The Thomas Pages homepage
Christian Fallacies
AND SO TO PASTORS –  " know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."   (James 3:1).            
This error
arose largely from not taking the inspiration of Holy Scripture seriously enough and also a lack of knowledge of the real historical situation within which the description in Job was originally given. The statement given in Job chapter Forty-One is God challenging Job to explain what he knows in his own circumstance at that time, to show to Job his own incapacity to understand the reason for the tragedy that he had experienced by God's permission.
in his terrible grief and brokenness, had begged God for an explanation of why God had allowed the inexplicable injustice to happen to him and to his family. So, in response to Job, God shows Job that if he cannot explain to God what he already knows of, he will also not be able to understand the reason for God's decision to allow the terrible catastrophe of the killing of all his children and his financial ruin, that had happened to himself and to his family.
A key
to understanding
the Book of Job
Job's friends had come to show sympathy, but, in defending their view of God's perfect justice, they had insisted that there must be some hidden fault/sin in Job, and that therefore Job must have deserved what happened to him, so he should now confess.
The fire-breathing dragon tradition is reflected in cultures as far apart as China and on the flag of Wales below
from long before science
ever discovered evidence
of 'dinosaurs'.
lived in the land of Uz, what today is southern Jordan, before Abraham, and that area had a trade relationship with Egypt at that time. In Egypt, the trade in crocodile hunting for their skins was common practice, which Job would have known, and so the description of that being totally impossible concerning Leviathan (Job 41) was simply not true of the crocodile and so should not be interpreted as such for thos who believe in the inspiration of Holy Scripture.
Theologians and others are led astray by trying to fit the description into the world we know today, and into scientific theory.

Job 41:19,34

So, if one believes in the inspiration of Holy Scripture, the Leviathan is nothing less than a large fire-breathing dragon –
"Out of his mouth go flaming torches; sparks of fire leap forth . . .
 He sees everything that is high; he is king over all the sons of pride.
and from the Bible's description in only fits with what we would today would call a special kind of dinosaur.
This dragon image is used in other places in Holy Scripture to symbolize Satan, arising from his original temptation of Eve in Eden through the walking serpent at that time (Revelation 20:2) before its lost its legs from God's judgement as a sign to humanity. And also, prophetically to portray the future overthrow of Satan's influence among the nations (Isaiah 27:1,6) when Christ's Return re-institutes Israel as a nation, at that time through its national repentance when it sees Him (Zechariah 12:10).
The Bible says that the
Old Covenant (of Sinai)
ended when the New Covenant began in the Christ of God
(Hebrews 8:13)
 The Leviathan Lesson 
(not Ben Gurion's May 14,1948 declaration, for the modern Zionist State in Palestine
has no continuity, of any kind, with the Israel of the Hebrew and Christian Bible)

This error arose from confusing two Cushes, but the geographical reference to Cush in Genesis 2:13 can only apply today to the river drainage from the area of the Garden of Eden, an geographic area in south eastern Turkey today, which connects it to the main rivers of Iraq.

  This falsehood arose from a sloppy reading of Holy scripture. When the Scripture says in Romans 5:12 –
"just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin,
and so death spread to all men because all sinned
It is talking of human history.
This does not mean that animals did not age and die. It does not mean that vegetation did not die.
began in human history as a consequence of the first humans being expelled from the Garden of Eden so that they could not have access to the Tree of Life, which would have neutralised the natural effects of aging, because their distrust of God expressed in their disobedience negated their function to represent God to His creation, for which purpose they had been given dominion over all life forms. The Tree of Life was not for any other form of life, for it was only humanity that was made in God's image to represent Him, and they therefore had access to the Tree of Life. Their expulsion from the Garden was not in itself punishment, It simply set a future boundary to human life. Death in the rest of God's creation fulfils a positive purpose in increasing topsoil fertility.
In the beginning, human exemption from death from the Tree of Life was a special exemption, unique to humanity, because of the special purpose of the existence of humanity being to represent God to His creation.
  It is so important that the Bible always be read and understood within its own larger perspective.  

God 'set apart'
(which is the actual meaning of 'holy') the seventh day for rest (not religion), and this Genesis teaching for all humanity was then later incorporated into Israel's national covenant at Sinai, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments. Confusion of the Sabbath with Sunday received its impetus when Roman emperor Constantine set apart Sunday (Roman courts and other government functions closed) for two reasons –
He liked to think of his own glorious victory and beneficence as represented in the sun (hence 'Sun'-day); and,
To win support of the large number of Christians within his empire who met from Christianity's very beginning on each first day of the week (Sunday) to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus.
• This Christian custom, of meeting on the 'Sunday' (a work day) to worship Jesus, apart from it being the day of His resurrection, arose from its Jewish background in both the Jewish religious festivals of 'First Fruits' (ביכורים, Bikkurim) and that of 'Weeks' (שבועות, Shavuot, Pentecost).
Both these festivals were held on the first day of the week (Sunday) and both found spiritual fulfilment in the mission of Jesus:
'First Fruits' in the resurrection of Jesus (I Corinthians 15:4,20,23), and
'Weeks' (Pentecost) in Christ's gift of the Holy Spirit to all His people.
• Thus prophetically, Psalm 118:22-24 calls on all believers to celebrate Messiah's resurrection:
"This is the day the Lord has made;
 let us rejoice and be glad in it."
[Jesus' resurrection day]
[this First day of the week]
Accordingly, early Christians met to worship their resurrected Lord on the first day of each week and to spiritually encourage each other (1 Corinthians 16:2).
Sabbath Observance

• Sunday never was a day of rest in itself, but the necessary principle of one day of rest in seven still remains even for us today as part of God's natural design, just as much as God's design of marriage remains for us today (Genesis 2:24) and neither of them are religious issues.

Given as

Jesus said, correctively,
to Nicodemus, a member of
the Jewish Sanhedrin
that true believers have no rules,
no conformity to commandments,
any more than that the wind
conforms to a strict pattern

(John 3:8)
the representative core of God's unique covenant with national Israel (Exodus 20:2-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21), (not the state of Israel today) the Ten Commandments summarize a moral code with its roots in humanity's origins and are reflected to some degree in common moral awareness world-wide (Romans 2:14-15). But they add nothing to the character of the Christian life – absolutely nothing!
• For the Church ever to have fallen back on Israel's moral code for its own morality only reflects the desperate poverty of a church's infantile spirituality.
• Christian character is drawn from Christ alone. Nothing less than this is Christian! The whole moral law of Israel, which is summarized under total love for God and love for others as much as for oneself, is fully superseded in Christ by the instruction to follow Christ's example in loving more than we love ourselves –
"I give you a new commandment, that you love one another.
AS I have loved you, you should also love one another."
(John 13:34)
"AS the Father has loved Me, so I have loved you; continue in My love." (John 15:9)
"This is My commandment, that you love one another AS I have loved you." (John 15:12)
By this we have known the love of God, because He laid down His life for us.
And we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers
." (1John 3:16).
It is this character, and nothing less than this, that has the persuasive power of authentic Christianity.
"By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love toward one another."(John 13:35).
And the apostle Paul explains the change from the old to this new ethic in contrast to the old as –
"But now we having been set free from the Law, having died to that in which we were held,
so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of the letter."
(Romans 7:6).
"...realizing that the Law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers..." (1 Timothy 1:9).
Ten Commandments

widespread error arises from a failure to take seriously the statement of the Lord Jesus to Nicodemus of the Jewish Sanhedrin Council. In explaining what is meant by His words "born of the Spirit" Jesus said –
"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes.
So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.
In other words, its direction is determined by nothing other than its own nature and not by any external factor.
The significance should have been easy for Nicodemus to understand for the word for 'wind' and the word for spirit' were the same in Hebrew: rûach.
Jewish religion as Nicodemus understood it was the application of rules laid down by God for Israel in the Commandments given at Sinai when Moses led them out of Egypt. He came to Jesus because he could see that God was with the Lord Jesus, but he came by night (John 3:2) because Jesus did not conform to Jewish traditions and as a member of their Council he did not want his reputation affected.
Lord immediately focusses his mind on the need for a nature change. The words Jesus used "born again" were used by Jewish authorities in the baptism of Gentile converts to Judaism in which Nicodemus had almost certainly participated at some stage, so Jesus expected him to understand it (John 3:12) as meaning a new beginning.
in contrast to a Gentile converting to Judaism by starting life anew in living by the Ten Commandments, Jesus says that it is now the Spirit of God Himself who sets the direction of personal living rather than a set of rules.
Failure to understand this arises from a failure to understand the direct relationship of the Holy Spirit to every believer.

Jewish Talmud (largely derived from Pharisaic traditions) interprets the Bible's prohibition of boiling a young goat in its mother's milk as a general prohibition against cooking meat and dairy products together, and against eating or deriving any benefit from such a dietary mixture. This mistaken interpretation derives from an attempt by medieval Jewish rabbis to find an explanation for this prohibition without understanding its historical context when God gave it to Israel.
This has been side-stepped by the foolish teaching that the Te'nach, the written Word, or Law, 'preceded Adam'.
Exodus 23:19; 34:26;
Deuteronomy 14:21.
boiling practice which God strictly prohibited was a Canaanite magical ritual for producing rain (as evidenced by the Canaanite archaeological discoveries from ancient Ugarit at Ras Shamra, Syria) from the culture before Israel entered Canaan. The prohibition was given by God to prevent Israel being sucked into the superstitious religious prosperity-practices of the Canaanites by the common need for rain in an agricultural economy.
we did not need to be dependent on archaeology to understand that this 'Kosher' idea of medieval rabbis was misguided, for the Bible itself teaches us in Genesis Eighteen that, when Abraham our example prepared food for his Heavenly visitors –
"...he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it [singular] before them"
Genesis 18:8.
In His
wisdom and grace, God was simply forbidding this magical practice to prevent Israel being drawn into the pagan prosperity-religion of the Canaanites when rain was such an essential to an agricultural economy.
This divinely recorded example of Abraham is given to contradict this false interpretation,
which the rabbis chose to ignore, for a religion based on 'regulations' is better controlled than one based on the faith* of Abraham as Jesus taught (John 3:8).
*Faith/trust in God
(as that of a child)

their search to explain the New Testament's frequent reference to the 'Kingdom of God' some scholars have rooted it in Israel's Davidic kingdom to be fulfilled by Israel's Messiah, for the Lord Jesus is presented in Matthew's Gospel as holding royal title as his legal descendant through Solomon and so Jesus is its messianic king, meaning that in terms of end-time expectations – the whole world will eventually be ruled from Israel's Jerusalem.
But sadly,
this presumptuous interpretation ignores the bigger picture which the Bible presents, and it consequently dismally fails to comprehend the basic biblical significance of this "kingdom of God".
If the
Bible is to be read as a whole and not selectively, it would be seen that –
The authority mandated to humanity in its very beginning to "subdue" and to exercise "dominion" as God's "image" is the ultimate calling of the whole of humanity; and,
Christ used the term 'kingdom' specifically in the sense of authority and not for the 'realm of rule':
"...if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matthew 12:28).

Genesis One
as descendants of Abraham's faith, were called as a nation in their Sinai covenant to be a kingdom/nation of "priests" (Exodus 19:6) to usher the whole human race into the restoration of this founding mandate of God which was eventually directly demonstrated in Jesus as a "son of man" (Psalm 8:4,6), but Israel's rejection of Jesus changed that; and so He announced to them –
"the kingdom of God will be taken away from you [Israel] and given to a people producing its fruits"
Matthew 21:43.
The Kingdom of God
• Although this statement has been used to teach erroneously a foolish so-called Replacement Theology (that Israel no longer exists in God's sight and that the Church is now in its place), it is actually simply taking the focus off this nation as the primary agent of God's program of restoration but the program itself still continues...
Jesus the kingdom of God is higher than any national identity.
"Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith [as in this Roman centurion].
I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom
[its natural heirs] will be thrown into the outer darkness."
It is nothing less than the complete fulfilment of God's original design of humanity, even though in that process the presence of this kingdom and its appearance are now necessarily separated in what was described by the Lord Jesus as the mystery of the kingdom.
Matthew 8:10-12.

Mystery of the Kingdom

Typological significance
is true
this necessary correction does not negate the symbolic/typological significance of David's kingdom. King David, when at last the whole of his nation came into eventual full submission to his rule, moved his capital to Melchizedek's city (Jerusalem), so also when all the people of Christ come into the unity of their spiritual maturity (as described in Ephesians 4:13) then the resurrection at the coming of Christ will establish the "New Jerusalem" (Christ's Church/Bride) as the capital of the boundless Kingdom of God forever.
See: Obedience
of the Church
as a Prelude
to the Parousia

Lack of
sufficient respect for the Bible has resulted in some humanistic presentations of this key moment in David's life and so denied us an appropriate understanding of its historical reality.
Goliath did not have a pituitary gland malfunction to account for his height (more than 9-feet tall; not the International Standard Version's 6½-feet taken from the Greek Septuagint text, in disregard of the Hebrew original). He, his brother, and others of that family (one had 6-fingers on each hand and 6-toes on each foot, 1 Chronicles 20:4-8) were descended from the mutant sons of Anak of Hebron who had later settled among the Philistines after Caleb conquered that city.
The Bible says that David's stone from his sling killed Goliath (without a sword in his hand, 1 Samuel 17:50), and he then used the giant's own sword simply to decapitate him in order to take the head to what had been Melchizedek's city in Abraham's time (Jerusalem, 1 Samuel 17:54). That huge sword was then stored at Israel's Tabernacle in Shiloh as a symbol of this God-given supernatural victory of David's faith in God (1 Samuel 21:9).
The Bible uses the same terms for these mutants (nephilim) as for those resulting from demonic genetic manipulation before the Flood (Genesis 6:4).
It is also
worthy of note to read Psalm 8 in this respect, for the example given to us in the Biblical psalm-structure of Habbakuk's psalm (3:1-19) shows that the phrase, usually printed in our translations as a 'heading' to Psalm 9, is rightfully the ending of Psalm 8. This ("according to Muth-labben"), depending on its Hebrew vowel-pointing could then be translated as 'on the death of Labben', or 'according to death to the son' or 'death to the man between the camps', but it is actually a pointer to us of the experience of David from which this psalm of adoration arose rather than its 'orchestral performance' as is sometimes thought, namely the public killing of the Philistine hero Goliath between the two armies facing each other.
So, when David writes in verse two –
"Out of the mouth of babies and infants,
You have established strength because of Your foes, to still the enemy and the avenger"
he is here directly referring to himself – for that is just how he felt, as a teen between the two armies, in silencing Goliath's public blasphemy of God.

common misrepresentation is often used to explain why David was vulnerable to the seduction of Urriah's wife Bathsheba, but it is not true. The Bible tells us that King David had become faint in battle and that his own military commanders asked him to no longer lead them in battle as they did not want to risk the effect of David being killed as it would utterly demoralise the military of Israel –
"Then David's men swore to him,
'You shall no longer go out with us to battle, lest you quench the lamp of Israel'.
It was not his choice! This situation gave Bathsheba her opportunity, but, unlike some modern preachers, nothing in the Bible's context lays any blame at all on David for being at home while his men were away in battle.
That idea is a fabrication of preachers looking for a reason for his vulnerability to Bathsheba
and paying insufficient attention to the attitude of God reflected to us in Holy Scripture!

2 Samuel 21:17.

term 'affair' implies an illicit 'relationship', but this is not the picture which the Bible gives for our understanding. The Old Testament description of her bathing nude on the roof-top in view of king David, and the New Testament's genealogy of Jesus then substituting a reference to her deceased husband (Matthew 1:6) instead of her name (whereas Tamar the Canaanite is listed, and even Rahab the prostitute of Jericho is listed by personal name in Matthew 1:5, but not Bathsheba), points to reproach in her being the most responsible one, in the planned seduction of King David.
the scenario given to us in Scripture is of a cleverly seductive woman who sought to better her life by aspiring to the king rather than the Hittite military general Uriah to which she was married.
David had a number of sons, and Solomon was not his first born, yet it is from him that the greatness of the kingdom comes!
God's mercy is great!
But the
2 Samuel 12
indescribable greatness of God's mercy shown us in this situation is that, in David turning to the Lord in his grief over the death of his illegitimate baby, he then takes Bathsheba as his wife (although he already had a number of other wives at the time), and so it is from her, with her naturally quick intelligence, that Solomon is born, who, although not of the same spiritual stature as David, he is renowned for his intelligence (1 Kings 4:30) and gives us the Bible books Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes.
• So out of David's disgrace, including the killing of her husband to try and cover his sin, when handed over to the Lord, there comes forth an even greater glory than if David had never sinned with Bathsheba.
Truly, God is able to turn any situation on its head when it is completely put into His hands!

common error arises from not understanding why Jerusalem became special to God in the first place; in the time of King Melchizedek whom Abraham honoured (Genesis 14:18-20). It was then called Salem, meaning 'peace' because this was the characteristic product of his righteous rule in this small town on the hill Zion in central Canaan. It was not on a trade route, nor was it a strategic control point at that time. Its geography simply does not explain its special significance.
Remember that Christ, Israel's Messiah, is appointed by God as a priest after the 'order of Melchizedek' (Psalm 110:4). In other words, Jesus is not High Priest according to Israel's Jewish 'order of Aaron' (by an inherited priesthood), but He is recognised by God on the same terms/basis as that of Melchizedek – an earned priesthood before God, recognised for his moral character.
even the reason for Christ's ascent to God from the Mount of Olives, and His future return to that same Mount at His second coming (Zechariah 14:4), is not incidental. This place is honoured for Melchizedek's sake, for the Bible tells us that, before David's Jerusalem, God was worshipped on that Mount (2 Samuel 15:32). Bible history indicates that this could only have been in the time of faithful Melchizedek. [Note from this therefore: God is faithful to the extent of His ability if we are faithful to the extent of our ability. Think on this! Hallelujah!]
Therefore, Jerusalem as a place, a geographic locality, will always be special to God. David understood this before he was old enough for his military service in Israel and therefore (even though he lived near Bethlehem) after his killing of Goliath he took the severed head of that giant to Jerusalem city long before that city ever came into Israel's possession (1 Samuel 17:54). It is the place that is special (not its use or who owns it) for Melchizedek's sake.
For Melchizedek's Sake
King Solomon, who built Israel's temple, was not in any way more righteous than his father David, nor more acceptable to God in any way than his father. It was the state/condition of Jerusalem city that made the difference. God's reference to 'blood' (1 Chronicles 28:3) is not a reference to David's guilt as is commonly thought. It was simply the violence necessarily associated with war that prohibited David's rule at the time of building! Jerusalem was necessarily at war during the reign of David as he pacified the enemies of Israel.
Solomon inherited the benefits of his father's wars, as well as David's inspired temple design (1 Chronicles 28:19) and his accumulation of materials for building the temple (1 Chron.29:2-5). To truly/authentically represent God's name in His temple in Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Uru-Salem) had to necessarily become true to its name of Peace. (This also applies by analogy to the Christian Church).

70-year-exile prophecy (29:10) was written to those, and only to those, who had previously been taken into Exile in Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar when he took king Jeconiah captive (March 15/16, 597 BC/BCE) and had then installed Zedekiah as the king of the Jews in Jerusalem.
Israel's temple was
destroyed 586 BC/BCE
correction is significant because many Rabbis incorrectly calculate Daniel's 70-weeks/7s prophecy (9:24) to included these seventy years and then often date this from the 586 BC/BCE destruction of Jerusalem and so take it to the destruction of the second temple (in contradiction of Daniel).
correctly calculated, it would show that the Lord Jesus chose to ride into Jerusalem on the foal of a donkey in fulfilment of Zechariah (9:9) because it was the exact time of Daniel's prophecy fulfilment (9:26) concerning the coming of Messiah who would be cut off (His atonement) which would thereby end all temple atonement sacrifice before God forever! For this reason, when the Jewish Pharisees complained about the crowd's loud praising Him as Messiah, Jesus said –
"I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out"
For it was the God appointed time as had been given to Daniel.
(But it also does not mean that nature will rebel if you don't praise God, as I have heard some foolishly preach!)

Luke 19:40.

The promise

The Unique
Temple Promise
referred to, which has been frequently used out of context, reads –
"...if My people who are called by My name humble themselves,
and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways,
then I will hear from Heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
It is preciously true that God cares and that He is open to those who come to Him appropriately, so that principle contained herein is applicable everywhere, but as a prayer-formula for results, as it has often been used, it is very misleading.
It is not God's guarantee that through prayer a country can be changed or 'healed'.
2 Chronicles 7:14.
promise given to Solomon was God's answer to his dedication of the temple in Jerusalem. The next verse, which is part of this promise, says –
"Now My eyes will be open and My ears attentive to the prayer that is made in this place."
2 Chronicles 7:15.
It was so
natural that people should see the sacrificial ritual of the temple priests as the prime/central function of Israel's temple, but God's view, which was later echoed by Jesus, saw the direct encounter of people with His presence through prayer as the temple's central function, and all else as simply supportive toward that end.

Clergy function was
meant to be central
in the Jewish temple then
or in Christian church today.
is why the Lord Jesus chased the sellers of sacrificial animals (who provided a useful service to those who came from afar) out of the temple's outer court: not to protect the 'sanctity of the stones', but to prevent interruption of the people's prayers in that place. The outer court where this selling was permitted (for a fee to the high priest) was open to circumcised 'Gentiles', so Israel's racist-inclined priesthood therefore regarded it as of lesser status, but Jesus, in His public rebuke of them, vigorously restated Isaiah's correction –
"...for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples."  Isaiah 56:7
"Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'?"   Mark 11:17
Similarly, this centrality or emphasis-problem tends to be reflected in the prime/central function of a church service today being mistakenly seen as the 'sermon', rather than, as the Lord sees it –
His own Spirit's direct interaction with His people through their worship.
Yes! God
hears the prayer of the humble, BUT this temple-promise to Solomon is not also a promise that therefore through prayer one can cause God to change a country within which His people live, as it has so often been erroneously used.
There are times,
such as with Abraham in Ur of the Chaldeas, when the wisdom of God calls His people to an evacuation, and not to prayer for the healing of "their land". So, it says to us of Abraham, our example – "...he went out, not knowing where he was going".
One does not need to know the future, the destination, one simply needs to hold His hand.
Hebrews 11:8

In spite of
a mountain of circumstantial 'evidences' heaped up by disciples of this theory, the Bible in just one verse destroys ALL possibility of ANY truth in this fiction. Hosea, a prophet to these ten tribes of Israel, prophesied (Hosea 3:4):
"the sons of Israel will remain for MANY days
"without king or prince – 
(NO political head or administration)
"without sacrifice or sacred pillar – 
(NO temple offering or pagan worship)
"and ephod or household idols" – 
(NO priestly service or domestic idolatry)
If one
understands the detail of this inspired statement accurately it is clear that there is – in all human history – NOT ONE nation, tribe, or people-group, that has simultaneously fulfilled this description, even briefly, let alone "for many days".
• The Jews and ONLY the Jews fulfil these conditions in their many years of being simultaneously
1.   without government,   2.   without pagan worship,
3.   without temple, and  4.   without priestly service.
and no one else! Every other people group has had one or more of these factors in every period of their existence. Hence, if the Ten Tribes exist, they are certainly Jewish!
However, it
also deserves to be mentioned that 'Christian' leaders who propagate this lie (that Britain is Ephraim; America is Manasseh; France is Rueben, etc.), and there are a number of them, should have no credibility in general, for to cite just one example: to say that the Gaelic Celts (Irish and Scots), the Brythionic Celts (Welsh/Cymru and Cornish), and the Anglo-Saxons (English), with their vastly different original languages and separate cultures, are all from the one tribe of Ephraim is highly irrational in ignoring all established historical facts of their distictively different origins. Such religious leaders therefore deserve no credibility and
should be held to account in this regard to the extent of their misleading influence!

Or as
one historian said, 'not lost, just melted' (meaning 'merged') BUT it was after the Exile (from which the ten tribes are supposed to have never returned, according to this fallacy) that the godly priest Ezra led the returnees in sacrifice, on behalf of all Israel –
"12 bulls for all Israel" (Ezra 8:35).
Further, the Lord Jesus specially appointed 12-apostles in expanding His own ministry to the 12-tribes of the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:1-2,6) to be sent out in twos ahead of Him.
See also:
God's promise that in judging Babylon He would reunite Israel and Judah
(Jeremiah 50:4-5).
But the
inspired description of the Apostle Paul to king Agrippa in 60 AD is absolutely decisive in totally repudiating this fallacy.
He said –
"I stand here on trial for hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, to which
our Twelve Tribes hope to attain as they earnestly worship night and day."
(present tense! Acts 26:6-7).
What were the other claimants to Israel's identity doing at this time? Certainly not worshipping God day and night. Paul's identification can only apply to the Jewish people if one is honest. So, if ten of the 12 tribes were lost to some, it was certainly not to the witness of the apostle Paul or to the ministry of Jesus. In first century Palestine, Roman Judaea represented all 12 tribes of Israel no matter how far scattered any individuals may have become.

misleading half-truth, but not in the Bible. Historically, as a male initiation, it was invented by the ancient Egyptians and passed on from them to the African tribes, among whom it is still so practiced today
"So shall My covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant."
Genesis 17:13
the Bible, afterAbraham had seen it done in ancient Egypt, after he returned to Canaan/Palestine, God instituted it on the eighth day after birth, as the physial sign of His Land covenant with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac regarding their conditional title to the land within the God-given boundaries –
(West to East) between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river,
and (North to South) between the Euphrates in Syria and Wadi El Arish ('river of Egypt') in central Sinai.
In the Bible it has nothing to do with male initiation in any sense whatsoever!

part of the Judaizing corruption of Christianity today, some congregations regard the term Yahweh as being the only authentic name of God, as though it has somehow more significance than the English term 'God' or 'Lord'. In the ancient Hebrew language, not modern Hebrew, it was His name associated with the covenant He initiated with the descendants of Abraham's son Isaac through Moses at Sinai. A covenant which ended in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 8:13). But because of God's statement in Exodus 6:3 that His name Yahweh was not known to their ancestors some have thought that it was a divinely created term for God, but this is not true, for the name of Moses' biological mother incorporates that name long before the Exodus took place.
The Name
has no competitor and so He does not need to be distinguished from another by a name. He is the only eternal and infinite one! Any language term only has relevance from its meaning. There is no magic in a name. In Semitic usage "praising the name" of God does not mean praising a term. It means praise the character of the one represented by that name. Hallelujah!

Therefore to treat Yahweh
as God's personal name
is an act of rebellion
against God!
need to pay more attention to the context the Bible gives us.
It was specifically when Moses asked God for a 'name' for Him, that God made this statement as an answer –
"Then Moses said to God, 'If I come to the people of Israel and say to them,
'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.
This was God's answer to Him having a 'name', and His refusing a name has not changed, for there is only ONE!
In terms of Moses' Egyptian background it seemed legitimate to ask the name of the God of his ancestors, as one among many gods. But the eternal infinite One is incomparable and therefore, other than a descriptive title, any name is inappropriate!
Exodus 3:13-14.
The opinion
of the Jewish Pharisees on this issue, committed as it was to making the 4-letter name YHWH as sacred a name as possible, indicates total confusion, as continues to be carried by them in the Jewish Talmud:
namely from rabbis Rashbam; Nachmanides; Abraham Ibn Ezra; and Rashi.

mistaken belief is a misleading half-truth because the term 'father' is read in its modern cultural context rather than in the cultural context of Holy Scripture. God the Father is the one upon the throne of the highest judicial court in the universe. It is in this sense that the term 'father' is used of authority or leadership. Neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit is on the throne, and it is therefore appropriate, as Jesus taught, that our prayer are addressed to the Father and only to the Father from whom all authority derives.
"...I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named..."
Ephesians 3:14-15.
infinite eternal nature of God is not expressed in the term 'Father'. God is spirit and not confined to any place. Heaven is not God's home! Heaven is the court of highest authority, from which all authority derives and to which all authority is ultimately accountable. God, the whole of God, is LOVE. The New Testament Greek had four words for love but only one is appropriate of God. His is the agape-love of selfless concern for the welfare of others. Not the philia-love of share interest, or the eros-love of appreciated quality, or the storge-love of family loyalty. This is the character of God, all of God, not simply the Father, in the plurality of His triune personality.
Bible teaches us that all creation was created by the one we now call Jesus (Colossaians 1:16). His act of creation was His step down from His eternal infinity to directly associate Himself as Creator with that which had a beginning. This act of the Christ, and the Holy Spirit's personal association with the physical implementaion of the acts of Creation as laid out in Genesis One, means that it is then that the one we call Father became Father, in relation to the creation, as a consequence of Christ's act of Creation. So, the dominant aspect that should then be associated with the term 'Father' as it relates to God is authority, and not the superlative of human fatherliness.
"Our Father
who art in Heaven
means the One
who is in charge of all.

is a misleading modern idea, which ignores the vital historical context of Holy Scripture. In Bible times the colour white represented victory, which is why a Roman military general, leading a victory parade, always rode on a white horse, and a 'horse' at that time was a military vehicle (donkeys carried goods). This is important for us to note in understanding the description of Christ upon a "white horse" given us in the climax of Holy Scripture (Revelation 19:11). White can only be associated with purity or holiness in Scripture secondarily as representing victory over temptation, but its primary meaning is always victory!
In some cultures even today, 'white' still retains this old meaning, which is why Taliban recruits in Afghanistan were seen waving white flags in response to the incitement of their instructor.
They were certainly not 'surrendering', or proclaiming 'holiness' in any way!

false idea understandably arose from the Holy Spirit appearing as a dove in anointing the Lord Jesus at His baptism. As often, the damage of an error lies in what it hides or distracts us from and this is sadly so very true here.
appearance of the Holy Spirit's anointing coming on the man Jesus as a 'dove' was a very important message to John the Baptist, and to us through Holy Scripture, which is unfortunately completely negated if one sees it simply as a symbol of the Spirit. To justify this error some have speculated that it is the temperament of a dove, or that perhaps a dove does not have a gall-bladder, and other such nonsense. Arising from its meaning to Noah in Genesis (8:11) –
it actually signifies that this Spirit anointing on Jesus of Nazareth was the New Beginning for humanity
In other words the Holy Spirit's relationship to the human Jesus, which began from His baptism, is the new beginning for humanity. It is in this relationship alone that humanity will find the future for which it was originally designed!
who know God's Word would know this, for it had conveyed this message to Noah after his enduring 370-days of the horrific world flood (global tsunami) that had wiped out the whole human race except for his personal family (Genesis 8:11-12) and left his floating barge now stranded on a mountain.
awesome self-humbling of Jesus to 'walk in our shoes' as it were, was to open the way for all who follow Him. Therefore, Jesus is the Second Adam, the new beginning, and this began from His baptism in the Jordan river in His personal identification with the common people who had come at that time to be baptised by John. Hallelujah!


misunderstanding of 2 Thessalonians 2 has been possible because of Paul's concern not to mention in writing the identity of the restraint on Antichrist's lawless coming.
• He had told the Thessalonian Christians personally but did not wish to write it down, almost certainly because it would be misinterpreted by Roman authorities as a slander of their emperor and precipitate persecution of the Christians.
'Apostasia' Sign


the Spirit, has not ever come to this world, therefore, He the omnipresent One, cannot ever leave! He came to the Church and only the Church, that is – into a non-spacial relationship which made Christ's disciples into one spiritual body.
• The idea that the Holy Spirit somehow "leaves" comes from misunderstanding Paul's deliberately vague statement concerning Antichrist's coming, that "he who restrains" will do so "until he is taken out of the way" (2 Thessalonians 2:6-7). The Holy Spirit can NEVER be "taken out of the way" for He is Lord in the Church (2 Corinthians 3:17).
• It is that which has prevented lawlessness in this world which is taken away, namely stable government (as represented in the Caesar at that time, hence Paul's carefulness not to name).
'Apostasia' Sign


idea, that praying in 'tongues' (sometimes referred to from its New Testament term as 'glossolalia') ended, arose as an explanation of its absence in the life of the Christian Church, although its continued practice had been encouraged by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:5 –
"Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy."
The international spread of the Pentecostal and later Charismatic movement in the 19th and 20th centuries provoked the explanation among some that it was a Satanic counterfeit, It being ignored of course that the existence of any counterfeit on any issue is evidence in itself for the continued existence of the authentic, or else the counterfeit would not exist.
Speaking in Tongues
the inspired statement of Paul (1 Corinthians 13:10), in prioritizing godly motivation (love) above all method, that when the "perfect" comes that which is partial will be done away, is sometimes perversely misapplied to the 'completion' of the New Testament, whereas in its own context is is referring to nothing other than Christ's personal return, His Second Coming in resurrection glory, for then –
"then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known [by God]"
The Holy Spirit was given in His personal relationship to every Christian believer to enable the completion of Christ's commission to preach His gospel to all the world, and that then the End would come (Matthew 24:14), for then, and only then, our human incompleteness will be swallowed up in the resurrection glory of Christ's kingdom.
1 Corinthians 13:12.
to the confusion on this issue is the lack of understanding of the Bible's distinction between devotional 'tongues', or tongues-prayer (a necessarily private practice), and the gift of tongues as an inspired ministry toward others and therefore requiring its associated gift of inspired interpretation.
Gift of Tongues
which God gave to all in Christ at the Christian Church's first Pentecost, from the Ascended Christ at His right hand, intrinsically continues unchanging by the same Holy Spirit until the same Christ returns to bring His Church into His resurrection-rule over all.
Baptism in the Spirit

attacking the motive of those that so teach, this error dares to quote Holy Scripture in contradiction of its own context
"As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away." (ESV)
This Scripture quoted is speaking of the ministries of the gifts of the Holy Spirit within the congregation in contrast to godly love which has no end as being the only true motivation for service through these gifts of the Holy Spirit toward others.
1 Corinthians 13:8.
the Scripture speaks of what and how this passing away of prophecy and knowledge gift ministries, and ending of tongues speaking, comes about, by saying –
"For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
... now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.
It will be clear to the honest that this is a reference to the second coming of the Lord Jesus for His Church in which the earthly limitations of our mortality are swallowed up in His immortality. But this requires honesty in exegesis!
The attempt to justify this Spirit-grieving myth by claiming that these ministry gifts ended (before the completion of Christ's Church) because the word "perfect" refers to a completed 'Bible' is not honest
for it does not even fit the Bible's own metaphor of –
"face to face".
1 Corinthians 13:
9-10, 12.


Jesus, knowing the critical thoughts of the Pharisees, said publicly –
"Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters.
Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people,
but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
And whoever speaks a word
[slander] against the Son of Man will be forgiven,
but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
Jesus was not making a theological statement. He was speaking practically in response to the Jewish religious leaders at that time who were undermining His ministry to the needy and despised.
Matthew 12:30-32.
statement does not mean that the Holy Spirit is holier than the Lord Jesus Christ and therefore a sin against the Spirit of God is more serious than a sin against the Son of God!
Christ's ministry resulted from His anointing with the Holy Spirit, therefore He is called the 'Christ' [Anointed], so the rejection of His ministry, such as by the Jewish Pharisees, was a rejection of the direct outreach of God's mercy to them.
In other words,
practically, to reject God's hand of forgiving mercy extended to the individual through the Holy Spirit is to reject that forgiveness, and there is no other way to God other than through His forgiveness.
reference to the 'age to come' does not mean that God holds a grudge. The Lord is simply saying within the context of that situation that slandering Him could be forgiven, but their rejection of God's extended grace closed the door on them and the coming future messianic age which they were hoping for would not change that if they did not change.
God's mercy is not rationed. His grace is not less than His infinity.
But nothing changes unless the hearing heart turns to God.

Yes, the
priests of Solomon's temple could not stand when the anointing of the Presence descended (2 Chronicles 5:14). But that experience simply expressed the power of the presence of God, not the condition of the priests. Where a person today falls under the power of God's Spirit, the event also says nothing about that person. As at Solomon's temple, it simply witnesses to the power of God's Spirit present and not to the state of the person who falls, such as murderous Saul prostrated in the street under the Spirit's anointing as Samuel and his disciples prophesied in mutual praise to God (1Samuel 19:20-24).
• The Quakers of Christian history quaked because they had special regard for God's presence and so He honoured them with it, not because they were the holiest Christians of that time. The rebellious also fall when God's power touches them. Injuries, and on rare occasions death, have resulted from God's power touching a person.
• Falling under the Spirit's anointing is as significant as a blown fuse is to an electrical power-surge. If genuine, it bears witness both to God's power and to human inadequacy. Falling under the Presence indicates natural human discomfort with the power of God's presence rather than spiritual harmony with that Presence. It is not a sign of spirituality! But hype associated with it has created the false impression that it is a sign of God's approval or blessing, and so the 'placebo-effect' kicks in and 'performances' occur.
• But, praise God for His presence to those who submit to Him. Ideally, the presence of God ought to flow through us, without our natural inadequacy to His anointing being any kind of distraction from His gracious purpose, either by trembling, jerking or falling.
Jonathan Edwards'
comment in 1741 AD.


Myth 88. 
This error
arises from ignorance about the nature of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ! The Church of Jesus does not exist beyond the common faith of all those who personally submit to the ownership of Christ. To these – to all these therefore – and to none other than these – was the Holy Spirit given, as irrevocable gift on the Day of Pentecost by the ascended Christ Himself.
• For those who hold to an 'apostolic succession' teaching (conferring authority to minister the Spirit and forgive sins) which is based on the idea that only the Apostles (less Thomas and Judas Iscariot) were present when Jesus breathed on them and said 'receive the Holy Spirit' (in anticipation of Pentecost), Luke's Gospel specifically tells us that others (non-apostles) were also present on that occasion, such as Cleopas, his unnamed friend, etc. (Luke 24:33). Therefore the foundation apostles held no exclusivity or copyright on Spirit-anointed ministry in any way whatsoever.
• The Holy Spirit belongs to those who belong to Christ! But, events of faith, such as the Lord's Supper (Holy Communion /  Eucharist) and a believer's Baptism, simply raise our spiritual awareness, and thus help open up our relationships of love and service toward God and others. These, all these who came to Christ, are they through whom the 'living waters' of Holy Spirit flows out to others, as Jesus had prophesied (John.7:38-39).

perverse view developed from not knowing the historical context of the use of the term apostle, so it was mistakenly understood as top leadership, whereas it that time it simply meant messenger representative such as was sent out by the Jewish Sanhedrin Council to visit the synagogues scattered throughout the Roman Empire to ensure that standards were maintained.
  It is in this representative sense that Jesus Himself is described as an apostle (Hebrews 3:1).
the Holy Spirit was given for all Christ's disciples on the Day of Pentecost, for them to be the Body of Christ to continue His ministry in this world, the various ministry gifts of the Spirit were given among them to equip individual believers in the Spirit. The idea of a 'ranking distinction' between the Gifts of the Spirit arose from misunderstanding the statement in I Corinthians 12:28
"God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles,
then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues
These first three are distinguished as leadership gifts but simply in the order of the geographic range (not rank status) of their ministry influence, as would have so been understood in the culture of that time. This is born out by the historical references to this ministries in our New Testament.
ranking status to these terms is part of the corruption of Christianity to hinder it from fulfilling the ministry of Jesus as His spiritual Body, so that it becomes a recruitment organisation rather than a extension of the heart of God as portrayed in the person and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ.

A gift of
the Spirit is not a natural ability, not even an inspired natural ability.
It is the Holy Spirit's ability shared with us. It is His supernatural equipment given among us to minister His personal care. The nine gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 are not the limit of this, they are only illustrative. There can be no limit on the Holy Spirit's equipping of a believer except by the choice of the Spirit Himself and the faith-filled obedience/submission of that believer.
• To say that every Christian has a supernatural gift of the Spirit is, however, misleading. It is only potentially true because every Christian has received the Spirit Himself who is infinite, and it is God's desire and command that in coming to Him in faith we become an extension of His ministry. This requires our obedient faith, rather than introspective analysis to identify a 'gift'.
• Most often, well-meaning but ignorant leaders persuade sincere believers to list abilities and interests in order to identify their gift or calling and in so doing at best simply identify the natural ability of the individual. This is really irrelevant.
Growing in love toward God to share His love for others allows Him to entrust a believer with a particular 'gift' of the Spirit as the Spirit may choose. Self-analysis has no application to this issue, but love/caring for others does have a very direct relevance.
• A Scripture sometimes quoted to support this myth is 1 Peter 4:10-11 which says –
"As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace:
whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies
– in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ."
However, the preceding verse indicates that the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit are not in view – "Show hospitality to one another without grumbling" indicates that it is simply the natural opportunity of the human situation which is in view and not the supernatural abilities of the Holy Spirit in operation. Scripture is always to be understood in its own God-given context if we respect it as God's Word.
(In addition: we do not 'use' the supernatural gifts/abilities of the Holy Spirit. They are not detachable! Our responsibility is to be available, in-tune with Christ, soaked-in-His-love for others, so that the Spirit Himself may do through us whatever and whenever He alone chooses! Our choice is simply to be the channel of His love to others and whatever that implies.)
See: Gifts of the Spirit


false idea, which implies there is something that God needs to add to a Christian after their spiritual rebirth, arose from the Anglican background of the Methodist revival in England. Because it was then assumed that conversion/Christian identity was initiated by infant sprinkling/baptism, the marked change in the Methodist converts was seen as a second work of God's grace and interpreted as an act of sanctification. From this second work of Grace perspective the spiritual revivals which produced the Pentecostal movement also found their theological explanation as a second work of Grace, termed the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, from a misunderstanding of its use in the Acts of the Apostles.
term 'baptised' in the Holy Spirit as used by the Lord Jesus (Acts 1:5) refers to the initiation of their ministry as His own public ministry had been initiated by a baptism of water by John the Baptist. But what happened to those 120-disciples gathered in prayer in the upper room that Pentecost morning in Jerusalem was an act of God that went further than those present, for the Apostle Paul explains for us that it was a result of the Ascension of Jesus and was given to equip His disciples for ministry to fulfil the mission that He had given to them, and so applies today.
"Therefore it says, 'When He ascended on high [His Ascension] He led a host of captives [believers who had died previously], and He gave gifts to men.' (In saying, 'He ascended,' what does it mean but that He had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? [to take them up with Him from Sheol/Hades] He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints [believers] for the work of ministry,
for building up the Body of Christ, until we all..."

Ephesians 4:8-13.
The Lord
Jesus was not mistaken, nor did the Apostle John make an error, when He described Jesus as breathing on His disciples and saying "Receive the Holy Spirit" on the day of His resurrection. At that moment they shared in His new life (hence the breathing metaphor) or regeneration as we call it today, which Jesus had earlier referred to a being 'born again' (John 3:6), born of the Spirit.
John 20:22.
to those disciples then it was a second spiritual experience after their regeneration/re-birth (described by Luke as the opening of their minds to the Scriptures, Luke 24:45), for they needed to wait until Christ had ascended to be their Advocate at the Throne, and also to fulfil the spiritual symbolism of the Jewish feast of Pentecost, before they could themselves receive the Spirit as their Lord in His humanity had received Him at His baptism by John.
The unique time distinction in these first disciples of the Christ between their spiritual rebirth and their receiving the Holy Spirit is no more applicable today than their distinction between believing during Christ's preaching ministry and their spiritual rebirth after His resurrection, for these first disciples are unique in that they lived in the overlap between the Old and the New Covenants of God.
Therefore, the Apostle Paul could later say for our understanding (Romans 8:9) that
anyone who does not have the Holy Spirit does not belong to God!
The Four
Works of Jesus
Myth 92. 
Christian church observation of Holy Communion (Eucharist/Mass) was instituted by the Lord Jesus Himself on the evening of His arrest, and He said to do it in remembrance of Him, but the full significance of the celebration only became known after the Holy Spirit was later given on the day of Pentecost and is known to us today by the Spirit-inspired record which we call the New Testament. In the New Testament, Holy Communion is presented in 1 Corinthians 11 as a group celebration of more than a past event of God grace, but of the living relationship which that event has created between those who belong to Him.
solitary celebration of Communion is not valid, anywhere, ever!
So – having a Eucharist or Communion service at a time and/or place which disables the general fellowship of believers from attending that meeting, then completely invalidates that Communion service before God!
that reason, the Apostle Paul authoritatively urges the Corinthian Christians (1 Corinthians 11:33) –
"Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another."
There is a good spiritual reason why the Broken Bread representing Christ's body is served first, for that shared enactment celebrates the oneness of the believers in spiritual harmony with each other, as a consequence of His Atonement. Accordingly, that act is to be preceded by the restoration of unity in the oneness of the holy Body of Christ, the fellowship of believers. That act of oneness then leads to the second act of celebrating the New Covenant in Christ, which terminated the Sinai Covenant of God with one nation (Israel) and expanded it –
to include all believers regardless of gender, race, class, or nationality!
That inclusiveness is NOT reversed in Christ's return to rule, as some foolishly teach concerning Israel!
Holy Communion or Eucharist is an honest group declaration of the oneness of the Body of Christ, His Church, His Bride, regardless of religious denomination.

fallacy is from a twisted interpretation of Hebrews 12:1 –
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses,
let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely,
and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us..."
This is a direct reference to the preceding verses of Chapter Eleven (the original text was not divided into chapters) in which those in the past whose lives are described in Holy Scripture, as living by faith in God, are listed as an example, a witness TO us (not 'of us')!
Twisting the meaning of anyone's words is bad
but twisting God's Word is the worst of the worst!
There is NO grandstand full of either angels or ancestral spirits 'watching' our human obedience, as some lazy preachers have said, and some spiritists have tried to use this verse to justify their own perverse teachings!
"witnesses" here referred to, as its introductory word "therefore" indicates to us, are the like of Abraham and "Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets" in Chapter 11:32, in addition to the many nameless martyrs – as examples to us of living by faith in God beyond understanding.

This error
arises from reading the statement of the Lord Jesus, reported in Matthew 18:16-20, in total disregard of it's God-given context concerning disciplinary process to preserve the spiritual unity of God's people –
- i -
"But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you,
that every statement may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the congregation.
And if he refuses to listen even to the congregation, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
- ii -
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in Heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in Heaven.
- iii -
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask,
it will be done for them by My Father in Heaven.
For where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I among them."

Literal Translation

(As God had
previously said in
Deuteronomy 19:15)
The "two or three" are simply part of this disciplinary enquiry leading to a united act to resolve the particular division within the fellowship.
To use it any other way is to seriously abuse and twist God's Word and grieve the Spirit of Grace by Whom we are born-again.
(But, sadly, this serious abuse is rampant across the Protestant and Evangelical churches of our generation).
Never did any prophet of Israel ever require a second opinion to confirm that his revelation was from the Spirit of God before he publicly announced it!
And the
Christian believer, every Christian believer, as part of a new life in Jesus Christ was given Christ's own human relationship to the Spirit of God at Pentecost in 30 AD/CE. Consequently the ordinary Christian has, in principle, a far closer relationship to the Spirit of God than was ever enjoyed by any prophet of ancient times.
"I Believe
in the Holy Spirit"
So remember: Jesus said that spiritually "a tree is known by its fruit", not by its status (Matthew 7:18).
And therefore,
whether the revelation of God comes to a person directly from the Holy Spirit Himself, from an angel of God, or in a dream, it's authenticity lies, not in the approval of others no matter who they are, but in its effect upon the lives of the people addressed by it (its 'fruit'); and because God is consistent (truthful) it will always agree to what the Spirit of God previously inspired for us in the Holy Bible.

In the
history of the Charismatic Renewal or Pentecostal Revival which began about 1902. sometimes referred to as the Azuza Street revival, a phenomenon later began which, because it was not understood, was treated with suspicion and labelled by some preachers as being demonic. It was apparently uncontrollable laughter.
What was not understood was that the phenomenon was associated with persons who had suffered serious psychological damage intheir past which had left deep unconscious depression. The apparently uncontrollable laughter was a side effect of a healing process in which the Joy of the Lord' presence realigned the unconscious state of that individual. This misunderstanding is similar to the slander suffered in the early 20th century by those who first experienced glossolalia, also known 'speaking in tongues.
Speaking in Tongues

Myth 96.  "For where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I among them" IS A PROMISE OF CHRIST's PRESENCE
This widely
abused quote from Holy Scripture has nothing at all to do with church attendance or with Christian meetings of any kind!
The Lord Jesus
spoke these significant words concerning the practical application of individual discipline in His Church, in that those who give evidence (the "two or three" minimum) concerning the wrong-doing of the guilty are doing what Christ Himself would do. Read attentively in its own literary context and understanding its Jewish historical context, it can have no other meaning –
"If your [spiritual] brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.
If he listens to you, you have gained your brother
[mutually reconciled].
But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you,
that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the congregation.
And if he refuses to listen even to the congregation,
let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector
[completely disassociated].
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven [agreed by God],
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven
['binding' and 'loosing' being legal terminology of the time].
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask
[in mutual reconciliation],
it will be done for them by My Father in Heaven.
For where two or three are gathered in My name, there am I among them."
Matthew 18:15-20.

effectiveness of praying in 'tongues' (1 Corinthians 14:5) does NOT lie in Satan's ignorance. 'Tongues' is simply prayer that is not limited by our human understanding, that is – prayer prayed by the believer, but designed by the Holy Spirit.
• Of course Satan understands it! The Bible says that 'tongues' is simply the languages of men and of angels (1 Corinthians 13:1) and Satan is ignorant of neither.

It is
not marriage that is Satan's target, per se. It is relationships, whether these be legal, customary, or otherwise!
• For all its precious special character, marriage does not exist in God's sight other than as a relationship. The target of the enemy's attack is therefore simply on how we treat each other. Remember:
love is owed, but trust is not – it is earned!
Man & Woman in Marriage


have absolutely no interest in objects other than to impress and affect people. As much as an object may reflect the beliefs of its makers it may represent what is demonically inspired, or to another it may represent wonderful memories of a world tour. BUT the object itself has NO spiritual effect whatsoever other than its psychological association in the mind of its owner.
• The Bible is very clear that there is nothing that is unclean "in itself" (for God created everything) but only because of the one who "thinks" it is unclean (Romans 14:14-18).
Animist Deception
in Christ's Church Today


of these terms are non-existent in the holy Word of God!
The first, Jehovah, was the result of ignorance on the part of the translators of the 1611 AD/CE King James version of the Bible, also known as the Authorized Version.
The second, Yeshua, is a product of deliberate deception by the Jewish Pharisees as is also reflected in their Talmud which carries their destructively deceptive perspective.
The Israel Heresy
This silly misrepresentation of
God's Command is perpetuated
today by leaving the letter 'o'
out of the word God.
JEHOVAH : In order to avoid pronouncing the name of God and so 'breaking' the command to not take His name in vain (which is not what that commandment meant), it became a custom in medieval Judaism's synagogue-readings by Pharisee-tradition to substitute the Hebrew word for 'lord' (adonai) in the place of 'YHWH'. Thus in Scripture copies the vowel pointing of adonai was placed above the consonants of YHWH. Not knowing this, the translators of the so-called Authorized Version mixed the vowels of adonai with the consonants of YHWH and so produced the non-existent term of 'Jehovah'.
YESHUA: The name of 'Jesus' (specially chosen by God for Him, Matthew 1:21) is exactly same as 'Joshua'/יְהוֹשׁוּעַ/Yehôshûa‛, which means 'the LORD is Salvation'. But sadly, as reflected in the later Jewish Talmud, the Pharisees deeply resented the idea of the term 'salvation' even being in His name and so abbreviated it to the false-Hebrew term Yeshua from the Aramaic version. This was a deliberate anti-Christian act, and so it is extremely foolish for any Christians anywhere to ever use that term for Jesus the Christ of God and Saviour of the world.
for God's written Word leans upon the Lord God Almighty and not upon any special terms. In Psalms for instance, 'praising the name of the Lord', does not mean praising a 'word'. In Semitic usage of that time a 'name' simply described the attributes or character of a person or animal, hence Adam's naming of the animals to then discover that there were none like himself. So it verges on pagan superstition to ascribe an special spiritual quality/power to a word!
BUT sickenly,
a widely promoted lie today, spread by dishonest and ungodly attempts to Judaize Christianity, is that the name 'Jesus' is derived from the pagan Greek god Zeus: 'G-zeus'. That is completely untrue!
The Greek version of 'Joshua' as Ἰησοῦς (Jesus in English) originates directly from the Pre-Christian Jewish translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint.
The command to not take "the name of the Lord your God in vain" means nothing other than to not ever refer to Him, in any way, that is not to His honour.
It is not about words, their spelling or pronunciation as Judaism has falsely taught! It is simply that any reference to God must be appropriate to His character!

of the historical circumstance at that time leads to this completely mistaken idea. Today, fermentation is artificially controlled. Then, it was just the natural process from ambient yeasts during storage of the previous season's grape juice. Today some manufacturers add yeast to increase strength and cane or beet sugar to increase alcoholic content. Recipes for certain types of wine require the winemaker (the vintner) to monitor and regulate the amount of yeast, the fermentation process, and other steps of the process. None of this applied o the wine of Christ's time.

John 2:1-11.
Today, during the modern fermentation process, wild yeast are fed into the tank or vat to turn the sugar in the must into alcohol. To add strength, varying degrees of yeast may be added. In addition, cane or beet sugar may be added to increase the alcoholic content. Adding sugar, which is call chaptalization, is usually done because the grapes have not received enough sun prior to harvesting. The winemaker will use a hand-held hydrometer to measure the sugar content in the tank or vat. The wine-must then ferments in the tank or vat for approximately seven to fourteen days, depending on the type of wine being produced.
is very different from the natural process of grape-juice storage as it was in Christ's time which then became their 'wine'. Christ's reticence, when asked by His mother to help, was not related to the wine itself but because the occasion was meant to focus on the bridal couple and He did not want to detract from that. At that time there was no wedding ceremony or legal signing of a register. The celebratory meal Christ attended culminated in the groom taking his bride to their new abode, and that moving in together was the social act of marriage at that time. The shortage of wine at the wedding-feast (probably a financial constraint) would have been a humiliation of the groom whose responsibility it was seen as, and so Christ's miraculous provision was completely an act of compassion and not in any sense a public demonstration of His ministry. Mary's personal confidence in bringing the problem to Him does indicate that, although it was the first miracle of His ministry, it was not the first time He had resolved a domestic problem.

myth comes from the false idea of incompatibility-of-presence between the Holy Spirit and a demon. The Scripture usually quoted to support this is that the body of a Christian is the temple of the Holy Spirit, therefore... This view exposes an ignorance both concerning the person of the Holy Spirit, and of the Bible and its context.
The Bible teaches us that the master of all demons, Satan himself, is the Accuser of God's people before the Throne of God in Heaven itself (Rev.12:10), and this is illustrated for us in chapters one and two of the book of Job. There is no holier place in all this universe than before the Throne of God, and Satan and his unclean spirits (demons) are required to regularly give account before that same Throne with all other angelic beings.
    "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside Him on His right hand and on His left; and the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?'
And one said one thing, and another said another.
Then a spirit
[demon] came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, 'I will entice him.'
And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?'
And he said, 'I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.'
And He said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so'.
(1 Kings 22:20-22; 2 Chronicles 18:18-21)
Demon Possession
The Christians of Corinth to whom the following 'temple of the Holy Spirit' statement was made did not think that the body of a believer 'contained' the omnipresent Spirit of God. Rather the opposite – that the Holy Spirit simply has rights of ownership over a Christian believer's physical body.
    "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?
You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."
(1 Corinthians 6:19-20)
The statement by Jesus "This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer" (Mark 9:29) refers to the spiritual unpreparedness of His own disciples to deal with a more senior demon (the word 'fasting' in Matthew is not part of its original) than they had previously experienced.
In their New Testament world, one Greek god such as Zeus may have many temples with a statue of him in each, but Zeus of course lived on 'Mount Olympus'. To these Corinthians then a 'temple' was simply a place which represented a god, it was not the home of a god, nor did it contain the deity. It was simply the appointed place of interaction with that god. It is In this cultural sense of the term that the physical body of every Christian is the place where God Most High is represented to our unbelieving world. Therefore every Christian is exhorted to be 'filled with the Spirit' which, in its context, means to be subject to the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit!
Demonic contamination of the body in its psychosomatic experience is far more common than is generally recognised, for the forte of the demonic is deception, at every level. The popular conception of diagnosing the presence of a demon by its bizarre trance-behaviour is simply not true. A demon will usually do all it can to pretend not to be in-house.
The presence of a demon is not the primary issue however. It is the moral factor/s which have authorised/allowed contamination by that unclean spirit. Once these are dealt with, the ownership rights of the Holy Spirit in the body of every believer requires the evacuation of that demon, and so the direct assertion of faith (as of a child) in Christ is enough to dislodge the worst, for that area to then be filled with God's desires and appropriate responses to Him.

and occult practice are commonly associated with people's needs, otherwise they would have less appeal to people. So their occurrence in 'healing arts' is to be expected. However, 'alternative' often simply describes what is not based on scientifically verified medicine. When Isaiah the prophet applied a herbal remedy to Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:21) it was certainly not a demonic practice. It was folk medicine.
• Even when superstition and occult ideas colour 'alternative' medical procedures it often simply exploits qualities and truths that are not yet understood, such as Jacob visually affecting the quality of sexual reproduction among the flocks of his father-in-law (Genesis 30:37-43).

so is burial of the body. Both forms have a pagan history and associated pagan ritual. But the implication of the statement in Christian circles is that Christians should therefore not cremate their dead.
• That idea has no Biblical foundation. Instead, the Bible speaks positively of the valiant men who cremated ('burned') the bodies of King Saul (first king of Israel) and his sons at Jabesh (1 Samuel 31:12).
• In no sense whatsoever does the Bible condemn the practice of cremation. Christians burned at the stake for their faithfulness to God pose no problem to the Holy Spirit in turning scattered ash into resurrection glory at Christ's return!
• Unfortunately some Christians have been sincerely mislead by certain preachers who ludicrously teach that the cellular DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) in your bones is destroyed by cremation and that therefore you will have no part in the coming resurrection at Christ's return, horribly twisting God's condemnation of Moab in Amos (2:1) for burning the bones of the king of Edom's corpse to humiliate that nation, as though it were somehow a condemnation of cremation. That is deceitful handling of Holy Scripture, and will be judged!
Perhaps Martin Luther was right when he said, what the Bible does not condemn, neither should we.

ONLY fear what deserves to be feared – God Himself. They would like us to become bound by superstitious practice, and will therefore perform accordingly, to convince us of the 'power' in things. The power of God flows through FAITH, not through things religious or otherwise. Therefore, the acts of faith in God, that express God's gracious caring – terrify the enemy of our souls.

Christ referred to Satan, in His prophecy of end-time judgment, saying –
"Then He [Christ as king] will say to those on His left,
'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels."
(Matthew 25:41)
European Medieval Christianity, without access to the Bible in the language of the people, developed the idea that Satan rules in Hell as though he were a king, sending out his demons to torment and drag unrepentant sinners down to his lair. This is totally devoid of any truth whatsoever.
The Bible teaches instead that Satan's activity is on this planet and that, apart from his management of his (corrupted) angels his most important activity is in Heaven before the judicial throne of God as the Accuser of God's people (Eph.6:12). This is portrayed for our understanding in the first two chapters of the book of Job; and Jesus referred to his ongoing prosecutorial activity when He said to Peter –
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded [before the Throne] to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,
but I have prayed
[to the Father] for you that your faith may not fail.
And when you have turned again
[repented], strengthen your brothers." (Luke 22:31-32).
Peter's tendency to presumptuous impetuosity gave Satan a case to use to obtain permission from God to exploit this weakness, and he did. Peter's denial of Christ in the Jewish High Priest's courtyard while Jesus was being interrogated so shamed him when he remembered Christ's warning that the Bible says he went out and wept bitterly at his failure to be faithful (Matthew 26:75; Mark 14:72).
At a yet future time, when God's people have come to spiritual maturity and the full completion of their world mission as the Bible indicates (Matthew 24:14; Ephesians 4:13; Psalm 110:1), then Satan's judicial right to appear before the Throne of God will end and he will be forcibly removed (Revelation 12:10,12). This precipitates the final time of our age when Satan's activity is confined to this earth and his anger at this produces the worst of all times, as Jesus described it, in all human history of 1260 days ((Matthew 24:21-22). (When a limited time is prophesied in Scripture it is to encourage those in that time to endure to its end).
Satan's angels (demons) do not drag people down to Hell. Hell (the Bible 'Gehenna') is under God's supervision and is only an end of days judgment. Only God's angels take the dead to their appropriate place, which, for the believer, is Christ's presence, and for the unbeliever Hades/the realm of the dead. God rules in all His universe. Satan has no jurisdiction anywhere except under special permission granted by God. Satan is only called the god/ruler of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4) because this world listens to his misrepresentations/deceptions.
The Core Concept

of Man is not and never has been a Messianic title! This myth began with scholars thinking they had found a Jewish pre-Christian document in the fraudulent Parables or Similitudes of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch. To thinking persons however, who knew and believed their Bible, it should have been clear from the beginning that the Lord Jesus Christ did not think it was a Messianic title when, using it frequently publicly to refer to Himself, we are told –
"He strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that He was the Christ[Messiah]" (Matthew 16:20).
This is the Jesus whose favourite way of referring to Himself was as 'son of man'. In the Jewish context of His coming, both in the Hebrew and in the Aramaic (common language of the people at that time) the term 'son of man' is simply a synonym for 'human person' and the Lord used it to emphasise His identification with the people, that is – His human nature; not His uniqueness!
• The fallacy of its messianic nature has robbed many Christians of an understanding of the authority of their restored humanity in Jesus Christ. For instance, Jesus said –
"The Sabbath was made for man[humanity],
not man
[humanity] for the Sabbath.
Therefore the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath
". (Mark 2:27-28)
If 'son of man' meant 'messiah' then the Bible verse – "God is not man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind" (Deut.23:19), like a 'son of man', would then mean that the messiah is not to be trusted.
Curse the thought!
Remember, capital letters to designate a title are not in the original text. They are only the opinion of the translator/s.
making the term 'son of man' to be the title of a 'unique' person, the message of Christ's teaching in this statement is destroyed.
• Jesus is saying that because the Sabbath was designed for human benefit therefore He, Jesus, has authority over the use of the Sabbath. In other words, it is His human identity as God meant us all to be, and not His uniqueness, which in God's sight gave Him authority concerning the use of the Sabbath. And He spoke these words to the Jewish Pharisees, without their rebuttal, who were regarded as the local experts in Scripture interpretation and did not believe He was the Messiah.
• This error has been amplified by a disrespectful use of Scripture in Daniel 7:13, where "one like a son of man" prefigures the character of the coming kingdom of God in contrast to the four animal-empires of history, from Daniel's time to the Messiah (Babylon to Rome).
• It is not a reference to Jesus Christ, as is so often ignorantly alleged by commentators who should know better. It is the Kingdom of God (7:18) symbolically contrasted with the four 'beast'-empires; just as the Daniel 2 parallel prophecy of the same history contrasts four 'metal'-empires to the 'rock mountain' of God's Kingdom which will fill the earth. Of course the Kingdom of God comes in Jesus Christ as the only human worthy! But the phrase 'son of man' is not and never has been uniquely attached to Him; rather the very opposite is true, by which He walked in our shoes. Hallelujah!

myth developed from attempts to explain the words of the Lord Jesus –
"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I do;
and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father"
So, even though this verse itself gives the explanation ('because'), the myth generally propagated is that the word 'greater' simply means greater by 'multiplication' of the ministry of Jesus across the planet in the Christian Church rather than by any personal 'addition' increase to that level of ministry.
John 14:12 ESV.
key to understanding this verse is in the status of the Holy Spirit to Christ's disciples, which Jesus explains in this same passage (14:16). As Christ had been to His disciples (παράκλητος/paraklētos/'helper'/'advocate'/'comforter'), so after His departure the Holy Spirit would be to them in the same way (through Christ because of His atonement, as if they were Christ).
At this time, when Christ spoke these words, the disciples had been led by Jesus, but after His departure they were to be led and empowered by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus Himself had been led and empowered by the same Spirit.
There is no limit on the Holy Spirit's ministry, and never can be! So, what was done by Jesus was not the limit and therefore not the 'ultimate' – for, through our faith in Christ, the Holy Spirit chooses as He considers wise at a particular time and place!
is directly demonstrated for us in the New Testament record:
•  Jesus killed a fig tree with a word (Matthew 21:19).  But 
Peter killed Ananias and Sapphira with a word (Acts 5:9), and Paul blinded Elymas with a word (Acts 13:11).
Jesus healed by a touch (Matthew 8:3,15)
Peter's shadow healed all the sick lying in the street (Acts 5:15-16).
Jesus walked on water (Matthew 14:26).
Philip flew in the Holy Spirit from Gaza to Azotus (c.34 miles; Acts 8:39-40).
There is no limit, and never can be!
The miracles of Jesus have nothing to do with His deity. They do not show His deity any more than they did in Elijah and Elisha. They are a product of the Holy Spirit!
The Bible
teaches us that the climax of this age is not the evacuation of the Christian Church in a rapture to Heaven but in the demonstration of the authority of Christ through His people –
"Sit at My right hand [in Heaven], UNTIL I make Your enemies Your footstool...
Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of Your power"
Psalm 110:1,3 ESV.
So, on the contrary –
 Christ will remain at the right hand of the Father until His power is fully demonstrated in His people! 
This future climax which completes Daniel's 'seventy-weeks' prophecy is described in the Revelation in the metaphor of the Two Witnesses, in their defiant authority as His representatives before the face of Antichrist (Revelation 11) until baptised into Christ's suffering.
See: The Hidden Time
See: His Bride's Day!

Jesus described the mission of His Church as "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached..." (Matthew 24:14), He had not as yet been crucified, or resurrected, nor had He ascended – three cardinal divine acts of our salvation. What then did He mean by "this gospel"? The essence of the gospel is what Jesus Himself preached!
• This is the revelation of the true nature of God and His "kingdom" rule. Christ expressed this in His works of compassion and in His parables such as that describing God as the 'father of the prodigal'.
• Thus the gospel is more than the biography of Jesus, descriptions of His death or His authority, or doctrinal definitions. The gospel is nothing less than the revelation of God's atoning mercy! The works of God in Christ's death, resurrection, ascension and His gift of the Spirit, all four of which wonderfully secured and expressed the fullness of "this gospel", but they cannot be truly "gospel" if they are expressed in any way that is less than Christ's original revelation of the character of God, that redeeming love demonstrated in Jesus' own Palestine ministry.
The Whole Gospel


myth was helped by the clumsy translation of the angel's words to the shepherds of Bethlehem of – 'peace on earth, goodwill toward men'; but the Bible really gives us –
"...on earth peace among those with whom He is pleased!"
Luke 2:14. ESV
Jesus Himself expressly said –
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household."
Matthew 10:34.
fundamental contradiction between God's ways and human self-centred conduct means conflict, and those who turn to God's way of selfless-love will find themselves in conflict with the lifestyle of their society.
    For this reason the Lord Jesus taught His followers to be as wise as serpents.  

This widespread
error can be traced back to (St.) Augustine's attempt to formulate Christian theology within the framework of Greek Platonic philosophy. After the Christian Reformation began in Europe, John Calvin developed his Protestant theology, based on that of Augustine, believing that, in contrast to Roman Catholicism, it reflected the original. However, only one quote from Holy Scripture totally undoes this serious error, namely John 3:16 –
"For God so loved the world [kosmos/κόσμος], that He gave His only Son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life
Augustine's Corruptions
for this same Hellenistic Greek word, translated as "world", is the word κόσμος (kosmos), which, no matter who debates its meaning, was directly used by Jesus Himself in this same Gospel, if one believes the inspired New Testament, to mean nothing other than this unregenerate unbelieving world. For instance Jesus said –
"the Spirit of truth, whom the world [kosmos/κόσμος] cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him."
John 14:17.
Calvinism's Corruptions
  Due respect for God's Word requires that we read it within its own context and not within the pre-formulated context of our particular theological background.

is such a common fallacy (because it is so natural as much as it is wrong) from reading Daniel Chapter Seven with the New Testament Gospels in mind. It inevitably constructs a false context to this particular part of the sacred Word of God and thereby misleads.
"son of man" figure of Chapter Seven, who receives the kingdom from God, is, in its God-given context, no more an individual person than the four empires portrayed were each an individual person, even though these four 'animal'/predator empires (Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Hellenistic, Roman) are there personified as "four kings" (7:17). They are not individuals any more than that Medo-Persia was a person. Within its own context this is very clear, when it describes this decision of God's Court, which takes the rule over Israel away from the fourth empire (Roman) and gives it to this "son of man" image in the end time, by saying for our understanding –
"...judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom"
Daniel 7:22
'saints'(קדּישׁ)=holy ones
(not the 'canonized')
In ancient Hebrew and Aramaic,
the phrase 'son of...'
changes its attached noun
into an adjective.
Jesus as perfect "son of man' (Semitic idiom for 'human', which Jesus used repeatedly to emphasis His identification with us) deserves the kingdom and therefore He is its rightful heir (Rev.5:5, and so its king). But this 'son of man' term is not a messianic title, never was, and also here it does not even point to an individual person, as has unfortunately been so commonly taught by those who do not take its God-given context seriously enough or understand the idiom of its language.
'Son of Man' Myth
• Remember, this same revelation was given in Daniel Two, via Nebuchadnezzar's dream, in which the contrast was between four 'metals' and the 'rock' of God's kingdom, which is then here portrayed to Daniel again in the contrast of the four 'animals' to the 'human' of God's kingdom. This error, of seeing it as the person of Jesus, has exacerbated misunderstanding of Christ's use of the term for Himself in the New Testament (remember Jesus' home-language was Aramaic) as the true human and so has led to many other errors of understanding such as not recognising the human basis of Christ's authority over the Sabbath (Mk.2:28-28), etc. . .
See: Congruence


This confusion in Christian history has often misled Islamic understanding of Christianity
See: Islâm & God
The Trinity of God
Biblical term/title "Son of God" has nothing at all to do with the deity, of Jesus or anyone else! This title derives from Psalm 2:7 and is the title of the Messiah –
"You are My Son; today I have begotten you"
concerning Israel's prophesied Messiah, and so likewise these words concerning Jesus "today I have begotten You" also do not mean in any way that Jesus had a beginning, but are simply the declaration of the appointment of Christ's messianic status, as was later demonstrated by His resurrection! (Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:3; 5:5).
Within its original context it is simply an idiomatic statement of messianic appointment, as had been stated in its previous verse – "I have set My King on Zion, My holy hill" (Psalm 2:6), for this literary context is vital to understanding the text!
"son of..." implies
secondary, and in
the Eternal Infinity
no part of God
can ever be
secondary to
the rest of God!
There is no eternal
hierarchy in God

A Biblical
of History
phrase/title 'Son of God' is a Semitic idiom for a specially favoured relationship that Israel's royal Messiah (Anointed) would enjoy with God, and that is all. The ancient Egyptians thought similarly of their royal pharaoh's favoured relationship to the Most High. The subsequent pollution of Christian thought in the early centuries, by being mixed with pagan Greek concepts of deity, corrupted much understanding of this Biblical phrase. It does not imply deity!
before the creation of all things, was part of the eternal infinite plurality of God without beginning, and which is referred to in Christian teaching and tradition as the 'Holy Trinity'.
But, just
as Christ's divine 'sonship' as royal Messiah/'Son of God' had a beginning (Psalm 2:7) – so it will also have an end
to no longer be Son of God when His historical role/function as Messiah is completed.
(According to 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 28, which describe the same event).

This is
a pagan Greek perspective that has contaminated Christianity world-wide. The Semitic title "son of God" for the Jewish Messiah (from Psalm 2:7) was later interpreted within the common Greek understanding of 'deity' in the first Christian centuries – meaning mistakenly that Christ's deity was a 'derived' deity from His relationship to God the Father, and that He was therefore the 'secondary' god in the Christian Trinity.
The corruption
of Christianity.
referred above, "son of God", in its Old Testament perspective, simply meant Messiah and nothing more. It had nothing to do with eternal deity.
Christ's deity has no beginning. The Father did not produce Him!
The Trinity of God
In the eternal infinite plurality of God, Jesus is that part/aspect of God in which the humility of God had its focus by voluntarily limiting Himself to be the Creator of all in His consequent direct association with that which has a beginning (Colossians 1:16).
us the act of creating the universe is awesome, but to God the Infinite it was an act of infinite self-humbling – to directly associate Himself with that which has a beginning and is therefore finite.
That was
the first step-down of Jesus! The second occurred when He completely limited Himself to a fertilized embryo in the womb of Mary as she entered the home of her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:43). Ultimately, after the fulfilment of all things in the plan of God, the Lord Jesus will be return again as He was before all things, infinite, beyond measure, in the eternal plurality of God.

This error,
concerning Christ's response to the woman caught in the act of adultery whom the Jewish Pharisees brought to Him to test His conformity to the Mosaic Code to stone her to death, arises often sincerely, from an ignorance of that Mosaic Law concerning which the Pharisees had specially set up the situation to challenge Jesus. His compassion for the despised was well known, and so they thought that they could trap Him in this way into contradicting God's Word given through Moses. As usual, a knowledge of the Old Testament is essential to fully understanding the New Testament.
law which God had given to Israel through Moses required that, for any crime that resulted in a death sentence, the witnesses for the prosecution had to themselves act as the executioners to carry out the sentence caused by their testimony. Jesus has scribbled in the dust immediately prior to His response (possibly because these so-called court 'witnesses' were her clients).
In the Mosaic Law this
was designed so that
the witnesses responsible
for the conviction should
feel be directly aware of the
consequence of their action.
when Jesus said –
"Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her"
and then continued to write on the ground, He was simply applying the Law of Moses
to the situation which they had specially created, and of which their Mosaic Law said –
"The hand of the [prosecution] witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death,
and afterward the hand of all the people."
John 8:7

Deuteronomy 17:7.
manipulative attempt of the Jewish religious leaders at the time to publicly trap Jesus backfired! We don't know what Jesus wrote in the dust before He invited the guiltless to begin her execution, but when he did so – they were all gone, possible because of the unrecorded words He had written!
after the last prosecution witness had left, Jesus turns to the woman, and in the absence of the departed witnesses, states –
"Neither do I condemn you;  go, and from now on sin no more"
The word/term "neither", oude in the original Greek, does not mean 'however'. It just means neither! In other words, like your witnesses (who have run away rather than condemn you), I Jesus also do not condemn you (for Christ was not a witness). Christ is simply conforming to the Law of the Lord given through Moses and is not going beyond it! The Law of the Lord had no error and did not need to be modified or softened by adding any compassion.
John 8:11.
is not a statement of sentiment or of empathy!
This is a legally valid statement in terms of the Law of Moses, with an added encouragement for her to change her ways.

In His
Sermon on the Mount, Christ corrected the traditional interpretation of Israel's Covenant. He introduced nothing more than God had always required of every Israelite since the founding of their nation at Sinai. Christ's New Covenant was only introduced after the Old was abolished in His death –
" His flesh... abolishing the Law of commandments making peace [with God],
and might reconcile us both
[Jew & Gentile] to God in one body through the Cross..." (Ephesians 2:13-16)
Christ's Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in Matthew, corrected the traditional teachings of Israel's religious leaders at that time (Scribes and Pharisees), which are today reflected in the Jewish Talmud. This is why Jesus did not start each of His corrections of Old Covenant exposition with a contrastive 'it is written', as He did when quoting Holy Scripture (e.g. Matt.21:13), but rather with the words – 'you have heard it said'. Jesus was not improving on Holy Scripture under some superior covenant standard, as is sometimes foolishly asserted!
Jesus' correction of these Pharisaic interpretations of Scripture showed that the violation of God's commandments to Israel lay in the motive of the heart and not in the method of their behaviour in technicalities of conduct –
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But [in contrast] I say to you
that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
(Matthew 5:27)
Christ was neither contradicting nor adding to the so-called 'Old Covenant' that God had instituted with Israel under Moses at Sinai. He was publicly correcting the interpretation/exposition/exegesis thereof by the teachers of that Law. Christ Himself fulfilled all requirements of that Law to its fullest (Matthew 5:17), that He might become the Lamb of God on our behalf as a sacrifice for sin. This fulfilling of the Law in Christ is not a reference to fulfilling of prophecy or typology as Lamb of God in His sacrifice for sin, but in His demonstrably sinless life under that Old Covenant Law – as all Israelites ought to have done.
Law Versus Grace
There is no law in the New Covenant but love, shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit given to us; the very love of God Himself (Romans 5:5).

misrepresentation, fuelled by church's need for funding, is a gross twisting of Holy Scripture, often used because it pre-dates the giving of the Sinai Covenant through Moses and therefore the assumption is that it thus did not end when that covenant ended in Christ's atonement.
 Firstly, Abraham's tithe to king Melchizedec, in terms of Abraham's Mesopotamian background, was a tax in acknowledgement of his rule in that territory, and nothing more! That Hebrews uses Melchizedec as an analogy of Jesus, does not change the actual history of their situation. For those who see it as a worship act of spiritual significance it also needs to be remembered that the 10% was given from looted goods, recovered by Abraham, but which did not belong to him.
Giving to God
 The promise of Jacob to God was to offer as burnt sacrifice a tenth of all he gained in the future, which in its historical context is simply an acknowledgement of God as his king with its expected benefits.
use either of these historical acts in disregard of their historical context, to try and validate adding a sense obligation/compulsion to financial giving to the local church, is a horrible abuse of Holy Scripture, no matter how sincere and well-meaning that may be.

Myth 118.  THE GOSPEL SUMMARIZED IS THE COMMANDS: 'Love God & others', and 'Make disciples'
The Gospel is not a call to obey divine instructions; and at its essence can never contain any commandment!
Lord Jesus defined the Gospel as the content of His own ministry to Israel ("this gospel" Matthew 24:14), and made the completion of this Gospel message, spread to all the nations, as God's precondition for the End and His coming kingdom.
The kingdom of God
Jesus was not preaching 'commandments' of any kind to Israel. They already had the 'love'-commandment from Moses' time at the founding of their nationhood, and the 'make-disciples'-instruction was never preached to Israel. It is an instruction given only to those who have personally accepted the Gospel. So the idea that the Gospel of Jesus could be summarized as these two commands is simply silly. The Gospel is the 'good news'!
Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ was preached and demonstrated in His ministry, and, if it be summarized, it is the true revelation of God's character (as shown in Christ's words and miracles), which was being so misrepresented by Israel's religious leaders at that time.
For instance, the parable of the Prodigal Son illustrates the Gospel of Jesus (as its companying illustrations of lost sheep and lost coin): God is as a Parent waiting for the repentance/return of the Fallen. He requires no penitence, and rejoices in the return of the Lost! The Gospel is the revelation of God! He is the good news!
Luke 15:3-32.

Myth 119. 
false teaching occurred in the Protestant world of the 16th century and was used in the world of Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli to justify the murder of Anabaptist martyrs in Zurich, Switzerland, from 1526 by drowning them publicly in the river Limat.
The myth arose from the false doctrine that the Christian Church replaced Israel in the plan of God and therefore, as circumcision was the identification of those in the Abrahamic covenant so baptism of infants has now taken its place in the covenant of Christ. The Christian Church as not replaced Israel in the economy of God as the still to be fulfilled prophecies of the Old Testament are evidence.
justifying the killing
of Anabaptists.
of the Swiss victims of the false teaching fled with their families to Amsterdam in the Netherlands where the met up with British Protestants who had fled the persecution in Britain, and here the term Baptist to define them was born.

error arose from Calvin's popularising of Augustine's doctrine of limited atonement, which Augustine had developed from his pagan Greek Neoplatonic perspective on Christ's atonement.
See: Augustine
basic fact, that is forgotten in this view, is that the value of Christ's atonement does not lie in anything but in the intrinsic nature of His atonement –
"For our sake He [God the Father] made Him [Jesus] to be sin who knew no sin,
so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
This is a description of the Infinite eternal Son of God who in love limited Himself to the human dimension in identification with us through His incarnation, in which, to take our place before the Father, He was cut off from the rest of God's being at noon in His crucifixion as expressed in His cry "My God, My God, why have you deserted Me", for even the knowledge of the reason why, which could have given Him some comfort, was taken from Him. Truly, in God's sight He was "sin". Nothing can measure this, for it was a total personal price paid by the Infinite One, so any value is less than infinite and therefore inappropriate.

2 Corinthians 5:21.
In a
misguided effort to 'protect' God's sovereign perfection it is presented as though God, who knows all things, would not waste atonement value on those whom He knew would never repent and believe, as though Christ's atonement was a measurable value attached to a certain number of believers.
See: Calvinism
a truly Biblical perspective, a foundational fact is stated in John 3:16 in God's Word –
"ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν
ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life
The world translated as "world" is the Greek word κοσμον (kosmos), and this same word is used by Jesus in this same Gospel of John to mean those who do not believe (John 14:17, 30, etc), so it is a totally inclusive term.
No one is excluded from being the objective of God's love!. No theological squirming can get past this foundational fact!
John 3:16.

This teaching arose as a direct reaction to the Catholic false doctrine that the pope is the successor of the Apostle Peter, but it is equally false.
had said, in response to Simon Peter's declaration of the messianic identity of Jesus –
"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in Heaven.
And I tell you, you are Peter
and on this rock
(πέτρα/petra) I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,
and whatever you bind
[forbid] on earth shall be [have been] bound in Heaven,
and whatever you loose
[permit] on earth shall be [have been] loosed in Heaven."
These words of Jesus must be understood as He intended. In other words, in the terminology of the time spoken.
16:17-19 (ESV).
So note that:
  • the "bind" and "loose" statements were at that time the common idiom/terminology for expressing a verdict;
  • the "kingdom of Heaven" is not Heaven but was the Jewish rabbinic idiom for kingdom of God or rule of the Messiah;
  • and that this is a statement of responsibility for evangelism, as a continuance of Christ's ministry, being entrusted to him.
In the
Literal Translation of the above Bible passage, its last sentence actually reads –
"And whatever you bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven.
And whatever you may loose on the earth shall be, having been loosed in Heaven."
And Young's Literal Translation gives it to us as –
"whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens,
and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens."
The Protestant aversion
to understanding 'rock'
as Peter is a reaction
to the papacy's
false claim,
and does not
justify twisting
Holy Scripture.
common Protestant practice of emphasizing the grammatical difference between the Greek word petra (rock) on which Christ would build His Church, and Simon as Petros (as though it somehow meant 'small stone'), is totally irrelevant and very misleading, for Jesus was speaking Aramaic and in that language that grammatical difference did not exist. But sadly then to say, as some do, that the Greek is the inspired version and that therefore the grammatical distinction is relevant to our theological understanding today, actually implies that Matthew was either more inspired than Jesus Himself in the meaning of these words than those which were actually used at that time, which of course is also absolute nonsense, or that the inspired New Testament is not an honest report of what Jesus had actually said in the Aramaic language to His disciples at that time, which is also ridiculous!
Bible is its own best interpretor and the Bible makes it plain that when Jesus said that Peter was a 'rock' (Cephas in Aramaic) and that upon this rock Jesus would build His Church, Jesus meant just that! The 'rock' here is not the 'revelation about Jesus being Messiah', which had come to Peter in his personal relationship to God. So trying to make out that Peter is here just a small 'stone' as distinct from the rock referred to in Christ's words is actually dishonest exegesis in terms of its own historical context, for Jesus was speaking in Aramaic to His disciples at the time (as proven in John 1:42) and in that language such a grammatical distinction between the two words (Petra and Petros) simply did not exist.
Aramaic had become
the common language
of the Jewish people
in Palestine as a
consequence of the
Babylonian captivity.
The Bible
also confirms elsewhere that Christ's Church is historically built upon its first leaders such as Peter, in Ephesians 2:20 –
"...built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets..."
And then again in Revelation 21:14 –
"...the city [New Jerusalem] had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb..."
Unfortunately a sincere reaction to error, unless directly cautioned by Holy Scripture itself and not simply used as ammunition, will often produce further errors.

is only true as much as the frame around a painting is part of the painting itself. Our Atonement as an act of God's mercy in placing the blame/guilt for all sin, sin as understood by the Holy One, upon the perfect man Jesus began at 12 noon and lasted 'til 3pm when Jesus cried out "It is finished/completed" (Jn.19:30), even though He had been nailed to His cross at 9am that morning. Our Atonement was a judicial act of God. It was not a contest between Jesus and Satan! Satan had no part whatsoever in that act of God's mercy in Jesus.
blood of His cross represents the price paid in the infinite cost of the loss of His relationship to God in that time. The coming horror of that experience took Christ by surprise in Gethsemane during the Passover night vigil of the Jews, which accounts for it's dramatic effect on Him at that time. But when the time came and it happened, even the knowledge of what was happening, which could have given Him courage, was also taken from Him. He was absolutely and totally cut off from God in every sense.
haemoglobin that dripped from His pain-filled body no more paid for our sin than it had done when he was circumcised as an infant on the eighth day after His birth.
Atonement in Jesus Christ, anticipated before all things (Rev.13:8), was an act of God in Christ, by which we have been given
an undeserved intimate unrestricted relationship to the Most High which makes us forever the heirs of the future.

is omnipotent and full of mercy, but to root God's healing grace in the Atonement from sin is to put healing from sickness at the same level as forgiveness of sin – mandatory. The Unforgiven are responsible for their state simply because forgiveness is available to them, as to us all – for the price of our guilt, all of it, has been paid! Hallelujah! However, to say the same of the Sick is to blame them for still being sick because healing is supposedly available to all, in the same way. This is patently not true!
• Christ's miracle of turning water to wine cannot be separated from His miracles of healing. As Christ's first miracle, it set-the-tone for all miracles that followed. The miracles are signs that God cares. Yet, I have not (yet) heard those who teach 'healing-in-the-atonement' also teach that, for those who believe, supernatural replenishment-of-groceries (eg. wine) is also in the Atonement.
• A book by Henry Wright, 'A More Excellent Way', symptomatic of this fallacy, twists Holy Scripture, violating its context, and uses God's Word to lie to God's people, saying –
'If we come to a Communion service, and partake of the cup and the bread, but we deny healing and deliverance as part of the atonement today, we eliminate the provision of God in our lives as a human being apart from salvation and eternal life in that day. ...For that reason many of us are filled with disease and insanity today because we have said in our heart that it passed away two thousand years ago yet we still participate in the sacrament of Communion which represents its reality for today.' (page 42, emphasis mine).
Likewise, to Wright: osteoporosis is caused by envy; liver cancer is caused by pornography; aneurysms, strokes, haemorrhoids, and varicose veins are caused by fear and anxiety; cancer of the right breast is caused by a woman's conflict with her mother-in-law; etc. and other such total nonsense.
• Yes, lifestyle, including moral behaviour, can cause illness, but using illness in return/reverse to read/diagnose moral behaviour is to apply physical methodology in the moral realm and thus a misleading deception.
Remember: misleading half-truths which stimulate faith in God may bring blessing for that reason, but will still lead us into error!

'Why am I not healed?'


It is absolutely essential to treat God's Word as it is given to us (His congregation) within its own context and not selectively.
The whole picture presented on a particular issue is necessary or even the sincere may become guilty of twisting the holy word of God Most High.
The Bible deserves the utmost respect in the way we treat and use its words. Less than this is to disrespect its Author – GOD!
See: Understanding the Bible
So – to illustrate the importance of –  C O N T E X T !  For, if one ignores its context, the Bible actually says: "there is no God",
but in its own context it really says —"The fool says in his heart 'there is no God'." (Psalm 14:1)

darby's division equality before God when will Jesus come? the core concept
Bible codes virgin prophecy a biblical structure of history elijah – sign of the end

Copyright © Lloyd Thomas 1999-2018. All Rights Reserved Worldwide.
Feel free to copy, as long as this full copyright notice is included.