Issues with the Faithlife Company


I’m going to take the time to discuss my wife’s conclusion about Logos, that it is not a Christian company. I do have to agree with her. It’s a business. The prices they charge, and the tactics they use to force people to constantly give them money may be sound business practice, but it’s not Christian principles. Christian principles is that the laborer is worthy of his hire, and to pay your people fairly, and charge an honest price for your software. Bibleworks was an honest contender until I found out that they really didn’t give you much in the way of Bible dictionaries, grammars, etc. At least with that software, you pay one price… and you get everything.

But let’s not forget Logos was started by a Christian employee of Microsoft, who went on his own. He turned it into a major software business, eventually creating the greatest Bible software package.

And then recently, he began offering packages for cults and unSaved people, as if lending legitimacy to them. You can buy Verbum, for Roman Catholics. He must have hired some Roman Catholics for the Content teams, because now you get Roman Catholic materials in almost every base package of Logos. What, pray tell, am I going to do with the Roman Catholic lectionary, or the Confessions of “St.” Augustine? The Standard Silver package has a devotional to Mary!!! Are they offering Baptist materials in Verbum, I wonder? Hmmm… let’s see… no.

So, sadly, Logos will probably after the Rapture be instrumental in building a one world religion. I’m not saying that Christians do not work at Logos. I am not saying that there’s something wrong with the software, or the materials they offer (except the RCC stuff). But if you’ve learned to spot agendas (something I taught my readers to do two years ago) – these facts should be setting off alarm bells.

IFB Blogs


Out of all the IFB blogs there were out there, a number of them – most of them – are gone.

I think it’s just battle fatigue. When you start a IFB, Narrow is the way, King James only blog, you immediately are beset on all sides from apostates and heretics who want to argue with you. And precious few people come on and say, “That article was great!”

no, they want to argue.

It takes a toll on you.

There were some that started a year ago, when I was writing articles on how to start one. They’re gone now.

It’s really tough. And you, after a few months, struggle through the feeling you’re fighting this alone.

You’re not, but boy, it really feels that way.

Oddly enough, the most common challenges I was getting was from Roman Catholic apologists, most of whom are apostate Protestants. So this last year, i did something I needed to do, and took a month off. And I threw up my entire Roman Catholic apologetics series again, after a Roman Catholic apologist demanded that “just ONCE I’d like to see a protestant answer these questions!”

So, I’m not a protestant – I’m a Baptist – but I obliged him. He made no comment at all, because the very first thing in that series I challenge is the Magisterium.

So, if you’re one of the few left with IFB blogs, when it gets tough, consider taking a month off. It helps. Then back into the battle.

If you’re debating whether you should start one… yes. Go back through my archives to find the blog articles on starting an apologetics blog.

Textual Criticism


“The Bible version issue must be faced BECAUSE IT IS FOUNDATIONAL… The Bible version issue must be faced BECAUSE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ONLY ONE SIDE OF THIS DEBATE IS GIVEN TODAY.” (David Cloud, Way of Life Encyclopedia, pg. 66)

This article is going to be a little long, but I encourage you to read it, to study this issue, because I will tell you it is the most important doctrinal issue facing Christianity today. Why? If you do not have the right understanding of the Bible, the core element of the Christian life, how will you determine your doctrine? How will you live, not knowing what to believe?

We’ve all seen the standard line in Bible teacher’s statements of faith… “We believe the Bible to be inerrant, and inspired in the original manuscripts.”

The great thing about that statement, is that you can claim Genesis is a myth, that Christ never rose from the dead and was just a good man, and STILL put that in your statement of faith, and be telling the truth.

Why?

Where are the original manuscripts?

Gone. Faded away.

So you can claim they say whatever you like. Who’s going to prove you wrong?

The issue has to do with textual criticism. Textual criticism is a series of statements invented by Wescott and Hort to defend their work against any complaints from Bible Believing Christians.

So, what exactly is Modern Textual Criticism?

“the struggle to REGAIN the original form of the New Testament” (Constantine Tischendorf, quoted in Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 126)

Regain. The implication is that the text was lost.

Let me briefly explain the history of the Greek Text, and someone let me know where it was lost, please?

The original text of the New Testament was written as letters which were circulated to all the churches. It would be copied carefully, and then the original letter sent on. To put it simply and bluntly, THERE WAS NO ORIGINAL TEXT of the Bible, where you opened it up and it was all 29 books of the New Testament.

The VERY FIRST TEXT would have been when the first church finally got Revelation in 95 AD and added its text to their collection. We finally would have had the completed New Testament text. Hold that thought, because every step of the way requires a miracle to think that God would preserve His Bible – which indeed happened.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18 (KJV)

Here’s my first point – If you believe in Modern Textual Criticism, you do not believe the Bible literally, as Jesus Christ states in Matthew 5:18 that the text of the Bible will NEVER pass away while Heaven and Earth exist.

Second point…. If you don’t believe Matthew 5:18, what ELSE do you not believe?

This issue of accepting Modern Textual Criticism is a major issue, as it almost literally can be used as a yardstick to identify who is a false teacher and who is not…

ALL of the original First Century churches would have compiled copies of the New Testament. The Christian churches began facing fierce opposition, before the New Testament was even completed, under Domitian and Nero. It is recorded in the Talmud the fierceness with which Rome dealt with Holy Books not of Roman origin. Rabbi Akiva was tied to a stake, doused in oil, then wrapped in a Torah Scroll – then set afire. Akiva cried out as he burnt alive that he could see the glowing red letters of the word of God floating up to heaven before him. The scene so moved the Centurion who set Akiva afire that the Centurion jumped onto the pile of burning wood and wrapped his arms around Akiva, where the two of them burned to death together. The Centurion also shouted out he could see the letters burning and rising into heaven before them.

The New Testament churches copied all the words of the Bible and circulated them, so that every family could own one. Churches began to scatter as affliction and persecution rose. Romans found Bibles nad burned them. THey found Lectionaries (portions of Scripture copied for responsive readings) and destroyed them.

The state church was instituted by Constantine finally, becoming the roman Catholic church… who added to the persecution, burning all Bibles they found. You have to ask a LOT of questions about why would the Roman Catholic church burn all the bibles they find? Facts are, they did burn them.

Finally, as periods of persecution began to finaly die away, men began to collect all the handwritten Bibles, in many different languages, and compared them.

Despite some minor spelling mistakes, 99.99% of them all agreed word for word, letter for letter.

That’s a MIRACLE. If I assigned 30 students to copy a chapter from a book, there’s going to be massive contradictions, missed words, spelling errors, dropped lines where the eye finds the same word in two separate lines, but misses most of one line and begins copying the next line starting from the repeated word. This actually happened very rarely among all the texts.

There’s a man named Will Kinney who has researched this issue in some detail. He’s not the first person to do it – it was done by Scrivener, by Stephanus, by Beza, and even by Dean John Burgon. Will Kinney can literally tell you in many cases, “you can find that in the Chester Beatty Papyrii, in Manuscript number….” If you’re really interested in this issue, contact Mr. Kinney.

Scrivener, Beza, the Elzivier brothers and Stephanus all did this work, comparing the New Testament manuscripts in many different languages. Stephanus spent so much time studying it, that in his writings he began to decry and object to everything his church taught – because he was a Roman Catholic priest, and he began to realize that there were huge inconsistencies between what the Catholic church taught and what the Bible said.

The work of these men compiled the Stephanus’s 4th Edition Greek Manuscript. Beza and the Elzivier brothers compiled their own. Miraculously, they were all almost the same word for word.

This work has become called the Received Text, or Textus Receptus in Latin. It represents the Bible as miraculously preserved by God through over 1600 years. This family of manuscripts, as well as Bibles by the Waldensians, the Catharists, the Donatists, and other ancient Baptists was used to translated all of the early Bibles into English.

The history of the Bible passing to us is a miracle story. It is beyond belief. It proves the divine hand of God in preserving His word, just as written in the Psalms, just as Jesus Christ promised!

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Revelation 20:11-12 (KJV)

Here’s an important point, point number three…. For there to be a judgment, there must be a preserved, inspired word of God somewhere. Where? In Heaven? There could not be a judgment day, if the word of God cannot be found on Earth. We could protest to God that we had no idea, we had no Pure and Inspired, Preserved word of God on earth by which to judge how to be saved, how to live holy lives, what to believe about whether Christ was God or if the Trinity was Biblical!

6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)

If you believe in Modern Textual Criticism, you cannot believe that the word of God is Inspired, you cannot believe it is Preserved… and you must forever be a little suspicious about “Should this word be in this verse? Should this verse be in the Bible?” You forever become YOUR OWN AUTHORITY over what you believe the word of God is.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV)

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 1 Timothy 4:1-2 (KJV)

Last, if you PARTICIPATE in Modern Textual Criticism, you cannot possibly be saved, and the Bible even says that. Your conscience becomes so seared that you will not respond to the Gospel of Christ, and turn to be saved.

Okay, now let’s turn to the “official history” of the Bible as given by Modern Textual critics.

The word of God supposedly was corrupted and edited by Pious Scribes, who added the same words to the same verses all over the world in manuscripts separated on three continents. These Pious Scribes were somehow very busy, as they supposedly did this in the 4th century, and found time to even go back to manuscripts much older than this, and miraculously add words to lectionaries, codexes, miniscules, majescules, papyrii and scrolls. And somehow left no real sign of adding the words.

If this sounds completely stupid, impossible, and illogical, then you’re right. Print this page out, and add several words to 15 sentences randomly. And make sure you can fit the words in in such a way it doesn’t look like you did it. Oh, and your handwriting has to match the print.

Impossible? Well, you just disproved the first and foremost theory of Textual Criticism, that some pious Scribe added words to all the Greek texts. How many texts would he have to add them to?

Only about 5,280 or so, dating back to the first four centuries. I’m not even counting the ones from after AD 500, just those from the time of the mythical “pious Scribe”.

The theory says he added the words to one text, which served as the master text from which the others were copied. But… the texts that are part of this family are actually found on three different continents. And many date from before the time of the “pious scribe”. So, again, to do this he’d have to travel, and add the words to all the manuscripts.

The utter impossibility of this cannot be emphasized.

There HAS to be a willing desire to corrupt God’s word to want to engage in Textual Criticism.

There’s a recording of a man speaking at a church in the 80’s, who’d been a teacher at Tennessee Temple University. He was called on the carpet for being King James Only (and for teaching Peter Ruckman – this part I won’t excuse, as Ruckman is most definitely a heretic). The teacher asked the chairman of Tennessee Temple, “What gives man the right to edit the word of God?”

The answer was, “Scholarship.”

The teacher asked exactly the same question I would have at that point. “So, you’re telling me, if I took every class possible at Tennessee Temple and became a scholar, I, a sinful man, would have the RIGHT to choose what words belong in the Bible, the word of God?”

The chairman answered, “Yes.”

Brothers and sisters, I at this point have to cry foul. I’ve proved the miraculous nature of the preservation of God’s word. I’ve proved the inerrancy of the Bible. Inerrancy demands preservation, as the Bible calls for it. If you believe in an inerrant Bible, you must believe in a preserved Bible.

Here’s the kicker – if you do not believe in preservation, you do not believe in inerrancy. The two go hand in hand. If you do not believe the Bible was preserved, then you do not believe it is inerrant and inspired.

If you do not believe in an inerrant, inspired, preserved word of God, I’m a little worried about your Christian walk.

So, now, let’s analyze the men who engaged in the first textual criticism. Wescott and Hort were men who, judging by their own words, their own writings, did not believe in the inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible. And they were hostile to the received text, the Textus Receptus. Why? It contradicted their favorite teacher, who was a humanist, a modernist. The Textus Receptus advocated that Jesus Christ is God, that there is a Hell for any who reject Christ. It speaks of fasting and prayer. It tells us Jesus Christ was without sin, the perfect sinless lamb of God. That He’s coming again.

This was offensive to Wescott and Hort. It was offensive to Tischendorf, who was given sponsorship to travel the middle east looking for a text, ANY text they could use to replace the Textus Receptus. Why? Because all the modernists were opposed to it.

A week before the sponsorship ran out, Tischendorf found himself at the Monastary of St. Catherine, surrounded by Pious Scribes. he found a manuscript in a trash pile, and dubbed it Codex Sinaiticus. The Manuscript looked unused, and in excellent condition. So good, it looked like it had been written just a few years before.

Tischendorf returned, told his sponsors, who gave him the money to go back and buy it. He bought it and brought it back to Egypt. The Monks had been a little amused he wanted to pay so much money for a useless codex.

Tischendorf announced his “Discovery”, to great publicity and fanfare.

Until a suspected manuscript dealer announced to the press there was a problem. the dealer explained he was a forger, he’d been forging manuscripts for years. And he explained that he’d created Sinaiticus at the beginning of his career, and dismissed it as “Clumsy”.

Tisachendorf waited for the furor to die down… then began touting his discovery again as if nothing ever happened. Nobody ever investigated the claims of Constantinus Simonides, the forger who claimed to have written Sinaiticus.

Sinaiticus was handed over to Wescott and Hort, who busied themselves with trying to translate it. The problem was, it showed many editings, sometimes as many as ten men editing it. And it was incomplete, missing words, verses, chapters, even books of the Bible.

It also was written in the wrong form of Greek, Attic Greek, which dates to the Maccabean period, not to the time of the New Testament, and certainly not afterwards.

Wescott and Hort additionally had an emotional attachment to the copy of Codex Vaticanus they had. Not the original ,but a copy. Both Wescott and Hort wrote that they instinctively felt that Vaticanus was the most accurate manuscript.

Based on a hunch. they decided that if there was a conflict between the two manuscripts, they would side with Vaticanus – a manuscript which also showed many signs of editing! Including a handwritten note saying, “thou fool! Remove not the old reading!”

Now Wescott and Hort had the unenviable task of trying to get readings from the two manuscripts that agreed. Aleph (Sinaiticus) and V (vaticanus, sometimes called B) both disagreed with each other in tens of thousands of spots. Dean John Burgon sarcastically wrote it was easier to find where they disagreed to find where they agreed!

So WEscott and Hort wrote down their new Greek text, mostly relying on Vaitcanus, as Sinaiticus was such a sorry mess. The text was completed in 1886.

Whenever you see a footnote in your modern Bible that says anything about the “oldest and best mss”, they are referring to that manuscript compiled by Wescott and Hort in 1886. This man-made manuscript, based on the guesses of two unsaved modernist men who questioned the Bible, did not believe in the deity of Christ, and scoffed at miracles, is considered to be older than the second century mss. belonging to the Textus Receptus.

It is neither “oldest” or “best” manuscripts – it is a heretical piece of blasphemy, removing any verse that offended Unitarians. No blood, no fasting, no deity of Christ, no sinless nature, no pre-existence, no vicarious atonement except in the most rudimentary form….

…and Christians swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Why, these men are SCHOLARS!

Here’s a list of some (not all) of these “scholars”:

UNITARIANS: ohann Wettstein, Edward Harwood, George Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot, Joseph Thayer, and Caspar Gregory;

RATIONALISTS: Johann Semler, Johann Griesbach, Bernhard Weiss, William Sanday, William Robertson Smith, Samuel Driver, Eberhard Nestle, James Rendel Harris, Hermann von Soden, Frederick Conybeare, Fredric Kenyon, Francis Burkitt, Henry Wheeler Robinson, Kirsopp Lake, Gerhard Kittel, Edgar Goodspeed, James Moffatt, Kenneth Clark, Ernest Colwell, Gunther Zuntz, J.B. Phillips, William Barclay, Theodore Skeat, George Kilpatrick, F.F. Bruce, George Ladd, J.K. Elliott, Eldon Epp, Brevard Childs, Bart Ehrman, C.H. Dodd, Barclay Newman, Arthur Voobus, Eugene Nida, Jan de Waard, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Matthew Black, Allen Wikgren, Bruce Metzger, and Johannes Karavidopoulos;

ROMAN CATHOLICS: Richard Simon, Alexander Geddes, Alberto Ablondi, Johann Hug, and Carlo Martini.

“When the constitution of the British and Foreign Bible Society was first formulated, it was understandably not foreseen that the question of Unitarianism would have much relevance to the society’s work. Before long, however, UNITARIANS GAINED SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE UPON THE AFFAIRS OF THE BIBLE SOCIETY, PARTICULARLY IN EUROPE, WHERE SOME AUXILIARY SOCIETIES WERE RUN ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY BY PERSONS OF UNITARIAN BELIEFS” (Brown, The Word of God Among All Nations, p. 12).

The standard line from modernists is that “no doctrine is affected, and the total changes add to less than one page of the Bible.”

the differences affect seven percent of the New Testament. “The fact of the matter is that the Critical Text of Westcott-Hort differs from the TR, mostly by deletions, in 9,970 words out of 140,521, giving a total of 7% difference. In the 480-page edition of the Trinitarian Bible Society Textus Receptus this would amount to almost 34 pages, the equivalent of the final two books of the New Testament, Jude and Revelation” (Thomas Strouse, Review of “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man,” November 2000).

If you believe that it doesn’t matter what Bible you read… stay tuned. I’m going to discuss this at length soon.

Augustine: Jesus did what we cannot do


Jesus did what we cannot do – Sermonaudio

It’s a great sentiment. I agree with it.

But the article starts out quoting a Roman Catholic… and then another.

Agendas.

Ecumenism in action.

Evangelicals define Ecumenism as “All the Church coming together in Christ.”

It’s great, but it’s a misuse of the phrase “church”, in  assuming a universal, invisible body. The Biblical term for that is “Kingdom of God”.

And who came up with the concept of a universal, invisible “Church”?

Augustine. The Roman Catholics.

This is an agenda. They give you a Biblical truth, but then quote Roman Catholics. It’s to get you to first think of them as Christian (which they are not) and then…

….to eventually be reprogrammed and …convert to Roman Catholicism.

Learn to look for agendas. Learn to recognize them.

Signs of the Times


Evangelicals have begun to oppose the Bible.

Evangelicals have begun to link arms with the unsaved.

Evangelicals are beginning to reject Fundamentalists, in favor of the unSaved, such as those who sprinkle babies and call it salvation. Such as Mormons. Such as Catholics.

We hear that over a billion people are Christians, and we assume that means people who understant “ye must be born again”.

While in Seminary, my teacher asked the rhetorical question of how many people were saved? He guessed 5%, and everyone in the class was scandalized.

I took the Operation World manual, and took their statistics. It was very simple. I took out all the denominations that assume you are predestined to be saved. Why? Because by the second generation, they are relying on their infant baptism as a sign of their “election”.

I took out all the Protestant denominations that believe that being baptized saves you.

I took out the Mormons.

I took out the Roman Catholics.

It left Charismatics and Baptists. I didn’t take out any of those numbers, because I was estimating a “fudge factor” of, “Some of those Protestants must have gotten saved despite their denominations’ stand”.

I ended up with 1.67%, if I recall correctly.

Right around 85 million people.

I did the statistics in reverse, and ended up with the same number. And now I’m thinking I was optimistic.

With that in mind, let’s look at the problem – Evangelicals prefer the company of all those people the Bible rules out as being saved.

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 1 John 2:15 (KJV)

1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 1 John 3:1 (KJV)

19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. John 15:19 (KJV)

The last verse is the bottom line. If you’re an Evangelical Christian, and you reject Fundamentalist as “pharisees”, and use phrases like “I don’t view the Bible as the fourth member of the Trinity”…

The Bible is saying you many not be saved.

Just saying.

Going through me archives!


So, I went back through my archives, and found that although I’ve been writing this blog since 2012 on my hard drive (actually, on my HP MIni 210 laptop), and then finally took it live in august 2013.

My initial blog series’ on Messianics, Word Faith, Atheism, and Roman Catholics were all put online in August 2013, 100% completed.

I think that was a mistake. fortunately, I re-addressed the Messianic and Atheism in much more detail later on.

My addons to the Roman Catholicism articles inpsired some fiery responses from Roman Catholic apologists. And my re-addressing the Atheists some interesting exchanges.

The Messianics tried one or two exchanges with me, and realized they were out of their depth VERY quickly, except for two who I cut off because, well as I’ve explained many times, the Lord commands Christians to answer a heretic once or twice and then reject.

Now I’m thinking about the Word Faith series and the Roman Catholic one. I wish even though I’d written them all in earlier 2012 and 2013, I’d done them live, one at a time. I guess at the time my thoughts were, ‘get everything I’d written online’.

Oh, well.

Should Christians Celebrate Halloween?


2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: Revelation 2:2 (KJV)

Every now and then, my wife is good for finding a story to get ol’ Philip worked up. Doing a search on Christianity, she ran across an article called “7 Reasons why Christians celebrate Halloween”. You’ll see in the blockquote mode some quotations from that article

The article eventually got pulled quite recently, due to the fact that wise Christians quickly began responding to his article. He responded to their comments with, “Well, Christmas and Easter are pagan, so it’s okay to celebrate Halloween.” (I was able to find a Google Cache’d copy)

First, let me point out that I was unable to find a statement of faith on this “pastor’s” blog. The first, MAJOR issue you should recognize is – no statement of faith. Now, if Pastor R wants to come on here and set me straight, he can start with that. No statement of faith equals no Christian faith. It’s the hallmark of a false teacher to distort one to hide their beliefs. You’re an ACCOMPLISHED false teacher if you see no need for one all together!

Pastor R makes a big deal about “Christians” routinely adopted Pagan holidays, and then “Christianized” them. I don’t have enough time in the year to correct every wrong thing I’ve seen on “Pastor” R’s blog. The first post on his current blog “Reasons why Pope Francis is good for christianity” told me a LOT about this man. Pastor R is making his first, major mistake in assuming that Roman Catholicism is Christian, and that we all came from that. In this, both his doctrine, his church history and his knowledge of facts all are faulty. Indeed, elsewhere he makes a reference to Baptists as “protestants”, showing how completely faulty his knowledge of church history and facts are. WE never came OUT of Roman Catholicism, they separated from US. Those early churches were Baptist, not Catholic.

Roman Catholicism is not Christianity. It is an occult, pagan religion which disguises itself by adopting Jesus Christ, God and the Bible – and then turns it all inside out in a gory Pagan mix, complete with a pantheon of demi-gods we are to pray to, and a goddess, the queen of heaven.

Christianity did not adopt pagan holdiays and make Christian ones out of them – the Roman Catholic “church” did that. The very nomenclature of “All Saints Day” for November 1 should give you a hint… it’s not Christian. If by “St.” Francis, you mean a born again Christian in Dartmouth, Mass, okay, great. In that case, I’m Saint Philip. And you’re Saint so-and-so. But all saints day does not celebrate Christians – it celebrates a “few extra-holy Christians who performed miracles and were Beatified”. Can we find that in the Bible? Try looking in 3 Corinthians. Because it can’t be found anywhere else.

33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. 1 Corinthians 15:33 (KJV)

The point is, celbrating Halloween is a celebration of evil. I know “Pastor” R believes the devil cannot stand to be mocked. And he says by Christians doing Halloween, we are mocking Satan. I dunno, I think I could make a good case it would just tickle Lucifer no end to see Christians dressing up as devils. I mean, you can, with commercially available products, a week of work and Youtube, make a completely Satanic, evil representation of yourself (a Christian) to appear to be a devil. Not the red, cartoony devil, but a foul thing of Hell. I mean, wouldn’t take much. I probably could do it with $50. Maybe a little more if I had to get something over the top.

I could outfit my yard with things that – for another $50 – would terrify you at night.

How is this pleasing to God??? We should not be concerned with mocking the devil, but with pleasing God! So… what does God have to say on this???

7 Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates. 2 Corinthians 13:7 (KJV)

Hm. That’s pretty much cut and dried to me. Now, I remember when I was in first grade, my mom got me a halloween costume of an astronaut suit, complete with a little light on the mask that lit up. It was cool, when you’re six years old. Well, actually, it was hot and sweaty, but that’s beside the point. Would that be okay, if I put that on right now? Celebration of the moon walk, etc…

What would that look like? An endorsement of an evil day, an evil repackaging by an evil “church” from an evil day practiced by pagans who burned people alive inside wicker baskets, cut open the chests of living people and pulled their hearts out so the blood of the living would freshen the ground and allow crops to grow, and invite “the dead” (devils, really) to possess the living in a celebration known as Sowwen (spelled Samhain, but pronounced sowwen – I did that on purpose to educate people, something Pastor R is not doing).

22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 1 Thessalonians 5:22 (KJV)

“Gregory III (731–741) and Gregory IV (827–844) moved the Christian holiday All Saints’ Day from May 13 to November 1 to replace the pagan rituals on October 31 and November 1. Gregory III instructed people to dress up as saints . Let the occult have Samhain, we are taking All Hallows Eve back.”

No, “all Saints Day” is not Christian. It is not holy. It is JUST as evil as Halloween. It is pagan, to believe that men may become demi-gods. There’s really no other way to justify giving men the abilities that the Bible specifically says belongs rightfully to Jesus Christ, the ONLY mediator between man and God. The only “saints” are you and I and every other born again believer. Many of the peoples that the Roman Catholic “church” worships as “Saints” were indeed not even born again. Good luck getting them to pray for you, when their own cries for mercy are unheeded!

10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. 13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God. 14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do. Deuteronomy 18:10-14 (KJV)

3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil. 2 Thessalonians 3:3 (KJV)

The establishment of Christmas and Easter in Europe had pagan connections but we do not abandon these holidays. Neither should we abandon All Hallows Eve.

This is a completely disproven theory. Christians celebrate the ressurection of Jesus Christ, and not the day. Yes, we refer to it as Easter, and should not. I prefer to call it Ressurection Sunday. The Bible uses the word Easter once, and it is a smearing of the name of a pagan goddess, just like saying Esther, which is not how it was pronounced. Esther and Mordecai smeared the pronouncing of the name Ishtar, and everybody probably thought it was the Israeli accent. As for Christmas, it’s like the Baptists who hear the origin of the name Christmas, and flip out, and renounce any celebration of Dec. 25th.

19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:19-20 (KJV)

Experts are now beginning to believe that much of what we hear about Saturnalia is actually incorrect – it was actually celebrated the day after the solstice, which would be Dec. 22. If we were going to be more specific about when we celebrate Ressurection Sunday and Christmas, Ressurection Sunday should technically be the sunday after Passover. Why do we follow the traditional dating for it? Because it provides a witness to the rest of the world, He is Risen!

Why do we celebrate the birth of Christ on Dec. 25th? The original celebration was Jan. 6, but it was moved back to the 25th, which a lot of people claim was because of Saturnalia. If it was a re-working of Saturnalia, it would be on… the same day. So, why Dec. 25th? Pastor Marc Monte did some simple math using what he learned following 2 Chronicles, Matthew and Luke, and is able to state with some certaintly that… Christ’s birth was pretty much conclusively between Dec. 23rd & 26th.

Hm. What day is in the middle there?

Understanding that early Christians contextualized early pagan holidays into Christian holidays helps us to see that we do not have to compromise our beliefs with pagan ones.

13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 2 Timothy 3:13 (KJV)

Well, the Bible sure sums that argument up. He’s saying that Pope Francis is good for Christianity, but we do not have to compromise our Christian beliefs with pagan ones? Again, Roman Catholicism is not Christianity.

11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. 1 Peter 3:11 (KJV)

“Evil” themes in our current secular Halloween observances were not always present. Thus, we can recapture the spiritual with the innocent.

So, by putting on a (slightly biggerversion of) my astronaut costume, nobody will think I’m lending creedence to Halloween by going door to door and saying, “trick or treat!!!” or worse, “God bless you!!!!”

I really think by putting on a hobo or pirate costume like the author suggests, I will be giving legitimacy to Halloween, and I will NOT be abstaining from the appearance of evil. By the way, have you all ever researched what pirates were like? I cannot understand the current fascination with pirates as if they’re heroes – they were cruel, evil and I will not repeat many of their deeds on this blog. Dressing little children like them is inappropriate.

12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. 1 Peter 3:12 (KJV)

Christians should focus and teach the concept of celebrating All Saint’s Day, November 1st in churches.

No, we should NOT. There is nothing Christian about “All Saints Day”. It cannot be found in the Bible. What am I to teach about “All Saint’s Day” other than… it’s pagan? It’s unBiblical???

Think on this… this is not the only article this “pastor” has written on halloween. I can’t find much celebrating Jesus Christ on his blog. But… almost every year since 2010 he’s written something about why we should celebrate Halloween. And… I found a simlar article by someone else in Charisma magazine.

Have we lost our minds??? Why are we defending these things by logic, and not the word of God??? I’ll tell you why… Because you can’t defend this stance by the word of God.

So…. who’s the real hero of this article??? the thirty or so Christians who went on there and gave Scripture and defended Christianity against this kind of drivel and false teaching. Comment after comment by believers who quoted the WORD OF GOD at this “pastor”, who responded to their quotations of the Bible with… logic.

Well, we know who his god is. I have never been so proud of Christians, standing up for the truth by the use of THE BIBLE. Wow. good on ya!

11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. 3 John 1:11 (KJV)