218 Comments

  1. CA123

    The book sounds very skeptical, like it wants to refute everything the Bible says.
    There are some things that are very plain as day in the Bible, and just the advertisement seems contradictory… My advice to anyone who wants to get this, have your Bible handy, if the book contradicts the Bible, it’s false.

    Reply
  2. Spencer Sloane

    Please forgive me for giving only one verse to support my position. Here’s another:

    These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick
    people, and they will get well.” Mark 16:17 & 18

    Reply

    1. You are proof-texting now and beyond that, if were you look at Mark though the lens of textual criticism, you would not the very bad use of those verses in particular.

      Reply
  3. Spencer Sloane

    When the additional verses below are read in context, It seems clear to me that signs and wonders aren’t given for the amusement of believers, but primarily to confirm the truth of the Gospel message for unbelievers: As Nicodemus said to The L-rd Jesus, “Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” (John 3:2)

    3 Therefore they stayed there a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. (Acts 14:3)

    29 Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30 Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” (Acts 4:29 & 30)

    11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. ( John 14:11 & 12)

    48So Jesus said to him, “Unless you people see ()signs and )wonders, you simply will not believe.”

    49The royal official said to Him, “Sir, come down before my child dies.”

    50Jesus said to him, “(BG)Go; your son lives.” The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and started off. (John 4:48-50)

    51As he was now going down, his slaves met him, saying that his son was living.\

    So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? (Galatians 3:5)

    Reply

    1. that ‘o’ thing is annoying. you really need to get your keyboard fixed.

      And, get a better translation.

      Also, examine what signs and wonders were, what genres the gospels were in and the like, You are proof texting. I have answered your questions and you have yet to respond to them. Either respond to them, or stop posting

      Reply
  4. Spencer Sloane

    I’m interested in your comment on Zech, 12:5, “Further, it should be noticed that Judah here is used, a small portion of Israel.”

    Can you elaborate on what you believe that that implies?

    I’ve noticed that the three family names in the final verses of Zech. 12 (David, Nathan, and Shimei) pertain to the tribes of the Southern kingdom. The possible excetion is Shimei but the most prominent men (in scripture) named Shimei seem to be those from the Southern Kingdom.

    Reply
  5. Spencer Sloane

    You’ve completely evaded my questions and the implication of the verses I’ve presented. Those passages aren’t difficult. They’re quite simple and straightforward. .

    Reply

    1. You are proof texting and nothing more. You have provided nothing more an a flat reading of the text, and in one case, a text which did not really exist.

      Reply
  6. Spencer Sloane

    The verses speak for themselves. They all tell us that signs and miracles will continue as confirmation of the Gospel message when it is preached to unbelievers. You should be able to respond to those verses but you can’t. Your evasiveness suggests intellectual dishonesty.

    Certainly scripture teaches that there will be lying signs and wonders. That doesn’t warrant concluding that all signs and wonders are false. Jannes and Jambres performed lying signs and wonders. Should we thus conclude that the signs and wonders done through Moses were false?

    Reply

    1. Spencer, it is illogical to say that the scriptures speak for themselves. Hardly. Once you learn what a discussion is, let me know, but so far, all you have done is to throw verses on the screen and think that I need to answer them. I have suggested that before you do any more proof texting, you examine the Text, the original languages, the lexicon for meanings, some adequate commentaries which show why signs were needed, and the such. You are doing nothing more than what others before you have done to justify a myriad of abuses.

      What you are doing is actually speaking for the Scriptures. If you are really intent on letting the Scriptures speak for themselves, then you should study what they mean. Oh, and read Bultmann.

      Reply
  7. Spencer Sloane

    I attempted a discussion with you and your response was that I need a lexicon, a different translation of the Bible, a new keyboard, a commentary and Bultmann.

    I think you need Ruach HaKodesh. It is only He Who can lead you into real truth as you study the scriptures. What comes across in the sneering tone of your responses to all of the posters here is that you’ve been puffed up by pedantic, esoteric swill at some seminary.

    Vigorous study of scripture is essential to spiritual life but it should tell you something that simple fishermen were chosen over seminary types in the selection of the disciples. The seminary types plotted the murder of the Messiah, codified the traditions of men (Talmud) and led the Jews into a ditch.

    I’m reminded of the description of the men depicted in 2 Timothy, chapter 2: :”boasters”, “proud” (v. 2); “heady”, “high minded” (v.4); “having a form of godliness” (v.5), “Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (v.7)

    I’ll leave you with a couple more of my “flat verses” which demonstrate why humility rather than Bultmann is the key to receiving revelation from scripture:

    “all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5)

    3 “(Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth.)”………..
    “Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. 7 Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. 8 I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the LORD. (Numbers 12:3 & 6-8)

    Reply

    1. Spencer, so many things wrong with this comment of yours…

      It is called the Holy Spirit. Using Hebrew or Greek or Latin doesn’t make you any more right, holy, or faithful. It does make you look a little silly tho, as does this ‘G-d’ bit.

      Actually, I just started seminary.

      No, seminary types didn’t kill Jesus. That is as bad as saying that the Jews did. Where do you think that John or Peter or Paul learned to write, learned about the logos, learned about the rhetoric which they used in their writings? A secular institution? Hardly. Considering that only about 6% of the ancient world was literate, you should ask yourself where they learned it.

      What you have done is to destroy the Scripture by your anti-intellectualism and deny Christ.

      You have no real clue as to what you are talking about.

      Think on that.

      Reply
  8. Spencer Sloane

    The only thing I’ve told you about what I believe is that I’m anticessationist, yet you arrogate to yourself the authority to make the accusation that I “deny Christ”? It’s particularly puzzling since somewhere in the posts above you told someone else that you were not a cessationist. It seems like you have a compulsion to attack everyone, whether they agree with you or not. It’s like you have a religious form of rabies.

    I actually agree with you about the silliness of the omission of the o and the Hebrew for Holy Spirit. It’s habit from long hours of exchanges with antimissionaries.

    It’s funny that you should accuse me of being anti-intellectual as the biggest complaint that I get from Charismatics is that I’m too intellectual. I certainly do use lexicons, concordances, and commentaries. I love blueletterbible.com, Biblios, Bible Gateway, and Mechon-Mamre. But I don’t feel the need to research the Hebrew and Greek root of every word every time I study or quote a verse. I’m not against intellectualism to a point; but there is a danger in an over-reliance on the intellectual at the expense of the revelational. Jesus said that The Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. Weren’t the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ day just as intellectual as you and your seminary mentors? Are the leading contemporary rabbinical scholars less educated than you and whoever it is that you consider to be authoratative? Less intellectual? Less knowledgeable in ancient Semitic languages? How about the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Chuch? Aren’t they exceedingly intellectual? Many Catholics believe that only the Magisterium can understand the Bible. They would consider both you and I to be presumptuous buffoons for believing that we can study the Bible independently.

    It’s clearly recorded in scripture that the Jewish religious leaders plotted The Lord’s murder. If they weren’t seminary types, what were they? Perhaps John, Peter, and Paul learned some literacy skills and a smattering of verses (Isn’t that about all the typical kid in a mainline Protestant Church knows?). But how much did they really know about God when they came to Jesus? Paul was himself a seminary type, and that background was an asset after he became a believer. But wasn’t he a son of satan before he had his Damascus road experience? Wasn’t his conception of God all wrong?

    Reply

    1. Who cares if you are or aren’t a cessionist. You first need to understand what may or may not have ceased. You deny the Christ of the Scriptures when you insist on your interpretation which is a mutated form of literalism. I don’t agree with because you aren’t right. I don’t agree with them because they think that God suddenly ceased any activity in our world.

      Ah… yes, the ‘revelational’ nonsense. What this does is to allow every person to be their own final authority.

      You depraved comments against seminaries is silly. Again, John was an intellectual. The John who wrote the Gospels. So was Paul. And Peter. And Matthew. And Mark. And… Jesus Himself. They were all trained. You dismiss them. All you are doing is showing how anti-intellectual you are, because all you want is to rely upon your own ‘revelation’ to set your course. You reject the Apostles here. You have shown that you have not studied the actual writings, but stand only upon your own understanding. Silliness, your name is Spencer.

      Study the Gospels. Study the Epistles. Note the high level of education which it took to produce those works. Don’t waste any one else’s time in anything until you do.

      Reply

    2. Oh, and leave the anti-catholic bigotry formed by your ignorance off the site. And, don’t confuse what I do with what you think you do. Thanks.

      Reply
  9. Spencer Sloane

    And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: (Mt. 13:14)

    I suppose when you read a verse like this, you must conclude that the subjects didn’t understand because they lacked intellectual prowess or a seminary education. But what they actually lacked was the revelation of The Holy Spirit who illuminates The Word for the true believer — the one who actually knows God.

    The writings of the apostles are indeed brilliant, but not because they were learned seminarians. Rather the brilliance was completely of God because He inspired every word that they wrote. Fishermen aren’t known for being great intellectuals or scholars. David wrote many of the psalms, yet he was a simple shepherd boy. The Bible declares that Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived, yet that wisdom was a supernaturally endowed gift.

    What did I say that constitutes anti-Catholic bigotry? I merely conveyed what several Catholics have told me (One of whom was a former Catholic seminarian).

    Reply

    1. Actually, no. I know what that verse means.

      You are about hopeless. Stop the ‘seminarian’ bit because you really look foolish. Actually, the writers were trained, some classically. There is actually no proof that David wrote the ps SMS which would have been almost impossible during that time. Oh, and Moses did not write the Torah either.

      “several” doesn’t mean all. Some people say that the disiples were teens, that allyou need is revelation, and the such, doesn’t make it true.

      Reply
  10. Spencer Sloane

    Incidentally, the 12 apostles were almost certainly teenagers when The Lord chose them.

    Reply
  11. Spencer Sloane

    You: Oh, and Moses did not write the Torah either”

    Jesus: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:46-47)

    Sorry Mr. semonarian but once again I’m going to have to believe Jesus instead of you.

    Reply

    1. Sorry, Mr. Heretic, Jesus isn’t saying what you think he is saying. All you aree doing is believing your own self

      Reply
  12. Spencer Sloane

    “Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it.”
    (Romans 10:5 -RSV)

    Now I hope you’re not going to say that the Apostle Paul didn;t know what he was talking about.

    Reply
  13. Spencer Sloane

    According to you, nothing in the Bible really means what it says. Everything has some inscrutable meaning. I suppose if you torture a verse enough you can get it to say whatever you want.

    Reply

    1. Actually, that is false.

      My insistence is that a flat, plain reading, often does injustice to the Text. If you actually read the words what John has Jesus saying, you will note that John’s Jesus doesn’t say that Moses wrote the Torah, but that what John’s Jesus was quoting he acknowledged to have been written by Moses, or quite possibly, to Moses’ authority. What you are doing is confusing ancient authorship with our modern view. Moses did not have to have written everything for the ancients to give it the authority of Moses.

      You really need to start reading the text and stop assuming that you already know what it says.

      Reply
  14. Spencer Sloane

    Here’s another for you to obfuscate:

    14 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this for a memorial in the book and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, that rI will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.” (Exodus 17:14)

    Reply

    1. and?

      Note sure how that proves anything. You do know what circular logic is, right?

      Reply

    2. BTW – you know that the fact that we ‘remember Amalek’ completely denies the possibility of that verse, right?

      Reply
  15. Spencer Sloane

    9 So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel. (Deut. 31:9 —NKJV)

    Reply

    1. Oh dear, Lord. You don’t get it do you?

      By the way, Deuteronomy predates the rest of the Torah, having been written before the end of the Kingdom in the 5th-6th century BCE.

      Circular logic. Boring.

      Reply
  16. Spencer Sloane

    1.) He will blot out the memory of Amalek—in the future.

    2.) In all probability, the Torah was originally written as one book. As I recall, Numbers begins with the conjunction, “and”.

    Reply

    1. Uh, no. That was the attempt in Samuel. What you are doing now is applying to the text something it didn’t originally have. Doesn’t say anything about a future more than 3500 years later. This would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. Instead, like a lot of things in the OT, you may want to examine hyperbolic language of the Semitic peoples.

      In all probability, the Torah was not written as one book. Nor any book as one book. We see this in Genesis 1 and 2, among many other places. Numbers begins with a conjunction, not necessarily the English ‘and’. Deuteronomy was compiled from several sources. You may want to examine Wellhausen’s source theory for the assembling of the Torah, as well as Moshe Weinfeld and Von Rad for Deuteronomy.

      This may help you get a better grasp on some of these issues.

      Reply
  17. Spencer Sloane

    Just curious, do you subscribe to the documentary hypothesis?

    I also wonder if you have any opinion of Harry Ironsides who once taught at Moody Bible Institute?

    Reply

    1. The documentary hypothesis is okay. I think we can stand 2500 years later and think that we may see something of traces of separation, but it may be that we still aren’t looking at it with the eyes of the first audience. Considering the high intelligence behind the (first) writing and (second) compiling the material which we call the Torah, we must be circumspect when dealing with it. We know that the Song of Moses and the Song of Deborah are among the oldest parts of the Hebrew bible. We know that they were compiled and redacted into larger sections, and I believe under the inspiration of the Spirit of God. Is it a valid theory? Sure. Is it the only one out there? Nope.

      Given what I have recently read of Ironsides, I would not agree with much of what he had to say, but I would try to give him the benefit of the doubt. Disagreements can and should and must occur because that it were we grow, but disagreements due to purposed stupidity is a waste. Further, as you know, the Brethren sect is a deeply fundamentalist group, of which I desire no part of.

      Reply
  18. Spencer Sloane

    This verse seems very clear:

    If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5:45-47 KJ)

    Reply

    1. Note that Christ doesn’t go as far as you do. He only says that Moses wrote of Him. What was authorship during the time of Christ? You may wish to examine that.

      two things then: what is authorship during the time of Christ, or before?

      Does Christ every allude to the idea that Moses wrote what we call the Torah (all five books)?

      Reply
  19. Spencer Sloane

    I don’t have time to check right now but I believe that Jesus referred to something in each of the five books, each time attributing it to Moses. It’s conceivable that Moses dictated to a scribe but that seems irrelevant.

    I think that the documentary hypothesis is an error and it is an error which God anticipated, thus Jesus referred to each book and attributed each reference to Moses. It fascinates me that God anticipated every grievous error and heresy and countered it in scripture thousands of years ago. Reincarnation is addressed, the Mariolatry fetish is addressed, Islam is addressed), etc.

    Reply

    1. Spencer, do you see what you are doing? You are basing your developed theology on a bad and unproven hypothesis, ignoring then data of history, context, and culture. Have you examined what authorship was during this time? No. You still insist on making what can only be false statements.

      And as far as your last paragraph…. Wow. Just wow. Nothing in your comment above is factually true. Who ever taught you that lie should be ashamed.

      Reply

  20. i’m trying to figure out what Spencer’s actual issue is..

    This polycarp dude is just a “yes man”.

    Reply
  21. Spencer Sloane

    But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. (Titus 3:9)

    I wonder what your purpose is in studying scripture? Mine is to continue as a disciple. I believe that it can transform my mind, and keep me from being conformed to the world. As I love God I want to know more about Him and the Bible is His revelation.

    Because He wants to ensure that we have access to the truth He has used human vessels to write the books, assemble them, accuraterly translate them and distribute them. He has overseen the preservation of His word. He did not and does not leave the fate of his word to chance. Satan’s first lie was intended to make the woman doubt God’s word, “yea hath God said?” (Gen. 3:1). Things like the documentary hypothesis are just more lies of a similar nature.

    I’m not totally opposed to the use of extrabiblical sources but history is so unreliable. Historians lie and delete. Is it any wonder that the Egyptian pharaohs apparently failed to record Egypt’s humiliating defeat at the hand of Israel’s God? We’re lucky if we can get a truthful and accurate record of what happened last year, let alone 3500 years ago.

    Reply

    1. Spencer,

      Your goal is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now you are creating conspiracy theories about history. At this point, you have lost all credibility.

      As the author of the letters to Timothy wrote – Study. That is what I do. We study. We study the text, not just our own interpretations or those handed down to us from a previous generation. We study the Text.

      You are solely dependent upon your revelation, not God’s. God’s revelation occurred in history, and yet you want to take history out of the equation and pretend, unconsciously, that the bible was written to you by the person before you.

      ‘Accurately’ translate them? Hardly. Please tell me that you are a KJV Onlyist…

      You may want to separate your version of preservation from the myth of Creation as told in Genesis 1-3.

      Reply
  22. Spencer Sloane

    So why did most of the seminary types in Jesus’ generation reject their own Messiah? They had access to the best texts and were either living in the history that we are trying to reconstruct, or were at least much closer to it than are we. They also had a further (huge) advantage in that ancient Hebrew was their native tongue. Furthermore, they were actual products of the ancient Jewish culture that we struggle to understand to get the best understanding of scripture.

    Since you insist that the great spiritual insights of the simple fishermen Apostles was merely due to their exquisite seminary/Yeshiva training, why is it that their beliefs and teachings were in such diametric opposition to the ivory tower types who had mentored them?

    Reply

    1. Spencer, your question is silly because there were no ‘seminary types’ in the time of Jesus. I suggest that if you want to be taken serious, you may wish to amend your speech with more realistic words.

      Regarding your last paragraph, which is based only on what someone told you, I will try to answer you based on actual history. Considering that the Apostles were familiar with Greek and Latin Rhetoric, was familiar with Alexandrian Judaism, knew how to interpret the OT and contextualize it like others of other sects did, they were not ‘simple fishermen.’ Further, the father of James and John owned a business which was wealthy enough to employ others. To add to that, at least one disciple was a member of the family of the High Priest. So no, these were not ‘simple fishermen.’ You distinction, and your slandering of scholarship, continues to show that you are purposely unlearned and anti-intellectual, leaning upon your own understanding so as to continue to debase Jesus Christ and His Apostles, removing them from their social context which gives you the only foundation you need in order to prop up yourself as a ‘true spiritual’ teacher because you, unlike others, have some super secret knowledge gained through revelation, which we can safely assume you have truly inherited through the Gnostics which preceded you in your disillusion.

      Reply
  23. Spencer Sloane

    With respect to their approach to the study and exegesis of scripture, and promulgation of doctrine, weren’t the priests, Pharisees, scribes and rabinnical authorities roughly equivalent to today’s seminarians? The religious establishment?

    Didn’t you You evade my question about why the supposed religious scholars rejected their own Messiah?

    Doesn’t your incessant ad hominem attacks on me and others show at the very least a carnality/lack of spiritual maturity?

    Reply

    1. 1.) No.

      2.) I refuse to answer silly questions meant only to prove your point. I first, to answer that question, assume that you are correct; I do not. You are wrong. Ask the question correctly, and I will answer it.

      3.) Are you asking yourself this question, because you should. And if you do, the answer is yes for yourself.

      Reply
  24. geoff

    Joel :
    Regarding your last paragraph, which is based only on what someone told you, I will try to answer you based on actual history. Considering that the Apostles were familiar with Greek and Latin Rhetoric, was familiar with Alexandrian Judaism, knew how to interpret the OT and contextualize it like others of other sects did, they were not ‘simple fishermen.’ Further, the father of James and John owned a business which was wealthy enough to employ others. To add to that, at least one disciple was a member of the family of the High Priest. So no, these were not ‘simple fishermen.’ You distinction, and your slandering of scholarship, continues to show that you are purposely unlearned and anti-intellectual, leaning upon your own understanding so as to continue to debase Jesus Christ and His Apostles, removing them from their social context which gives you the only foundation you need in order to prop up yourself as a ‘true spiritual’ teacher because you, unlike others, have some super secret knowledge gained through revelation, which we can safely assume you have truly inherited through the Gnostics which preceded you in your disillusion.

    Not only that, but history also tells us that from the age of 5 all little Jewish, Greek and Roman kids were formally educated, not just in normal subjects, but in things like religion, philosophy, etc. The greeks taught “gym” (fighting), the Romans something similar and the Jews taught “scripture”.
    Also of note, most of them didnt have books so they had to memorise EVERYTHING. Those simple fishermen probably had more information stored in their heads than 10 modern people (especially modern kids who dont have to have any information in their heads cause they can get it off the net)

    Reply

    1. Well said, Geoff. Why can’t we let these men be who they are?

      Reply
  25. Spencer Sloane

    Here’s a quote of something you said earlier Polycarp:

    “No, seminary types didn’t kill Jesus. That is as bad as saying that the Jews did. Where do you think that John or Peter or Paul learned to write, learned about the logos, learned about the rhetoric which they used in their writings? A secular institution? Hardly. Considering that only about 6% of the ancient world was literate, you should ask yourself where they learned it.”

    Yet you eagerly agreed with Geoff’s last post:

    “history (Maybe Geoff will be kind enough to cite the sources of the “history” which tells us this) also tells us that from the age of 5 all little Jewish, Greek and Roman kids were formally educated, not just in normal subjects, but in things like religion, philosophy, etc. The greeks taught “gym” (fighting), the Romans something similar and the Jews taught “scripture”. ”

    I’m baffled about how you can amen claim that “All Jewish, Greek, and Roman kids” had this superb education when you are confident about your position that, “only about 6% of the ancient world was literate.”

    I guess I’ll have to pose this as a rhetorical question as I anticipate that you’ll refuse to answer it. Perhaps because it is, “flat” and/or I’m only asking the question to prove my point. Or because the question must not be original; but rather something with which I’ve been indoctrinated by some semi-literate, gay bashing, snake-handling, word-of faith preaching, right wing, “fundamentalist” Southen Baptist or Pentecostal holy ghoster who thinks that lexicons are the little people that drunkards see in the forests of Ireland.

    Reply

  26. Spencer,

    History, as in just about any book written about the history of education – and there have been a number detailing the first century – it was the first century when it become “accepted” that all jewish children must go to school from age 5. Even if they had to work, they would go to classes then go out and work.

    I’ve been studying the history of education.. (particularly the philosophy and theology of..)

    Reply
  27. Spencer Sloane

    Geoff, Can you cite some specific historians and/or historical documents? Israel was under enormous oppression by the Romans in the first century. Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in 70 A.D. and the remnant of the nation was completely obliterated following the Bar Kochba revolt in 134 or 135 A.D. All of the Jews from Eretz Zion were enslaved or were refugees who were running for their lives.

    I just saw a documentary (Discovery?) about life in Zion in Jesus’ times. They have examined the skeletal remains of numerous individuals and have determined that most had signs of serious malnutrition. The people were reduced to poverty not only by the massive Roman taxes but by temple taxes imposed by the priests (seminary types). Believe it or not, the priests actually hired thugs to beat the temple taxes out of people, when necessary. Contrarily, the higher echelons of the priesthood lived in luxurious villas with magnificent mosaic floors, etc. Some things never change, do they?

    First century Israel was agrarian with no mechanization to speak of. If the majority of the people lacked the means to purchase enough food for basic nutrition, doesn’t it seem unlikely that they were also too poor to own donkeys or other beasts of burden? So the children would have had to walk to all of those classes. There were no child labor laws and children were expected to work. Who would have paid for that education? The parents who couldn’t afford to buy enough food? The benevolent Roman government? Perhaps the children were home schooled. Anything else sounds implausible for the majority of the families in first century Israel.

    For the Jews in Babylon or some other part of the diaspora this might be more realistic. But Jesus drew his disciples from the population in Eretz Israel, not the diaspora.

    Reply
  28. Spencer Sloane

    It certainly is a mystery what The Holy Spirit has been doing for the past 1900 years. If He doesn’t confirm the truth of the Gospel message via signs, wonders, miracles, or the operation of prophetic gifts? And if He doesn’t illuminate scripture for the believer who prays for such revelation? If all we need is intellect, good texts and good study tools why did Jesus send the Holy Spirit? What changed the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus? Did he find a good lexicon on the side of the road?

    You can know all about God but it won’t do you a bit of good if you don’t actually know Him. There’s no point in my continuing here so I’ll leave the work with The Holy Spirit. I will pray that you have a Damascus road experience so that you may receive life.

    Reply

    1. Spencer, I notice that when we rejoin you with facts, you skip over them and go one as if this was a real conversation.

      Reply

  29. Spencer,

    Its not a mystery at all. The bible is quite clear about what the Spirit’s purpose is. Of course, since you dont actually want any one to study it, in fact, you would rather we all just lived our lives like children in pre school. Never really learning the truth, totally reliant on “teachers” – most of whom have not graduated from preschool themselves.

    You “claim” to know God, but what God do you know? The God your mom told you about? Or your pastor? Or your home group leader? Or Benny Hinn? Who? Who/what makes them qualified to teach you about Ancient Near Eastern culture and languages? Are they experts in interpreting literature? Do they understand hermeutics?

    You can say anything you want, but the Apostle Paul was one of the most highly educated men of his day – so intelligent, the bible says, that his understandings were hard for people of the day to grasp… and dude, guess what.. they could actually ask him to explain.. YOU CANT.

    You’re like a little kid who puts their fingers in their ears and says “na na na na na I’m not listening because my mommy told me you’re wrong”.

    Reply

  30. Joel :
    Spencer, I notice that when we rejoin you with facts, you skip over them and go one as if this was a real conversation.

    I suspect Spencer is a “bot” – pentematic bot..

    Reply

  31. I haven’t read all of this, but I’m pretty convinced it would be a huge waste of my time and energy. This whole bit about seminarian types is absolutely ridiculous. First off, it doesn’t reflect any knowledge of first century Judaism. Second, if Jesus was so anti-learning, I doubt people would have called him “Rabbi.” Sure he may have issued a warning about the title, but it does show the people of his day took him as a religious teacher somewhat like others of his time.

    Reply
  32. Spencer Sloane

    I don’t really understand why I’m back here. I guess I’m a glutton for punishment.

    In addition to the rationale that I’ve already put forth about extreme poverty precluding the masses in first century Israel from obtaining a high level of formal education, I base my opinion on what the Holy Scriptures say on the subject. For starters, please honestly consider these verses, both quoted from the KJV:

    “And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man (i.e. The Lord Jesus) letters, having never learned?” (John 7:15)

    “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” (Acts 4:13)

    I already stated somewhere above that Paul was a distinct exception. I don’t understand why Geoff is telling me what I’ve already said about Paul being extremely well educated ; but in any case, thanks for backing me up on that Geoff.

    Reply

    1. Your rationale is wrong, and why are you quoting from the KJV? I note that in your proof texting, you have only chosen what the opponents of the disciples said and not the historical reality which we have presented… I note that the religious leaders of the day made it a point to say that Jesus was not the Messiah… Would you believe them as well?

      Reply
  33. Spencer Sloane

    You haven’t presented anything of substance. In your mind, anyone who doesn’t think in lockstep with you is already wrong about everything. I’m not necessarily saying that you are in a cult but your attitude and inability to counter what I say with a scriptural argument or any concrete proof is typical of what I encounter when I attempt to dialogue with cult members.

    Reply

    1. Spencer, this is just a bit more than ironic because that is the same feeling I’m getting from looking at the conversation that people have had with you.

      Reply

    2. What Jeremy said…

      Plus, never said anything about lockstep, but I would require thinking

      Reply
  34. Spencer Sloane

    There’s the lockstep again, “what Jeremy said”

    Jeremy is your buddy who posted one of the only honest statements that I’ve seen here. On April 19th he started his post with the words, “I haven’t read all of this” but of course that didn’t impede him from pontificating.

    Unlike Joel, I’m here alone posting without a gang of my psychophants. So with whom is it that I’m walking in lockstep? Joel’s psychophant, “Geoff” made some sophomoric comment suggesting my mother, home group leader, pastor, and Benny Hinn. I’ll start with Benny. I would like to see Benny in prison doing a long sentence at hard labor. I’d also like the same for Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Kim Clement, Price. Creflo Dollar and about a thousand other “Word of Faith” criminals.

    I haven’t been in a home group for years. I visit a variety of church congregations several times a year, but I certainly have no pastor. The last place I went on a regular basis was Torah studies at a Messianic synagogue. I think that most of Western churchianity is a bogus invention of man, contrived by greedy, power hungry, unnecessary clergy. The real church, which is sweeping Asia is like the early Christian church, i.e. the believers meet in homes, barns, fields, and forests and there is no smug, lazy, exclusive, professional clergy trying to keep the masses worshiping in ignorance while some “Father”, “Reverend,” “Most Reverend”, Right Reverend” types molest all of the children in the congregation.

    I was raised in a agnostic home but had a spiritual awakening about 30 years ago when an evangelical co-worker persuaded me to read the Bible. I do very little study of the Hebrew or Greek texts, primarily because I think that most of the literal translations are adequately reliable and they’ve been done by Greek and Hebrew scholars whose skills are far superior to mine. Because I believe that there is safety in a mutitude of counselors I use a number of translations for comparison. I Very seldom use a lexicon but I rely heavily on a concordance. I read a variety of commentaries. I don’t get much from what I would call preaching or sermons but I do read and listen to various people such as Watchman Nee, Richard Wurmbrand, Chuck Missler, and Harry Ironsides.

    That doesn’t mean that I think any of them are right about everything. But I do think that they all have some worthwhile valid insights. We’re all looking through that dark glass so I think that everyone has some error in their doctrine. But having errors on some non-essential doctrine doesn’t necessarily make you a heretic so I wouldn’t use that word too freely. After all, scripture tells us that satan is the accuser of the brethren.

    Reply

    1. Hah. You have a problem with Seminary types but you read Bible translations. Who do you think worked on those translations?

      Reply

    2. More pointedly. Where do you think they learned Greek and Hebrew?

      Reply

    3. Oh dear Lord… so when two or three people agree, that’s lockstep?

      Nee, Wurmbrand, Missler and Ironsides… are you in lockstep with them?

      Spence, you need new friends and a mind willing to listen to Truth.

      As far as the rest, yeah… we’ve been right about you.

      Scripture tells us that there is no God, to hate our bothers and sisters, and that Mary is our mother. Context helps, but you ignore that.

      Reply
  35. Spencer Sloane

    I also like Dr. Michael Brown and he got his PhD in semitic languages from NYU.

    My point is that seminaries don’t have a monopoly on language studies.

    Reply

    1. Which translations do you read? Because I can all but promise you that you are most likely reading the English interpretations of Greek and Hebrew texts by a whole lot of seminary types.

      Reply

    2. Actually Spencer I see you’ve cited quite a number. If you have an issue with seminary types, you’ll want to research the denominational and educational background of their translators. And then you should never, ever use them again (at least if you want to be consistent). Else by citing them to support an argument against seminary types you are biting the hand that feeds you.

      Reply

  36. it should also be pointed out that “seminary” does not necessarily mean a dedicated institute. A “seminary type” is someone who has studied “theology and hermeutics” – many learning institutions have this available – several Universities here in NZ do, for example.

    Reply
  37. Spencer Sloane

    Joel,

    When you said, “Scripture tells us that there is no God, to hate our bothers and sisters, and that Mary is our mother” were you being facetious or is that what you actually believe that scripture says?

    Reply

    1. Spencer, I worry about you.

      Did you not read the entire context of the comment? Or even the entire comment?

      Reply

      1. I worry that Spencer may not really know much about what the Bible says at all considering he’s been citing all of those translations done and published by all of those seminary types. What if they have deceived him?

        Reply

        1. Shoot, they killed Jesus. They probably deceived Spencer too.

          Reply
  38. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    I should clarify that my real issue is with the modernists; the guys who shipwreck the faith of the weak vessels with their two Isaiahs theories, their three Isaiahs theories, their documentary hypothesis, their defense of homosexuality and all of their other “yea hath God saids?”.

    Reply

    1. So in other words, the older the more accurate, right? So you think that nothing should be questioned, and anything that questions the old ways is wrong?

      What word did you use earlier? Cult?

      Reply

    2. Spencer,
      Saying the problem is with modernists is not the same thing as saying seminary types. There are all kinds of seminaries.

      Reply

    3. And I can guarantee you that some of the translators for the translations which you cite hold to variations of theories of composition you cited.

      Reply

      1. If my history is correct, the authorship of Deuteronomy has been questioned for centuries.

        Reply
  39. Spencer Sloane

    Joel,

    Yes, I read the comment but I need you to clarify it. A few days ago you accused me of anti-Catholic bigotry because I wrote that a number of Catholics (one a Catholic seminary dropout) told me that no one can understand the Bible without the Magisterium of the RC church. I certainly couldn’t understand how my relating what Catholics told me could constitute bigotry on my part.

    Later you seemed to bristle when I used the word, Mariolatry. I usually don’t expect a Methodist (by the way, I also fellowshipped in a United Methodist congregation for about two years during the late ’90s) to pray the Rosary and maintain a Mary shrine but I’m not so sure about you. Is she your mediatrix?

    Reply

    1. No, that’s not what I called you an anti-Catholic Bigot. Go back and re-read your statement. As far as your last paragraph. Please refer to my earlier comment about you being an anti-Catholic bigot

      I am now really worried about you.

      The fact is, is that Scripture says whatever we want it to say when we take it out of context and use it as prooftext

      Reply
  40. Spencer Sloane

    Joel,

    If someone is really prooftexting, the honest way to refute it is to use other verses that correct the error or point out what the context actually says. When satan used scripture to tempt The lord in the wilderness, he responded with scripture. But you never do that. You just keep repeating the accusations of proof texting and repeatedly state that I’m wrong, but you never use scripture to refute what I say.

    Reply
  41. Spencer Sloane

    Joel,

    Here’s what I said, “How about the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Chuch? Aren’t they exceedingly intellectual? Many Catholics believe that only the Magisterium can understand the Bible. They would consider both you and I to be presumptuous buffoons for believing that we can study the Bible independently.

    This was you reply:
    “Oh, and leave the anti-catholic bigotry formed by your ignorance off the site. And, don’t confuse what I do with what you thins what I said:”

    Reply

    1. Sepncer,
      You have just proved beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Try reading any of the ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants in the last 50 years or more.

      Reply

    2. Have you read the Lutheran-Catholic joint statement subsequently affirmed by both Methodists and Presbyterians?or have you looked at the work of Evangelicals and Catholics together?

      Reply

      1. Why should he? Spencer has proven that he wants nothing of Reason which stands against him. He needs to think that others are ‘intellectual’ (i.e., sinners, seminary types) so that he can fully rely upon his own self to judge what is right.

        Reply
  42. Spencer Sloane

    Of course Joel —–You’re always right. You’ve never been wrong in your entire life. Have you? It’s also unimaginable to me that you would ever see the need to ask forgiveness of God or anyone else.

    Reply

    1. If you went back and read this blog from the beginning, you’d know what you just said is not true. Joel has changed his position on a number of issues over the three years he’s been blogging based on being faced with sound reasoning from scripture. This requires that a person admit they are wrong.

      Reply

    2. Um…. you sound like my wife :) Oh, and you are now making ad homs.

      Reply
  43. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    Re-read what I wrote. I just related what several Catholics have told me. I never said that it had the imprimatur of “His Holiness” or of the “Queen of Heaven.” But if it doesn’t represent the official position of the one and only true church where did so many of the little “faithful” get that notion.

    Reply

    1. They got it from ignorance. And if you are willing to accept statements made out of ignorance without even checking them out, then that says a lot.

      Reply
  44. Spencer Sloane

    What fellowship has light with darkness Jeremy?

    Reply
  45. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    I didn’t “accept” their statements. I merely related that they made them and in no way did I claim that they were accurate. But it is a notion that many Catholics have and I suspect that it has been fostered by RC clergy. My wife’s father was a successful coroprate executive who had been educated in Jesuit schools in NYC. He wouldn’t read the Bible for himself because the Jesuits taught him that it was dangerous to do that. He wouldn’t come to his granddaughter’s baby dedication because it was in a Protestant church and he was taught that it was sin to do so. He died in 1983 and I don’t really think the RC church has significantly reformed since then. False religion has has always sought to control people by keeping them in an immature, ignorant, fearful state.

    Reply

    1. It has. Actually it reformed before 1983. Non-Catholics can be godparents for Catholic children. Catholics can get married in Protestant churches with dispensation of a bishop. In fact, Catholics even an entire week in the liturgical year dedicated to Christian unity. This list could go on and on and on. Read the modern documents instead of using anecdotal examples.

      Reply
  46. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    Why was Wm. Tyndale murdered by the religious establishment? It was because they knew their power would be threatened if they couldn’t keep the people in ignorance. Their whole magic show was built on portraying everything about God as mysteries that only the clergy could understand.

    It’s the same reason that the Religious esablishment in Israel plotted the murder of The Messiah. They had a good racket going and they knew that He threatened it. Dead religion couldn’t compete with real power from God. They had no power. All they had was a magic show consisting of empty rituals, political connections and the ignorance of the impoverished masses. They sensed that sooner or later all of that would crumble in the face of real power. .

    Reply

    1. Hey Jeremy, who know who would be great in this ‘religious establishment’ argument? Rodney

      Reply
  47. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    It seems to me that all of the mainline Protestant denominations were born out of great moves of God, but just as the Skekinah left Solomon’s Temple, it seems that the Glory of God has departed from these denominations. The all begin with a generation or two of people who actually know God. But in each successive generation the zeal fades, and the false doctrines begin to creep in. There’s no real prayer and the people are content to remain in an infantile state being fed baby pablum by the Reverend.

    Eventually people stop coming altogether and the congregations shrinks. It’s happening all over so the reverends get together and brainstorm. Then they come up with ideas like having transcendental meditation seminars at the churches, ordaining homosexuals, getting active in politics, etc. We had a RC church in NJ that held special services for pets at which dogs and cats were given communion wafers. All of this of course is to try to get the “faithful” to return and fill up the offering plates so that the clergyman’s pension is secure.

    The mainline Protestant churches are just fossils of what they used to be.

    The RC Church is a cult, plain and simple. I don’t understand how people can accuse the JWs and the Mormons of being cults and not accuse the RC church of the same.

    I’m not saying that there aren’t true Christians in all of these institutions, including even the RC Chjurch, but they’re usually elderly and they don’t represent the future.

    The Evangelicals seem to be more interested in demonic manifestations than in pursuing a relationship with The Lord Jesus. They want non-stop entertainment and banqueting. Thirty years ago I met Evangelicals who read through the Bible every year and some of them read it twice a year. I met people who had been doing that for fifty or sixty years. I doubt most contemporary Evangelicals have read little more than a fraction of the entire Bible. The Church in the West is a disaster. The great falling away has already happened in the U.S. and in Europe.

    Reply

    1. Spencer,
      Surprise! I am Catholic. And I have read documents written by both Catholics and Protestants together that suggest otherwise. In fact, I think those Protestants actually represent a majority. So I have one group of Protestants telling me one thing and another group telling me something else. Both claim to be reasoning on the basis of scripture. Hmmm … that puts me in a predicament as a Catholic. I don’t know which group to believe.

      Reply

      1. Wait? You’re a Catholic… and you are educated… uh-oh… that means Spencer can’t repeat Jack Chick facts as truth

        Reply
  48. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    The reformations that you cite are pretty superficial. Go read what Jeremiah wrote about offering incense to the Queen of Heaven and then read what the New Testament says will be the eternal fate of idolaters. Then research the “Redemptoris Mater” which was delivered by Pope John Paul ll on March 25, 1987. JP ll was actually dubbed “Mary’s Pope” because he lifted her up like no one before. He consecrated the whole world to her twice (whatever that means). Scientific research indicates that the apparitions of Mary are real. Brain wave studies and eye-movement studies indicate that thousands of people are seeing these visions. The apparitions are increasing in frequency and they’re being seen all over the world. The messages delivered by the apparitions are anti-Biblical so they’re not from God. That leaves only one other possibility—-the apparitions are demonic.

    Reply
  49. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    It’s certainly no surprise that you are a Catholic.

    Can you clarify what you wrote in 104?

    The documents suggest other wise? Referring to what?

    “In fact, I think those Protestants actually represent a majority.”? Do you mean that mainline denominations represent a majority of protestants? That may be but that’s just a response on a survey. When I was an agnostic son of an agnostic I would have responded that I was a Lutheran because I was forced to go to some Lutheran catechism classes as my agnostic step-mother forced me to go for the sake of appearances.

    Most people who identify with mainline denominations because they went to church there with their grandparents on Christmas and Easter fifty years ago. The guys coming out of protestant seminaries can’t get jobs. And the RC church has to scrounge in India and Ireland to try to get enough priests for the U.S. When I was a kid, you saw RC nuns every day in the U.S. and virtually all of the teachers in the RC schools were nuns. Where are they now? Vanished.

    Evangelicals are certainly the fastest growing group in the U.S. but it’s hard to estimate how much of it is real faith in The Lord Jesus and how much of it would evaporate next week if all the Joel Osteens and Jan Crouches were suddenly carted off to prison.

    I’m not sure what you’re referring to in this last part below:
    “So I have one group of Protestants telling me one thing and another group telling me something else. Both claim to be reasoning on the basis of scripture. Hmmm … that puts me in a predicament as a Catholic. I don’t know which group to believe.”

    Reply

    1. Spencer,
      I didn’t write 104. Same documents I referred to earlier: Lutheran-Catholic joint statement, Methodist and Presbyterian affirmations of that statement, Evangelicals and Catholics together, etc. These Protestant groups most likely would tell me I’m not in a cult and I’m a Christian.

      Then fundamentalist Protestants who represent next to nothing of the world’s population of Christians would tell me otherwise.

      Both groups claim to reason from scripture.

      Reply
  50. Spencer Sloane

    Thanks for taking the time to clarify that Jeremy.

    Do you (singular) believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation Jeremy?

    Reply

    1. Spencer,
      This is another non-sequitur. You keep changing the subject, but that is fine. It illustrates for me the exact same point. Lutherans hold to consubstantiation. The theological descendants of Calvin hold to the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The theological descendants of Zwingli hold to the Eucharist as symbol. All of them claim to be reasoning based on scripture.

      So, this is not really even a fair discussion. At least there is an official Catholic doctrine for you to ask me about. And I’m supposed to give reasoning for it against at least three different Protestant doctrines. When you can form a Protestant doctrine of the Eucharist, it would make it a lot easier to have this discussion, at least on my end. As it stands, it is hard for me to know which Protestant doctrine to take seriously.

      Reply
  51. Spencer Sloane

    Joel,

    Do you (singular, i.e. Joel/Polycarp) personally believe that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a Biblically valid doctrine?

    Reply

    1. It is a valid doctrine, but I’m not sure that it is the intended doctrine. (if such a thing could be said about Scripture, and I mean that Scripture has an intended doctrine)

      Reply
  52. Spencer Sloane

    Geoff,

    Do you (singular) consider the doctrine of transubstantiation to be a valid Christian doctrine according to the scriptures of The Bible?

    Reply
  53. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    I asked you a simple question and you are evading it. I didn’t ask you what any of the Protestant denominations believe. I asked what you (singular) Jeremy (or whatever your real name is) believe. Are you so embarassed about what you believe that you can’t give a direct answer to the question?

    Reply

    1. Yes. I accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. Now a simple question: Can you please articulate for me a Protestant doctrine of the Lord’s Supper?

      Reply
  54. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    As for the doctrines of the mainline Protestant denominations, I suggest that you not waste much time trying to ascertain what they are as they’ll probably all change by next week. The Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians in the U.S. are already ordaining men and women who are openly gay. So are the “faithful” in the Reformed church in Germany. The United Methodists in the U.S. are mulling it over. My bet is that they’ll soon realize that God has changed His mind once again. Are you happy that the RC church is making covenants with people who are ordain openly practicing homosexuals? Do you admire the modernist theologians who promoted this gay clergy agenda? Or are you a despicable “fundamentalist” when it comes to the “love” that is expressed via sodomy?

    Reply

        1. Well, that’s clear enough. I was talking about how Protestants felt about Catholics and he changed the subject to transubstantiation. I asked him about Eucharist and now he’s changed the subject to homosexuality. And he still hasn’t given any kind of satisfying answer about Bible translations. Non sequitur after non sequitur …. ad infinitum.

          Reply
  55. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    My take (not being dogmatic here) is that the the contemporary mainline Protestant view of the Lord’s Supper is that it’s a nice ceremony, not unlike the occasional candle lighting service at Christmas, etc. It’s a time to reflect on our own sins, The Lord’s atonement, and to ask for forgiveness.

    All of that is good, but, IMHO, what is missing is the RC type of perception that something truly supernatural can take place through that sacrament. I don’t believe in substantiation but I firmly believe that something supernatural takes place when we truly enter into that sacrament as God intends. I believe that physical & emotional healing, and mental & spiritual transformation can come through the sacrament of Communion. Through it we are joined to The Messiah of Israel in a mystical way that we cannot fully grasp. Based on my understanding of scripture, the Bible teaches that partaking of The Sacrament unworthily can result in sickness and even death. That alone clearly implies that there is a powerful supernatural element in The Lord’s Supper.

    Would you like to discuss transubstantiation from a scriptural basis (as opposed to a denominational doctrinal basis)?

    Reply

    1. You are incorrect. Contemporary Protestants view the Lord’s Supper on a spectrum ranging from nearly Catholics (Lutheran), spiritual presence (Reformed and Presbyterian), and symbolic (many evangelicals and others). All of them claim to be reasoning from scripture just as you are. So, I’m not sure what reason I would have for listening to you as opposed to any of the others.

      Reply

    2. Btw, we can at least agree on the more than symbolic aspect since I don’t think a symbol would have made people sick to the point of death.

      Reply

    3. ‘based on my understanding of scripture’ says a lot. Further, again, you have shown that you have taken the verse in half a context and are again, trying to confuse the conversation

      Reply
  56. Spencer Sloane

    They’re not non-sequiturs and I’m really not changing the subject, just touching on different facets of the same subject. How can we discuss and compare these very disparate streams of beliefs without discussing the conflicts between doctrines on these critical issues: Homosexual ordination, Mariolatry, clerical celibacy, the emphasis/elevation of tradition over scripture, the RC doctrine of ex-Cathedro papal infallibility, abortion, papal succession, and a host of others?

    I’d love to start with transubstantiation but if we’re going to have any real discussion we should probably begin with the doctrine of papal succession (or whatever the proper title is for that doctrine). Isn’t that the cornerstone of the RC Church’s claim that it is the one true Apostolic faith? Doesn’t the RC Church base it’s claim to unique spiritual authority on the claim that the Apostle Peter was the first pope, and that his authority has been passed uniquely to popes who have succeeded him? And doesn’t this imply that all of the Protestant faiths are distinctly inferior usurpers?

    If so, then are you willing to discuss what the Bible has to say on the subject of Papal succession and the RC doctrines relating to it?

    Reply

    1. You are the definition of non sequitur. How does any of that connect to your earlier assertions that historical criticism is evil, that seminarians killed Jesus, and that you can rely upon your own gnostic revelation of Scripture?

      Reply

    2. Spencer,
      This most definitely is a non sequitur. Now we’re moving from transubstantiation to apostolic succession?

      Reply
  57. Spencer Sloane

    Joel,

    I do want to respond to your most recent comment and question, but before I do that, I want to re-post a question that I posed which you must have missed in the shuffle. Again, here’s that question that you appear to have missed:

    Joel,

    Do you (singular, i.e. Joel/Polycarp) personally believe that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a Biblically valid doctrine?

    Reply
  58. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    I totally agree that the Protestant views on communion covers a broad spectrum. That is why I prefaced my response with these words, “My take (not being dogmatic here)”. So what I was trying to do was to give a crude, sort of median estimate of broad spectrum and express how it compares to the RC doctrine. You’ve admitted that you can’t form a narrow, defined concept of Protestant doctrine of communion so why attack me if I’m not able to do so either? But I didn’t want to evade your question so I made a justifiably clumsy effort to express a sort of median concept.

    Reply

    1. Spencer,
      I wasn’t attacking you or your view of communion. All I’m saying is that it is hard to take your view terribly seriously when there are lots of other Protestants claiming to reason from scripture alone who would not agree with you.

      Reply
  59. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    The fact that Protestant groups teach a variety of errors doesn’t validate the RC Church. You’re comparing the RC doctrines to the wrong standard. A guy who’s four feet tall can look tall when he’s standing next to a guy who’s only three feet tall. But is a four foot (tall) guy really a tall guy?

    If we’re going to discuss doctrines, we should examine them in light of scripture, rather than some other bad doctrines. The RC church is wrong about transubstantiation —–not because the RC church doesn’t line up with Protestants but because it doesn’t line up with the Bible. The Episcopalians are grievously wrong about ordaining practicing homosexuals. But the Episcopalians are wrong because they are disrespecting what God says about homosexual conduct—-not because they’re in non-compliance with RC doctrines.

    Reply

    1. Spencer,
      I wasn’t saying that Protestants not agreeing with one another makes them wrong. But, what it does do is make my task much more difficult because they all claim to be reasoning from scripture. So, if I’m going to take your reasoning seriously, I’ve got to take their reasoning seriously too. You only have one set of doctrine to look at, at least in terms of an official teaching of the Catholic Church in order to discuss the issue with me. I’ve got to look at look at quite a number more.

      Reply
  60. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    When protestants are ordaining openly practicing homosexuals, should we really be concerned with their views on communion? We already know they’re out of their minds.

    Reply

    1. Spencer,

      1.) Who established Scripture, Canon and certain ‘orthodox doctrines’?
      2.) How do you know that ‘practicing homosexuals’ are the perceived sinners that you think the bible says that they are?

      Why are you so anti-catholic and anti-gay? Are you projecting?

      Reply
  61. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    You must have missed something in my post explaining why I’ve changed topics and why I suggest that we have a scriptural discussion about Papal succession/authority. Please re- read to gain an understanding of my rationale. Here it is again:

    They’re not non-sequiturs and I’m really not changing the subject, just touching on different facets of the same subject. How can we discuss and compare these very disparate streams of beliefs without discussing the conflicts between doctrines on these critical issues: Homosexual ordination, Mariolatry, clerical celibacy, the emphasis/elevation of tradition over scripture, the RC doctrine of ex-Cathedro papal infallibility, abortion, papal succession, and a host of others?

    I’d love to start with transubstantiation but if we’re going to have any real discussion we should probably begin with the doctrine of papal succession (or whatever the proper title is for that doctrine). Isn’t that the cornerstone of the RC Church’s claim that it is the one true Apostolic faith? Doesn’t the RC Church base it’s claim to unique spiritual authority on the claim that the Apostle Peter was the first pope, and that his authority has been passed uniquely to popes who have succeeded him? And doesn’t this imply that all of the Protestant faiths are distinctly inferior usurpers?

    If so, then are you willing to discuss what the Bible has to say on the subject of Papal succession and the RC doctrines relating to it?

    Reply

    1. Just because you say something isn’t a non sequitur doesn’t mean it isn’t. Still haven’t even dealt with Bible translations. You want to talk about what the Bible says, but we haven’t even decided which versions are in play since they were all translated by Jesus killing seminary types.

      And btw, you are asking all the wrong questions from a Catholic’s perspective. A Catholic doesn’t just want to talk about what the Bible says about something, but rather about what scripture, tradition, and the magisterium say about something. That may seem like a problem for you, but I’m the one with an official teaching on the Eucharist as opposed to a range of opinions.

      Reply

    2. Jeremy, Spencer has admitted that his has no real position for his arguments. He is against reason and is solidly in favor of blindness.

      He started his comments off with attacking various, what he assumed, aspects of my beliefs. When questioned, he turned to another attack. He cannot handle when someone presses him on his stance, so when we do, when we offer rebuttals, he has to go somewhere else now.

      He has established himself as his own magisterium, his own lord and god and when pressed, and finding himself debunked, he moves on to another area. He has no real clue about historical criticism, or the Scriptures, of sound doctrine. I feel sorry for him.

      Reply
  62. Spencer Sloane

    Joel,

    Do you (singular, i.e. Joel/Polycarp/whoever you really are) personally believe that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a Biblically valid doctrine?

    Reply
  63. Spencer Sloane

    Joel,

    This was your answer:

    “It is a valid doctrine, but I’m not sure that it is the intended doctrine. (if such a thing could be said about Scripture, and I mean that Scripture has an intended doctrine)”

    Politicians get booed and hissed when they give that kind of answer, and deservedly so.

    Let me make it simpler for you. Do you believe that the communion elements turn into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus The Christ? This is a yes or no question Joel. There’s no need for prevarication or double talk. Just have the courage to say what you believe.

    Reply

    1. Your second question is different than your first.

      Politicians? Yeah, there have been some bad ones, like Lincoln and Thatcher.

      Hey, Spencer, before you speak of courage, you should examine your actions here. But, as Geoff said, define literal. I take the liturgy in John 6 literal.

      Reply
  64. Spencer Sloane

    I’m still waiting for the answer Joel. Do the communion wafers actually turn into the real/actual blood and flesh of Jesus the Christ?

    Reply

    1. I am still waiting for you to answer all the questions posed to you….

      Reply
  65. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    You said, “And btw, you are asking all the wrong questions from a Catholic’s perspective. A Catholic doesn’t just want to talk about what the Bible says about something, but rather about what scripture, tradition, and the magisterium say about something. That may seem like a problem for you, but I’m the one with an official teaching on the Eucharist as opposed to a range of opinions.”

    What you’re actually saying here is that you don’t think for yourself. Why do you need the Magisterium to think for you? You really do seem like an intelligent guy so why are you afraid to think for yourself? Why can’t you have enough faith in God to believe that He will illuminate scripture for you?

    Reply

    1. In other words, you want to be your own authority, Spencer. It doesn’t matter what the bible actually says, or how it was received, but what you, you Spencer, says it says. I wasn’t aware that you were God

      Reply

    2. Spencer, you’re about one step away from being a secular atheist. Why do you need the scriptures? Why don’t you think for yourself.
      I haven’t always been Catholic. But I came to believe through reading scripture that I need the church and tradition.

      Reply
  66. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    here is Mark 14:21-24 from the Douay-Rheims

    “[21] And the Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born. [22] And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. [23] And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. [24] And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.”

    So here we have The Lord saying that the bread is His body and the wine is His flesh. The question is, did he mean it literally or figuratively. Was He saying that He was giving them His actual/real body/flesh and blood to eat? Wasn’t His flesh still on His bones at that time? Wasn’t His blood still in His body? So how could He be handing His actual/physical blood to them while it was still flowing in His veins and arteries? And how could He be handing them hunks of His flesh to eat, unless He was tearing chunks of flesh from His body? Doesn’t it seem a lot more logical (and sane) to believe that He was speaking figuratively?

    In your heart of hearts, don’t you really know that He was telling us that the bread and wine were to be symbolic representations of His flesh? To be sure, when we eat the bread you should be reflecting on how His flesh was ripped to shreds for you and how His holy blood was poured out into the dirt for you. Why? So that you will never forget how much He loves you. There’s no reason to imagine or pretend to believe that you’re ingesting real blood and flesh.

    You know as well as I that we could pump your stomach or intestines a few minutes or hours after you swallow the element(s) and that a forensic examination of the contents would prove conclusively that there was no blood or flesh protein in your alimentary canal.

    Reply

    1. So in other words, Spencer, you are saying that the ‘plain sense’ of Scripture isn’t what it actually says? That it isn’t literal? That the Scripture is wrong?

      Reply

    2. Well, Spencer, I can you are flip flopping since earlier you and I agreed it was more than just a symbol, ie because people were dying for partaking unworthily.

      Reply

  67. you guys are arguing what colour orange is with a blind man, its a waste of time.

    No, the bread and blood do not turn literally into Jesus flesh and blood, this is a scientifically verifiable fact.
    Yes, the bread and blood literally turn into Jesus flesh and blood through the Spirit. This is a “Spiritually verifiable fact”.
    Communion is more than a symbol, it is “communion” with the death and resurrection of Jesus through the Spirit.

    com·mun·ion/kəˈmyo͞onyən/Noun
    1. The sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, esp. when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level.
    2. Common participation in a mental or emotional experience

    In our case, add being reborn, spiritual, etc to any part of that.

    Reply

      1. thank ye.. ironically that’s the first time I have written anything formulative on Communion. w00t.

        Reply
  68. Spencer Sloane

    Joel,

    Most of the bible can be read literally in its contextual sense, although the Bible is like an onion with layer upon layer of meaning in some places, double entendres, hints, clues, and allusions. Most prophecies have double fulfillments. That’s why we can’t just read the Bible, we actually have to study it or we miss a lot of the treasure that’s hidden in it.

    Here are examples of verses that are 100% literal:

    Joel,

    Most of the bible can be read literally in its contextual sense, although the Bible is like an onion with layer upon layer of meaning in some places, double entendres, hints clues, and illusions. Most prophecies have double fullfillments. That’s why we can’t just read the Bible, we actually have to study it

    [26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. (Romans 1:26 & 27 – Douay Rheims)

    [9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9)

    [13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

    [9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, [10] For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,

    [22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

    [26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. (Romans 1:26 & 27 – Douay Rheims)

    [9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9)

    [13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

    [9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, [10] For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,

    [22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

    Reply

    1. Geez, back to the homosexuals… When you get stuck on something, you really get stuck on something. I don’t want to chase you down a rabbit hole and unpack this or anything, but it is odd.

      Regarding, Romans – http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/tag/Prosopopoeia/

      Regarding the others, I’d urge you to check out the original languages and cultural contexts. Which is why Geoff is correct and you are proof-texting.

      Reply
      1. RODOFA

        Okay, wait, how did the whole convo get changed from Jesus being rejected by “seminary-types” aka Jews to a discussion on homosexuals?

        Am I missing something?

        Reply

        1. Only anytime Spencer actually responded to a rebuttal to any statement me has made. When he doesn’t like the fact that he is losing the debate, he goes catholic or gay

          Reply
  69. Spencer Sloane

    Oh, and all those verses are quoted from the Douay Rheims.

    Reply
  70. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    Do you really believe that one Jewish woman (Mary) can listen to millions of people all over the Earth praying to her at the same time?

    Reply

  71. Spencer, who cares if its the “Douay Rheims”?

    Most of the bible CAN NOT be read literally. Obviously you do not comprehend literary studies at all, nor the study of ancient documents, of which the bible is. You probably think you understand hieroglyphs as well.

    Reply
  72. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    Clearly The Lord’s Supper is far more than a symbolic gesture, but there is an enormous expanse between symbolic gesture and transubstantiation. I think that the reality about communion is somewhere in the middle of that expanse. Although I think the RC Church has gone way too far with the doctrine of transubstantion, I believe the RC Church is correct in believing that something real is happening in the spiritual realm and that communion is far more than a mere liturgical ritual or emotional experience. Although I think that the doctrine of transubstation is a fallacious doctrine, I can’t see how it would be a breach of any essential doctrine.

    Reply
  73. Spencer Sloane

    Joel,

    If homosexuality is not a sin, then why has the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church declared it to be a sin?

    Reply

    1. It does not matter what the “Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church” declare – it only matters what the Bible teaches. And the Bible does in fact teach Homosexuality is a sin.

      Reply
  74. Spencer Sloane

    Geoff,

    Jeremy says he’s catholic so I used Douay Rheims in honor of him. And I suspect that Joel is probably RC also.

    Reply

        1. I thought so.. although it should be pointed out that in NZ methodists dont believe being gay is a sin..

          Reply

          1. Wait… Do Methodists believe in sin :) I am a bit more conservative an many Methodists, I suspect.


    1. Hanna aha you used the DR because Jeremy is Catholic? Wait, you mean you don’t know about the NAB or the NJB? Omjb

      Reply
  75. Spencer Sloane

    Joel,

    How do you explain what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah?

    Reply

    1. Its explained in the bible, which I happen to know Joel has read.. so I would say his answer will be “WHAT THE BIBLE SAID”.

      Reply

      1. Exactly. But again, we have gone from Spencer saying that seminary types killed Jesus to now making sure he is comfortable with saying that homosexuality is a sin. He has his issues, Geoff… His focus is on things which both him. A wise man once repeated that what you preach on most is your sin. Just saying, Spencer

        Reply
  76. Spencer Sloane

    Of course the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin. But how do you get someone like Joel to admit it?

    Reply

    1. You stop being stupid and deal with his posts intelligently.

      Reply
    2. RODOFA

      How do we get Spencer Sloane to stop obsessing over homosexuality? That’s the question. And Why is he changing the topic to this particular subject?

      We missing something?

      Just sayin….

      Reply
  77. Spencer Sloane

    Rodofa,

    Conversational topics shift everywhere else. Is there a rule against shifting topics on this blog?

    Reply
    1. RODOFA

      I just am wondering how did Jesus being against “seminary types” turn into the question of Sodom and Gomorrah. thats all.

      Joel has plenty of posts on the Gay/Homosexual/GLBTQ topic anyway.

      Reply

    2. Spencer, you aren’t shifting topics. You start one, but when you are answered, you ignore it and raise the Catholic/Gay card.

      Reply
  78. Spencer Sloane

    Good boy Geoff. That pat on the head from Joel felt so good, didn’t it? Oh how sweet!!!

    Maybe you can get another little gold star if you keep going with your homily about communion. Please pick up where you left off. I’d like to hear more.

    You wrote, “Yes, the bread and blood literally turn into Jesus flesh and blood through the Spirit. This is a “Spiritually verifiable fact”.

    1.) What does, “through the spirit” mean? 2.) Does it turn into real blood & hemoglobin and protein?
    molecules and real bread with gluten, starch, and fiber. Does it end up as whole grain bread? Wheat? Rye? 12 grain?

    My favorite part of what you wrote was the part where you said, “This is a “Spiritually verifiable fact”.’

    What an amazing statement! Can you explain that? I’d like to “spiritually verify” it myself. Will I need special equipment? A spiritual electron microscope? A spiritual spectrometer?

    Please resist the temptation to cop out with “Google” again. Joel didn’t give you a little pat on the head the last time you did that.

    Reply

    1. Your demeaning attitude means that you are now getting pushed further into a corner, Spencer. Why don’t you focus on your first comments and answer Rodney as regards to your unscriptural, unrealistic, and just plain silly anti-intellectualism.

      Reply
  79. Spencer Sloane

    Joel,

    Don’t you think RODOFA is overdue for a pat on the head? He’s trying his best to be a good little psychophant. It’s not his fault that he doesn’t have as vivid an imagination as does Geoff.

    Reply

    1. Now the insults… no facts to back up anything you’ve said, ever, so you first resort to the anti-Catholic/anti-Gay card and when that doesn’t work… well.. you just insult people.

      How about you present actual facts – not just what you think is ‘right.’

      Reply
  80. Spencer Sloane

    Oh, and girls, please keep the homophobia cliches coming. I’m still LMAO over them.

    Reply

    1. Homophobia?

      You are the one pushing Sodom and Gomorrah into this conversation about how dumb and “humble” the disciples were, not us.

      Reply

  81. If anyone has forgotten, this is what Spencer wrote earlier in #124. I wonder how he would verify this (I’ve added some emphasis):

    “All of that is good, but, IMHO, what is missing is the RC type of perception that something truly supernatural can take place through that sacrament. I don’t believe in substantiation but I firmly believe that something supernatural takes place when we truly enter into that sacrament as God intends. I believe that physical & emotional healing, and mental & spiritual transformation can come through the sacrament of Communion. Through it we are joined to The Messiah of Israel in a mystical way that we cannot fully grasp. Based on my understanding of scripture, the Bible teaches that partaking of The Sacrament unworthily can result in sickness and even death. That alone clearly implies that there is a powerful supernatural element in The Lord’s Supper.

    I guess Spencer has had out his supernatural-a-scope during communion before or maybe his mystical-a-scope.

    Reply
  82. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    Pay more attention to how people phrase things. I prefaced it with, ” IMHO”. I am a deeply humble man and thus I always take a humble approach to things, including my mode of expression, thus, “IMHO”

    By contrast, Geoff didn’t qualify his pontifications as being just an opinion. He used the words, “spiritually verifiable fact”

    Reply

    1. Spencer, I’m not sure a person who claims to be his own authority can actually claim to be humble.

      Reply

    2. Sound pretty certain in #153 Spencer:
      “In your heart of hearts, don’t you really know that He was telling us that the bread and wine were to be symbolic representations of His flesh? To be sure, when we eat the bread you should be reflecting on how His flesh was ripped to shreds for you and how His holy blood was poured out into the dirt for you. Why? So that you will never forget how much He loves you. There’s no reason to imagine or pretend to believe that you’re ingesting real blood and flesh.

      You know as well as I that we could pump your stomach or intestines a few minutes or hours after you swallow the element(s) and that a forensic examination of the contents would prove conclusively that there was no blood or flesh protein in your alimentary canal.”

      Reply
  83. Spencer Sloane

    By the way, Jeremy, I addressed several posts and questions to you re: RC doctrinal issues. But Geoff and Joel rushed to respond to them in your apparent absence. Apparently they also consider themselves to be authorities on RC doctrines. Since they weren’t emergency questions, the could have awaited your response and I’m certain that your own faculties are adequate to respond. I’ll see if I can locate them among the debris above so that you can decide whether or not you wish to respond to them

    Reply
  84. Spencer Sloane

    Here’s one of my previous posts to you Jeremy:

    Jeremy,

    Do you really believe that one Jewish woman (Mary) can listen to millions of people all over the Earth praying to her at the same time?

    Reply
  85. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    Here’s another of those posts you may have missed:

    Jeremy,

    here is Mark 14:21-24 from the Douay-Rheims

    “[21] And the Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born. [22] And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. [23] And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. [24] And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.”

    So here we have The Lord saying that the bread is His body and the wine is His flesh. The question is, did he mean it literally or figuratively. Was He saying that He was giving them His actual/real body/flesh and blood to eat? Wasn’t His flesh still on His bones at that time? Wasn’t His blood still in His body? So how could He be handing His actual/physical blood to them while it was still flowing in His veins and arteries? And how could He be handing them hunks of His flesh to eat, unless He was tearing chunks of flesh from His body? Doesn’t it seem a lot more logical (and sane) to believe that He was speaking figuratively?

    In your heart of hearts, don’t you really know that He was telling us that the bread and wine were to be symbolic representations of His flesh? To be sure, when we eat the bread you should be reflecting on how His flesh was ripped to shreds for you and how His holy blood was poured out into the dirt for you. Why? So that you will never forget how much He loves you. There’s no reason to imagine or pretend to believe that you’re ingesting real blood and flesh.

    You know as well as I that we could pump your stomach or intestines a few minutes or hours after you swallow the element(s) and that a forensic examination of the contents would prove conclusively that there was no blood or flesh protein in your alimentary canal.

    Reply

    1. Right. Where you’re using words like “know” at the end and not “opinion” as you said in one of your most recent comments.

      Reply
  86. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    Why can’t you paste part of it or something so I know what you’re referring to?

    Reply
  87. Spencer Sloane

    Jeremy,

    That doesn’t sound like something I’d say. I am a profoundly humble man. Please copy and paste so I can review. There must be some mistake.

    Reply

    1. And those who keep insisting that they are ‘profoundly humble’ generally aren’t.

      Reply

    2. Profoundly humble? In what universe?

      Why don’t you answer my questions, Mr. Humility in my post?

      Oh wait….. you can’t.

      Reply
  88. Spencer Sloane

    Okay, I guess I’ve been totally exposed by the brilliance of the heavyweights on this blog so I may as well come clean. I want to come out of the closet about my most beloved gay friend. All kidding aside, this is my idea of a beautiful man. I can’t begin to tell you how much I love this guy. I want to be with him forever.

    Reply
  89. Spencer Sloane

    Yep, I want to be with Danny forever.

    Reply
  90. Spencer Sloane

    Joel,

    I did checked out that Seattle Daily Weekly (now there’s an oxymoron) article that you linked me to. I see that your reading tastes are slanted a wee bit towards the juicy stuff. Was it supposed to make me faint or something? What do you take me for? A Puritan? You’d probably faint if you watched a video of my life. Tell me that you, Geoff, Jeremy, and what’s his name (the bald guy) are having orgies—that’s nothing.

    God loves you exactly as you are Joel. It doesn’t matter if you’re having sex with ten different women every day, or, for that manner ten men, dogs, sheep or horses. The question is: Are you willing to love God as He is? Are you willing to humble yourself and accept His truth and His word just as He has written it? Or will you insist on trying to re-create God in your image?

    If you’re not going to accept God as He is, then you may as well just pull out all of the stops and make life a non-stop orgy. If you’re not going to fall on The Rock, then in the end The Rock is going to fall on you and crush you. So you may as well fully enjoy all of the carnal pleasure you can in the little time you have left. Why waste time on boring stuff related to The Bible. Get out there and party hearty Joel —for tomorrow you die. Your life will be over in a twinkling of an eye.

    If you’re not willing to accept 100% of The Truth, then don’t bother with any of it. If you’re not willing to humble yourself in absolutely total surrender to The Christ, then don’t deceive yourself with superficial religiosity. Empty liturgy and religious games are a stench in His nostrils.

    What do you know about me? Am I really a man named Spencer Sloane? Or is that just a pseudonym that had a nice ring to me? Maybe I’m a conflicted lesbian named Sandra?

    Surprise! Surprise! Jeremy.

    Joel if you’re not willing to repent, I want you to get all of the pleasure out of life that you possibly can, as long as you don’t harm others. Tell me what you’re into and I’ll point you to some really juicy stuff. I don’t want to miss anything. And lighten up a little! You keep taking all of my jokes the wrong way.

    For starters, if you’re into juicy lesbian stuff, you can start with this lesbian video. It’s one of my all-time favorites:

    Reply

    1. Spencer, you have gone from dilettante to depraved. You are now moderated until you can clean up your act.

      Reply

    2. Oh, and you really are. Guy, although that super white mannequin scares me a bit

      Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!