 |
Pfander members Lizzie Schofield, Beth Grove, Sarah Foster, Hatun and Jay Smith
In this video Beth Grove is told off for being rude by a fellow Christian
In this video they are mocking somebody's lack of ability in English In this video Lizzie Schofield is being rude and is told to stop shouting and have manners Constant interrupting from Beth in discussion with Shabir Yusuf
I hope Lizzie Schofield, Sharon Hoy, Sarah Foster, Hatun Tash and Beth Grove will reflect on why Jay Smith's Pfander Ministries and Pfander Films has accrued such caustic and extremist anti-Muslim followers over the years. I hope Muslim preachers and Muslim organisations will be extra careful in not developing the reputation Pfander has with Muslims in the eyes of Christians they are giving dawah to.
|
Tuesday, 30 May 2017
A Reputation for Rudeness Is Difficult to Shake Off, Ask Pfander...
This Christian group, Pfander Centre for Apologetics, comes across as really rude, condescending and obnoxious towards Muslims at times at Speakers Corner. Muslims should not make the same public relations mistakes as this Christian missionary group. Young Muslim preachers should be wary of perceptions - make sure you don't get a bad reputation in the field. Whichever community you're preaching to make sure they do not think you're rude. Politeness goes along way.
Monday, 29 May 2017
Thoughts on the Blasphemy Debate: Hamza Myatt, Adnan Rashid and Pfander Films' Lizzie Schofield
A few thoughts on this Speakers Corner dialogue between an anti-Islam Christian from Jay Smith’s and Beth Grove’s Pfander Ministries, Elizabeth Schofield, and Hamza Myatt and Ustadh Adnan Rashid. You can find the dialogue on the SC Dawah, see here
Adnan Rashid and Hamza Myatt made pertinent points which were getting drowned out by an unreasonable Lizzie Schofield. Lizzie’s constant oh hurry up attitude and you’ve been talking too long now so let me talk approach is not conducive to respectful dialogue. It’s not sincere either, it is easy to make a claim and then hustle and harry the other person when they are trying to respond. For instance, an Atheist, could screech to Lizzie the Bible forbids divorce and gay marriage and then denounce Christianity as a false religion based on his premise and presuppositions. It would take the Atheist all of 30 seconds to launch that polemic but for the serious-minded theist (Christian in this case but in reality an argument from the same category could be launched against any Abrahamic faith) would require an involved answer: keep your ADD in check people. To deny Lizzie the time and courtesy to construct an argument which deals with presuppositions, premises and explores whether the conclusions are valid or invalid would be disingenuous – the Atheist is not really looking for a dialogue or even listen an answer. The Atheist simply wants to appeal to rhetoric, superficiality and point-score in the eyes of low level thinkers in his camp.
The irony here, Lizzie Schofield is guilty of precisely that. Turning up with a pre-prepared print-out gives the impression it’s all staged and rehearsed. Rehearsed disingenuity!
Now, this post will not be for those who are fighting sleep right now. Off you go to bed. Ahlam Saeedan. Sweet dreams! Some points, IIRC, which were made by Hamza and Adnan but drowned out by the Lizzie’s Hatun Tash-Like cadence which I want to focus on before going on to talk specifics.
1. Prophet Muhammad was in charge of a state – Jesus nor Paul were in charge of a state and as Hamza points out it’s unfair to compare a ministry of less than 5 years to a ministry which ran over two decades including state interactions with hostile players. States do impose punishment. In ethics reasons are given for state punishments. 5 common sense points are given, two of which are vindicating the law and deterring others. Lizzie goes away from descriptive ethics and veers off onto normative ethics. She’s making value judgements on certain actions she attributes to Prophet Muhammad (there is actually a fictitious story in her script which Muslims do not attribute to the Prophet as it is non canonical vis-a-vis Muslim texts and the other two I felt she didn’t fully grasp).
2. Adnan pointed out the Bible teaches obedience to governments and authorities. Actions are either moral, immoral or amoral. If Lizzie is saying a person should be free to insult religious sensitivity in any land or have unfettered free speech (which Britain does not even have – anti-semitism and anti –racism laws for instance) it actually goes against Paul’s precept concerning state laws in Romans 13
Adnan Rashid and Hamza Myatt made pertinent points which were getting drowned out by an unreasonable Lizzie Schofield. Lizzie’s constant oh hurry up attitude and you’ve been talking too long now so let me talk approach is not conducive to respectful dialogue. It’s not sincere either, it is easy to make a claim and then hustle and harry the other person when they are trying to respond. For instance, an Atheist, could screech to Lizzie the Bible forbids divorce and gay marriage and then denounce Christianity as a false religion based on his premise and presuppositions. It would take the Atheist all of 30 seconds to launch that polemic but for the serious-minded theist (Christian in this case but in reality an argument from the same category could be launched against any Abrahamic faith) would require an involved answer: keep your ADD in check people. To deny Lizzie the time and courtesy to construct an argument which deals with presuppositions, premises and explores whether the conclusions are valid or invalid would be disingenuous – the Atheist is not really looking for a dialogue or even listen an answer. The Atheist simply wants to appeal to rhetoric, superficiality and point-score in the eyes of low level thinkers in his camp.
The irony here, Lizzie Schofield is guilty of precisely that. Turning up with a pre-prepared print-out gives the impression it’s all staged and rehearsed. Rehearsed disingenuity!
Now, this post will not be for those who are fighting sleep right now. Off you go to bed. Ahlam Saeedan. Sweet dreams! Some points, IIRC, which were made by Hamza and Adnan but drowned out by the Lizzie’s Hatun Tash-Like cadence which I want to focus on before going on to talk specifics.
1. Prophet Muhammad was in charge of a state – Jesus nor Paul were in charge of a state and as Hamza points out it’s unfair to compare a ministry of less than 5 years to a ministry which ran over two decades including state interactions with hostile players. States do impose punishment. In ethics reasons are given for state punishments. 5 common sense points are given, two of which are vindicating the law and deterring others. Lizzie goes away from descriptive ethics and veers off onto normative ethics. She’s making value judgements on certain actions she attributes to Prophet Muhammad (there is actually a fictitious story in her script which Muslims do not attribute to the Prophet as it is non canonical vis-a-vis Muslim texts and the other two I felt she didn’t fully grasp).
2. Adnan pointed out the Bible teaches obedience to governments and authorities. Actions are either moral, immoral or amoral. If Lizzie is saying a person should be free to insult religious sensitivity in any land or have unfettered free speech (which Britain does not even have – anti-semitism and anti –racism laws for instance) it actually goes against Paul’s precept concerning state laws in Romans 13
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. [ESV]
3. I think at the end Hamza did try to bring up consistency in trying to talk about Christian beliefs with regards to Trinitarian views of what Jesus did according to the Old Testament. I suppose he may have gone the other way round by talking about Christian eschatology and what they believe Jesus would do according to the book of Revelation. At that point Lizzie made a sharp retreat.
Why Don't Christians Know What the Bible Says: Blasphemy Laws and No Free Speech
This video is also uploaded here and here
The sources: Lizzie misdirected by Jay Smith or some other Islamophobe?
As Hamza was getting at, Lizzie didn’t understand the narrations what she was using.
She needs to ask questions of Beth Grove and Jay mith if they furnished her with the Asma Bint Marwan story. That’s seen as a fabrication - they were corrected on that months ago via video. Muslims do not accept it – it would be seen as the story of Jesus killing children when he was a child according to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Evangelical Christians would consider it unfair if somebody used those stories in their polemics against their faith. Why the double standard?
Without going back to check, I suspect she may have be have been referring to the same person in the two other narrations she cited: one of a Jewish lady being killed by an axe and another of her being killed by strangulation for reviling the Prophet (I think we are talking about the same story but just different versions).
The Prophet did not order that action, the person killed that person, upon learning of a the dead Jewish lady the Prophet:
He got angry and adjured the Muslims by Allaah that the one who had done this deed should show himself, so that he might determine his punishment and issue a ruling concerning him. But when he found out that she had broken the covenant time after time, by insulting the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and reviling him, all her rights were denied. [Islam QA]
See here for more on that
A secularist or a Bible believing Christian?
OK, so Lizzie does not understand the sources. I don’t expect her to. The ethical judgement coming from Lizzie, a state should not enforce a blasphemy law because it is wrong (any punishment never mind death is seen as wrong by Lizzie I assume).
Lizzie argues like a secularist. She knows religion has a broader range of values which religious folk consciously subscribe to, this includes definitive rules and values. An immense moral question for one person may be of little importance to another person. For instance, gay marriage may not be a talking point for a secularist but for a Christian it may well be. Idolatry would be a faith-defining issue for all who are part of an Abrahamic faith but for somebody outside those traditions it may not be such a big deal. Blasphemy for Moses (and for Jesus from the Trinitarian point of view) was a serious crime warranting death over 3000 years ago but for somebody else at the time it really may not have been significant.
Blasphemy Law (Death Penalty) Given by Jesus to Moses According to Trinitarians.
Lizzie, needs to ask the very serious question of whether she believes Moses and (if still a Trinitarian, Jesus) are immoral for Leviticus 24
10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;11 And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:)12 And they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might be shewed them13 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
Free Speech: Did Jesus believe in it according to Trinitarians? Death Penalty for words?
Can Lizzie, in a state of consistency, argue the way she does against Muslims and not reject Christian simultaneously? Surely, Lizzie was arguing against Exodus 21:27 and 2 Kings as free speech does seem to have been punished in certain circumstances by Jesus according to Trinitarians.
Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. [Exodus 21:17]
According to Steven Anderson, Jesus is backing up the commandment in Exodus 21 in Matthew 15:
Matthew 15:4 For God said: 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
Pastor Steven Anderson teaches this refers to people who curse their parents (not insult or are disobedient, i.e. those children who wish their parents will die or go to hell) and those who hit their parents
I will also add Mark 7 in as it is the same as Matthew 15:
Mark 7:10 For Moses said, 'Honor your Father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
Steven Anderson, links Matthew 15:4 and Exodus 21:17 with 2 Kings 2:
23From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys
Conclusion
Dr Yasir Qadh, points out Prophet Muhammad never took revenge for personal matters. An act of the state and Divine Law is not a personal matter.
I would urge Lizzie to consistency and a higher level of sincerity. Folks do see your arguments to be disingenuous and this reflects bad on you - regardless if Smith or Grove handed them to you.
OK, so Lizzie does not understand the sources. I don’t expect her to. The ethical judgement coming from Lizzie, a state should not enforce a blasphemy law because it is wrong (any punishment never mind death is seen as wrong by Lizzie I assume).
Lizzie argues like a secularist. She knows religion has a broader range of values which religious folk consciously subscribe to, this includes definitive rules and values. An immense moral question for one person may be of little importance to another person. For instance, gay marriage may not be a talking point for a secularist but for a Christian it may well be. Idolatry would be a faith-defining issue for all who are part of an Abrahamic faith but for somebody outside those traditions it may not be such a big deal. Blasphemy for Moses (and for Jesus from the Trinitarian point of view) was a serious crime warranting death over 3000 years ago but for somebody else at the time it really may not have been significant.
Blasphemy Law (Death Penalty) Given by Jesus to Moses According to Trinitarians.
Lizzie, needs to ask the very serious question of whether she believes Moses and (if still a Trinitarian, Jesus) are immoral for Leviticus 24
10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;11 And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:)12 And they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might be shewed them13 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
Free Speech: Did Jesus believe in it according to Trinitarians? Death Penalty for words?
Can Lizzie, in a state of consistency, argue the way she does against Muslims and not reject Christian simultaneously? Surely, Lizzie was arguing against Exodus 21:27 and 2 Kings as free speech does seem to have been punished in certain circumstances by Jesus according to Trinitarians.
Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. [Exodus 21:17]
According to Steven Anderson, Jesus is backing up the commandment in Exodus 21 in Matthew 15:
Matthew 15:4 For God said: 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
Pastor Steven Anderson teaches this refers to people who curse their parents (not insult or are disobedient, i.e. those children who wish their parents will die or go to hell) and those who hit their parents
I will also add Mark 7 in as it is the same as Matthew 15:
Mark 7:10 For Moses said, 'Honor your Father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
Steven Anderson, links Matthew 15:4 and Exodus 21:17 with 2 Kings 2:
23From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys
Conclusion
Dr Yasir Qadh, points out Prophet Muhammad never took revenge for personal matters. An act of the state and Divine Law is not a personal matter.
I would urge Lizzie to consistency and a higher level of sincerity. Folks do see your arguments to be disingenuous and this reflects bad on you - regardless if Smith or Grove handed them to you.
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Why Islam
Abu Afak and Asma Bint Marwan Stories Explained
Did the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) order the assassinations of Abu Afak and Asma Bin Marwan as found in Ibn Ishaq pages 675-676 and Ibn Sad Volume 2 Pages 31-32 and by critics of Islam like Robert Spencer? Muslim Apologist Ehteshaam Gulam refutes the assassination of Asama Bin Marwan and Abu Afak allegedly under the Prophet Muhammad's orders.
Hadeeth about the blind man who killed his slave woman for blasphemy explained
This video is also uploaded here
For a Muslim scholar explaining this Hadith, see the following
This story is indicative of the justice with which the Muslims dealt with the people of the Book, which was brought by sharee’ah as a mercy to the worlds. The rights of the Jews who had entered into a treaty with the Muslims were guaranteed and protected, and it was not permissible to transgress against them by annoying them or harming them in any way. Hence when the people found a Jewish woman who had been slain, they were upset and they referred the matter to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who had given them that covenant and promise of safety, and had not taken the jizyah from them. He got angry and adjured the Muslims by Allaah that the one who had done this deed should show himself, so that he might determine his punishment and issue a ruling concerning him. But when he found out that she had broken the covenant time after time, by insulting the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and reviling him, all her rights were denied, and she deserved the punishment of execution which sharee’ah imposes on everyone who reviles the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), whether he is a Muslim, a dhimmi or a mu’aahid, because transgressing against the status of the Prophets is disbelief in Allaah Almighty, and it invalidates every sanctity, right and covenant; it is a major betrayal which deserves the most severe punishment.
Blasphemy Law in Islam and insulting Prophet Muhammad p - Dr. Yasir Qadhi
Qur'an Seminar 2017: Learn about Quranic Preservation
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Blasphemy Law in Islam and insulting Prophet Muhammad p - Dr. Yasir Qadhi
Qur'an Seminar 2017: Learn about Quranic Preservation
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Friday, 26 May 2017
Thursday, 25 May 2017
Qur'an Seminar 2017: Learn about Quranic Preservation
The Muslim Apologetics Podcast's Qur’an Seminar featuring speaker Ustadh Adnan Rashid today.
Quran, preservation, ahruf, textual transmission, manuscripts.
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Jay Smith's Pfander Films Asked to Condemn Death Threat to Muslim Apologist
Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics is notorious for having a radicalised anti-Muslim following. It turns out one of them may have been behind a "death threat" to a Muslim apologist in Australia.
Mustafa Muhammed Sahin a pretty big development I stumbled across. Guess what, that guy who threatened to shoot you in the head appears to be the same guy who follows Jay Smith's extremist vids at Pfander Films. He was amongst those who racially abused Adnan Rashid, Pakistanis and called for booting Muslims out of Europe. See the screenshots in this link for his name. Looks like the same guy. Link here
Be safe bro. Please report him. For regulars involved at SC please be careful - this guy maybe UK based. We don't know. Please be careful.
Mustafa, I can encourage you with a purported quote of Jesus in Matthew 5 which *could* be seen as a layered reference to Muslims being persecuted if one looks at esoteric meanings:
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
I hope Lizzie Schofield, Sharon Hoy, Sarah Foster, Hatun Tash and Beth Grove will reflect on why Jay Smith's Pfander Ministries and Pfander Films has accrued such caustic and extremist anti-Muslim followers over the years. I know Jay's group has been barred from speaking at certain venues and universities in the past due to being seen as Islamophobic. Would love to see some emails condemning such comments from members of Pfander. Off you go: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
My rule is: care for Christians, critique Christianity.
Are Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Centre Radicalising People to Hate Muslims?
Justin Brierley, do you Believe Jay Smith's "Hyperbole" Excuse?
Lizzie Schofield Ignoring Facts and Reasoning - Child Brides
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Thoughts on Lizzie Schofield's blog on Pakistan's ban of Valentines Day
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Justin Brierley, do you Believe Jay Smith's "Hyperbole" Excuse?
Lizzie Schofield Ignoring Facts and Reasoning - Child Brides
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Thoughts on Lizzie Schofield's blog on Pakistan's ban of Valentines Day
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Why Islam
Tuesday, 23 May 2017
Signs Patrick Hutton Has Been Radicalised by Pfander Centre for Apologetics
More bad news folks. There are signs Patrick Hutton may have been radicalised into Islamophobia by Jay Smith et al..
One just gets the impression Patrick Hutton has bought into simplistic evangelical rhetoric about Muslims being lost and Bible observant Christians being reformed and possessors of a new heart. Can we get somebody neutral in here? I know what, how about a couple of Jewish rabbis? These two rabbis argue Christians could be argued to be the most responsible for all the blood-shed and suffering since the coming of Jesus. What was that about Sauls becoming Pauls? Patrick may also want to ask how Christians were treating native people in Australia, North and South America and a bunch of Asians they colonised? Were they being Sauls or Pauls?
And as for our beliefs about Jesus respectively, Muslims do not believe Jesus ordered the killing of women and infants or allowed the severe beating of females slaves...Trinitarian Bible believing Christians do believe such about Jesus.
Judging by the way Patrick is being radicalised by hate preacher, Jay Smith (not sure if Beth Grove is involved) I think the non Christian and non Muslim may be asking Patrick to accept the Jesus of Islam...clearly your current religious affiliation has not saved you from effectively hate preaching against a minority group in Britain (oh and spare me the "we only hate preach against Islam but we love Muslims", I'm a little too smart to fall for that. When you go out constantly trying to link rape, murder and terrorism to somebody's religion then you are, yes you are, hate preaching against that group of people too and part of the propaganda that fuels thugs to attack mosques, old Muslim men and Muslim women wearing the hijab).
Hopefully Patrick Hutton can listen to the comments from Dr James White and Prof. Jonathan Brown in the video below and just allow common sense to win vs. hatred and bigotry. As a middle aged man, Patrick Hutton should be confident enough to not be swayed by peer pressure, especially so when that eddying is a vortex of bigotry and hatred. The word Muslim is being used as a racial trope/category nowadays and Muslims are now being seen as the other - the condemned other [listen to Prof. Gilroy's comments].
James White's Common Sense Acts as a Rebuke Against Islamophobia from Jay Smith, Patrick Hutton, Sarah Foster, Beth Grove and Elizabeth Schofield
Video of James White's common-sense comments effectively rebuking Jay Smith's Pfander hate preaching is also uploaded here
Oh by the way, Patrick during your de-radicalisation efforts, you may want to stop and ask yourself if Jay smith is lying about his conversion figures - does he really have all these British converts? After that you may want to look into his claims that he had 40/50 Muslims telling him they will kill him at Hyde Park if he burnt the Quran.
Truth matters more than church tradition. Truth matters more than loyalty and obedience to an evangelical "Christian" demagogue in the form of Jay Smith of Pfander Films.
PS If you've seen anti-Muslim hate comments online - please do not sit on your hands. The more we peacefully and intellectually argue against them and even highlight them with wisdom we can raise awareness of on and offline Islamophobia.
Jesus Allowed Killing Children Who Cursed Parents - Christian Pastor
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Thoughts on Lizzie Schofield's blog on Pakistan's ban of Valentines Day
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
One just gets the impression Patrick Hutton has bought into simplistic evangelical rhetoric about Muslims being lost and Bible observant Christians being reformed and possessors of a new heart. Can we get somebody neutral in here? I know what, how about a couple of Jewish rabbis? These two rabbis argue Christians could be argued to be the most responsible for all the blood-shed and suffering since the coming of Jesus. What was that about Sauls becoming Pauls? Patrick may also want to ask how Christians were treating native people in Australia, North and South America and a bunch of Asians they colonised? Were they being Sauls or Pauls?
And as for our beliefs about Jesus respectively, Muslims do not believe Jesus ordered the killing of women and infants or allowed the severe beating of females slaves...Trinitarian Bible believing Christians do believe such about Jesus.
Judging by the way Patrick is being radicalised by hate preacher, Jay Smith (not sure if Beth Grove is involved) I think the non Christian and non Muslim may be asking Patrick to accept the Jesus of Islam...clearly your current religious affiliation has not saved you from effectively hate preaching against a minority group in Britain (oh and spare me the "we only hate preach against Islam but we love Muslims", I'm a little too smart to fall for that. When you go out constantly trying to link rape, murder and terrorism to somebody's religion then you are, yes you are, hate preaching against that group of people too and part of the propaganda that fuels thugs to attack mosques, old Muslim men and Muslim women wearing the hijab).
Hopefully Patrick Hutton can listen to the comments from Dr James White and Prof. Jonathan Brown in the video below and just allow common sense to win vs. hatred and bigotry. As a middle aged man, Patrick Hutton should be confident enough to not be swayed by peer pressure, especially so when that eddying is a vortex of bigotry and hatred. The word Muslim is being used as a racial trope/category nowadays and Muslims are now being seen as the other - the condemned other [listen to Prof. Gilroy's comments].
James White's Common Sense Acts as a Rebuke Against Islamophobia from Jay Smith, Patrick Hutton, Sarah Foster, Beth Grove and Elizabeth Schofield
Video of James White's common-sense comments effectively rebuking Jay Smith's Pfander hate preaching is also uploaded here
Oh by the way, Patrick during your de-radicalisation efforts, you may want to stop and ask yourself if Jay smith is lying about his conversion figures - does he really have all these British converts? After that you may want to look into his claims that he had 40/50 Muslims telling him they will kill him at Hyde Park if he burnt the Quran.
Truth matters more than church tradition. Truth matters more than loyalty and obedience to an evangelical "Christian" demagogue in the form of Jay Smith of Pfander Films.
PS If you've seen anti-Muslim hate comments online - please do not sit on your hands. The more we peacefully and intellectually argue against them and even highlight them with wisdom we can raise awareness of on and offline Islamophobia.
Jesus Allowed Killing Children Who Cursed Parents - Christian Pastor
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Thoughts on Lizzie Schofield's blog on Pakistan's ban of Valentines Day
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Jesus Allowed Killing Children Who Cursed Parents - Christian Pastor
Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. [Exodus 21:17]
According to Steven Anderson, Jesus is backing up the commandment in Exodus 21 in Matthew 15:
Matthew 15:4 For God said: 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
Pastor Steven Anderson teaches this refers to people who curse their parents (not insult or are disobedient, i.e. those children who wish their parents will die or go to hell) and those who hit their parents
I will also add Mark 7 in as it is the same as Matthew 15:
Mark 7:10 For Moses said, 'Honor your Father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
Steven Anderson, links Matthew 15:4 and Exodus 21:17 with 2 Kings 2:
23From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys
This video is also uploaded here
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Thoughts on Lizzie Schofield's blog on Pakistan's ban of Valentines Day
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Thoughts on Lizzie Schofield's blog on Pakistan's ban of Valentines Day
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Monday, 22 May 2017
What Does Jay Smith Teach his Pfander Ministries Students on Polygamy in Islam and Christianity
Christian missionaries like Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Ministries/Films should tell their colleagues like Lizzie Schofield and Sarah Foster the truth about POLYGAMY and the Bible.
Video also uploaded here
Excerpted with alterations from: Is it Islam alone that allows polygamy? By May Saleh and Magdy Abd AL-SHafy. See here for the entire article:
http://www.quran-m.com/firas/en1/index.php/fakes-about-islam/352-is-it-islam-alone-that-allows-polygamy.html
Under the Old Testament Law Polygamy was never banned. It was simply regulated
If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. [Exodus 21:10]
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him. [Deuteronomy 21:15-17]
So this clearly shows the Old Testament did not prohibit the practice of Polygamy, it simply regulated it by giving rules of equal treatment.
Thus further showing the one-man one-woman doctrine is something new while Polygamy is certainly present in the Bible.
According to the Bible, God gave David wives
Mark Henkel says Moses had two wives., Abraham had three wives and that the twelve tribes of Israel were born of Israel's four wives.
Mark Henkel says David had numerous wives and according to the Bible, God gave David those wives and if he wanted more God would have given more:
8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. [2 Samuel 12:8]
Matthew 25, as mentioned by Mark Henker, contains a parable of a polygamous bridegroom.
Mark Henkel: Clearly the Bible never taught the anti-polygamy doctrine.
Adultery and One Flesh?
The prohibition on adultery is not given in English, it was given in Hebrew. Mark Henkel teaches the Hebrew word for 'adultery' means WOMAN who breaks wed-lock. Thus through the Hebrew we see that polygamy of a man marrying more than one wife is not adultery.
And we must also keep in mind Mark Henkel's important reminder of Christian belief, Moses is believed to have written down the Law prohibiting adultery yet he had more than one wife thus showing to Christians and Jews that polygamy of a man marrying more than one wife is NOT adultery.
As for the two will be one flesh. Mark Henkel states this does not mean you cannot be one flesh with more than one woman as Moses was.
Mark Henkel points out that the Bible also teaches one can become 'one flesh' with a prostitute. Mark Henkel contends this means that the person can be 'one flesh' with his wife and 'one flesh' with a prostitute.
16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. [1 Corinthians 6]
Mark Henkel believes the understanding of adultery and the one-flesh passage are not in contradiction with Polygamy.
Ruling for Kings in Deuteronomy 17?
The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. [Deuteronomy 17:16-17]
Some Christians may use Deuteronomy 17:16-17 to argue against polygamy but is this an intellectually honest argument?
Firstly, the passage is speaking about kings (not everyday people) and secondly the instructions are do not take a great number of horses and many wives. Of course, a king will have more than one horse so it does not seem to be a teaching of do not take more than one. Perhaps it's a teaching of do not be extravagant and have a great number of horses and wives. So it seems like the kings can have more than one wife and more than one horse.
The Husband of One Wife and 1 Timothy
1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6 are not general prohibitions of polygamy. Mark Henkel says these are instructions only for Bishops, Elders and Deacons. Mark Henkel offers a further interpretation referring to the Greek, he believes this is a prohibition against divorce.
Something that Mark Henkel did not mention that I will touch on. 1 Timothy 4:12 is said to be teaching pastors to be an example to the believers. The anti-polygamy Christians will use this verse. However, is this really a teaching of direct imitation? If it was, then wouldn't all Christian believers have to become pastors? So to hang one's hat on this verse does not seem to be the best of logics. On top of this, the acceptance of 1 Timothy being from Paul is in question - New testament scholars dispute whether Paul wrote this. Professor Bart Ehrman believes it to be a forgery. Here's a little piece online that you may be interested in reading:
1 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.
Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic. Read more
Christianity and Polygamy
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existant Jesus?
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Video also uploaded here
In the eighth century Charlemagne, holding power over both church and state, in his own person practiced polygamy. St. Augustine seems to have observed in it no intrinsic immorality or sinfulness, and declared that polygamy was not a crime where it was the legal institution of a country. He wrote in The Good of Marriage (chapter 15, paragraph 17), that polygamy …was lawful among the ancient fathers……..". He declined to judge the patriarchs, but did not deduce from their practice the on going acceptability of polygamy.
During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther said, “I confess for my part that if a man wishes to marry two or more wives, I cannot forbid him for it does not contradict the Scripture.” African churches have long recognized polygamy. Early in its history, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy in the United States. Splinter groups left the Church to continue the practice after the Church banned it. Polygamy among these groups persists today in Utah, neighbouring states, and the spin-off colonies, as well as among isolated individuals with no organized church affiliation.
No church council in the earliest Christian centuries opposed polygamy. St. Augustine clearl)'[sic] declared that he did not condemn it. Luther tolerated it and approved of the bigamous status of Philip of Hesse. In 1531 the Anabaptists preached polygamy and the Mormons of today believe in it (see Abd al Ati, The Family Structure in Islam, American Trust Publications, 1977, p 114 : Until this very day, the church in some African countries conducts the marriage of men to more than one wife. In Europe, the attempt to legally enforce monogamy and outlaw polygamy took place as late as the late sixth and early seventh centuries.
During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther said, “I confess for my part that if a man wishes to marry two or more wives, I cannot forbid him for it does not contradict the Scripture.” African churches have long recognized polygamy. Early in its history, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy in the United States. Splinter groups left the Church to continue the practice after the Church banned it. Polygamy among these groups persists today in Utah, neighbouring states, and the spin-off colonies, as well as among isolated individuals with no organized church affiliation.
No church council in the earliest Christian centuries opposed polygamy. St. Augustine clearl)'[sic] declared that he did not condemn it. Luther tolerated it and approved of the bigamous status of Philip of Hesse. In 1531 the Anabaptists preached polygamy and the Mormons of today believe in it (see Abd al Ati, The Family Structure in Islam, American Trust Publications, 1977, p 114 : Until this very day, the church in some African countries conducts the marriage of men to more than one wife. In Europe, the attempt to legally enforce monogamy and outlaw polygamy took place as late as the late sixth and early seventh centuries.
Excerpted with alterations from: Is it Islam alone that allows polygamy? By May Saleh and Magdy Abd AL-SHafy. See here for the entire article:
http://www.quran-m.com/firas/en1/index.php/fakes-about-islam/352-is-it-islam-alone-that-allows-polygamy.html
Under the Old Testament Law Polygamy was never banned. It was simply regulated
If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. [Exodus 21:10]
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him. [Deuteronomy 21:15-17]
So this clearly shows the Old Testament did not prohibit the practice of Polygamy, it simply regulated it by giving rules of equal treatment.
Thus further showing the one-man one-woman doctrine is something new while Polygamy is certainly present in the Bible.
According to the Bible, God gave David wives
Mark Henkel says Moses had two wives., Abraham had three wives and that the twelve tribes of Israel were born of Israel's four wives.
Mark Henkel says David had numerous wives and according to the Bible, God gave David those wives and if he wanted more God would have given more:
8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. [2 Samuel 12:8]
Matthew 25, as mentioned by Mark Henker, contains a parable of a polygamous bridegroom.
Mark Henkel: Clearly the Bible never taught the anti-polygamy doctrine.
Adultery and One Flesh?
The prohibition on adultery is not given in English, it was given in Hebrew. Mark Henkel teaches the Hebrew word for 'adultery' means WOMAN who breaks wed-lock. Thus through the Hebrew we see that polygamy of a man marrying more than one wife is not adultery.
And we must also keep in mind Mark Henkel's important reminder of Christian belief, Moses is believed to have written down the Law prohibiting adultery yet he had more than one wife thus showing to Christians and Jews that polygamy of a man marrying more than one wife is NOT adultery.
As for the two will be one flesh. Mark Henkel states this does not mean you cannot be one flesh with more than one woman as Moses was.
Mark Henkel points out that the Bible also teaches one can become 'one flesh' with a prostitute. Mark Henkel contends this means that the person can be 'one flesh' with his wife and 'one flesh' with a prostitute.
16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. [1 Corinthians 6]
Mark Henkel believes the understanding of adultery and the one-flesh passage are not in contradiction with Polygamy.
Ruling for Kings in Deuteronomy 17?
The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. [Deuteronomy 17:16-17]
Some Christians may use Deuteronomy 17:16-17 to argue against polygamy but is this an intellectually honest argument?
Firstly, the passage is speaking about kings (not everyday people) and secondly the instructions are do not take a great number of horses and many wives. Of course, a king will have more than one horse so it does not seem to be a teaching of do not take more than one. Perhaps it's a teaching of do not be extravagant and have a great number of horses and wives. So it seems like the kings can have more than one wife and more than one horse.
The Husband of One Wife and 1 Timothy
1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6 are not general prohibitions of polygamy. Mark Henkel says these are instructions only for Bishops, Elders and Deacons. Mark Henkel offers a further interpretation referring to the Greek, he believes this is a prohibition against divorce.
Something that Mark Henkel did not mention that I will touch on. 1 Timothy 4:12 is said to be teaching pastors to be an example to the believers. The anti-polygamy Christians will use this verse. However, is this really a teaching of direct imitation? If it was, then wouldn't all Christian believers have to become pastors? So to hang one's hat on this verse does not seem to be the best of logics. On top of this, the acceptance of 1 Timothy being from Paul is in question - New testament scholars dispute whether Paul wrote this. Professor Bart Ehrman believes it to be a forgery. Here's a little piece online that you may be interested in reading:
1 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.
Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic. Read more
Christianity and Polygamy
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existant Jesus?
Why Islam
Muslim Scholar Reacted to Manchester Arena Terror Attack
Muslim scholar Abu Eesa writes:
To my friends, students and followers in our peerless city of Manchester:
- Taxi drivers and those with cars, please get close to the police cordon near Deansgate, Cheetham Hill Rd and Bury New Rd, and the surrounding area. There are hundreds of terrified people who just need to get home, and I saw myself personally that junctions on the M60 and M61 are closed to get in to the city. If you are inside the inner ring, please go and help.
- For those with flats/rooms in the city centre, especially down Cheetham Hill Rd and even Rusholme including students with digs at the Universities, please post online with #RoomforManchester just to take in those who need shelter and help.
- Medics in the city centre, please contact your department heads asap.
- The many Muslims living around Khizra Masjid, the police cordon is near the Green Quarter and there are many confused affected people who need comfort, refreshments and support. It is just a 20 minute walk straight down, please go if you can.
- This is an essential time for us to donate blood for specific and general needs. The main donation centre is on Plymouth Grove, Manchester, M13 9LL, right opposite the MRI. It opens at 9am.
- At all times please remember the dignity of the injured and terrified, please don't post photos and videos of them online.
The people of Manchester are scared and shocked right now, but this great city will never bow to terrorism. Our job is to comfort and help. And remember not to lose heart: the perpetrators *will* pay, whether in this life or the next.
#ManchesterStrong
Update:
Abu Eesa writes:
Thank you so so much to everyone who responded to our call for help last night, showing to the world that our #ManchesterStrong spirit is not just a convenient hashtag but a reality that will help everyone get through this tragedy.
The latest advice below now abrogates everything from last night so please read and share.
- A note to especially our taxi drivers of whom many will have been in the vicinity of the MEN Arena last night: if you can remember anything or recorded anything that might not have made sense to you then but could help now - as well as *anyone* else that might be seeing this unfold and the suspicious behaviour of a family member or friend in the past might be making sense now - please contact the Anti-Terror Hotline on 0800 789321 or upload any relevant footage to www.ukpoliceimageappeal.co.uk or www.ukpoliceimageappeal.com
- There is no need for blood donations at the moment, the services are being overwhelmed and only those with pre-booked appointments should attend ESPECIALLY if you have blood type O negative
- There is no need in the immediate vicinity for any help and people should remain clear of the area
- The best and most efficient way of finding about those missing and affected is by calling 0161 856 9400 and 0161 856 9900. A help centre for anyone needing assistance has also been set up outside Gate 11 of The Etihad Stadium on Ashton New Rd, Manchester.
- Please open your hearts even wider and donate to this appeal to support the families of those who were killed and injured in the attack https://mydonate.bt.com/fundraisers/muslimsformanchester - I also hope that if you are free, you will support our great city at the vigil this evening which will be held in Albert Square, in Manchester, at 6pm.
We are grieving, we are shocked, but we must remain focused and united to get through this test of our humanity. Thank you all again for your love and support!
Similarities Between Catholic Terrorist Group IRA and Muslim Terrorist Group ISIS
A Response to Adam Deen's 'Exodus to ISIS - a Tale of Two Dars'
About 20% of British Muslim Women Feel Unsafe in Britain
Britain First's Jayda Fransen and Paul Golding Learn About Anti-Semitism and Christianity
British Muslims in Preston Helping to Save Lives
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
A Response to Adam Deen's 'Exodus to ISIS - a Tale of Two Dars'
About 20% of British Muslim Women Feel Unsafe in Britain
Britain First's Jayda Fransen and Paul Golding Learn About Anti-Semitism and Christianity
British Muslims in Preston Helping to Save Lives
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
CS Lewis Pro Socialism and Anti Radical Feminism
CS Lewis saw a fully Christian society to be very socialistic! (Ironically I think the capitalist enterprises operating in modern Christian apologetics - something highly monetised - would not even be considered fully Christian in that sense).
Guess Jeremy Corbyn's view of Britain is closer to what Lewis envisioned than May's plan for Britain.
Oh and he also said the fully Christian society would always be insisting on obedience. Including obedience of wives to husbands. This is where the radical feminists go out and burn CS Lewis' books (Aslan getting barbecued by a bunch of feminists, who'd have thought it!)
Did Peter Believe in the Trinity?
Guess Jeremy Corbyn's view of Britain is closer to what Lewis envisioned than May's plan for Britain.
Oh and he also said the fully Christian society would always be insisting on obedience. Including obedience of wives to husbands. This is where the radical feminists go out and burn CS Lewis' books (Aslan getting barbecued by a bunch of feminists, who'd have thought it!)
Hamza Myatt and Lizzie Schofield on Violence in Bible - Unbelievable and Pfander Films Take Note
Hamza Myatt of EF Dawah helps to teach a Westernised Christian from Jay Smith's Pfander Centre about violence in the Bible.
Video also uploaded here
Secularised Christians like those at Pfander Films (Jay Smith, Beth Grove, Lizzie Schofield, Hatun Tash and Sarah Foster) are thought to believe in the 4th century doctrine of the Trinity but seemingly teach Jesus does not use violence and force but upon closer examination of their texts and their theology it's quite obvious the secularised Christians at Pfander are not presenting views which are consistent with Trinitarian exegesis of the Bible.
Before we have a look at some texts in the New Testament let's have a look at some texts in the Old testament. Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus (as the second person of their triune Godhead doctrine) ordered the killing and destruction of whole towns if some people amongst them called to the worship of other gods:
12“When you begin living in the towns the LORD your God is giving you, you may hear 13that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. 14In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, 15you must attack that town and completely destroyb all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. 16Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. 17Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors. [Deut 13]
6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. [Deut 13]
2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” [1 Samuel 15]
7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burnedall the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. [Numbers 31]
Some Trinitarians believe the Angel of the Lord in the OldTestament is a christophany, thus they believe the angel was Jesus. Do these Trinitarians believe Jesus put to death 185,000 Assyrians?
Are Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Centre Radicalising People to Hate Muslims?
Justin Brierley, do you Believe Jay Smith's "Hyperbole" Excuse?
Lizzie Schofield Ignoring Facts and Reasoning - Child Brides
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Thoughts on Lizzie Schofield's blog on Pakistan's ban of Valentines Day
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Video also uploaded here
Secularised Christians like those at Pfander Films (Jay Smith, Beth Grove, Lizzie Schofield, Hatun Tash and Sarah Foster) are thought to believe in the 4th century doctrine of the Trinity but seemingly teach Jesus does not use violence and force but upon closer examination of their texts and their theology it's quite obvious the secularised Christians at Pfander are not presenting views which are consistent with Trinitarian exegesis of the Bible.
Before we have a look at some texts in the New Testament let's have a look at some texts in the Old testament. Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus (as the second person of their triune Godhead doctrine) ordered the killing and destruction of whole towns if some people amongst them called to the worship of other gods:
12“When you begin living in the towns the LORD your God is giving you, you may hear 13that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. 14In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, 15you must attack that town and completely destroyb all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. 16Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. 17Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors. [Deut 13]
Trinitarians also believe Jesus ordered the killing of apostates from one's own family if they began preaching the worship of other gods:
6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. [Deut 13]
Trinitarians also believe Jesus ordered women and children to be killed:
2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” [1 Samuel 15]
Jesus ordered the killing of Midianite men, women and boys through Moses according to Trinitarian thought:
7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burnedall the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. [Numbers 31]
Some Trinitarians believe the Angel of the Lord in the OldTestament is a christophany, thus they believe the angel was Jesus. Do these Trinitarians believe Jesus put to death 185,000 Assyrians?
That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning--there were all the dead bodies! [2 Kings 19:35]
I think that's enough to demonstrate the Westernised Trinitarian really isn't preaching actual Trinitarian beliefs. But what of the New Testament, does Jesus use force according to those texts?
13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. [Revelation 19]
Trinitarian Pastor Steven Anderson explains what is meant by treading on the winepress. He goes back to chapter 14:
19So the angel swung his sickle over the earth and loaded the grapes into the great winepress of God’s wrath. 20The grapes were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress in a stream about 180 milesd long and as high as a horse’s bridle.
The pastor teaches Jesus is responsible for a judgement that brings forth a river of blood that stretches for about 200 miles and is as deep as a horse's bridle. The pastor's fellow Trinitarian in Phoenix, James White, openly admits Trinitarians believe freedom of religion will be ended when Jesus returns.
I'd be very interested in knowing if the people at the Pfander Centre for Apologetics are willing to discuss these issues and openly admit they believe Jesus uses violence according to the Trinitarian worldview. I suspect they will just remain silent on this as it affects the donations they get from other secularised Christians and I guess they feel it will impact their efforts to convert people to worship Jesus (a human being!) and believe in the Bible and the Trinity doctrine.
Look, if you're a Trinitarian please think about these points. At the end of the day it's important for you to know that Western secularism is not Christianity. Look into this, Islam and the Trinity doctrine for yourselves. Think about it. Pray about it
As for the Christians at Pfander Centre for Apologetics I'd really ask you to do the same. I'd especially ask Lizzie Schofield, Sarah Foster and Hatun Tash (the ones who may not have financial ties to that evangelical organisation) to just look around. You're all living in Britain, how many Christians do you really see around you. Be honest with yourselves. I'm hard pushed to find a Bible-believing Christian. Christianity is declining here and it's giving way to secularism (the Nones, those affiliated to no religion). Not to Islam. So this isn't an Islam vs Christianity thing. I've already written about how Jay Smith and other Christian polemicists against Islam are contributing to the apostasy of Christians. They are setting them up to stumble out of the Abrahamic tradition via the secular premises they build their arguments on. Please do read it and just ask yourself if you're contributing to this too. Don't you not think you will be responsible before God if you lead somebody to stumble into Atheism?
For any serious-minded Christians who have felt this post to be somewhat eye-opening please don't hesitate to contact me via email. Thanks.
I'd be very interested in knowing if the people at the Pfander Centre for Apologetics are willing to discuss these issues and openly admit they believe Jesus uses violence according to the Trinitarian worldview. I suspect they will just remain silent on this as it affects the donations they get from other secularised Christians and I guess they feel it will impact their efforts to convert people to worship Jesus (a human being!) and believe in the Bible and the Trinity doctrine.
Look, if you're a Trinitarian please think about these points. At the end of the day it's important for you to know that Western secularism is not Christianity. Look into this, Islam and the Trinity doctrine for yourselves. Think about it. Pray about it
As for the Christians at Pfander Centre for Apologetics I'd really ask you to do the same. I'd especially ask Lizzie Schofield, Sarah Foster and Hatun Tash (the ones who may not have financial ties to that evangelical organisation) to just look around. You're all living in Britain, how many Christians do you really see around you. Be honest with yourselves. I'm hard pushed to find a Bible-believing Christian. Christianity is declining here and it's giving way to secularism (the Nones, those affiliated to no religion). Not to Islam. So this isn't an Islam vs Christianity thing. I've already written about how Jay Smith and other Christian polemicists against Islam are contributing to the apostasy of Christians. They are setting them up to stumble out of the Abrahamic tradition via the secular premises they build their arguments on. Please do read it and just ask yourself if you're contributing to this too. Don't you not think you will be responsible before God if you lead somebody to stumble into Atheism?
For any serious-minded Christians who have felt this post to be somewhat eye-opening please don't hesitate to contact me via email. Thanks.
Are Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Centre Radicalising People to Hate Muslims?
Justin Brierley, do you Believe Jay Smith's "Hyperbole" Excuse?
Lizzie Schofield Ignoring Facts and Reasoning - Child Brides
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Thoughts on Lizzie Schofield's blog on Pakistan's ban of Valentines Day
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical