Bible teaches a leadership consisting of a plurality of elders (bishops/overseers) along with a group of deacons who serve the church. But it is not contrary to this plurality of elders to have one of the elders serving in the major “pastoral” role. God calls some as “pastor/teachers” (even as He called some to be missionaries in Acts 13) and gives them as gifts to the church (Ephesians 4:11). Thus, a church may have many elders, but not all elders are called to serve in the pastoral role. But, as one of the elders, the pastor or “teaching elder” has no more authority in decision making than does any other elder.

Some liberal theologians, cultists, New Agers & apostates have argued that the "Jezebel spirit" allows for the Christian church to have women pastors which only shows the absurdity that they will go to disobey God's straightforward & clear commands in scripture that women pastors are not allowed. The people that would use the "Jezebel spirit" argument to allow for any kind of church leadership model whatsoever have clearly demonstrated that they themselves have the very "Jezebel" spirit they claim for their authority to have women pastors, etc. What a ridiculous position to hold since they themselves are condemned by the very argument they use.
Question: "What is the Jezebel spirit?"

Answer: There is a variety of opinions about what constitutes a Jezebel spirit, everything from sexual looseness in a woman to the teaching of false doctrine—by a man or a woman. The Bible does not mention a Jezebel spirit, although it has plenty to say about Jezebel herself.

Jezebel’s story is found in 1 and 2 Kings. She was the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre/Sidon and priest of the cult of Baal, a cruel, sensuous and revolting false god whose worship involved sexual degradation and lewdness. Ahab, king of Israel, married Jezebel and led the nation into Baal worship (1 Kings 16:31). Ahab and Jezebel’s reign over Israel is one of the saddest chapters in the history of God’s people.

There are two incidents in the life of Jezebel which characterize her and may define what is meant by the Jezebel spirit. One trait is her obsessive passion for domineering and controlling others, especially in the spiritual realm. When she became queen, she began a relentless campaign to rid Israel of all evidences of Jehovah worship. She ordered the extermination of all the prophets of the Lord (1 Kings 18:4, 13) and replaced their altars with those of Baal. Her strongest enemy was Elijah, who demanded a contest on Mount Carmel between the powers of Israel’s God and the powers of Jezebel and the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18). Of course, Jehovah won, but despite hearing of the miraculous powers of Jehovah, Jezebel refused to repent and swore on her gods that she would pursue Elijah relentlessly and take his life. Her stubborn refusal to see and submit to the power of the living God would lead her to a hideous end (2 Kings 9:29-37).

The second incident involves a righteous man named Naboth who refused to sell to Ahab land adjoining the palace, rightly declaring that to sell his inheritance would be against the Lord’s command (1 Kings 21:3; Leviticus 25:23). While Ahab sulked and fumed on his bed, Jezebel taunted and ridiculed him for his weakness, then proceeded to have the innocent Naboth framed and stoned to death. Naboth’s sons were also stoned to death, so there would be no heirs, and the land would revert to the possession of the king. Such a single-minded determination to have one’s way, no matter who is destroyed in the process, is a characteristic of the Jezebel spirit.

So infamous was Jezebel’s sexual immorality and idol worship that the Lord Jesus Himself refers to her in a warning to the church at Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-29). Most likely referring to a woman in the church who influenced it the same way Jezebel influenced Israel into idolatry and sexual immorality, Jesus declares to the Thyatirans that she is not to be tolerated. Whoever this woman was, like Jezebel, she refused to repent of her immorality and her false teaching, and her fate was sealed. The Lord Jesus cast her onto a sick bed, along with those who committed idolatry with her. The end for those who succumb to a Jezebel spirit is always death and destruction, both in the physical and the spiritual sense.

Perhaps the best way to define the Jezebel spirit is to say it characterizes anyone who acts in the same manner as Jezebel did, engaging in immorality, idolatry, false teaching and unrepentant sin. To go beyond that is to engage in conjecture and can possibly lead to false accusations and divisiveness within the body of Christ.

Female based religious cults such as Seventh Day Adventism (see our playlist "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess"" with 24 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5316CC6F66F24283), Christian Science of Mary Baker Eddy & other New Age cults (see our playlist "Dealing with Anti Christ Cults, "New Age" & World Religions" with 42 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL69A3047B3497590A & many of today's modern Charismatic & Pentecostal TV preachers like Joyce Meyer & Paula White (see our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" with 26 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2CDA855486B09128) promote the type of "Jezebel spirit" & "doctrine of the Nicolaitans" the scripture warns about.

Question: "Who are the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation 2:6, 14-15?"

Answer: The exact origin of the Nicolaitans is unclear. Some Bible commentators believe they were a heretical sect who followed the teachings of Nicolas—whose name means “one who conquers the people”—who was possibly one of the deacons of the early church mentioned in Acts 6:5. It is possible that Nicolas became an apostate, denying the true faith and became part of a group holding "the doctrine of Balaam," who taught Israel "to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality." Clement of Alexandria says, “They abandoned themselves to pleasure like goats, leading a life of self-indulgence.” Their teaching perverted grace and replaced liberty with license.

Other commentators believe that these Nicolaitans were not so called from any man, but from the Greek word Nicolah, meaning "let us eat," as they often encouraged each other to eat things offered to idols. Whichever theory is true, it is certain that the deeds of the Nicolaitans were an abomination to Christ. They, like the Gnostics and other false teachers, abused the doctrine of grace and tried to introduce licentiousness in its place (2 Peter 2:15, 19; Jude 1:4).

 According to the writings of the Early Church leaders, Nicolas taught a doctrine of compromise, implying that total separation between Christianity and the practice of occult paganism was not essential. From Early Church records, it seems apparent that this Nicolas of Antioch was so immersed in occultism, Judaism, and Christianity that he had a stomach for all of it. He had no problem intermingling these belief systems in various concoctions and saw no reason why believers couldn't continue to fellowship with those still immersed in the black magic of the Roman empire and its countless mystery cults.

Occultism was a major force that warred against the Early Church. In Ephesus, the primary pagan religion was the worship of Diana (Artemis). There were many other forms of idolatry in Ephesus, but this was the primary object of occult worship in that city. In the city of Pergamos, there were numerous dark and sinister forms of occultism, causing Pergamos to be one of the most wicked cities in the history of the ancient world. In both of these cities, believers were lambasted and persecuted fiercely by adherents of pagan religions, forced to contend with paganism on a level far beyond all other cities.

It was very hard for believers to live separately from all the activities of paganism because paganism and its religions were the center of life in these cities. Slipping in and out of paganism would have been very easy for young or weak believers to do since most of their families and friends were still pagans. A converted Gentile would have found it very difficult to stay away from all pagan influence.

It is significant that the "deeds" and "doctrines" of the Nicolaitans are only mentioned in connection with the churches in these two occultic and pagan cities. It seems that the "doctrine" of the Nicolaitans was that it was alright to have one foot in both worlds and that one needn't be so strict about separation from the world in order to be a Christian. This, in fact, was the "doctrine" of the Nicolaitans that Jesus "hated." It led to a weak version of Christianity that was without power and without conviction – a defeated, worldly type of Christianity.

Nicolas' deep roots in paganism may have produced in him a tolerance for occultism and paganism. Growing up in this perverted spiritual environment may have caused him to view these belief systems as not so damaging or dangerous. This wrong perception would have resulted in a very liberal viewpoint that encouraged people to stay connected to the world. This is what numerous Bible scholars believe about the Nicolaitans.

This kind of teaching would result in nothing but total defeat for its followers. When believers allow sin and compromise to be in their lives, it drains away the power in the work of the Cross and the power of the Spirit that is resident in a believer's life. This is the reason the name Nicolas is so vital to this discussion. The evil fruit of Nicolas' "doctrine" encouraged worldly participation, leading people to indulge in sin and a lowered godly standard. In this way he literally conquered the people.

God wants to make sure we understand the doctrine the Nicolaitans taught, so Balaam's actions are given as an example of their doctrine and actions. Revelation 2:14,15 says, "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate."

When Balaam could not successfully cure the people of God, he used another method to destroy them. He seduced them into unbridled, sensual living by dangling the prostitutes of Moab before the men of Israel. Numbers 25:1-3 tells us, "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they [the daughters of Moab] called the people [the men of Israel] unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people [the men of Israel] did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor…."

Just as the men of Israel compromised themselves with the world and false religions, now the "doctrine" of the Nicolaitans was encouraging compromise. As you are well aware, compromise with the world always results in a weakened and powerless form of Christianity. This was the reason Jesus "hated" the "doctrine" and the "deeds" of the Nicolaitans.

 Jesus commends the church of Ephesus for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans as He does (Revelation 2:6). No doubt the leaders of the Ephesian church protected their flock from these destructive heresies and kept their people from committing the same evil deeds. All sin is hateful to Christ, as it should be to His followers, as we hate men’s evil deeds, not the men themselves. For the church at Pergamos, Jesus had not commendation, but censure. Unlike the Ephesians, they actually embraced the teachings of the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:15). Jesus warns them that unless they repent, they are in danger of the judgment that is sure to fall on those who teach false doctrine, attack His church, and destroy His people. The sword of judgment is poised over their heads, and His patience is not limitless (Revelation 2:16; 19:15).

The lesson for us is that the church of the Lord Jesus throughout the ages has been plagued by those of the Nicolaitan spirit. The only way to recognize false teaching is to be intimately familiar with truth through the diligent study of the Word of God. See our website www.BibleQuery.org which answers over 8000 bible questions. 2 Timothy 2:15

Question: "How is Jesus our Sabbath Rest?"
Answer: The key to understanding how Jesus is our Sabbath rest is the Hebrew word sabat, which means "to rest or stop or cease from work." The origin of the Sabbath goes back to Creation. After creating the heavens and the earth in six days, God "rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made" (Genesis 2:2). This doesn’t mean that God was tired and needed a rest. We know that God is omnipotent, literally "all-powerful." He has all the power in the universe, He never tires, and His most arduous expenditure of energy does not diminish His power one bit. So, what does it mean that God rested on the seventh day? Simply that He stopped what He was doing. He ceased from His labors. This is important in understanding the establishment of the Sabbath day and the role of Christ as our Sabbath rest.

God used the example of His resting on the seventh day of Creation to establish the principle of the Sabbath day rest for His people. In Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15, God gave the Israelites the fourth of His Ten Commandments. They were to "remember" the Sabbath day and "keep it holy." One day out of every seven, they were to rest from their labors and give the same day of rest to their servants and animals. This was not just a physical rest, but a cessation of laboring. Whatever work they were engaged in was to stop for a full day each week. (Please read our other articles on the Sabbath day, Saturday vs. Sunday and Sabbath keeping to explore this issue further.) The Sabbath day was established so the people would rest from their labors, only to begin again after a one-day rest.

The various elements of the Sabbath symbolized the coming of the Messiah, who would provide a permanent rest for His people. Once again the example of resting from our labors comes into play. With the establishment of the Old Testament Law, the Jews were constantly "laboring" to make themselves acceptable to God. Their labors included trying to obey a myriad of do’s and don’ts of the ceremonial law, the Temple law, the civil law, etc. Of course they couldn’t possibly keep all those laws, so God provided an array of sin offerings and sacrifices so they could come to Him for forgiveness and restore fellowship with Him, but only temporarily. Just as they began their physical labors after a one-day rest, so, too, did they have to continue to offer sacrifices. Hebrews 10:1 tells us that the law "can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship." But these sacrifices were offered in anticipation of the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on the cross, who "after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right of God" (Hebrews 10:12). Just as He rested after performing the ultimate sacrifice, He sat down and rested—ceased from His labor of atonement because there was nothing more to be done, ever. Because of what He did, we no longer have to "labor" in law-keeping in order to be justified in the sight of God. Jesus was sent so that we might rest in God and in what He has provided.

Another element of the Sabbath day rest which God instituted as a foreshadowing of our complete rest in Christ is that He blessed it, sanctified it, and made it holy. Here again we see the symbol of Christ as our Sabbath rest—the holy, perfect Son of God who sanctifies and makes holy all who believe in Him. God sanctified Christ, just as He sanctified the Sabbath day, and sent Him into the world (John 10:36) to be our sacrifice for sin. In Him we find complete rest from the labors of our self-effort, because He alone is holy and righteous. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21). We can now cease from our spiritual labors and rest in Him, not just one day a week, but always.

Jesus can be our Sabbath rest in part because He is "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8). As God incarnate, He decides the true meaning of the Sabbath because He created it, and He is our Sabbath rest in the flesh. When the Pharisees criticized Him for healing on the Sabbath, Jesus reminded them that even they, sinful as they were, would not hesitate to pull a sheep out of a pit on the Sabbath. Because He came to seek and save His sheep who would hear His voice (John 10:3,27) and enter into the Sabbath rest He provided by paying for their sins, He could break the Sabbath rules. He told the Pharisees that people are more important than sheep and the salvation He provided was more important than rules. By saying, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27), Jesus was restating the principle that the Sabbath rest was instituted to relieve man of his labors, just as He came to relieve us of our attempting to achieve salvation by our works. We no longer rest for only one day, but forever cease our laboring to attain God’s favor. Jesus is our rest from works now, just as He is the door to heaven, where we will rest in Him forever.

Hebrews 4 is the definitive passage regarding Jesus as our Sabbath rest. The writer to the Hebrews exhorts his readers to "enter in" to the Sabbath rest provided by Christ. After three chapters of telling them that Jesus is superior to the angels and that He is our Apostle and High Priest, he pleads with them to not harden their hearts against Him, as their fathers hardened their hearts against Jehovah in the wilderness. Because of their unbelief, God denied that generation access to the holy land, saying, "They shall not enter into My rest" (Hebrews 3:11). In the same way, the writer to the Hebrews begs them—and us—not to make the same mistake by rejecting God’s Sabbath rest in Jesus Christ. "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience" (Hebrews 4:9-11).

There is no other Sabbath rest besides Jesus. He alone satisfies the requirements of the Law, and He alone provides the sacrifice that atones for sin. He is God’s plan for us to cease from the labor of our own works. We dare not reject this one-and-only Way of salvation (John 14:6). God’s reaction to those who choose to reject His plan is seen in Numbers 15. A man was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath day, in spite of God’s plain commandment to cease from all labor on the Sabbath. This transgression was a known and willful sin, done with unblushing boldness in broad daylight, in open defiance of the divine authority. "And Jehovah said to Moses, ‘The man shall surely be put to death’" (v. 35). So it will be to all who reject God’s provision for our Sabbath rest in Christ. "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?" (Hebrews 2:3).

"What does it mean that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath? – http://www.gotquestions.org/Lord-of-the-Sabbath.html

"What is a sabbatical year?" – http://www.gotquestions.org/sabbatical-year.html

"What does shabbat mean?" – http://www.gotquestions.org/shabbat.html

"What day is the Sabbath, Saturday or Sunday?" – http://www.gotquestions.org/Saturday-Sunday.html

"Does God require Sabbath-keeping of Christians?" – http://www.gotquestions.org/Sabbath-keeping.html

Finally, Sabbath Keeping in Alaska is a Problem. This shows that the Sabbath was a regional, temporary command for Israel and not for the world. Interesting problem in Alaska. According to the officious SDA sunset calculator, on Friday eve, May 30th, in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, the sun set below the horizon, bringing with it the Jewish Shabbat, at 11:38 PM, almost midnight. Note: AK is so far west, it is on Hawaiian time. Here is the quote: Calculations for: Longitude: -148.34000 Latitude: 70.27000 Prudhoe Bay, Alaska Time Zone: Hawaiian Standard Time, HSTDate: 5/30/03 Friday Sunrise: 0:07am HST (sunrise Friday morning)Sunset: 11:38pm HST (sunset, Friday night, becoming sabbath) Next, we find sunrise on Sabbath, May 31st, actually starts before midnight Friday night and el sol invictus stays up all day Sabbath, and into Sabbath night, and into Sunday morning, and into Sunday night, for the next two months! Date: 5/31/03 Sunrise: Sun above horizon HST Sunset: Sun above horizon HST (meaning the sun never sets). Meaning: if you live and work in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, extracting dino remains buried and liquified by Noah's flood less than 4500 years ago, you have a problem! (no!! dummy! not the recent age of the earth!)… you have to quit working! Because on Friday night, May 30th, when the sun went down at 1l:38, bringing in the holy Lord's day, you had to stop working, thou, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and all the strangers within thy igloo. But the sun came up again on Sabbath just a few minutes later, but never went down after that!!! As I scribble this nonsense it is still Sabbath in Prudhoe Bay…cause the sun never went down….no Saturday sunset. So if you believe literally that you must keep sabbath from sunset on Friday night to Sabbath sunset…..the next day, Sabbath, did NOT have a sunset this summer! Won't be a sunset for another two months! So you are faced with keeping Sabbath for two months straight, and giving up your job with Exxon! Unless of course, you are the camp padre, trying to spread the word that black gold comes from dead dinos who missed the ark, or in the medical profession raking in piles of dough and salving your conscience by paying plenty of tithe to keep the hired-archy gainfully employed…. —sent by reader Seventh Day Adventists follow their false prophetess Ellen G. White (a woman authority over her religious followers which violates 1 Timothy 2:12, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.") & her idol of Sabbath keeping for salvation requirement (violating Galatians 1:6-9) rather than what the Bible plainly teaches about Sabbath keeping for New Testament believers. For more see our playlist "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess"" with 23 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5316CC6F66F24283. See the websites: www.TruthorFables.com, www.ExAdventist.com, www.LifeAssuranceMinistries.org & www.GreatControversyExposed.com. Titus 1:9-16

See our playlist "Dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Society" with 22 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40. YHWH – What is God's name, YHWH or Jehovah? Almighty God was referred to by a number of names and titles in the Old Testament. Jews traditionally say there were seven names. One of these names was YHWH. The letters YHWH are named in Hebrew Yod-Heh-Waw-Heh. The Jewish Encyclopaedia states:     "Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh ( ), the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility." jewishencyclopedia.com (as of 25/09/2005) Prior to the time of Jesus, mainline Judaism came to believe that YHWH, the divine name of God, was too sacred to be uttered, and the ineffable name stopped being uttered aloud. Because written Hebrew contained consonants but no vowels, it is now unknown exactly how YHWH was pronounced by ancient Jews. However, there is consensus by scholars that God's name was rendered as Yahuweh or Yahweh. "There is almost universal consensus among scholars today that the sacred Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is to be vocalized and pronounced Yahweh. Probably the name means literally "He is."" New International Version: The Making of a Contemporary Translation CHAPTER 9: YHWH Sabaoth: "The Lord Almighty" Kenneth L. Barker Jews recognise the divine name in modern times as Yahweh. The Jewish Encyclopedia published between 1901 and 1906 by Funk and Wagnalls includes the divine name as Yahweh when translated into English. Nazarene Judaism is a source of information on the pronunciation of YHWH because they see importance in the use of the name and continued to utter the name after mainstream Judaism had ceased saying the word out loud. The following quote is from an article written by a Nazarene and explains that there is significant evidence that Yahweh is the correct. Nazarenes and the Name of YHWH by James Trimm states; "It is clear when examining the many sources that the pronunciation of YHWH can be recovered as YAHUWEH sometimes abbreviated as YAHWEH, YAHU or YAH. This is attested to by the Yahwitic names of the Masoretic text, the Peshitta Aramaic and the Marashu texts. The true pronunciation of YHWH is also preserved in ancient transliterations of the name written in Egyptian Hieroglyphics, cuneiform and Greek, all of which had written vowels. The restoration of the use of the name of Yahuweh with its correct pronunciation is as prophetically significant as the restoration of the ancient sect of the Nazarenes. Such a restoration of the name of Yahweh to his people is promised in scripture: For then will I turn to the people a pure language, That they may call upon the name of YHWH (Zeph. 3:9)" The first half of the Tetragrammaton is commonly used as an abbreviation for God's name and is included in the a number of Biblical names. The shorten form of YHWH is Yah. The New World Translation Reference Bible states; ""As Jah." BHSftn(Heb.), ki Yah; M(Heb.), beYah´, "by Jah." Yah is the first half of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH. It occurs 49 times in M distinguished by a point (mappik) in its second letter and once, in Ca 8:6, without the mappik. TLXXSyVg, "Jehovah." See Ex 15:2 ftn, "Jah"; App 1A." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures Footnote to Psalm 68:4 This is attested to by a number of English Biblical references. The word Hallelujah means 'Praise Yah" and shows that YH was pronounced as yah. The names Elijah, Isaiah and Jeremiah all end with Yah. On the other hand, Jehosaphat begins with the incorrect "Jeho" in place of Yah. This carries the same inaccuracy as Jehovah. The inaccuracy is due to Masorite additions from the nineth century C.E. The correct way to transliterate this name is Yahosaphat and is a combination of the word Yah, with the Hebrew 'shaphat', which means 'judge'. The first letter was Y as the letter J did not exist in the Hebrew language. The Encyclopedia Americana contains the following on the J: "The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol (J,I) used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two symbols (J,l) were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became general in England." The pronunciation of the name of God has been preserved in a number of other languages that do contain vowels. The Murashu texts were found at Nippur and date back to 464 B.C. These were written in Aramaic cuneiform script on clay tablets. The version of the Old Testament used by Aramaic speaking Assyrians, Syrians and Chaldeans was the Peshitta text. In the fourth century CE vowels were added to the Aramaic text. When they added vowels to names that begin with part of the divine name the result was to start with Yah, such as in Yahosaphat. Egyptian hieroglyphics contain written vowels. In Budge's An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary page fifteen shows that the shortened form of YHWH was transliterated as "IA" or "YA", also supporting that God's name begins with the sound Yah. Assyrian cuneiform script has been found which had the divine name spelt with written vowels. A.H.Sayce published Halley's Bible Handbook in 1898. On page sixty two it discusses three clay cuneiform tablets dating from the time of Hammurabi which contain the phrase Jahweh. Josephus also can be used to support the idea that the sacred name was pronounced Yahweh. In Jewish Wars, chapter V, Josephus wrote; "… in which was engraven the sacred name: it consists of four vowels." Yahweh or Yahuweh contains four 'vowels', being pronounced as ee-ah-oo-eh, whereas Jehovah only contains three. In Jesus time the Greek transliteration of the divine name was Iaoue or Iabe. This supports Yahweh as it was pronounced ee-ah-oo-eh. In the second century Clement of Alexandria wrote: "The mystic name which is called the Tetragrammaton, by which alone they who had access to the Holy of Holies were protected, is pronounced Iaoue, which means 'who is, and who shall be.'" In Latin it was similarly written as Iabe. History of the word Jehovah It is interesting to understand how the word Jehovah was derived, as the history of the word shows why the word is incorrect. In an unfortunate stroke of the pen the Watchtower Society chose to adopt the rendition of YHWH that has least resemblance to the original name and incorporates the very reason the exact pronunciation is unknown. Ancient Hebrew did not contain vowels and so the pronunciation of words was handed down. In order to preserve the pronunciation of the Hebrew language, the Masoretes created a system for introducing vowels into the Hebrew language during the ninth century A.D. However, when it came to YHWH, rather than putting the correct vowel signs, they put vowel signs for Adonai (Lord) or Elohim (God), in order to remind the reader to use the word Lord or God instead of the name of God. Adonai (Lord) was predominantly used, however, in passages where Adonai and YHWH appeared together, Elohim was used instead, to avoid repetition of the word Lord. As proposed by the 19th-century Hebrew scholar Gesenius, it is generally accepted that mixing the vowels for Lord and God with the consonants YHWH that led to the manufacture of the hybrid word Jehovah. Hence, it was the effort to avoid pronouncing God's name that led to the manufacture of the hybrid word Jehovah. "The form Jehovah is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. The word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew." Revised Standard Version pp.6-7 "Yahweh-the personal name of the God of the Israelites . . . The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of the Middle Ages, replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath the consonants of YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or of Elohim. Thus, the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being. Although Christian scholars after the Rendssance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th and 20th centuries biblical scholars again began to use the form Yahweh. Early Christian writers, Such as Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century, had used the form Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Greek transcriptions also indicated that Yhwh Should be pronounced Yahweh." Encyclopedia Britannica (Micropedia, vol. 10) In the Hebrew Bible the Jews wrote the consonants of the Tetragrammaton as YHWH, but out of reverence for the sacred name of God (or out of fear of violating Exod. 20:7; Lev. 24:16), they vocalized and pronounced it as Adonai or occasionally as Elohim. It is unfortunate, then, that the name was transliterated into German and ultimately into English as Jehovah (which is the way the name is represented in the American Standard Version of 1901), for this conflate form represents the vowels of Adonai superimposed on the consonants of Yahweh, and it was never intended by the Jews to be read as Yehowah (or Jehovah). The Jewish Encyclopaedia explains the word Jehovah in a similar way. jewishencyclopedia.com (25/9/2005) "A mispronunciation (introduced by Christian theologians, but almost entirely disregarded by the Jews) of the Hebrew "Yhwh," the (ineffable) name of God (the Tetragrammaton or "Shem ha-Meforash"). This pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels of the "?ere" (marginal reading of the Masorites: = "Adonay") with the consonants of the "ketib" (text-reading: = "Yhwh")" The first time the Tetragrammaton appeared in an English Bible was on the title page of William Tyndale's Bible translation of 1525, where it was written as Iehouah. This was an interlace of YHVH and Adonai. The King James Version also originally used Iehouah, influenced by the Ben Chayim codex. The King James Bible changed the spelling to Jehovah for the 1762-1769 edition. Combining YHWH with Adonai is referred to as interlacing, fusing or superimposing. It could hardly be considered accurate or respectful. The illogical fusion of the sacred Name with the vowel points of another name is shown in the preface to The J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible: "To give the name JHVH the vowels of the word for Lord [Heb. Adonai], is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal – viz., Gormuna. The monstrous combination Jehovah is not older than about 1520 A.D." The Watchtower argues that Jehovah is acceptable as it is a translation. ""Yahweh" is obviously a transliteration, whereas "Jehovah" is a translation, and Bible names generally have been translated rather than transliterated." Awake! 1973 March 22 p.27 As already seen, this is not accurate as Jehovah is also a transliteration, but of two separate words. By combining the consonants from YHWH with the vowels from Adonai or possibly Elohim the word Jehovah incorporates the very reason the original pronunciation was lost. Advocates of the word Jehovah argue that it does not matter whether the word is accurate or not, what is important is that God is distinguished by a personal name. The Divine Name Brochure p.10, by the Watchtower Society states: "Even though the modern pronunciation Jehovah might not be exactly the way it was pronounced originally, this in no way detracts from the importance of the name. While many translators favor the pronunciation Yahweh, the New World Translation and also a number of other translations continue the use of the form Jehovah because of people's familiarity with it for centuries." When translating between languages the pronunciation of names change and so it may not be essential that in English the divine name is pronounced as God originally spoke it to Moses. However, it is ironic that the word Jehovah mixes God's name with the very superstition that caused it to stop being used in the first place. Every time the word Jehovah is pronounced it is a reminder of this very superstition Jehovah's Witnesses claim Hebrew was the first language as given to Adam and Eve and that it will possibly be the language spoken in the New System. (g71 2/22 p.10) The Watchtower Society prides itself on possessing the pure language, on being the only religion to teach truth. "Through the Theocratic organization of his anointed witnesses he has been clearing up the Bible truth more and more and thus purifying their speech. So now they talk and live in harmony with the language of the approaching new world. And here, in this year of 1950, his providence brings forth this New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures as a further purification of the speech of his people. He has graciously provided it as a further powerful means for turning to the peoples a "pure language"." Watchtower 1950 September 15 p.320 One might assume then that the Watchtower would prefer to use the accurate version of God's name, rather than the superstitious rendition. The word Jehovah is not an accurate form of the divine name. It can be argued that it is the common pronunciation in English and it is not important to use the name in its correct version. It is strange though that the version chosen actually incorporates the very reason that the divine name stopped being used in the first place. The History of the name Jehovah's Witnesses Of key importance to Jehovah's Witnesses, Isaiah 43:10 is known as their namesake. Isaiah 43:10 ""YOU are my witnesses," is the utterance of Jehovah, "even my servant whom I have chosen …"" Most Witnesses believe that there have always been a group of witnesses to Jehovah's name, and hence it must have been of great importance to Russell. In actual fact, Russell placed greater emphasis on Jesus than Jehovah, with his most important teaching being "atonement" through Jesus' Ransom Sacrifice. Russell's followers were referred to as Bible Students, and he remained opposed to being known as anything other than a follower of Christ. "It was an evidence that those Corinthians, who took the party names, had never really appreciated the oneness of the Body of Christ; that they did not really appreciate that Christ is the only head, leader and standard; and that his is the only name by which his followers should recognize themselves and each other. Where scoffers apply a name in derision, it is not the fault of the faithful. But the true, loyal soldiers of the cross, should never own or recognize such a name. Instances of names so originating are Methodists and Baptists, both of which were first given in derision, but were afterwards adopted as party names, representing sects, factions, or divisions in the body of Christ. All true teachers are not only sent by Christ but receive their instructions from him; and any man who attempts to put his own or any other name upon all or any portion of the church is an opponent, an adversary to the true and only Lord and Head of the church." Zion's Watch Tower Oct 1888 p.3 It is admitted in Jehovah's Witnesses – Proclaimers of God's Kingdom that: "Isaiah 43:10, 12 was never discussed in any detail in The Watch Tower during its first 40 years of publication." p.152 Russell expressed that salvation is through Jesus, which is the core message of the New Testament. It certainly was not Jehovah, which is not a name that appears in the New Testament. "The correct Scriptural conviction that the only name by which any can be saved is the name of Jesus: – faith in his sacrifice, and obedience and devotion to him." Zion's Watchtower 1901 Aug 15 p.264 It was in 1926 that the importance of the word Jehovah was introduced by Rutherford, and it was not until 1931 that the term "Jehovah's Witness" was taken. "Especially since the year 1926 they have been making known the name of the heavenly Father of the King Jesus Christ, even going to the extent of embracing the name "Jehovah's witnesses" in the year 1931." God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached p. 288 In response to the radical new direction Rutherford was taking the Watchtower Society, many left the Organization and formed independent Bible Student groups. In an effort to distance his followers from this "evil slave class", Rutherford introduced the distinguishing name Jehovah's Witnesses. This is discussed in the Watchtower 1931 September 15 and October 1. Rutherford used Isaiah 62:2 as his principle reference. Isaiah 62:2 "And you will actually be called by a new name, which the very mouth of Jehovah will designate." This was poor choice of Scripture as just 2 verses later the name given is not Jehovah but Hephzibah. Isaiah 62:4 "but you yourself will be called (Hephzibah RSV) My Delight Is in Her." This erroneous reasoning was not corrected till several years later, and Isaiah 43:10 brought to prominence instead. "Although the evidence points persuasively to Jehovah's direction in selection of the name Jehovah's Witnesses, The Watchtower (February 1, 1944, pp. 42-3; October 1, 1957, p. 607) and the book "New Heavens and a New Earth" (pp. 231-7) later pointed out that this name is not the "new name" referred to at Isaiah 62:2; 65:15; and Revelation 2:17, though the name harmonizes with the new relationship referred to in the two texts in Isaiah." Jehovah's Witnesses – Proclaimers of God's Kingdom p. 156 Footnote The Watchtower gives precedence to the name Jehovah's Witnesses based on Isaiah 43:10 in favour of the wealth of New Testament guidance to be "witnesses of me" (Acts 1:8) – Christ Jesus. Luke 24:46-48 "In this way it is written that the Christ would suffer and rise from among the dead on the third day, and on the basis of his name repentance for forgiveness of sins would be preached in all the nations-starting out from Jerusalem, YOU are to be witnesses of these things." Acts 10:43 "To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone putting faith in him gets forgiveness of sins through his name." Hebrews 12:1-2 "… we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, … as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus." Revelation 17:6 "… the witnesses of Jesus." Further effort to shift attention from Jesus to Jehovah was made in March 1939, when The Watchtower and Herald of Christ's Kingdom was renamed The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom. Related to this topic is that the Watchtower promoted the Worship of Jesus until 1954. Jehovah's Witnesses worshipped Jesus until 1954, after which they were told such worship was idolatrous. This made them a polytheistic religion for most of their history. The core to religion is God, and to change the God you worship is to change the very essence and basis of the religion.     Of the countless alterations in Witness doctrine, the one regarding the Worship of Jesus is most important of all. The major issues concerning the history and doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses are prevalent within the Watchtower doctrine of Jesus, clearly highlighting the manner in which the leaders operate. These pandemic symptoms are threefold. Significant teachings change The Watchtower misquotes its sources Current doctrines are not necessarily correct Changed Teaching on Jesus Russell taught that we should worship Jesus and the initial Watchtower Charter's specified that establishment of the Watchtower Society was to promote the worship of Jehovah and Jesus. Yet since the 1950's, worshipping Jesus became regarded as wrongful idolatry. Russell promoted the worship of Jesus and prayer to him because he is our God. "It seems clear that His Divinity was retained in humanity because He repeatedly spoke of Himself as having come down from heaven, and because He, though passing through trial and sorrow as a man, was yet possessed of the authority and exercised the prerogatives of a God. He was the object of unreproved worship even when a babe, by the wise men who came to see the new-born King. Matt. 2:2-11. Even the angels delighted to do Him honor. "When He bringeth the first-begotten into the world, He saith, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." Heb. 1:6. He never reproved any one for acts of worship offered to Himself, but when Cornelius offered such service to Peter-the leading apostle- "he took him up, saying, stand up; I myself also am a man." …. Had Christ not been more than a man the same reason would have prevented from receiving worship…." Zion's Watch Tower 1880 Oct pp.2-3 "It is undoubtedly proper enough for us to address petitions to our Redeemer and Advocate, who loved us and gave himself for us….Although we are nowhere instructed to make petitions to him, it evidently could not be improper so to do; for such a course is nowhere prohibited, and the disciples worshiped him." Zion's Watch Tower 1892 May 15 p.157 "Question. The fact that our Lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was God the Father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man. Was he really worshiped, or is the translation faulty? Answer. Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so. It was proper for our Lord to receive worship in view of his having been the only begotten of the Father and his agent in the creation of all things, including man." Zion's Watch Tower 1898 Jul 15 p.216 "In one respect many of Christendom could learn numerous important lessons from these wise Gentiles….They worshiped him in three senses of the word: (1) They fell before him, prostrated themselves, thus physically expressing their reverence. (2) They worshiped him in their hearts and with the tongue gave expression to their rejoicing and confidence. (3) They opened their treasure-box and presented to him three gifts appropriate to royalty: the myrrh representing submission, frankincense representing praise, gold representing obedience." Zion's Watch Tower 1906 Jan 1 p.15 Rutherford continued this teaching. "Jehovah God commands all to worship Christ Jesus because Christ Jesus is the express image of his Father, Jehovah, and because he is the Executive Officer of Jehovah always carrying out Jehovah's purpose (Heb.:3-6)." Watchtower 1939 Nov 15 p.339 "During the Millennium, "the princes will lead the people in their worship of Jehovah and of Christ." Vindication Volume 3 (J. F. Rutherford, 1932) p.295 "The people of all nations who obtain salvation must come to the house of the Lord to worship there; that is to say, they must believe on and worship Jehovah God and the Lord Jesus Christ, his chief instrument (Philippians 2:10, 11)." Salvation (J. F. Rutherford, 1939) p.151 Knorr continued to teach we should worship Jesus and the 1940's Watchtower articles still stated that Jesus was to be worshipped. "Now, at Christ's coming to reign as king in Jehovah's capital organization Zion, to bring in a righteous new world, Jehovah makes him infinitely higher than the godly angels or messengers and accordingly commands them to worship him. Since Jehovah God now reigns as King by means of his capital organization Zion, then whosoever would worship Him must also worship and bow down to Jehovah's Chief One in that capital organization, namely, Christ Jesus, his Co-regent on the throne of The Theocracy." Watchtower 1945 Oct 15 p.313 In 1945, Knorr amended the Watchtower's legal Charter. Included within the Charter was the statement that the purpose of the Watchtower Society is to promote the worship of Jehovah and Jesus. The 1945 Yearbook includes the Charter in full. Part of the current charter states as follows: "The purposes of this Society are: To act as the servant of and the legal world-wide governing agency for that body of Christian persons known as Jehovah's Witnesses to preach the gospel of God's kingdom under Christ Jesus unto all nations as a witness to the name, word and supremacy of Almighty Good JEHOVAH; to print and distribute Bibles and to disseminate Bible truths in various languages by means of making and publishing literature containing information and comment explaining Bible truths and prophecy concerning establishment of Jehovah's kingdom under Christ Jesus to authorize and appoint agents, servants, employees, teachers, instructors, evangelists, missionaries and ministers to go forth to all the world publicly and from house to house to preach and teach Bible truths to persons willing to listen by leaving with such persons said literature and by conducting Bible studies thereon to improve men, women and children mentally and morally by Christian missionary work and by charitable and benevolent instruction of the people on the Bible and incidental scientific, historical and literary subjects to establish and maintain private Bible schools and classes for gratuitous instruction of men and women in the Bible, Bible literature and Bible history; to teach, train, prepare and equip men and women as ministers, missionaries, evangelists, preachers, teachers and lecturers to provide and maintain homes, places and buildings for gratuitous housing of such students, lecturers, teachers and minister; to furnish gratuitously to such students, lecturers, teachers, educators and ministers suitable meals and lodging and to prepare, support, maintain and send out to various parts of the world Christian missionaries, teachers and instructors in the Bible and Bible literature and for public Christian worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus; to arrange for and hold local and world-wide assemblies for such worship to use or operate radio broadcasting stations for preaching this gospel of the kingdom; and to do any and all other lawful things that its Board of Directors shall deem expedient for the purposes stated."         Therefore the Jehovah's Witness 1945 Charter states to worship Christ Jesus. It was not until 1999 that worship of Jesus was finally removed to simply state "arrange for and hold assemblies for religious worship;" Worship of Jesus Becomes Idolatry In the 1950's, the Watchtower changed their doctrine on Jesus to coincide with the release of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Contrary to most other translations, this new Bible version for Jehovah's Witnesses translated the word proskuneō as obeisance rather than worship whenever it referred to Jesus. This is despite the fact that with almost every other occurrence, the New World Translation translates proskuneō as worship. Proskuneō occurs 60 times in the Greek Scriptures. Of the 17 times it applies to Jesus, all 17 occurrences were translated by the New World Translation as obeisance. (In the 2013 revision, 2 of these times have been changed to "bow".) The only other instance where prokuneō is translated as 'obeisance' is when Cornelius bows to Peter. (Worship would be correct here as well. Peter interprets this act as a form of worship, as he rejects it immediately.) Of the remaining 42 times proskuneō appears, it is always translated as worship, regardless of whether it is referring to Jehovah, angels, humans, Satan, demons, the wild beast and its image, or idols.         Why this unusual stance in connection with Jesus? This is because the teaching about Jesus was undergoing a dramatic change. The first clear statement that Jesus must not be worshipped was in 1954. From that time forward there was a new belief in the position of Jesus; that he should be neither prayed to or worshipped. "Should we worship Jesus? Consequently, since the Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is not a trinitarian co-person with God the Father, but is a distinct person, the Son of God, the answer to the above question must be that no distinct worship is to be rendered to Jesus Christ now glorified in heaven. Our worship is to go to Jehovah God. However, we show the proper regard for God's only-begotten Son by rendering our worship to God through and in the name of Jesus Christ. Even now when we kneel in prayer, as Paul did according to Ephesians 3:14-19, we offer prayer in the name of Jesus Christ in obedience to his own directions (John 15:16; 16:23-26), but the prayer itself is addressed, not to Jesus, but to God his Father. In this way we keep things in their relative positions." Watchtower 1954 Jan 1 p.31 "Trinitarians who believe that Jesus is God, or at least the second person of the triune God, do not like to have Jehovah's witnesses say that it is unscriptural for worshipers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ" Watchtower 1964 Nov 1 p.671 "Reverent adoration should be expressed only to God. To render worship to anyone or anything else would be a form of idolatry, which is condemned in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Accordingly, true Christians do well to direct their worship only to Jehovah God, the Almighty." Awake! 2000 Apr 8 pp.26,27 "Though some claim that prayer may properly be addressed to others, such as to God's Son, the evidence is emphatically to the contrary." Insight on the Scriptures Volume 2 p.667 Watchtower Misquotes On occasion the Watchtower use misquotes to hide its history or prove doctrines. For example, look at the way in which the charter is quoted since the doctrine was changed. Though a Witness is bluntly told not to worship Jesus, the Charter was not amended to reflect this new doctrine until 1999. Therefore, for 45 years Witnesses were counselled against worshipping Jesus even though to do so was stated as the express reason for the existence of the Watchtower Society. This is despite the fact that it is considered idolatry to worship and pray to Jesus and will result in a Witness being disfellowshipped. It is interesting to see how the Watchtower dealt with having in its charter that Jesus is to be worshipped. They either misquoted it or avoided it completely. The Yearbook of 1969 p.50 leaves the words "and Christ Jesus" out altogether, cheekily replacing them with dots. "for public Christian worship of Almighty God … ; to arrange for"    The section of the charter shown above is quoted almost in full in the footnote of the 1971 Watchtower on page 760, altering one small but significant word (which it correctly places in brackets) to significantly hide and change the true meaning of the sentence. "for public Christian worship of Almighty God [through] Christ Jesus; to arrange for…" Watchtower 1971 Dec 15 p.760 The 1993 Proclaimers book, outlining a history of the Watchtower Society, failed to even admit what is in the Charter. Current Questionable Doctrine Up until 1938, the Watchtower title included the words Herald of Christ's Presence.   In 1939, the title of the January 1st issue changed to The Watchtower and Herald of Christ’s Kingdom. On March 1st, 1939 the word Christ was removed and replaced with Jehovah. To this day it is now The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom. It is interesting to understand why it was originally taught that Jesus is a God worthy of our worship and prayers. Jesus is a God John 1:1 " and the Word was a god." John 20:28-29 "In answer Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him: "Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe."" Jesus was worshipped The Bible repeatedly says that Jesus was worshipped. The New World Translation is virtually alone in translating the word proskuneo as obeisance. Yet look at the context of the following scripture to understand that the thought given is one of reverential worship. Hebrews 1:6 "But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God's angels do obeisance (proskuneo, worship) to him." Jesus is our creator John 1:2-4 "This one was in [the] beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men." Jesus was prayed to Acts 7:59 "And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Stephen prayed to Jesus whilst being stoned to death. Unlike most translations, the New World Translation uses the word appeal instead of prayer. However, the footnote to New World Translation, 1950 edition, states (footnote b: "invocation; prayer"). The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson and published by the Watchtower Society also refers to "the prayer of Stephen" in its' footnote. Regardless of whether Stephen appealed or prayed to Jesus, it is clear what the writer meant. The reason the New World Translation is averse to using the word prayer is that it is an indication of worship. Can you imagine what would happen today if an elder stood on the platform and prayed to Jesus instead of Jehovah? This leads to a very interesting problem. If Jehovah's Witnesses worshipped Jehovah and worshipped Jesus that means they were worshipping two Gods. Does that not then make them Polytheistic? Yet Deuteronomy 6:4 states 'Jehovah our God is one Jehovah". The first of the ten commandments stated at Exodus 20:2-3 "I am Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves. You must not have any other gods against my face." By current Watchtower teaching, until 1954 Russell and all Jehovah's Witnesses were idolaters, a sin Revelation 21:8 describes as worthy of the second death. If that is the case, they cannot be part of the 144,000 heavenly rulers. Early Jewish Christians grappled with this concept. Their background was Monotheistic, yet they were to worship Jesus, pray to him and refer to him as God. This left first century Christians with a Father and a Son and the Holy Spirit referred to as their God (Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," Acts 5:3-4, "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.") their creator and to be worshipped; yet they could not accept polytheism. Christianity worshipped only one God therefore the Trinitarian concept was understood to mean within the nature of the one, eternal God were three eternally distinct persons. The very earliest of the Christian writers describe Jesus as immortal (Mathetes), God (Justin Martyr) and co-equal (Tertullian) with the Father. It is with this understanding that a Jehovah's Witness can start to consider that the current Watchtower doctrine of God which has evolved over time does not have strong Scriptural support at all. For more information on the Biblical nature of God see our playlist " Dealing with Anti Trinitarians (UPC) & Early Church History" with 48 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9931642C7C8FFEAB.   

     With significant & continual Watchtower doctrinal change on essential Biblical issues, concerned persons should really question whether the Holy Spirit directs the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses in anything they do or say. Once it is recognized that Watchtower articles have dishonestly hidden information from their readers & have been doing so for a long, long time how can anything they produce be trusted without suspicion. Jehovah's Witnesses, like a herd of cattle being guided unsuspectingly to the slaughterhouse, have failed to question the trustworthiness of Watchtower material & their truth claims leading to a fulfillment of Jesus' statement, "they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." (Matthew 15:14)
 
For more information see: www.jwinfoline.com, www.cftf.com & www.BibleQuery.org. Matthew 7:15, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

See our latest video on the Jehovah's Witnesses called "Who's Knocking? #2: Jehovah's Witnesses Hidden History, Spiritism, Racism, Doctrines of Demons" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LFhzOb-_g&list=UUQ_EDvOtDAAWfCvGUhd6y3A. Although this video is from a lecture I gave to one of my Christian apologetics classes back in the 1990s on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses my video man & myself spent weeks in editing this particular video (we usually edit once a week for 4 to 5 hours). I decided to put the time & effort into placing primary Jehovah's Witness source material into this video which then made it into a very tedious project. Since I own many Jehovah's Witness books that are over 100 years old & are little known I thought it would be useful for viewers to see with their own eyes this material. With knowledge of these original Watchtower publications true Christians can then use this information as an effective tool in witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses who have been deceived by this false prophet organization (I even included some of the court documents from Watchtower founder Charles Taze Russell's divorce case with his wife Maria over his affair with an underage female). Over the past 33 years I have been able, by God's grace, to lead many people & families out of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. This has been done not so much by arguing Bible verses with them (playing "Bible ping pong") but by knowing their history (which they cannot change). Once you can crack their faith in the Watchtower with their own history then they are much more open to discussing what the Bible actually says rather than what the Watchtower tells them the Bible says. Be prepared to meet the Jehovah's Witnesses who come knocking at your door. See also our playlist "Dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Society" with 22 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40. 1 Peter 3:15, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"
See our playlist "Dealing with UFOs, Ghosts, Magic, Spiritual Warfare, Satan" with 18 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2CF1129D311BF9A6. The background of the Jehovah's Witnesses' Watchtower Society is built on the occult (relating to magical powers, esoteric activities, mysticism, etc.). Hear "Occult History of Jehovah's Witnesses" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1120515352 by former Jehovah's Witness Lorri MacGregor (she was a guest on our radio show at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGNnOs3UP1I&list=PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40&index=18). Hear her other lectures: "Ex-Jehovah's Witness speaks out" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12250542425, "What Mormons Wont tell you at the door" at  http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12100515958 & "Counterfeit Christians" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=120516534. 2 Timothy 4:2-5, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."

Investigate whether Seventh Day Adventism is real Christianity or a counterfeit cult. Please check the following: "Does Seventh Day Adventism have a damnable gospel, what do they really believe?" – http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=813141143413, "Is Seventh Day Adventism a Cult?" – http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=429152354502; the contrast between a biblical worldview and an Adventist, great controversy worldview – http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2011/2/greatcontroversy.html; discusses the somewhat hidden but horrific fact of Adventists widespread practice of abortion and the organization's two sets of guidelines, one of which is known by the members, and one of which is “secret”, available to doctors and Adventist hospitals –http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2014/2/abortioninadvent.html; examines the roots of Ellen White’s and the SDA’s “health message”, the Adventists’ “right arm of the gospel”. It begins on page 14 of the PDF: http://lifeassuranceministries.org/Proclamation2015_1web.pdf; see the playlists which includes videos from the annual Former Adventist Conferences with multiple testimonies of Former Adventists as well as the weekly inductive studies through books of the Bible taught at their Word Search studies https://www.youtube.com/user/FormerAdventist/playlists, see the following websites: www.TruthorFables.com, www.LifeAssuranceMinistries.org, www.ExAdventist.com, & www.GreatControversyExposed.com. 2 Timothy 2:15, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." The previous resources will be very valuable in an investigative study of whether Seventh Day Adventism is a Biblically true Gospel believing organization or if it is a false cultic religion peddling a false gospel invented by Ellen G. White & her associates thus violating Galatians 1:6-9, " I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." The original Greek word for "accursed" is "anathema" which means "condemnation to Hell by the decree of God" & is consistent with other scriptural passages containing it: Acts 23:14 cf. David's oath in 2 Samuel 3:35, Romans 9:3, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 1 Corinthians 16:22). It is also significant to note that the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament, dating from the third century B. C.) uses the word anathema in a similar sense in every case where someone is described as being set apart and devoted to destruction, because that person is abhorrent to God (e.g., the inhabitants of Jericho in Joshua 6:17). It is also used of persons or things what were given up to God and could not be redeemed (e.g., Leviticus 27:28-29.). the un-Biblical sense of anathema as a declaration of condemnation by man began to enter the church in its early centuries. By the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic church not only used the term in the sense of excommunication from the visible church, but also used it to usurp the exclusively Divine right to pronounce condemnation to Hell upon a person. It was thus that Rome, in Canon 11 of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent (1547) said of anyone who believed in justification by faith alone, "let him be anathema." At the same council Rome also said, of anyone who denied that salvation is a cooperative effort between man and God, "let him be anathema" (Canon 4). Rome declares men condemned to Hell for believing and preaching the one true Gospel. Five hundred years after the Reformation, Rome continues to misuse and abuse anathema in this way. The current edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia says this: Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes…The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope. In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. [The symbolism of all of this is the damnable falsehood that the Roman pope is the "vicar of Christ" or vice-Christ, the visible representation of Christ on earth.] He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, and pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: "Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive [name of person] himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment." Whereupon all the assistants respond: "Fiat, fiat, fiat." [That is, we concur that this declaration is legally binding.] The pontiff and the twelve priests then cast to the ground the lighted candles they have been carrying, and notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighboring bishops of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him.11. Catholic Encyclopedia, entry on "Anathema," http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm, as viewed on 11/7/2009. The meaning of anathema in Galatians chapter one is clearly, "let him be condemned to Hell." No lesser penalty can be exacted against those who persist in proclaiming a counterfeit gospel of any kind. Rome's concept of anathema is clearly un-Biblical, since it is centered upon the judgment of man and not of God. Worse yet, Rome uses its un-Biblical anathema most often to enforce conformity to its false gospel and its man-made doctrines and regulations, and loyalty to a papal hierarchy that Scripture condemns. After thorough examination Seventh Day Adventism qualifies as a non Christian anti Christ cult due to the following reasons: 1. It is built on the woman Ellen G. White & her teachings despite the Bible saying women are not permitted to teach or usurp authority over men (1 Timothy 2:12, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.") See links at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=112706102442, http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=59131749272 & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql_obI6wA9w&index=12&list=PLE04A1D0DFE95B95E). 2. Ellen White claimed to be equal with the Biblical prophets & apostles through her many writings (sort of a "Spirit of Prophecy") & her SDA followers believed her (2 Peter 3:16); see http://www.truthorfables.com/EGW_Writings_Infallible.htm. Question: Are there modern day prophets or is there a need for prophets today? Answer: In the New Testament, the gift of the office of prophet was a temporary one granted by God for the purpose of building His Church. Contrary to the apostles, who had broad ministries, these men had localized ministries within local churches, as we see illustrated in such places as Acts 11:21-28 and Acts 13:1.Scripture shows us that the prophets of the New Testament had two primary purposes:They were gifted men given to the Church and appointed by God (Eph. 4:11, 1 Cor. 12:28) for the purpose of helping to lay the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). They, like the apostles, received God’s revelation (Eph. 3:5) and truth and proclaimed it to their churches. It is important to remember that the early Church did not have a completed Bible, so God granted this revelation for the purpose of teaching His message to the Church. The New Testament prophets also spoke forth and taught the apostles’ doctrine. Everything taught by these prophets had to be consistent with the teaching of the apostles (1 Cor. 14:36-37). So, are prophets still needed today? Looking at the two functions listed above, we can see that the office of prophet is one that is no longer necessary and has ceased within the Church because:The foundation of the Church was laid long ago. God’s revealed Word was completed with the close of the New Testament canon. The Church’s foundation does not need to be laid again and there is no need for further revelation beyond what God has provided for us in His complete Word, the Bible. Today we are blessed to have Scripture as our complete and final authority in all things (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If someone now claims to have received a “special revelation,” we must test it against Scripture. If it is contrary to the Word of God, then it must be rejected. If it is consistent with Scripture, then we have to ask why an “extra” word was necessary if its truth is already contained in the Bible. So while we always need men who are willing to proclaim boldly the Word of God as contained in Scripture (as pastors, teachers, and evangelists), there is no need for the office of “prophet” as it existed in the New Testament. 3. Ellen G. White is a false prophet due to her false & failed prophecies (Deuteronomy 18:19-22); see http://www.mmoutreachinc.com/seventh_day_adventists/egw_false_prophet.html, http://1timothy4-13.com/files/bible/sda_morefailed.html & http://www.bible.ca/7-prophecy-blunders.htm. 4. Ellen G. White had delusional dreams & visions much like phony Charismatic & Pentecostal TV preachers do today; see http://www.truthorfables.com/Visons_of_%20EGW_by_Snook_&_Brinkerhoff.htm & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbv7YsyMf0I. 5. Seventh Day Adventism has a damnable false gospel (Galatians 1:6-10) for several reasons: a) Satan is the final sin bearer for Seventh Day Adventists; see http://www.truthorfables.com/Scapegoat.htm & http://www.truthorfables.net/50-contradictions-satan-bears-sins.htm, b) They say Jesus had a sinful nature just like fallen man otherwise He can't be a Savior; see http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2011/09/seventh-day-adventisms-anti.html & http://jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Seventh-Day%20Adventist/sda_exposed.htm, c) Ellen G. White taught the cult doctrine of the 1844 investigative judgment of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary for the purpose of allowing Seventh Day Adventists final access to heaven while all others would be destroyed; see http://www.truthorfables.com/investigative_judgment_made_simple.htm, http://www.truthorfables.com/white_elephant.htm, http://www.truthorfables.com/My_Testimony.htm, http://www.truthorfables.com/SDA_Cult.htm & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J50HlZFYHtY, d) Seventh Day Adventism denies the New Testament Christian gospel by saying Old Testament "Saturday" Sabbath keeping is essential for salvation; see  http://www.truthorfables.com/Sabbath_Not_A_Law.htm, http://www.truthorfables.net/who-changed-the-sabbath-a.htm, http://www.truthorfables.com/Sabbath_is_Friday.htm & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0L3rSSL_H8, e) Although SDAs say they believe in salvation by grace they redefine the meaning of grace in order to incorporate into their religious system a salvation by law keeping to achieve final works righteousness;   http://mmoutreachinc.com/seventh_day_adventists/sda_law.html, http://searchingthescriptures.net/main_pages/answering_cults/seventh_day_adventism/sda_a_cult.htm  & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIh3T31ujuU. If the apostle Paul cursed the Galatian Judaizers to hell for adding only one stipulation to the gospel which was circumcision then how much more would he curse the SDAs for all their added terms & conditions to the simple gospel of grace (Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast." Cross reference this to Galatians 2:16, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."). 6. Seven Day Adventists teach the false doctrine of soul sleep; see https://carm.org/soul-sleep, http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12151314134510, http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=85122122530 & http://www.casagrandebaptistchurch.com/SoulSleep.html. 7. SDAs teach the false doctrine of the annihilation out of existence of the wicked including Satan & his demons rather than an eternal conscious punishment in a never ending lake of fire; https://carm.org/clear-word-bible-annihilationism, "Eternal Punishment, part 1" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12607145320 & "Eternal Punishment, part 2" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=12607143539 where at the same time this refutes the arguments of universalists, annihilationists & heretics who say God is "all loving" & would not torment the wicked forever while they ignore the fact that God hates the wicked (Psalm 5:4-6, 11:5, Hosea 9:15, etc.; see our video "The God of the Bible Does Not Love Everybody But Actually Hates Many Instead (Romans 9:22)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zHEJCHgQVg, http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91713193277, http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php?title=Annihilationism, http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=94081054442,  http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=9110884114, http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=219131311338, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-LMpP6bAg & see our playlist "Dealing with Hell, Lake of Fire, Unpopular Bible Doctrines" with 30 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE04A1D0DFE95B95E. 8. SDAs support alternate Bible translations that pervert the written word of God thus placing themselves under the curse of Revelation 22:18-19, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." See http://exadventist.com/Home/Articles/clearwordbible/tabid/450/Default.aspx, http://www.truthorfables.com/SDAs_Destroyers_of_the_Bible.htm & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EsY1srHYJc. For more information on Seventh Day Adventism see our playlist "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess"" with 23 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5316CC6F66F24283, see also "Cult of Seventh Day Adventism" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=61210437590 & "Damnable Heresies of Seventh Day Adventism" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6201014412510. See the following websites: www.TruthorFables.com, www.LifeAssuranceMinistries.org, www.ExAdventist.com,  www.RethinkingAdventism.com, www.Sabbatismos.com, & www.GreatControversyExposed.com. Titus 1:9-16

See our videos "Is Sabbath Keeping Essential to Be a Real Christian? Former SDA Pastor Answers This Question" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0L3rSSL_H8, "Sabbath Keeping Is Not Required For New Testament Christians: Seventh-Day Adventists Beware" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEFt4TOR6E8&index=8&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283 & "KEEPING THE OLD TESTAMENT LAWS & COMMANDMENTS CANNOT EARN HEAVEN OR SALVATION WITH GOD!" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIh3T31ujuU&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283&index=14. See also http://www.scribd.com/doc/110229267/Sabbatismos-the-Sabbath-under-the-Gospel.
John 5:8 Jesus said to him, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” 9 And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked. Now that day was the Sabbath. 10 So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed.” 11 But he answered them, “The man who healed me, that man said to me, ‘Take up your bed, and walk.’” 12 They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?” 13 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. 14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.” 15 The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. 16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” 18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Response:                       
Scripture plainly states that the Jewish leaders were upset with Jesus for breaking the Sabbath, not that they were upset with Him because they thought He was breaking the Sabbath.  Concluding that Scripture doesn’t always mean quite what it says begins a dangerous and slippery slope that ends with ourselves, rather than Scripture, as the final authority. 
Jesus didn’t claim that He wasn’t working on the Sabbath. Instead, He compared His work with the fact that the Father was working. It is not a sin, it does not break any commandment, for God to work on the Sabbath. But what about Jesus instructing the man to carry his bed? This also broke the Sabbath Law (and not just the added Rabbinical Laws as Adventism claims). 
Jer 17:21 Thus says the Lord, “Take heed for yourselves, and do not carry any load on the sabbath day or bring anything in through the gates of Jerusalem. 22 You shall not bring a load out of your houses on the sabbath day nor do any work, but keep the sabbath day holy, as I commanded your forefathers. … 27 But if you do not listen to Me to keep the sabbath day holy by not carrying a load and coming in through the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates and it will devour the palaces of Jerusalem and not be quenched.”
The only realistic explanation is understanding that this law was a shadow pointing to Christ. Since the Light had arrived, the purpose of the shadow was completed. Jesus’ rest was available during His ministry and intensified when the New Covenant was fully ushered in. Jesus was establishing the teachings of this Covenant before His death, including His commandments. 
Jesus defended His non-observance of the Sabbath by pointing out that this shadow didn’t apply to Him. He is Lord of the Sabbath, and He (like His Father) is working all the time. That explains His actions on the Sabbath, but having the man carry the load on the Sabbath seems to require that the shadow was fading away in light of the arrival and teaching of the Lord.Should our desire to follow Jesus’ example translate into Sabbath-keeping? I’d like to highlight a couple of points about how Jesus related to the rituals of his day. First, when he touched lepers to heal them, he became unclean himself. Though he sent these men to the priests to re-establish their “cleanness,” there is no record of him going through the cleansing rituals himself. When touched by the woman who had been bleeding for years on the way to Jairus’ house, and then later when he held Jairus’ daughter by the hand and raised her from the dead—these were both situations where he was made ritually unclean. This did not concern Jesus, of course. He had a much higher purpose, and was soon to make this statement,
“Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean…Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? For it doesn’t go into his heart, but into his stomach, and then out of his body. (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean.’) He went on: What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’” Mark 7:14-23. There are several implications from this passage. Jesus is showing that ritual law is being superceded by the eternal principles on which they were based. The Christian, reading these writings, realizes that the Jewish practices of cleansing, though clearly mandated in the books of the Law, are now irrelevant since Jesus became the complete revelation to which the Law and its rituals were pointing. The cleansing rituals, once learned, were actually so much easier to follow than the standard Jesus set. Instead of ritual purification, the Christian is called to clean living through his/her actions. Several of the principles contained in the commandments are mentioned (though not Sabbath-keeping, or even worship). But others (malice, lewdness, slander, and arrogance) while not addressed in the 10 commandments, are still clearly “unclean” behavior. That sexual immorality and lewdness go beyond simple adultery is clear, as they are mentioned in addition to adultery. It is clear that the principles contained within the 10 commandments are more important than ever, but are only the beginning of the lifestyle we will try to live through the Spirit and the grace of God. The critical distinction will become clear in Romans and is this: Our salvation is not dependent on us achieving that lifestyle. Rather it is based on Jesus who successfully lived that life in our place. Our gratitude and love is what motivates us as Christians to follow in his example. Lastly from this verse, the groundwork is laid for setting aside the system of clean and unclean foods. Paul will later quote from this scripture in making the same case when discussing clean and unclean meats. More on this later.
My point from the previous paragraph is that Jesus, while living in a Jewish society, growing up as a Jewish boy in the usual ways (circumcised, law-school, etc.), would begin to move his followers out of Jewish methods of religion and worship. The very Laws he gave to Moses, he would take the liberty of setting aside. Besides the uncleanness discussed above, there was the harvesting of grain while passing through the field by his disciples on the Sabbath. This was clearly a violation of Sabbath law, but Jesus justifies it using an example of David violating a different ritual aspect of the same law, but who obviously received God’s blessing. Jesus is elevating his listeners, early Christians, and you and me, to principles above and beyond the law. What Jesus is doing in this passage (John 5:16-18) is using the Sabbath to teach them something about himself. You cannot separate these verses from the broader theology of John and what John is setting out to do. Jesus is not teaching us about the Sabbath, as we typically hear on these stories of Sabbath healings. Jesus is teaching us something about himself. I can say that with confidence because it is all over this story. Jesus makes the point that God works on the Sabbath (and no one is calling God a law breaker – John 5:17), so when Jesus works on the Sabbath he can break the Law of Moses because He and God are the same. Jesus point is not about the Sabbath. Jesus is using the Sabbath as an opportunity to teach them something about his identity. We are not called to have faith in the Sabbath but faith in Christ. We often miss the forest for the trees on this one and get all caught up on the Sabbath rather than on the Lord of the Sabbath. Often this point is entirely missed because we are unaware or unconcerned with the broader theology of the Gospel of John that this fits so well into. 
Sabbatarians enjoy pointing to Jesus as our example to keep the Sabbath. Is this a valid argument? If we are to follow Jesus' examples of how he lived under the old covenant, should consider this?

Do Seventh Day Adventists Follow Jesus' Example? No!
Jesus wore tassels on a robe with a blue cord.
Jesus paid tax to the temple and supported temple worship
Jesus went to a Jewish synagogue on Sabbath and read from the Torah in Hebrew.
Jesus spoke out against the Jewish Leaders.
Jesus limited his study only to the Torah.
Jesus kept all 12 sabbaths including eating the Passover lamb.
Jesus did not baptize anyone.
Jesus did not own a home, did not marry, was not employed, had no income, stayed in other peoples homes, rode a donkey.
Let’s evaluate specific statements Jesus made about the law, starting with the passage in Matthew 5:17-19. Many believe that Jesus is establishing with his own words the everlasting application of the 10 commandments. This is not the case, however. Here is why…first, the text, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” The first key feature is in the first sentence and the term, “Law or the Prophets.” This is a clear reference to the entire Old Testament, which is divided into Law (1st 5 books), Prophets (all the other books). Evidence for this is contained in these verses, “For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John” Matt 11:13. This is a clear reference to the body of Old Testament scripture. “Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent” Matt 12:5. This was in defense of his disciples’ Sabbath-harvesting. The portion of the Law He is referring to is in Leviticus where the priest’s duties are described. “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? Jesus replied, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.’” Matt 22:36-40. Note the use of the term “the Law and the Prophets” which clearly references the entire Old Testament scripture. Further, “the Law” is clearly a reference to the Torah, or Pentateuch as we call the first five Bible books. Both of the commandments Jesus quotes are from these books, but neither is one of the Ten. The first is from Deut 6:5, and the second is from Lev 19:18. Of course Adventists are quick to point out that the 10 commandments can be divided by first 4 (love for God) and last 6 (love for fellow man). This is an assumption. Jesus does not make this point. Rather, he broadly states that the message from the entire Old Testament scripture can be summed up this way.
So, I think you’ll agree that what Jesus is stating in verse 17 is that He has come to fulfill the entire Old Testament. Then in verse 18, the term “the Law” can not be seen to mean “the 10 commandments” and must instead be seen to mean the whole Torah – first 5 books of the Bible. This is the way the term “the Law” is used throughout Matthew and the rest of the Gospels. The Greek word is “nomos” and will be discussed further regarding its usage in the NT Epistles. Even in the encounter with the rich young ruler, Jesus uses the term “commandments” (Greek word “entole”), not “the Law” – and that was only to test this man, who was evidently very good at keeping the commandments (the Ten plus others), but did not want to turn his life over to Jesus. The point of this story is that the keeping of the commandments does not change the heart. But, back to my point about the original verse: the term “the Law” has to mean the entire Pentateuch. Given this interpretation, the meaning of the verse is this: the Jewish system of worship (the Old Covenant) will not pass away until I (Jesus) have fulfilled it. Well, either we had better be sticking to the sacrificial system in its entirety, or we need to be able to point to a time when Jesus fulfilled that system of worship. I believe the Bible is clear about this. Gospel writers use the terms “fulfill” and “accomplish” as markers for the end of this system described in the Law and the Prophets. Notice the parallel between this verse in John 19:28 “Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, I am thirsty.” Matthew as well uses the term “fulfilled” in a final way, never in a state of on-going fulfillment. For instance, “But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled…” Matthew 26:56. I believe a correct interpretation of this verse in Matthew 5 shows that the Old Covenant system of worship practiced by the Jews was fulfilled by the life and death of Christ and have now lost their importance, making room for a new system of worship and a new understanding of our relationship with God: the New Covenant. This makes many uncomfortable, but I emphasize again that the eternal moral principles contained throughout the Old Testament and Old Covenant system are timeless and are incorporated into the New Covenant system as well. The focus, however, is (and has to be) different. It is now based on Jesus and his accomplished sacrifice, instead of the promise of the coming sacrifice which was the focal point of the Old Covenant. The Old was leading up to that triumph, and the New is life after the triumph – related, but very different perspectives – like Adam before and after the fall. Same man, but entirely different “state.”
One more point about this verse…When Jesus uses the term “commandments” in verse 19 (Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments…,) he appears to be using a general term that applies to the many God-given directions in the Torah, including, but not limited to the Ten Commandments. (The Greek word is “entole.” We will examine its usage throughout the New Testament later in this paper.) This is supported by the whole context of the verse, and the usage of the term elsewhere in the gospels. Again, see the verses in Matt 22 which also incorporate all these exact terms. (When asked about the greatest commandment, He responds with statements found elsewhere in the Torah.) He is upholding the entire Torah, not just the Ten. I believe a different conclusion is speculation, which is fine to do, but not when formulating doctrine. Adventists think they have Ellen White to validate their speculation, but without her validation, these proof texts are much less clear.
I want to take some time here to examine what Jesus does emphasize from the 10 commandments in his pivotal sermon on the mount. He cuts through the letter of the law to reveal the eternal principle behind this covenant made between God and the Israelites. Principles which make perfect obedience to the law impossible, yet are still what we strive for. 1. In addition to refraining from murder, don’t even be angry. Avoid lawsuits. Don’t hold grudges. 2. In addition to refraining from adultery, don’t even look at a woman with lustful thoughts. Exactly where does one cross the line from admiring beauty to lustful thinking? That is not spelled out for us. People who would prefer to live by a well-defined law don’t know what to do with this because it is not black and white. Then Jesus moves outside of the 10 commandments into other principles of the Law, including divorce, and the use of oaths. There is no hint that these are any less important, or separated in any way. He then breaks more new ground introducing the New Covenant principles of turning the other cheek, loving ones enemies, stewardship and the attitude of the heart behind giving and prayer life. The idea of “eye for an eye” is indeed a Biblical principle, enunciated in Exodus 21:24. Yet Jesus shows a more mature approach. My two points of emphasis are these: 1. Jesus does not make a distinction between the 10 Commandments and the rest of the Law. 2. Jesus does emphasize a new focus beyond the letter of that Law – not setting it aside, but in fact making it even harder to follow – impossible in fact without the Holy Spirit. (Good news – obeying the Law, or the principles behind it, is not a requirement for salvation! Thanks be to God.) There is no sign that 7th-day worship is one of those eternal principles. But worship itself certainly is, as is Sabbath rest, and this will be examined at length in Hebrews.
“If you love me, you will obey what I command.”
Adventists like to reference John 14:15 as a specific direction by Jesus to uphold the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath. “If ye love me, keep my commandments. (KJV)” Or in the NIV that I’ve been using for this study, “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” Elder Vandeman, in his book A Day to Remember, made a point of emphasizing that it was really Jesus who met with Moses on Mount Sinai, and wrote the Ten on the tablets of stone with his finger. I don’t think this is crystal clear from scripture, but I wouldn’t argue the point. Either way, Jesus is a full member of the Trinity, and thus wholly God. However, and most importantly, this argument in no way establishes that Jesus is referring to the 10 commandments in this verse. In fact, the context of this verse strongly promotes the “Law of Love” that Jesus is emphasizing to his disciples during the Last Supper. Vandeman tries to brush this off, but gives no justification for doing so. Simply read the chapters from John 13-15 to see that Jesus is preparing his disciples for his death and resulting separation from them. Yet he encourages them with the promise of the powerful presence of the Holy Spirit. He assures them that the character of God has been manifested to them through him, so they can love and trust God in a richly personal way – patterned after their human relationship with Him (Jesus.) Over and over Jesus states clearly what command he is giving to his disciples: Love one another as Jesus has loved them (us). John 13:34, 35 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Keeping the Sabbath is not how all men will recognize Christ’s true followers! Instead, it is the first fruit of the Spirit – Love. (And along come Joy, Peace, etc.)
Let me summarize a bit at this point: I hear it said often by Sabbath-keepers that since Jesus kept Sabbath, we should as well. Of course, Jesus was Jewish, and so was circumcised, educated by the Rabbis, celebrated the Jewish holidays, paid the temple tax, and still managed to convince the local experts on the Law that he was breaking the Sabbath on a regular basis. We don’t do all those other parts of the Jewish customs that Jesus did, so what again is the rationale for keeping the Sabbath? There is no mention of the Sabbath prior to the Ten Commandments. Though God rested on the 7th day after creation, He did not call it the Sabbath. There is no indication that humans rested on the 7th day until instructed to do so in the Old Covenant described by Moses in Exodus. This covenant was clearly made between God and Israel. Converts to Judaism first had to be circumcised (entrance sign) before they could worship in the Synagogue/Temple with the Jewish people on Sabbath (ongoing sign of the covenant). This covenant between God and Israel contains a ritualistic system of worship that even Adventists largely discard, though they and others hang onto the Sabbath because of its special inclusion in the Ten Commandments. However, it is clear that Christian living goes far beyond the 10 Commandments, as demonstrated by Jesus’ discourse on the subject, and later expanded by the New Testament writers.
The Covenants
Seventh-day Adventists arbitrarily divide the Sinaitic old covenant into two divisions, moral and ceremonial. They claim that the Ten Commandments are moral and the rest of the law/covenant is ceremonial. They have offered no biblical evidence to support a two-part division of the old covenant. There are moral and ceremonial commands in the whole law as well as a ceremonial command in the Ten Commandments.
The Bible writers never declared the old covenant was a two-part covenant. The Jews understand that there is but one law/covenant and it is all equally holy and was ratified by the blood of animals.
Ex 24:3 (NIV) When Moses went and told the people all the LORD’S words and laws, they responded with one voice, “Everything the LORD has said we will do.”
There are 613 commands in the old covenant that Israel were required to keep perfectly. These are found in the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament.
The Ten has one ceremonial command, the sabbath, which is not a moral command. Sabbath keeping was given to Israel as a weekly ritual "to rest" from labor. It was never commanded as a communal day of worship. Israel was commanded to remember their deliverance from Egypt and that God created the world. The sabbath is not a moral command as no person has ever been charged with sin for breaking the sabbath except Israel of the old covenant.
The Old Covenant is a binding agreement God made with Israelites alone at Sinai. It was made with no other nation on earth. It includes the entire Mosaic Law which includes the Ten Commandments written on tablets of stone by God. The entire covenant was ratified by the blood of animals.
Ex 24:8 (NIV) Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
Adventists teach that the sabbath is binding on all nations and all people for all time when in fact it was given only to one nation—Israel. Circumcision was the entry sign into the covenant. Gentiles could only legally keep the sabbath and be accepted by God, if they joined the Israelite community through circumcision and keep all the covenant.
The sign of the old covenant between God and Israel was the sabbath. God never made the sabbath a sign for Christians in the new testament. Do you find Christians mentioned in the text? Can you legally enjoin on Christians that which God has not enjoined on them?
Circumcision is just as much a perpetual covenant for Israel asis the sabbath. Circumcision was first made with Abraham as an "everlasting covenant"—but not the sabbath.
Ex 31:16-17 (NRSV) Therefore the Israelites shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”
Gen 17:9-10, 13 (NIV) Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
God then gave circumcision to the Israelites along with the sabbath in the law of Moses.
John 7:21-24 (NIV) Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.”
The old covenant ended at Calvary with the death of Jesus. When a party to a covenant dies, said covenant ends. In this case it was Jesus who died, and He made that covenant with Israel. Thus the old covenant ended, even as a marriage covenant ends upon the death of either party. The surviving person is free to marry again, even as Jesus now takes the church as His new bride. If a mate dies, the surviving person is no longer married to a corpse. Rom. 7 shows this comparison of marriage and dying to the law through Christ. SDAs are married to the old covenant corpse. They read sabbath keeping in the old covenant (contract) God made with Israel and apply it to themselves. They do not accept the fact that they were never a party to that covenant. The only way for them to legally keep the sabbath is through circumcision and they are then obligated to keep ALL the old covenant with its 613 commands, which they do not do. They refuse to kill sabbath breakers and stay at home on sabbaths as the law requires. Thus they are lawbreakers, and subject to the condemnation of that law.
 
What Ended at the Cross?
Jesus Abolished Israel's Old Covenant law with Ten Commandments and regulations.
Eph 2:15 (NIV) …by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
Notice, "the law" is singular that was abolished, not laws. There was just "one law"—the Mosaic law—with many commands and regulations, that was abolished by Jesus.
God canceled the written code and regulations nailing it to the cross. SDAs claim that the "written code" was not the Ten, but the law that Moses wrote.
Both God and Moses wrote the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments written on stone tablets by the finger of God and were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, and they were also written by Moses on parchment with ink and placed outside the Ark in the Book of the Covenant. Otherwise you would not be reading it in your Bible. Col 2 and Ex 24 explains this.
Col 2:13-14 (NIV) When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
Ex 24:3-4 (NIV) When Moses went and told the people all the LORD’S words and laws, they responded with one voice, “Everything the LORD has said we will do.” Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said. He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel.
vs. 7, Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.”
Jesus was taken down from the cross, and the law with the sabbath remains nailed to the cross for eternity. SDAs try their best to pry the nails from the cross to make the sabbath binding on Christians.
 
"The first Covenant" had "stone tablets of the covenant."
Heb 9:1-4 (NIV) Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.
The old covenant included the Ten Commandments as well as the Sanctuary furnishings not found in the Ten Commandments showing that the old covenant is not a two-part covenant claimed by Seventh-day Adventists.
 
The Old Covenant with the Ten Commandments are obsolete.
Heb 8:7-13 (NIV) For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said, “The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
 
The Ten Commandments were a ministration of death and condemnation.
2 Cor 3:6-9 (NIV) He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!
Only one who was a party to that law/sabbath could die to that law/sabbath. No one alive today was a party to the old covenant. For someone to insist on keeping the sabbath and other old covenant points of law is to insist on being bound to a dead mate.
Christian Jews are "released from the Law" and now serve the Spirit and not in the way of "the written code".
If you have not died to the law/sabbath you are holding onto a corpse. Good luck with that!
Rom 7:4-6 (NIV) So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
 
The law was a witness against Israel not Christians.
God gave the law to Israel to show them their sins and the law was a witness to it. They were a stiff-necked, rebellious, idolatrous, faithless nation.
Deut 31:26-27 (NIV) “Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the LORD while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die!
 
The law was a school master (paidagogos) to bring Israel to Christ, not Christians who were never under that law. How can SDAs who claim to be justified by faith, want to be under Israel's schoolmaster (law)?
Gal 3:23-25 (KJV) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
A paidagogos was one who accompanied a child, who was usually a slave of the parents of the child, and even administered punishment as required. Once the child came of age and was mature, the paidagogos was dismissed from this oversight of the child. Those who insist on living by that law demonstrate their immaturity; still needing a law to tell them everything they are to do or not do.
 
Christ is the end of the Law for Israel. The law made no one righteousness or moral and no one could keep it perfectly.
Rom 10:4 (NIV) Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Rom 3:20 (NIV) Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
 
The Law of Sin and Death is the Ten Commandments.
2 Cor 3:6-7 (NIV) He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was,
 
The law was made for rebellious Israel, not Christians with the spirit of God. Do Christians need a law to tell them not to worship idols, not to murder and steal?
1 Tim 1:9-11 (NIV) We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
 
How can Christians be righteous before God without the law? Christians receive their righteousness from the gospel and will live by faith.
Rom 1:17 (NIV) For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
 
Paul was not under the Law. Be like Paul and win SDAs and other sabbatarians that put themselves under the law.
1 Cor 9:20 (NIV) To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
Rom 6:14 (NIV) For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
Gal 5:14 (NIV) The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Gal 5:18 (NIV) But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The Apostles opposed the Judaizers that were trying to impose the law on Gentiles. The issue was keeping the law of Moses all of it. Notice that the sabbath was not included in the discussion. In the Jewish mind a gentile must first be circumcised before he could keep the sabbath. This would have been an excellent time to tell the gentiles to keep the Ten as do SDAs.
Acts 15:5 (NIV) Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.”
Acts 15:10-11 (NIV) Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
Acts 15:19-21 (NIV) “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
Mount Sinai Covenant is Slavery represented by earthly Jerusalem. Jewish and gentile Christians are free in the New Jerusalem in heaven which is of faith.
 
What was given on Mount Sinai? The Ten Commandments with the sabbath.
Gal 4:21-31 (NIV) Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written: “Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.” Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
 
The New Covenant is God writing his laws on the Christian's heart.
Hebrews 8:10 (NIV) This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people.
 
What are the laws that God has written on our hearts?
SDAs would have you believe that God is writing the same old covenant law of sin and death on our hearts. The Apostles tell us what they are.
Law of Faith. To know we are justified before God without keeping the old covenant.
Rom 3:27-28 (NRSV) Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.
Law of the Spirit. Has set us free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:1-4 (NIV) Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

Live by the Spirit. If you are led by the Sprit you are not under the law.
Gal 5:16-21 (NIV) So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
 
Law of Christ.
Gal 6:2 (NIV) Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
 
Law of liberty.
James 2:8-11 (NIV) If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder. ”if you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
James mentions two distinct laws—that is, (1) the royal law and the law of liberty (which are identical) and (2) "the whole law" (which includes the entire Torah, all the Laws of Moses). James tells us that the royal law is “Love your neighbor as yourself.” This law, found in Leviticus 19:18, is one of many laws that the Lord gave to Moses to instruct Israel regarding how to live moral lives and develop good interpersonal relationships with others. James also states that, as in the old covenant law, if you broke even one point of the whole law, you were guilty of the entirety of the old covenant, likewise, if you fail to show proper love for even one person by showing partiality, you are guilty of breaking the law of Liberty. Therefore to break one point in the Ten or in the "whole law" consisting of 613 commands, YOU are a lawbreaker.
 
Jesus gave a new commandment to love one another.
Will a Christian that loves one another, murder, steal, commit adultery, and worship idols? There is no need for that obsolete law or the Ten Commandments. Love does no harm to one’s neighbor therefore love fulfills the law. Keeping the law does not fulfill it. Another way to look at this is that, if a Christian has love for even his enemies, he would not commit these acts, seeing as these things are a result of an unconverted heart, not motivated by love. Do you trust the spirit to guide you? If not you have no faith just as Israel.
John 13:34-35 (NIV) “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” The world will know you are Jesus' disciples if you love one another.
 
Paul tells Titus what to teach. Do you notice nothing is said about teaching the law/sabbath.
Titus 2:11-15 (NIV) For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. 15These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

Finally, Sabbath Keeping in Alaska is a Problem.
This shows that the Sabbath was a regional, temporary command for Israel and not for the world. Interesting problem in Alaska. According to the officious SDA sunset calculator, on Friday eve, May 30th, in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, the sun set below the horizon, bringing with it the Jewish Shabbat, at 11:38 PM, almost midnight. Note: AK is so far west, it is on Hawaiian time. Here is the quote:
Calculations for: Longitude: -148.34000 Latitude: 70.27000 Prudhoe Bay, Alaska Time Zone: Hawaiian Standard Time, HSTDate: 5/30/03 Friday Sunrise: 0:07am HST (sunrise Friday morning)Sunset: 11:38pm HST (sunset, Friday night, becoming sabbath)
Next, we find sunrise on Sabbath, May 31st, actually starts before midnight Friday night and el sol invictus stays up all day Sabbath, and into Sabbath night, and into Sunday morning, and into Sunday night, for the next two months!
Date: 5/31/03 Sunrise: Sun above horizon HST Sunset: Sun above horizon HST (meaning the sun never sets). Meaning: if you live and work in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, extracting dino remains buried and liquified by Noah's flood less than 4500 years ago, you have a problem! (no!! dummy! not the recent age of the earth!)… you have to quit working!
Because on Friday night, May 30th, when the sun went down at 1l:38, bringing in the holy Lord's day, you had to stop working, thou, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and all the strangers within thy igloo. But the sun came up again on Sabbath just a few minutes later, but never went down after that!!!
As I scribble this nonsense it is still Sabbath in Prudhoe Bay…cause the sun never went down….no Saturday sunset. So if you believe literally that you must keep sabbath from sunset on Friday night to Sabbath sunset…..the next day, Sabbath, did NOT have a sunset this summer! Won't be a sunset for another two months! So you are faced with keeping Sabbath for two months straight, and giving up your job with Exxon! Unless of course, you are the camp padre, trying to spread the word that black gold comes from dead dinos who missed the ark, or in the medical profession raking in piles of dough and salving your conscience by paying plenty of tithe to keep the hired-archy gainfully employed…. —sent by reader

Seventh Day Adventists follow their false prophetess Ellen G. White (a woman authority over her religious followers which violates 1 Timothy 2:12, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.") & her idol of Sabbath keeping for salvation requirement (violating Galatians 1:6-9) rather than what the Bible plainly teaches about Sabbath keeping for New Testament believers. For more see our playlist "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess"" with 23 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5316CC6F66F24283. See the websites: www.TruthorFables.com, www.ExAdventist.com, www.LifeAssuranceMinistries.org & www.GreatControversyExposed.com.
Titus 1:9-16

Seventh Day Adventism qualifies as a non Christian anti Christ cult due to the following reasons: 1. It is built on the woman Ellen G. White & her teachings despite the Bible saying women are not permitted to teach or usurp authority over men (1 Timothy 2:12, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.") See links at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=112706102442, http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=59131749272 & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql_obI6wA9w&index=12&list=PLE04A1D0DFE95B95E). 2. Ellen White claimed to be equal with the Biblical prophets & apostles through her many writings (sort of a "Spirit of Prophecy") & her SDA followers believed her (2 Peter 3:16); see http://www.truthorfables.com/EGW_Writings_Infallible.htm. Question: Are there modern day prophets or is there a need for prophets today? Answer: In the New Testament, the gift of the office of prophet was a temporary one granted by God for the purpose of building His Church. Contrary to the apostles, who had broad ministries, these men had localized ministries within local churches, as we see illustrated in such places as Acts 11:21-28 and Acts 13:1.Scripture shows us that the prophets of the New Testament had two primary purposes:They were gifted men given to the Church and appointed by God (Eph. 4:11, 1 Cor. 12:28) for the purpose of helping to lay the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). They, like the apostles, received God’s revelation (Eph. 3:5) and truth and proclaimed it to their churches. It is important to remember that the early Church did not have a completed Bible, so God granted this revelation for the purpose of teaching His message to the Church. The New Testament prophets also spoke forth and taught the apostles’ doctrine. Everything taught by these prophets had to be consistent with the teaching of the apostles (1 Cor. 14:36-37). So, are prophets still needed today? Looking at the two functions listed above, we can see that the office of prophet is one that is no longer necessary and has ceased within the Church because:The foundation of the Church was laid long ago. God’s revealed Word was completed with the close of the New Testament canon. The Church’s foundation does not need to be laid again and there is no need for further revelation beyond what God has provided for us in His complete Word, the Bible. Today we are blessed to have Scripture as our complete and final authority in all things (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If someone now claims to have received a “special revelation,” we must test it against Scripture. If it is contrary to the Word of God, then it must be rejected. If it is consistent with Scripture, then we have to ask why an “extra” word was necessary if its truth is already contained in the Bible. So while we always need men who are willing to proclaim boldly the Word of God as contained in Scripture (as pastors, teachers, and evangelists), there is no need for the office of “prophet” as it existed in the New Testament. 3. Ellen G. White is a false prophet due to her false & failed prophecies (Deuteronomy 18:19-22); see http://www.mmoutreachinc.com/seventh_day_adventists/egw_false_prophet.html, http://1timothy4-13.com/files/bible/sda_morefailed.html & http://www.bible.ca/7-prophecy-blunders.htm. 4. Ellen G. White had delusional dreams & visions much like phony Charismatic & Pentecostal TV preachers do today; see http://www.truthorfables.com/Visons_of_%20EGW_by_Snook_&_Brinkerhoff.htm & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbv7YsyMf0I. 5. Seventh Day Adventism has a damnable false gospel (Galatians 1:6-10) for several reasons: a) Satan is the final sin bearer for Seventh Day Adventists; see http://www.truthorfables.com/Scapegoat.htm & http://www.truthorfables.net/50-contradictions-satan-bears-sins.htm, b) They say Jesus had a sinful nature just like fallen man otherwise He can't be a Savior; see http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2011/09/seventh-day-adventisms-anti.html & http://jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Seventh-Day%20Adventist/sda_exposed.htm, c) Ellen G. White taught the cult doctrine of the 1844 investigative judgment of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary for the purpose of allowing Seventh Day Adventists final access to heaven while all others would be destroyed; see http://www.truthorfables.com/investigative_judgment_made_simple.htm, http://www.truthorfables.com/white_elephant.htm, http://www.truthorfables.com/My_Testimony.htm, http://www.truthorfables.com/SDA_Cult.htm & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J50HlZFYHtY, d) Seventh Day Adventism denies the New Testament Christian gospel by saying Old Testament "Saturday" Sabbath keeping is essential for salvation; see  http://www.truthorfables.com/Sabbath_Not_A_Law.htm, http://www.truthorfables.net/who-changed-the-sabbath-a.htm, http://www.truthorfables.com/Sabbath_is_Friday.htm & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0L3rSSL_H8, e) Although SDAs say they believe in salvation by grace they redefine the meaning of grace in order to incorporate into their religious system a salvation by law keeping to achieve final works righteousness;   http://mmoutreachinc.com/seventh_day_adventists/sda_law.html, http://searchingthescriptures.net/main_pages/answering_cults/seventh_day_adventism/sda_a_cult.htm  & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIh3T31ujuU. If the apostle Paul cursed the Galatian Judaizers to hell for adding only one stipulation to the gospel which was circumcision then how much more would he curse the SDAs for all their added terms & conditions to the simple gospel of grace (Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast." Cross reference this to Galatians 2:16, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."). 6. Seven Day Adventists teach the false doctrine of soul sleep; see https://carm.org/soul-sleep, http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12151314134510, http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=85122122530 & http://www.casagrandebaptistchurch.com/SoulSleep.html. 7. SDAs teach the false doctrine of the annihilation out of existence of the wicked including Satan & his demons rather than an eternal conscious punishment in a never ending lake of fire; https://carm.org/clear-word-bible-annihilationism, "Eternal Punishment, part 1" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12607145320 & "Eternal Punishment, part 2" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=12607143539 where at the same time this refutes the arguments of universalists, annihilationists & heretics who say God is "all loving" & would not torment the wicked forever while they ignore the fact that God hates the wicked (Psalm 5:4-6, 11:5, Hosea 9:15, etc.; see our video "The God of the Bible Does Not Love Everybody But Actually Hates Many Instead (Romans 9:22)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zHEJCHgQVg, http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91713193277, http://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php?title=Annihilationism, http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=94081054442,  http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=9110884114, http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=219131311338, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-LMpP6bAg & see our playlist "Dealing with Hell, Lake of Fire, Unpopular Bible Doctrines" with 30 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE04A1D0DFE95B95E. 8. SDAs support alternate Bible translations that pervert the written word of God thus placing themselves under the curse of Revelation 22:18-19, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." See http://exadventist.com/Home/Articles/clearwordbible/tabid/450/Default.aspx, http://www.truthorfables.com/SDAs_Destroyers_of_the_Bible.htm & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EsY1srHYJc. For more information on Seventh Day Adventism see our playlist "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess"" with 23 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5316CC6F66F24283, see also "Cult of Seventh Day Adventism" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=61210437590 & "Damnable Heresies of Seventh Day Adventism" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6201014412510. See the following websites: www.TruthorFables.com, www.LifeAssuranceMinistries.org, www.ExAdventist.com,  www.RethinkingAdventism.com, www.Sabbatismos.com, & www.GreatControversyExposed.com. Titus 1:9-16

Seventh-day Adventism: Satan will bear your sins. See our video "Cult Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventism: 1844 Probation & Satan As A Final Sin Bearer for Adventists" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J50HlZFYHtY&index=6&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283. The founding false prophetess of Seventh-day Adventism (Ellen G. White) offered the following whopper of a heresy on page 422 of her book The Great Controversy:
It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of his ministration, he will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty. The scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, never to come again into the congregation of Israel. So will Satan be forever banished from the presence of God and His people, and he will be blotted from existence in the final destruction of sin and sinners. Rank heresy! Utter blasphemy!
Jesus alone had our iniquity placed upon Him (Isaiah 53:6); He who knew no sin became sin on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21); and it was Jesus Christ–God in the flesh–who bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). 
The Reason for the Scapegoat
The scapegoat is a type or figure of Christ’s atonement to save mankind in the Old Testament Sanctuary service. When our first parents sinned in Eden, they would have died at that very instance if Jesus had not provided a way out to save them.
Gen 3:15 (NIV) And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
God speaks to Satan, telling him that there will be hatred between him and the woman and between her children and the Devil’s children. The outcome will be that Christ would crush Satan’s head, and Satan will strike at Christ’s heel. The fulfillment of this prophecy was when Satan and his children, the ungodly Pharisees and the Romans bruised Jesus’ heel by putting Jesus to death on the cross. At the end of the world Jesus will crush Satan’s head by casting him into the fires of Hell and sin and death will be no more.
God commanded animal sacrifices to illustrate the consequences of sin. It was to show them that the Lamb of God would have to bear their sins and die to save them. Up until the time that Israel became a nation, the Patriarchs, built altars and sacrificed animals for the atonement from sin. After God called his people out of Egypt, he instructed Moses to build a sanctuary that he could dwell among them. Moses was to build the sanctuary after the pattern shown him on the mount. Exodus 25:40. It is important to note that this was not patterned in every detail after the one in heaven. For example, the Heavenly Sanctuary does not have animals to be slain or brass basins for the priests to wash or have animals waiting to be slaughtered or walls made from dyed animal skins.
 
The Day of Atonement
Every day animals were sacrificed for the sins of Israel. But once a year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) a special service was held. It was to be on the 10th day of Tishri, coming on different days of our calendar. It came in the month of September to early October. The Day of Atonement was the only day of the year that the priest entered the holy of holies to make sin offerings for himself, his family, and the "assembly of Israel." After making these offerings, the nation’s sins were symbolically laid on the scapegoat and it was led out into the wilderness and released.
Before the sacrifice of the two goats, the High Priest was required to make a sin offering for himself.
Lev 16:11 (NIV) ""Aaron shall bring the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his house and he is to slaughter the bull for his own sin offering."
After completing his sin offering the High Priest was to take two goats provided from the Israelite community and he is to cast lots for them. The term scapegoat or Azazel depending on the Bible translation you are using is found three times in Scripture in Leviticus 16.
Lev 16:8 (NIV) "He is to cast lots for the two goats—one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat."
Lev 16:9 (NIV) "Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the LORD and sacrifice it for a sin offering."
Lev 16:10 (NIV) "But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat."
Lev 16:20 NIV) ""When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat."
Lev 16:21 (NIV) "He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task."
Lev 16:22 (NIV) "The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert."
Lev 16:26 (NIV) ""The man who releases the goat as a scapegoat must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water; afterward he may come into the camp."
 
The Azazel Controversy
The term Azazel has created a controversy among Bible translators as to what or who is Azazel. Some Bibles do not use the term Azazel while some use scapegoat or other terms as shown. This is a sample of different Bible translations and how they translated Azazel from Leviticus 16:8:
The Septuagint Bible: "one lot for the Lord and one lot for the escape."
NKJV: "one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scapegoat."
KJV: "one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scapegoat."
The New English Bible: "one to be for the Lord and the other for the Precipice."
RSV: "one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scapegoat."
The Amplified Bible: "one lot for the Lord the other lot for Azazel (or removal).
New American, Catholic: uses azazel.
Holy Scriptures, Jewish: uses azazel.
The Hebrew term for scapegoat from Strongs is: 5799. 'aza'zel, az-aw-zale'; from H5795 and H235; goat of departure; the scapegoat:—scapegoat.
From the Hebrew definition of azazel, the meaning is "goat of departure." Leviticus 16:8 should then read: "one lot for the LORD and the other for the goat of departure." Because the first goat called "a lot for the Lord," the translators wanted the Hebrew word Azazel, to be a representation of someone. Therefore some translators have concluded that Azazel must represent an evil spirit or Satan.
Other translators see the scapegoat being sent to a place where Azazel, or evil spirit is located in the wilderness.
Keeping in mind from Leviticus 16:10, that the scapegoat is for making atonement to God because of their sins. This atonement has to be made to God. It would be a sin to make atonement to Satan. Satan cannot remove sin nor would he want to.
Some translators saw that the scapegoat represented Christ. Those that thought the scapegoat represented Satan or an evil spirit did not understand that this goat was a representation of the Living Christ that has removed the sins of God’s people. They failed to see that after the shedding of blood by the first goat the second goat demonstrated the removal of sins. Both goats were representing the completed atonement. Without the shedding of blood there cannot be forgiveness of sins.
(Mat 26:28 NIV) "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
From Hard Sayings of the Bible:
"The Greek translators did not regard azazel as a proper name, but connected it with, ‘a z’zel a verb that does not appear in the Old Testament. The meaning they gave it was "to send away." Hence the full meaning of the Hebrew expression would be "in order to send away." The Latin translation followed this same understanding. The most adequate explanation is to view the term ‘aza’zel as being composed of two words: the first part, ‘ez, meaning "goat," and the second part, ‘azel, meaning "to go away." With recent evidence from the Ugaritic (the language of ancient Canaan from which Hebrew is derived), compound names such as this one are turning up more frequently than what we had expected based on evidence from the Hebrew alone. This is how the rendering "scapegoat" came to be… Originally, however, the King James translators meant "the goat that was led away." Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch INTER VARSITY PRESS, Downers Grove, Illinois.
Some authorities do not identify Azazel with the scapegoat of the sin offering. They regard the goat being sent to Azazel, an evil spirit.
McClintock and Strong says:
"The goat, however, that was sent to the evil spirit…was no sacrifice, but rather a witness that the accepted sacrifice had been made." (CYC. Vol. IX, Art. Scapegoat).
From this statement they do not accept the scapegoat and the evil spirit as being one and the same, nor one representing the other. From their point of view the scapegoat itself cannot be an evil spirit. The scapegoat was led out to the desert to witness to the evil spirit the accepted sacrifice had been made. God is vindicating his people through the atonement of the scapegoat.
 
Two Goats One Atonement
From Students Commentary on the Holy Scriptures:
"The two goats set out the death and victory of Christ, thus furnishing a complete salvation. The one goat was for Jehovah, the other for Azazel. The goat for Jehovah was slain, and its blood sprinkled upon the Mercy Seat, thus making atonement: the goat for Azazel, that is for Satan, the Adversary, was sent out in the desert as the living one to challenge and put to silence that Accuser, and all accusers. The one is Rom. III., i.e. every sin covered; the other, Rom. VIII. every accuser silenced." Students Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 4th edition, published in 1932, by Thynne & Co.
Notice that the Students Commentary says "the goat is for Azazel that is for Satan," not the goat is Azazel. Also it purpose is to put to silence the accuser."
From this interpretation the sins of God’s people are not transferred from the scapegoat to Satan so that he can be punished for them but a witness that God's people have been vindicated. The "accuser" is Satan, Rev 12:10.
There was another service where two birds were required for the cleansing of a person with an infectious disease. The priest was to take two birds, and slay one of them and the other was dipped in its blood and then released. Lev. 14:1-7. There are differences in the two services. For the scapegoat was not dipped in the blood of the slain goat. However there are similarities, as one bird being slain and the other released. There is no doubt that the slain bird represented Jesus’ shed blood on Calvary, setting people free from the condemnation of sin. The bird set free represents Jesus removing the sins and setting people free from the penalty of sin which is death.
The two goats make a complete atonement as well as the two birds. This is made clear:
Lev 16:10 (NIV) "But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat."
 
Questions and Answers
If, as Seventh-day Adventists claim, the scapegoat is a figure of Satan then we are faced with a lot of problems. How can the high priest confess his sins and the sins of  Israel over Satan? Remember the scapegoat is for atonement for Israel to God. Can God’s people make atonement with Satan? NO. Will Satan forgive them and remove their sins? NO.
 
By placing the sins of Israel on the scapegoat does this mean that Satan is now carrying their confessed sins and will be punished for them? NO. The Scapegoat is only a picture of Christ carrying away our sins. The new covenant calls the old covenant laws a shadow of the reality of Christ which is the finished work of Christ. Col 2:13-17.
 
The scapegoat was sent away alive bearing confessed sins. Can this represent Satan, who will be cast into the fires of Hell at the end of the world? NO. If the scapegoat was a representation of Satan, then the goat should have been burned alive as Satan will, instead of being set free.
 
Can the scapegoat represent Christ, who bore the sins of the world to the cross? YES. The first goat represented Jesus bearing the sins of the world and covering them with his blood. The scapegoat represented Christ removing sins from his people.
 
Did Jesus fulfill the scapegoat being let out into the wilderness? Jesus did not have to fulfill every minute detail of the sanctuary service. The scapegoat being led by a man into the wilderness was necessary to show that the sins of God’s people were separated from them and removed a long distance away from them. Jesus did not have to fulfill the type by going out into the wilderness being led by a man, as did the goat. Jesus did not fulfill having lots cast for him to be determined by God to offer himself on Calvary. The scapegoat was simply an illustration of Jesus’ plan to remove sin and restore man, so God can accept him. This is the atonement.
 
The two goats that were chosen for a sin offering had to be without defects for the atonement to God. Lev. 4:3,23,28,32. We ask this question, could the scapegoat without defects be a representation of Satan? NO. Satan is far from being without defects. He is a liar and a murder from the beginning. Only a goat without defects could represent Christ.
 
Is there a Bible text that indicates that Satan bears confessed sins of God’s people or will be punished for them? NO. Satan will never bear the confessed sins of God’s people neither will he be punished for them. Jesus has bore the punishment and paid the price for our sins.
 
Satan can never bear our sins. It is God himself that removes our transgressions. God tells us through the writer of Hebrews that in the new covenant, “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” Never does God tell us in his word that he will lay the sins of God's people on Satan.
Heb 10:16 – 17 (NIV) “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.” Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.”
 
Only Jesus Bore and Removed Our Sins
Psa 103:12 (NIV) "as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us."
1 Pet 2:24 (NIV) "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed."
Isa 53:6 NIV) "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."
Isa 53:11 (NIV) "After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied ; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities."
 
Satan’s punishment
Rev 20:10 (NIV) And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
The Devil will be destroyed because he deceived the world. Satan will be judged on the sins he committed and not for the sins the people committed whom he deceived. If somehow I convinced you to sin or deceived you into committing a sin, I would be held accountable for deceiving you. But you would be accountable for committing the sin. It is the same for Satan, when he deceived our first parents to sin in Eden. Adam and Eve were responsible for their own sin of not believing God which was a lack of faith. Not for Satan for deceiving them. Every sin a person commits they will have to give an account. The confessed sins of the repentant sinners are removed by faith in our Savior.
 
Why Jesus is Our Scapegoat
Jesus bore our sins at Calvary.
 
Jesus died in our place the death we deserved to die.
 
Jesus’ death on the cross fulfilled the figure of the atonement of the two goats. Our sins were atoned by the shed blood of the Lord’s goat and removed from us completely by the Living Scapegoat, Jesus.
 
Jesus, in bearing the sins of God’s people makes our salvation a reality even though we are not worthy.
 
Satan has no part in bearing the sins of God’s people and can never be the scapegoat.
Those who believe that Satan is the scapegoat and bears the sins of the redeemed and is going to be punished for them are saying that the death of Jesus on the cross was not sufficient to save man. And that Jesus needed Satan’s help to complete the atonement to save mankind. If this were true then the redeemed would be indebted to Satan as well as to Jesus for all eternity for their salvation.
 
Bible
1 Pet 2:24 (NIV) "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed."
 
Satan is Ellen's and the SDA's Scapegoat and Sin Bearer
Mrs. E. G. White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church make it very clear that Satan is their scapegoat and sin bearer.
EGW: "It was seen, also, that while the sin offering pointed to Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed. When the high priest, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, removed the sins from the sanctuary, he placed them upon the scapegoat. When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty. The scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, never to come again into the congregation of Israel. So will Satan be forever banished from the presence of God and His people, and he will be blotted from existence in the final destruction of sin and sinners." The Great Controversy, page 422.
EGW: "In like manner, when the work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary has been completed, then in the presence of God and heavenly angels and the hosts of the redeemed the sins of God's people will be placed upon Satan; he will be declared guilty of all the evil which he has caused them to commit." The Great Controversy, page 658."
EGW: "Satan bore not only the weight and punishment of his own sins, but also of the sins of the redeemed host, which had been placed upon him." Early Writings, pp. 294, 295.
 What is Mrs. White’s teaching about the scapegoat?
Mrs. White by saying: "the scapegoat typified Satan" it takes away the glory of Christ's ministry, by making Satan the sin bearer for God's people.
 
Mrs. White in saying: about confessed sins, "He will place them upon Satan." This teaching makes God a liar, for God promised, (Isa 43:25 NIV) ""I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more." According to Ellen, at the end of time God will remember the forgiven and forgotten sins, and then place them on Satan and he will be blotted out of existence.
 
Mrs. White by saying, "when the work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary has been completed," is saying that the work of atonement was not completed on the cross and that Jesus has to complete it in the Sanctuary in heaven. Jesus said, (John 19:30 NIV) "When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." As in the OT sanctuary service, the atonement was fully completed on Day of Atonement by removing the confessed sins of Israel. The atonement was full completed on Calvary. Ellen White claims the atonement is still going on. She says we are in the great Day of Atonement. She has Jesus making atonement in the Heavenly Sanctuary for 2000 years and she has Jesus ending the atonement when Satan bears the sins of God’s people and is destroyed. Keep in mind that when Christians are confessing their sins, Jesus is not making an atonement to forgive them. The atonement is what Jesus has does for man at Calvary and Satan will never be a part of it.
 
Adventists Teach that God Rewards The Devil for His Deviltry
EGW: "Also it would be for his [Satan's] own interest to keep from Jesus as many as possible. For the sins of those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ will at last be rolled back upon the originator of sin, and he must bear their punishment, while those who do not accept salvation through Jesus, will suffer the penalty of their own sins." Early Writings, p. 178.
"It would have been far better for him [Satan] if he had never led men into sin. But having entered upon this work, we see that he has a personal motive of the most powerful kind to induce him to hold persons in sin to the last; for then they receive the punishment for their own salvation through Christ, adds an additional weight to his accumulating load of woe." Looking Unto Jesus, p. 271, by Uriah Smith.
"This puts God in the position of paying a premium on deviltry. If the devil is diligent and keeps on the job so that few are saved he doesn't receive so much punishment as he will if he "lays down on the job" and allows people to become Christians. This is offering the devil a reward for successful deviltry." Examining Seventh-day Adventism, E. S. Ballenger.
See our playlist, "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess"" with 20 videos & counting at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5316CC6F66F24283. See also the website http://www.TruthorFables.com. Seventh-day Adventists do not seem to understand that true Christians do not need the teachings of their so-called "prophetess" Ellen G. White (born November 26, 1827) or her spiritual mentor William Miller (born February 15, 1782)  who said, "My principles in brief, are, that Jesus Christ will come again to this earth, cleanse, purify, and take possession of the same, with all the saints, sometime between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844." Even though another Millerite follower named Samuel S. Snow predicted the return of Christ on October 22, 1844 which Ellen White also believed, all of these prophecies proved to be false making all of these people false prophets (Deuteronomy 18:20-22, "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."). Ellen G. White & the rest of them also violated Jesus' words in Matthew 24:36, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." True Christians throughout the centuries before Ellen G. White have followed Jesus Christ faithfully through His Word (2 Timothy 3:15-17) thus invalidating the need for this woman completely. Matthew 7:15, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." See our videos "Former Seventh-day Adventist Pastor for 13 Years Gives His Testimony Why Adventism is Wrong" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c37bNhYzdbE&index=1&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283 & "Is Sabbath Keeping Essential to Be a Real Christian? Former SDA Pastor Answers This Question" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0L3rSSL_H8&index=3&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283. Titus 1:9-16  

Someone said, "I don't think that SDA's are not saved because of their beliefs, as long as they maintain their belief in Jesus Christ, that is sufficient." One reason we have invested so much time & effort in confronting Seventh-day Adventism is because they have "another Jesus" & "another gospel" (2 Corinthians 11:4). Keep in mind that even the Muslims believe in "Jesus" but it is not the same Jesus as taught in the Bible (for proof see our website www.MuslimHope.com). The "Jesus Christ" of Ellen G. White is not the final sin bearer for sinners but Satan is (see our video "Cult Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventism: 1844 Probation & Satan As A Final Sin Bearer for Adventists" at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J50HlZFYHtY&index=6&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283) & their "gospel" is a false gospel (see our video "Truth About Seventh-Day Adventist "Truth?": A False Gospel of Imperfect Law Keeping to Earn Heaven" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EsY1srHYJc&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283&index=5). The consequences of following a phony "Jesus" & a phony "gospel" is eternal damnation (& we're not talking about "soul sleep" – see our video ""ANNIHILATIONISM" TO ESCAPE HELL: ANOTHER DOCTRINE OF THE DEMONS (& JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES & OTHERS)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-LMpP6bAg&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283&index=18) as laid out by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 1:6-10, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Thus the false religion of Ellen G. White has dire significance for those who risk their souls to believe in it. See www.TruthorFables.com, www.ExAdventist.com & our playlist "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess"" with 23 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5316CC6F66F24283. SDAs need to repent of their false Jesus & false gospel & come to a true saving knowledge of the real Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible (see our video "IS JESUS GOD ALMIGHTY IN THE FLESH MEANING THE SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY OR IS HE SOMETHING ELSE?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BlPm7M7uv8&list=PL9931642C7C8FFEAB). Please remember 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
The person to whom this message was sent replied that they didn't have time to do further research & would just believe as they desired. We replied to that with this – You prove by your statement that you are willingly ignorant of what the Seventh Day Adventists actually believe but prefer rather to wishfully hope they might have it right (you of course taking the proverbial "three monkey approach" – hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil). Pardon me but that is a hopelessly senseless & inane way to rationalize Biblical theology or SDA theology for that matter. Saint Paul would give you an "F" on your report card for being so naïve. Don't you realize that Jesus would flunk you out of class too since He said in Matthew 7:13-29 that few would be saved & then he qualifies it in verses 21-23 where He states he is talking about people who say they "believe" in Him (see also Luke 13:23-30). Thus claiming to believe in a "Jesus" is not good enough according to Jesus. Judging by what you say, the Mormon Jesus is good enough (the brother of the Devil), the Jehovah's Witness Jesus is good enough (the archangel Michael), the Muslim Jesus is good enough (just a human prophet of Allah), the Christian Science Jesus is good enough (just an idea Mary had one day), the Roman Catholic Jesus is good enough (a bread wafer in their Mass) or whatever "Jesus" anyone cares to believe in. Based on what you said you do not have time to research things further, either official SDA theology or Biblical theology, therefore be my guest in going on your merry way into your own imagined world of Biblical La-La Land (the "pick & choose" what I want to believe out of the Bible predicated on my own personal interpretations built on my own preference for lack of study & research). Good luck with that. Titus 1:9-16

Someone asked, "I looked on page 71 of "Desire of the Ages and there is no mention of Jesus having older brothers. I have been an sda for 9 years and have never heard that before." When reading Desire of Ages, on page 62 or 87 depending which version one has, in the 10th paragraph of chapter 9 "Days of Conflict", Ellen G White states, "All this displeased His brothers. Being older than Jesus, they felt that He should be under their dictation." The Desire of Ages Bible Additions & Contradictions – 1. EGW: Jesus had older brothers
“All this displeased his brothers. Being older than Jesus, they felt that He should be under their dictation. They charged Him for setting Himself above their teachers and the priests and rulers of the people. Often they threatened and tried to intimidate Him; but He passed on, making the Scriptures His guide.” DA, p. 87.
Not biblical: The Bible does not tell us Jesus had "older brothers" nor any of the other statements attributed to them as claimed by Ellen G. White.
Matt 12:46-47 (NIV): While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
How do Protestant Christians view Jesus' brothers?
"Nevertheless, some writings in the early centuries raised questions about the brothers to protect their developing doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. One of them, often called the Gospel of James, tells the life story of Mary, using much fanciful material. It claims that Jesus’ brothers were the sons of Joseph by an earlier marriage. This is the view of the Greek Orthodox Church. Later a famous scholar, Jerome, argued that Jesus’ brothers were really his cousins because their mother was Mary of Cleophas and the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus (see John 19:25). This is the view of the Roman Catholic Church, but Protestant scholars prefer the traditional view of the Gospels. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. Mary and Joseph then had four sons in the way all humans normally do." Holman Bible Dictionary, by W. J. Fallis.
 
2. EGW: Jesus’ brothers sided with the Rabbis
"His brothers, as the sons of Joseph were called, sided with the rabbis. They insisted that the traditions must be heeded, as if they were the requirements of God. They even regarded the precepts of men more highly than the word of God, and they were greatly annoyed at the clear penetration of Jesus in distinguishing between the false and the true. His strict obedience to the law of God they condemned as stubbornness." DA, p. 86.
Not biblical: There is not one word in Holy Scriptures that tells us anything about the brothers of Jesus siding with the rabbis, nor do we ever find the brothers condemning Jesus about anything as charged by Ellen G. White.
 
3. EGW: Jesus, an irritation to his brothers
"The example of Jesus was to them a continual irritation." DA, p. 88.
Not biblical: Where in the Bible do we find that Jesus was a continual irritation to his brothers?
 
4. EGW: Jesus charged with cowardice
"Often He was accused of cowardice for refusing to unite with them (his brothers) in some forbidden act;" DA, p. 89.
Not biblical: Did Jesus' brothers really try to get Jesus to commit a forbidden act? Please give the Bible text.
 
5. EGW: Jesus brothers were spiteful towards Jesus
"Again and again He was asked, why do you submit to such despiteful usage, even from your brothers?" DA, p. 89.
Not biblical: Where does the Bible tell us Jesus' brothers were ever spiteful towards Him?
 
6. EGW: Priests and teachers wanted Mary to control Jesus
"When the priests and teachers required Mary's aid in controlling Jesus, she was greatly troubled; At times she wavered between Jesus and His brothers," DA, p. 90. "They decided that He must be persuaded or constrained to cease their manner of labor, and they induced Mary to unite with them, thinking that through His love for her they might prevail upon Him to be more prudent." DA, p. 321.
Not biblical: Would someone supply the Bible text where the priests and teachers wanted Mary to control Jesus, where Mary wavered between Jesus and His brothers and uniting with the brothers?
 
7. EGW: Judas chose himself
"While Jesus was preparing the disciples for their ordination, one who had not been summoned urged his presence among them. It was Judas Iscariot, a man who professed to be a follower of Christ. He now came forward soliciting a place in this inner circle of disciples. … He hoped to experience this through connecting himself with Jesus" DA, pp. 293, 717.
Not biblical: The Bible truth is that JESUS CHOSE JUDAS.
"When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them … Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. … Then Jesus replied, 'Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? … You did not chose me, but I chose you" Luke 6:13-16; John 6:70; 15:16 (NIV).
 
8. EGW: Judas had a conviction to confess his sin
"When the Saviour’s hands were bathing those soiled feet, and wiping them with the towel, the heart of Judas thrilled through and through with the impulse then and there to confess his sin." DA, p. 645.
Not biblical: There is no Bible record of Judas having an impulse to confess his sin at the foot-washing.
 
9. EGW: Judas did not have a conviction to confess
"As Christ celebrated this ordinance with His disciples, conviction came to the hearts of all save Judas." Evangelism p. 275.
Note: Did Judas have a conviction to confess his sin, or did he not have this conviction? Which EGW statement came from God? Ellen's inspired writings are very difficult to keep up with as she often contradicts herself as well as God.
 
10. EGW: Dogs eat Judas' body
His weight had broken the cord by which he had hanged himself to the tree. In falling, his body had been horribly mangled, and dogs were now devouring it. His remains were immediately buried out of sight;" DA, p. 722.
Not biblical:There is no Bible record of dogs eating Judas. Acts 1:18 (NIV) With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.
 
11. EGW: Jesus' bones broken during His crucifixion
"The mother of Jesus was agonized, almost beyond endurance, and as they stretched Jesus upon the cross, and were about to fasten his hands with the cruel nails to the wooden arms, the disciples bore the mother of Jesus from the scene, that she might not hear the crashing of the nails as they were driven through the bone and muscle of his tender hands and feet" Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 58.
Not biblical: The Bible tells us, John 19:25, 36 (NIV) These things happened so that the scriptures would be fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken'
 
12. EGW: Omits broken bones mistake 40 years later
"His hands stretched upon the cross; the hammer and the nails were brought, and as the spikes were driven through the tender flesh, …" DA, p. 744.
Note: EGW compiled the Desire of Ages, 40 years after she first wrote that as the nails were driven through his "bone and muscle," she changed her account to read: the nails were driven through the tender flesh.
 
13. EGW: Jesus could not see through the portals of the tomb
"The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, or tell Him of the Father’s acceptance of the sacrifice" DA, p. 753.
Not biblical: Jesus told his followers what would happen after his death; He would rise up after three days. Jesus also told Caiaphas, "In the future" he would return. Who is telling the truth, Jesus or EGW? The Bible tells us that Jesus could see through the portals of the tomb from the following texts:
Luke 24:7 (NIV) 7‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’
John 2:19 (NIV) 19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
John 10:17 – 18 (NIV) 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
Matt 26:64 (NIV) 64“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
 
14. EGW: The sister of Martha and Lazarus, was Mary Magdalen—she was led into sin by Simon
The Feast At Simons’ House. "Simon had led into sin the woman he now despised. "It was Mary who poured upon His head the precious anointing oil, and bathed His feet with her tears. Mary was first at the tomb after the resurrection." DA, p. 566,568.
Not biblical: The Bible never identifies Mary, LAZARUS' sister as Mary Magdalene, nor is it ever suggested from the Bible that Simon led Mary into sin and despised her. EGW in the DA does not say this Mary was Mary Magdalene, but does identify Mary as "was first at the tomb". The Bible tells us it was Mary Magdalene who was first at the tomb:
Mark 16:9 (NIV) When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.
 
15. EGW: Man healed on the Sabbath, forgot it was Sabbath
"In his joy the man had forgotten that it was the Sabbath; yet he felt no condemnation for obeying the command of One who had such power from God." DA, p.203.
Not biblical: There is no mention in John 5 that the man forgot that it was the Sabbath or that he felt no condemnation for obeying Christ.
 
16. EGW: The disciples fled from men possessed by demons
"Their eyes glared out from their long and matted hair, the very likeness of humanity seemed to have been blotted out by the demons that possessed them, and they looked more like wild beasts than like men. The disciples and their companions fled in terror;" DA, p. 337.
Not biblical: There is no Bible record of the disciples fleeing from these men before Jesus healed them.
 
17. EGW: Lazarus, leads the donkey at the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The healed dumb shouted the loudest, healed blind led the way and the healed cripples broke the most branches.
"The blind whom He had restored to sight were leading the way. The dumb whose tongues He had loosed shouted the loudest hosannas. The cripples whom He had healed bounded with joy, and were the most active in breaking the palm branches…Lazarus, whose body had seen corruption in the grave, but who now rejoiced in the strength of glorious manhood, led the beast on which the Savior rode." DA, p. 572.
Not biblical: There is no Bible record of the Lazarus or anyone else leading the donkey that Christ rode, or the blind, dumb and cripples that Jesus healed participating in the manner as described by EGW. There is no Bible record of Lazarus even being present when Christ was riding the donkey.
 
18. EGW: Little Children fell asleep on Jesus' breast
"The children were foremost in the rejoicing. Jesus had healed their maladies; He had clasped them in His arms, received their kisses of grateful affection, and some of them had fallen asleep upon His breast as He was teaching the people." DA, p. 592.
Not biblical: There is no Bible record of children kissing Jesus or sleeping on Jesus' breast.
This is just a sampling of the false Bible teachings of Ellen G. White in The Desire of Ages, no doubt there are many more. Seventh-day Adventists, who accept these Bible contradictions and additions as being from God, have been misled and deceived by their prophet. It is time to make the Bible alone your source of faith and not the writings of a false prophet. Will God be asking you, "did you accept Ellen White as gospel with her false teachings, or did you accept my Word as truth?"
 
The Desire of Ages Library of Congress Myth
It was often said by Adventist pastors, "that the Library of Congress recommended The Desire of Ages written by Ellen G. White, over other books written on the life of Christ." The conferences had drives for local churches to contact the managers of the major motels in the their city to try to get The Desire of Ages in every motel room. We were to use the Library of Congress statement to promote the book to the motel managers.
It was after leaving Adventism that I found that it was not the Library of Congress that promoted The Desire of Ages, but a former SDA Pastor who went to work for the Library of Congress. His name is, Wells E. Bement, born February 7, 1891 and died December 26, 1977. He was a 1922 graduate of Washington Missionary College and served briefly in India, was dean and Bible teacher at Atlantic Union College and later worked in educational and MV work as director.
Bement's letter was a personal letter in answer Mr. Nicolas Chaij's questions. The letter was not written on the Library of Congress stationary and was not the opinion of the Library of Congress:
December 11, 1946
Mr. Nicolas Chaij
Apartado 50, General Peraze
Havana, Cuba
Dear Mr. Chaij:
I regret that absence and illness have kept me from answering your letter sooner. Now I shall do so briefly.
To select five of six books on the on the life of Christ from the more than 10,000 written in English in the last 300 years, to say nothing of those in other languages, and say that they are unqualifiedly the best is no small task. Happily you have eased the task by asking me to make my personal selection.
My preference or choice would be guided by what I wished to get from the book or books to be read. Let me put it this way: I would put Desire of Ages by Ellen G. White first for spiritual discernment and practical application. Second, I would name Dr. Alfred Edersheim's 2 volumes on the Life of Jesus the Messiah for connection with type and ceremonial rites, and contemporary Hebrew literature. Third would come Samuel J. Andrews' Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth Considered in Its Historical, Chronological and Geographical Relations for chronological sequence, geographical settings and authoritative references. Fourth, I would take Dean Farrar's Life of Christ for scholarship and elegance of expression. We might list as fifth, the 4—volumes treatise of John Feter Lange, The Life and Times of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the electorate and exhaustive treatment. Beyond this point there come rushing to my mind so many authors commanding attention that I would be presumptuous to try to put them in sequence. One will receive something from every one, and the subject is exhaustive.
In answer to another of your inquires, I will say that the Desire of Ages is well thought of in the Library of Congress. Please pardon this late reply to your good letter.
Apologetically,

It was dishonest for the Seventh-day Adventist Church leaders to mislead its members to believe that the The Desire of Ages was held in such high regard as "one of the best books on the life of Christ" or words to that effect in the Library of Congress and not tell them this glowing report was by a former Adventist pastor and that it was his personal opinion.
Mr. Bement was no doubt prejudiced in his selection of The Desire of Ages over other books in the library, being a loyal diehard Ellen G. White fan. Most Adventists would also pick The Desire of Ages as their favorite book.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church should have written to the Library of Congress to get their official opinion. This would have been the honest thing to do and then report their findings to the church members instead of misleading them.
 
Desire of Ages Plagiarism
Before Walter Rae wrote The White Lie and The Desire of Ages Project that was headed by Fred Veltman, chairman of the Religion Department of Pacific Union College, the majority of Seventh-day Adventist knew very little or nothing of Ellen White filling her books with material from uninspired authors. Most Adventists believed God was the source of Ellen's book and little Ellen was just a messenger to write it all out from her visions when she always used the terms, "I saw" or "I was shown". Little did the church members realize that what she saw was in copyrighted books of other authors.
Now that Ellen's hands were caught in the books of other authors, the church has do defend this practice. Just how are they doing this? It is by comparing Ellen with the Bible writers as they often quoted other Bible writers or non-inspired writers without giving them credit. Is this a valid way of defending Ellen's copying?
If Ellen had given credit to the people she was copying from, there would have not been an issue. Ellen went far beyond what any Bible writer has claimed.
EGW: "Although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation" (Review and Herald, Oct. 8, 1867, quoted in Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 37).
Note: Ellen is telling us the words she employs describing what she has seen (visions) are her own. Yet she deceives us by coping her words from other authors and telling us these are her words or God's words.
EGW: "When writing these precious books, if I hesitated, the very word I wanted to express the idea was given to me" (Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 51, 52).
Note: Ellen is telling us when she hesitated "the very word" she wanted was given to her. If this was true, she would not have been copying from other authors. This is positive proof Ellen White, the Adventist prophet was a liar and a thief.
 
What books did Ellen White use in writing The Desire of Ages?
From Adventism's Ministry Magazine, Dr. Fred Veltman, The Desire of Ages Project: the data
What major works were used by Ellen White in writing the DA text?
"We found 10 books from which Ellen White drew 10 or more literary parallels per Desire of Ages chapter. The Life of Christ, by William Hanna, heads the list with 321 source parallels. Night Scenes of the Bible and Walks and Homes of Jesus, both by Daniel March, come in second with 129 parallel sentences." The Desire of Ages Project: the data, Part 1, Ministry October 1990, p. 6.
"The other major sources are: John Harris, The Great Teacher; Fredrick Farrar, The Life of Christ; George Jones, Life-Science From the Four Gospels; Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; J. H. Ingraham, The Prince in the House of David; Francis Wayland, Salvation by Christ; and John Cumming, Sabbath Evening Reading on the New Testament; St. John." The Desire of Ages Project: the data, Part 1, Ministry, October 1990, p. 7.
What additional sources contributed to the DA text?
"In addition to the major sources, we found that 21 works written by 20 authors had a minor impact on the 15 chapters. Two authors had works in both the major influence and minor influence categories." The Desire of Ages Project: the data, Part 1, Ministry, October 1990, p. 6.
Note: Ellen and her Secretary helpers used 33 books to make up The Desire of Ages. Ellen had a 1200 plus library to copy from. All Adventists ought to be indebted to these authors in helping their prophet to succeed in her role as having the "Spirit of Prophecy." Seeing these other authors had the information first that Ellen used, shouldn't they get equal billing with EGW as having the Spirit of Prophecy also?
See Dr. Fred Veltman's Desire of Ages Project: the data This is a two part series.
 
Marian Davis Writes Part of The Desire of Ages
A letter by H C Lacey to L E Froom indicates that Marian Davis not only used Ellen White’s writings she had a free hand in making use of other sources also. The letter reads,
In this connection, of course you know that Sr. Marian Davis was entrusted with the preparation of The Desire of Ages and that she gathered her material from every available source—from Sr. White’s books already in print, from unpublished manuscripts, from private letters, stenographical reports of her talks etc.—but perhaps you may not know that she (Sr. Davis) was greatly worried about finding material for the first chapter (and other chapters too for that matter) and I did what I could to help her; I have good reason to believe that she also appealed to Professor Prescott for similar aid, and got it too in far richer and more abundant measure than I could render. (H C Lacey letter to L E Froom Aug. 30, 1945)
 
The Desire of Ages Rewritten Many Times
"In Australia I saw The Desire of Ages being made up, and I saw the rewriting of chapters, some of them written over and over and over again. I saw that, and when I talked with Sister Davis about it, I tell you I had to square up to this thing and begin to settle things about the spirit of prophecy. If these false positions had never been taken, the thing would be much plainer than it is today. What was charged as plagiarism would all have been simplified, and I believe men would have been saved to the cause if from the start we had understood this thing as it should have been. With those false views held, we face difficulties in straightening up. We will not meet those difficulties by resorting to a false claim." E. G. Daniells, 1919 Bible Conference, Spectrum, May 1979, p. 51.
 
Note: Adventist apologists like to compare Ellen with the Bible prophets. Compare this:
How many Bible prophets had to rewrite their visions and admonitions many times? Ellen just could not get it right the first time and The Desire of Ages was re-written over and over and over again.
 
How many Bible prophets sold their visions and admonitions and made a living off of them and then leave them to their offspring to make a living?
 
How many Bible prophets copyrighted their visions?
 
How many prophets that had visions, went to the library in order to find words to describe their vision and then had to re-write them over and over and over again?
 
Veltman brings out the fact that in his research of "fifteen chapters" from the DA he found Ellen to be 31% dependent on other authors. I would like to see the SDA church come up with one Bible prophet that was 31% dependent on other authors. For more on this see http://www.truthorfables.com/Desire_of_Ages.htm. See our playlist "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess"" with 21 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5316CC6F66F24283. Matthew 7:15

You asked, "Watchman4u – Hey can you point to where they got the "Three Angels" & "the Everlasting Gospel" got these teachings & what are they exactly? Thx." For more on the "Three Angels" see our video "Did God Really Give Ellen G. White "Divine" Health Reform Visions From Book of Revelation Angels?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhKoS2Fk1Y4&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283&index=7 & see http://www.truthorfables.com/EGW_Health_Reform.htm. For her "Everlasting Gospel" see our video "Truth About Seventh-Day Adventist "Truth?": A False Gospel of Imperfect Law Keeping to Earn Heaven" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EsY1srHYJc&index=5&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283 & www.TruthorFables.com. Matthew 7:15

We have a website, http://www.muslimhope.com/, which is meant to help Christians share their Christian faith with Muslims around the world thus we have it set up for several different languages. Our website covers: Arabic, Indonesian, Malaysian, Punjabi, Swahili, Turkish, & Urdu. For example, if a person's native language is Arabic who the Christian is dealing with they can go to that language on our website & once there click on the English topics to the left where this topic then will be translated into Arabic which can then be shared with Arabic speakers. The same applies for any of these other languages. For example, here's the link to our Urdu section at http://www.muslimhope.com/Urdu/index.htm. See also our playlist "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" with 67 videos & counting at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1C7F68B548009FDD. "Google Translate" on the internet also affords Christians the opportunity to translate their own language into another language as well as taking written information from various Christian websites dealing with Islam (see our link to them at http://www.muslimhope.com/LinksOnIslam.htm) & translating valuable information from them into another language for sharing with Muslims. Matthew 28:19-20, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Using "Google Translate" Matthew 28:19-20 then becomes, for example, in Turkish, "Matta 28: 19-20, Bu nedenle gidin, ve Baba adına onları vaftiz, tüm ulusları öğretmek, Oğul ve Kutsal Ruh'un: Seni komuta var olursa olsun onları Öğretim her şeyi gözlemlemek için: ve, lo, ben bile dünyanın sonu dediler, hep seninleyim. Amin." John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." can then become "يوحنا 14: 6، "قال له يسوع، أنا هو الطريق والحق والحياة:. ليس أحد يأتي إلى الآب إلا بي in Arabic. Remember what saint Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:22, "To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." which translated into Punjabi is 1 ਕੁਰਿੰ 9:22, "ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ, ਮੈਨੂੰ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਹਾਸਲ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜੋ ਕਿ, ਮੈਨੂੰ ਦੇ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਕਮਜ਼ੋਰ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ:. ਮੈਨੂੰ ਸਭ ਲੋਕ ਲਈ ਸਭ ਕੁਝ ਕੀਤਾ ਸੀ ਰਿਹਾ, ਮੈਨੂੰ ਸਾਰੇ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਕੁਝ ਨੂੰ ਬਚਾਉਣ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ". 2 Timothy 4:2-5, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry." Thus a Christian can take a passage like this & translate it into 91 different languages on Google Translate (use the official 'Google' site rather than something else that looks similar). Keep in mind that the computer translation is not always perfect but it is better than nothing at all. There has never been a better opportunity to "do the work of an evangelist" in this modern technological age.

But "faith without works is dead … James 2:20." If you are Roman Catholic see our playlist "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 123 videos & counting at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715. If you are a Seventh-day Adventist see our playlist "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess"" with 23 videos & counting at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5316CC6F66F24283. If you are a Campbellite follower of the "Church of Christ" see our playlist "Dealing with "Saved by Works & Baptism", "Church of Christ"" with 72 videos & counting at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBD55090718DA6D3D. See our video "KEEPING THE OLD TESTAMENT LAWS & COMMANDMENTS CANNOT EARN HEAVEN OR SALVATION WITH GOD!" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIh3T31ujuU. Are We Justified by Faith (Romans) or by Works (James)? In Romans it says, "because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight . . . " (Rom. 3:20) "for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." (Rom. 3:28) "For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'" (Rom. 4:3) "Therefore, having been justified by faith . . . " (Rom. 5:1) "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness." (Rom. 4:5). In James it says, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24) " . . . so also faith without works is dead." (James 2:26). Which is it?   Are we justified by faith or by works? Does the Bible Contradict–Itself? It is a fundamental Christian belief that we are justified by faith.  Justification means that God declares a sinner to be righteous.  He does this by crediting–by reckoning the righteousness of Jesus to the sinner.  This is done by faith. That is, when the sinner puts his faith in the sacrifice of Jesus and trusts in Him and not himself for righteousness, then God justifies him.  "And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." (Rom. 4:3).  But, if the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith, does it also teach we are justified by works as James "seems" to say? Do we have a contradiction?  The answer is no. Context is Everything It is erroneous to take a verse, read it without its context, and then attempt to develop a doctrine from that verse alone. Therefore, let's take a look at the context of James 2:24 which says that a man is justified by works.  James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us not to show favoritism. Verses 8-13 are comments on the Law.  Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works. Notice that James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith–verse 14. He then immediately gives an example of what true and false faiths are. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17). Then he gives an example of the type of faith that isn't much different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith by showing Abraham and Rahab as the type of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds. James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not.  One is true, and the other is false.  One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead." (James 2:20). This is why in the middle of his section on faith and works, he says in verse 19, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder."  James says this because the demons believe in God; that is, they have faith, but the faith they have is useless. It does not result in appropriate works. Their faith is only a mental acknowledgment of God's existence. Ascentia and Fiducia Two words are worth introducing here: ascentia and fiducia.  Ascentia is the mental assent–the mental acknowledgment of something's existence. The demons acknowledge and believe that God exists.  Fiducia is more than mental acknowledgment.  It involves a trust in something–a giving over to it, a complete believing and acceptance of something. This is the kind of faith that a Christian has in Christ.  A Christian, therefore, has fiducia; that is, he has real faith and trust in Christ and not simply an acknowledgment that He lived on earth at one time.  Another way to put this is that there are many people in the world who believed that Jesus lived: ascentia.  But they do not believe that He is their savior, the one to whom they should look and trust for the forgiveness of their sins. Ascentia does not lead to works.  Fiducia does.  Ascentia is not of the heart.  Fiducia is. What is James Saying? James is simply saying that if you ‘say' you are a Christian, then there had better be some appropriate works manifested, or your faith is false. This sentiment is echoed in 1 John 2:4 which says, "If you say you have come to know Him, yet you do not keep His commandments, then the truth is not in you and you are a liar." Apparently, there were people who were saying they were Christians but were not manifesting any of the fruit of Christianity.  Can this faith justify? Can the dead ‘faith' that someone has which produces no change in a person and no good works before men and God be a faith that justifies? Absolutely not.  It is not merely enough to say you believe in Jesus.  You must actually believe and trust in Him.  If you actually do, then you will demonstrate that faith by a changed and godly life.  If not, then your profession is of no more value than the same profession of demons: "We believe Jesus lived." Notice that James actually quotes the same verse that Paul uses to support the teaching of justification by faith in Rom. 4:3.  James 2:23 says, "and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'"  If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example. Therefore, we are justified by faith. That is, we are made righteous in the eyes of God by faith as is amply demonstrated by Romans.  However, that faith, if it is true, will result in deeds appropriate to salvation.  After all, didn't God say in Eph. 2:8-10, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.  For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." What is the relationship between faith & works?  The relationship between faith and works is that works are the result of faith.  In the Bible, faith and works are very often contrasted.  They are not the same thing, and the combination of faith and works does not bring salvation.  Salvation is by faith alone. Rom. 3:28, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” Rom. 4:5, “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” Gal. 2:16, “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus…” False religious systems always teach that faith plus a person's works result in salvation.  This is false, because our good works are filthy rags before God (Isa. 64:6).  Therefore, we can’t do anything to please God by our good works.  Gal. 2:21 says that if righteousness comes by the law (works), then Christ died needlessly. Faith without works is dead James 2:26 says that faith without works is dead, but what James is talking about is that dead faith produces no works.  The context of the chapter begins in verse 14 where James says, “What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?”  Notice that James asks, “can that faith save him?"  The faith he is talking about is false faith, which he further clarifies when he mentions how the devil also believes in God (v. 19).  The Devil has dead faith.  He only acknowledges God’s existence. So, with a real Christian, good works are the result of saving faith, not a contributing factor to salvation.  Nor do our good works keep us saved.  If that were the case, then salvation would be by works.  Are we saved by faith alone, or do we need works, too? Roman Catholics often mention that the Bible never says we are saved by faith alone and that the phrase "faith alone" occurs only once in James where it says that we are not saved by faith alone. If this is so, then why do the Protestants say we are justified by faith alone and not by works?  Because the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith alone–and not by works. The following is a list of verses about being saved by faith.  Please take note that faith and works are contrasted.  In other words, we are saved by faith "not by works" and "apart from works," etc. The point is that there are only two options.  We are saved by faith alone, or we are not.  Since we have faith and works (both conceptually and in practice), then we are either saved by faith alone or by faith and works.  There is no other option. If we see that the Scriptures exclude works in any form as a means of our salvation, then logically, we are saved by faith alone.  Let's take a look at what the Bible says about faith and works.  Then, afterwards, we will tackle James' statement about "faith alone." Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one." Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness," Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;" Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;" Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified." Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. Gal. 3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith." Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9Not by works, lest any man should boast." Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith." Again, works/Law is contrasted with faith repeatedly; and we are told that we are not justified by works in any way.  Therefore, we are made right with God by faith–not by faith and our works, hence, faith alone. James 2:24, not by faith alone The Scriptures clearly teach that we are saved (justified) by faith in Christ and what He has done on the cross.  This faith alone saves us.  However, we cannot stop here without addressing what James says in James 2:24, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." There is no contradiction.  All you need to do is look at the context.  James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us not to show favoritism. Verses 8-13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works. James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith but has no works, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14).  In other words, James is addressing the issue of a dead faith–a faith that is nothing more than a verbal pronouncement, a public confession of the mind, and is not heart-felt.  It is empty of life and action.  He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17, words without actions). Then he shows that type of faith isn't any different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith that has words followed by actions.  Works follow true faith and demonstrate that faith to our fellow man but not to God.  James writes of Abraham and Rahab as examples of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds. In brief, James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20).  But, he is not contradicting the verses above that say salvation/justification is by faith alone. Also, notice that James actually quotes the same verse that Paul quotes in Rom. 4:3 amongst a host of verses dealing with justification by faith.  James 2:23 says, "and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'" If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example.  Therefore, we can see that justification is by faith alone and that James was talking about false faith–not real faith–when he said that we are not justified by faith alone. What about Faith vs. Works? Question: What about Faith vs. Works? Answer: Faith vs Works–a quick and simple explanation James 2:22 is addressing a worldly way to show our faith to others who watch us operate as a church. We know this because he says "Pure religion is . . . to visit the fatherless and widowed" (James 1:27). The Apostle Paul is explaining faith as God sees it. "What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?* 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin," Rom 4:1-8. Now, let's see how James looks at a dead faith without works: "What doth it profit, my brethren [target audience=church], though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? [that faith is a false or a DEAD faith] 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my [true] faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only [a false faith]," James 2:14-24.   James is saying that a person with dead faith will walk by the hungry because he or she is not really saved. When a Christian feeds the hungry, that is how he or she shows others that he has a real faith. On the other hand, the Apostle Paul says that Abraham was not justified by his works because his works do not justify him "before God," Romans 4:2. This is a true faith that God sees apart from works. What does Romans 4:1-4 say? “What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness,” Romans 4:1-4. True faith will be enough for God. However, to the church, faith is revealed in our efforts. Thus, there is no contradiction between the book of James and the book of Romans. Galatians 1:6-9, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." For more information see our website www.BibleQuery.org.

See our playlist "Dealing with Anti Trinitarians (UPC) & Early Church History" with 45 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9931642C7C8FFEAB&feature=plcp. John 10:30, "I and [my] Father are one." ] Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and [my] Father", (esmen) , "we are one"; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power; since Christ is speaking of the impossibility of plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father's hands; giving this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as out of his Father's, because he is equal with God the Father, and the one God with him. The Jew F16 objects, that

“if the sense of this expression is, that the Father and the Son are one, as the Nazarenes understand and believe it, it will be found that Jesus himself destroys this saying, as it is written in ( Mark 13:32 ) , for saith Jesus, "that day and that hour, there is knoweth, not the angels, nor the Son, but the Father only"; lo, these words show, that the Father and the Son are not one, since the Son does not know what the Father knows.''

But it should be observed, that Christ is both the Son of God, and the son of man, as the Christians believe; as he is the Son of God, he lay in the bosom of his Father, and was privy to all his secrets, to all his thoughts, purposes, and designs; and as such, he knew the day and hour of judgment, being God omniscient; and in this respect is one with the Father, having the same perfections of power, knowledge but then as the son of man, he is not of the same nature, and has not the same knowledge; his knowledge of things was derived, communicated, and not infinite; and did not reach to all things at once, but was capable of being increased, as it was: and it is with regard to him as the son of man, that Jesus speaks of himself in ( Mark 13:32 ) ; whereas he is here treating of his divine sonship, and almighty power; wherefore considered in the relation of the Son of God, and as possessed of the same perfections with God, he and his Father are one; though as man, he is different from him, and knew not some things he did: so that there is no contradiction between the words of Christ in one place, and in the other; nor is he chargeable with any blasphemy against God, or any arrogance in himself, by assuming deity to himself; nor deserving of punishment, even to be deprived of human life, as the Jew suggests; nor is what he produces from a Socinian writer, of any moment, that these words do not necessarily suppose, that the Father and the Son are of the same essence; since it may be said of two men, that they are one, end yet are not the same man, but one is one man, and the other another; for we do not say they are one and the same person, which does not follow from their being of one and the same nature, but that they are one God, and two distinct persons.

FOOTNOTES:

F16 Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 50. p. 438, 439.
John 10:29
John 10:31                        

It's always exciting to see the Sovereignty of God in action during true evangelism activities. You don't need fake "sales techniques" to get "converts." Recently SermonAudio put a testimony of a French lady who came to the Lord out of Roman Catholicism through our videos on YouTube in their "Staff Picks" section. You can hear "Testimony: Camille Jolly" at  http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=6414192554 (or on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oXfZEP6hL4). Glory to God alone for this.
Larry Wessels, Director, Christian Answers of Austin, Texas / Christian Debater
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/CAnswersTV
Home Church: Dayspring Fellowship, Austin, Texas http://www.dsf.org/, Reformed Baptist
Pastor: Greg Van Court at http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Greg_Van_Court 
2 Timothy 4:2-5

Apparently the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Jehovah's Witnesses has no fear of Revelation 22:18-19. The easiest way to demonstrate contradictions in the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation of the Bible is by contrasting it to the Watchtower 1969 Kingdom Interlinear Translation also published by them & also their original 1950 edition of the NWT which differs significantly from their more modern editions. By pitting their own translations against each other the Jehovah's Witnesses lose either way. I use my 1969 "K.I.T." (The JWs call it their "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures" which has a purple cover but I've always referred to it as the "Purple People Eater" as a joke among my friends) & in meetings with JWs I have pointed out such passages as Acts 10:36, Colossians 2:6-12, Romans 1:20, Philippians 3:11 cross referenced to Philippians 1:19, 1 Peter 1:11, Revelation 3:14, Ephesians 3:19, Hebrews 12:9,23 etc. showing differences in their Greek renditions that differ from what their English NWT says. Of particular interest is their own violations of their own "rules" of translation given in both their "Forwards" of the KIT & NWT such as : examples of biased paraphrase in John 15:5,7 "in Christ," John 17:26, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Galatians 1:16, Romans 8:9-10; examples of non literal translation of English –  Colossians 1:16 "other," Philippians 2:9 "other," Hebrews 9:27 "for all time;" not following their own rule of "assigning each word one meaning or definition: Matthew 25:46 "cutting off" cf Acts 4:21, Matthew 27:50 "yielded up his breath" cf Luke 23:46 "spirit" cf Hebrews 12:23 "spiritual lives;" Philippians 2:10-11 "Lord," but translated in Romans 14:11 as "Jehovah," see also John 1:1, John 8:58, Romans 10:12, Acts 12:23, Acts 4:12 & 1 Peter 3:15. Their NWT translates "torture stake" in Matthew 10:38 instead of the word "cross" but both the KIT & NWT would refute that in John 20:25 by the plural use of the word "nails" since you need "nails" for a cross (a nail for each hand) but only one nail for a "torture state" (one nail going through both hands at the same time) as they say (pages 1154-1155, KIT, 1969).  I cover some of the above information in our videos "THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES FRAUDULENT BIBLE: EVALUATING THE "NEW WORLD TRANSLATION" VERSE BY VERSE" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtqstNm5WI4&list=PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40 & "EXAMINING THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS "NEW WORLD TRANSLATION" OF THE BIBLE" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGT82qj4cj0&list=PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40&index=14. An internet search on "Contradictions in the New World Translation" will yield further results (such as http://www.eldaleonwhite.com/jw/jw3.pdf). For example I found the following useful information just doing a quick web search.
Is The New World Translation Accurate?
The New World Translation of The Holy Scriptures (NWT) is the main bible used by Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide. After only a casual reading of it, lovers of God’s Word will quickly realize its peculiarity. It has sent shivers down the backs of many well-known theologians and contemporary Greek scholars. Many proof texts Christians use to teach and defend the foundational truths of their faith are rendered quite differently in this translation. Often, the verses presented represent radical departures from orthodox Christian beliefs.
However, just because something is different doesn’t mean that it is wrong. According to the bible, we need to test all things (1 Thess. 5:21). How can we test the accuracy of the NWT? Well, since the New Testament was originally written in Greek, we can compare the New Testament of the NWT to a widely recognized, accepted and scholarly Greek text. In fact, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has already done that for us.
In 1969 and again in 1985, the Watchtower printed and published the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (KIT). This book compares the NWT’s New Testament to the scholarly 1881 Westcott and Hort Greek text of the New Testament. The KIT is arranged so that the Greek text is on the left side of the page with the English rendering below it and the NWT is on the right side. According to the 1985 KIT on p. 5, the arrangement is beneficial because, “….the accuracy of any modern translation can be determined”. So, lets compare some verses in the KIT to see if the NWT is in fact accurate.
Before we dig in, I want to refer to 2 statements found in the 1985 KIT. On p.9 it says, “We offer no paraphrase of the scriptures. Our endeavor throughout has been to give as literal a translation as possible ….”. And on p.10, “To each major word we have assigned one meaning and have held to that meaning as far as the context permitted”. So, with those statements in mind let’s check out the 1985 KIT.
Scripture Verses: 
John 8:58
John 17:3
Hebrews 12:22-23
Philippians 2:9
Colossians 1:16-20
Colossians 2:9
John 1:1
Matthew 25:46 vs. Acts 4:21
Acts 11:14
Summary
John 8:58
NWT- “Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been””.
Literal Greek Text- “Said to them Jesus Amen amen I am saying to you Before Abraham to become I Am.”
Why has the NWT violated their own standard and paraphrased the Greek words ego eimi (I AM) into I have been? After all, the NWT translates ego eimi accurately into I am in versus 18, 23, 24 and 28. To answer that question, one needs to read Exodus 3:13-14 in any approved bible translation. For example, in the King James Version (which Jehovah’s Witnesses used prior to 1950), Moses asks YHWH (LORD) what His name is. God’s answer is “I AM”. This presents a problem for the Watchtower, because Jesus is claiming to be the I AM, the Almighty God of the Old Testament. Notice the next verse in John 8:59, “Therefore, they picked up stones to hurl at him….”. The religious Jews of Jesus’ day knew very well who Jesus was claiming to be. They acted as if Jesus was a blasphemer (see Lev 24:16).
Return to Scripture Verses
 
John 17:3
NWT- “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”
Literal Greek Text- “This but is the everlasting life in order that they may be knowing you the only true God and whom you sent forth Jesus Christ.”
Notice the change? “They may be knowing you” has been translated into the NWT as, “taking in knowledge of you”. Witnesses will say that both wordings mean the same thing. However, this is not true. One may take in an abundance of knowledge about the president, for example, but never actually know him personally. The same is true of Christ. Many people know about Jesus but they don’t have a personal relationship with Him. Jesus actually spoke about this in Matthew 7:22-23. He said, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity”. See also John 5:39-40.
Why would the Watchtower want to distort the meaning of this text? Because by saying that eternal life comes by “taking in knowledge”, the Society keeps the Jehovah’s Witness dependent on them for salvation. Studying their literature becomes a matter of life and death and therefore, the Witness remains under the complete control of the Watchtower. Sadly, one never knows how much knowledge he must take in to gain everlasting life.
Return to Scripture Verses
 
Hebrews 12:22-23
NWT- “But you have approached a Mount Zion and a city of [the] living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, in general assembly, and the congregation of the firstborn who have been enrolled in the heavens, and God the Judge of all, and the spiritual lives of righteous ones who have been made perfect.”
Let’s look at the end of v. 23 in the Greek:
Literal Greek Text- “….and to spirits of righteous (ones) having been perfected….”
Why has the Watchtower again violated their own standard and paraphrased the word “spirits” from the Greek text into “spiritual lives” in the NWT? Because, since the text is clearly speaking of heaven, if the NWT used the accurate rendering “spirits”, it would conflict with their doctrine of soul sleep. Soul sleep is the belief that man does not possess an immaterial nature that survives the death of the physical body. The Watchtower teaches that once a man is dead, he remains unconscious in the grave until the future resurrection, which began, according to the Society, in 1918, when dead members of the anointed class (the 144,000) were raised into heaven as invisible spirits. However, the above verse clearly states that in the first century A.D., when it was written, there were already spirits of saved men in heaven. The doctrine of soul sleep can be refuted by many other scriptures such as Mt. 10:28, Jn. 11:25-26, 2 Co. 5:8, Rev. 6:9-11. 
Return to Scripture Verses
 
Philippians 2:9    
NWT- “For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name….”
Literal Greek Text- “through which also the God him put high up over, and he graciously gave to him the name the over every name….”
Why has the Watchtower inserted the word “other” in the NWT? Again, this conflicts with their theology that Jesus is a lesser being than that of the Father. If the word “other” is taken out of the text, the verse says that Jesus has been given the highest name in all the universe. This puts Jesus on a level equal with Jehovah God.
Return to Scripture Verses
 
Colossians 1:16-20
NWT- “because by means of him all [other] things have been created….all [other] things have been created through him….Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist….”
Literal Greek Text- Suffice it to say that the word “other” is not found in the Greek text.
Why has the Watchtower added the word other four times in the above passage? Without the word “other” present, the text says that Jesus is the Creator of all things. By sticking the word other in, Jesus becomes Jehovah’s “master worker” who was created by Jehovah and was then used to create all other things in existence. Interestingly, the very first edition of the NWT’s New Testament didn’t even bracket the word “other” to show that it was added to the text. Later editions became somewhat more honest. However, many times when the Watchtower quotes the above verses in their literature, they remove the brackets. We see that again, the Greek text contradicts the Watchtower’s own theology.
Return to Scripture Verses
 
Colossians 2:9
NWT- “….because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.”
Literal Greek Text- “….because in him is dwelling down all the fullness of the divinity bodily”
Why has the Watchtower translated the word divinity as divine quality? Again, just as in John 8:58, the verse has been paraphrased to strip Jesus of His Deity. The Watchtower teaches that when Jesus walked on the earth, he was nothing more than a perfect man. His very essence or being was not divine, he only possessed the qualities of divinity.
It is interesting that the 1969 KIT used the word godship instead of divinity in the literal Greek text, although the NWT on the right side still translated it “divine quality”. Although in Romans 1:20 when referring to the Father, the Watchtower translated the word “godship” in the Greek text into “Godship” in the NWT text. Does the words double-standard cross your mind? The fact that they changed the English word from godship in the 1969 version to divinity in the 1985 version is also revealing. On p.5 of the 1985 KIT, it says, “Between the lines of the Greek text will be found the word-for-word English translation of 1969”. However, we find an example here where it is not word-for-word from the 1969 translation. The Watchtower can’t even conform to their own standards.
Return to Scripture Verses
 
John 1:1
NWT- “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
Literal Greek Text- “ In beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word.”
Of all the scriptures in the NWT, this one in particular makes Christians cringe the most. The difference is obvious. Notice that their is no “a” in the Greek text before the last rendering of “god”. It has been inserted into the NWT. Why? The Watchtower argument from p.1139 of the 1985 KIT goes like this: “…. because the Greek word ….(theos) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article.” What this means is that since the definite article, the, is before the first mention of God but not the second, and the verb, was, is after the second mention of god, then the rendering “a god” is justified. (If you’re thoroughly confused, don’t worry.)
This is a perfect example of the Watchtower making up a grammatical rule and only applying it when it fits their theology. If they applied this rule to the rest of the New Testament, the outcome would be ridiculous. The following are some examples of how a few scriptures would turn out in the book of John if they applied their rule consistently:
John 1:12 “However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become a god’s children.”
John 1:13 “and they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from a god’s.”
John 1:18 “No man has seen a god at any time….”.
John 3:2 “….Rabbi, we know that you as a teacher have come from a god….”
Obviously, the Watchtower has gone to great lengths to deny the Deity of Christ. They are hard-pressed to find any reputable source to agree with their translation of John 1:1. (see article Does the Watchtower Endorse Spirit Mediums) Even B.F. Westcott, whose Greek text is used in the KIT and is the basis for the NWT, doesn’t agree with them. He said, “The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person….No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word.” The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p.3.
Similarly, Greek scholar Dr. Julius R. Mantey, who was quoted in the 1969 KIT p.1159, called the Watchtower’s rendering of this verse, “A grossly misleading translation.”
Return to Scripture Verses
 
Matthew 25:46 vs. Acts 4:21
Matthew 25:46
NWT- “And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.”
Literal Greek Text- “And will go off these into lopping off everlasting, but the righteous (ones) into life everlasting.”
Notice that the old English words “lopping off” in the Greek text have been translated as “cutting-off” in the NWT. Why haven’t they translated the words “lopping off” into “punishment” as do all reputable bible translations available today? Because, since the Watchtower doesn’t want any Jehovah’s Witnesses to believe in hell, a place of eternal punishment, they have to use the words “cutting-off” so that it will agree with their doctrine of annihilation. This is the belief that no one will go to a place of everlasting punishment, God will annihilate the unsaved so they will just cease to exist. Let’s compare this verse to another verse.
Acts 4:21
NWT- “….they released them, since they did not find any ground on which to punish them….”
Literal Greek Text- ….they released them, nothing finding the how they might lop off them….”
How did the NWT render the words “lop off” in this verse?  PUNISH!
Obviously, the Watchtower is not consistent with their translation. When the words “lop off” are in a verse that doesn’t challenge their teaching, they use “punish”, but when it doesn’t agree with their doctrine they use “cutting-off”. Remember the statement written on p. 10 of the KIT: “To each major word we have assigned one meaning….”. Their goes that promise out the window.
Return to Scripture Verses
 
Acts 11:14
NWT- “….and he will speak those things to you by which you and all your household may get saved.”
Literal Greek Text- “….who will speak sayings toward you in which will be saved you and all the house of you.”
Why has “will be saved” been translated into “may get saved”? Because a rank and file Jehovah’s Witnesses has no assurance of his salvation. The Watchtower’s gospel is a works based system so the Witness never knows if he has done enough to merit eternal life. There is no end to knocking on doors, taking in knowledge and serving at the Kingdom Hall. Even if he makes it into the thousand reign of Christ, he still may be annihilated if he doesn’t measure up to Jehovah’s standard. The Jehovah’s Witness is kept in a state of spiritual bondage. If he only knew that Christ’s blood frees us from dead works and gives all who place their faith in Him alone the assurance of eternal life (John 5:24, 10:28; 1 Peter 1:3-5).
Return to Scripture Verses
    
In summary, it is obvious that the NWT is not an honest translation. The Watchtower has secretly smuggled in their own peculiar doctrines to the scriptures by paraphrasing and changing verses where necessary. No wonder why the Watchtower won‘t reveal the names of the men on the “New World Translation Committee”. Who would want to take the blame?
Finally, one must wonder what kind of organization can publish such a corrupted translation and say in their publication, All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial,  “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is a faithful translation of God’s Word….” p. 331. And, “Thanks be to God that he has provided the New World Translation, with its clear and accurate Bible text.” p.327

For those interested please see our playlist "Dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Society" with 22 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40.

Matthew 7:15, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Jesus broke the Sabbath & was accused of this by the Jews (see our video "Is Sabbath Keeping Essential to Be a Real Christian? Former SDA Pastor Answers This Question" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0L3rSSL_H8&index=2&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283). The expression "the Lord's day" is found only once in the Bible. In Revelation 1:10 John relates the beginning of his visionary experience to being in the Spirit "on the Lord's Day." The phrase seems to have become more common in the second century a.d., where it is found in such early Christian writings as Ignatius's Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1 (c. a.d. 108), the Didache 14:1 (c. a.d. 100-125), and the Gospel of Peter 9:35; 12:50 (c. a.d. 125-50). The presence of the adjective kuriakos [kuriakov"] makes the expression grammatically different from the common biblical phrase "the Day of the Lord, " which uses the genitive form of the noun kurios [kuvrio"]. The adjective is found only one other time in the New Testament, in 1 Corinthians 11:20, where Paul speaks of "the Lord's Supper." Non-Christian parallels suggest that the adjective was used with reference to that which belonged to the Roman emperor; early Christians seem to have used it, perhaps in conscious protest, to refer to that which belonged to Jesus.
The particular "day" that belonged to Jesus seems to have been Sunday, or, by Jewish reckoning, Saturday sundown until Sunday sundown. According to the Gospels, Jesus was raised from the dead on "the first day of the week" ( Matt 28:1 ; Mark 16:2 ; Luke 24:1 ; John 20:1 ), that is, Sunday. New Testament evidence suggests that by the 50s, if not earlier, Christians were attaching special significance to Sunday. In 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 Paul exhorts the church at Corinth to set aside a sum of money "on the first day of every week" for the church at Jerusalem, as the Galatian churches were already doing. Similarly, Luke notes that when Paul arrived at Troas near the end of his third missionary journey, the church gathered together to break bread "on the first day of the week" ( Acts 20:6-7 ). Although the identification is not made explicit, there is therefore good reason to believe that John has Sunday in mind when he mentions "the Lord's Day" in Revelation 1:10. Certainly the second-century Gospel of Peter, which twice speaks of the day of Jesus' resurrection as "the Lord's Day" (9:35; 12:50), makes the connection. Similarly, the Epistle of Barnabas (c. a.d. 130) notes that Christians celebrate Jesus' resurrection of "the eighth day" (15:9; cf. John 20:26 ), or Sunday, which is the day after the seventh daythat is, the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). Justin Martyr affirms that Jesus was raised on "the day of the Sun" (Apology 67).
How quickly the Lord's Day emerged as a specific day of worship for the early church is not clear. Luke observes that in the period immediately following the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost the earliest Christians met "every day" in the temple courts. Whether their breaking of bread in their homes was a daily or weekly occurrence he does not specify, but the former seems more likely ( Acts 2:46 ). Alternately, Paul's comments to the Corinthians concerning the laying aside of money on the first day of the week do not indicate whether this action was connected with a formal gathering of the church ( 1 Cor 16:13 ). Luke's description of the meeting of believers at Troas is the first clear indication of a special gathering as taking place in the evening, by which he probably means Sunday, using Roman reckoning from midnight to midnight, rather than the Jewish system. By the second century the Lord's Day was clearly set apart as a special day for worship. In a letter to the emperor Trajan (c. a.d. 112), the Roman governor Pliny the Younger notes that Christians assembled before daylight "on an appointed day" (Epistle 10:96), undoubtedly Sunday. The Didache specifically exhorts believers to come together on the Lord's Day (14:1), and the Epistle of Barnabas sees it as a special day of celebration (15:9). Indeed, Justin Martyr (c. a.d. 150) gives a detailed account of typical Sunday worship (Apology 67).
A clear picture of how the early Christians celebrated the Lord's Day emerges only gradually. Luke records that the Christians at Troas came together to break bread, which may well denote a meal that included the Lord's Supper (cf. Acts 2:42 ; 1 Cor 11:20-22 ). That Paul spoke (at great length!) to the assembled believers ( Acts 20:7-11 ) implies nothing about their typical practice, since Paul was a special guest and intended to leave the next day. The Didache makes explicit the connection between the breaking of bread and the Lord's Supper on the Lord's Day but says little else concerning the meeting, apart from mentioning the practice of confession of sin (14:1). Pliny mentions two meetings on the "appointed day": the Christians first meet before dawn to sing a hymn to Christ "as to a god" and to affirm certain ethical commitments; then they depart and reassemble for a meal. Not being a Christian himself, Pliny would not have understood the significance of the meal as a setting for the Lord's Supper; for him it was enough that the meal consisted "of ordinary, innocent food" (Epistle 10:96).
The most extensive account of an early Christian Sunday worship service is provided by Justin Martyr (Apology 67, cf. 65). According to Justin, the gathering begins with readings from "the memoirs of the apostles" the Gospelsor the writings of the prophets for "as long as time permits." The "president" then delivers a sermon consisting of instruction and exhortation. Next, the congregation rises for prayer, following which the bread and wine are brought in for the Lord's Supper. After prayers and thanksgivings by the president and a congregational "Amen, " the deacons distribute the bread and wine to those who are present (and then carry some to those who are absent). There follows a collection of "what each thinks fit" for the needy, and, apparently, the end of the service.
Noteworthy in these early texts is the lack of identification of Sunday with the Jewish Sabbath. Luke has little to say about early Christian observance of the Sabbath, apart from recording Paul's preaching on the Sabbath in Jewish synagogues ( Acts 13:14 Acts 13:42 Acts 13:44 ; 17:2 ; 18:4 ; 16:13 ), which perhaps says less about Paul's commitment to Sabbath observance than about his missionary strategy. Indeed, Paul has little interest in observing special days as sacred ( Rom 14:5-6 ; Gal 4:9-11 ; Col 2:16 ). Ignatius contrasts observance of the Sabbath with living for the Lord's Day (Magnesians 9:1). The Epistle of Barnabas views the significance of the biblical Sabbath as being a symbol of the future rest established at the return of Jesus (15:1-8; cf. Heb 4:3-11 ). Justin Martyr speaks of the Sabbath in terms of a perpetual turning from sin (Dialogue with Trypho 12). In 321 Constantine proclaimed Sunday to be official day of rest in the Roman Empire (Codex Justinianus 3.12.3), but this does not seem to have been related to any concern with the Jewish Sabbath. By the end of the fourth century, church leaders such as Ambrose and John Chrysostom were making such a connection, defending relaxation from work on Sunday on the basis of the Fourth Commandment and paving the way for later Catholic and Protestant elaboration on Sunday as the Sabbath.
In the early church, then, the Christians began to give a special place to Sunday as the day on which Jesus was raised from the dead. It soon became a fixed day for worship, a celebration of the resurrection centered around the Lord's Supper. As Christianity distanced itself from Judaism, it is not surprising that eventually the church would see its special day in terms of the special day of the Jews, the Sabbath, and would transfer the provisions of the Fourth Commandment to Sunday.
 
Does the Bible allow Christians to worship on Sunday?
In the Old Testament, God stated, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you," (Exodus 20:8-10, NASB). It was the custom of the Jews to come together on the Sabbath, which is Saturday, cease work, and worship God. Jesus went to the synagogue on Saturday to teach (Matt. 12:9; John 18:20) as did the apostle Paul (Acts 17:2; 18:4). So, if in the Old Testament we are commanded to keep the Sabbath and in the New Testament we see Jews, Jesus, and the apostles doing the same thing, then why do we worship on Sunday?
First of all, of the 10 commandments listed in Exodus 20:1-17, only 9 of them were restated in the New Testament. (Six in Matt. 19:18, murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, honor parents, and worshiping God; Rom. 13:9, coveting. Worshiping God properly covers the first three commandments) The one that was not reaffirmed was the one about the Sabbath. Instead, Jesus said that He is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8).
In creation, God rested on the seventh day. But, since God is all powerful, He doesn’t get tired. He doesn’t need to take a break and rest. So, why does it say that He rested? The reason is simple: Mark 2:27 says, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." In other words, God established the Sabbath as a rest for His people, not because He needed a break, but because we are mortal and need a time of rest, of focus on God. In this, our spirits and bodies are both renewed.
The OT system of Law required keeping the Sabbath as part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God’s requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins. The Sabbath was part of the Law in that sense. In order to "remain" in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath. If it was not kept, then the person was in sin and would often be punished (Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 6:23; Deut. 13:1-9; Num. 35:31; Lev. 20:2, etc.).
But with Jesus’ atonement, we no longer are required to keep the Law as a means for our justification. The requirements of the Law were fulfilled in Christ.  We now have rest from the Law.  We now have "Sabbath", continually.
Are we free to worship on Sunday?
Within the New Testament is ample evidence that the seventh day Sabbath is no longer a requirement.
"One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God," (Rom. 14:5-6).
The entire section of Rom. 14:1-12 is worth careful study.  The instructions here are that individuals must be convinced in their own minds about which day they observe for the Lord. If the seventh day Sabbath were a requirement, then the choice would not be mans’, but God’s.  To me, this verse is sufficient to answer the question beyond doubt.  Furthermore,
"Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." (Col. 2:16-17).
Notice the time sequence mentioned in Col. 2:16-17 above.  A festival is yearly. A new moon is monthly. A Sabbath is weekly. No one is to judge in regard to this. The Sabbath is defined as a shadow, the reality is Jesus.  Jesus is our Sabbath.  So, if someone is judging you because you worship on the Sabbath, they are wrong.  Likewise, if you regard Sunday above Saturday (Rom. 14:5-6), all you need to do is be convinced in your own mind that that is alright.
Is there any evidence in the NT that Christians met on Sunday?
"And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight," (Acts 20:7).
The first day of the week is Sunday and this is the day the people gathered. This passage can easily be seen as the church meeting on Sunday, though it does not necessitate it. It has two important church functions within it: breaking bread (communion) and a message (preaching/teaching). Additionally, Luke included the Roman system as well as the Jewish system of counting days.  The Jewish system was sundown to sundown.  But Luke also used the Roman system: midnight to midnight (Luke 11:5; Acts 16:25; 20:7; 27:27). This is a subtle point that shows the Jewish Sabbath system was not exclusively used by Luke.
If the Sabbath was mandatory, why the use of the non-Jewish system?
"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come,"  (1 Cor. 16:1-2).
Notice here that Paul is directing the churches to meet on the first day of each week and put money aside. It would seem that this is tithing. So, the instructed time for the church to meet is Sunday, the first day of the week and it is that day the Galatians were to set money aside collections.  Is this an official worship day set up by the church? You decide.  Does this verse apply to Christians today?  It most certainly does.
"I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, 11saying, "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea," (Revelation 1:10-11).
The New Bible Dictionary says regarding the term, ‘The Lord’s Day’ in Rev. 1:10: "This is the first extant occurrence in Christian literature of "te kuriake hemera."  The adjectival construction suggests that it was a formal designation of the church’s worship day. As such it certainly appears early in the 2nd century" (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, 1. 67).
In many churches today, the term "The Lord’s Day" is used to designate Sunday, the same as it was in the second century.
I hope this is evidence enough to show you that the Bible does not require that we worship on Saturday. If anything, we have the freedom (Rom. 14:1-12) to worship on the day that we believe we should. And, no one should judge us in regard to the day we keep. We are free in Christ and not under law, (Rom. 6:14).
Conclusion
The Seventh Day Adventists have every right to worship on the Sabbath and they should if they are convinced that is the right thing to do.  However, if any sect or group such as the SDA were to require a person to worship on the Sabbath as a sign of "true" Christianity or "true" redemption then that organization would be promoting a false gospel of salvation & would be cursed by God for it (Galatians 1:6-10). This then means the Seventh-day Adventists are dead wrong when they accuse true Christians of having the "mark of the beast" for worshipping on Sunday & thus they have brought themselves under the divine curse "if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed" by adding Sabbath keeping as a condition of obtaining eternal salvation.  According to Rom. 14:1-12, true Christians are free in this matter & thus are not under bondage to Old Testament Sabbath keeping.
Additionally, Sunday is the day that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead.  The Jewish people who had rejected Jesus continued to worship on Saturday, the Sabbath.  But it was the Christians who celebrated Jesus' resurrection and this was most probably the driving force to gather on the first day of the week.
The Law of God promises blessings & curses (read Leviticus 26:3-13 for blessings & read Leviticus 26:14-39 for cursing). During these New Testament times the Paul said the Ten Commandments, etc. were a ministry of death & condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:3,7-9). Why? The Law of God shows sinners that they are not able to keep the whole law of God & are therefore condemned to eternal doom. In fact just committing one sin against God means the sentence of eternal perdition (James 2:10, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."). Thus the Law of God is a curse to the sinner but a blessing to the sinner who puts his trust & faith in Jesus Christ who kept the Law of God perfectly for those who believe on His name (John 3:18). The Law of God reflects the holiness & righteousness of God & therefore is a tremendous blessing to repentant sinners who strive to please God not to get saved by good works but because they have already been saved by the sovereign grace & love of God (Ephesians 2:8-10, 3:16-21; John 3:3-8, Romans 8:1-17, Titus 3:5, 1 Corinthians 2:10-16, 3:16; Romans 5:4-5, Galatians 2:16, 4:6; see our video "KEEPING THE OLD TESTAMENT LAWS & COMMANDMENTS CANNOT EARN HEAVEN OR SALVATION WITH GOD!" at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIh3T31ujuU&index=14&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283). Thus the Man of God reflects on the Law of God all the days of his life (Psalm 1, Psalm 119).
What is legalism?
In Christianity, legalism is the excessive and improper use of the law (10 commandments, holiness laws, etc.).  This legalism can take different forms.  The first is where a person attempts to keep the Law in order to attain salvation.  The second is where a person keeps the law in order to maintain his salvation.  The third is when a Christian judges other Christians for not keeping certain codes of conduct that he thinks need to be observed.  Let’s examine each one more closely.
The first kind of legalism is where the law of God is kept in order to attain salvation.  This is a heresy, a completely false doctrine.  We are not able to attain salvation by our keeping the law.  Rom. 3:28, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.  Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”  Gal. 2:21, “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”  It is simply not possible to keep the Law enough to be saved.  Therefore, to try and gain salvation through one’s efforts is a false teaching.  It is so bad that those who hold to it cannot be Christians since it would deny salvation by grace through faith.
The second kind of legalism is where a person tries to keep or maintain his salvation by keeping the law.  This is also a false doctrine.  We receive our salvation by faith (Eph. 2:8-9), not by our ability to be good because no one does good (Rom. 3:10-12).  As Rom. 3:28, 4:5, and Gal. 2:21 clearly show, we are justified by faith, not by faith and works.  Furthermore, there are strict warnings about attempting to keep the law in order to maintain salvation:  Gal. 3:10, “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”  And James 2:10, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.”  So, if a person is seeking to be either saved by his works (Law) or maintain his salvation by his works (Law), then he is under obligation to keep all of it, and if he does not then he is guilty before God.  Furthermore, consider Jesus’ words in Matt. 7:22-23, “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’”  Jesus condemns them because they were appealing to their salvation based on their faith and doing good.  So it should be obvious that we do not keep our salvation by our efforts.
The last kind of legalism, where a Christian keeps certain laws and regards other Christians who do not keep his level of holiness with contempt, is a frequent problem in the church.  Now, we want to make it clear that all Christians are to abstain from fornication, adultery, pornography, lying, stealing, etc.  Christians do have a right to judge the spirituality of other Christians in these areas where the Bible clearly speaks.  But, in the debatable areas we need to be more careful, and this is where legalism is more difficult to define.  Rom. 14:1-12 says that we are not to judge our brothers on debatable issues.  One person may eat certain kinds of foods where another would not.  One person might worship on a particular day where another might not.  We are told to let each person be convinced in his own mind (Rom. 14:5).  As long as our freedom does not violate the Scriptures, then everything should be acceptable in the sight of the Lord. 2 Timothy 2:15

See our playlist "Dealing with UFOs, Ghosts, Magic, Spiritual Warfare, Satan" with 18 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2CF1129D311BF9A6. The background of the Jehovah's Witnesses' Watchtower Society is built on the occult (relating to magical powers, esoteric activities, mysticism, etc.). Hear "Occult History of Jehovah's Witnesses" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1120515352 by former JW Lorri MacGregor (she was a guest on our radio show at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGNnOs3UP1I&list=PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40&index=18). Hear her other lectures: "Ex-Jehovah's Witness speaks out" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12250542425, "What Mormons Wont tell you at the door" at  http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12100515958 & "Counterfeit Christians" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=120516534. 2 Timothy 4:2-5, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."

See our website www.MuslimHope.com (playlist "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1C7F68B548009FDD) & another excellent site www.AnsweringMuslims.com (see their videos "Muhammad and Aisha (His Pre Puberty Six Year Old Wife)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psznHJCFZ9c, "Why Did Muhammad Wear Women's Clothing?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-50CraaniT0, "David Wood: Five Reasons the Quran Is Not the Word of God" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvlzlBov9zc, "Muhammad Explains the Universe (Islam and Science, Part One)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7I0IAl88jg, "Muhammad Explains Human Reproduction (Islam and Science, Part Two)" at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7JuBivkNSA, "The Quran, the Bible, and the Islamic Dilemma" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNAS0aaViM4 & many others at https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics). See our video "MOHAMMAD'S THREE GODDESSES OF ALLAH: ISLAM'S "SATANIC VERSES" (QUR'AN 53:19-20)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAaYKH7NbNI&index=1&list=PL1C7F68B548009FDD. Muhammed's "Satanic Verses." Muslims often are very quick to tell others that God allowed the Bible to be corrupted. What they are implying is that the Qur'an today is the reliable word of God while the Bible is not. The Bible has many minor textual variants, but the evidence of any doctrinal changes in negligible. The Qur'an has more evidence of corruption in light of Ubai, abrogated verses, 'Uthman, and other Qur'anic problems. However, the most drastic Qur'anic doctrinal variation, brought up by Muslims themselves, is "the daughters of Allah". The Christian web site http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/sverses.htm says, "One of the most embarrassing events in Muhammad's life occurred when Satan put his words in Muhammad's mouth. Muhammad spoke Satan's words as the word of God. This event is documented by several early Muslim scholars and referenced in the Hadith and Qur'an." Embarrassed Muslims later changed the Quranic verses to something else.
This topic is one of the most controversial in Islam. Satan caused Muhammad to recite his words as God's words."
What Did the Qur'an Originally Say?
The Star Sura (Sura 53) verses 19-20 say, "Have ye seen Lat, and 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat?"
Allah was prominent in Pre-Islamic Arabia, as a god with three daughters: al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat. (Note that al- means "the".)
The four early biographers of Mohammed wrote that they verses originally were followed by:
"These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries) Whose intercession is to be hoped for."
Interpretation: Allah's daughters were considered heavenly beings of intercessors. High altitude Numidian cranes were a metaphor for them. An alternate reading for "is to be hoped for" (turtaja) is "is accepted with approval" (turtada). (From Alfred Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq's The Life of Mohammed p.166.
Al-Wahidi/Wakidi (died 207/823 A.D.) wrote Asbab al-Nozul. "On a certain day, the chief men of Mecca, assembled in a group beside the Kaaba, discussed as was their wont the affairs of the city; when Mahomet appeared and, seating himself by them in a friendly manner, began to recite in their hearing the 53 Sura…. 'And see ye not Lat and Ozza, and Manat the third besides?' When he had reached this verse, the devil suggested an expression of the thoughts which for many a day had possessed his soul; and put in to his mouth words of reconciliation and compromise, the revelation of which he had been longing for from God, namely; 'These are the exalted Females, and verily their intercession is to be hoped for.' The Coreish were surprised and delighted with this acknowledgement of their deities; and as Mahomet wound up the Sura with the closing words 'Wherefore bow down before God, and serve him' the whole assembly prostrated themselves with one accord on the ground and worshipped. … In the evening Gabriel visited him; and the prophet recited the Sura unto him. And Gabriel said, 'What is this that thou has done? Thou has repeated before the people words that I never gave unto thee'. So Mahomet grieved sore, …"
Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (died 923 A.D.) was a Shafi'ite Sunni who wrote a 38-volume Islamic History of the world until 915 A.D. He has been titled "the sheikh of commentators". He writes in volume 6 p.108-110, "When the messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe…. And when he came to the words: 'Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?' Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words: 'These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval [alternately: to be desired or hoped for].' When the Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced and were happy and delighted at the way in which he spoke of their gods, and they listened to him, while the Muslims, having complete trust in their prophet in respect of the message which he brought from god, did not suspect him of error, illusion, or mistake. … Then [later] Gabriel came to the Messenger of God and said, 'Mohammed, what have you done? You have recited to the people that which I did not bring to you from God, …'"
Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Matthew 7:15

Seventh-day Adventism was invented about the same time as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians & others. See our video "RISE OF THE CULTS: WHERE DID ALL THESE STRANGE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS SECTS COME FROM?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfVTXbFrvh8&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283&index=15. See our latest video on the Jehovah's Witnesses called "Who's Knocking? #2: Jehovah's Witnesses Hidden History, Spiritism, Racism, Doctrines of Demons" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LFhzOb-_g&list=UUQ_EDvOtDAAWfCvGUhd6y3A. Although this video is from a lecture I gave to one of my apologetic classes back in the 1990s on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses my video man & myself spent weeks in editing this particular video (we usually edit once a week for 4 to 5 hours). I decided to put the time & effort into placing primary Jehovah's Witness source material into this video which then made it into a very tedious project. Since I own many Jehovah's Witness books that are over 100 years old & are little known I thought it would be useful for viewers to see with their own eyes this material. With knowledge of these original Watchtower publications true Christians can then use this information as an effective tool in witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses who have been deceived by this false prophet organization (I even included some of the court documents from Watchtower founder Charles Taze Russell's divorce case with his wife Maria over his affair with an underage female). Over the past 33 years I have been able, by God's grace, to lead many people & families out of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. This has been done not so much by arguing Bible verses with them (playing "Bible ping pong") but by knowing their history (which they cannot change). Once you can crack their faith in the Watchtower with their own history then they are much more open to discussing what the Bible actually says rather than what the Watchtower tells them the Bible says. Be prepared to meet the Jehovah's Witnesses who come knocking at your door. 1 Peter 3:15, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

Please check out our latest video on Jehovah's Witnesses called "Who's Knocking? #2: Jehovah's Witnesses Hidden History, Spiritism, Racism, Doctrines of Demons" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LFhzOb-_g&list=UUQ_EDvOtDAAWfCvGUhd6y3A. The "flickering" flashlight of the so-called "new light" of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Watchtower Society emphasizes that they are a progressive organization, blessed with spiritual insights from God. They call these insights "new truths." Members are encouraged to keep abreast of "present truth" and to adjust their thinking when "old truth" changes. They are then encouraged to embrace "new light" or "new truths," called "enhanced understanding," "progressive understanding," "progressive truth" or "progressive knowledge." Whichever way you slice it, members are expected to believe the new truth and teach it, even if it contradicts former truth or is a reversal to a previously held viewpoint (very similar to the Muslim doctrine of abrogation in Islam – see "The Quran and the Problem of Abrogation" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkRCpQ8LA4Y). The Society likens their changes in viewpoint to a boat that tacks, moving side-to-side but always moving forward. Most of us have traveled in a boat that, pushed about by the waves, didn't always move forward in a straight line. But tossed about or not, if the boat had something to propel it, we eventually got to where we were going. Using the Society's own tacking rationale, let's see if their teachings about the men of Sodom have truly moved forward progressively, helping members to an enhanced understanding. As you read the quoted statements below, ask yourself which is the actual scenario: tacking or reversal to a previously held viewpoint?

Sodomites Will-Will Not be Resurrected
Watchtower 7/1879 p. 8 “the Sodomites will be resurrected.”
Watchtower 6/1/1952 p.338 “The men of Sodom will not be resurrected.”

So, years (approximately 73) pass and they change their viewpoint–but  this is fine because in this case, it truly could be said to be a progressive understanding, because it has changed. Except that …

Watchtower 8/1/1965 p. 479 “The men of Sodom will be resurrected.”
Hmm … no side-to-side tacking here but a complete return to a viewpoint held 85-86 years earlier. so, at this juncture, it cannot be said to be progressive, rather regressive. But, did they finally have it right?

Watchtower 6/1/1988 p.31 “men of Sodom will not be resurrected.”
Twenty-three years pass and … nope. Two complete reversals spanning over 100 years, and they still haven't gained or presented  any additional insights to members.

"Insight" publication Vol. 2, 1988 p. 985 “men of Sodom will be resurrected.”
"Revelation Book," 1988 p. 273 “men of Sodom will not be resurrected.”

You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (Book published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society in 1982)
The men of Sodom WILL be resurrected.
You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (Secondary Edition, published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society in 1989)
The men of Sodom WILL NOT be resurrected.

Wow! Lightening-fast reversals but no progressive "the light is getting brighter" truth, merely a replay of "will, will not."

Recycled Information is Not Progressive Truth
When the Society claims that a teaching that reverts to a previous viewpoint is in actuality "new light" or a "new spiritual truth," this is incorrect. While it may be "new" to a new generation of members, it is old, recycled information. Returning to a previous point of view is not the same thing as adopting a truly new understanding, nor does this indicate that God gave any type of progressive understanding to the Governing Body regarding the men of Sodom. If the Governing Body came up with a completely different understanding, one that didn't mirror previous teachings, this could be said to be an actual new understanding and could reasonably be said to be progressive (even if not necessarily from God).

True Humility: Not Passing Off Human Teachings as God's Truths
When old ideas are readopted, it would be more accurate to dub these, "a changed understanding."
Far better still, religious organizations should refrain from stating that something comes from God and from presenting the information as "God's truth." A truly humble approach would be to say that this is a present understanding but that it is merely an understanding and not new light flashing forth from the Most High.
For more information on the Watchtower see our playlist ""Dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Society" with 22 videos & 24 hours of teaching material at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40.

The ten commandments were given only to the nation of Israel & not to anyone else (Gentiles). The New Testament only reaffirms nine out of the ten commandments under the terms of the New Covenant. Sabbath keeping as found in the ten commandments is a ceremonial law associated only with Old Testament Israelites & is not a moral law that must be followed by Gentiles. The Old Testament Scriptures always state that the covenant written on the Tablets of Stone was made only with Israel at Sinai. Look at the first time the words "Ten Commandments" were used in the Bible. This same text states that the Ten Commandments, as the covenant document, was given only to the nation of Israel:
And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and WITH ISRAEL. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. Ex 34:27,28
When Moses refreshed Israel's mind concerning their covenant relationship with God, he specifically says that the covenant (Ten Commandments) was given at Horeb. This is clear in the following text:
The Lord our God made a covenant [Remember the covenant is the Ten Commandments or Tablets of Stone] with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all of us alive here today. Deut. 5:2,3
Moses insists that the covenant was "not made with our fathers," meaning the patriarchs, 11 but with the people that came out of Egypt. He then repeats the words of the covenant, or Ten Commandments, that were written on the Tablets of Stone.
The Prophets saw the coming of a New Covenant and spoke of it in glowing terms. Whenever they contrasted the Old Covenant with the New Covenant, they always state when and with whom the Old Covenant was made. Notice this in a classic passage in Jeremiah:
Behold days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel…, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hands to bring them out of the land of Egypt…" Jer. 31:31.32.
Notice the following things clearly set forth in this passage:
1.There was going a New Covenant. "I will make a new covenant."
2.The New Covenant was going to be different in nature from the Old Covenant. "Not like the covenant I made with their fathers"
3.The Old Covenant being replaced was made at Sinai and made only with Israel. "Made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt"
How is it possible to read these words in Jeremiah and say, "God was not actually promising to make a new and different covenant with Israel. He was really promising a new administration of the same covenant they were already under?" It seems to us that such statements are literally contradicting what Jeremiah said. The rest of the Bible always says the same thing that Jeremiah said when it speaks on this subject. The following passage from I Kings appears to be going out of its way to affirm the facts we are setting forth:
There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, WHEN the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, WHEN they came out of the land of Egypt. I Kings 8:9
The phrases "Tables of Stone," "Moses at Horeb," "made a covenant" and "children of Israel," in this text are the same key ingredients that we always find connected with the Ten Commandments. This passage of Scripture uses the word "when" two times. We could put a period after "children of Israel" and not lose the thought or argument. The last phrase in the sentence "When they came out of the land of Egypt" is almost redundant. The Holy Spirit must have wanted to impress this point on our minds.
The NT Scriptures always connect the Old Covenant with Israel.
Heb 8:6-9 is the Apostolic interpretation of Jer 31:31,32. The author of Hebrews clearly states: (1) when the Old Covenant was made; (2) with whom the Old Covenant was made; (3) the fact the New Covenant would be different than the Old Covenant. The passage is clear:
………. the time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel ………. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out Egypt………. Heb 8:7,8
It is not possible to make this verse promise a new administration of the same covenant. Nor is it possible relate this covenant back to Adam in the garden. Neither the words in prophecy of Jer 31:33 nor the Apostolic interpretation in Heb 8:7,8 will allow such an idea.
"Having the law" as a covenant and the Gospel as a promise as opposed to "not having the law" and being without covenant or hope was the great difference between the nation of Israel and the Gentiles (Eph 2:11-21).
The following text is a key passage on this particular point:
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness….. Rom 2:14.
First of all, the word "law" in this passage clearly refers to the Tablets of Stone. It cannot refer to "a sense of moral duty" since all men have that by virtue of being God's image bearers. Paul is talking about a law that all men definitely do not have. If all men have "the law" in the sense that Paul is using the word in this passage, his argument does not make sense. He is contradicting himself in the same breath. Paul's whole point in the context of this passage is to show that the Jews are more guilty than the Gentiles. The basis of his proof is that the Gentiles "without the law" live better lives than the Jews do "with the law." The Jews alone have the special gift of the Law. And the specific law that he is talking about is the law written on the Tablets of Stone as a covenant.
Rom 2:14 is not talking about a so called "ceremonial law." Whatever the "law" is in this passage, it convicts the conscience of sin. Conscience, by nature and without special revelation, cannot convict men of disobedience to "ceremonial" laws. One of the many proofs that the Sabbath is not a "moral law" is the fact that we have never discovered a single instance of anyone knowing, by nature, the Sabbath law. This particular law must always be taught as special revelation just as it was to Israel at Sinai. 12 Gentiles intuitively knew that adultery was wrong but they know that the seventh day is to be kept holy.
Most people misquote this passage of Scripture. Paul does not say, "The law" is written in the Gentile's heart. He says that certain behavior proves that there is a conviction of right and wrong in all men. This fact shows that conscience is alive and well even in the Gentiles. In fact, it is more alive and well in them than it is in the Jew. This power of conscience "shows the work of the law written in their hearts." The "work" of the law is to accuse or excuse according to the standard given to it. It condemns all violations of known wrong and rewards obedience to what is known to be right. All men have a conscience and they all experience, to a greater or lesser degree, conviction they have done wrong.
The Gentiles did not have "the law" but they did have the "work of the law" in their hearts. The law can only "work" true repentance that leads to faith if there is (1) a covenant with clear terms and (2) the individual has a knowledge of those terms. In giving Israel the law as a covenant, God enlightened the mind and sharpened the conscience. He sandwiched conscience under the Old Covenant and its threat of judgment. This caused a very painful death to all hope of eternal life in those who truly experienced the end for which the law covenant was given, namely, genuine "conviction of guilt." The same law actually "blinded" the rest of the Jews and made them worse off spiritually than the Gentiles.
We say again, it was most gracious of God to kill Israel's hope in their own efforts. However, it took a covenant of pure law with the power of life and death to do the job. There was not an ounce of grace in the Tablets of Stone but it was most of God to give them to Israel as a covenant that could prepare the heart to receive grace!
Regardless of whether the reader agrees or disagree with what has just been said, one thing is certain. We cannot change a passage that emphatically states that Israel had a specific law that the Gentiles did not have into a text that says "all men have the same law." This is to destroy the text. Paul can only be referring to the Tables of Stone as a covenant.
It both amazes and amuses us to watch people waver back and forth when they cannot fit clear passages of Scripture into their theological system. They usually want to "eat their cake and have it too." If they are discussing the "unchanging moral law," they will insist that "the moral law (Ten Commandments) is written on ever man's heart." However, if they are discussing the canon of conduct for believer's today, these same people will insist that in regeneration "the moral law" (Ten Commandments) is written on the heart" by the Holy Spirit. In both cases it is said to be the same law that Scriptures clearly state was given only to the nation of Israel at Sinai on the Tablets of Stone.
Something seems to be a bit out of focus when all of this is put together. (1) If the first point is true, and the same law that was given to Israel at Sinai (the Ten Commandments) is indeed written on every man's heart, it is impossible to say the Gentiles are "without the law." They cannot be "without" the very law that is written "in" them. (2) If the second point, affirming that the same law written in the heathen, and given to Israel at Sinai, is also written on the heart of believer in regeneration, is true, there appears to be a contradiction. What need is there to write something on the heart that is already there? (3) If, in regeneration, the Holy Spirit writes the Ten Commandments on the heart of every believer, what then is the necessity of preaching those commandments to the Christian?
We must distinguish between the Ten Commandments as the terms of a legal covenant and the duties commanded by the individual commandments. The moment we do this a lot of confusion disappears and some difficult passages of Scripture become clear and simple. We will illustrate this point with one passage of Scripture. This passage in its context is pivotal to any correct understanding of the change of covenants:
But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. Heb 8:6-13
We have already noted the three distinct contrasts in verse 6. We saw the following: (1) Christ has a better ministry than Aaron; (2) because Christ's ministry is based on a new and better covenant; (3) the covenant Christ administers is superior to the covenant under which Aaron ministered because it is based on better promises.
Heb 8:7-9 settles any discussion as to either when (at Sinai) or with whom (Israel only) the Old Covenant was made. Heb 8:11 shows that everyone, without a single exception, in the New Covenant community, or Church, "know the Lord." In other words, the text proves that the Church born under the New Covenant has a totally regenerate membership. We will now look at verse 10:
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. HEB 8:10
The text emphasizes several important things. First, God promises to make a new covenant, and this covenant will be with the "house of Israel." We will not digress from the point under discussion except to say that the "house of Israel" in Heb 8-10 must be the Church. The writer is not talking about the future but the present. This covenant cannot be pushed into a future millennium. Hebrews is talking about the priestly ministry of Christ over the Church. However, that is not our subject in this book.
The second major thing in the text is God's promise to put his laws in the mind and write them on the hearts of His New Covenant people. Now here is the question: "What is the difference, if any, between the "covenant" and the word "laws" in this passage?" Exactly what is God promising to do in this verse? Exactly what is the "New Covenant" He is making and precisely what "laws" is He going to write on the heart?
We should carefully note that God did not say, "In that day I will give a new administration of the same covenant that I gave Israel. I will write the old law of Sinai into the new heart of the Christian." That is how some theologians read this passage. Likewise, the text does not say, "I will make a New Covenant that destroys all of the Ten Commandments and allows a believer to do as he pleases." That is how some liberals view the text. No, the text, and its context, is talking about both a new and better covenant than the old covenant at Sinai and the new experience of the law being written on the heart by the indwelling Spirit.
The clear answers to the two questions that we asked lies in understanding the three comparisons made in verse 6. Why did the Old Covenant fail and thereby need to be replaced by a new and better covenant? The answer is that it could not secure the necessary obedience to its terms. It could not write on the heart the desire to do the things that were written on the Tablets of the Covenants. It could write on stone but not on flesh (II Cor 3). By nature all men hate God's authority (Rom 8:7) and even the mighty Law of God cannot change that rebellion into a sincere desire to obey. The Old Covenant failed to bring sinners into God's presence because it could not change the sinner's heart. It could not conquer sin in the flesh nor it could cleanse the conscience from the guilt of sin.
Now read carefully! The greater glory of the New Covenant is not that the standards or laws have been either lowered or done away. It is not that the moral duties demanded on the Tables of Stone are no longer binding on a Christian. No, No, that is to miss the whole point. The greater glory of the New Covenant is that no obedience at all is required as the terms of being saved simply because the very terms of the Tablets of the Covenant have been finally and fully met in the Person and work of Surety, the Lord Jesus Christ. The glory of the New Covenant is in the words, "IT IS FINISHED." Paul states the glory of the New Covenant in the classic passage in Rom 4:5. Here is a paraphrase of that text:
However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Rom 4:5 This is the "rest" that weary souls enter into when they come under the yoke of Christ and are liberated from the yoke of the covenant given to Moses on Sinai. We doubt not that our Lord Jesus had this very contrast in mind when He gave that great gospel invitation in Matthew 11:
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matt 11:28-30.
Every thing in that passage is a contrast with Moses and old law covenant. The yoke of the covenant written on the Tables of Stone was a burden impossible to bear. The yoke written in the blood of Calvary is a privilege and delight to bear. The New Covenant is nothing less than Christ Himself and His finished work. When God said, "I will make a new covenant," He was saying, "I will give you Christ to be your covenant Keeper. He will both keep the law and die under its curse." The message has now become "It is finished" instead of "Do or Die." The New Covenant is grace and not works.
What then are the "laws" spoken of in Heb 8:10? Exactly what "laws" does the Holy Spirit write on the heart of a New Covenant believer? These laws, as far as their content, are basically the very same moral laws that were written on the tables of stone. Heb 8:10 is not talking about two different "sets" of laws that totally contradict each other as if there were two "kinds of morality." The morality of the New Covenant does not destroy the true morality demanded in the laws of the Old Covenant. It takes that morality to a higher level. It is true that Christ adds laws that were impossible for Moses to ever give but that does not mean Christ contradicts Moses. 13 Hebrews is talking about two different motivations that grow out of two different kinds of covenants." II Cor 3 is the Holy Spirit's commentary on Heb 8:10. Neither of these passages are teaching that God "tattoos" the exact words of the Decalogue on our hearts. Both passages are talking about the powerful effect of regeneration that results in a totally new and different attitude toward God. These two passages are picturing the removal of the stony heart that hated the Tablets of Stones and all they represented. It is describing the effect of regeneration in replacing the stony heart with a heart of flesh. The new heart of flesh loves all of God's revealed laws, not just a one small code, simply because it loves the new Lawgiver Who teaches us those laws.
The difference is not in the specific duties demanded but the difference between law and grace as covenants. It is the difference, in some cases, of the identical duties being enforced from without by fear and force, in the case of the Old Covenant, and being constrained by love from within a heart rejoicing in a covenant of grace. These two passages are talking about the difference between the conscience being under the old Pedagogue, the Tables of Stone, and being under the new Pedagogue, the indwelling Holy Spirit.

11. The writer of Hebrews, as well as the prophecy in Jer 31:33, establish beyond question that the "fathers" referred to in this passage are the patriarchs. To make the statement refer to the immediate fathers of the people to whom Moses is speaking would involve a contradiction. It was specifically to these very "fathers" that God gave the covenant at Sinai.
12. John Bunyan wrote an excellent article proving the Seventh Day Sabbath could not possibly be a so called "Creation Ordinance." To our knowledge, no one has attempted to answer his arguments. See, "Questions about the Nature and Perpetuity of the Seventh-Day Sabbath," by John Bunyan, The Works of John Bunyan, Vol. II, pp 359-387, Baker Book House.
13. We have worked this out in a book entitled But I Say Unto You. This book shows that Christ supercedes and replaces Moses as the New Lawgiver. Christ changes some of the laws of Moses; raises some others to a higher level; discards some others altogether; and adds some laws that are totally new. However, this is not contradicting Moses as he were wrong.  
Why do we worship on Sunday instead of Saturday?
In the Old Testament, God stated,
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you," (Exodus 20:8-10, NASB).
It was the custom of the Jews to come together on the Sabbath, which is Saturday, cease work, and worship God. Jesus went to the synagogue on Saturday to teach (Matt. 12:9, John 18:20) as did the apostle Paul (Acts 17:2; 18:4). So, if in the Old Testament we are commanded to keep the Sabbath and in the New Testament we see Jews, Jesus, and the apostles doing the same thing, then why do we worship on Sunday?
First of all, of the 10 commandments listed in Exodus 20:1-17, only 9 of them were reinstituted in the New Testament: five in Matt. 19:18, murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and honor parents; in Rom. 13:9, coveting; worshiping God properly covers the first three commandments. The one that was not reaffirmed was the one about the Sabbath. Instead, Jesus said that He is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8).
Upon the completion of Creation, God rested on the seventh day. However, since God is all-powerful, He doesn’t get tired. He doesn’t need to take a break and rest. So, why did/does it say that He rested? The reason is simple: Mark 2:27 says, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." In other words, God established the Sabbath as a rest for His people–not because He needed a break but because we are mortal and need a time of rest–a time to focus on God. In this, our spirits and bodies are both renewed.
The Old Testament system of Law required keeping the Sabbath as part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God’s requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins. The Sabbath was part of the Law in that sense. In order to "remain" in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath. If it was not kept, then the person was in sin and would often be punished (Ezekiel 18:4; Rom. 6:23; Deut. 13:1-9; Num. 35:31; Lev. 20:2, etc.).
But with Jesus’ atonement, we are no longer required to keep the Law. We are not under Law but grace (Rom. 6:14-15). The Sabbath is fulfilled in Jesus. He is our rest. We are not under obligation, by Law, to keep it; and this goes for the Sabbath as well. It is not a requirement that we keep the Sabbath. If it were, then we would still be under the Law; but we are not.
Evidence of the Change of Days can be Seen in the NT
The New Testament has ample evidence that the seventh day Sabbath is no longer a requirement.
Rom. 14:5-6, "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God."
The entire section of Rom. 14:1-12 is worth careful study. Nevertheless, the instructions here are that individuals must be convinced in their own minds about which day they observe for the Lord. If the seventh day Sabbath were a requirement, then the choice would not be man's but God’s.
Col. 2:16-17, "Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day–17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."
Notice here that time sequence mentioned. A festival is yearly. A new moon is monthly. A Sabbath is weekly. No one is to judge regarding this. The Sabbath is defined as a shadow; the reality is Jesus. Jesus is our Sabbath.
Acts 20:7, "And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight."
The first day of the week is Sunday, and this is the day the people gathered. This passage can easily be seen as the church meeting on Sunday. It has two important church functions within it: breaking bread (communion) and a message (preaching). Additionally, Luke did not use the Jewish system of counting days: sundown to sundown. He used the Roman system: midnight to midnight. This is a subtle point that shows the Jewish Sabbath system was not the one utilized by Luke.
1 Cor. 16:1-2, "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2 On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come."
Notice here that Paul is directing the churches to meet on the first day of each week and put money aside. It would seem that this is tithing. So, the instructed time for the church to meet is Sunday. Is this an official worship day set up by the church? You decide.
Rev. 1:10-11, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, 11saying, "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."
The New Bible Dictionary says regarding the term, ‘The Lord’s Day’ in Revelation 1:10: "This is the first extant occurrence in Christian literature of τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ, "ta kuriaka hamera." The adjectival construction suggests that it was a formal designation of the church’s worship day. As such, it certainly appears early in the 2nd century (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, 1. 67).
In many churches today, the term "The Lord’s Day" is used to designate Sunday–the same as it was in the second century.
I hope this is evidence enough to show you that the Bible does not require that we worship on Saturday. If anything, we have the freedom (Rom. 14:1-12) to worship on the day that we believe we should. And, no one should judge us regarding the day we keep. We are free in Christ and not under law (Rom. 6:14). See our videos "Christ Has Fulfilled & Replaced the Law of Moses With Higher Laws of the New Covenant, Hebrews 8:6-13" at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZ2Cn8TLzE&list=UUQ_EDvOtDAAWfCvGUhd6y3A, "Sabbath Keeping Is Not Required For New Testament Christians: Seventh-Day Adventists Beware" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEFt4TOR6E8&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283&index=6 & "Is Sabbath Keeping Essential to Be a Real Christian? Former SDA Pastor Answers This Question" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0L3rSSL_H8&list=PL5316CC6F66F24283&index=2. 2 Timothy 2:15 

Are Christians still under the Law of Moses or have the terms of the New Covenant as found in the New Testament changed Old Covenant requirements that were originally designated for the Old Testament Israelites (Hebrews 7:12, 8:6-13, 10:9)?  No, true Christians are not under the Law of Moses but under Grace (this does not mean antinomianism however, see our video "Apostate Grace Evangelical Society (GES) Teaches Phony Grace & the Easy Believism of Another Gospel" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMMvdPtyYvM&list=UUQ_EDvOtDAAWfCvGUhd6y3A). When you are under New Covenant grace true Christians still try to keep the moral laws of God because they love God & His righteousness. They are not trying to keep those moral laws of God in order to accomplish their salvation with God but because they have already received salvation by God's grace through being "born again" supernaturally by the Holy Spirit – John 3:3-8, Romans 8:1-17, 1 Corinthians 2:10-16, Ephesians 4:30, John 6:37, 39, 44, 63, 65 – see our video, "Sabbath Keeping Is Not Required For New Testament Christians: Seventh-Day Adventists Beware" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEFt4TOR6E8). Too many so-called legalistic & heretical "Christians" think they have to work to keep the law in order to either earn their salvation or try hard to keep from losing it (see our videos "True Christians Cannot Lose Their Salvation But Fake & Deluded "Christians" Never Had It At All" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meUD2vCv3oo & "DEBATE: ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED (CALVINISM) OR DOING ENOUGH WORKS TO KEEP SALVATION (PELAGIANISM)?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7e1aWfrQHg). To be under the Law means that a person is under the power and authority of the Law to judge and condemn anyone who breaks the Law.  Take a look at these verses that talk about being under the Law.
Rom. 2:12, "For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law," (ἐν νόμῳ, en nomo, literally 'in law').
Gal. 3:23, "But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally 'under law').
Gal. 4:5, "in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally 'under law').
As you can see, to be under the Law means you will be judged by the Law.  In the Old Testament Law found in Deuteronomy 27:26 it says, "‘Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’"  So, to be under the Law means you have to keep it all.  In Galatians 3:10 Paul said, "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.'”  That is what it means to be under the Law.
But, as I said above, Christians are not under the Law.  In other words, Christians are not obligated to keep the Law so as to be saved from God's righteous judgment, so they don't go to hell.
Rom. 6:14, "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace."
Gal. 5:18, "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law."
Christians are freed from having to please God and be saved by keeping the Law of God.  We are not under the Law.  We are not under its authority.  It has no power over us.
Why are Christians not under the Law? 
Christians are not under the Law because they have died to the Law.  They have died with Christ, and those who have died are not bound by the Law.
"for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there violation." (Rom. 4:15).
"knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin;" (Rom. 6:6).
"Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him," (Rom. 6:8).
"Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God." (Rom. 7:4).
"But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." (Rom. 7:6).
So, Christians have died with Christ.  They are identified with Christ so closely that it can be said that when Christ died, they died with him.  Since Christians have died with him, they are no longer under the Law because he who has died is freed from the Law (Rom. 7:6).  That is why Christians are not obligated to keep the Law of God in order to be saved from God's righteous judgment.  Christians are saved from that requirement and penalty. 

Does Romans 2:13 mean that we are justified before God by keeping the Law?
"For there is no partiality with God. 12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.” (Romans 2:11-16).
Verse 13 is often used by people (Roman Catholics, Mormons, etc.,) to say that we must keep the Law (along with faith in Jesus) to be saved, but this isn’t so.  Paul was talking to the Jews (Romans 2:17) about their judging of the Gentiles, and then points them to their own Law (standard of judgment) and hypocrisy and tells them that the doers of the Law are just before God (v. 13).
The standard they wanted to keep was the Law.  Paul was telling them that they could be justified before God by keeping it.  So, keep the Law.  Keep all of it, but if you don’t, you’re in trouble.  It is the doers of the Law who are justified before God. He tells them that the Gentiles who didn't have the Law according to the knowledge of the Jews were instinctively keeping the Law (v. 14) and will be judged accordingly.  How much more the Jews?
Paul was showing the self-righteous Jews who judged the Gentiles that they were not able to keep a perfect standard.  They were hypocrites.  This is why Paul tells us in the very next chapter, in Romans 3:28, that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law–which includes the Law of loving God (Deut. 6:5), and loving your neighbor (Lev. 19:18).  No one is able to keep the Law.  If you fail even once, then you become guilty of it all.
James 2:10, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.”
Gal. 3:10, “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”
The Jews (and anyone else) can be justified before God by keeping the Law, but he or she has to be perfect.  A person can’t fail even once–ever. But since all fail, that is why we have the gospel that tells us Jesus kept the Law perfectly (1 Pet. 2:22), and that we can be justified before God by faith in Him (Romans 4:3, 5; 5:1; John 1:12; 3:16).
See our video "KEEPING THE OLD TESTAMENT LAWS & COMMANDMENTS CANNOT EARN HEAVEN OR SALVATION WITH GOD!" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIh3T31ujuU.

Galatians 2:16, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Philippians 3:2-3, 9, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:"

36 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Prelude to Infinity War
Articles
100
Marvel Cinematic Universe: Prelude to Infinity War

Before creation itself, there existed six singularities of immense power. When the universe exploded into being, their remnants were forged into concentrated ingots possibly by the Cosmic Entities Infinity, Entropy, Eternity and Death. Over time, the infinity stones representing Space, Mind, Reality, Power, Soul and Time became scattered across the …

God’s Word to the World – Series 7 – Part 6
Articles
4
God’s Word to the World – Series 7 – Part 6

>>ANNOUNCER: TODAY ON THE JOHN ANKERBERG SHOW AS WE APPROACH THE NEW YEAR’S CELEBRATION, MANY IN OUR WORLD WILL NOT BE CELEBRATING. THE UNITED NATIONS SAYS THAT THERE ARE NOW OVER 70 MILLION PEOPLE THAT HAVE FLED FROM THEIR COUNTRIES AND ARE LIVING IN REFUGEE CAMPS. AND TODAY WE ARE …