Monday, May 15, 2017

Who Is Speaking To American Morals & Values?

Mt. 5:14-16 ~ 14- Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15-Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16-Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

According to a recent Gallup Survey on American views of moral acceptability, it seems that the only issues most Americans are morally incensed about centers around the death penalty and medical testing on animals. Otherwise Americans are more accepting than ever of certain social values than ever before. 
It seems that Americans are not only more accepting of constructs such as homosexual marriage, divorce, and even adultery, but Americans are also more favorable of Dr. assisted suicide, human cloning, gambling and even embryonic research. 

With that said and seeing that the trend towards liberalism is at an all time high, the question is who is informing the values of America?   

Is the church informing social values? If so, then why is America seemingly more liberal in its values construct than ever? 

Is the church a light of the community and world any longer? Or is this simply an inevitable trend in morality that cannot be avoided? 


I believe that when we contend that society is what it is because "the bible said it would be like this" then we have missed the message of our action and role within society as a church. Salt is a preservative. However, when salt is not used properly, or when salt does not have any of its preservative powers or has been broken down, as Jesus stated in Mt. 5:13, it is good for nothing!

Mt. 5:13 ~ 13-Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.



Listen, what can we expect when we we have and endorse religious teachers and preachers who live immorally or live opulent lifestyles? What can we expect when we have teachers who teach false doctrines? Teachers who do not know, understand or cannot define the nature of God as deity at birth? Teachers who do not defend the faith by calling non-christian cults, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons CULTS? Teachers who rob the church and God's people demanding them to pay for expensive and lavish cars and home leases in excess of $10,000 per month? What do we expect when we have teachers and leaders, who divorce like clockwork, rape and molest children and even adults within the church, boil their children in hot water, giving them 4th degree burns, break their spouses ribs and limbs and claim that they are "forgiven"? 

Are we out of our minds? Are we really that far off the beaten path that we believe that God will simply accept us, AND our unrepentant sins simply because of who we "think" we are? Do we believe that the world will take us seriously with all of our issues splatted out before them along with our excuses while we simultaneously point the finger at their excesses? 

THIS is why the world hears us as an "alternative" voice, not as the VOICE OF GOD! Why? Because we cannot live any of it and what we do live is in the shadows looking for and waiting for the acceptance of "mainstream society". 

Have we considered however, that mainstream society is waiting on US to make a difference? Sinners will play with embryos, when we have not proved that life has any significance other than the material substance from which it is made. Society will not see anything wrong with Dr. assisted suicide, when they don't see and or understand that life is a gift from and of God and something worth fighting for. Why shouldn't society endorse polygamy, when half the church is still confused over homosexual marriage and has no clue as to why such behavior is not only biblically unacceptable, but yet damaging to society in general. 

I am afraid we, as a church, have stood for NOTHING, (with the exception of an offering) and society has fallen for everything as a result. Is it our fault that society accepts what it accepts and is seemingly becoming more liberal in it's leanings? At the end of the day every tub will rest on its own bottom, however, we have set the landscape, opened the door, and the devil, through wild imagination has entered in and is doing a job on society. 

While people are more liberal leaning than ever, a new set of troubles and worries has arisen. Illegal opiate drug use is at all time highs among educated, White, middle class, suburban individuals.  It just so happens that it is that group of individuals who are experiencing the most radical breakdown of moral and social values followed by educated, middle class Blacks who are becoming more and more liberal everyday.  

The ONLY answer is in Jesus. The ONLY answer is in repentance and turning to Christ. It is for this reason that I hope that the affirmations and commitments that were loud speakered all across the nation on the most recent national day of prayer, was real. For it may have been because of that realness that our families, and community is saved! 

2 Chron. 7:14!

Blessed!


Read more!

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Darrell Scott AKA: "Pimpoliscious" Strikes Again

I want to begin this by saying that anyone falling on hard times is NOT an issue or amusement. That is NOT the focus of this blog entry. I pray for other individuals who may be suffering from similar or like kind financial struggles and circumstances. We believe God WITH you that HE will deliver and be present to comfort you to your next blessing because we KNOW that God will bless HIS people. Yes, we may suffer, but we have not been left alone or left to die. Our God WILL deliver!

To The Point Of This Article

Quite some time ago, I met and along with many others, had a very negative experience online with a preacher, so called Bishop, who was just about as immature as they come. I have documented that incident and the results both HERE and HERE After a rather brief interaction with him, and seeing that he was only going to worsen the already horrible impressions of himself not only to me, but to others, I simply asked that he correct some issues and we would both move on. Of course his pride and arrogance stopped that and any positive that could come from that in its tracks. I wrote 2 articles generally addressing some of his online behavior.

Although some believe that they can act and cut a complete fool online, behind the guise of a computer screen, those of us who value our salvation and how we are perceived are mindful that our words on the internet are just as important as words and actions in person.

Darrell Scott didn't care about any of that then, and he doesn't care about any of that now, and he has simply continued to make an even larger fool of himself as a result. This is why I continue to name him "Pimpoliscious" as he has displayed that he continues to feel that the church, church people, the Black community and anyone whom he doesn't approve of is beneath him.

The Excess & Opulence of Pimpoliscious Has Been Proven

Somehow, and I have no idea o how, Pimpoliscious seduced his church, New Spirit Revival Center, into paying for a $10,000 per month lease for his family payable in weekly installments.It seems that Scott, along with his wife Belinda, entered into an agreement with one Munna Argarwal, on a property said to be valued at over $2 Million, and lived in the palatial residence for over 6 years.

Well, it seems that church giving slowed down and Scott could not afford to continue the rental agreement and this has led to a legal action of over $500,000 in which Argarwal alleges that he has been defrauded by Scott. As I said, the financial issues are not at issue here for me, the opulent lifestyle is.

Maybe that is the way its done today, but I could not find precedence to ask the church to pay a note over $10,000 per month of someone's rent or mortgage. Especially, for this clear charlatan.

Here is Cleveland News 5 Report:

Scott's Lust For Relevance: The White House Connection

Most people who came to this blog looking for information on Scott, did so because supported Trump the candidate so vehemently that President Trump made this man a part of his transition team, which I warned at the time was bad judgement and a move that would forever associate any political candidate (in this case Trump) with complete lunacy...Well, I was right!

Too bad that there is not a lot on the internet regarding what this man believes, or how he carries himself, other than a cherrypicking of some his greatest hits of sermons that he has delivered from time to time. Well, as far as we are concerned, even a BROKE CLOCK is right twice a day and a sermon unlived is certainly worthless for the one delivering the message. Perfection??? No, noone, including this writer, is perfect, however, there is a difference between living a life of hypocrisy and living a life of grace full of repentance at the cross of Christ. It is the latter that I and all believers endeavor to do, but something that continues to seemingly escape Scott at every turn.

Chicago "gang thugs"

For some reason, it seems that Scott, once again, chose to lie in front of CNN cameras, similar to his lie about the gathering of pastors for Trump during the campaign, contending that certain, unnamed "top gang thugs in Chicago" had called him suggesting that they were looking to a Trump Presidency to reach out to the gang community to help make the community better.

Well, look, hear it for yourself:



The problem is with this, is that NONE OF IT IS TRUE! Scott later goes on to say that he "meant" that he had met with someone who was once part of a Chicago gang and that he (Scott) was "tired" and had "misspoke" when he made his original comments. That article can be found HERE

However, according to the man, Torrence Cooks, whom Scott supposedly spoke with, even Scott's correction wasn't true! Here is the Chicago Tribune interview with the man regarding the issue. CHICAGO TRIBUNE ONLINE

It seems that Scott only knows about showmanship and does not care about truth. If he can so easily and readily lie about things like this, he cannot be trusted for anything that has to do with spirituality. 

This was something that was said in effort to be relevant. Like most folk in Chicago know, NOBODY even cares or knows about Scott. I believe that in order to be relevant, Scott was willing to place himself in such a light that he could be seen at any cost...Well, the light is on and I am quite sure that like a roach, he's runnin'!!!!

PIMPOLISCIOUS, PLEASE STOP!!!!

SMH!!!!!

It seems that NONE of these folks can get their stories straight.


Read more!

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Joel Osteen, Jude 3, & The Acceptance Of False Doctrine

"I'm not one to judge the little details of it (Mormonism)"

In another interview, referenced in my FIRST ARTICLE on the subject, Pastor Osteen states that "Mormonism is a little bit different, but I still see them as brothers in Christ" ~ Pastor Joel Osteen CNN Situation Room w/ Wolf Blitzer

A Brigham Young University Professor says this:
“Cherry-picking similarities while failing to mention major differences is a powerful way to misrepresent and mislead.” ~ Peterson, Daniel (Professor at Brigham Young University) "Focus on Similarities Can Prove Misleading,” Mormon Times, November 6, 2011, 8.
Pastor Osteen says that he sees practicing Mormons as "Brothers In Christ" This means that he believes that one can believe in and practice Mormonism and yet be saved. However, individuals commissioned to teach Mormonism contend that it is misleading to speak of similarities between Mormonism and Christianity while looking over the differences as noted above.

So let us examine what the leader of the largest Christian church in America simply doesn't have enough time to distinguish. Let us look at what the pastor calls the "little differences" between Mormonism and Christianity and see if these issues are important enough to distinguish the difference between Mormonism and what we know as Christianity.

The Examination: What Do Mormons Believe?

The Mormon Church:

Officially founded April 6th, 1830, the Mormon Church in belief and practice actually began 10 years earlier in 1820 when two angelic beings, claimed to be God the Father and God the Son (Jesus) appeared to one Joseph Smith, claiming that the beliefs and practices of all churches in existence at that time were corrupt and that it would be Smith's job to restore the church back to God.

3 years later, a being called Moroni, directed Smith to the location of "golden plates" containing the "fullness of the everlasting gospel" written by Moroni and his father Mormon some 1,400 years earlier in an unknown language of "reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics". Smith was then given instructions on the location of these tables, mystery glasses, and translated the plates into what we now know as the Book Of Mormon. Although the original plates and the language are forever lost the Book Of Mormon is the basis of the Mormon faith.

The Revelation:

Actually, Mormons have 3 books that they believe are guides to their faith and revelation from God. 1- The Book Of Mormon referred to earlier (which they believe is another Testament to the Bible that superceeds, corrects the misinterpretations and errors of the Bible itself) 2- Doctrine And Covenants (which is also referred to as the Latter Day Revelation) from which many of the teachings , doctrines and practices of Mormonism are derived, and 3- The Pearl Of Great Price
The Book of Mormon, in contradiction to the Bible, teaches that God has a body of flesh and bone, and is an exalted man. They believe the god they worship is Adam. Brigham Young says: "He is your Father and our God and the only God with whom we have to do." Orson Pratt says: "...our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previously heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and successive worlds, and as a last resort, we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the first Father was begotten."
So the Book of Mormon distinctly teaches that Jesus and God the Father are not only distinct and separate beings or ontologically different, not of the same substance, but that they are also created beings or formerly men. This is polytheism.

In contrast, the actual doctrine of the trinity however, teaches that there is only ONE God who eternally exists in three distinct persons, not beings, and the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are eternal and of the same substance. eg: Trinitarians therefore are not polytheists. Therefore we can conclude that Mormonism at its root is a polytheistic religion and one in which God, through some endless cycle of regression was once a man who became God. This is not biblical teaching in any manner regarding the nature of God and worthy of rejection based upon the teachings of Paul in Galatians 1:8 which affirms that if any man or an "angel of light" preach any other gospel than what was received, he should be 
accursed!


What Do Mormons Believe About Jesus?

When it comes to Jesus, the Mormon church delivers many teachings that initially sound like traditional Christian doctrine, However one has to pay attention to what is really being taught and the definition of the words according to Mormons. A brief examination of the Mormon website in which they delineate who they believe Jesus is, states the following:

"We believe Jesus is the Son of God the Father and as such inherited powers of godhood and divinity from His Father, including immortality, the capacity to live forever. While He walked the dusty road of Palestine as a man, He possessed the powers of a God and ministered as one having authority, including power over the elements and even power over life and death." ~ MormonNewsroom.org What Mormons Believe About Jesus Christ
According to Mormonism, Jesus "inherited" his divinity from God as an attribute passed from Father to Son, or paternal children. This is contrary to scripture as taught within thin bible. In the Bible Jesus comes to earth AS God by taking upon himself the likeness of sinful flesh. (John 1:1, 1:14, Rom. 8:3, Phil. 2:7) The Bible Jesus was the one who created the world (Heb. 1:2) and is called God forever (Heb. 1:8)

It is rather clear from scripture that Jesus IS God and has always been God. He did not have to "inherit powers". This fact alone is sufficient to say and conclude that the Jesus described within Mormonism is NOT the Jesus outlined in the bible. The Jesus of Mormonism was a God/man hybrid. Similar to Greek characters of Hercules and other offspring of Zeus, The Jesus of Mormonism only possessed "powers of a God" and was not that actual God. Once again, neither was he the "substance" of God. 

In addition to all of that, according to Mormon doctrine Jesus is the "spirit brother" of satan and the angles. Since they are all created being, they would also be "brothers".  Now this is one of those deceptive caveats that it takes some spiritual discernment to address. The Mormon would teach that ALL of creation would be brothers because God made everyone and everything. So we are all "brothers" in creation. That is about as wrong as two left shoes however.

First, Jesus was not a created being. Secondly,  God calls Jesus "God", (Heb. 1:8) not a "brother" of satan. Further Jesus did not recognize that just because someone had been created or given life by God, that they were a child of God. 

In a discourse with the Pharisees, Jesus claimed that they were of "their father the devil". (John 8:44-45) He also claimed that his Father was not theirs. Jesus made no inference to a "spirit brother" reference. Neither does God toward Jesus in any sense or case in the scripture. Therefore, we can rightly and unequivocally say that Jesus is NOT the "spirit brother" of Lucifer, because Lucifer is a fallen angel and a created being unworthy of any equality with Jesus who is GOD! 

Eternal Reward, Judgement & Perpetual Marriage
Mormons also believe that there is eternal hell only for those who are "filthy still" and not redeemed by the atonement; man can become a god; there are three levels of heaven, and that marriage is for eternity. When a man becomes a god he is given his own planet to populate. Hence Mormons believe there are humans on other planets in the universe. 
The discovery of life in outer space is more than welcome to a Mormon. This would validate their theology and belief. Conveniently relinquishing the doctrine of "hell" the book of Mormon does away with any eternal punishment of the unrighteous, and limits the eternal reward of the just, by selecting temple Mormons to receive the highest reward.
The Book of Mormon is considered to be "another Testament of Jesus Christ". Surprisingly, The Book of Mormon is the most doctrinally orthodox. It also contains many quotations from the King James Version often without any attribution. It teaches that the Godhead is one God, whereas other Mormon writings teach that the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost are three distinct deities. (See Mormon Doctrine, by McConkie, Pp. 119-121)
According to  Mormon Newsroom Online Jesus is a being distinct and separate from the Father:
God is a loving Heavenly Father who knows His children individually, hears and answers their prayers, and feels compassion toward them. Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, are two separate beings but along with the Holy Ghost (Spirit) are one in will, purpose and love.
Summary & Additional points of interest:

Through their prophetic revelations Mormons have learned and continue to teach the following:
  • That Jesus was the child of the sexual union between God the Father and Mary  ~ McConkie, 546-547, 742; Orson Pratt, The Seer (Washington, DC: n.p., 1853-54), 158-59; Brigham Young, Desert News, October 10, 1866; Ezra Taft Benson, The Teaching of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 7.
  • That the polygamous “Heavenly Father” has many wives who are collectively called “Heavenly Mother” ~ Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966), 516. 
  • That Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer ~ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gospel Principles (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints, 1992), 17–19.
  • That Mormonism rejects the doctrines and teachings of original sin  ~ McConkie, 550; James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints, 1982), 476. 
  • Mormons reject the concept of salvation by grace through faith, and turn concepts of salvation into a works-righteousness effort  ~ cf. 2 Nephi 25:23; According to Joseph Fielding Smith, “to enter the celestial kingdom and obtain exaltation it is necessary that the whole law be kept” (Joseph Felding Smith, The Way of Perfection [Salt Lake City, UT: Desert Book Company, 1970], 206).
Conclusion


Gal. 1:8 ~ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Now, these are the things that simply researching the topi will point out. I do not believe that the nature of Jesus, as outlined by the Mormon church and the nature of Jesus as found within the bible, to be a "little thing". Neither do I find the method of salvation by grace, through faith to be a "little thing" either. These are not little things. In agreement with the professor at Brigham Young referenced earlier, failure to outline the differences here can be deceptive and lead one to believe and think something that is not true, namely that Mormonism is simply another denomination within Christianity. That is not the case. 


Mormonism, is a belief system that people are free to follow. Although I will not love you less if you are a Mormon, I do reserve the right to contend that Mormonism is NOT a Christian belief as it is not based on the Christ of scripture. Mormonism is what is called a theological cult of non-Christian belief. Christians believe that Jesus IS and always was God. Mormons believe that Jesus was merely a man/God mix that received his powers by his inherited traits. This is NOT the Jesus found within scripture. 

Combined with other unbiblical teachings such as sex between the Holy Ghost and Virgin Mary, and the exaltation of man into a god to receive and rule his own universe with celestial "wives" one cannot help but to conclude that these are not mere "little things". 


A Word To COGIC

Joel Osteen has been invited to speak at the COGIC 110th Annual Holy Convocation. The problem is still the same until Osteen addresses it again. Does he believe that Mormons are Christians?  If he does, Joel does not know Christian doctrine and is not worthy of support and endorsement of one of the nations largest Pentecostal churches.  

It is the Osteen unwillingness to stand up for God, HIS word and the church that is and has been offensive. I will not even deal with the word of faith teachings and the "enjoy now" hedonistic philosophy that supports the message of this minister. 

When we learn that thousands DO NOT validate the hand nor authority of God. That this is not the age where the large church or most visible ministry has some sort of preference with God over the smaller. God IS NOT A RESPECTER OF ANY MANS PERSON, (Rom. 2:11) even one that has 40,000 people on the church roll.  

What COGIC can and should do, is help Pastor Osteen find the truth and ask for accountability from him. That is the CHRISTIAN relationship and thing to do. Often we find that politics and social friends are more important than truth. Therefore this issue is filled with debate, because many do not have such a high-view of scripture, or simply have, like Pastor Osteen, not studied the difference between the cult of Mormonism and Christianity. 



Never Be Too Busy For Truth

Large church and multiple functions of the church has called some to be so busy that they do not really know the word of God or how to discern truth any more than what they believe their next message is. Some do not do that as they are on the internet mining for sermons. That is sad because where there is no vision, people perish! (Prov. 29:18)

I hope that this article will drive every believer back into the bible and be a place for every Christian to begin their examination of the differences not only between Mormonism and Christianity, but between Christianity and the world of cults that exist and that are at your door step attempting to subvert your mind and the minds and hearts of your family everyday. 

It is in the spirit of Jude 3 that I write as I "Earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to all Saints". For it is by that word that I live and by that word that I die!


Blessed!

Additional Research & Information Supporting The Claims Of This Article Can Be Found At The Following Online Locations:

So that you may be better equipped to know the difference between Mormonism and Christianity better than the pastor of the largest Christian church in America, I have taken the time to provide the following resources:


2- Christian Information Ministries: Mormonism, an outline 


Read more!

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

110th COGIC Holy Convocation or Apostasy? You Decide...


Go HERE for an indepth look at what Pastor Osteen calls the "little differences" between Mormonism and Christianity and decide if there are really "little differences" and whether Mormonism is of the Christian faith. 

The lineup of speakers for the 2017 Holy Convocation of the Church Of God In Christ has been announced. Of course, the announcement has not only left many with questions, but has also stirred emotions especially with the Wed. evening choice of speakers.

The controversy seems to center around the selection of the pastor of the largest Christian church in the United States, Pastor Joel Osteen of the Lakewood Church in Houston, TX.

To be fair, COGIC has embraced speakers that are not a part of the organization for many years. So the fact that Pastor Osteen is controversial because he is not a part of COGIC can hardly be supported by any evidence. 

For example, Bishop TD Jakes, Bishop Noel Jones, & Pastor Dewey E Smith to name a few, have all spoken at recent Holy Convocations to greater or lesser approval or disdain of rank and file COGIC members. 

Every year there is an "ecumenical" night in which a speaker that is not COGIC is asked to speak. This appears to be in line with a standing tradition of the church to be hospitable and inviting to those who are not of the organization in effort to extend the "right hand of fellowship" which countervienes what happened to our founding Bishop, Bishop CH Mason, when he was dis-fellowshiped from the Baptist church for preaching and teaching the message of holiness and eventually pentecostalism.

While the effort of inclusion is commendable, it seems that the mission of presenting a sound and uncompromising message of Holiness is getting lost in the shuffle and is the source of any controversy or dissension on the issue. 

What Do I Mean?


Read more!

Friday, April 21, 2017

Regarding The Legalization Of The Casual Use Of Marijuana

Our local news recently ran quite a few articles regarding the administration of Illinois' legalization of casual marijuana in light of "420 Day". One one side the science says that marijuana is totally good for the individual with very little downside. On the other side the science and experience says that nothing good can come from the casual, non-medical, use of marijuana or any other drug. This is what I recently said regarding the legalization of the casual use of marijuana:
"My WORD for 420 Day:
Look, I am against the proliferation of illegal substances and even some that are deemed legal...BUT...if these people want to now make (the casual use of) Marijuana legal then I believe that the new industry should be made to pay reparations out of a significant portion of their profits based on what criminalization of the drug has done to the Black community historically. 
Secondly, there should be a REQUIREMENT to cultivate owners and growers from minority communities. Not just women, but racial minorities and Black persons more specifically. 
This whole industry stands in large part due to organized, but unsanctioned efforts of inner city peddlers and even suburban distributors and peddlers. I believe that the law should include provisions that make it a requirement to include economic opportunities for some of those individuals going forward... 
Why does a preacher say these things? Far too long the establishment controlled by the wealthy, White elite, has gotten wealthy off the efforts and backs of Blacks and minorities with no sharing of profits or consideration of why and how they have become so profitable. The cotton industry is a prime example! It was Black folk that by and large cultivated the fields with blood sweat and tears, while the White elite made the money. 
Here we have the State now considering implementing a new business and is automatically locking out minorities with high and excessive fiduciary standards and no consideration for those who have been effected generationally by the historic treatment or outcome of those who both sell and use this drug. 
The "lockout"? According to a recent article on the subject: 
"For cultivation center applications, it helps to have large-scale agricultural experience,” explains the next speaker, Steven Cooksey, MedMen’s director of licensing. A history of growing wacky tobacco in particular will boost your case—but that experience better not have come in Illinois, because that would be a felony, taking you out of the running. Would-be ganjapreneurs do need plenty of the other green stuff, however, because proof of sizable liquid assets ($400,000 for dispensaries; $500,000 for cultivation centers) is required and there is a hefty nonrefundable application fee ($5,000 for dispensaries; $25,000 for cultivation centers). Once permits are issued, pot businesses must also provide evidence of good-faith money in the form of a surety bond, letter of credit, or escrow account ($50,000 for dispensaries; a cool $2 million for cultivation centers)." 
How can legislation, with good conscience, proceed without consideration of what historic stigmas and penalties and sanctions against those who have either used or distributed this drug has done? Many of the laws implemented, even in sentencing, targeted Blacks and the Black community. The Black community has suffered in particular because of stigma associated with this drug. One cannot simply waive a "magic wand" and call these things now legal, place the wealthy, White elite in front and call it all good or suddenly beneficial to the community. 
Our country wonders why a racial divide exists. Practices and efforts such as these is why there is a racial divide and community distrust. 
I call on all legislators to address these vital issues and if they believe the science behind these arguments, to advance agenda and standards that immediately decriminalize the actions of Blacks as it pertains to their association with this drug immediately. I call on legislators to implement standards in favor of minorities that seek to create and include Blacks and minorities as owners, sellers and dealers of what the State now contemplates to consider "legal". 
I want legislation that guarantees minorities access to cash and capital resources required under law both to apply for growing and distribution of the crop in this industry. I want to see minority hiring standards and practices embedded in industry practices. 
Do these things and I just may be convinced that you "believe" that legalization of this drug is associated with good science and a healthy community. Until then all it is is a money grab and way to make the elite Whites more wealthy at the expense of the poor, minority and Blacks in particularly. Unfortunately all of us, Black and White are caught in this legislative shell game and the truly rational should see through the smoke and mirrors and call this what it really is...a pure condescension into immorality with state approval."

Final Thoughts:
In every State, even those that now legalize the casual use of marijuana, I simply say, repair the breech of the historic past, by 1) expunging criminal records and felonies of individuals where received charges using and distributing this drug, 2) providing cash guarantees and access to funding for those individuals, Black in particularly, who have been effected by incarceration and who show promise in entrepreneurship 3) provide monetary assistance on an ongoing basis out of industry profits to families and communities that have been effected by laws that targeted and were directed toward the Black community and historical offenders, 4) provide special provisions and assistance, including immunity for those who have existing marijuana networks and operations to assist them in a transition to legal ownership and operational standards and legalized methods. 

This is the modern day definition and operation of slavery, oppression, classicism, and all the things that America consistently says that they don't do. Yet, what we are observing is a new method of oppression, racism and segregation whereby the law and legal system is used consistently to oppress and restrict individuals from opportunity, while the same system is used to open the door of opportunity usually for the wealthy and them primarily being the White, elite wealthy. 

I don;t take any legislator seriously on this issue until they address the legalization of marijuana in light of these issues and more. 

And I AM Blessed!

Read more!

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Pastor Burnett On Twitter

Please join me on Twitter. Of course, the message I deliver is not popular with the social elite of the day, nor is it complimentary of the moral relativism that many of our communities have been enamored with, but SO WHAT???  We have a voice, and know what is right, and must say so. 

Here is one of my most recent tweets:


"Sorry, it's the biggest hypocrisy of all to berate Rachel Dolezal for her claim to Blackness while endorsing a man's claim to be a woman!"

Blessed!

Read more!

Black Conservative Leadership Summit June 15-17, 2017


As I have stated before, the term "Black Conservative" is nearly an anomaly. Especially in light of the leadership of one of the most liberal Black leaders that history has ever seen in the person of former President Barack Obama. It was the nonobjective and unhampered lean to the liberal left that lost the bid for Democratic reelection and that continues to stun TV liberal talk shows such as "The View" and others. It seems no matter how they try to inundate the airwaves with inconsistent moral value statements and most times incoherent philosophical ramblings, that they still come up short, and conclude by telling people to "wake up" or calling them, I mean US, "deplorables". 

Well, ultra liberals such as Whoopie and Joy, and all these other late night pundits, have you ever considered that WE ARE AWAKE? We are awake to moral relativism, the destruction of the family, the disintegration and redefinition of marriage, the inconsistent ramblings that babies, in the womb, don;t have rights, the rise in opiod use among suburban families and individuals, the confusion over what constitutes gender, and the strong desire to make being a woman, along with woman's rights, a myth, while at the same time saying that you are fighting for a woman's rights????

We are awake to the fact that we need a CURE and that CURE should begin within every family and every home and each individual should be educated on where our values comes from and why they exist, and what it means if we allow them to slip. We need help from the ground up and I am committed to doing my part, whether in the church or community to make it a reality. And we have some good friends that are doing their part too. 



May I present, once again, my friend Star Parker and some very serious associates

From The Urban Cure Network



Star Parker, Walter Hoye, Dr. Alveda King, Dr. Eric Wallace, Bishop Harry Jackson and others will meet June 15-17 in Washington D.C., to discuss the Moynihan Report’s predictions about the black family, current research on black families, and why black families matter. 

Fifty-two years ago, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan issued a warning to America in the The Negro Family: The Case For National Action about how the rising rate of illegitimacy in the black community would have devastating social consequences. 

His predictions have come to pass. Black conservatives will gather in the nation’s capital as part of the Black Conservative Summit Leadership Initiative to discuss the consequences of fatherless households and offer solutions.

Read more!

Monday, April 10, 2017

A NEW Supreme Court Justice


Read more!

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Omarosa Bakes Behar & Her Supporters Pointing The View In The Right Direction

Loved this and loved Omarosa's responses and no fear to go into the cauldron of what I consider to be the most intolerant and least insightful critic in the world at times.

The praise for the Women's March, which is a topic that I will undertake shortly, was overwhelming here. The problem is that neither Behar or the liberal left critics see a problem with excluding women who disagree with their liberalism. See, conservative values were not praised. Pro-life women were restricted from the march. But in The View's world, that is normal...

Part 2 Blessed!

Read more!

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Education. Will Choice Be A Better Choice For All?

How will our children be educated in America? Will tax dollars continue to go to union members? Or will tax dollars actually be used to support the in class education of our children? I draw this out because in one Midwestern school district (Peoria District 150, Peoria, IL) 80% of the education budget funding is used to pay teacher's salaries and benefits. Although the total budget is only $179 Million and deposits in the education fund are unknown at the time of this writing, it was interesting to note in that district, that although every area of education was cut, including busing expenditures the teachers recently were able to negotiate a 3% pay raise and were still not satisfied saying that the increase was not enough. 

This is how the modern union works. It is no longer about fairness and holding administration accountable and protecting the small guy, they are about lush, benefits, expenditures, position and opportunities at all costs, even against public dissent.


School Choice


What may be the answer to this is school choice. Criticized by teacher's unions, and those who support unions, school choice has become the primary conversation around the nation in light of President Trump's recommended Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, who is a staunch school choice advocate.  The critic are already at it pointing to "little" improvement in test scores in Detroit schools under Devos's ideas. However, the same critics don't see a problem with schools basically falling down around the students both physically and educationally. It is usually the unions and their constituents that inadvertently claim that even failing schools are somehow good for the community and students. 

The URBAN CURE

Star Parker and the leadership of The Urban CURE have taken on this issue for a long time and thank God have very much to say on the subject.

Blessed!   

Read more!

Friday, January 13, 2017

Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 16: CAIR Calls Franklin Graham "Un-American"


It HAS to be Friday the 13th to read and hear about this story. It all begins with participants selected to serve at the Presidential Inauguration ceremonies of Donald Trump. 

It seems that Franklin Graham, the son of renown Evangelist Billy Graham was selected by Team Trump to pray at the inauguration.  Not so fast says the nations leading Muslim Advocacy group:


"If President-elect Trump truly seeks to unite our nation as he promised in his acceptance speech, he will limit the list of those offering prayers at the inauguration to religious leaders who work to bring us together, not to create divisions between faiths,"..."Rev. Graham's ill-informed and extremist views are incompatible with the Constitution and with American values of religious liberty and inclusion." ~ Nihad Awad CAIR National Executive Director
CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) urged President Elect Trump to can Graham from ceremonies if the aim is to unite the country because of past statements of Graham. Pointing to statements such as "Islam is not compatible with American values" and "Every Muslim that comes into this country has the potential to be radicalized--and they do their killing to honor their religion and Muhammad." CAIR claims that statements such as these show that Graham is intolerant and therefore unworthy to pray at an American function designed to support the highest office in the land. 

Does CAIR Have A Valid Point?

In my opinion DEFINITELY NOT!!!!

First, every Muslim would agree that, according to their scriptures, the practice of Islam is not just something that can be shrugged off as a fancy way to pass time. Islam is an all life encompassing faith. A way to live and view the world. 

As we have noted on this BLOG, America is a place that traditional Muslims believe is a mission field, to be "settled". In addition, the ultimate aim of Islam and the highest goal in any society is Sharia. Sharia, also known as "Sharia Law", is the all encompassing guide to life as interpreted by Muslim Clerics imploring the Quran and the Hadith. Sharia also includes elements of concensus by Clerics on issues and analogy. From this combination of what are considered holy and inspired scriptures, and additional holy sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, and other aspects, Sharia Law takes shape and is established. 

The website of the Interfaith Alliance, largely driven by liberal and inclusionist religious philosophies and interpretations of scripture, faith and law, states the following regarding Sharia law:
19. What is Sharia?
Sharia stands for Islamic or sacred law. It is an Arabic word meaning “the way” or “the path to water.” For centuries, Muslim scholars have given a broad definition of Sharia reflecting the diversity of interpretations on how Muslims have attempted to best understand and practice their faith.
The general definition of Sharia as understood by most American Muslims is as follows:
Sharia represents how practicing Muslims can best lead their daily lives in accordance with God’s divine guidance. It may be generally defined as the Islamic law revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad. That divine law was then interpreted by Muslim scholars over the centuries. Among the primary aims of the Sharia are the achievement of justice, fairness and mercy.
The five major goals of the Sharia are the protection of sound religious practice, life, sanity, the family, and personal and communal wealth. The acknowledgement of sound local customs throughout the world is one of the five basic maxims of the Sharia according to all Islamic schools of law.
They go on to say:
"Currently, 35 countries incorporate Sharia into their civil, common or customary law. The diverse manner in which these countries apply Sharia to daily life highlights how Sharia is neither static nor rigid but instead a reflection on how different communities interpret it."

Thus, by admission, Sharia not only judges conflicts based on religion or moral meta-ethics. It is Sharia that decides matters of family and life in civil and even secular society. It is Sharia that is the ultimate authority and way to live. All other governmental systems are secondary to Sharia and at the very least should incorporate some aspects of Sharia. So the aim is to slowly make each state or situation, one that can be ultimately governed by Sharia itself.

I know, my Muslim readers take aim at my statements here and will jump up and down to say that I am intolerant also. But unlike them in their dissent, I think there is ample proof that what Graham says and what I am contending here is totally true if getting to the truth is the aim. 

On the Interfaith Alliance website, the question regarding the compatibility of American Civil law and Sharia is ashed:
22. Is Sharia compatible with American law and values?
Many aspects of Sharia or Islamic law are consistent with modern legal rules found in American law. For example, both legal systems allow rights to personal property, mutual consent to contracts, the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings, and the right of women to initiate divorce proceedings.

If and when religious laws conflict with American law, the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit American government, including the courts, from substituting religious laws for civil law or following religious laws that violate civil law. This prohibition applies to all religions equally.
Now, this is very smart. By using analogy (a tenet of Sharia) the question is kind of turned on its head. It is certainly true. The government cannot simply upend religious freedoms and laws, however, 
according to what has already been said, Sharia is "sacred law". Now if religion means anything at all, what is "sacred" is at the highest point of the practice of religion and religious values. 

Such conflicts do not exist within Christianity to the degree that they exist in Islam. The bible condones and encourages "good citizenship" even in the face of what is ugly and uncomfortable. It does not teach to "uproot" as teaching exist in Islam to do the same.
We can speak much more on this in the comments, but to examine Franklin Graham's statements and to declare those statements as Un-American demand that the issue of what is American be examined as a whole. 

Since the State cannot establish religion, then how is it that it is American for any religion to have their law code, as interpreted or otherwise, in their legal system based on itself? 

I understand that American society, at least most would like to think, is based on Judeo-Christian values emanating from the bible and what we view as "sacred scriptures" as well. However, the difference here is that the concepts from the scriptures are the guide as opposed to the chapter and verses themselves. 

Conclusion
I certainly have oversimplified the argument, and will be more detailed in the comments if necessary, but I hope that this provides good food for thought. Franklin Graham is certainly American and what he believes about those who are dedicated to and bound to the practice of what is becoming a very diverse religion of Islam (as the difference between fundamental and liberal Islam is really beginning to display itself) must also know that Islam, as practiced and encouraged by the majority of Muslims who read and interpret the same book as American liberal Muslims do, have very different ideas about the methods that should be used to bring about Sharia, but share equally in embracing the goal of Islam and that goal is to bring about Sharia, or a state that is subject to and under the rule of Allah. 

I don;t think that there is a question about that to any Muslim faithful to their faith. Whereas, the Christian already knows that there is NO KINGDOM on Earth that is the final place of God's rule. Jesus said that HIS Kingdom was not of this world and one day there will be a new kingdom where there will be rest. Though every Christian strives every day to make this world better and to do as much good in this world as possible, we do not demand by any means necessary that all men are subject to us or what we believe. We see evidence of that in education, social life and all, YET we know that Christ reigns anyway, in spite of what men do or think. 

Blessed! 
   

Read more!

Friday, January 6, 2017

Happy New Year...Kim Burrell & Ye Shall KNOW The Truth!!!

Well, Happy New Year readers of The Dunamis Word. I trust that God blessed and is blessing  each of you with comfort and joy in this New Year.

Evidently, the devil is stirred up once again to attack and take to task anyone who dare say that homosexuality is a SIN.

Pastor Kim Burrell in her New Year's Eve service preached that homosexuality is a perversion and that it is a sin..Now the liberal elite and others are jumping out of the woodwork to claim that Kim and what she teaches is wrong...

Now, I will say for sure, Kim is problematic. I have documented her love for the late "Prince", even having called him "anointed" and her lingerie posing on the video of her song "Sweeter" on THIS BLOG. I don't have too much confidence in Kim, but not too much more of a complaint either. She is somewhat like a broken clock, but with that said... even a broken clock is RIGHT twice a day!


Well, she is RIGHT about this one, and I certainly stand by her. Here is her video and the part that sent some up in arms and her recent public address regarding the issue:


Although I was busy doing many other things, I happened to read the commentary of a blogger on the Huffington Post (the most liberal news possible). He was stating and explaining away the biblical thought and teaching that homosexuality is a sin and wrong. He, like most, attempt to draw a sharp contrast between Old Testament and New Testament command and morality, assuming that New Testament morality somehow overlooks that homosexuality is wrong and or a sin and that all things, including the sin of homosexuality, can be chalked up to the "grace of God". 

Like most that hold his position, he has no clue as to what God was saying either in Corinthians or Romans and ultimately, if left to him and others with his views, homosexuality would be some sort of unregulated activity among men, that "God just doesn't care about one way or another"

In my opinion, sentiments such as the one's espoused display that there is simply no or very little understanding or truth or how we come to understand and define truth. If something can be wrong, as the critic readily points out to every one that speaks and preaches against homosexuality, then something can be right as well. The question is, how does the critic know that what they believe is right? In fact, how does the critic know that what Burrell, I and others like us, believe is wrong? What is the basis for their understanding of truth, right and wrong? 

Here is my response to the Article:
To the writer of the article: No, you can't get an amen from me because you are espousing GARBAGE!!!

The problem is that you don't believe that homosexuality is SIN. Well, IT IS!!! It is sin because as the pastor said, it is a perversion of truth.

The issue of truth, right and wrong are at issue here.

Now, I suspect that your idea of truth and what is true is flexible to the degree of what you "agree" to be truth or what makes sense in your mind. That is called subjectivism. Under subjectivism, or relativism, truth, right and wrong, is only stacked up to your opinion or the opinion of a group. Close examination of this paradigm reveals that relativism is the most confused way to understand the world. Why? Because noone creates their own world of truth. Truth exists whether outside or inside of your world. For example, gravity works in your house just like mine. With the exception of building an anti-gravity chamber, gravity exists everyplace and in every time frame here on earth. No matter how you attempt to avoid it, it simply is. So there are some overarching truth's that just are. Truth, whether your opinion of it is true or not, is called objective truth.

How one comes to know truth, right or wrong is called epistemology. Christians believe that the only way we can know truth is through God. We believe that God has imparted the ability to know and discern truth, right and wrong into man, as a part of his design. Truth can be "known" and or perceived. With that said, peole can be oblivious to that truth for an number of reasons including 1- self deception and 2- actual deception. Either way, this is what it means to be "blind" or blind to sin.

In your article, you take time to say that Kim Burrell's statements and worldview are wrong, because you interpret truth to mean something different than what she is saying. Only where is YOUR basis for what you believe to be true? Is that a product of your mind, or a declaration of God or something outside of yourself? If you are right, what is the basis for your view? The Christian has ours, but where is yours? Is it a convention of your mind or the mind of others? Then by what means and what is the determining factor if you or any who agree with you is right?

Now, this does not mean that you and others with your opinion cannot perceive truth as it pertains to sex. Both you and I would agree that any so called "love" that a pedophile has for a child is wrong and that acting out upon their inclinations, whether seemingly invited to do so or not, is vile and sick. There is nearly total agreement upon that. However, you are "blind" to the application of the same standard towards homosexuality because you are "blind" to that sin. In fact, from reading the article you would have to believe that homosexuality is simply a "diversity" or even an innate part of the being of them that are homosexuals. Again, where is the basis for any of that, IF that is what you would hold as true.

To the point: Your acceptance of homosexuality as right and or acceptable with God is not rooted in God's word, nor is it consistent with HIS grace as you contend. If we examine your premise, we find that your basis appears to come from your own mind. There is no more than what you feel and what others around you who accept what you feel and believe and aspire to. There are many people, who we perceive as "good" that are blind to sin to one degree or another and that is usually because they are either "deceived" into their actions or that they "love" their sin. A heterosexual adulterer or fornicator is in no better position. Most in this sin do it because they "love" the sin of adultery to some degree to continue to do it. No matter how many adulterers around them agree to say that it is OK, the adultery is still wrong, and it is still sin. Believe me, the adulterer feels "good" about his adultery while he is in it, considering it, and acting out upon it, but none of that makes his acts and or actions right.

The fact is that in the Christian worldview, GOD is the ultimate authority and truth giver. HE has delivered instructions regarding sex and sexuality establishing clear boundaries both according to his word and nature. He has also set up a standard whereby the world and humanity exists. This is called natural law. The world (that is biological life) could not exist with same-sexism.

In addition, we can study the correlation between health and sexuality to find that homosexuality has a physiological and psychological consequence that are undesirable to varying degrees.

God has defined sex, love and sexual activity as acceptable between men and women not to kill our joy, but to enhance and increase it.

Because what she and others faithful to truth teach, is contrary to homosexual desire does not make her wrong. Her preaching and the preaching of others is the greater display of LOVE because LOVE intervenes and does not allow wrong to continue to harm and defile.
Obviously, because the homosexual rite expanded so vastly under the last 4 years of the Obama administration, the assumption has been that anyone who defies this sin and those who promote this sort o sin is out of touch with reality. I beg to differ vastly.

While every homosexual has the right to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness, every Christian and those who don;t agree with the homosexual lifestyle has that right as well. I will fight for the rights o all, including the homosexual, but I will not be subject to honor and or even endorse any lifestyle that is sinful and contrary to the Word of God. One does not have to be a homosexual to have an undesirable lifestyle. There are plenty of heterosexuals that live undesirably and in sin...but be clear, all sin and all sinner, those who practice sin, will NOT enter the Kingdom of God.

Don't hate the message or the messenger. Hate the sin. For every homosexual there is help and hope and it begins first with denying self and building a relationship with Christ. HE can set you or any sinner free from their sin. Jesus has come that we might LIVE, and he has no pleasure in our death and unhappiness.

Don't be deceived. God says LIVE and live according to HIS word!

Blessed!

Read more!

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Unto Us A Son Is Given!

Originally published Dec. 25th, 2014, I thought it would be good to take another look at this one, for it is still timely. Also, as our Jewish friends celebrate Hannukah, (the miracle of lights) we are reminded that JESUS is the LIGHT OF THE WORLD that will NEVER go out. HE has come to save the Jewish people and the whole world from their sins. We celebrate HIM. We invite every Jew to celebrate this light along with us!

Merry Christmas To All!
New Radio Broadcasts:
The Virgin Birth Pt. 1
The Virgin Birth Pt. 2
The Virgin Birth Pt. 3

Isaiah 9:6 ~ For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
The Black Art Depot
I would like to wish to all a very Merry and Blessed Christmas. I know that there are so many things happening in this world and there great burdens tied to and upon many of us, but thank god that we are not alone and or without hope. We give gifts today in honor of the greatest gift that God has given to us, his SON Jesus Christ!


Read more!

Thursday, December 8, 2016

"Home-Wrecker" Laws & The Power Of The Innocent Spouse

A question that I have raised in the Jones v Pollard case, is
exactly who is the victim?

Certainly there is a cleric predator, sex addict, preacher, and a manipulated and manipulative woman that have stood up both claiming that they have been treated unjustly. While, from all available evidence, it is clear that the accuser, Ms. Pollard was treated unjustly during her younger and adolescent years, and clearly used as a sex object, by an adult, male pedophile and pervert. What is unclear is the level of abuse that she actually suffered over or during her adult years and just how much she may have contributed toward her condition over that time. Both of them, the abuser and the abused, claim to have been treated unfairly and wrong by one another if noone else. 


Read more!

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Sexual Abuse Or Sexual Relationship?

For quite some time now, brewing under the surface of the shouting, dancing, ecstatic preaching and speaking in tongues that Holy Ghost filled believers do in the Church Of God in Christ, were questions regarding the accusations against Auxiliary Bishop James L'Keith Jones of Albuquerque, New Mexico and allegations of sexual abuse and clergy sexual misconduct.
 Allegedly, it was Jones who at his then age 29 entered into an illicit relationship (of some kind) with a 15 year old church member Ms. Kimberly Pollard. Supposedly, Jones groomed Ms. Pollard and tainted her mind, sweeping her of her feet, and basically making a sex slave out of her not only at the time, but off and on for the majority of the next 20 years all the while continuing in relationship and fellowship with the church. 


Read more!

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Academic Confusion...Class DISMISSED!

Although I feel that a "higher education" in ministry is not required to be an effective minister, pastor or church leader, I certainly do not discourage them that pursue this avenue. However, and with that said, I feel for some of our families who send their children to Universities expecting that their faith in Jesus and in the bible to flourish often are disappointed when those same children come back confused and sometimes disillusioned by professors that are either agnostic about God or just flat out atheistic in their approach to explaining away the bible and the God presented within it.

Individuals such as Dr. Hector Avalos, a Professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University, who is an atheist (see my debate with him HERE, HERE and HERE) and Dr. Robert Price, who was once the Chair of Theological Studies at Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary, and of course, Dr. Bart Ehrman who is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.(Evidently a position of certain distinction) Along with Dr. Ehrman at UNC is Mr. "Jesus Dynasty" himself, Dr. James Tabor who continues to attempt to prove that not only is Jesus buried, but he was not the Messiah, is of no special concern upon history, certainly is not God, had a human father that was certainly not God and had a secret family here on earth. You certainly don't expect to be confronted with atheist dogmas when trying to learn the bible, but that's par for the course.

Dr. Ehrman, who is a sort of a reluctant favorite of mine, as I will purchase a book here and there to see his latest and greatest mis-hits, or should I say, mis-directions, is one that is a preeminent scholar in New Testament Literature and, whether you agree with him or not, is a staunch advocate for a real Jesus as opposed to the Jesus mythers who seem to believe the garbage and stink of Richard Carrier's ideas are somehow "fresh" and enlightening. 

So, even though I gave Dr. Ehrman my anti-Christ Advocate award, I will commend him for vehemently arguing the historicity of Jesus. It seems that when Dr. Ehrman believes something to be true, he acquiesces to that truth and what he believes, as long as there is evidence in support of his position. So all of my critique of Dr. Ehrman is not necessarily negative, and if we were to meet, I would be honored to discuss matters with him I'm sure. (provided that he didn't charge me like he does to be a member of his blog)

WITH THAT SAID, I MUST still continue to condemn atheists and agnostics in seminary leadership positions such as Ehrman, for making it a mission to de-convert students who have trusted that they will grow in their faith and learn truth. It seems that many will be confronted with a healthy dose of misdirection, confusion and flat out deceit.

There are two things to be said about this however. First, it could be that some non-believing individuals attend seminaries directed by atheists, so that they can further develop their unbelief. There are some individuals who graduate from seminary, see opportunity to only make money in and from ministry. I am reminded of a theology school student who said, he didn't believe in God, but he was only taking the course because the church offered him a pastoral leadership job. For these hirelings, there is no conviction or call of God. It is only a money making venture, or a place to gain accolades and attention. Still there are others who only want to expand there pursuit of seeking to "bring down" the Christian faith. Teachers and professors such as Ehrman are the gurus they need to employ to help them increase in knowledge and to gain some sort of credibility.

Secondly, and this may be the case, maybe the expectations of sincere students and families are misplaced. It comes down to this for them, they should do better research,  I believe that it is ultimately the responsibility of the student and their family to research these institutions just like they research everything else. So I can't lay the total fault at Ehrman's feet.However, having placed a child in college, I understand that sometimes individuals are so overwhelmed with college acceptance and the name and prestige of a University acceptance or chance to be a part of a University, that research sometimes takes the back seat and emotions take control.

The Opportunity

This is where Professor Ehrman comes in. As I've stated, I believe that studying under him will   enlighten any student to certain truths and also certain errors. Certain materials that students would not normally be exposed to, appear to be discussed indepth. In addition I believe that he has a command of history and literature and would not relish a debate him on those singular issues. However, Dr. Ehrman's interpretation of biblical fact is very problematic and from the way his written material reads, the Professor seems to make whole cases off of a partial interpretations of scripture, and that is my problem with his presentations in general.e

Although I have never sat in or been a part of his class, I have however read some of his books and continue to review them from time to time (too much mis-information at once makes my head hurt) Dr. Ehrman does examine some complex Christian biblical "difficulties" but in most cases he conflates these "difficulties" to the level of faith breakers. In other words his presentation is one in which it would seem that he is saying, because this alleged "discrepancy" or proposed "contradiction" exists (whatever they are according to him) that the bible should be abandoned as the word of God and that the early church leaders did not know what Jesus they were referring to. Of course, this sort of narrative fits snugly into his overall premise as he seeks to hold out for his German predacessor, F.C. Bauer's theory of "competing Christianities", which seems to have been debunked ad nauseum by many in the scholarly community and especially by many of the fine authors and graduates of the Dallas Theological Seminary, and Biola University graduates, who's scholars produce some of the best reading available on religious studies. 

It seems that Dr. Ehrman's objective is to encourage believers to jettison the bible if something does not make sense to him or doesn't fit what he views as "evidence" for the Christian faith and faith belief. Rather than look for and present solid answers to his question, even if he maintains his question, Professor Ehrman takes the route that Christianity and the search of God through and by it is some kind of hopeless venture and that we are ultimately left to follow the dictates of our own minds and hearts.

The Heart Of The Matter
In this article, I will present one such topic about which Professor Ehrman makes a whole case without a thorough examination of the evidence and a point which may catch some of his students unprepared.


When Was Jesus God, Son Of God And Messiah?

Once such subject that Dr. Ehrman confuses the biblical text on is what the bible teaches about the deity of Jesus. This is the fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. One cannot be a Christian unless one considers Jesus as divine. Professor Ehrman however believes that Jesus being divine was nothing that was attributed to him in life but was only attributed to him after his resurrection. This is his argument in his book "How Jesus Became God" . The book Description says this:
"Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection. Only when some of Jesus’s followers had visions of him after his death—alive again—did anyone come to think that he, the prophet from Galilee, had become God. And what they meant by that was not at all what people mean today.
As a historian—not a believer—Ehrman answers the questions: How did this transformation of Jesus occur? How did he move from being a Jewish prophet to being God? The dramatic shifts throughout history reveal not only why Jesus’s followers began to claim he was God, but also how they came to understand this claim in so many different ways."
Ehrman makes somewhat of the same argument in his book, "Jesus Interrupted" [Harper Collins 2009].

On pgs. 94-95 speaking of Paul's preaching and teaching about Jesus, Ehrman notes:
"In Paul's speech to potential converts in Antioch of Pisidia, he speaks of God's raising o Jesus in fulfillment of Scripture: "What God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, "You are my Son, today have I begotten you'(Acts 13:32-33)"
He then goes on to say:
"In this text the "day" Jesus became begotten as God's son was the day of the resurrection. But how does that square with what Luke says elsewhere? In Luke's gospel the voice utters the same words, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"(Luke 3:22) when Jesus is baptized"
He draws it out further by pointing to Gabriel's instructions to Mary in confirming that the child that she would have would be divine (Lk. 1:35) saying:
"In this instance it appears that Jesus is the Son of God because of virginal conception: he is physically God's son"
He concludes by asking:
"How can Luke say all three things? I'm not sure its possible to reconcile these three accounts: it may be that Luke got three different traditions from three different sources that disagreed with one another on the issue."
This appears to be the argument that Professor Ehrman is making in his book, "How Jesus Became God" 

A student may have a difficult time answering this. Ehrman, certainly takes literally the term "this day" as to mean, that precise moment, locking Paul into a narrative that he taught that Jesus was only Messiah after his resurrection which may be in conflict with what the gospel writers contend. Again Ehrman sews the seed of hopelessness and non clarity. 

Are things as hopeless as Ehrman claims?

I think NOT. Here is the primary reason why:

Interestingly, in the same book, "Jesus Interrupted", Ehrman lists a number of reasons why he does not believe in the authority of scriptures and why he believes that the church has either mis interpreted Jesus words, or that Jesus words just do not exist to affirm that Jesus was deity prior to his resurrection. 

Since Ehrman contends that the gospels are late creations "around" what is believed about Jesus and are an amalgamation of sources, then let us revert to a minimal facts argument. Let's agree that there are other works that are not in dispute which may help us settle this issue. Surprisingly enough, without saying a word, Professor Ehrman agrees that there are such books which are authentic and not in dispute about what is said within them 

On Pg. 112 of the same book in the chapter "Who Wrote The Bible" under the section, "Are There Forgeries In The New Testament?" Professor Ehrman states the following:
"Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, only eight almost certainly go back to the author whose name they bear: the seven undisputed letters of Paul (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon) and the Revelation of John (although we aren't sure who this John was)"
Interestingly, in most scholarly circles, it is believed that these letters, the ones that Ehrman names, were written prior to the gospels. In fact according to the late F.F. Bruce in his 1943 work, "The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?" the most preeminent work and authority on New Testament documents and their dating, the dating of the works that Ehrman names are as follows:

Romans: 57 AD
1 Corinthians: 54-56 AD
2 Corinthians: 54-56 AD
Galatians: 48 AD
Philippians: 54 AD
1 Thessalonians 50 AD
Philemon: 60 AD

Now, that creates somewhat of a conundrum for Ehrman at this point. He has previously argued that the gospels were late developments. (I mean read the book and his works on the subject and you'll see). However, these works, some of the first that Paul wrote, were early developments. Most if not all prior to AD 60 and one, Galatians some 15 to 18 years after Jesus crucifixion (depending upon the date) Because of this, Ehrman, like most critical scholars would contend that what these books say are the actual teachings of the early church on the subjects that they embark upon. 

Paul On The Deity Of Christ

Interestingly enough, Paul says specifically what he means about Jesus and who he was and when he was deity. 

Philippians 2:5-115-Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6-Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7-But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8-And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9-Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:10-That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11-And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 

This what scholars have deemed a "hymn" was delivered to the New Testament church by Paul from an early account within ministry. It is clear that Paul did not contend that Jesus was deity only after the resurrection. He contends, rather clearly that Jesus was deity, PRIOR to his virgin birth because he was/IS God!

Here is another that conforms to the thought that Jesus was pre-existent as God:

1 Cor. 8:6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Remember, Paul was a monotheist in the most strict sense of the word. The attribution of the one God by "whom are all things" is not in contradiction or contrast to the Lord Jesus Christ "by whom are all things, and we by him". The statements are in accord with one another. 

Then  Paul further affirms that Jesus was the "Son", once again, from the beginning and not just after his birth or resurrection. 
Gal. 4:4 ~ But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, (ESV)
According to what Paul alludes to, his teaching did not just simply begin with him. He says in 1 Cor. 11:23. "For I have received of the Lord..." Certainly the resurrected Christ met Paul on the road to Damascus. This would allow a further revelation of Jesus to Paul as he records in Galatians 1.
There is somewhat of a scholarly consensus that Paul receives his instructions directly from the Lord in regards to the sacrament of the church that was already in existence as something commonly held and believed among the church. In other words, what Paul receives, by revelation, is in accord with what the believers of the "Way" were already practicing and teaching among one another. This would be a confirmation to believers that Paul had indeed either met Jesus by revelation or had been with church leaders and was versed in the early creed of the faith. 

I present the 1 Cor. 11 passage to address issues that the church was not aware of these things and that these issues were developed by Paul. Clearly they were not his creation. The church already had a "high view" of Jesus prior to Paul's interaction with them.  

Conclusion


Here we have a claim of Ehrman that the church and followers of Jesus was inconsistent as to when Jesus was God and Messiah. However, when we examine the scripture it does not display the discord that Ehrman claims. 

We see that from early documents, agreed upon to clearly have been written by the person claiming to have written them, that Jesus was taught to be not only God at birth or resurrection, but also preexistent and God before he came to earth. 

I haven't touched on the book of Revelation but if we go there, it is chalk full of more of the same information. At either rate, we do not see a church in conflict over when Jesus was Lord, Messiah or God. We see a church accepting that Jesus was God in a preexistent form, working miracles on earth and rising again from the dead to demonstrate his power over all life and death, ie: acting as God!

What are we to make of Luke's account in Acts 13 that Paul invoked Psalms 2 to say that "this day" or the day that Jesus was resurrected that he became the Messiah? Or that Jesus was somehow the Messiah only because he was born of a virgin?

Personally, I say not much!

Obviously, Paul taught that Jesus was God in a preexistent condition and therefore the Messiah at birth. To the Jews or Greeks who did not know, which was the context of Paul's preaching at Antioch, the resurrection, though having occurred prior to that day, would have been the day in which this revelation would have been made known unto them. Paul did not teach, in the early letters, neither did the church contend that Jesus became Lord or Messiah over time or because of some event that occurred during his lifetime no matter how special that event was. 

Further, Psalm 2 is a prophetic Psalm and was also alluded to by the writer of Hebrews to point to the deity of Christ as well. Similar to Peter's use of the book of Joel in Acts 2, Luke displays that Paul alludes to the time in which Jesus would reveal himself to the world, even the unbelieving Jew, by the irrefutable fact of the resurrection. 

What neither he nor Luke intend to convey is that the resurrection is the time in which Jesus would be made Messiah. While some would say that interpretation renders the use of the word "day" or "Yom" in Hebrew with undue ambiguity, because of the prophetic intent it is a moot point and one that does not have any bearing on the communication that Jesus was deity before he was born, was Messiah when he was born and is our savior because he shed his blood and demonstrated who he is through the act of resurrection. 

Clearly, that is what the church taught and what the church believed. Paul affirms this early as recorded in Acts. 

Blessed!

Read more!