Why does God require faith?

The Bible often speaks of the importance of faith in knowing God. For example, Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches,
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.” 1 Corinthians 13:13 adds, “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.But why does God require faith?

One way to answer why God requires faith is because He is our Heavenly Father. Our relationship to Him is similar to other relationships in the sense that it includes trust in the other person, time together, love, and respect. Because we cannot fully know another person, let alone an infinite God, all relationships require some degree of faith (trust). God is our Father and it takes faith to believe that He loves us and that He provides for our needs.

Faith is also important because God is not visible to humanity. Hebrews 11:1 teaches, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” We cannot see God (John 1:18). However, we have faith in Him that provides assurance.

Faith is necessary to please God. Hebrews 11:6 notes,
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Not only does faith please God, it leads to reward—eternal life, heavenly rewards, and experience of fullness of life on earth (John 10:10).

Faith is important in order for believers to obey the Lord. For example, Adam and Eve had been given a command—to not eat from a particular fruit (Genesis 2:15-17). Because their faith wavered regarding this command, they ate the forbidden fruit and sinned. Contrastingly, James 2:23 shares, “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it (his faith) was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

God requires faith because it allows humans the ability to choose or reject Him. Without the ability to make choices, humanity would cease to be human as we know it. Because people can choose to have faith or not to have faith, there is a way for God to know those who have believed in Him and those who have not.

Faith in God is not Blind Faith as some argue. Instead, it is a choice based on the available information. The Word of God, the created world, the changed lives of believers, Jesus Christ, and other ways God operates in our world provide sufficient evidence for people to choose faith in God. As Jesus taught in Luke 16:31, “And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Jehovah’s witnesses and the worship of Jesus Part 3

Jesus once stated during His earthly ministry, “that all men should honour the Son, EVEN AS they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” (John 5:23). Sadly, Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to honor Jesus in the same way they honor God the Father. While on Earth, Jesus was honored on several occasions. His followers WORSHIPED Him. They even worshiped Him after His ascension into heaven (Luke 24:52). Unlike good men and angels in Bible times who rejected worship, Jesus unhesitatingly received glory, honor, and praise from His creation. Truly, such worship is one of the powerful proofs of the deity of Christ.

Allen, L.A. (1880), “A Living Christ,” Zion’s Watch Tower, March,.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised.
“Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe in Jesus?” (2015),.
Mounce, William D. (1993),Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Paton, J.H. (1879), “The Name of Jesus,” Zion’s Watch Tower, November,.
Rhodes, Ron (2001), The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah’s Witness (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers).
Thayer, Joseph (1962 reprint), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
“The Truth About Angels” (1995), The Watchtower, November 1.
The Watchtower, 1945, October 15.
The Watchtower, 2004, October 15.
The Watchtower, 2005, September 15.
“What Does God Require of Us?” (1996), Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York.
“What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus?” (2000), Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.
Who Is Michael the Archangel?” (2015),.
Zion’s Watch Tower, 1898, May 15.
Zion’s Watch Tower, 1892, July 15

A quickie blog

Which God?

When I was told by people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, “Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don’t believe?”

Kudos to my friend and brother in Christ here on WordPress moraldiplomat

Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Worship of Jesus Part 2

Waffling on the Worship of Jesus
To the church at Philippi the apostle Paul wrote: “Therefore God also has highly exalted Him [Jesus] and given Him the name which is above every
name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven,
and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father
(Philippians 2:9-11, emp. added). The reference to the bowing of the knee
is an obvious allusion to worship (cf. Isaiah 45:23; Romans 1:4). Such
worship, Paul wrote, would not only come from those on Earth, but also from “those in heaven” (Philippians 2:10).
This statement harmonizes well with Hebrews 1:6. In a section in which the writer of Hebrews exalted Jesus above the heavenly hosts, he affirmed that even the angels worship Christ. He wrote: “And let all the angels of God worship (proskuneo) him.” The KJV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, RSV (even though they’re corrupt in other ways) and a host of other translations render proskuneo in this verse as “worship.” How does the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation render this passage? Unfortunately, as with all other times in the NWT when Jesus is mentioned as being the object of proskuneo, the word is translated “do% obeisance,” not “worship.” Hebrews 1:6 reads: “Let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”
Interestingly, however, the NWT has not always rendered proskuneo in Hebrews 1:6 as “do obeisance.” When Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Watchtower Bible and Tract Society first printed the NWT in 1950, the verse actually rendered proskuneo as “worship” instead of “do obeisance.” Even the revised 1961 edition of the NWT translated proskuneo as “worship.” By 1971, Jehovah’s Witnesses had changed Hebrews 1:6 to read: “Let all God’s angels DO OBEISANCE to him.”
The fact is, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has been very inconsistent in their teachings on whether or not Jesus should be worshiped. In the past few decades Jehovah’s Witnesses’ flagship magazine (November 1964, p. 671) has claimed that “it is unscriptural for worshipers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ” (as quoted in Rhodes, 2001, p. 26; see also The Watchtower 2004, pp. 30-31). But, “from the beginning it was not so.” Notice what Jehovah’s Witnesses used to teach in The Watchtower (called Zion’s Watch Tower in the early days) regarding whether or not Jesus should be worshiped:
.“The wise men came at His birth to worship Him. (Matt. 2) The leper worshiped Him. They in the ship worshiped Him, as did also the ruler and woman of Canaan. Yet none were ever rebuked for it….[T]O WORSHIP CHRIST IN ANY FORM CANNOT BE WRONG” (Allen, 1880, emp. added).
*.“[A]lthough we are nowhere instructed to make petitions to him, it evidently could not be improper to do so; for such a course is nowhere prohibited, AND THE DISCIPLES WORSHIPPED HIM” (Zion’s Watch Tower, 1892, emp. added).
Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so” (Zion’s Watch Tower, 1898) …“[W]hosoever should worship Him must also worship and bow down to Jehovah’s Chief One in that capital organization, namely, Christ Jesus…” (The Watchtower, 1945, p. 313).
For more than half a century, Jehovah’s Witnesses taught that it was acceptable to worship Jesus. Now, however, they claim it is unscriptural. Such inconsistency regarding the nature of Christ, which is no small matter, reveals to the honest truth seeker that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is an advocate of serious biblical error.
Sadly, Jehovah’s Witnesses not only reject the worship of Jesus because of their belief that He is not deity, they also must deny Him such religious devotion because they teach He actually is an angel. The Watchtower has taught such a notion for several years. The November 1, 1995 issue indicated, “The foremost angel, both in power and authority, is the archangel, Jesus Christ, also called Michael” (“The Truth About Angels”). More recently, an article appeared on the Jehovah’s Witnesses official Web site affirming “the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth…. [I]t is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role” (“Who Is Michael…?,” 2015). Since, according to Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9, good angels do not accept worship, but rather preach the worship of God, and no other, Jehovah’s Witnesses must reject paying religious praise and devotion to Jesus. But, notice (again) how inconsistent Jehovah’s Witnesses have been.
In only the fifth issue of Zion’s Watch Tower magazine (originally edited by Charles Taze Russell, the founder of The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), regular contributing writer J.H. Paton stated about Jesus: “Hence it is said, ‘let all the angels of God worship him’: (that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence MICHAEL IS NOT THE SON OF GOD)…” (1879, p. 4, emp. added). Thus, at one time Jehovah’s Witnesses’ official publication taught that Jesus is NOT Michael the archangel, and that He SHOULD be worshiped.
In the 21st century, however, Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus IS Michael the archangel, and that He should NOT be worshiped. Clear contradictory statements like these found throughout the years in The Watchtower should compel current and potential members of this religious group to question their teachings in light of THE Truth found in God’s Word.

Worthy is the Lamb
One additional passage to consider regarding the worship of Jesus is Revelation chapters four and five. In chapter four, the scene in this book of signs (cf. 1:1) is the throne room of God. The “Lord God Almighty” is described as sitting on His throne while “…those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him” (4:9). Also, “the four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” (4:10-11). In chapter five, the Lamb that was slain is introduced as standing “in the midst of the throne” (5:6). No one argues the fact that this Lamb is Jesus—the One Whom John the Baptizer twice called “The Lamb of God” (John 1:29,36), and Whom Peter called the “lamb without blemish and without spot:” (1 Peter 1:19).
Regarding this Lamb, the apostle John recorded the following in Revelation 5:11-14: “And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; saying with a loud voice, WORTHY IS THE LAMB that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, AND UNTO THE LAMB for ever and ever And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.” (emp. added).
In this chapter, John revealed that BOTH God the Father and Jesus are worthy to receive worship from all of creation. In fact, Jesus is given the SAME praise and adoration that the Father is given. Just as God the Father is “worthy…to receive glory and honour and power” (4:11), so Jesus is “worthy…to receive power…and honour and glory…” (5:12). Indeed, “Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, AND UNTO THE LAMB for ever and ever.” (5:13, emp. added). Although Jehovah’s Witnesses use Revelation 4:11 as a “proof” text for worshiping God the Father they reject and call unscriptural the worship that Jesus rightly deserves.
To be continued.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Worship of Jesus

According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, “Jesus is not God,” and thus should not be worshiped by Christians. The Watchtower, a magazine published twice a month by Jehovah’s Witnesses, has repeatedly made such claims through the years. In their September 15, 2005 issue, for example, they stated quite simply that the Scriptures “show that Jesus is not God Almighty.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ official Web site (jw.org), which republishes many items from The Watchtower, briefly answers the question “Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe in Jesus?,” concluding, “we do not worship Jesus, as we do not believe that he is Almighty God” (2015). After all, allegedly “in his prehuman existence, Jesus was a CREATED spirit being…. Jesus had a beginning and could never be coequal with God in power or eternity” (“What Does the Bible…?,” 2000, emp. added).
The October 15, 2004 issue of The Watchtower concluded a section about Jesus NOT being the true God with these words: “Jehovah, and no one else, is ‘the true God and life everlasting.’ He alone is worthy to receive exclusive worship from those whom he created.—Revelation 4:11” (p. 31). Since God alone is worthy of worship, and since Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is only an angel and not God (see “The Truth About Angels,” 1995), He allegedly should not be worshiped.

God Alone is Worthy of Worship
There is no argument over the fact that God alone is worthy of worship. Jehovah revealed His will to Moses on Mt. Sinai, saying, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God,..” (Exodus 20:3-5).
Regarding the Gentiles who were sent to live in Samaria after the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom of Israel, the Bible says: “Unto this day they do after the former manners: they fear not the Lord, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the Lord commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel; with whom the Lord had made a covenant, and charged them, saying, Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow yourselves to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them: but the Lord, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched out arm, HIM SHALL YE FEAR, and HIM SHALL YE WORSHIP, and to HIM SHALL YE DO SACRIFICE.” (2 Kings 17:34-36, emp. added).
The Bible reveals time and again that God alone is to be worshiped. Luke recorded that King Herod was eaten with worms because, instead of glorifying God Almighty, he allowed the people to glorify him as a god (Acts 12:21-23). Herod’s arrogant spirit stands in direct contrast to the reaction that Paul and Barnabas had when the citizens of Lystra attempted to worship them (Acts 14:8-18). After Paul healed a man who had been crippled from his birth, the people of Lystra shouted: “The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.” They even called Paul and Barnabas by the names of their gods (Hermes and Zeus), and sought to worship them with sacrifice.
Had these two preachers had the same arrogant spirit as Herod, they would have accepted worship, and felt as if they deserved such honor. Instead, these Christian men said, “Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you…” (Acts 14:15). Paul recognized that it is unlawful for humans to worship other humans, and thus sought to turn the people’s attention toward God, and away from himself.

Jesus Accepted Worship
The dilemma in which Jehovah’s Witnesses find themselves is that they believe Jesus was a good man and prophet (as do Muslims, emp. added), yet unlike good men and good angels who have always rejected worship from humanity, Jesus accepted worship. If worship is to be reserved only for God, and Jesus, the One “who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22), accepted worship, then the logical conclusion is that Jesus is God. Numerous times the Bible mentions that Jesus accepted worship from mankind.
Matthew 14:33 indicates that those who saw Jesus walk on water “worshiped Him.” John 9:38 reveals that the blind man whom Jesus had healed, later confessed his belief in Jesus as the Son of God and “worshiped him.” After Mary Magdalene and the other women visited the empty tomb of Jesus, and the risen Christ appeared to them, “And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.” (Matthew 28:9). When Thomas first witnessed the resurrected Christ, he exclaimed, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Later, when Jesus appeared to the apostles in Galilee, “they worshiped Him” on a mountain (Matthew 28:17).

A few days after that, his disciples “worshiped Him” in Bethany (Luke 24:52). Time and time again Jesus accepted the kind of praise from men that is due only to God. He never sought to correct His followers and redirect the worship away from Himself as did the angel in Revelation or the apostle Paul in Acts 14. Nor did God strike Jesus with deadly worms for not redirecting the praise He received from men as He did Herod, who, when being hailed as a god, “because he gave not God the glory:” (Acts 12:23).
Sadly, Jehovah’s Witnesses have attempted to circumvent the obvious references to Jesus accepting worship by changing the word “worship” in their New World Translation to “obeisance” every time the Greek word proskuneo (the most prominent word for worship in the New Testament) is used in reference to Jesus. Over 30 times in the New World Translation (first published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in 1950) proskuneo is correctly translated “worship” when God the Father is the recipient of glory and praise.
This Greek word occurs 14 times in the New Testament in reference to Jesus, yet not once do more recent editions of the New World Translation render it “worship;” instead, every time it is translated “obeisance.” Allegedly, Mary Magdalene, the apostles, the blind man whom Jesus healed, etc., never worshiped Jesus; rather, they only paid “obeisance” to Him.
In 21st-century English, people generally make a distinction between the verbs “worship” and “do obeisance.” Most individuals, especially monotheists, use the word worship in a positive sense when talking about GOD, whereas “obeisance” is used more often in reference to the general respect given to people held in high regard. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “obeisance” as “1. A gesture or movement of the body, such as a curtsy, that expresses deference or homage. 2. An attitude of deference or homage,” whereas the verb “worship” is defined as “1. To honor and love AS A DEITY. 2. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion” (2000, emp. added). The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society agrees with the distinction often made between these words in modern English: God should be “worshiped,” while Jesus (we are told) should only receive “obeisance” (i.e., the respect and submission one pays to important dignitaries and superiors).
The Greek word proskuneo, which appears in the New Testament 60 times, literally means “to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence” (Thayer, 1962, p. 548; see also Mounce, 1993, p. 398). According to Greek scholars Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, this word was used in ancient times “to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet, the hem of his garment, the ground, etc.; the Persians did this in the presence of their deified king, and the Greeks before a divinity or something holy” (1979, p. 723). Admittedly, the word “obeisance” could be used on occasions to translate proskuneo. The problem is that Jehovah’s Witnesses make an arbitrary distinction between obeisance and worship when it comes to the token of reverence that Jesus in particular was given. They translate proskuneo as “obeisanceEVERY TIME Jesus is the object, yet NEVER when God the Father is the recipient of honor and praise.

As with other words in the Bible that have multiple meanings, the context can help determine the writer’s intended meaning. Consider the circumstances surrounding some of the occasions when Jesus is mentioned as the object of man’s devotion.
In John chapter nine, Jesus miraculously healed a man who was “blind from his birth” (vs. 1). When the man upon whom this miracle was performed appeared before various Jews in the synagogue and called Jesus a prophet (vs. 17), he was instructed to “Give God the praise:” not Jesus, because allegedly Jesusis a sinner” (vs. 24). Later, after the man born blind was cast out of the synagogue, Jesus informed him of His TRUE IDENTITY—that He was NOT just a prophet, but also “the Son of God.” At that moment, the man “…said, Lord, I believe. And he WORSHIPPED him.” (vs. 38).
…38.). Although the Greek word proskuneo was used in ancient times of paying respect or doing obeisance to people, no such translation is warranted in this passage. In the Gospel of John, this word is found 11 times. IN EVERY INSTANCE, Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation renders it “worship”, EXCEPT HERE in John 9:38 where it is arbitrarily translated “obeisance.”

Following a day in which Jesus miraculously fed 5,000 men (not including women and children) with only five loaves of bread and two fish, Matthew recorded how Jesus literally walked on the water in the midst of the Sea of Galilee during a violent storm, saved Peter from drowning, and then walked onto a boat where He was met with those who worshiped him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God” (Matthew 14:33). Jesus’ worshipers did not merely pay Him the same respect (or “obeisance”) that one pays a respected ruler, teacher, or master—people incapable of such feats. On the contrary, they recognized that Jesus had overcome the laws of nature, and that His actions warranted praise and adoration—not as a man, but as the “Son of God.” If Jesus was not worthy of such praise, why did He accept it? If Jesus was not to be adored, why did the angel of the Lord not strike Him with the same deadly worms with which he struck Herod (Acts 12:23)?

After defeating death and rising from the grave, a sign where Jesus is “declared to be the Son of God with power,…” (Romans 1:4), Jesus accepted worship (proskuneo) from Mary Magdalene and the other women who went to visit the tomb of Jesus (Matthew 28:8-9), as well as all of the apostles (Matthew 28:17). Jesus was not the only one ever to be resurrected from the dead, but He was the only resurrected individual the Bible mentions as afterwards receiving praise and adoration (i.e., worship) from man. The widow’s son of Zarephath (1 Kings 17:22), the son of a Shunammite (2 Kings 4:32-35), the daughter of Jairus (Mark 8:21-24,35-43), the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-16), Lazarus (John 11:1-45), Tabitha (Acts 9:36-43), and Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12) all were raised from the dead, but none received PROSKUNEO. The Bible never reveals any resurrected person other than Jesus who ever received and accepted worship.
Jesus’ followers recognized that His resurrection was different. It verified His claims of divinity.
The disciples worshiped Jesus again at His ascension. After recording that Jesus was “carried up into heaven,” Luke wrote: “And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.” (Luke 24:52-53).
Notice that the word “worshiped” (proskuneo) is used in this passage along with such words as “praising” and “blessing”— words that carry a religious connotation in connection with God. This fact highlights that the use of proskuneo in this context is not merely obeisance. Also, notice that the disciples offered worship to an “absent” Savior. It would make no sense to pay obeisance to a respected individual that has departed, but makes perfect sense if, rather, the individual is God and worthy of worship. The disciples did not just bow before some earthly ruler; they WORSHIPED their Lord Who had defeated death 40 days earlier, and had just ascended up into heaven before their eyes.
Jesus did not receive proskuneo on these occasions because He was a great teacher, or because He was viewed at these moments simply as an earthly king. Rather, all of these instances of worship were surrounded by miraculous events that were done to prove He was Heaven sent, and that “…in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9).
There is every reason to believe that on such occasions as these, Jesus’ disciples meant to pay divine, religious honor to Him, not mere civil respect or regard that earthly rulers often receive.
To be continued.

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?


Dr. Craig,
Thank you for your diligent work for the kingdom of God. I hope you understand and appreciate how your work has impacted the faith of countless people across the world.
My question has to do with the concept of God in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I am sure that you are aware of the current controversy over the “same God” comments of the professor at Wheaton College. As you can imagine this has caused a firestorm of debate between theologians, pastors and preachers. I understand from your work that you would say that while Muslims and Christians might worship the same God historically (the God of Abraham and Moses), their concept of God is fundamentally different (please correct me if I misunderstood your view). This refutes the “same God” idea because at the very core we worship a very different God even if the religions share a common background.
Several of the people who have defended the “same God” concept, however, have brought up the fact that Jews deny the concept of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus, and yet most Christians would say that Jews and Christians worship the same God. I agree that this seems hypocritical. Would you say that Jews and Christians worship the same God even if their idea of God (ex. the Trinity) is fundamentally different? If they deny the Trinity this would seem to be enough of a fundamental difference to say that we in fact do not worship the same God. This seems to me the only sound argument for defending the “same God” idea between Islam and Christianity. If we accept this then we either have to say that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God or that all worship a different God entirely, regardless of historical background.

United States
The question whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God raises a nest of perhaps unexpected philosophical difficulties, such that at the end of the day I think that this is not really the right question to ask.
Consider, for example, my friend and colleague Frank Beckwith’s attempt to answer this question (http://www.thecatholicthing.org/2015/12/17/do-muslims-and-christians-worship-the-same-god/). Beckwith tries to answer the question by appeal to the notion of reference. He wants to provide conditions under which different singular terms (like proper names) are co-referring (refer to the same thing). So, he asks, “what does it mean for two terms to refer to the same thing? Take, for example, the names ‘Muhammed Ali’ and ‘Cassius Clay.’ Although they are different terms, they refer to the same thing, for each has identical properties.”
Beckwith here lays out a sufficient condition for two terms to be co-referring:
1. If the referents of two terms have identical properties, then the terms refer to the same thing.
Beckwith then applies that condition to terms for God: “So the fact that Christians may call God ‘Yahweh’ and Muslims call God ‘Allah’ makes no difference if both ‘Gods’ have identical properties.” Thus,
1*. If the referents of “Yahweh” and “Allah” have identical properties, then the terms refer to the same thing.
Since Muslims, like Christians and Jews, are classical theists, Beckwith claims that the sufficient condition for co-reference is fulfilled.
But this is far too quick. For the obvious problem is that Yahweh and Allah do not have the same properties. Yes, Muslims and Christians embrace classical theism, a sort of generic monotheism. But the Muslim concept of God and the Christian concept of God are very different. It is not just that Christianity embraces Trinitarianism with respect to God and Islam Unitarianism, but the Muslim concept of God is in itself morally defective, as I have argued in my debates with Muslim theologians and apologists. The God of the Bible is an all-loving God, whose love is universal, impartial, and unconditional, while the God of Islam is not all-loving, but loves only Muslims and whose love is therefore selective, partial, and conditional. Therefore the sufficient condition stated in (1*) is not fulfilled.
So Beckwith appeals to a phenomenon much discussed by philosophers of language, namely, successfully referring to something by means of a false description. For example, suppose we observe a couple walking in the park and, noticing their behavior, I say to you, “Her husband is kind to her.” We both understand whom I’m talking about. Suppose, however, that you know that the man she is walking with is not, in fact, her husband and, moreover, that her husband is nasty and mean to her. In that case I have said something true of the man I intended to refer to even though my statement is literally false. So, Beckwith says, “The fact that one may have incomplete knowledge or hold a false belief about another person – whether human or divine – does not mean that someone who has better or truer knowledge about that person is not thinking about the same person.”
Granted; but that doesn’t imply that in every case involving false description they are thinking about the same person! In some cases, their conceptions may be so fundamentally different that their terms are not co-referring. Take Beckwith’s own example of the Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception. Imagine an ignorant Protestant who thinks that these terms refer to the same thing, namely, Jesus’ being born of a virgin. He might say that he and the Catholic believe the same thing, except that the Catholic just uses a different term for Jesus’ being born of a virgin.
Suppose he then finds out that when Catholics use the term “Immaculate Conception,” they are referring to Mary’s being born without original sin. Would the Protestant now continue to say that he and the Catholic are referring to the same thing by their respective terms? No, he would now say that the Catholic was referring to something else, since they have different conceptions of what these terms refer to.
So what about the God of the Bible and the God of the Qur’an? Is this just a case of referring to the same God under a false description or of referring to two different deities?
The problem is that
Beckwith hasn’t given us the necessary as well as the sufficient conditions for terms to be co-referring. He hasn’t told us what conditions must be met for two terms to be co-referring. So his argument that “Yahweh” and “Allah” are co-referring, despite the different conceptions of God involved, doesn’t go through, and his article ends too abruptly.
This is just the beginning of difficulties. A further wrinkle is that “worships x” is what philosophers call an intensional (as opposed to extensional) context, where the term “x” need not refer to anything at all (as in, e.g., “Jason worships Zeus”). [1] In an intensional context co-referring terms cannot be substituted without impacting the truth value of the sentence. For example, even though “Jupiter” may refer to the same god as “Zeus,” still Jason, a Greek, does not worship Jupiter and may have never even heard of the Roman god. So one cannot say that Abdul, a Muslim, worships Yahweh, even if “Yahweh” and “Allah” are co-referring terms.
In view of these difficulties, I prefer to avoid problems of reference altogether by asking instead about the Muslim and Christian concepts of God. The conceptions of God in Christianity and Islam are so fundamentally different that they are not the same God. Miroslav Volf, an evangelical theologian who, like Beckwith, defends the claim that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, acknowledges,
In addition to contesting the Trinity and the incarnation, Muslims also contest the Christian claim that God is love — unconditional and indiscriminate love. There is no claim in Islam that God ‘justifies the ungodly’ and no command to love one’s enemies. But these are the signature claims of the Christian faith. Take the redemption of the ungodly and the love of enemy out of the Christian faith, and you un-Christian it.
I wish that those who insist that Christians worship an altogether different God than Muslims latched on to this difference — that instead of wanting to ‘end’ Muslims they deem to be their enemies in the name of God, they would seek to embrace them in the name of Christ. If they did so, they would need to show how struggle against enemies is a way of loving them — an argument that many great theologians in the past were willing to make (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/16/do-muslims-and-christians-worship-the-same-god-college-suspends-professor-who-said-yes/).
Volf rightly discerns how morally defective the Islamic conception of God is. I, for one, have emphasized this point, as he recommends, in my debates with Muslim thinkers. But I do not regard them, as Volf uncharitably suggests, as enemies. They have been deceived by Satan, who is the real enemy here. One way of loving Muslims is to explain honestly our differences, rather than to conceal them in shmoozey interfaith dialogue, and to argue for our point of view, just as the great theologians in the past did. I have found that such an approach wins the respect and even admiration of Muslims.
One final point: What about the Jewish and Christian concepts of God? Are they so different that they are not the same God? That depends on your perspective. The Christian does not reject the Jewish concept of God as the Muslim rejects the Christian concept of God. The Christian finds the same God of the Old Testament more fully revealed in the New Testament and looks for anticipations of the Son and Spirit in the Old Testament. By contrast the Muslim explicitly repudiates the concept of God found in the New Testament.
But if I were an Orthodox Jew, then I would say that Christians have a different concept of God and are worshiping a different God.
Look how certain Jews treated the apostle Paul. They regarded him as a heretic and pursued him from city to city across the Mediterranean in an attempt to kill him. Eventually, Christians were expelled from the synagogue. Once the doctrine of the Trinity emerged among the early church fathers, the break with Judaism became, from a Jewish perspective, unbridgeable.
So whether Muslims and Christians can be said to worship the same God is not the truly germane question. The question is which conception of God is true.
[1] For that reason, we should not say that Muslims are idolaters because they do not worship the true God, but that “Allah” has no referent in the real world; what they worship simply does not exist, anymore than Zeus exists.

by William Lane Craig | Submit your question to Dr. Craig

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) Part 2

Chronology of the Revision
1825 Jan. 12th – Brooke Foss Westcott born at Birmingham.
1828 Apr. 23rd – Fenton John Anthony Hort born at Dublin.
1851 Dec. 21st – Westcott ordained “priest” in Church of England.
1853 Jan.-Mar. – Westcott and Hort agree upon plan of a joint revision of the text of the Greek Testament.
Apr. 19th – Hort: “He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible.” (Life, Vol.I, p.250).
June – Mr. Daniel Macmillan suggests to Hort that he should take part in an interesting and comprehensive ‘New Testament Scheme.’ Hort was to edit the text in conjunction with Mr. Westcott; the latter was to be responsible for a commentary, and Lightfoot was to contribute a N.T. Grammar and Lexicon. (Life, Vol.I, pp.240,241).
Sept. 29th – Westcott to Hort: “As to our proposed recension of the New Testament text, our object would be, I suppose, to prepare a text for common and general use…With such an end in view, would it not be best to introduce only certain emendations into the received text, and to note in the margin such as seem likely or noticeable – after Griesbach’s manner?…I feel most keenly the disgrace of circulating what I feel to be falsified copies of Holy Scripture (a reference to the A.V.?), and am most anxious to provide something to replace them. This cannot be any text resting solely on our own judgment, even if we were not too inexperienced to make one; but it must be supported by a clear and obvious preponderance of evidence. The margin wiil give ample scope for our own ingenuity or principles…my wish would be to leave the popular received text except where it is clearly wrong.” (Life, Vol.I, pp.228,229).
Nov. 4th – Hort: “I went down and spent a Sunday with Westcott…We came to a distinct and positive understanding about our Gk. Test. and the details thereof. We still do not wish it to be talked about, but are going to work at once, and hope we may perhaps have it out in little more than a year.” (Life, Vol.I, p.264).
Westcott and Hort start work on their Greek text.
1856 Feb. ? – Hort ordained “priest” in Church of England.
Mar. 20th – Hort: “I think I mentioned to you before Campbell’s book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology” (Life, Vol.I, p.322).
1857 Feb. 23rd – Hort to Westcott: “I hope to go on with the New Testament text more unremittingly” (Life, Vol.I, p.355).
First efforts to secure revision of the Authorised Version by five Church of England clergymen.
1858 Oct. 21st – Hort: “The principle literary work of these years was the revision of the Greek Text of the New Testament. All spare hours were devoted to it.” (Life, Vol.I, p.399).
1860 May 1st – Hort to Lightfoot: “If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels.” (Life, Vol. I, p.420).
May 4th – Hort to Lightfoot: “I am also glad that you take the same provisional ground as to infallibility that I do.” (Life, Vol.I, p.424).
May 5th – Westcott to Hort: “at present I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truth – I reject the word infallibility – of Holy Scripture overwhelming.” (Life, Vol.I, p.207).
May 18th – Hort to Lightfoot: “It sounds an arrogant thing to say, but there are very many cases in which I would not admit the competence of any one to judge a decision of mine on a textual matter, who was only an amateur, and had not some considerable experience in forming a text.” (Life, Vol.I, p.425).
1861 Apr. 12th – Hort to Westcott: “Also – but this may be cowardice – I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms.” (Life, Vol.I, p.445).
1862 Apr. 30th, May 1st – Hort: “It seems to be clearly and broadly directed to maintaining that the English clergy are not compelled to maintain the absolute infallibility of the Bible. And, whatever the truth may be, this seems just the liberty required at the present moment, if any living belief is to survive in the land.” (Life, Vol.I, p.454).
1870 Westcott and Hort print tentative edition of their Greek N.T. for private distribution only. (This they later circulated under pledge of secrecy within the company of N.T. revisers, of which they were members).
Feb. 10th – Southern Convocation of Church of England resolve on desirability of revision of A.V. Northern Convocation declines to cooperate.
May – Committee of 18 elected to produce a Revised Version.
The 7 members of the N.T. Committee invite 18 others, making 25.
May 29th – Westcott to Hort: “though I think that Convocation is not competent to initiate such a measure, yet I feel that as ‘we three’ are together it would be wrong not to ‘make the best of it’ as Lightfoot says. Indeed, there is a very fair prospect of good work, though neither with this body nor with any body likely to be formed now could a complete textual revision be possible. There is some hope that alternative readings might find a place in the margin.” (Life, Vol.I, p.390).
June 4th – Westcott to Lightfoot: “Ought we not to have a conference before the first meeting for Revision? There are many points on which it is important that we should agreed. The rules though liberal are vague, and the interpretation of them will depend upon decided action at first.” (Life, Vol.I, p.391).
July 1st – Westcott to Hort: “The Revision on the whole surprised me by prospects of hope. I suggested to Ellicott a plan of tabulating and circulating emendations before our meeting, which may prove valuable.” (Life, Vol.I, pp.392,393).
July 7th – Hort: “Dr. Westcott and myself have for above seventeen years been preparing a Greek text of the New Testament. It has been in the press for some years, and we hope to have it out early next year.” (Life, Vol.II, p.137).
Aug. ? – Hort to Lightfoot: “It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of acceptance won beforehand for the Revision by the single fact of our welcoming an Unitarian, if only the Company perseveres in its present serious and faithful spirit.” (Life, Vol.II, p.140). (Dr. G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, was a member of the Revision Committee. At Westcott’s suggestion, a celebration of Holy Communion was held on June 22nd before the first meeting of the N.T. Revision Company. Dr. Smith communicated but said afterwards that he did not join in reciting the Nicene Creed and did not compromise his principles as a Unitarian. The storm of public indignation which followed almost wrecked the Revision at the outset. At length however Dr. Smith remained on the Committee).
1881 Bishop Ellicott submits the Revised Version to the Southern Convocation.
May 12th – Westcott and Hort’s “The New Testament in the Original Greek” Vol. I published (Text and short Introduction).
May 17th – the Revised Version is published in England, selling two million copies within four days. It fails however to gain lasting popular appeal.
Sept. 4th – Westcott and Hort’s “The New Testament in the Original Greek” Vol.II published (Introduction and Appendix).
Oct. – first of Dean Burgon’s three articles in the Quarterly Review against the Revised Version appears.
1882 May – Ellicott publishes pamphlet in reply to Burgon, defending the Westcott and Hort Greek text.
1883 Burgon publishes The Revision Revised, including a reply to Ellicott.
1890 May 1st – Westcott consecrated Bishop of Durham.
1892 Nov. 30th – death of Hort.
1901 July 27th – death of Westcott.
1908 The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia discusses the Westcott-Hort theory: “Conscious agreement with it or conscious disagreement and qualification mark all work in this field since 1881.”
This is still almost literally true. ______________________________
Hort, A.F., Life and Letters of Fenton J.A. Hort, MacMillan and Co., London, 1896, vols. I,II.
Westcott, A., Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, MacMillan and Co., London, 1903, vols. I,II.
The unmitigating emergence of unauthorized Bible versions is risen up to challenge and remove the Authorized Version of the Bible (which thing cannot be done for the Lord said that his words shall not pass away. There will be a true church awaiting his return. The Authorized Version of the Bible is the precepts of a mighty nation whose king is the LORD. This proliferating emergence of unauthorized versions is a full frontal attack launched (and sustained) against the word of God to remove it and replace it with something else. Satan knoweth that he hath but a short time. As for the saints, we are exhorted to
Jude 1:3 “…earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.✞✞✞✞

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) Part 1

Their Heresies and Blasphemies

The New Testament was written in Greek.
The originals are all gone, no one has them. But there are over 5,300 extant (existing) Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available. About 95-97% of them agree together. They are called the Majority Text.
The remaining 3-5% disagree with the majority of manuscripts.
A man named Erasmus, a brilliant scholar and reformer in his own right, examined a collection of Majority Text Greek manuscripts. He compiled them into a Greek New Testament based on the readings that the true church has accepted throughout the centuries. His compilation came to be known as the Textus Receptus. The King James Bible translation is based on the Greek text found in the Textus Receptus.
The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus’ Textus Receptus. They are based on the Greek New Testament compiled by a couple of heretick infidel blasphemers named Westcott and Hort (you will see this when you read their own words below).
Ignorant people are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.
Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament is the “source text” for many of today’s modern Bible translations. These men were hereticks. [The personal letters of Hort and Westcott sound like the letters of men of the Jesuit order (that is, if you know the Roman Catholic Jesuits. If you are a Christian, I highly suggest that you read the The Deception Series. Not only will you know more about the Jesuits and their activities, you will become more acquainted with yourself, the problems with the visible church, Revelation 17, and these end times.)
Again, Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament is the “source text” for today’s modern Bible versions. Let us examine what Westcott and Hort actually believed.



A selection of
statements revealing the
attitudes of these two
most noted textual critics.
Westcott and Hort
_____________________________Reprinted with kind permission
from the Traditional Text Pamphlets Homepage
and compiled by David Blunt of the James Begg Society
WE should always be reluctant to engage in ad hominem arguments, i.e. those that concentrate on personalities rather than issues, but the character and professed beliefs of those involved in such vital matters as the text and translation of the Bible cannot be overlooked. It is necessary that those handling the inspired word of God themselves be spiritual men. This is the teaching of Scripture itself (1 Cor. 2:11-16).
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) was born at Birmingham and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) at Dublin. In 1851 Westcott was ordained an Anglican “priest” and Hort in 1856: their careers were spent mostly in academic positions rather than pastorates. As early as 1853 they began work on their Greek text of the New Testament: this project was to occupy most of their remaining lives. In 1870 the idea of a modest revision of the A.V. was sanctioned by the Southern Convocation of the Church of England, and this provided the opportunity for Westcott and Hort to introduce their radical changes. They defended the inclusion of a Unitarian scholar on the Revision Committee. “The New Testament in the Original Greek” was published in 1881, as was the Revised Version based upon it: this latter failed to gain lasting popularity, but the Westcott-Hort text and theory has dominated the scene since.
Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man may be, or no matter how great an authority on the textual evidence, his conclusions must always be open to suspicion if he does not accept the Bible as the very Word of God (in FULLER, p.157). ______________________________
The following quotes from the diaries and letters of Westcott and Hort demonstrate their serious departures from orthodoxy, revealing their opposition to evangelical Protestantism and sympathies with Rome and ritualism. Many more could be given. Their views on Scripture and the Text are highlighted.
1846 Oct. 25th – Westcott: “Is there not that in the principles of the “Evangelical” school which must lead to the exaltation of the individual minister, and does not that help to prove their unsoundness? If preaching is the chief means of grace, it must emanate not from the church, but from the preacher, and besides placing him in a false position, it places him in a fearfully dangerous one.” (Life, Vol.I, pp.44,45).
Oct., 22nd after Trinity Sunday – Westcott: “Do you not understand the meaning of Theological ‘Development’? It is briefly this, that in an early time some doctrine is proposed in a simple or obscure form, or even but darkly hinted at, which in succeeding ages,as the wants of men’s minds grow, grows with them – in fact, that Christianity is always progressive in its principles and doctrines” (Life, Vol.I, p.78).
Dec. 23rd – Westcott: “My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church.” (Life, Vol.I, p.46).
1847 Jan., 2nd Sunday after Epiphany – Westcott: “After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory…It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)…I could not help thinking on the grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.” (Life, Vol.I, p.81).
1848 July 6th – Hort: “One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise…no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic…the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical…the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many ‘chapters’ seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary…still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us…I am inclined to think that no such state as ‘Eden’ (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants” (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).
Aug. 11th – Westcott: “I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it.” (Life, Vol.I, p.52).
Nov., Advent Sunday – Westcott: “All stigmatise him (a Dr. Hampden) as a ‘heretic,’…I thought myself that he was grievously in error, but yesterday I read over the selections from his writings which his adversaries make, and in them I found systematically expressed the very strains of thought which I have been endeavouring to trace out for the last two or three years. If he be condemned, what will become of me?” (Life, Vol.I, p.94).
1850 May 12th – Hort: “You ask me about the liberty to be allowed to clergymen in their views of Baptism. For my own part, I would gladly admit to the ministry such as hold Gorham’s view, much more such as hold the ordinary confused Evangelical notions”
(Life, Vol.I, p.148).
July 31st – Hort: “I spoke of the gloomy prospect, should the Evangelicals carry on their present victory so as to alter the Services.” (Life, Vol.I, p.160).
1851 Feb. 7th – Hort: “Westcott is just coming out with his Norrisian on ‘The Elements of the Gospel Harmony.’ I have seen the first sheet on Inspiration, which is a wonderful step in advance of common orthodox heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.181).
1851 Dec. 29,30th – Hort: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones” (Life, Vol.I, p.211).
1858 Oct. 21st – Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernmicious kind…The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue…There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible” (Life, Vol.I, p.400).
1860 Apr. 3rd – Hort: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.” (Life, Vol.I, p.416).
Oct. 15th – Hort: “I entirely agree – correcting one word – with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that “the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself” is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit…Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.430).
1864 Sept. 23rd – Hort: “I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial Church is vanity and dissolution; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so very long ago by expressing a belief that ‘Protestantism’ is only parenthetical and temporary. In short, the Irvingite creed (minus the belief in the superior claims of the Irvingite communion) seems to me unassailable in things ecclesiastical.” (Life, Vol.II, p.30,31).
1865 Sept. 27th – Westcott: “I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles”.
Nov. 17th – Westcott: “As far as I could judge, the ‘idea’ of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but in many.” (Life, Vol.I. pp.251,252).
Oct. 17th – Hort: “I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results.” (Life, Vol.II, p.50).
1867 Oct. 17th – Hort: “I wish we were more agreed on the doctrinal part; but you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist, and there is not much profit in arguing about first principles.” (Life, Vol.II, p.86).
1890 Mar. 4th – Westcott: “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a_literal history – I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did – yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere.”
To Be Continued.

You Sure You Got The Right Jesus?

by Matt Moore

The epic question of the ages is Jesus asking, “Who do you say that I am?It’s the epic question that leads to the epic answer that creates the epic crisis when the answer comes up short. In this blog post, writer Matt Moore challenges us to make sure we’ve got the right Jesus. (Copied with permission from www.MooreMatt.org)

A few weeks back I was writing on the patio of my favorite coffee shop when one of the baristas popped out for a quick smoke break. He noticed a book lying by my computer with “GOD” written in huge letters on the cover and asked about it, which led to a short chitchat about religion and politics—the two things my dad taught me never to talk about with people I barely know (didn’t listen, as usual!). He told me he has studied a wide variety of religions and they all, more or less, teach the same thing.

“But yeah, dude,” he continued, “I’m a Christian, too. I ain’t gonna hate on anyone who chooses differently, but for me, Jesus is the ultimate role model—strong, resilient, and fearless—and I want to follow in his footsteps and make something of my life.”

As we talked a bit longer, I realized “make something of my life” meant fulfilling his vocational aspirations and making a chunk of change while he’s at it.

Say, what? All religions teach the same thing? Was your “research” limited to the top three hits of your Google search? And Christianity is your pick of the litter because Jesus is a good role model—really? All these things and more sat anxiously on the tip of my tongue, but I kept my mouth shut because: 1) I naturally tend toward combativeness, so if I feel that rising up in me at all I try to reign it in before I start saying things in a way I will regret, and 2) there is a time and place for gently confronting the false perspectives people hold about the Christian faith, but I don’t think it’s in the first conversation you have with a guy while he is on a ten-minute smoke break.

So in an attempt to not be a jerk and preserve the opportunity for future conversations, I sat and listened respectfully to his reasoning—even agreeing with him that Jesus is strong, resilient, and fearless. Because, I mean . . .
He is.

But what I will sooner rather than later share with my new barista friend is that he seems to be missing the point. He acknowledges Jesus is real and that He’s one heck of a role model—which is great. Gotta start somewhere. But his understanding of who Jesus is, what Jesus has done, and what Jesus expects of the world is severely malnourished. He seems to think Jesus’ sole mission in his life, death, and resurrection was to set a good example and give us the tools we need to succeed in all our endeavors.

Yeah, sure—Christianity does involve imitating Jesus’ character and living by biblical principles that might enhance our quality of life. But these things are not the crux of the Christian faith. Jesus didn’t walk around like, “I’m here to make you the best you that you can be, so you can land that job or that wife or that six figure income that you want! ”

Jesus’ message was a God-centered gospel of redemption, submission, and relationship.


“…I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15). The biggest dilemma you and I have isn’t our low self-esteem or inability to make all our dreams come true. Our biggest dilemma is that apart from Christ, we are rebels against an all-powerful God and utterly unable to escape the condemnation that rests over us. But Jesus came to turn the tables . . . at His own expense. Rather than letting all of humanity suffer for their refusal to love and obey God, Jesus loaded our sin upon Himself and let his Father crush him. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)


And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.” (Luke 9:23). The New Testament writers didn’t view Christians as “strong, resilient, and fearless” people whom Jesus helps succeed in all their self-centered endeavors—but rather as slaves of Christ. The word “slave” carries with it a negative connotation in our day but I think what the very capable (and inspired!) writers were trying to get at is this: Every fiber of the Christian’s being is indebted to Jesus. He gives his followers everything—existence, forgiveness, eternal life—and in return, they bow the knee. They lay down their selfish interests and gospel-less ambitions to live a life of joyful service to Him (Acts 20:24


Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” (John 15:14). All throughout the gospels, we see Jesus demonstrating the relationship-dynamic He came to restore between God and man. Though He is perfect and holy, He didn’t distance Himself from people who fall infinitely short of His glory. He ate with them. He talked with them. He even told them they are His friends if they do what He commands them! Christ isn’t some standoffish entity who wants us to admire Him from afar; He is relational, accessible, and wants us to enjoy fellowship with Him.

If you’re like my new barista friend and view Jesus merely as a good role model who can give you some solid tips on how to live a successful life, please hear me out
—the Jesus of the Scriptures is not down with you imitating select parts of His character you find attractive, nor is He interested in you using Him to further your own agendas. He does not want to be your Gandhi or your genie in a bottle. Jesus is God—a good God who rescues sinners, rules over sinners, and loves sinners. He wants you to turn away from your self-worship and godless ambitions and embrace Him as your greatest passion and treasure. He wants you to experience the unmatchable joy of living the God-centered life He created you to live.

The only proper way to respond to Jesus Christ is in gratitude, submission, love, and worship. Nothing less.

Hebrews, and the Rest of God, 8

Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; and ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s. (I Corinthians 3:21-23)
The wisdom and power of the Holy Spirit are always ready to enable every believer to enter that place of peace and trust. Our task is to keep committing every one of our actions, every one of our words, and every one of our thoughts to Jesus so He can become the center of all that we are and all that we do.
Rest in the center of the Being and will of Christ is the only place of righteousness, peace, and joy on the earth, under the earth, in the heavens, above the heavens, and in every other place that we may be in God’s creation.
God Almighty has given us all things in Christ. Are we determined enough to seek after and obtain all the inheritance?
All the blessing?
Or are we coming short of the rest of God?
All the riches of God’s universe have been given to mankind as an inheritance. The world is God’s creation. Christ is God’s concept of what mankind is to be. Our being made one in God, and God in us, is a guarantee that we indeed shall live forever, possessing within ourselves the power of an endless and indestructible life.
Why are belief and obedience so important?
Because belief and obedience on our part are necessary if we are to:
Trust God for our material needs.
Trust God for our spiritual needs and our pleasure, as we worship God through Christ and resist and reject the worship of satan and sin.
Trust God for what we are to achieve in life, believing that if we do His will faithfully each day, good fruit will come from us and what we are assigned to accomplish in the world will be accomplished.

Hebrews, and the Rest of God, 7

Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. (Hebrews 4:11)
Into what is the believer in Christ striving to enter?
Into two aspects of the rest of God. First, the cessation of his struggle to secure his own survival, to please God, and to accomplish something of worth and permanence. Second, six dimensions of His inheritance in Christ.
God Himself, through Jesus Christ.
Eternal life throughout the ages to come.
The nations of the earth.
The farthest reaches of the earth itself.
All else of the new creation.
The overcoming saint learns how to enter and rest in the creative wisdom and power of God so that the awesome abilities of the Holy Spirit of God can accomplish every part of the inheritance that God has assigned to him or her.
One of the tools the Holy Spirit has provided so we may learn to flow and rest in his power and wisdom, is the speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is the means that God has given to keep us in continual contact with the supernatural life of the Holy Spirit.
Notice how the Spirit of Christ explains this, in the following passage from Isaiah:
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear (Isaiah 28:11,12).
Such is the rest of God, the reward held out to those who do not neglect their salvation but press with all their attention and diligence each day of their life into the immediate will of God. This they do, in the joy and comfort of the wisdom and strength of Christ imparted to them through the Holy Spirit of God.
Why does the believer have to “labor” (exercise diligence) in order to enter the rest of God?
Because our fleshly lusts, our self-will, our fear and double-mindedness, our foolishness, the spirit of the world, Satan and his demons, and the fact that the spirit realm is invisible whereas the objects of our soulish desires are visible—all combine to persuade us that God is not to be trusted, that He will not and cannot bring us into righteousness, peace, and joy.
Therefore we must keep praying, keep studying the Scriptures, keep mixing faith with the promises of God, keep obeying the Holy Spirit, keep committing our way to the Lord so we can follow the Holy Spirit into the place of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Lord Jesus Christ.
To be continued.

Origins and Techniques of Monarch Mind Control


Monarch Programming is a method of mind control used by numerous organizations for covert purposes. It is a continuation of project MK-ULTRA, a mind-control program developed by the CIA, and tested on the military  and civilians. The methods are astonishingly sadistic (its entire purpose is to traumatize the victim)  and  the expected results are horrifying: The creation of a mind-controlled slave who can be triggered at anytime to perform any action required by the handler.  While mass media ignores this issue, over 2 million Americans have gone through the horrors of this program. This article looks at the origins of Monarch programming and some of its methods and symbolism.


NOTE: This article contains disturbing elements and might trigger Monarch survivors.

Monarch programming is a mind-control technique comprising elements of Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) and Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD). It utilizes a combination of psychology, neuroscience and occult rituals to create within the slaves an alter persona that can be triggered and programmed by the handlers. Monarch slaves are used by several organizations connected with the world elite in fields such as the military, sex slavery and the entertainment industry. This article will look at the origins of Monarch programming, its techniques and its symbolism.


Throughout the course of history, several accounts have been recorded describing rituals and practices resembling mind control. One of the earliest writings giving reference to the use of occultism to manipulate the mind can be found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. It is a compilation of rituals, heavily studied by today’s secret societies, which describes methods of torture and intimidation (to create trauma), the use of potions (drugs) and the casting of spells (hypnotism), ultimately resulting in the total enslavement of the initiate. Other events ascribed to black magic, sorcery and demon possession (where the victim is animated by an outside force) are also ancestors of Monarch programming.

It is, however, during the 20th century that mind control became a science in the modern sense of the term, where thousands of subjects have been systematically observed, documented and experimented on.

One of the first methodical studies on trauma-based mind control were conducted by Josef Mengele, a physician working in Nazi concentration camps. He initially gained notoriety for being one of the SS physicians who supervised the selection of arriving prisoners, determining who was to be killed and who was to become a forced labourer. However, he is mostly known for performing grisly human experiments on camp inmates, including children, for which Mengele was called the “Angel of Death”.


       Joseph Mengele, 1935

Mengele is infamous for his sordid human experiments on concentration camps prisoners, especially on twins. A part of his work that is rarely mentioned  however, is his research on mind control. Much of his research in this field was confiscated by the Allies and is still classified to this day.

“DR. GREEN (Dr. Joseph Mengele): The most significant programmer, perhaps one could give him the title of the father of Monarch Programming was Joseph Mengele, an ex-Nazi Concentration Camp doctor. Thousands of Monarch mindcontrolled slaves in the U.S. had “Dr. Green” as their chief programmer.” [1. Fritz Springmeier, The Illuminati Formula to Create a Mind Control Slave]

“Dr. Joseph Mengele of Auschwitz notoriety was the principle developer of the trauma-based Monarch Project and the CIA’s MK Ultra mind control programs. Mengele and approximately 5, 000 other high ranking Nazis were secretly moved into the United States and South America in the aftermath of World War II in an Operation designated Paperclip. The Nazis continued their work in developing mind control and rocketry technologies in secret underground military bases. The only thing we were told about was the rocketry work with former Nazi star celebrities like Warner Von Braun. The killers, torturers, and mutilators of innocent human beings were kept discretely out of sight, but busy in U.S. underground military facilities which gradually became home to thousands upon thousands of  kidnapped American children snatched off the streets (about one million per year) and placed into iron bar cages stacked from floor to ceiling as part of the ‘training’. These children would be used to further refine and perfect Mengele’s mind control technologies. Certain selected children (at least the ones who survived the ‘training’) would become future mind controlled slaves who could be used for thousands of different jobs ranging anywhere from sexual slavery to assassinations. A substantial portion of these children, who were considered expendable, were intentionally slaughtered in front of (and by) the other children in order to traumatize the selected trainee into total compliance and submission”. [2. Ken Adachi, Mind Control the Ultimate Terror]

Mengele’s research served as a basis for the covert, illegal CIA human research program named MK-ULTRA.



Declassified MK-Ultra document

Project MK-ULTRA ran from the early 1950s to at least the late 1960s, using American and Canadian citizens as its test subjects. The published evidence indicates that Project MK-ULTRA involved the use of many methodologies to manipulate individual mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs and other chemicals, sensory deprivation, isolation, and verbal and physical abuse.

The most publicized experiments conducted by MK-ULTRA involved the administration of LSD on unwitting human subjects, including CIA employees, military personnel, doctors, other government agents, prostitutes, mentally ill patients, and members of the general public, in order to study their reactions.

However, the scope of MK-ULTRA does not however stop. Experiments involving violent electroshocks, physical and mental torture and abuse were used in a systematic matter on many subjects, including children.


      Declassified picture of a young MK-ULTRA subject, 1961

Although the admitted goals of the projects were to develop torture and interrogation methods to use on the country’s enemies, some historians asserted that the project aimed to create “Manchurian Candidates”, programmed to perform various acts such as assassinations and other covert missions.

MK-ULTRA was brought to light by various commissions in the 1970s, including the Rockefeller Commission of 1975. Although it is claimed that the CIA stopped such experiments after these commissions, some whistle-blowers have come forth stating that the project simply went “underground” and Monarch Programming has become the classified successor of MK-ULTRA.

The most incriminating statement to date made by a government official as to the possible existence of Project MONARCH was extracted by Anton Chaitkin, a writer for the publication The New Federalist. When former CIA Director William Colby was asked directly, “What about monarch?” he replied angrily and ambiguously, “We stopped that between the late 1960s and the early 1970s.” [3. Anton Chaitkin, “Franklin Witnesses Implicate FBI and U.S. Elites in Torture and Murder of Children”, The New Federalist]

Monarch Programming

Although there has never been any official admittance of the existence  of Monarch programming, prominent researchers have documented the systematic use of trauma on subjects for mind-control purposes. Some survivors, with the help of dedicated therapists, were able to “deprogram” themselves to then go on record and disclose the horrifying details of their ordeals.

Monarch slaves are mainly used by organizations to carry out operations using patsies trained to perform specific tasks, who do not question orders, who do not remember their actions and, if discovered, who automatically commit suicide. They are the perfect scapegoats for high-profile assassinations (see Sirhan Sirhan), the ideal candidates for prostitution, slavery and private movie productions. They are also the perfect puppet performers for the entertainment industry.

“What I can say is I now believe that ritual-abuse programming is widespread, is systematic, is very organized from highly esoteric information which is published no-where, has not been on any book or talk show, that we have found it all around this country and at least one foreign country.

People say, “What’s the purpose of it?” My best guess is that the purpose of it is that they want an army of Manchurian Candidates, ten of thousands of mental robots who will do prostitution, do movies, smuggle narcotics, engage in international arms smuggling, all sorts of very lucrative things, and do their bidding and eventually the megalomaniacs at the top believe they’ll create a Satanic Order that will rule the world”. [4. D. Corydon Hammond, Ph.D]

Monarch programmers cause intense trauma to subjects through the use of electroshock, torture, abuse and mind games in order to force them to dissociate from reality – a natural response in  some people when then are faced with unbearable pain. The subject’s ability to dissociate is a major requirement and it is ,apparently, most readily found in children that come from families with multiple generations of abuse. Mental dissociation enables the handlers to create walled-off personas in the subject’s psyche, which can then be programmed and triggered at will.

“Trauma-based mind control programming can be defined as systematic torture that blocks the victim’s capacity for conscious processing (through pain, terror, drugs, illusion, sensory deprivation, sensory over-stimulation, oxygen deprivation, cold, heat, spinning, brain stimulation, and often, near-death), and then employs suggestion and/or classical and operant conditioning (consistent with well-established behavioral modification principles) to implant thoughts, directives, and perceptions in the unconscious mind, often in newly-formed trauma-induced dissociated identities, that force the victim to do, feel, think, or perceive things for the purposes of the programmer. The objective is for the victim to follow directives with no conscious awareness, including execution of acts in clear violation of the victim’s moral principles, spiritual convictions, and volition.

Installation of mind control programming relies on the victim’s capacity to dissociate, which permits the creation of new walled-off personalities to “hold” and “hide” programming. Already dissociative children are prime “candidates” for programming”. [5. Ellen P. Lacter, Ph.D., The Relationship Between Mind Control Programming and Ritual Abuse]

Monarch mind control is covertly used by various groups and organizations for various purposes. According to Fritz Springmeier, these groups are known as “The Network” and form the backbone of the New World Order.

Origins of the Name

Monarch mind control is named after the Monarch butterfly – an insect who begins its life as a worm (representing undeveloped potential) and, after a period of cocooning (programming) is reborn as a beautiful butterflies (the Monarch slave). Some characteristics specific to the Monarch butterfly are also applicable to mind control.

“One of the primary reasons that the Monarch mind-control programming was named Monarch programming was because of the Monarch butterfly. The Monarch butterfly learns where it was born (its roots) and it passes this knowledge via genetics on to its offspring (from generation to generation). This was one of the key animals that tipped scientists off, that knowledge can be passed genetically. The Monarch program is based upon Illuminati and Nazi goals to create a Master race in part through genetics. If knowledge can be passed genetically (which it is), then it is important that parents be found that can pass the correct knowledge onto those victims selected for the Monarch mind control.” [6. Ibid.]

“When a person is undergoing trauma induced by electroshock, a feeling of light-headedness is evidenced; as if one is floating or fluttering like a butterfly. There is also a symbolic representation pertaining to the transformation or metamorphosis of this beautiful insect: from a caterpillar to a cocoon (dormancy, inactivity), to a butterfly (new creation) which will return to its point of origin. Such is the migratory pattern that makes this species unique.” [7. Ron Patton, Project Monarch]


The victim/survivor is called a “slave” by the programmer/handler, who in turn is perceived as “master” or “god.” About 75% are female, since they possess a higher tolerance for pain and tend to dissociate more easily than males. Monarch handlers seek the compartmentalization of their subject’s psyche in multiple and separate alter personas using trauma to cause dissociation.

The following is a partial list of these forms of torture:

1. Abuse and torture

2. Confinement in boxes, cages, coffins, etc, or burial (often with an opening or air-tube for oxygen)

3. Restraint with ropes, chains, cuffs, etc.

4. Near-drowning

5. Extremes of heat and cold, including submersion in ice water and burning chemicals

6. Skinning (only top layers of the skin are removed in victims intended to survive)

7. Spinning

8. Blinding light

9. Electric shock

10. Forced ingestion of offensive body fluids and matter, such as blood, urine, feces, flesh, etc.

11. Hung in painful positions or upside down

12. Hunger and thirst

13. Sleep deprivation

14 Compression with weights and devices

15. Sensory deprivation

16. Drugs to create illusion, confusion, and amnesia, often given by injection or intravenously

17. Ingestion or intravenous toxic chemicals to create pain or illness, including chemotherapy agents

18. Limbs pulled or dislocated

19. Application of snakes, spiders, maggots, rats, and other animals to induce fear and disgust

20. Near-death experiences, commonly asphyxiation by choking or drowning, with immediate resuscitation

22. Forced to perform or witness abuse, torture and sacrifice of people and animals, usually with knives

23. Forced participation in slavery

24. Abuse to become pregnant; the fetus is then aborted for ritual use, or the baby is taken for sacrifice or enslavement

25. Spiritual abuse to cause victim to feel possessed, harassed, and controlled internally by spirits or demons

26. Desecration of Judeo-Christian beliefs and forms of worship; dedication to Satan or other deities

27. Abuse and illusion to convince victims that God is evil, such as convincing a child that God has abused her

28. Surgery to torture, experiment, or cause the perception of physical or spiritual bombs or implants

29. Harm or threats of harm to family, friends, loved ones, pets, and other victims, to force compliance

30. Use of illusion and virtual reality to confuse and create non-credible disclosure [8. Ellen P. Lacter, Ph.D., Kinds of Torture Endured in Ritual Abuse and Trauma-Based Mind Control]

“The basis for the success of the Monarch mind-control programming is that different personalities or personality parts called alters can be created who do not know each other, but who can take the body at different times. The amnesia walls that are built by traumas, form a protective shield of secrecy that protects the abusers from being found out, and prevents the front personalities who hold the body much of the time to know how their System of alters is being used. The shield of secrecy allows cult members to live and work around other people and remain totally undetected. The front alters can be wonderful Christians, and the deeper alters can be the worst type of Satanic monster imaginable–a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde effect. A great deal is at stake in maintaining the secrecy of the intelligence agency or the occult group which is controlling the slave. The success rate of this type of programming is high but when it fails, the failures are discarded through death. Each trauma and torture serves a purpose. A great deal of experimentation and research went into finding out what can and can’t be done. Charts were made showing how much torture a given body weight at a given age can handle without death.” [9. Springmeier, op. cit.]

“Due to the severe trauma induced through ECT, abuse and other methods, the mind splits off into alternate personalities from the core. Formerly referred to as Multiple Personality Disorder, it is presently recognized as Dissociative Identity Disorder and is the basis for MONARCH programming. Further conditioning of the victim’s mind is enhanced through hypnotism, double-bind coercion, pleasure-pain reversals, food, water, sleep and sensory deprivation, along with various drugs which alter certain cerebral functions”. [10. Patton, op. cit.]

Dissociation is thus achieved by traumatizing the subject, using systematic abuse and using terrifying occult rituals. Once a split in the core personality occurs, an “internal world” can be created and alter personas can be programmed using tools such as music, movies (especially Disney productions) and fairy tales. These visual and audio aids enhance the programming process using images, symbols, meanings and concepts. Created alters can then be accessed using trigger words or symbols programmed into the subject’s psyche by the handler. Some of the most common internal images seen by mind control slaves are trees, Cabalistic Tree of life, infinity loops, ancient symbols and letters, spider webs, mirrors, glass shattering, masks, castles, mazes, demons, butterflies, hour glasses, clocks and robots. These symbols are commonly inserted in popular culture movies and videos for two reasons: to desensitize the majority of the population, using subliminals and neuro-linguistic programming and to deliberately construct specific triggers and keys for base programming of highly-impressionable MONARCH children. [11. Ibid.] Some of the movies used in Monarch programming include The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty.


      The movie The Wizard of Oz is used by Monarch handlers to program their slaves. Symbols and meanings in the movie become triggers in the slave’s mind enabling easy access to the slave’s mind by the handler. In popular culture, veiled references to Monarch programming often use analogies to The Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland.

In each case, the slave is given a particular interpretation of the movie’s storyline in order to enhance programming. For example, a slave watching The Wizard of Oz is taught that “somewhere over the rainbow” is the “happy place” dissociative trauma slaves must go to in order to escape the unbearable pain being inflicted upon them. Using the movie, programmers encourage slaves to go “over the rainbow” and dissociate, effectively separating their minds from their bodies.

“As mentioned before, the hypnotist will find children easier to hypnotize if they know how to do it with small children. One method that is effective is to say to the small children, “Imagine you are watching a favorite television show.” This is why the Disney movies and the other shows are so important to the programmers. They are the perfect hypnotic tool to get the child’s mind to dissociate in the right direction. The programmers have been using movies since almost day one to help children learn the hypnotic scripts. For children they need to be part of the hypnotic process. If the hypnotist allows the child to make up his own imagery, the hypnotic suggestions will be stronger. Rather than telling the child the color of a dog, the programmer can ask the child. This is where the books and films shown the child assist in steering its mind in the right direction. If the hypnotist talks to a child, he must take extra precaution not to change the tone of his voice and to have smooth transitions. Most of the Disney films are used for programming purposes. Some of them are specifically designed for mind-control.” [12. Springmeier, op. cit.]

Levels of Monarch Programming

The levels of Monarch Programming identify the slave’s “functions” and are named after the Electroencephalography (EEG) brainwaves associated with them.


  Types of brain waves in EEG

Regarded as “general” or regular programming, ALPHA is within the base control personality. It characterized by extremely pronounced memory retention, along with substantially increased physical strength and visual acuity. Alpha programming is accomplished through deliberately subdividing the victims personality which, in essence, causes a left brain-right brain division, allowing for a programmed union of Left and Right through neuron pathway stimulation.

BETA is referred to as “sexual” programming (slaves). This programming eliminates all learned moral convictions and stimulates the primitive instinct, devoid of inhibitions. “Cat” alters may come out at this level. Known as Kitten programming, it is the most visible kind of programming as some female celebrities, models, actresses and singers have been subjected to this kind of programming. In popular culture, clothing with feline prints often denote Kitten programming.

DELTA is known as “killer” programming and was originally developed for training special agents or elite soldiers (i.e. Delta Force, First Earth Battalion, Mossad, etc.) in covert operations. Optimal adrenal output and controlled aggression is evident. Subjects are devoid of fear and very systematic in carrying out their assignment. Self-destruct or suicide instructions are layered in at this level.

THETA – Considered to the “psychic” programming. Bloodliners, (those coming from multi-generational satanic families) were determined to exhibit a greater propensity for having telepathic abilities than did non-bloodliners. Due to its evident limitations, however, various forms of electronic mind control systems were developed and introduced, namely, bio-medical human telemetry devices (brain implants), directed-energy lasers using microwaves and/or electromagnetics. It is reported these are used in conjunction with highly-advanced computers and sophisticated satellite tracking systems. [13. Patton, op. cit.]

In Conclusion

It is difficult to remain objective when describing the horrors endured by Monarch slaves. The extreme violence, the abuse, the mental torture and sadistic games inflicted on victims by “notable scientists” and high-level officials prove the existence of a true “dark side” in the powers that be. Despite the revelations, the documents and the whistle-blowers, a great majority of the population ignores, dismisses or avoids the issue altogether. Over two million Americans have been programmed by trauma mind-control since 1947 and the CIA publicly admitted its mind control projects in 1970. Movies such as The Manchurian Candidate have directly referred to the subject, even depicting actual  techniques, such as electroshock, the use of trigger words and microchip implementation. Several public figures we see on our TV and movie screens are mind control slaves. Famous people such as Candy Jones, Celia Imrie and Sirhan Sirhan have gone on record and disclosed their mind control experiences…and yet the general public claims that it “cannot exist”.

The research and funds invested in project Monarch do not however only apply to mind control slaves. Many of the programming techniques perfected in these experiments are applied on a mass scale through mass media. Mainstream news, movies, music videos, advertisements and television shows are conceived using the most advanced data on human behavior ever compiled. A lot of this comes from Monarch programming.

Hebrews, and the Rest of God, 6

Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, Today, after so long a time; as it is said, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. for if Jesus [Joshua] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. (Hebrews 4:7-8)
The argument in verses seven and eight of the fourth chapter of Hebrews is that if the possession of Canaan, the land of promise, was the true rest of God, then David in the Book of Psalms—hundreds of years after Israel entered Canaan—would not have spoken of “another day.
Notice the profound and exacting manner in which the Holy Spirit guides the writer of the Book of Hebrews to interpret and apply the Old Testament Scriptures. The science of scriptural interpretation is termed hermeneutics. We can learn much about the discipline of hermeneutics by observing how the writers of the New Testament employed passages from the Old Testament.
The Book of Hebrews is an exhortation to Christian people to enter the “rest of God.” We know that “there remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.” We have said that the rest of God is the state of abiding in the center of God’s will in Christ.

What is true of the person who has entered God’s rest?

He also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
The word unbelief, in 4:11, may be translated “disobedience,” or “obstinacy“. This is true also in 3:18, where the translation may be read: “to those who disobeyed“, or, “to those who were obstinate.
We understand, therefore, that the kind of belief and faith that obtains the promises of God is belief and faith that are expressed in cheerful obedience and willingness in the actual doing of what the Holy Spirit is laying on our heart. We “eat the good of the land” when we are willing and obedient.

What did God create before He ceased from His works?

A perfect and complete plan of redemption in Christ, including the specific purpose and plan for our own life, finished from the foundation of the world.
A place of rest for us from our trials and tribulations when we die, or at the appearing of Christ—whichever comes first.
A place of full abiding in Christ in which we can await His pleasure in all things, becoming obedient to the will of God.
The destruction of God’s enemies in and around us.
Perfect and complete conformity to the express image of the Lord Jesus Christ in our spirit, in our soul, and in our body.
The abiding in us of the fullness of the Father and the fullness of the Son through the fullness of the Holy Spirit.
Our ability to possess the fullness of the fruitfulness and dominion promised to Christ and to those who are coheirs with Him.

When did God cease working?

When He had performed a perfect work in each of the above areas of accomplishment, and in every other part and aspect of the physical universe, of the thousand-year Kingdom Age, and of the new heaven and earth reign of Christ.
To be continued.

Hebrews, and the Rest of God, 5

For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. (Hebrews 4:8)

The third aspect of entering the rest of God is that of the land of promise. Satan and his spirits are now in possession of that which belongs by Divine assignment to Christ and His saints. The nations of the world, and the earth itself, are an important part of our inheritance. The only way in which Satan will be driven from our land of promise, our inheritance, is by war. It is Satan’s opinion, apparently, that the earth and its peoples are rightfully his.
To enter the rest of God, into the fullness of our inheritance in Christ, we must become warriors so we can drive out Satan. In the present hour, a spiritual enemy is dwelling in our land, our inheritance. The third and fourth chapters of Hebrews set forth Canaan, the land of promise, as a type of the rest of God.
What does the land of promise teach us concerning entering the rest of God?
The example of the land of promise teaches us that we are to destroy the devil wherever he is entrenched in the good things that God has given to the saints. We are not to cease driving the devil from our inheritance, by the power of God, until the memory of the devil, of sin, of rebellion, has been destroyed from the creation.
We can have no rest in our inheritance until God’s enemy has been driven from it.
We enter our land, the rest of God, one step at a time.
And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee. But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed (Deuteronomy 7:22-23).
All things were finished from the creation of the world. Therefore we are not to rush about attempting to save ourselves, or to build the Kingdom of God according to our own plan. Rather, we are to wait on God constantly so that we may know what it is He wants us to do—moment by moment.
Sometimes God must slow us down until we can understand what it is He desires. The first aspect of entering the rest of God is a deep realization that God has a plan of His own. Spiritual warfare always is conducted by the Lord Jesus Christ working through His Church. The war is fought according to the timing, the strategy, the tactics that come from God the Father, whose Kingdom it is that is being established. Each battle is won by the wisdom and power of the Holy Spirit.
To be continued.

Hebrews, and the Rest of God, 4

If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. (Isaiah 58:13)

This is the way the Christian saint is to live at all times. We are to cease seeking our own pleasure. We are to take pleasure in finding and doing the Lord’s will. We are to honor God always, not following our own path, not finding our own pleasure, not speaking our own words.
If we will keep this Sabbath, which is rest in God’s will, God will cause us to “ride on the high places of the earth.” He will feed us “with the heritage of Jacob,” our father.
Jacob was greatly blessed of the Lord in all areas and was preserved in the days of famine. If we will live in the Sabbath rest of God, if we will abide in Christ, in the center of God’s will, we will partake of the good things of the earth. We will be brought to fruitfulness, to dominion, to honor, to glory, as was Jacob. We will be delivered in the time of famine (see Psalms 37).
If there is any part of our time during which we are following our own path rather than seeking the will of Christ, we are falling short of the rest of God. Jesus always did the works of the Father and spoke as the Father gave Him the words. We are to always do what Christ is guiding us to do, and we are to speak as the Lord directs.
Most of us are imperfect in terms of abiding in Christ in all that we do and say at every moment. But this is the goal toward which we are to be pressing (John 6:57).
To enter the rest of God, we must understand that the creation of God, from Adam and Eve to the Lamb’s Wife, was finished from the creation of the world.
To enter the rest of God, we must give our life to Christ so that our pilgrimage on the earth becomes one long Sabbath day during which we think God’s thoughts, speak God’s words, and show in ourselves the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Sabbath rest of the Christian is the Life of Christ lived in and through us.
To be continued.

Hebrews, and the Rest of God, 3

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Romans 8:29)

The concept of predestination and foreknowledge is that God knows what He is doing and has a special place in His Kingdom for each believer.
The fact that God knows what He is doing gives us rest in the security that the world and our personal life are not out of control but are being directed by the perfect wisdom and power of God, according to a master plan.
The fact that God has a special place in His Kingdom for each of us means we are to cease attempting to force our will, to direct our destiny, to cease striving to build our own kingdom, and instead to devote our days seeking the will of Christ for our life. We enter the rest of God when we turn over the remainder of our life to Christ and allow Him to perform what God has planned for us.
But, one may ask, is it possible for the believer to deviate from what God has determined?
We have our answer in the third chapter of the Book of Hebrews.
Israel refused to believe and obey God. As a result, God would not allow the people to enter the land of promise although He had promised the land to them. God suspended His promise to that generation, just as He changed what He had spoken concerning Eli, the priest (I Samuel 2:30).
The Scripture commands us to give diligence to make our calling and election sure (II Peter 1:10).
It is important to realize it is the “rest of God” we are entering. God is seeking a living temple for Himself, for His own pleasure and to accomplish His own purposes. We can be part of that rest only as we cease from our attempts to live our lives in our own way and instead present our bodies to God as living sacrifices, seeking His will. God is resting, having set in motion His eternal plan. We are to enter that rest, God’s rest, His Sabbath.
The first concept that has to do with our being able to enter the rest of God is that God has a specific purpose and plan that have been completed already in God’s mind and vision.
The second concept that concerns our being able to enter the rest of God is that of the Jewish Sabbath day.
What does the Sabbath day, the seventh day of the week, teach us about the rest of God?
To find the answer to this question, let us turn to Isaiah, Chapter 58, verses thirteen and fourteen. This passage was true for the Jew one day each week.
The Christian keeps this Sabbath, this Divine rest, twenty-four hours of every day, seven days a week.
If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

To be continued.

Hebrews, and the Rest of God 2

For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.” (Hebrews 4:3)

In verses three through nine of the fourth chapter of the Book of Hebrews, the Holy Spirit gives us three concepts that have to do with being able to enter the rest of God:

1. God’s creation, all the way from the separating of the light from the darkness to the descent of the new Jerusalem, was completed in God’s mind before the events described in Genesis, Chapter One came into existence.

2. The Jewish Sabbath day.

3. The land of promise.

Let us consider the three concepts one at a time. If we do not believe them and embrace them, applying faith to them, we will not enter the rest of God. We will not attain the fullness of the inheritance that God has prepared for each believer in Christ.

First, consider this statement: “the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

We understand from verse three that all the works of God were completed in God’s mind, in the spirit realm, before God said, “Let there be light.” We who are imprisoned in the physical realm are bound by time. God beholds a matter as being accomplished long before (sometimes thousands of years before) we humans arrive at the time of its physical appearance and substance.

The works were finished from the foundation of the world.” The fact of the pre-working, the foreknowledge, the predestination, the sovereignty of God, is taught by statement and by example throughout the Scriptures.

From the calling of Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, to the establishing of the last saint in the new Jerusalem, the sovereignty of God is demonstrated clearly.

Does this mean that no matter what anyone does, those who are to be saved will be saved and those who are to be destroyed will be destroyed?

The Scriptures do not teach this. Every human being on the earth determines his or her eternal destiny by the way he behaves and the choices he makes. Grace, salvation, and the Kingdom of God are not edicts. They are opportunities.

How can these two concepts be reconciled?

Perhaps they cannot be reconciled in the material world. But both of the concepts—that God is sovereign in the universe and His works have been finished already and now are being fashioned for us to see, and also that each individual must choose to accept God’s will in Christ for his life or to reject God’s will for his life—are taught throughout the Scriptures and are true and factual in the spirit realm.

The knowledge that God already has completed all things has a very practical effect on the overcomer. Such knowledge gives him rest from the tormenting driving of his own fears and feeling of duty and obligation, and enables him to settle back into the arms of God and allow Christ to build the Kingdom of God.

To be continued.

Should the Quran be Taken Literally?


Political correctness, like a narcotic, renders victims mindless and biased in the ability to see the obvious. In an attempt to evade the teachings of the Bible, theological liberals have long insisted that Bible statements are not to be taken literally. We have been told that we must not be “a literalist” when it comes to Bible interpretation and, when we read the Bible, we must not take it literally. Sadly, many Americans have been duped by over a century of propaganda perpetrated by higher critics who seek to undermine confidence in the inspiration of the Bible. Nevertheless, the evidence is decisive: the Bible possesses the attributes of inspiration that prove its divine origin.1 And its meanings, as originally intended by God, can be understood.
To suggest that the Bible is not to be taken literally is nonsensical. True, the Bible contains much figurative language, i.e., it includes figures of speech (e.g., simile, metaphor, hyperbole, metonymy, synecdoche, etc.)—just like our own English language (e.g., “quit cold turkey,” “stretch my legs,” “died laughing”). But figurative language still communicates meaning that can be comprehended.
Do those who allege that the Bible is not to be literalized want us to interpret their allegation literally? Of course. Even if a few metaphors are “thrown” into the discussion, can we “grasp” what is being communicated? Yes, even as that question can be understood, though it contains two figurative expressions. Likewise the Bible may also be understood. It communicates literal truth. Any diligent student can ascertain the original intent of the divinely guided writers.
Though its divine origin has been decisively disputed,2 the same may be said of the Quran. It was written with a view to being understood. The host of passages that advocate violent jihad are unquestionably conveyed in contexts that demonstrate their literality. No figurative language alters the very plain meanings evident in the admonitions pertaining to physical warfare. For example, Surah 3 alludes to two literal battles fought by Muslim armies—the battle of Badr and the battle of Uhud. Consider Surah 47 in Mohammed Pickthall’s celebrated Muslim translation—
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks…. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. He will guide them and improve their state, and bring them in unto the Garden [Paradise—DM] which He hath made known to them (Surah 47:4-6, emp. added).3
No Muslim would deny that “those who disbelieve,” “actions,” and “Garden” (i.e., Paradise) are literal. Likewise, no true Quran-made Muslim would deny that “battle,” “slain,” and “smiting of the necks” are literal as well. This Surah is calling for Muslims to engage in literal violent warfare with unbelievers (i.e., those who do not accept Islam) by severing their heads. The sooner the politically correct, multicultural mindset faces reality, the sooner the threat posed by terrorists can be addressed in a meaningful manner.
Dave Miller, Ph.D.

1   Kyle Butt (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); Jackson, Wayne (1982), “The Holy Scriptures—Verbally Inspired,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/holyscri.pdf
2   See Dave Miller (2005), The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
3   Mohammed Pickthall (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

Hebrews, and the Rest of God

Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. (Hebrews 4:1)

What is the “rest” of God?

Life lived in the fullness of Christ.

In what way can a believer in Christ come short of the rest of God?

By allowing some part of his personality to be dominated by sin or self rather than by Christ.

What was the “gospel” that was preached to the Israelis who were wandering about in the wilderness?

That they were going to be brought into a land where there were springs of water, plenty of rain, an abundance of minerals, and rich soil for grazing and for growing crops.

What takes place if we keep on pressing forward in faith in the Lord?

We enter the rest of God.
The thought here seems to be that everyone who chooses to believe and obey God without murmuring and complaining will enter His rest, His inheritance. The Israelites were not permitted to enter Canaan at their first approach because they would not believe God, even though God had planned from the creation of the world that they should enter Canaan.
The Jews in the wilderness did not mix faith with the word they heard. Even in those days faith was required in order to please God.
We who believe do enter the promised rest. The important word is believe. Those who will not believe shall never enter the rest of God.

Entering the rest of God involves:

Coming to understand what God has stated to be true concerning us.
Believing that what God has stated shall come to pass.
Cooperating with the Holy Spirit in the step-by-step accomplishment of what God has declared to be a fact.
We must read the Scriptures to find what God has stated to be true of our relationship with Him and what He is doing with us through Christ. We must set our mind and heart to believe that what God has stated He can and will do. We must demonstrate our faith in the faithfulness of God by obeying the Holy Spirit in every area of our life at all times.
The Israelites knew that God had called them from Egypt and had promised to bring the people into a land flowing with milk and honey. However, as soon as they became thirsty, or hungry, or discouraged they made little or no attempt to believe that what God had promised to them He was able and willing to do. They doubted the goodness, truth, and power of God. As a result they complained, they murmured, they wept in fear, they rebelled against Moses and Aaron.

We must exercise these three aspects of faith:

Faith based on the knowledge of what God has stated in the Scriptures.
Faith that God is all-powerful and trustworthy. God can and shall keep his part of the contract.
Faith that presses vigorously each day into the rule of the Holy Spirit over our deeds, words, and thoughts.

To be continued.

For Some, Is There a More Offensive Book Than the Bible?

Daniel K. Norris


Christians, don’t back down from the Bible’s bold stance on truth. (Public Domain)

The best-selling book of all time just made a top 10 list of the most frequently challenged books in America. I’m surprised it wasn’t number one. 
Every year the American Library Association publishes a list of challenged and banned books in an effort to inform “about censorship efforts that affect libraries and schools.” The Association defines a challenge as “a formal written complaint filed with the library or school requesting that the materials be removed because of content or appropriateness.”
Last year the Holy Bible shot up the list to number six, just four places behind the sexually explicit Fifty Shades of Grey, and three places behind I Am Jazz, the story of a transgender child. I imagine many Christians will take offense that God’s Word found itself on such a controversial list that included titles like, “Two Boys Kissing.” I for one am shocked for another reason. I want to know why it wasn’t first. 
How is it that the most radical and revolutionary text ever scribed doesn’t top the list by a large margin each and every year? Is there really a more offensive and subversive text to a secular and sinful world than the (*King James) Bible? I cannot think of one. 
Consider this: If you are a God-hater or atheist who is infuriated by the words “In God We Trust” boldly printed on every coin and bill in your wallet; if you’ve remained silent during the Pledge of Allegiance because you cringe at the thought of uttering “one nation under God”; if you’ve worked tirelessly to see the Ten Commandments removed from every governmental building; and if “separation of church and state” is your favorite catch phrase, how could you possibly tolerate the thought of a Bible sitting on the shelf of the local library? Isn’t the (*King James) Bible the antithesis of everything you believe? What happens if a curious young mind picks it up and allows those radical thoughts to take root in his or her mind?  I’m surprised you’re not on the phone right now demanding its removal!
Perhaps the Bible is not yet number one because it hasn’t been perceived as the threat it truly is. Apparently we believers need to do a better job preaching the whole Word with both boldness and love. When we do, I expect multitudes to be reborn while others become enraged.
Let’s not be naive. The (*King James) Bible will always be controversial because it is the ultimate challenge to the world’s status quo. It offers freedom and truth to captives. It sets people free from the fear of this life and points their faith towards the next life. This is why regimes throughout history have banned and burned the book by the millions. They understood that it undermined their agendas. Even today in several nations it is a crime to have a Bible in your possession. Many brave believers have risked their lives smuggling the text across such borders. The (*King James) Bible is dangerous indeed!
Even in our politically correct, postmodern culture that rejects absolute truth and holds tolerance as its only virtue, the Bible is a severe threat. Tolerance says every viewpoint and opinion must be celebrated as equal. It contends that truth is in the eye of the beholder and that everyone can be right in their own eyes. The (*King James) Bible judges such notions as false. It offers a definitive contrast between right and wrong. It presents itself as the infallible word of truth and holds man accountable to that truth. It is the final word and supreme authority concerning morality. If tolerance is your aim then the Bible cannot be tolerated!
The Bible is a threat to anyone who celebrates a life of depravity. Such men and women find the light of the Bible to be incredibly uncomfortable. The truth of God’s Word exposes the sin and sinfulness of humanity. It warns of God’s wrath and judgment that awaits those who remain in sin. When the sinner is subjected to the scrutiny of Scripture, he’s left with only two choices; humble himself in complete surrender to the Savior, or run away in humiliation.  Expect those who refuse surrender to demand censorship.
My friend, the (*King James) Bible leaves no room for compromise and conformity to the world. It draws a line between two opposing kingdoms and demands each man or woman choose a side. Jesus made this abundantly clear. He said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matt. 10:34-36). In the end, there is nothing more divisive than God’s Word. It truly is a two-edged sword that separates the flesh from the spirit. 
Christians, don’t back down from the Bible’s bold stance on truth. It is the rock upon which you stand. Better to build upon it than to be crushed by it. We need not be ashamed of the gospel message. It is the power of God for the salvation of the world. Oh, the (*King James) Bible may never be popular on Earth, but it will always be powerful. Don’t shy away from the verses the world deems inappropriate. Share its truth loudly and clearly! Who knows, perhaps an unbelieving world will hear you, pick it up and read this dangerous text for themselves. Sure it might make the top of ALA’s list, but imagine how many souls will make the Lord’s List!

(*emp added)