Start Here

The goal of Red Letter Christians is simple: To take Jesus seriously by endeavoring to live out His radical, counter-cultural teachings as set forth in Scripture, and especially embracing the lifestyle prescribed in the Sermon on the Mount.

Ironically, it was a secular Jewish country-and-western disc jockey in Nashville, Tennessee who first suggested that title. During a radio interview with my friend Jim Wallis, that deejay declared, “You’re one of those Red-Letter Christians – you know, the ones who are really into all those New Testament verses that are in red letters!” When Jim said, “That’s right!” he answered for all of us. By calling ourselves Red Letter Christians, we refer to the fact that in many Bibles the words of Jesus are printed in red. What we are asserting, therefore, is that we have committed ourselves first and foremost to doing what Jesus said.

The message of those red-lettered Bible verses is radical, to say the least. If you don’t believe me, just take a few minutes to read Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). In it, Jesus calls us away from the consumerist values that dominate contemporary America. Instead, he calls us to meet the needs of the poor. He also calls us to be merciful, which has strong implications in terms of war and capital punishment. After all, when Jesus tells us to love our enemies, he probably means we shouldn’t kill them.

Read the Extended History and Purpose of RLC

Gandhi once said that everybody in the world knows what Jesus teaches in those red lettered verses — except Christians. Today, lots of people share that same kind of disappointment with the American church. We want to change that. Applying the teachings of Jesus to our lives in such complicated times is difficult, but that is what Red Letter Christians is all about.

On this blog, I am going to do my best to introduce you to people and ideas that will inspire, encourage, and equip you to better follow Jesus as a Red Letter Christian. The blog is organized around four major silos of interest: Current, Global, Lifestyle, and Theology. Under each silo is a myriad of more specific topics compiled based on my book Red Letter Christians. You can find the silos listed on the top navigation bar and on the homepage. The homepage will always display the most recent articles under each silo and at the very top show the most recent six posts overall. If you’re looking for posts specifically related to The Church, for example, then you’d simply scroll over “Theology” in the top navigation bar and click “The Church” from the drop down list. If you’re not sure which category a post may be under then you can simply search for the post in our search bar, located on the far right side of the navigation bar.

The site has been designed to organize the plethora of information and make it easily accessible. Please, let me know if it helps. And above all…keep the faith!

Tony Campolo

P.S.: Red Letter Christians is built on the voices of individuals young and old from around the world. Here are some of the voices of the movement I want to introduce you to:

  • Pingback: Rob Bell: Universalist or just misquoted? « In the Room()

  • Pingback: Transitions » A Theological Flaw?()

  • Pingback: A devotion for Wall Street [Claiborne]()

  • Pingback: Your Eternal Destiny Depends on How you Treat your Neighbor – Rick Love()

  • Pingback: Compassion Challenge « A Day in the Life of Melly()

  • Pingback: Sharon McKee (smckee2) | Pearltrees()

  • Pingback: Red Letter Revolution and Book Giveaway! « about proximity()

  • Pingback: It Will Only Seem Beautiful « iSixtyOne()

  • Matt

    Im sorry, but this is not right! Brothers and sisters, the whole Bible is God-breathed and God inspired. God intended for each word and each sentence in the Bible to be in the Bible. The Bible is our handbook and we are to live by it. You guys have it wrong! God’s words are very important. But do not forget the apostles and the prophets!! God worked through their lives and inspired them to write what they wrote. So technically, all of the Bible is the Word of God! God’s hand was in it all. Please, do not call yourselves Red-Letter Christians and separate yourselves from your brothers and sisters who believe in God and his unending love and grace. Rather, call yourselves Followers of Christ. Follow the Word of God! Not just the red letters, but let every passage you read from Old Testament to New Testament speak to you through the work of the Holy Spirit. Let us Christians unite under God to fulfill His purposes for our lives here on Earth.

    • bluecenterlight

      I think you are missing what this movement is seeking to do. John refers to Jesus as the revealed “word of God”, the word made flesh. No one is suggesting that you black out every word that is not red in your bible. But if Jesus is “the word” then all of God’s word has to be seen through the matrix of Christ. The bible minus Christ makes us horrible. The bible has been used as justification for many horrible things, the crusades, the Inquisition, slavery, segregation, etc. I do not question the Westboro Baptist’s love of scripture, as Jesus didn’t question the Pharisee’s, but with all of their knowledge, they seemed to have missed the point. I don’t think we could ever be accused of being too much like Jesus. And you are right, God does something new to shake us out of our religiosity, then man takes that “new” thing and creates a new structure that God has to come along every so often and break up. It is just human nature, we like to put God in a box, and you are right to be wary. But we also have to be wary of our own fear of change. If God is the agent of the change, you risk kicking against the pricks. Are you really afraid that people might take Jesus too seriously? Or that people might forget the rest of the bible when Christ constantly quoted and referred to the prophets? Is that a danger, sure. I guess truth comes in the Pharisee’s advice about Jesus. If it is not of God it will fizzle and die, if it is of God, well, are arms are too short to box with God (paraphrased).

      PS. I don’t care much for labels, but I do prefer Christ follower, which makes me think we are talking about the same thing :)

      • Anni

        Jesus did refer to the prophets, not so much Leviticus.

        • Brian

          Sure he did. The Law and the prophets. (Luke 24:44, 16:16, Matt 7:12, 11:13, 22:40) :)

      • Amonite

        The Catholic church does not regard the Bible as the supreme word of God, or even Christ. (The pope is their final authority, believing he has the power to ‘change’ God’s revealed word. Do you go to church on a Sunday? There is nothing wrong with that – but if you believe that ‘Sunday’ replaced the ‘Sabbath’ (as many christians do!) then you’ve bought a lie of the Catholic church. (Same with Christmas/Easter).

        Westboro Baptist is a fringe sect – it’s not an ‘example’. The Bible is full of warnings of how men will pretend to be the Messiah, or try to profit from scripture, or teach what people want to hear and remove ‘the offense of the gospel’. You seem surprised that God’s words repeatedly come true. This is why it is so important for christians to take everything back to the Bible, to test what they are hearing vs. following the tickle of their ears.

        There is absolutely nothing wrong with subjecting all of your life to Christ and following Him – it is what we are supposed to do! But consider this: When Jesus himself witnessed, where did he go? He ‘reasoned from the scriptures’ (OT) to prove that He, as the Messiah, had to come, suffer, die, and rise again.

        You are saying that the scripture Jesus himself used is lesser or unimportant. That’s like saying you’ll pay attention to *some* things a witness says on the stand, but none of the evidence corraborating the witness, and none of the resources or authorities the witness points you to. Certainly, every “thing” pales in comparison to Christ – but scripture is not a thing of the world. Other scripture points to Christ~! Other scripture was inspired by God for the benefit of our serving Christ and for God’s glory!

        • Adam

          Well, I used to be Catholic and unfortunately (like a lot of people) you do not understand what they teach. Yes, the Catholic church doesn’t hold the bible to be “supreme” because they don’t believe it is the “final authority” (and even the bible itself doesn’t make this claim–it claims it is “good for…” not the same as saying “it is the only thing you should ever eat”)They believe it to be the word of God, but they also uphold Tradition as equal to it (meaning things that were revealed ‘verbally’–after all, there is no way the bible records everything Jesus said during 3 years of ministry…not even close!). Nowhere does the bible claim to be the “sole authority” Jesus most certainly said many more things than are contained in the bible. There WERE people around who heard them, the apostles certainly heard them—they couldn’t have written everything down they heard. That does not imply that they didn’t pass things along verbally. They most certainly did. Many early church fathers wrote about the verbal tradition. So to say that what some of the apostles wrote down is somehow more authoritative than what God Himself (Jesus) spoke doesn’t make much sense, does it? All the church says is that, to the extent we know what the verbal tradition is, it is equal in authority to the bible. The bible itself directs us to “hold fast to the traditions, whether by mouth or epistle” The bible says that faith comes through “hearing the Word” NOT reading it. (Which certainly explains how the church grew before the bible was compiled 300 years AFTER Jesus died) The Pope IS their final authority, because logic dictates that someone has to be the bible’s authoritative interpreter…the bible can’t be the final authority of itself. The result you get where “everyone can read the bible and understand it for themselves” is the 400 or so sects of Protestantism that you have today. (which, btw is the REAL reason the church didn’t want the bible in the vernacular—NOT because the teachings were indefensible) The church DOES believe that Christ is supreme, but Christ isn’t with us anymore in person….they believe that the Pope acts in His role as representative (as a direct successor to the apostles) guided by the holy spirit. That, at least, is how the Catholic church views it (in a nutshell). That is not to say I agree with that anymore, or that the Catholic church doesn’t have a boat load of problems, both theologically and morally, but you have an obligation to at least criticize the Church for what she actually believes and teaches, and not what you ‘think’ she believes. Most of the ‘mass’ is right out of the bible…it’s all in how you interpret it. But, you have to admit, that there HAS to be a correct interpretation–otherwise it makes Christ a liar. All these different streams cannot be correct, although it is also possible that NONE of them are 100% correct. What we CAN know with authority is that if someone doesn’t confess that Christ came in the flesh, they are not of God and should not be listened to. (1 John 4:2-4; 2 John 7 KJV)

          • Amonite

            Man’s tradition is NOT equal to God’s law. This is talked about over and over in scripture. The mormon’s also believe that the their current leader acts as God’s representative, and that their church is the only church granted ‘apostolic authority’ to give out spiritual gifts and to give legitimate baptisms, etc. Their arguments for the basis of their ‘authority’ are quite similar to the catholic – both are contrary to the Bible. Church of Christ also thinks that it can figure out what ‘traditions’ the apostles did and make those equal – even when they contradict what God himself said (So, no instruments!) We all have the Holy Spirit when we believe – we do not need a church of man to confer this upon us. It is Christ’s authority we act on, not a denominations.

            (And for an example of how silly this is, look up the quartodecimen controversy. The apostles John and Philip and others in asia held the ‘tradition’ of holding communion/celebrating the ressurection on passover (14th of Nissan). By the third century or so most other christians were celebrating on the Lord’s Day (sunday after passover). The Nicene Council eventually made a decree that Sunday was the only ‘correct’ day, and Constantine supported persecution of anyone who continued to celebrate the ressurection on passover.

            Wheras, the *correct* response to two believers holding different traditions(which is allowed!) is this:

            “And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they
            disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with
            one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus
            persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the
            disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated;
            neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought
            to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him. But though
            matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the
            administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark
            of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed,
            and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.”

            Jesus did not die for us simply so we could return to a system of traditions and laws. He died that we may have liberty! Traditions are not binding. You may choose to folow them – and they can be wonderful for the sake of bonding within a church or a family – but they are unessential for salvation and deadly when forced on others.

            “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time
            will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit
            their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn
            their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep
            your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist,
            discharge all the duties of your ministry.” II Tim 4: 1-4

            The Bible does not place what the apostles wrote as ‘above’ that of Christ. Rather ALL scripture is harmonious and God breathed. The apostles words and Christ’s words do not contradict. Also, the apostles words are scripture (II Peter 3:16). The NT was also treated as scripture in the church from the beginning – long before the ‘canon’ was set. One could replicated the NT minus about 24 verses within 2 centuries from quotes from early church fathers, minus 11 versus within 3 centuries. For an oral culture with low literacy rates, this rapid spread and wide establishment of the word of God was incredible.

            “And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observec your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” Mark 7:9-13

            Traditions of man are fine as traditions themselves (cultural heritage, customs, etc) – but when they become of equal or surpassing authority to God, they are quite dangerous. (The famous example fromt he past – the Catholic church selling indulgences – ignoring Christ’s redemptive work and the need for repentance and life tranformation, and peddling the gosepel for profit for the sake of a tradition/making money).

            See to it that
            no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends
            on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forcesa of this world rather than on Christ. Col 2:8 (Gal 2:14 as well)

            (Another good exampe – the longstanding, even ‘good’ tradition, was for the jews to be circumcized. They demanded the gentiles be circumcized to ‘prove their salvation’ as well. There is certainly nothing wrong with being circumcized, but they were letting their former tradition cloud their understanding of salvation – so much so they were enforcing it on others).

            Now then, if gentiles do not have to even follow the ‘good and perfect’ jewish traditions which God himself made, how can traditions of man be binding?

            The words of the catholics or other sects (which God dissaproves of man forming denominations and sects, btw) are NOT of equal authority. Just because a group splits off to form their own denomination does not mean they a) are no longer part of the body of Christ or b) have made ‘new revelation’ to the body of Christ. Rather, they sin by attempting to seperate themselves to make their own faction and placing themselves against other factions – but they still remain a part of the body whether they view themselves as part of it or not. Its as if the hands, mad that the feet can’t grasp and nose only smells, have seperated themselves to make their own ‘serving church’. And then the feet make a ‘going church’ and the eyes make a ‘seeing church’. These are wrong, as the body must work together, and every part has things it can do and things it cannot do, just as every individual has strengths and weaknesses. No denomination can claim itself the only church or to be the interpreter of God.

            Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. And if
            the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it
            would not for that reason stop being part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they
            were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. 1 Cor 12:12-18

            Christ alone is the mediator between God and man – our High Priest with whom we have access to the Father.

            For there is one
            God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 2:5

        • bluecenterlight

          I do not believe that the old testament is somehow lesser. It is through the old testament and the law that we come to Christ, but it is through Christ we have to interpret the old testament. I believe all scripture is important, I am sorry I left you with another impression.

    • Topazspark

      So…ummm… you believe that all Baptists do is baptize all day long, and that they ignore every other verse that isn’t specifically about baptism? Martin Luther wasn’t even in the Bible, so Lutherns have it really bad because they only follow Martin Luther, right? It says so in their name. They wouldn’t name their movement “Luthern” if they meant to read anything not written by Luther, after all. And “Holy Cross” church only talks about the cross…nothing else. e.v.e.r. In fact, the best name of a group of Christians would probably be something like “Fellowship of people who are learning to love God and follow His commands as revealed through the Messiah Jesus Christ who is coming again and is discussed at length by apostles, some of whom were better at following Jesus than others, and so on.” Of course, that church name would be difficult to fit on a sign, or even a banner on a website. Red Letter Christians is succinct and it shows the focus of the group, but that doesn’t mean that they ignore the rest of the Bible.

    • Penny Starr

      Yes, the Bible IS God breathed and God inspired. But…it was NOT written in English..this translation is just that…a translation inspired by a desire for royalty to be able to interpret things the way they liked.
      Some of us who consider ourselves Red Letter Christians do so because a large portion of people claiming to follow Christ seem to have chosen to ignore those very words and the principles they teach. If you (generic “you”) don’t follow Christ’s words/teaching, how can you possibly claim to be “Christian”?

      • Amonite

        You do realize that there are many translations, all of which refer back to the original greek and hebrew? Translations are not ‘based off prior translations’. The NASB, for example (literal), is different from the NIV (mix of literal and contextual translation), etc (including some shoddy paraphrase translations, such as the Message, which should be avoided). I agree there is a great deal ‘lost in translation’ (nuances, puns, poetic references, etc), but you can go study Greek for yourself. I would also recommend getting some older commentaries, as many of the 18th century christians (despite not having the advantage of the dead sea scrolls), knew latin, greek, and hebrew. As such, they could analyze verses looking at dozens of original greek manuscripts. (The Pulpit Commentaries is an excellent example of this).

    • Mary

      Amen, Matt, I couldn’t agree with you more. All the Bible is given by inspiration of God.

    • Anni

      I’m a red letter Christian and you’re an Old Testament Christian, which is a total oxymoron. Kindly turn to Leviticus and keep all 613 laws and get back with me on your progress.

      • ItsMe

        this is the very type of uncaring and unloving comments from people that make the topic so unwelcoming. bluecenterlight’s comment below is actually one that engages the mind and discussion, respecting the other for the Glory of God.

      • Amonite

        All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting
        and training in righteousness. This includes the Old Testament!

        If you believe studying the OT and understanding how it magnifies our understanding of Christ means believers will feel like they must ‘follow’ the OT law (which Christ fulfilled!) then you do not understand the purpose of the Old Covenant or the New.

        Scripture is harmonious. Not one part can be removed. Even books that have no seeming ‘relevance’ so to speak with our lives today can have profound relevance when you start understanding God’s unchangeable holiness, character, and His eternal plan.

    • Andrew John Scease

      Yeah right. Nicea brother. Word of “god” my patoot. HUMAN BEINGS chose what was, and what was not, to be included in the book you know as THE BIBLE (dah, dah, dah, dummmmmmmmm). Let me know when you fulfill all the strictures laid out in Leviticus you hypocrite. It will be a great day on earth when all this magical hoakum is laid by the wayside. Sorry to say, but it probably won’t be in my lifetime. In the meantime, simple-minded sadsacks like yourself and all the other deluded scaredy-cats on this page will argue yourselves into spiritual knots and accomplish nothing. Yawn…

      • itsme


      • Will

        Andrew, That is the whole point. We cannot fulfill the rules of Leviticus which is why we need Christ. Let me know when you can fulfill everything in red letters…

      • Fredric Dennis Williams

        Andrew. You seem angry. Jesus taught us to love. More than a billion people today — and uncounted billions before — sought, to the best of their ability, to follow his teachings and those handed down for centuries before his birth.

        Anger produces violence, and violence does no one good. There is great wisdom in this Book, including the advice to each of us that before we take a speck out of another person’s eye, we first remove the log from our own.

  • Ramona Lowe

    I spent years and years in fundamentalism where the bible is held as poster Matt describes. It was uncomfortable because the bible was worshipped in itself as if it were a fourth part of the holy trinity. But it’s not. All parts of the bible are not equal and do not carry the same weight and meaning. Almost all bible thumpers have no idea of how the book they cherish came to exist in this form and what the contexts were when each part was written. I like bluecenterlight’s statement that “the bible minus christ makes us horrible”–that gives me great food for thought, and great reason to hope. Yes, I am an Christian, and yes, I think the bible is a holy book for inspiration and instruction. But it is not inerrant. And whether we admit it or not ,everyone–let me emphasize that, EVERYONE–selects the verses that he/she holds close and which to reason away. Trying to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

    • Jimmy Spencer Jr

      Amen :)

    • Digger

      Which verses are wrong? Please don’t merely tell me, “lots of them.” I’d really like to have some examples of the verses that are incorrect. Thanks.

      • Andres Fernando Leon

        Well I have specifically one. Deuteronomy 22:15.. It tells how you have to kill a woman if she isn’t virgin at the moment of marriage.
        17 Now
        he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a
        virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her
        parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town
        It is scientifically and anatomically proven that not all women bleed when they have sex for the first time. The hymen can even be broken in events of stretching the body or heavy exercise. So there you do have an error.
        The bible doesn’t lose its great power and I still have great reverence to it. I believe is not literal and it has spiritual language that’s all.

        • Dave

          Andres, Dt 22:15 is not wrong. It was the standard of the era 3,000 to 5,000 years ago. Life was cheaper, and certainly not balanced or reasonable. Dt 22:15 has 0 validity today; spiritually, civilly or socially. It shows man can grow, and Jesus would have said it has been replaced. To apply Dt 22:15 today would be a gross.

          • Andres Fernando Leon

            Exactly. I agree with some part. I can agree with you that is not wrong. But then it just confirms to me that the whole bible cant be taken literally and that is more complex than we think.

          • freethinkerbob

            i agree, very complex and you would think an all powerful loving father would give us clear direction. Even look at these posts, we cant agree so wouldn’t it be wise to come and reveal the truth to each of us as he did to so many in the biblical times. I guess he wanted it clear as mud so we could have 100;s of Christian denominations and then all the other religions to just to confuse us more. I know i know his master plan. not his will.

          • kbatku

            Yeah, just like the prohibitions against gay sex were “the standard’ way back when. The Bible can’t be the inerrant, unchanging word of God AND a list of outdated “laws” at the same time. Either the laws are ageless and inerrant, or they aren’t. If they aren’t, then their inclusion in The Bible was a mistake, and God doesn’t make mistakes – right?

          • Kenneth Vaughan

            Well homosexuality is also in the New Testament, but I think your argument is based on false premises. Just because they were laws introduced to Israel, does not mean that they were originally intended to be permanent laws. In fact the Old Testament tells us that God would establish us a New Covenant in Jeremiah 31

            A New Covenant

            31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,[a] says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

            35 Thus says the Lord,
            Who gives the sun for a light by day,
            The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
            Who disturbs the sea,
            And its waves roar
            (The Lord of hosts is His name):

            36 “If those ordinances depart
            From before Me, says the Lord,
            Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
            From being a nation before Me forever.”

            37 Thus says the Lord:

            “If heaven above can be measured,
            And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
            I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
            For all that they have done, says the Lord.

            38 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that the city shall be built for the Lord from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 The surveyor’s line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. 40 And
            the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the
            fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate
            toward the east, shall be holy to the Lord. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever.”

            You are presupposing that everything that was written for the Israelites to do, was initially intended to apply to all societies forever. If God intended for a new covenant to be established, which He clearly did, then there is no contradiction or challenge to the doctrine of inerrancy.

        • Amonite

          Actually, most blood comes from first intercourse itself/stretching – not from the breaking of the hymen. Girls back then did not have tampons, the main cause of pre-stretching that there is today, nor did they engage in heavy sports. Extensive walking, carrying, bending, chores, etc – yes, but not heavy sports.

          Also, if she had had sex before marraige she could have *married* the man. If she’d been raped in a situation she couldn’t do anything about, he would have been killed. The problem in this situation was that she had come to marraige *pretending* to be a virgin.

          Since the preservation of jewish geneology/the bloodline depended on absolute purity without any chance of ‘lovechilds’, so to speak, this was a legal descision. A woman or man who could not trace their anscestry could not marry amongst the jewish people!

          This is even more important when you get to the purpose behind it – that the jewish people were set apart, a holy people, and Jesus was to be of the lineage of King David.

          This care of the physical lineage was a physical type showing us the spiritual care we are to take in our ‘spiritual lineage’, so to speak. There is God the Father, Christ the Firstborn Son, then us as God’s adopted children. Then we go out into the world, bringing more people into the kingdom who become the children of God – “be fruitful and multiply”. We keep our purity in Christ. Note how hard it is sometimes to tell christians from non-christians, even within a church, something adressed frequently in the NT. That happens when the church does not treat marraige to Christ as Holy and Pure, and tries to mix it with the world and satan, and still expects to create holy and pure offspring.

        • tom sellier

          The Law attempts to bring order to chaos. Much as the carnal world hates it but immorality is against the Law and civil society and therefore must be dealt with.

          • Andres Fernando Leon

            so you would stone to death your teen sister, cousin or daughter just because a rule has to be followed?
            Do you think that is actually a way to show love and compassion!

          • tom sellier

            No. But you using your 21st century point of view on a situation that happened hundreds of years before Jesus shows your naivete.

          • Anonymous

            Christ, as God, transcends all time. Justifying the stoning of disobedient children (Leviticus) as being “appropriate to that time” rings very hollow.

          • tom sellier

            There are many children today who are cronic disobedient to their parents. Who are constantly in trouble with the law. Who abuse their parents and other people. They are untrustworthy and a good stoning would do them and society a service.

          • kbatku

            Yes, death to disobedient children! I remember where Jesus taught about that, and where he mentioned selling your daughter into slavery, and where he celebrated killing infants by bashing their heads into the rocks. Jesus was a cruel, vindictive, evil man! Too bad all these misinformed Christians think his message was about love and kindness and forgiveness. What are they thinking???

          • tom sellier

            I see critical thinking isn’t part of your repertoire kbatku

          • kbatku

            I can see that replying to what I said isn’t part of yours, so back atcha Tom.

          • tom sellier

            Not my problem you do not know your Old Testament Law as ordained by angels.

          • Amonite

            Are you saying God is not just when he upholds the sentence of damnation for those who reject Him? These were children who outright rejected the authority of their parents and willingly rebelled. If you do not consider God just in enforcing the law (which was given 420 years after the promise to Abraham) – then you have no basis with which to accept the free salvation of Christ which exonerates us before a just and loving God.

          • kbatku

            Yes, all the laws on how to treat your slaves still apply, right?

        • Sheri Whispers

          Thats a funny example. Heres a thought for you to ponder, Deut. is filled with laws why ? Fast forward to Paul I did not know sin (death) EXCEPT the law taught it. I find it odd how you give a todays spin on an old testament law which was given in order to show the need of Jesus for no man was perfect by adhering to the letter of the law. You can pick apart that old black book an think you have found salvation an are more lost then anyone.Sad really

          • dorise

            Mose gave us the10 commandments, and also the oral law how to live it. Like laws about food, feasts, and the oral changed with times, the written 10 commandments never changed. the oral law was 613. but add 6+1+3=10.
            we need to understand the old Testament to understand the new, Jesus and the all who wrote in New Testament were Jews, you can’t translate the Hebrew they spoke in Greek. when Jesus died on the cross He said My God my god why have you forsaken Me. find the word in Greek, than find it in Hebrew, Now why after Jesus’s obedience would God live Him?? Hebrew says God fortified Him gave Him strength to do what He chose to do.

        • Amonite

          Which spiritually symbolizes how anyone who is not a virgin spiritually (pure, washed clean by Christ) and who is found after marriage to the lamb to have a blood covenant with slavery to sin instead of God, will be thrown outside where there is gnashing of teeth. It is similar to the parable of the king who invites various groups to his wedding feast, but at the feast one of the guests is found to not be wearing wedding clothes.

          Furthermore, there is no ‘medical error’ with that. Ancient Israelite girls did not have tampons or pap smears, nor did they engage in heavy sports. Some of their work was heavy (gleaning in fields, carrying water, etc), but not at the level of activity that would cause the hymen to tear.

          About the only case where it would be a problem would be if the girl was born without a hymen or had a very bad fall that broke it (a very rare problem, and we have no data on occurrence rates in ancient Israel). However, as some of the blood from first intercourse comes from surrounding tissue, then the girl would still likely experience bleeding.

          Lastly, the elders and judges had some leeway in deciding individual cases. This is a passage about how the parents can come in and use the wedding cloth to prove virginity: it does not mean they cannot bring other proofs of her virginity. Notice, Deut 22:15 “If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found”. The man still had to prove his case (not on slander alone, witnesses could be brought for her or against her to show character or opportunity).

        • Stan Greer

          Most of the comments here have another explanation. It’s true the bible was given by God for correction, reprove, and instruction. However, it has cultural innuendos for the time and obviously can’t be taken literally. Most Christians act like sponges and trust the pastor to be the only interpreter when it’s really the holy spirit’s job. There’s a lot we don’t know and theologians often cross the line interpreting it only one way. Someday we’ll find out how wrong most were in different things. That’s why we have all the boxes we call “denominations” and condemnation of other faiths who have the bible. We’re all going to be surprised when we “evangelicals” see Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics and Jews in heaven since God looks on the heart and we don’t.

          • Andres Fernando Leon

            I love your comment. Very wise. I guess in the end we will realize the whole truth.

      • Logo

        How about the ones about raping women?

        • Digger

          Which verses “about raping women” are wrong, and what is wrong with them?

    • Daniel Olson

      Ramona, I remember using that phrase “fourth person in the trinity” in the same manner. Christ is Holy, The Father is Holy. The spirit is Holy. Scripture is good and useful. I have come to accept that everyone “picks and chooses”. Even me. But I’m encouraged that i don’t have to understand what every scripture means.

      • Kenneth Vaughan

        It’s not really picking and choosing for me, as it wrestling to understand certain verses. It does not make them any less true.

    • Josh

      2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” The Bible is inerrant because the it is God-breathed, so the Holy Spirit inspired every Word of that wonderful book. And every bit of it is useful for the Christian life! If we’re wise and rightly divide the Word of God, more difficult passages make sense in the light of God’s plan unfolding through History.

      • Andres Fernando Leon

        I wish I truly believe that but unfortunately my reasonable mind doesn’t let me. I still believe the bible has spiritual language and not all is aplicable

        • Amonite

          If you mean ‘not every passage is meant to be taken literally (or, primarily literally’ – then yes. The Bible has layers, and in general has both literal and symbolic meaning. (Such as the physical, temporary traveling tabernacle of the Israelites where God’s glory would descend and come down that was replaced by a Temple in Jerusalem symbolically representing our ‘temporary’ physical bodies in which the Holy Spirit resides, which one day will be replaced by glorified, permanent bodies who will forever dwell in the presence of God. Or, the literal, physical High priest merely being the type for Christ, our actual High priest). Most parables, while they may offer some practical knowledge or advice (like it’s not wise to sew new patches on old garments) – are simply using common knowledge or stories as devices to describe deeper meanings.

          Every part of scripture *is* useful and applicable. It is not all going to be applicable ‘in the same way’. Some will be practical advice for life on earth, some will help with a closer walk with Jesus, some will give a firmer foundation to faith, etc. (And actually, any growth in a moral such as knowledge or virtue or faith is simply part of growing in relationship with Christ, per II Peter 1). The old testament laws can seem ‘irrelevant’ now that the antetype for much of the old law has come – but we learn much of Christ by studying the type, and much of God’s character by studying the law. Also, it builds faith the more one studies as the amazing detail of connections is seen (for example, the passover rules and regulations – bringing in the spotless lamb who was to be sacrificed into the household on the tenth of Nissan – Jesus’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem (the household) was on the tenth of Nissan! (Not a Sunday, by the way) And he fulfilled the other regulations for the passover.

          • Andres Fernando Leon

            I love the wisdom you used to approach this complex topic. Yes I agree with you. The bible makes us grow. I have to recall a quote from Soren Kierkeegard: “Prayer does not change God, but it changes him who prays.”
            Be blessed

          • Kristine Rowland

            He also said

            “Folk efterspørger ytringsfriheden som en kompensation for tankefrihed, som de sjældent bruger.”

            ;) ;p

          • Dante Prudente

            You poor mixed up people. Yes Jesus is called the lamb of God and his death was seen as the final sacrificial act however this does NOT mean that the triumphant entry has to be on a date set in accordance Jewish law. Did Jewish law dictate that Jesus was to be sacrificed on the Passover? NO. We are not Jews. This is another point some Gnostics (and even Peter himself until god opened his eyes…) tried to push… that all the Jewish laws must still be upheld. No only Christian Jews were still doing that however even they were realised from that obligation through Jesus. Although no one will stop those who whish to continue to practice this.

          • Amonite

            Who said anything about upholding jewish laws? It’s new testament scripture that outlines the timeline very clearly (once preconceptions and forced dates to match with pagan customs are set aside). Those times coincide with certain dates under the law (the lamb being brought in on the tenth, the timing of Jesus’ passover meal, the passover sacrifice, the first fruits offering, etc). That is because the jewish laws and rituals were a type (a forshadowing of things to come). Jesus is the antetype (the fulfillment). Of course we do not have to follow jewish laws, Jesus fulfilled the law! That doesn’t mean we have to ignore that they were ever there, as examining them gives a further understanding of the intricacies and meaning of Christ’s true sacrifice.

          • Dante Prudente

            Truthfully…I felt like you were advocating keeping Jewish dates, festivals thus observance of the Law when you seemingly slagged Christianity for commemorating the triumphant entry on Palm Sunday as if this was some how incorrect? So called red letter Christians reject most of the New Testament and thus cannot truly be called Christians for reasons I have expressed elsewhere on this page. I am glad you agree all scripture is useful for learning I do to. So many here rail about Christianity that I cannot see them as Christians (incl. yourself) and find they babble constantly in in error the same ways as Gnostics did. Paul’s letter t(s)o Timothy were not talking about the Gospels (as they were not even written yet) or even his own letters as the corpus of writing in the NT was not even complied either! He was talking about the OT (Tanakh) and against certain pesudipegraphic works such as the Boos of Enoch that Gnostics used.

            Nevertheless let’s look at the Palm Sunday being six days before the 10th of Nissan hypothesis: shall we

            Only the Gospel of St. John records the 6 days before the Passover timetable. Matthew, Mark and Luke offer no specific timetable. Mark 14 mentions a plot two days before the festival… while Luke only mentions the plot while Matthew is silent and since there is no timeframe in these the synoptic gospels for the triumphant entry this plot date has little relation. John mentions no plot either.

            Now…. John 12:1 says that 6 days before the Passover (or the 10th of Nissan) Jesus entered Bethany NOT Jerusalem So yes this would have been a Thursday as Jesus was crucified on a Friday just before the Sabbath began that evening. Since he ate dinner there (John 12:2) he was there till Saturday and it was not until the next day after that John 12:12 says Jesus entered Jerusalem (Sunday) and they lay down the palms.
            So excuse me but the timing works out perfectly to a Sunday.
            End of story.

            Please learn to read your NT and Gpspels more carefully and stop misleading people with your anti-organized religion (anti-traditional Christianity) gnostic beliefs.

            They say Catholics don’t read the bible…? You’ve got to be kidding! Looks like you and all so called red letter (alleged) Christians (non denominational etc) are the ones who can’t read.

            Like I say Gnostics you are all modern Gnostics and not Christians.

            Btw why are you called Amonite? Do you not have a name? Why not Philistine or Legion? Works as well a Amonite?

            Usually people who use pseudonyms are hiding their identity for a reason.

            I use my real name I am not hiding I am not afraid. I speak the truth. I will pray for you (…and myself too as it doesn’t hurt).

          • Amonite

            ???? The triumphal entry WAS the tenth of nissan, not six days before it. (The meal in Bethany was six days before passover though – rather, before the second passover. There were two passover days (The first, original passover day on the 15th which Jesus ate his meal ate the very beginning of and died before the end and which doubled as the preparation day for Passover and the first of the days of unleavened bread, and the 16th which was the day after his death, also Passover and the first day of the Feast of Unleavened bread on which Mary/Martha rested because it was a High Sabbath). [The women bought spices the next day (17th) and prepared them (an activity which took most of the day), then rested on the next which was the normal Sabbath]. It’s far too complex to get into on the internet, unfortunately, as there are dozens of NT scriptures that adress it and at least a basic understanding of how passover and the other feast days were conducted at that time is required).

          • Dante Prudente

            I did not want to get into a long technical explanation or argument but I guess this whole issue needs addressing so… let’s start by asking why does Easter change each year? Why does Easter Sunday fall anywhere between March 22 andApril 25 each uear? And why do Eastern Orthodox churches celebrate Easter on a different day than Western churches?

            These are all good questions and relate to your obsessive disposition about Passover being the 15th of Nissan and they all have answers that require a bit of explanation. In fact, there are as many misunderstandings about the calculation of Easter dates, as there are reasons for the confusion. As Christians we no longer tie Easter to the Jewish calendar
            exclusively as we did back in the earliest days of the Church. Nor do we needto because although Easter did occur after a Passover feast and there is theological association with Jesus as the Pascal lamb and final sacrifice for sin…the Passover IS NOT the basis of our religion and faith.

            Today in Western Christianity, Easter is always celebrated on the Sunday immediately following the Paschal Full Moon date of the year. Prior to 325 A.D Easter was celebrated on the Sunday immediately following the first full moon after the vernal (spring) equinox. However beginning in 325 A.D withthe Council of Nicea, the Western Church decided to establish a more
            standardized system for determining the date of Easter.

            In actuality, the date of the Paschal Full Moon is determined from historical tables, and has no correspondence to lunar events. As astronomers were able to approximate the dates of all the full moons in future years, the Western Christian Church used these calculations to establish a table of Ecclesiastical Full Moon dates. These dates would determine the Holy Days on the Ecclesiastical calendar.

            Though modified slightly from its original form, by 1583 A.D. the table for determining the Ecclesiastical Full Moon dates was permanently established and has been used ever since to determine the date of
            Easter. Thus, according to the Ecclesiastical tables, the Paschal Full Moon is the first Ecclesiastical Full Moon date after March 20 (which happened to be the vernal equinox date in 325 A.D.). So, in Western Christianity, Easter is always celebrated on the Sunday immediately following the Paschal Full Moon. The Paschal Full Moon can vary as much as two days from the date of the actual full moon, with dates ranging from March 21 to April 18. As a result, Easter dates can range from March 22 through April 25 in Western Christianity.

            Historically, Western churches used the Gregorian Calendar to calculate the date of Easter and Eastern Orthodox churches used the Julian Calendar. This was partly why the dates were seldom the same. Easter and its related holidays do not fall on a fixed date in either the Gregorian or Julian calendars, making them movable holidays. The dates, instead, are based on a lunar calendar very similar but NOT the same as the Hebrew Calendar nor need they be – WE ARE NOT JEWS and our faith is distinct from the Jews both then and now..

            While some Eastern Orthodox Churches not only maintain the date of Easter based on the Julian Calendar which was in use during the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., they also use the actual, astronomical full moon and the actual vernal equinox as observed along the meridian of Jerusalem. This complicates the matter, due to the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar, and the 13 days that have accrued since A.D. 325. This means, in order to stay in line with the originally established (325 A.D.) vernal equinox, Orthodox Easter cannot be celebrated before April 3 (present day Gregorian calendar), which was March 21 in A.D. 325.

            Additionally, in keeping with the rule established by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, the Eastern Orthodox Church adhered to the tradition that Easter must always fall after the Jewish Passover, since the resurrection of Christ happened after the celebration of Passover. Eventually the Orthodox Church came up with an alternative to calculating Easter based on the Gregorian calendar and Passover, and developed a 19-year cycle, as opposed to the Western Church’s 84-year cycle. They sort of had the same idea to fix the problem however I don’t know why they just couldn’t use 84 year cycle and be done with it and keep Christian unit. I personally don’t care which we use as long as we commemorate the death and resurrection. Since the days of early
            church history, determining the precise date of Easter has been a matter for continued argument.

            Now as for you 2 Passovers since I am not a Jew I had NEVER heard about it so I had to do some digging. My research revealed that only American Jews observe two Passovers. In the Torah, only the first and seventh days of Passover are full holidays and the commandments associated with the seder are to be observed only on the first night. The first night of Passover always falls on the fifteenth day of the month of Nisan.

            In ancient times, the beginning of a new lunar month had to be determined by direct observation of the new moon. Among Jews, the only observation that was “official” was the one certified by the authorities in Jerusalem. This was necessary to make sure that all Jews observed the same calendar dates. However, many Jewish communities, including the large Jewish community in Babylon, could not reliably get word from Jerusalem about the day of the new moon before the holiday began on the fifteenth day of the month. For this reason, Jewish communities outside the land of Israel adopted the practice of observing an extra day of the pilgrimageholidays (Passover, Shavuot, Sukkot and Sh’mini Atzeret), just in case they had gotten the date of the new moon wrong.

            This practice for Jews outside the land of Israel continued even after mathematical models made it possible to calculate the date of the new moon. It is still the practice of Orthodox and Conservative Jews living outside of Israel. The practice has nothing to do with providing an extra seder or as you called it… 2 Passovers. But this did NOT happen at the time of Jesus as they were already IN ISRAEL. Your 2nd cedar is bullshit and non applicable. There is truly only on cedar. In the 19th century, the Reform movement abolished this practice of “Yom Tov Sheni,” “The Second Day of the Holiday,” because the reason for its creation no longer existed. For this reason, Reform Jews — inside and outside the land of Israel — usually observe only one seder. There are many “midrashic” explanations for the second seder. They make great sermons, but the historical explanation follows the outline above.

            Now back to the Passover the 15th of Nisan and Christian Triumphant entry and Sunday. You may want to ramble on about crap like Christianity is based on now paganism and Sun worship and all kinds of nonsense
            like this put out by the Illuminati, anti-Christians, even some Jews, modern Gnostic type heresies and the like. But the truth is one reason Sunday is so prominent is because (as I tried to point out before), The last supper occurred at a Passover dinner (sedar) that fell on a year that it immediately preceded the Sabbath which begins on a Friday of our modern Gregorian calendars. Jesus was crucified thus on a Friday and rose on a Sunday (3 days later). If you count back 6 days from the Passover at that time in history which thus fell on a Thursday (again of
            our modern calendar days) you get a Friday which would have been the 11 of Nissan. Jesus did not enter Jerusalem until Sunday as he stayed the night in Bethany then a day teaching. The gospel of Jon says he left the next day after teaching the crowds there so that makes the triumphant entry happened NOT on the 11th of Nissan but rather the 13th of Nissan!

            If we followed the Jewish calendar the dates would constantly change. The Church made the right decision in setting the dates for Easterthe way they dis. We are NOT JEWs and we are NOT celebrating the Passover of
            the Jews but a sort of NEW PASSOVER of the NEW COVENANT (in a way) with Jesusas our NEW and FINAL Pascal Lamb. It is a new religion and a final religion. Please keep in mind that the Jewish religion today has changed since thedestruction of the 2nd temple and was different more still during the 1st and even prior to that! Religion is a living expression and our God is the God of the living NOT the dead.

            As for Judiazers (like yourself perhaps) Yes there were those but some were also Gnostics included among those trying to usurp authority and if you read the details of Paul’s letter you will see this is true. Even the doubting Thomas story clearly lends testimony to this. I will not argue what you have said about what some Gnostic believed you are correct. However if you apply many of the details to what you have laid on about them they will correspond to much of what modern-day don denominational so called Christians teach! Of course these are plentiful and vary drastically in many details but the ALLhave the same traits including, dissention against the existence of the mother churches and the authority of “Apostolic” teachings. They spread lies about the teaching of church authority and even create myths about Christ and God usingextracanonical writings (Enoch and such) even saying that the Gospels are created by man (myths basically) and only the words of Christ matter.

            The Gospel of Thomas is very similar in some saying (about 20-30 percent) to the source doc for the synoptic Gospels scholars call Q. So for ALL THESE REASONS I call them all MODERN GNOSTICS. These Gnostics including the teaching of Arius, Valentinus and others were all purged at the council of Nicea. There IS NOTHING man made or pagan inspired about the council of Nicea and the Unification of Christianity. It was GOD INSPIRED and the “triumph of Christianity” So called Red letter and other such dissenter and sectarian christens are their heirs. This includes people who call themselves “followers of Christ”… they are Modern Gnostics EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. You are educated and cleaver (as ancient Gnostics usually were) I will give you that but modern Gnostic none the less. I am sure you will have more bullcrap to retort back mixing facts with lies and distorting truth and history just as the Gnostics did. I really don’t have time for it so sell it to the tourists buddy.

            Lastly I apologize for my miscalculation of Jewish month dates and festivals but as I have said 1) I am NOT a Jew but a Christian and 2)I was quite busy and occupied the last 4-5 days with a flew on top of it all
            and simple mistakes a do happen.

            God bless all traditional and faithful Christians, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. I am still praying for red letter, non-denominational, sectarian (Jehovah witnesses, 7th day Adventists, Mormons etc etc etc all the spin off heretical sects and cults including red letter) Christians and the like. So blab all you like Amonite…. (Whoever in HELL that is or you are demon or man). The devil is a chained dog all you can do it bark. Those you deceive will be lost and that’s an unfortunate reality…..
            Even God is sad at this.

          • Amonite

            ” In the Torah, only the first and seventh days of Passover are full holidays”

            I believe you are referring to the Feast of Unleavened Bread (a seven day festival right after Passover, the first and last day of which were High Sabbaths irregardless of when the normal Sabbath fell). The first High Sabbath of the Feast of unleavened bread was treated as Passover as well, and people could choose to eat the lamb then. (this had to deal with different calculation times by the pharisees and sadducees, so people chose the day they kept the feast on). By the time of Jesus, Passover + The Feast of Unleavened bread together were called “Passover” as a generic title. The 14th, Passover #1, was not a sabbath, though it was a preparation day for Passover #2, which was a High Sabbath. The entire 8 days (also referred to as “the days of unleavened bread”) were a sacred holiday for the jews, though only a few days were Sabbaths (The high sabbath and the normal sabbath).

            Keeping these feasts, no longer as a requirement, but with their meaning in Christ continued to be done by the disciples, Paul, etc well into the third century before such things were banned by the Catholic Church.

          • Dante Prudente

            Blah blah blah more modern gnostic anti-Catholic anti-Church garbage…. the Catholic Church did not ban anything. Orthodox Christians still kept these dates too but eventually had to change them for the same reasons. LOl even Jews encountered the same issue. My previous post explains the historical and technical basis of the matter for all three. Go learn. We are Christians YOU are NOT. As Christians it is about the passion of Christ and the events that took place and NOR about keeping Jewish festivals. Us Christians opposed you then (1st century) and WE oppose you now. Never mind your nonsense. Goa s a Rabbi if there are two Passovers He and will tell you no. The reasons for this are also laid out above. Please learn to read. The original day of the triumphant entry occurred on what would have been a Sunday of our Gregorian calendar… CASE CLOSED.

          • Amonite

            At the risk of sounding like a broken record: You do not have to keep the jewish feasts.

            By the same token, no one has to keep the catholic ‘christianized’ pagan days like May Day, Lent, Lady Day, Christmas, Easter, Advent, All Saints Day, etc.

            In fact, one of the reasons the pilgrims came to america was for the freedom to NOT celebrate such days.

            Constantine did not unify the church, CHRIST unified the church. We follow Christ, not the traditions of man. Even in the time of Paul, traditions brought in by various gnostic sects, and in other areas by the judiazers, and in other areas by the mix of paganism and christianity, were already tainting the church. You could indeed say I am anti-catholic (not against catholics themselves, but the organized religion) as it minimizes Christ, introduces many things contrary to scripture (veneration of saints, idolatry, confessing to priests, etc) and muddles up the gospel message. At it’s extremes in the past, it has offered forgiveness through payment (rather than Christ) and claimed that the church is the universal sacrament of salvation (rather than Christ) and that grace comes through the liturgy of the church. [The history of avidly persecuting and killing millions of christians in the past doesn’t help it]. Wheras the Bible advocates we test everything through the spirit and the word, the catholic church sets up the pope as ‘vicar of Christ’ and claims infallibility. [I could go on, but this isn’t a discussion on how the Catholic church has kept people from the pure gospel].

            As for passover, there is only one passover that God appointed (Nissan 14th) but that was not held to over time, hence why many celebrated on the 15th, hence why there were two days that different groups kept passover on by the time of Christ (and the entire Feast of Unleavened Bread was called passover, mostly because the men were required to come to Jerusalem for the Feast of Unleavened bread, and Passover was right before it. Even today, the 14th vs 15th debate rages in some circles. (Which is a fairly meaningless debate for christians, though I suppose of interest to history).

            What day someone keeps is up to their own conscience and walk with God. You cannot force others to keep that day. Even the jewish days, appointed by God – these are not forced on us due to our freedom of Christ. Is God then going to approve of man forcing new days that men made up on other Christians? Of course not! Even a return to slavery of the perfect law removes us from grace, how much more so embracing slavery to imperfect man.

          • Dante Prudente

            There are no catholic “Christianised” pagan days come back to reality and stop “preaching” this freemasonic mythological pseudo-history of religion… Christian is the correct word (you are right about that) for these holy days in the Church calendar…. “Christians’ keep these Holy days YOU are not a Christian you are a modern gnostic or heretic an ‘Amonite’ (lol) and well… you might was well be a pagan…in fact you are. Your talk is all bullshit.

          • Kristine Rowland

            “Blah blah blah”

            Christ was never dismissive or condescending.

          • Amonite

            Side topic: It was the judiazers who were infiltrating christianity and insisting that people be more jewish – some groups actually said you had to be circumcised to be a christian, others thought it would make one a “better christian” – both of which were heresies subverting the church.

            Gnosticism is a different can of worms, there were many variations on it. However, most had the standard underlying form that “what is immaterial is spiritual, what is material is evil”. They also had in common the idea that a person was slowly initiated into the mysteries of a god (or in this case, God) by rituals and traditions overseen by a fellow worshiper who was more ‘in the know’. All sorts of sins, idolatry, and rebellion was brought in because of this. Some advocated that marraige was evil, some elevated women above men and treated men as inferior, some still participated in pagan rites, etc. It was because of the gnostic influences that the Corinthian church didn’t care that a man was sleeping with his mother, and the churches at Ephesus and Pergumum got intertwined with the gnostic Nicolaitans and antimonianism.

            How one keeps a feast day is now meaningless, just like circumscision is meaningless. One can keep a jewish day or not, but it is not going to affect one’s salvation. Paul and many jewish christians of the early church did choose to keep the jewish days, but not from any sense of requirement. One can also keep secular days according to one’s own conscience being led by the Spirit.

            However, what man has no right to do is claim “God approves/appointed this new/refurbished day of man so everyone must keep it” (syncretism) or “I can do whatever I want under grace, so long as I “feel” it right, even sin is ok” (gnosticism, antimonianism).

            As such, both people who demand that the jewish feast days be kept, and people who demand that christmas be kept are both in the wrong (in different ways).

            [Also, I’m not a red-letter christian, I’m just a follower of Christ. Not everyone who posts on this site is a “red letter christian” as per their definition].

          • Dante Prudente

            I have replied fully to this and the issue of 15th of Nissan below. What is written above is essentially true in points only. Gnostic is a name we give to them they did not use it and it can cover a variety of beliefs… including Judiazers as there were Gnostic Jews too who advocated keeping the Jewish law and customs… their heirs today are certain Kabbalistic Jews who are also Gnostics. Gnosis in Greek simply means “knowledge” however it is the same meaning behind the notion of the Illuminati or Illuminated knowledge was also was promised by the serpent in the garden of Eden. It is a false knowledge and teaching and it is what the Gnostics taught and is still the basis of the modern Gnostics that I speak of. It is also hell bent on dividing Christianity, through dissent and lies, watering it down for the replacement of a New Religion for a New World Order. Freemasonry and other initiatory societies have played a large roll in this. So in this sense it is that I calim that red letter and all other so called “Christ followers” are nothing but modern Gnostics or Illuminati NWO based Churches and teachings.

          • Scot Fourowls

            @ Amonite – Yes indeed! There’s subtle anti-Semitism in Christians refusing to understand Torah and the Jewish scriptures. My Christian pastor just preached a three-Sunday series on Habakkuk that was the best thing ever for the times in which we are living. Also who can understand what Jesus said about giving the shirt and the cloak/coat unless he’s read in Torah about a Jewish lender being required to give back a cloak/coat at night (because many debtors had no other night covering) when the lender has required the cloak/coat as a pledge? The shirt/cloak teaching of Jesus in the gospels would shame to a better realization the lender who doesn’t love his brother by requiring the cloak pledge in the first place. This teaching of Jesus, in completion and enhancement of Torah, not replacement of it, is not about masochism but about relationship! Similarly, when other gospel teachings are read in connection with Torah. Maybe if more Christians read Torah (the front part of their Bible) they would actually understand what Jesus taught as His only true way in the gospels and not have to punt the easy and erroneous way out by over-privileging what their human pastors misunderstand (or worse, knowingly practice as anti-Semitism and misogyny) about Paulinism.

          • Dante Prudente

            Christians read the Torah. I guess you are not a Christian to know that. We call it the Old Testament not “the front part of the Bible”. The Law (Torah) was fulfilled in Jesus Christ as was the word of the Prophets). Christians are a new creation in Christ – the new Adam (please see Paul’s Letter to the Hebrews for more). We (Christians) are not bound by the Jewish Sabbath as being the 7th day of the week. 1 day out of 7 to rest and keep Holy is all that is required by the Law (most of you must not have read the Torah at all let alone correctly).

            The Israelites did this on the 7th day NOT Saturday. In ancient times
            there were no named days of the week. Sunday (really the 1st day of the
            week) is the Lords (Jesus’) day and so we Christians do keep the
            Sabbath day (1 day out of every 7) but we do it on the very day our Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead (the 1st day of the week the day after the traditional Jewish Sabbath). This is the day His work was thus completed through His resurrection and thus when the new Covenant began. We celebrate his as did St Paul and the Churches he established, the Apostles and the early Christians (as testified historically by Pliny the younger). If you can’t understand this you are not a Christian.

            It’s really that simple.

          • NorCal Native

            The Torah is the Five Books of Moses, “the front part of the Bible,” not the entire Old Testament. The entire Old Testament is the Tanakh. If you are going to criticize someone’s position, make sure yours is correct.

            To be a Christian means to place full trust in Jesus Christ as Savior, and desire to follow Him. That’s it. No further requirements. To claim otherwise is churchianity falsehood.

          • Dante Prudente

            You are correct the Pentatuch is the Torah 1st 5 books of the OT and bible however I did NOT say that the OT was called the Torah only the 1 st part of the OT In reference to amother commentior ķwho called it that. Please read more carefully. You missed the entire point of my comment.

            Finally you creed of “belief only” makes no logical sence. You claim that to be a christian all you have to do is a) put full faith in Jesus as “the savior” & b) have a “desire” to follow him. This is exactly what ancient christian gnostics said to.

            How can one follow Jesus if you have nothing to follow having rejected the Gospel natatives and reduced His teachings (the narrative Godpels) to mere “savings” like the gnostic Gospel of Thomas? Without the Gospel narratives to tell the Gospel and passion how can have any knowledge of his salvific role.

            How can one follow Him if they have nothing to follow just sayings in red. No Gospel narratives telling of his life and teachings and most of all of his passion that is paramount to believing in his role as Messiah /Christ and by this I mean Saviour (and before you miss the point again, yes I know Messiah & Christ mean annointed).

            Full “faith” in Jesus as “saviour” could mean anything without the Gospel naratives and Epistles to tell you what the Real Christians beleived. Gnostics said the same as you then taught all kinds of other things about Jesus and NOT what our Christian Gospels taught.

            What good is this “desire” to follow him if you hsve nothing to follow since you reject the narratives replacing them with mere sayings and reject also the pastoral Epistles that define what following Jesus means? You cant even define what you believe in my friend. You teach just as the Gnostics taught. Your faith is empty coz its undefined and has no definition of Jesus salvific role as defined in the traditional complete NT.

            Your definition could mean anything and having a desire to follow but nothing tangible/defined is usless… sorry that’s NOT Christianity… urs not even real faith – that’s Gnosticism.

          • NorCal Native

            You’re arguing against a strawman, not me.

            Perhaps you can “pray the rosary” or worship Mary, and feel “saved” after that.

            For the rest of us, one only need look to Acts 16:31…or the beloved John 3:16. If that’s “Gnosticism,” then you have problems only God can solve.

          • Dante Prudente

            What strawman is that? Notice how you always remive blame from yourself. The thread and my originsl comments were in regard to red letter christians and the similarity to Gnosticism.

            Your 2 biblical quotes have nothing to do with the issue. Yes John 3:16 is the quintessential evangelical quite and you wudh to qualify it through Acts 16:31 but you take it out of context… which is funny coz as a red letter christian Acts realky has no true meaning for you.

            However… even Acts must be qualified by the rest of the NT and not stand alone. Your argument is from silence. Thats not an argument at all… just coz Acts does not go further then an intial statement to a pagan mind you to beleive to be saved – every Christian knows and that to be saved one must first “believe” in Jesus as the Messiah/Christ in accordance with OT prophesy as fulfilment of it. Then ti stay saved ine must live in accordance with Christian teaching otherwise its pointless… otherwise you run the race in vain as Paul says.

            The poor pagan in acts was not familiar with the OT so what good would telling him that do…? Nothing…coz St Paul did not teach a Jewish adherance to faith in Jesus (unlike many non denominationals here on this thread do).

            It is assumed that for him and his household to follow Jesus that they must do it “together”. In fact if you had bothered to read on in acts instead of just isolating 1 verse for you own convience… you’d know Paul and Silas then counciled the Jailer and his household (Acts 16:32) and Baptised them all (Acts 16:33)! Now what council to do think they gave…?

            It can be assumed that he would come to gether with other believers and practice as Paul taught – that is as a church – coz thats what Paul founded; churches complete with a hierarchy, priests deacans bishops and other functions. Pls refer to the Epistles for more instruction. This is what the NT teaches.

            Even the Apostles bound together… as the Jerusalem church and sanctioned Pauls teachings and Churches (read all of acts for more..). Is Paul then a hypocrite? No! But perhaos you are coz only the Gnostics believed and followed what you say.

            As for you cheap sho… ad hominine attacts on me and Catholic (universal christian) practices in of faith such as the rosery… you do so solely to gain a sympathetic war for those misguided beleivers who reject these practices.

            As indicated elsewhere in this tread Catholics DO NOT worship Mary… this is your own mythology. The CCC makes that clear. Try reading it before you accuse Satan does so do you. He is the “accuser”. If you are ignorant of Catholic teaching then you should stay silent as ignorance leads to error and sin.

            Ad hominiecattcts occur when the commenter has lost the argument as you have just as I have show.

            If you can prove that Catholicism us wrong please do so without mythology and in accurate teaching. Refer to the Catechism and not isolated statements but the whole context of the teaching and measure that up to scripture.. and (again not isolated vereses taken out of context) you will find no error in Catholic teaching. I have challenged many to do this and the cannot. Their rhetoric on works when one convolutes scripture or reduces it to isolated sayings.

            But how can you do as I ask above as a so called red letter christian if do not truly believe in all of the NT as scripture! Covienent isn’t it? Your so called faith is a contradiction empty and false based on “desire” (you human wants) not faith (trust)… if you had real faith your believe it all. What you are doing is looking for power and authority for yoursekf. Turn back to the entire scripture and Apostolic teaching on it as a source for your faith in Jesus and not your own desires.

            Lastly if faith in Jesus and a desire to follow Him is all you need to be saved… then Catholics have both so by your own standards they are saved. Yet hypocritcally, coz you disagree on doctrine and some practices you then deny them of their faith?

            Who are you do do that? Nobody… whats more…you have made yourself out to be a hypocrite and a liar contradicting your own faith and teachings at EVERY turn too blinded and puffed up by your own ego (in the words of St Paul) to realise it. Take the log out of your own eye first before you can see clearly to take the speck out of others.

          • NorCal Native

            More assumptions on your part, and therefore, continued argument against strawmen. You pretend to know what I believe, and then attack it.

            Churchians like you are always eager to defend your worldly institutions. Both the rosary and Mary Worship (“veneration,” or whatever weasel-word you wish to use) are both heathen in origin. Your anti-christ (“in place of Christ”) Pope symbolizes all that is wrong with Churchianity. BTW, have you talked to your “father” (priest) this week? (Matthew 23:9)

            As for Matthew 7, may I kindly suggest you practice it before making even one further post here. “Puffed up by my own ego,” LOL. All your posts here are clearly driven by a hot-headed ego.

          • Dante Prudente

            Lol…no straw
            man and no attack on you… You see everything as a personal attack coz of the
            personal (me me me) disposition of your beliefs and character…. I am
            addressing so called red letter Christians and/or non-denominationals ( usually
            red letter also) or as I have pointed out and proved only use snippets of
            scripture usually out of context and ignoring other clarifying scriptural text.
            If that is NOT you then perhaps there is no need to respond? Unless you have
            some hatred of Orthodoxy, which it seems you do, but since this post thread was
            about red letter Christians I wish to stay on topic (unlike you who seems to
            want go off on and toward superficial distractions that you cannot prove). I
            will however address you but then it’s time to move on and get back to the

            You use
            derogatory words like “Churchians” and saying “to venerate” is a “weasel word”
            lol? Why? Coz you resort to ad hominine attacks when proved wrong. You have
            clearly tried to find a statement that we “worship Mary” but have failed. Yes
            most Christians do “venerate” Mary and that is the correct word. “To venerate”
            – a verb : to regard with great “respect”. That is exactly how Mary s/b
            regarded as the Mother of Our Saviour Jesus Christ – with great respect. You
            clearly have no respect for her or Jesus otherwise you would too. Instead you
            abhor her mythologizing her to be worshiped as a goddess to “discredit” both
            orthodox Christianity and Catholics especially for your own benefit – to usurp
            power and authority for yourself. I challenge you to prove that regarding Mary
            with great respect is of Pagan origin.

            You “think” or
            imagine that she is being “prayed to” instead of asking questions and learning
            what we are doing and why. Really I know that you do not care. We ask Mary to
            pray for us just as the most central prayer indicates. When we pray we
            acknowledge Mary’s special place as Elizabeth did quoting scripture from the
            Gospel of Luke (oh yeah red letter Christians only accept Christ’s words in
            read so that makes this of pagan origin? I guess the narrative Gospels are
            pagan for you…?) the we ask her to pray for us acknowledging that we are sinners
            (a main doctrine of Christianity that you seem to skip over) and ASK her to
            pray “for us” TO JESUS/GOD because the prayers of the righteous are powerful
            (according to St Paul… oh but I guess red letter Christians do not
            acknowledges Paul’s teachings unless they can use it for their own gain). You
            see no one prays “to” Mary.

            I cannot see anything “pagan in origin”
            about Mary. If you are referring to paintings of statues of pagan deities with
            children…. lol so what, those pagan deities have nothing to do with Mary or
            her role or character in the Gospels. It is a superficial observation that has
            no evidence to support the conclusion that similar “poses” in art have anything
            to do with theology. Mother Child motifs are common in art it proves or even
            suggests NOTHING. Non believers claim that Jesus has the same “mythology” as
            Horus and Mithras. Of course this is nonsense and if you go back to the Egyptian and Greco-Roman source texts you will
            not find the story of Jesus as revealed by the Gospels… the pagan myth is
            100% different. This pseudo-mythology was introduced by Freemasons re-writing
            history creating their own mythologies. The same has been done of Mary. If you
            believe it about Mary then same should hold true for Jesus. Since your faith is
            not in the Gospel narratives but simply in “belief” in him as “a savior” (just
            like the Gnostics) you have reduced him to a mystery school teacher/god. You
            are as guilty as they are and on the same page. Freemasonry is essentially Gnosticism
            as is the New age Movement.

            As to the term “Father” I will instruct you since you are so poor in
            discernment: A careful examination of the context
            of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be
            understood literally. The whole passage reads, “But you are not to be
            called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no
            man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be
            called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt.

            The first problem is that although Jesus seems to
            prohibit the use of the term “teacher,” in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ
            himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: “Go therefore
            and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them
            to observe all that I have commanded you.” Paul speaks of his commission
            as a teacher: “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a
            teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7); “For this
            gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11).
            He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: “God has
            appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers”
            (1 Cor. 12:28); and “his gifts were that some should be apostles, some
            prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). There
            is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by
            referring so often to others as “teachers.”

            Fundamentalists like you themselves slip up on this point by calling
            all sorts of people “doctor,” for example, medical doctors, as well
            as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What
            they fail to realize is that “doctor” is simply the Latin word for
            “teacher.” Even “Mister” and “Mistress” (“Mrs.”)
            are forms of the word “master,” also mentioned by Jesus. So if his
            words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be
            just as guilty for using the word “teacher” and “doctor”
            and “mister” as Catholics for saying “father.” Clearly this
            is a misunderstanding of Christ’s words due to lack of apostolic instruction
            and faith. But what did Jesus mean then….?

            Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who
            love “the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues
            and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men”
            (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud
            hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.

            He was exaggerating to make a point (known as hyperbole)) to show
            the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly
            to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead
            setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and

            Christ used what we call “ hyperbole”
            often, for example when he declared, “If your right eye causes you to sin,
            pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members
            than that your whole body be thrown into hell” (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark
            9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for
            otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim.
            1:15). We are all subject to “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the
            eyes and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16).

            Since Jesus is demonstrably using
            hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able
            to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and
            with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he
            is saying.

            Jesus is not forbidding us to call
            men “fathers” who actually are such—either literally or spiritually.
            (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such
            people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against
            that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a
            particular kind
            or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

            As the apostolic example shows, some
            individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be
            referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their
            form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme
            protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any
            individual other than God as having these roles.

            Throughout the world, some people
            have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if
            they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment,
            and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into “gurus” is

            This was also a temptation in the
            Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those
            who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted
            by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of
            a “cult of personality” around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he
            warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or

            He is not forbidding the perfunctory
            use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have
            a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows
            us that.

            The Apostles Show the Way

            The New Testament is filled with examples
            of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many
            people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of
            them here.

            Paul regularly referred to Timothy as
            his child: “Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child
            in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17); “To
            Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the
            Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2); “To Timothy, my
            beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our
            Lord” (2 Tim. 1:2).

            He also referred to Timothy as his
            son: “This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the
            prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage
            the good warfare” (1 Tim 1:18); “You then, my son, be strong in the
            grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1); “But Timothy’s worth you
            know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel”
            (Phil. 2:22).

            Paul also referred to other of his
            converts in this way: “To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace
            and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4);
            “I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my
            imprisonment” (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal,
            biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with

            Perhaps the most pointed New
            Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is
            Paul’s statement, “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to
            admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in
            Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel”
            (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

            Peter followed the same custom,
            referring to Mark as his son: “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise
            chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13). The
            apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their
            children. Paul writes, “Here for the third time I am ready to come to you.
            And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children
            ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children” (2
            Cor. 12:14); and, “My little children, with whom I am again in travail
            until Christ be formed in you!” (Gal. 4:19).

            John said, “My little children,
            I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we
            have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John
            2:1); “No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children
            follow the truth” (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his
            congregations as “fathers” (1 John 2:13–14).

            By referring to these people as their
            spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own
            roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual
            fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles
            by calling priests “father.” Failure to acknowledge this is a failure
            to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the
            spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

            Catholics know that as members of a
            parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have
            great filial affection for priests and call them “father.” Priests,
            in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their
            flock as “my son” or “my child” (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim.
            1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).

            All of these passages were written
            under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly
            recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers.
            Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role
            as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us
            in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to
            acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change
            that fact.

            So anyone can see with a little (or a
            lot) of instruction that you are wrong and have tried to “twist” and again take
            scripture “out of context” with no clarification elsewhere in scripture. But
            how could I expect you to do that if you are a red letter Christian who does
            not even accept all of scripture but only the parts that suit your arguments?
            You may “feel” that I am puffed up but that is your bruised ego speaking so
            never mind using “double speak” and trying to put it back on me.

            You are the one who cannot provide evidence and proof of your claims. You are
            the one looking for nonsense to attack Catholicism on in absence of any real
            faith, knowledge or spirituality yourself. Your beliefs or Gnosis (knowledge)
            is based on intellect and intuition just as the Gnostics were. If I speak
            against you and rebuke you it is not I but the Holy Spirit that comes to my aid
            to refute you. I have refuted all your nonsense but you have faith to address
            ANY of my points against you and red letter believers (Gnostics) coz they are
            all true and cannot be refuted. Instead you try to change the topic and go off
            on distracting points.

            Now if you cannot have a civilized
            discussion without resorting to ad hominine attacks and derogatory terms then I
            have had enough of you coz you are truly a waste of time. If you do not want me
            to make “assumptions” about you then please reveal your beliefs (including other
            books outside the bible that you follow as inspired) beyond simple faith that
            Jesus is the Savior and that you have a “desire” to follow Him. Even demons
            acknowledged Jesus as the Christ and “desire” is not enough you must follow correctly (as taught by the Apostolic fathers and Church) and NOT of your own device. I am sure that if you reveal enough all will see that you are neither a “Christian” nor a true follower of Jesus Christ. Your Christ is the New Age Christ who is the Gnostic Christ of Heresy… Sorry.

            PS if you want to continue in the same vain as to regurgitate nonsense you erroneously learned and use ad hominine attacks and slurs go ahead have the last word if you must but remember…. You’ve been proved and even proved yourself WRONG and that’s that.

            God Bless all in Christ Jesus especially His Holy Catholic Church.

          • NorCal Native

            As you are clearly an ideologue interested only in defending Popery, I shall bow out of further “discussion” with you. I trust that you have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and not merely with the Roman institution. If not, please, for your eternal future, heed his words immediately: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Not priests, not the Pope, not pagan rituals. Christ Alone. Catholics can be saved, but being a “good” Catholic does not connote salvation.

        • Lame Liberal Gospel from Hell

          You will be right at home here with the other fake Christians who think they are better then God. I’m so sick of Spoiled Brat Christians.

          • Andres Fernando Leon

            Thank you. You are right. I feel right at home in here. I pray for you and God bless you.

          • tyty

            Rather than having contempt for and bitterness towards other “fake Christians,” perhaps it would be more prudent to have a calm dialogue and ultimately unconditional love for fellow human beings. Otherwise you are also a fake Christian.

          • Your Brother in the Lord

            Exactly. The Bible says the whole Bible is True. Jesus quotes many parts of the Bible most Christians today refuse to acknowledge. I wish more Christians would live a life of love AND keep the WHOLE Word. It’s too easy to believe a lie “Just get rid of some of what God says and be a good person and it will be alright”. It won’t friends. Can you imagine if you only followed 9% of what your boss asked you to do? You’d get fired. Don’t get fired.

          • Steve

            “The Bible says the Bible is True.” That is an example of circular reasoning from Logical Fallacies 101. “…AND keep the WHOLE Word.” Does that mean I should present my rebellious son to the village elders for a public stoning? Believe the Earth was literally created in seven days? How should I “keep” the Book of Revelation? As an allegory written to persecuted Christians 2000 years ago to encourage them to persevere? Or as a prophetic book about dooms day ala the Left Behind series? Do you kind of see what the original poster was getting at?

          • Diana Johnson

            Damn I am wearing a shirt of two different fabrics! Oh by the way pastor NICE SUIT and TIE dude!

          • Scot Fourowls

            Yes, Jesus quoted the Jewish Torah, the Jewish prophets and the Jewish psalms as scripture, and as reported in the gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John based on eye-witness reports of those who knew Jesus during His earthly ministry. But the Bible does not say that the whole Bible is “True,” which is usually thought-stopping code for an argument of biblical inerrancy.

            Instead in a letter attributed from Paul to Timothy that most biblical scholars do not believe Paul actually wrote, Paul or the pseudo-Paul talked about “all scripture” which in context of the time and place meant only Jewish scripture, not Paul or pseudo-Paul’s letters about early church planting.

            The epistles (letters) written by and/or attributed to Paul, Peter and John are certainly of historical and spiritual interest. But at the time Paul, Peter and John wrote non-gospel portions of the Christian additions to the Jewish scriptures — which the Roman Empire did not “canonically” incorporate into the Roman Catholic Bible until the 4th century, more than a millenium before Protestants later split from the Roman Church with most of the Roman Catholic Bible adopted as their own — Paul, Peter and John certainly did not consider their writings to be “scripture.”

            The “scripture” at the time of the earliest Christians was solely the Jewish scripture, augmented by the verbal tradition of the eyewitness reports of those who knew Jesus, heard His teaching, witnessed His crucifixion and also witnessed Him after His resurrection. Some of the earliest Christian pre-liturgy you can see repeated in parts of the Bible’s book of Acts, e.g., Acts 10:36-48.

            Roman Catholics believed not the Bible but the Pope to be infallible. Protestants obviously disagreed about the Pope, opting for a “priesthood of believers” instead. The inerrancy of the Bible (or infallibility aka “all of it is literally true”) was not a formal doctrine espoused by Protestants to any great degree until the late 19th century when, after losing the battle to keep slavery in the American south, American pastors began pushing their theology of biblical inerrancy —mainly targeting women like Sojourner Truth who preached — as to the Paulinst writings for his particular times and places which included some of the earliest churches where women had previously engaged in heretical goddess practices (or were culturally unprepared, by females being denied basic education, to receive the gospel without male instruction).

            Misogyny and Jesus do not belong in the same room.

          • Fred Douglas

            “The Bible is inerrant because the it is God-breathed,” Hold on there. God is described in Genesis 2:7 “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” So, man is “God-breathed.” Man is not inerrant. You cannot logically conclude that something is inerrant just because it is “God-breathed.”

        • dresslikeflowerseatlikebirds

          It used to be so hard for me to surrender my reasoning to God, admitting that his ways are higher than mine, his thoughts are higher than mine. There are so many psychological arguments that can prevent us from taking the leap of faith to trusting God that the Bible is his word from cover to cover. Ultimately, for me, he pushed me to take the leap and I will never regret it. My life, love, and desire for Jesus – to be like him in every way i can and worship him with all i am – i owe that to God’s challenge to me to trust him with the Bible. It will take you further than you can imagine. God will use it to make you someone who loves him and others more deeply than ever before. Listen to the Spirit as He calls you to trust Him. Go for it, dude! Learn to love what God says in the Bible, and trust him with everything!

          • Andres Fernando Leon

            I honestly have to say. With this loving words I am more than motivated to surrender to God blindly. If you had used strong philosophical arguments probably I woudlnt mind. Let me tell you you have made me think about a new beginning with God.

          • Stuart O’Quin

            Trusting God is not the same thing as believing every word in a book. No book can begin to describe God – even one thousands of pages long. Often, a simple poem can do a much better job.

            I read the Bible every day, but I try my best not to mistake the finger for the moon…

          • Dante Prudente

            This is EXACTLY what Gnostics said.

          • USMC 64-68

            Strange – and contradictory to your limited opinion, but God gave us the Written Word to reveal the Living Word.

            And you have the audacity to say that a poem can be better. Blasphemy!

        • Josh

          Andres, I don’t have enough faith not to believe in God.

        • Troy Johnson

          God is omnipresent. Jesus said “before Abraham was, I AM John 8:58 Time does not matter to God. He is present now, He IS present in Abraham’s time.
          With this in mind, Why would part of his word become inapplicable?

        • USMC 64-68

          It’s not your “reasonable mind” that’s getting in the way – it’s unbelief.

      • dorise

        70 Hebrews came to the Greeks, they put them in 70 different rooms they came out of the rooms with the translation, all seventy were the same. that was God. Greeks, Romans, Syrians. took those scriptures in translated their beliefs into what God had gave the Hebrews., Then King James who wasn’t right and translated again. you can’t translate Greek into Hebrew. all Bible translations had to start from Hebrew.

        • Bungy

          When did this happen? Where was it documented?

          • Dante Prudente

            He is speaking of the translation of the Septuagint Bible/Tanakh (translated late 2nd century BCE) where King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus asked seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars to translate the Torah from BiblicalHebrew into Greek, for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria.

            This legend is first found in the Letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates, and isrepeated with embellishments by Philo of Alexandria, Josephus (Antiquities ofthe Jews) and by various later sources, including St. Augustine. See Augustine of Hippo, The City of God 18.42.

            King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them whythey were summoned. He entered each one’s room and said: “Write for me the
            Torah of Moshe, your teacher”. God put it in the heart of each one to
            translate identically as all the others did. (Babylonian Talmud – Tractate
            Megillah, pages 9a-9b.)

            This is documented traditionally but it is a matter of faith if you believe it (most on this blog (lol) probably wont).
            The Septuagint (lit. meaning 70) is the version that was most common and was most used by non Hebrew speaking Jews and the first non Jewish Christians at the time of Jesus and afterword’s the Latin vulgate follows it and then the King James who relied heavily on the Jerome’s Latin and Greek (textus recepticus) vulgate bibles and Tyndale’s 1526 English translation.

      • mike

        And there’s the problem with the inerrancy argument. You can’t use a statement within the work you’re claiming as inerrant to be the validation. If I write a book and include a sentence that says, “Every word in this book was given to me by God, so you should use it to teach, rebuke, correct, or train people in righteousness,” that does not make it so. The test for inerrancy must be greater than that.

        • Al Briones

          Great point Mike, How is this simple rational idea lost to so many? I can only guess because man desires to be lead by (a divine reason) something smarter or greater than ourselves. The bible is in NO anyway, shape or form a inerrant text. However, It can be powerful spiritual text (N.T.) one that sets the path for human justice, compassion, equality 1 peter 4:8 “Love covers a multitude of sin” maybe it’s most powerful text.

          • RS

            What about the ‘simple rational idea’ that any ultimate claim for authority has to be self-validating – it has to base that claim on self-reference. If it wasn’t self-validating, then it wouldn’t be a claim to authority at all, because it would be referring to something outside of itself for authority, thus making that other thing its ultimate authority. What you’ve just done Al is to make rationality (and human rationality at that) the authority that governs whether or not the Bible is authoritative.

            Sorry for being a little flippant, its not a simple idea at all – and going to the Bible as evidence might not in itself persuade you – but you’ve got to agree that its consistent. Scripture consistently sees God speaking in Scripture as the final authority.

            That said, Mike’s question about a great test of inherency is a good one. It might be helpful on a site that take Jesus’ words in the gospel accounts seriously to reference a number of places where he treats both the canonical Old Testament and the New Testament writings of the apostles as authoritative.

            Jesus and the OT:

            – Jesus’ personal respect for its divine status (Mt 4v4, Mk 14v27)

            – referring to it as the Word of God (Mt 19v4f, Mk 7v11-13, Jn 10v34f)

            – his accordance with the entire OT canon (Luke 24:25-27 and 44).

            – he was prepared to rebuke those who disagreed with its divine authority (Mt 15v3)

            – crucially, he believed that he was the OT Messiah (Lk 24v46f, Jn 5v30 and 45f)…

            Jesus and the NT

            – he clearly recognised his own words as authoritative (Jn 6v63, 15v3) eternal (Mk 13v31) and demanding of obedience (Mt 5v21f, Jn 8v31f)

            – he paved the way for authoritative apostolic teaching by choosing disciples (Lk 5v27, 6v12-16, Jn 17v6) giving them a special endowment of the Spirit (Jn 20v22) and commanding them to teach in his name (Mt 28v18-20, Jn 20v21) and promising the Spirit to specifically guide their teaching (Jn 14v26, 15v26f, 16v13f).

            This is not to mention the way that New Testament writers, and the disciples, claimed that they too were speaking authoritatively on matters of doctrine and truth.

            Now – you’re probably still thinking that the argument is circular, and it is! But what I’m saying is that it has to be because the claims that the Bible clearly makes are for ultimate authority, and if it appealed to an authority outside of itself to prove its claim that would invalidate it.

            The question then becomes what do you make of Jesus? On a site that is dedicated to his words as revealed in the canonical gospels I feel like there’s a bit of inconsistency going on. Are those gospel writers right? Are their accounts of his life accurate, I’m convinced they are – and I think you guys are too… (Otherwise they’re at best made up texts of some superhero, and your claim Al that they’re powerful spiritual texts could then be said just as accurately of a line from The Hobbit). If they’re accurate, then they suggest that Jesus was much more than just a teacher, he was God of the universe, the one who made everything, will one day judge everyone, and who died on the cross to reconcile a broken world to himself – ergo he’s powerful enough to work in and through history by his Spirit and the process of forming a canon to provide a reliable, accurate, translatable timeless and authoritative bunch of texts.

            Exactly what 2 Timothy 3v16 says.

        • liberalinlove

          Certainly, I’ve been approached by members of various religions, telling me the real word of God has been lost, sullied, changed, and their way is the pure way originally intended by God from the beginning. And they have “scripture” to back it up.

      • Stuart O’Quin

        Obviously, when Timothy was written, there was no collected Bible to speak of – just a lot of books that would be sifted through when the Council of Nicea was tasked with devising an authoritative “Christian” collection. “Scripture,” then, refers to a wider variety of religious writings than even those varied texts available in the current Catholic, Protestant, and Hebrew Bibles.

        Jesus, while confirming that he wasn’t on a crusade to replace the religious scriptures of his time, warned of the dangers of putting words on paper before unconditional love. That was sort of his entire message if you dig on the Gospels of Mark and Matthew much. That’s why the religious leaders of the time saw him as a threat. Love comes first. Kindness toward your fellow man and love of the Holy Spirit is the ultimate “Law” and litmus test for any piece of writing.

        Timothy seems like he was an earnest man of faith – I’m just not likely to trust his word, or Paul’s, or other’s, against the teachings of Jesus himself. Just how I see it.

        • Dante Prudente

          I agree with you on Timothy. Paul wrote this Epistle before even the Gospels were written down and he was NOT referring to the NT but the authoritative Jewish OT (Tanakh) as scripture however…Just curious…Where in the Gospels does Jesus “specifically” warn of the dangers of putting words on paper? This sounds more like an assumption or at best a paraphrase on your part. Can we get a direct quote (red letter one maybe).

          • Diana Johnson

            Reading this comment section has only produced in me a desire NOT to attend any church that has such disrespectful rhetoric. Congrats guys! You have moved yet another away from the religiosity of religion and I am receding back to what I hold to be true that If you believe in god than that is between you and that god.
            Religion especially Christianity is like a penis. It is good that you have one but please keep it in your pants! Because when you pull it out and wave it in someone’s face, it becomes inappropriate. Good day And have a laugh for crying out loud life is short enough as it is.

      • Dante Prudente

        I agree in General however Paul in addressing Timothy was NOT talking about the corpus of writing we call the New Testament he may not even be referring to the Gospels as they were NOT written yet.

        In fact Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian writings we have – NOT the Gospels (all of Pauls letters were wriien in the 50;s and 60’s of the first century). He was referring to the Old Testament or Jewish writings of the Tanakh. And AGAINST such extra canonical (pseudepigraphic)writings such as the Book of Enoch that advocated and taught angel worship etc. to the early Christian churches Paul had established.

        I agree the Bible is NOT ever errant just misinterpreted and misread usually by such people who are gnostic themselves such as so called red letter Christians but who are not Christians at all but arte of the Church or synagogue of Satan as Paul himself put it. Please see my statements above on this.

        • flippythepotduck

          what a douche. synagogue of satan is from the apocalypse of john; he is he talks about the followers of paul who claim to be jews and are not jews. eat it tard-head.

          • Dante Prudente

            Yeah lol you’re “flippy as a pot” alright to believe the new age freemasonic reconstruction of history that claims that Revelation was talking about Paul and the Greek Christians. They are the only Christians and by the time the book of Revelation (apocalypse) was written almost all of the Jewish early Church (Ebionites etc) were almost all gone (wiped out).

            The apocalypse (Revelation) never says that it is the Christian communities of Paul (he is speaking to a particular Church at Smyrna – εκκλησιας σμυρναιων) in Turkey and was founded during Paul’s third missionary journey (Acts 19:10). There must have been similar altercations in Smyrna as what happened in Ephesus. “And he entered the synagogue (there was only one in Smyrna) and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of “the Way” (Christians) before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.”

            Both before (Rev 2:6 at Ephesus) and directly after this ( Rev. 2:15 at Pergamum) Apochalypse mention a particular sect of Gnostics – Nicolaitans! Irenaeus identifies the Nicolaitans as a Gnostic sect:
            “John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith (the deity of Christ), and
            seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by
            Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that “knowledge” falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word” (see Irenaeus Against Heresies iii 11. 1; ANF vol. 1, p. 426)

            The attack was AGAINST Paul and his Paul’s Church (Greek Christians mostly) from Jews who “claimed to be apostles” teaching AGAINST Pauline Christianity – NOT the other way round. “I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander (blasphemy) of those who say they are Jews and are not but are a synagogue (congregation/church or followers) of Satan.” They were not only Jews who did not accept Jesus and Christianity but Jewish Gnostics like YOU. Only New Age Christian Gnostics (non-denominational red-letter so called Christians and other HERETICS like you) claim this false claim convoluting and misreading scripture!

            Now “flippythepotduck” (why don’t any of these heretics use their real names???) anyway…. I don’t eat shit like you and you are right now even looks like your head it full off it too – believing all the lies of the Illuminati. Repent! Acknowledge your errors (sin) and repent Gnostic! We wiped you out then and we will again. There will be NO NWO. You will be defeated! Christianity will be here forever.
            If any of you want to continue reading this BS blog and believing the shit you find here… go ahead I think I will ignore you heretics going fwd but remember… YOU WERE TOLD the truth your fate in in your own hands now.

      • RainbowGurl44

        First, keep in mind that Timothy didn’t even have the cannon yet. So who knows exactly what Scripture he was referring to? Second, though I do believe that the Bible is inspired by God, it all must be taken in its proper context (both social and literary) and genre. “Bible” literally means “library.” And just like many other libraries, it includes several different genres, so some Scripture is meant to be taken literally, and some not. Even for the historical texts, keep in mind that in biblical times, quotes were not verbatim. They were approximate, the type of thing a person might have said, and often even a little embellished. (Ever notice how beautifully eloquent all the speakers were in the Bible? No “ums” or “uhs”? I’ll bet even Jesus stumbled over a word or two every now and then!) But that was accepted as historically accurate at the time. (Nowadays, we’re much more particular and expect journalists’ quotes to be verbatim. Not so back then — it was a different time.)

        • Josh

          Timothy didn’t need the “cannon” to know what Scripture is. Scripture is not dependent on man, but on God, who is the “author of truth itself”. The 1st Century Christians knew, for example, that Paul the apostle was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit just as much as the people who compiled the cannon knew that it was inspired. 2 Peter 3:16 affirms that the writings of Paul were Scripture. Timothy had in mind ALL Scripture that he knew of, including Scripture written by Paul and other New Testament apostles.

          Why do you think it incredible that God can inspire men to write something that is without error?

          • Thinker62

            Who knows what Timothy had in mind? We have no record of Timothy’s thoughts or writings.

          • Kristine Rowland

            Because men (and women) err. Often. When I was either in Middle School or just starting High School I was having a Trigeminal Neuralgia breakthrough, in other words I was having an “episode”. They are very painful. It hurts so bad I’ve begged God for death many times. Just in case you’re curious, don’t look it up. You don’t want to know, and yes it really is that bad. But as Dr. Gardner Taylor said, “even though I may be in great pain or distress, my Redeemer lives.” My Mother called a friend over to pray for me. He said it was a demon to be cast out. Even though none of us had heard of TN, I knew this wasn’t right. I knew it wasn’t a demon making it happen. But nothing short of God Himself appearing in that room Himself and telling him to stop would have made him stop.

            I have no ill will toward our friend, I did for a long time after, he put me through terrible pain, but that was a long time ago. The reason I’m telling you this is to show you that we get it wrong a lot.

      • Scot Fourowls

        In my experience of several decades as a Jesus follower, whenever some dude says “rightly divide the Word of God,” that is code for how thrilled he is to have found an excuse for his misogyny and attempt always to trump the female half of humanity theologically by misreading or over-privileging the words of Paul (or pseudo-Pauline letters) over the Bible as a whole. Those are the dudes who ignore that a woman anointed Jesus on the head as Moses (under Torah) anointed the Jewish priests on the head, and then that Jesus taught that we are supposed to tell what she had done wherever the gospel is preached, in memory of her. (See Matthew’s and Mark’s gospels.) Those are the dudes who ignore that the first missionary Jesus appointed to convince others to believe in Him was the woman at the well. (See John’s gospel.) Those are the dudes who ignore the necessary import of John 20:17 and Matthew 28:9-10 — When Mary encountered the risen Christ after the resurrection, He explicitly authorized her to “go” and “tell” the male Jewish disciples what she had seen and heard. Also an angel of the Lord and Jesus authorized the women who had been at the tomb to go and tell the male Jewish disciples not only their personal testimony about the risen Christ but His Word instructing them to do to Galilee. Obviously women preaching and teaching men, by the authority of Jesus Himself. To deny women full exercise of their gifts within the church for sexual reasons contradicts Jesus and also makes no more sense than it would to have only Jews be leaders and elders in today’s church by the example of the Jewish disciples Jesus picked (for cultural reasons in that time and place, obviously).

        As a non-Jew, I’m glad now to be included. We should as well include all of our sisters equally instead of using the “rightly divide” code for sexual discrimination as unworthy today as when S. Baptists “rightly divided” on racial grounds in the 19th century because they said the Bible approved slavery.

      • liberalinlove

        Was that scripture referring only to the Old Testament, which is primarily all that existed when it was written?

      • Mr. G.

        Interestingly, when 2 Tim was forged over Paul’s name, it was not “scripture” – it was just a letter to his boy Timothy.

      • Herm

        So Josh, you are saying God is not breathing today only into the Bible. What is the point of being baptized into the Holy Spirit to be a little child of God if it doesn’t just as well apply today? This is God-breathed,do you find it inerrant? Love you!

      • RSV

        Big leap from “useful” and even “inspired” to inerrant. Christ, The Living Spirit, was The Word, not a book. Not even the bible.

    • SmoovP

      I like your post.

      I won’t debate if the Bible is inerrant or not.

      What IS clear is that our understanding of it is far from perfect, and when anyone starts talking in absolutes and certitude about what the Bible is and what the Bible isn’t, I know that the conversation is going to be pretty one-sided.

    • nivekyaj

      and what part of the Bible is not about Jesus? Where and when is Jesus not in the Bible?

      • Kenneth Vaughan

        Amen! It all points to him!

    • David

      I attended churches that are general categorized as mainline, where in my view, the basic beliefs and values are emphasized without too much focus on doctrinal issues that divide Christians. I’ve been exposed to fundamentalism in one way or another, and I was never comfortable with it. I don’t adhere to a totally literal interpretation of the Bible – such as the book of Genesis where it talks about Creation, Adam and Eve, Great Flood, etc. – but instead look at the teachings and how to apply these teachings into our everyday lives. Just saying that will invite a lot of attacks from fundamentalists, which is a major reason why I don’t adhere to it. Many groups say they are the right ones and put down others in the process. My feeling is to focus on our common core beliefs, not our differences.

    • Kenneth Vaughan

      Who’s Matt?
      I say this in love, though it may sound harsh. There is nobody who picks and choose what they believe from The Bible more than someone who believes that scripture is not inerrant, because they have granted themselves the most permission to render verses irrelevant for themselves.

      Really, who do you think is cherry picking the Bible more, someone who believes every word is true, or someone who without reason declares ” All parts of the bible are not equal and do not carry the same weight and meaning”

      If The Bible is not inerrant, how do you know which verses are true, and which are not? It does not stand to reason that in a partially inspired, partially fraudulent book, that only the verses about caring for the poor are inspired, and verses on law and judgment are not. For all you know, according to your reasoning, John 3:10-21, everything about loving your neighbor as yourself, and everything about witholding judgment could have been uninspired fraudulent additions, while Levitical law is inerrantly inspired. How do you know?

      And since we are on the issue of red letters, let’s examine these red letters

      Matthew 5:18

      assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or
      one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

      While I wrestle with my understanding of some verses, I believe each and every one of them to be inspired by God according to 2 Timothy 3:16

      “Almost all bible thumpers have no idea of how the book they cherish came
      to exist in this form and what the contexts were when each part was

      Maybe not, but I know this issue pretty well. Its awe inspiring and makes me trust in the inerrancy of scripture any more. I’ve investigated critical and conspiratorial approaches to this topic, they don’t hold water.

      “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” I believe in an all powerful God who is able to preserve his word. If he could heal me from a mystery illness, make my cousins tumor disappear, give my barren cousin a child, take a C-D grade school student,2.1 GPA undergraduate, to a near perfect score graduate student now getting a free trip to visit a top tier university to see if I would be a fit for their PhD program, I think keeping a book accurate is no problem for Him. I also think the specific prophecies of scripture are a great testimony to the inerrancy of God’s Word. Scripture told us that Jewish temple would be destroyed, that the Jews would be scattered around the world, maintain their national identity (they are the only group in history to maintain their national identity after being scattered worldwide) return home, and that their nation would be reborn in a single day, something that was impossible when The Bible was written. All of this happened.

    • Hoppyman50

      “EVERYONE–selects the verses that he/she holds close and which to reason away. Trying to claim otherwise is disingenuous.”

      What is disingenuous is your assertion and a bit arrogant as well, assuming that one knows the thoughts of another.

    • Panther

      If the Bible is not inerrant, then our faith is in vain. If ALL of the Bible isn’t true and God breathed, then none of it is. Every word of the Bible is God breathed. Jesus has many names and one of them is the Word. John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. John 1:14 further says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth”.
      The triune God wrote the Bible using men as writing implements. Jesus wrote the Bible. People who say Jesus didn’t speak on every issue are just misinformed. If it’s in the Bible, Jesus spoke on it.
      God didn’t dictate and men then wrote, He actually used men as His pens or pencils or whatever writing implements there were at the time. The Bible, the Word of God, is also literal and not figurative. There is an old saying that goes like this, “All means all and that’s all all means. This is how we read the inerrant Word of God…literally. Creation was a literal six, twenty four hour time period. If we twist that by using gap theories or figurative writing, we can do it with any part of the book. But since it’s God’s Book, it all has to be the literal truth. If it isn’t, we are all hopelessly lost.

  • Zach Campbell

    I am pro this!!!!! But I do have one hiccup. How can you speak about the poor and oppressed and then throw Abortion out as if Jesus wouldn’t care about it? I think Jesus cares about Abortion.

    • bluecenterlight

      I think He does too. In fact I know He does. But I also think the church has been used as a pawn on this subject by corrupt politicians, and it has put a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. I for one am tired of looking for change from those who will tell me whatever I want to hear to get elected. The truth is we have lost the war of public opinion on abortion, the majority think it should be legal, that is how this country works. I just don’t think passing laws should be our focus, changing hearts should be. We have a lot of work to do. Time to roll up our sleeves.

      • Amonite

        While passing laws should never be the focus of the church (we are citizens of heaven), we are to be in the world and perform our civic duty. As voting citizens, we cannot vote for unjust laws. As participants in a representative republic and as ambassadors of Christ, we must speak out against current laws that are unjust and immoral.

        Furthermore, abortion is not about ‘passing a law’, but about protecting the weak and opressed. True religion is helping the widow and the orphan, and standing up against injustice.

        What greater injustice is their then the mass genocide of helpless infants, what greater inequality than that millions are robbed of life every year so that others can have a more ‘convenient’ life?

        • Peter’s Legacy

          What greater nonsense than this concept of abortion as ‘convenience’. Good grief! Find a woman who has stated that she had a ‘convenient’ abortion. There’s not a woman in the world who has had an abortion just for the convenience of it. Let the zealots and misogynists make laws prohibiting abortion. Let Christians lead the efforts to provide sex education, contraception, child care, maternity leave, and the many other women’s health and rights issues that should be sponsored by Christians, not sabotaged. Make those things happen and abortion will become rare as hen’s teeth.

          • Val

            Thank you so much for this.

          • Scott

            This is an asinine response. Amonite did not mention “convenient” abortion, he (or she) wrote “convenient” life! Over 96% of abortions are for convenience (meaning there is no medical reason to have the abortion). And, most likely, each person having the abortion was well aware of the consequences of sex. Most are not of an age to need maternity leave. Create a society where all life is considered sacred, then abortion will be rare, indeed.

          • Peter’s Legacy

            Is this not hair splitting? ‘convenient abortion’ vs ‘abortion so that one can have a convenient life’? You perceive a difference? Seriously??? I’m just pointing out the facts. When we trivialize the basis for a woman’s decision to have an abortion. When we ignore and neglect the economic burdens and disparities that society places upon women. Then we will never arrive at that ‘society where all life is considered sacred’. I love what Amonite says, ‘ambassadors of Christ must speak out against current laws that are unjust and immoral’–then proceeds to argue for their institution! You want to stand up for Christ? Then stand up for justice. Take the lead in the cause of women’s health and rights. I dearly wish we might, for once, just step back and look at reality. We would discover that overcoming this ignorance and inequity would reduce the number of abortions far below all the draconian anti-abortion laws. So why don’t we? Maybe because it would require more change and effort than suits our own ‘convenience’? Ya think?

          • Amonite

            Christians have been behind most drives towards justice (abolition slavery, equality, charity, etc). The problem is when people mistake selfishness for justice, or mistake equal things for equality.

            And abortion is not ‘a matter of women’s health’. It is exceedingly rare that a women’s health is in trouble because of her pregnancy, and even more rare that only an abortion will fix it. In most cases, where its life threatening, the mother can just be treated with medicine or surgery. The child may naturally abort in these cases.

            Giving a sick women an abortion is far more dangerous to her health.

            Nor is it truly a matter of economy. If one cannot afford kids, do not have kids. This is like adopting a kitten when you know you can’t afford to have one, and then drowning the kitten two weeks later because it took too much work or you couldn’t afford the food.

            {Over 70% of those who get abortions are unmarried. Why is society promoting/encouraging premarital sex (which has no social benefit), and allowing murder to erase the consequences? A large factor in this is that regular contraception use does not prevent pregnancy, it merely reduces incidence. About half the women who get abortions were using contraceptives of some type (condom, pill, etc) regularly. Along with this, many girls get abortions because they are ‘too young’. If they believe they are too young for the responsibilities of a child, why do they feel they are old enough for the responsibility of deciding whether or not to take a life, or old enough to responsibly make decisions in regard to sex?}

            Most of americans, even the poor, are richer by living standards than the majority of the rest of the world. A family only has to make $40,000 to be in the top 5% of the world economy. If you have a tv and a car and a fridge and a roof over your head, then you are also very rich by the standards of the world.

            There are the truly homeless and destitute, but there are many resources available for them. Here locally, I can think of several that aid the very poor, or single mothers, the homeless, etc. Many single mothers actually avoid these programs because they all work towards getting the woman stable and at a place where she has the skills to work and raise a child – its easier for many just to collect welfare checks and not bother with the lifeskills that actually could bring them out of poverty.

            For the vast majority of people who get abortions, though, it’s not that they will be homeless or impoverished with a child. Rather, they would have to live with less, or give up a lucrative career, or deal with the perceived hardship of a disabled child [Which is hard, but far more rewarding to the parents in joy from accounts of parents that do have disabled children]. Money does not buy happiness, and contentment wherever you are gives greater joy. To so seek after a wealthy future that one is willing to commit murder speaks a lot about social priorities in america (and not in a good way).

            And sending the message that poor/disabled children are unwanted (especially by thei mothers!) is encouraging genocide of those perceived as ‘less desirable’. Every totalitarian dictator would love this – convince the populace to murder their own, and only have healthy citizens able to pay taxes!

          • Peter’s Legacy

            Essentially you are saying the issues of health care, income, birth control and sex education as they affect women are of less consequence and significance than the lack of stiff laws against abortion. –‘the truly destitute have resources available’ ‘if one can’t afford kids, don’t have them’–i.e. you made a bad choice, now you and your baby have to tough it out. ‘Single mothers avoid programs to lift them from poverty–they’d rather collect welfare’ This stuff is classic blame the sufferer thinking. The truth is that it is much more difficult to care for disadvantaged women and to effectively address their needs and their children’s needs than it is to just ban abortion and pretend you’ve done something moral. That’s the real reason anti-abortion advocates predominate. It’s called Phariseeism.
            Their are many failings in U.S. support systems for women and children. The solution is not to kick women off welfare, ban all abortions and close our eyes to the consequences. The solution is to repair and replace these systems until we have ensured that all women and children have the support they need. It’s called Christianity.

          • Amonite

            Issues of health care, while not insignificant, do have a tendency to pale in comparison to mass murder. In the same way, care for the sick and elderly, or research for new cancer treatments, shrink in comparison to stopping the genocide of a people in another country. Americans often seem very focused on ‘what will improve my own life’ or ‘what can I get’ or even ‘what can I keep’, vs. caring about the mass murders, persecutions, or the devastation of other countries. It’s fine to try and improve one’s standard of living, but not at the expense of other people or the callous disregard that others have a minimal standard of living, or are not given the chance to live their lives at all.

            Where I live there are several programs available to help the poor, especially single mothers, by taking them in at low cost (or trade for minimal labor), and then teaching them lifeskills and connecting them to other resources.

            The welfare program as it is has no real power to get someone out of poverty. I’m on SSI for disability, which is similar – it carries little incentive to even try to work (work, unless you can work at least part time and thus don’t really need SSI anymore, is penalized to a degree) unless you have learned that labor has its own reward and merit. The disabled aren’t allowed to save their money past $2,000 or inherit from relatives. If the local democrats had gotten their way and the legislature hadn’t gotten involved, then even the healthcare that allows the disabled to work towards improvement would have been taken away.

            ‘True religion’ is serving the widow and orphan in their distress. ‘Unwanted’ children are just as much orphans as those who lose their parents. There is no difference between the child slaughtered in the womb and the infant left on the rocks to die.

            Christianity is -not- about supporting the selfishness of other people, or advocating murder. We provide for the needs of others. ‘I need to murder my child because it will interfere with my career’ or “I need to murder my child because I don’t think I can afford to care from him” are not needs. Rather, we seek to provide the programs and provision that those mother and children need. It is also not charitable to let the government do all this work. Love is from one individual to another, helping them not just financially but relationally as well if possible. Taxes are just taxes – they are not given in love or charity, but out of duty and support of the nation.

          • Peter’s Legacy

            I don’t think we are so far apart. I just don’t think your focus is justified by the resulting harm it would cause if you had the power to implement it. By preventing all abortion and kicking selfish lazy women off of welfare, however moral you might view it, the net result would be immeasurable harm to thousands of children. If, instead, you made the government (and it is the government that you want to prohibit abortion) responsible for the well-being of the children born and also responsible for enabling the mothers (and fathers) to attain the skills and means to care for those children then I could see your point. Or if you want the Christian community to undertake that task instead of the government–then let them do so before they pontificate about abortion. I know there are many Christians who would try, and are trying, but have insufficient resources. I admire them. But there are also many so-called Christians who just oppose abortion because they think it makes them look holy.

          • Amonite

            It’s not lack of resources, its over regulation by the government, that prevents a lot of charity. The government has forced many charities to close down, and driven up costs of others, with regulations about offered services.

            Furthermore, one is comparing thousands of children that will have a harder life than their neighbors (although in America, that is still pretty good) to -millions- of children who will never get a chance to live their life at all.

            As I am disabled and grew up in a very poor (but loving) family, I think it is a great insult to have the callous notion that a child is better off dead than to face hardship or have less stuff. Some of the happiest children I have seen lived in cardboard and tire houses south of Tiajuana. They were happy because their families and the community loved them. Wheras, how many depressed and suicidal people live in America, despite all modern convienences and fancy careers?

      • Telecat

        You KNOW he does? Did he sit down with you and tell you? If he didn’t, you’re an asshole. It’s not in your bibble.

        • bluecenterlight

          From everything I’ve read from Jesus I do not believe he is pro harming children, or anyone else for that matter. I also think he allows people to make their own choices, even bad ones. I do not believe that it should be the churches job to dictate behavior to our culture. As for being an asshole, that doesn’t disqualify me from being right.

    • Eden Murphy

      Personally I think abortion is a decision best left to Doctors and the woman/couple directly involved. Let them decide what their own religious beliefs are.

      • Amonite

        If it is my religious belief that murdering you would be for the benefit of myself, would that mean you would let me do so? Or, perhaps a future doctor labels you ‘non-viable’ because you have a risk of cancer or a disability; you are a burden on society and thereby not relevant to the social morality, and that basic rights do not apply to you. Are you saying that you would sign your doctor’s paper ‘a’ok!’?

        • Kevin1985

          If you truly believe in “turn the other cheek”, then yes.

        • ableToReadAndThink

          Your logic is absurd. Abortions occur long before the fetus would be able to comprehend such a question. Why do people need to compare a fetus, particularly a fetus of the age where most abortions occur, to a fully functioning adult? It’s disingenuous and frankly quite ridiculous. You might as well outlaw male masturbation – think of all those poor sperm who aren’t going to become a person. English common law held that fetuses gained human rights at quickening. Hundreds of years ago society had already agreed a much more reasonable approach to abortion than so many people have today.

          • Amonite

            It is very unscientific to compare a sperm to a complete organism. That’s like saying a skin cell is the same as a human, or sugar is the same as a cookie. [One could possibly make the argument that cookie dough was potential cookies, but one cannot say that a chocolate chip or salt is a potential cookie for simply being an ingredient. A lone chocolate chip will never become a cookie; it cannot become a cookie].

            Sperm cells are not even potentially people. Neither the sperm or egg are complete organisms, they are simply cells created by a parent organism.

            The zygote is a new and complete organism. It never speciates into a new organism: it rather develops and grows and cells differentiate according to its unique genetic code.

            Why do you think “comprehension” of wrongs done is ethically important to the question of whether or not others can commit a crime? On what moral system do you base this claim? It is wrong for someone to murder an unborn human (which the legal courts uphold, and those doing so are charged with murder). The question is, on what basis do you distinguish murder by a third party, and murder by the mother? Why is it an acceptable death is the mother consents, but not if she does not consent? That would imply that society views murder as acceptable and not-murder if committed by the parents, which by extension society then holds to the moral claim that the rights of the unborn child are bound up in the hands of the mother (not non-existent) until they are born.

            This has a further conflict of morality if the reason for this is based on non-comprehension of the child or dependence on the mother. If this is the reasoning behind it, then newborns and infants would also have their rights handled by the mother, and so would severely disabled children.

            While it might be acceptable, even wise, to treat the parents as the guardian of the child’s social rights until the child is old enough to take them for themselves, it cannot be right for the mother to act against the best interest of the child and against the child’s natural rights that neither stem from her or society.

            However, that is all discussing philosophies and morals. It is strange to allow the changing social morality of society to decide things based on philosophy instead of biology.

  • Pingback: Why Gabe Lyons and Others are Wrong about the Louie Giglio Aftermath()

  • map

    Jesus is Lord. Jesus has been given all authority and everything he says issues from the Father. As the Son he was active before creation. Jesus says he is the One of whom the prophets spoke. He was Lord before the New Testament came into being and sent the Spirit who inspired it. In the end, he will gather everything under his reign and return everything to the Source. Jesus is the “point of the Trintarian spear” by which God has entered his world to redeem it.

    Jesus is Lord. He is The Way to God, because he is God. Not only by removing sin, but to know Jesus is to “Know the Father.” Jesus is the “Rosetta Stone” by which we make sense of an infinite God and through whom we have a relationship with a personal God. He is the Living Word,

    Jesus is Lord over Scripture. It is ALL about Jesus: “All authority is given to me.” Jesus came as the Way. The written Gospels present Jesus’ teaching on earth about what it means to walk in the Way, and the insights of the apostles who follow him. The rest of the NT is the history and record of how Jesus’ taught his followers to walk in the world they encountered. By the Spirit, Jesus was Lord of this process and reveals himself still through it.

    For me, being a RLC means that I take every NT text, and prayerfully dialog with my Master. I look for and find the teaching(s) and truths which come from “everything I have commanded you.” (printed in Red.). Through prayer and reflection I find the basis for the teaching/principle in the character of God Jesus has shown, and is showing us. YHWH’s love (himself, his nature), as seen in the Son (whose name means “YHWH is salvation”), is the core from which the principles applied to the Early Church spring. His love is the heart of judgment, righteousness, compassion, mercy and forgiveness.

    Jesus is Lord, and this Lord says, “I give you a New Command, “Love one another.” He says further, “This is the banner you will fly, the uniform you will wear and the way you will live. By loving like I love people will know you are my disciples.”

    Go look it up…that is all in Red…it is the basis from which all else springs. The writings of the Apostles do not yield “lists of rules and truths’ by which we live” but instruction of how Jesus’ way was applied by his first followers. They are not hard to find.

    Jesus is Lord. I have decided to follow Jesus. I am in love with Jesus.Thank you Jesus.

    • Nate

      Someone clear this up. When Jesus himself chose the apostles, and we have their writings as the rest of our new testament, how do we have the right to call what they’ve written not inerrant? I fully understand that the English bible is a translation but it seems to me that we must presume what the apostles teach is only a pure representation of what Jesus represented as Jesus appointed them.
      Here’s an example of what I mean. Tony Campolo (who I love listening to!!!) states that gay marriage is a secondary issue because Jesus didn’t talk about it, but Jesus appointed Paul who indirectly has a lot to say about it. So, isn’t that line of logic weak. Look, my heart breaks for the homosexuals that deal with the isolation and confusion of trying to reconcile their orientation with what the Bible says. I guess I just find it too simplistic to discount Paul’s emphasis on it on the grounds Jesus isnt recorded as talking about it. By the way I’m all for getting busy getting alongside and loving people. On this emphasis of RLC I stand fully united.

      • Richard Carson

        Though you use the words secondary issues, that does not apply that is a secondary sin. All sin misses the mark of the glory of God. Judicially, all sin will cause a quarantine from heaven. The primary issue is recorded in Luke 10:27, And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. – As we try our best to be honest with ourselves (we lie to ourselves at times) and as we live this out, secondary issues (not sins) will come on our radar and the individual will begin to deal with them.

  • Pingback: The Evangelical Split: Tony Campolo says it’s coming()

  • JQ

    In refererence to the Ray Lewis article. I think you are right to a degree, but not exactly. I think God is more personally involved in the lives of those who reach out to him and spend time with Him. I think there are times when He will give us what we ask for.
    From what I know of Ray Lewis, he is a sincere follower of Christ who is deeply faithful and desires to give all of his life to serving God now. To most of the world a football game is just a game and means nothing. To God I’m sure a football game means nothing. It’s not about the game at all really. I think it’s not really about the game to Ray Lewis either. I think there was a lot spiritually that went on btwn the team members that no one in the public ever saw.
    The team had a very deep meaning to Lewis spiritually because he had a lot if growth during the time he spent with those men, and God was central to him in his relationship to his team. God will give us things that may seem silly to others, when we ask, and when His will lines up. Ray knows God is not a genie. I don’t think he ever concluded that God had them win because they were “good”. It is true though, that when you are closely alignd with God, there are times that he will answer you with a yes. I think it’s quite possible that He answered RayLewis with a yes

  • Dave Pritchard

    Just joined after months of sitting on the fence! For me personally, becoming a member has to be one of the most refreshing and spiritually energizing things that I’ve ever done! I spent years stressing over certain doctrines, evolution vs. creation, gay marriage, abortion, death penalty, etc.. All of those “hot button issues” that were keeping me mentally and spiritually tangled up and from simply living out the words of Jesus. Showing genuine compassion and mercy to people in need everywhere, is where it’s at! I finally feel free now to practice my faith and follow in his footsteps through the power of the Holy Spirit! I’m so pumped!!!!!

    • Val

      That is so awesome Dave. My freedom from religious dogma was intensely liberating for me too. <3

  • option8

    Interesting site, but I’m so sick and tired of being told to “join the conversation.” That can be on a list of everyday cliches that need to be banned, imo

    • Donna S Mathwig

      Ha. I totally get your buggedness over ‘join the conversation’, although I do use it myself now and again. Despite it’s overuse, it does seem to convey a needful message: we don’t have all the answers – you’re welcome to join us and contribute your thoughts. An open posture for other voices around the table – so I suppose I can put up with this cliche.

    • Bart Breen

      Thank you for joining the conversation about why using the term “joining the conversation” is a deterrent for some for joining the conversation. We look forward to you joining future conversations in the same manner you have joined this past conversation.

  • Bob Mahlstedt

    Wow…RLC is so misguided…totally misses the core message of the Bible…God does not want people trying their best to be like Jesus or to live like Jesus or to follow all the red letters in the New Testament. The ultimate message of Jesus is the realization of our oneness with God (read John 17…it’s in red letters!). Out of that sense and realization of oneness with the Father will flow godly actions and godly behaviors and godly EVERYTHING. I think you folks have got the cart before the horse.

    • Anni

      Oneness with God was what Jesus was about. He taught that we don’t need priests or sacrifices because God is our parent and the Kingdom is among us. No intermediaries needed. He was totally against those who make their living doing priestly things, but not those doing Godly things. Some folks have made Jesus the high priest and the ultimate sacrifice, it is they who miss the point.

      • Amonite

        Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,f Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then
        approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and
        find grace to help us in our time of need.” Heb 4:14-16 (the whole book of Hebrews is about Christ as high priest, really).

        The role of the High priest was to enter the ‘holy of holies’ in the temple (The presence of God) on behalf of the people. When Jesus’s died, the veil in the temple tore, showing this access to God was now open – through Christ.

        “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ
        Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.” 1 Tim 2:5-6

        We cannot have ‘oneness’ with God without Christ as High Priest (mediator) or sacrifice (to cover our sin so that God can be in relationship with us!)

        And Christ was the untimate and perfect sacrifice – the only one which could save us:

        “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this
        priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right
        hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” Heb 10:11-13

        “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly
        sanctified. “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will
        believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made youe known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.” John 17:17-25

        We must go through Christ, as sacrifice for our sins, to be one with the father. We cannot have oneness with God on our own, or be adopted as sons while still slaves to sin. Slaves cannot call the father ‘Abba’, only sons can. And slaves must be redeemed from their debt, which only Christ, the sinless man and son of God, could do.

        The pharisees thought they could get to heaven by following the ‘law’ and ritual. God recognized that they could not keep the terms of the old covenant, no man could. Christ then had to become mediator of a new covenant.

        “It was for me the day of vengeance; the year for me to redeem had come.
        I looked, but there was no one to help, I was appalled that no one gave support;
        so my own right arm achieved salvation for me, and my own wrath sustained me.” Isaiah 6: 4-5

        Once we are following Christ, our faith in Christ is proved by *deeds*. Spiritual fruit flows from a heart planted in the Word of God. Just as someone doing empty deeds without the heart (pharisees) will not save, so faith without deeds is dead.

        “But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here,a he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. He did not enter
        by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place
        once for all by his own blood, thus obtainingb eternal redemption. The blood of
        goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more,
        then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself
        unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
        For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
        In the case of a will it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, “This
        is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”e 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its
        ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. [Very important – the ‘new testament’ or ‘new covenant’ did not have legal force until Jesus actually shed his blood on the cross].

        It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these
        sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than
        these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” Heb 9:11-27

        Someone doing something ‘good’ doesn’t make them one with God. God doesn’t actually need anything from us, and all our ‘righteousness is as filthy rags’. What He wants from us is a relationship with Him, and we have that through the sacrifice of His son. He then tasks us with sharing the good news throughout all the world and upholding righteousness for the opressed, the widow and the orphan, etc – no matter if the world views it as uncomfortable or offensive.

  • Thomas L. Snyder

    The Bible is inerrant in its autographs, and, because of the many many texts and excerpts we have of it, we can pretty much determine what that original text said and meant, with a little help from our Hebrew friends who are familiar with the intent of Scripture. For instance, the phrase an eye for an eye, etc., is actually an admonition against cruel and unusual punishment that doesn’t fit the crime. Also, the Ten Commandments say, Do not murder, so capital punishment for the crime of first degree murder actually upholds that Law, not contradict it, as some of our liberal friends misinterpret it. Finally, we must remember, in helping the poor, that Proverbs 10:4 says, “Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.” So, God is not opposed to accumulating wealth, so long as you do indeed remember the poor. However, we are not required to give charity to an able-bodied man who will not work or to a man who will not support his family, as Paul says and implies in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 and 1 Timothy 5:8.

    • Anni

      So, the old is done away in Christ Jesus. Wouldn’t that actually include the Old Testament which forbade divorce, etc? Just asking. If it’s all God-Breathed then we should change a lot of things like divorcing. There were many things the Old Testament taught we do not follow. Check out Leviticus and try to live that way…

      • Ed R

        I am not a “member” of the Red Letter Christians, but I have read some of the writings. I agree with the idea of trying to live a more Christ like life and in order to do that well I think the Red Letter idea is good. Some of these comments though, leave me wondering. Anni, above refers to divorce as if it was not allowed in the Old Testament. It was allowed under Mosaic Law, it was Jesus who corrected that in the New Testament. He said divorce should not happen except in cases of “uncleanliness” or, I understand that to be unfaithfulness. Then there is another here that seems to question the validity of Lutheran teaching by suggesting that they don’t teach anything not written by Martin Luther. Maybe I misunderstood the post, but if I didn’t then I must inform the poster that the idea is very foreign to Lutherans. I have known many and that simply is not true. The reality of teaching Christianity is that every church on Earth has it’s own sins or shortcomings, even the Red Letter Movement. Each and every one of them has mans hands in it. Not every thing that happens or is preached is necessarily through the Holy Spirit. It would be nice if that were true, but it simply cannot be as we are all human with human intellects. Okay, I’ll get off my stump and let somebody else climb up here, but I really do think that we all must strive to post our comments in ways to not push each other away. We should all be striving to draw together towards God.

      • Amonite

        Actually Anni, Jesus is even stricter on divorce ;) In fact, Jesus is stricter on sin entirely! The whole point is we *can’t* live that way. We couldn’t live under the Levitical laws, and if every one of those laws examines the heart? We’d break every one of them. This is why Jesus would point out that hating someone in your heart is equivalent to murder, that lust is equivalent to adultery, and that breaking one law is the same as breaking the whole of the law. NO ONE can keep the law.

        The point isn’t to redefine sin so we can “be good” – it’s to accept that we are sinners with a debt we could never pay ourselves, worthy of death. To accept that Jesus, sinless, became our kinsmen by taking on flesh and and redeemed us (paid our debt and bought us back from slavery to sin) by dying on the cross. And once we accept he gave our lives for us, to give our lives in return to follow Him.

        As to divorce, though:

        Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

        Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

        “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
        They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

        “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus
        replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’a
        ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his
        wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one
        flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

        When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
        (Mark 10:1-10)

        Also, Matt 19:1-11

        10The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

        11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it
        has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”


        “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not
        come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
        smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from
        the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and
        teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but
        whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom
        of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the
        Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom
        of heaven.” Matt 5:17-20

    • Eden Murphy

      Or maybe some Liberal friends think outside your personal Bible box. Seems to me anyone can pick up the Bible and cherry pick it in just the right way to justify any position they may already hold true. That doesn’t make it right. Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty. The Bible has no baring on my opinion of capital punishment. Not because I have a problem with the execution of a murderer but because our fallible, flawed, inequitable and often corrupt legal system often make mistakes. Far too many have been convicted of crimes they have not committed. This is a fact. I believe that the death penalty is handed out and upheld for political reasons in many cases. This is not aligning with God’s law, it’s more like abuse there of, not to mention supreme arrogance. Are you sure your God would be ok with the state mistakenly executing the wrong guy?

      • JD

        Not to be snide, but the state “mistakenly” sac’d Jesus over Barabbas. So in answer to your question, yes, if it in some way shape or form accomplishes his purposes.

  • disciple

    I hope by the word radical and counter cultural you mean, worldly? Christ was not radical in the sense that he was just out to do his own thing. Truth was taught, twisted and he came and taught it again and then lived it to give an example. We live in a time now where most Christian would be criticized for their being to much like the pharisees and Sadducee. Thinking that because they are the “chosen ones” they can do whatever they want, and that they know everything. They were just worldly church goers. I like the idea of following Christ and being a living testimony of His truthfulness.

  • Joe Richards

    Given the horrors of the Gosnell trial particularly and Planned Parenthood’s — which last year performed 333,964 acts of Filicide by abortion securing about $150,283,800 in fees from those abortions — move away from Pro Choice to “Reproductive Justice” (as if there could be justice by killing an in utero baby created in the Imago Dei) particularly, it would stand to reason that RLC solicit more discourses on Filicide, Abortion, and the quintessential question of “When does life begin?”

    POP QUIZ: Where else besides an Abortion Abattoir can you conspire to have someone killed by paying a killer money and do it with impunity?

    You can’t!

    Here follows my unsolicited submission.

    The feckless logic behind the Pro Choice / Reproductive Justice movement is completely ad hoc, capricious, subjective, gestationally sexist, and therefore completely untenable. It is certainly no basis for a law that deals with Life & Death.

    A civil, just society can NOT make nor justly enforce laws that are inherently ad hoc and capricious. The quintessential building block, indeed the cornerstone of our Constitutional Rule of Law REPUBLIC, personified by a blindfolded Lady Justice holding a scale in her hands, is that ALL LAWS apply equally to every person without regard to race, color, creed, gender, gestational status or age (above consent).

    Pro Choice completely obliterates this first principle.

    Science, orthodox Judeo-Christian Theology, Humane Ethics, and non-atheistic Philosophy all state unequivocally that a new human life begins at fertilization. ONLY THE CURRENT law that goes by the pseudonymical Roe v Wade, wrongly decided based upon some of the worse jurisprudence in our nation’s history (confessed to by several 21st-century SCOTUS Justices), 40 years behind current Science, still regards in utero babies as “non-persons” and therefore not protected under the 14th amendment. This is reminiscent of the way the U.S. regarded Black slaves — as de facto non-persons or at least no more than three fifths of a person each — for the first 76 years of our history. No wonder they were enslaved, whipped, beaten, sold like mere chattel, and killed with impunity.

    Is that how Pro Choice views in utero babies, as non-person chattel deserving of no better than enslavement, whipping, beating, auctioning, dismemberment and finally death? It happens 1,211,000 times per year every year for the last 40 years.

    SCOTUS in 1973 admitted that Science, Theology and Philosophy should influence their juridical decision regarding the moment when a non-human becomes a human person, but then panned all three disciplines, noting that since they didn’t all three agree SCOTUS therefore needn’t decide when a 100% HUMAN DNA in utero baby becomes a legal person . . . and then arbitrarily assigned a point in time for this miracle to occur as coinciding with birth; presumably that existential moment when a baby completely exits his/her mother’s vagina. Whether or not s/he had to have the umbilical cord cut and/or take a 1st breath to become a FULLY HUMAN person warranting Constitutional protection is NOT clear.

    But neither SCOTUS nor any Pro Choice person has ever explained how “personhood” is conferred merely by fully exiting a vagina (or in the rarer case of a C-section, fully clearing the belly). Biologically and Theologically there is no discernible nor non-discernible fundamental difference between a baby 5 seconds before fully emerging from a vagina and 5 seconds after fully exiting. NONE AT ALL. If personhood is not something that can be observed, measured or otherwise discerned than it has either magical properties or resides at the level of deep sub-atomic space that our most powerful microscopes and atom smashers can still NOT detect.

    Who or what confers this personhood? If a 40 week old fully formed baby is NOT a person 1 second before s/he fully exits the vagina but is 1 second immediately thereafter Who or What conferred that personhood? The mother’s vagina? God? Buddha? And at what precise moment down to the 1/1000th of a second did it occur? How do we know?

    Neither Science, Theology, Philosophy, Ethics nor an Abortion doctor can objectively answer these questions. But the law somehow is certain (or feigns it), and wants us to be certain, that whereas it is a heinous homicidal crime to kill a just exited from the vagina baby, whether 22 weeks old, 32 weeks old, or 42 weeks old, it is no crime at all to kill that same baby so long as s/he has NOT fully (though mostly is OK) exited the vagina.

    Why is it a heinous 1st-degree murder for a mother and her doctor to kill a 22-week old baby just fully exited from her vagina but NOT a crime to kill a 28-week old baby still residing at least partially in utero?

    THINK: It is as if the law — not Science, Theology, Philosophy or Ethics — has conferred God-like power to create a new human being to pregnant women’s vaginas, which alone can impute full humanity and legal personhood.

    BUT STOP, THINK AGAIN: The ugly gestational sexist bias of the law reared its very ugly head with the conviction of Scott Peterson for DOUBLE HOMICIDE: of his post-born wife Laci and his PRE-BORN son Connor. The ONLY way Scott (and less famously known biological fathers) could have been convicted of a 2nd homicide is IF his unborn son was regarded by the law as a fully human PERSON protected under the 14th amendment. Had Laci killed Connor she would have been able to do so with full legal immunity. But the impunity the law would have granted to Laci it refused to give to Scott: ugly, biased gestational bias.

    Have you heard of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004? More gestatational sexist bias at the federal level. “(Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a LEGAL VICTIM, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

    en dot wikipedia dot org/ wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

    Is it any wonder that our horrific, gestationally sexist jurisprudence came about as a result of seven (7) pussy-whooped men (two White men wisely and morally vociferously dissented), six White and one Black. Their outdated, 40-year old juridical decision is a guilt-ridden testosterone manifesto that pays homage to estrogen and the power of vaginas that have driven men mad, crazy, to drink & drugs, and broke for millennia.

    Lust for vaginas, guilt over how cruelly some men have behaved toward women with vaginas, and a sincere but sincerely wrong desire to make reparations is NO BASIS FOR LAW-MAKING WHEN IT COMES TO THE LIFE AND DEATH OF OUR MOST PRECIOUS, MOST VULNERABLE, AND LEAST ABLE TO PROTECT AND SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES BABIES; in utero.

    Anyone who has never endured an abortion, and is entirely unwilling to endure one — or the lethal equivalent — now, should ever have the hypocritical gall to enact a law that confines in utero human babies to horrific deaths, arguably the 2nd most heinous only to Christ’s crucifixion.

    • Eden Murphy

      To even put Planned parenthood on the same level as Gosnell you must be completely delusional. You have become a slave to your own preconceived notions, misinformation and ignorance. Gosnell’s horrors are a direct result of limiting access to safe, legal abortion and affordable contraceptives. If you want to stop guys like him, stop backing desperate and poverty stricken woman into a corner with you black and white lack of logic. Worshiping a non-viable fetus above all else is what I call sexist.

      • Digger

        Safe abortion? Is that when the mother and the baby both survive?

      • Daniel Olson

        “Worshiping a non viable fetus above all else….”? Is that what you got from his post?And you called Joe “delusional”? I don’t agree with everything he said, but he made some valid points which at this time I cannot list due to time. To echo Digger’s comment below.. there is no SAFE abortion.

        God generously bestowed upon us the ability to create something ALIVE! This gift (and its subsequent responsibilities) to create life should never be taken lightly. Until we can understand, and teach others WILLING to understand, that the potential for life that pregnancy brings is a glorious and miraculous thing, mankind’s FEAR and SELFISHNESS will always make sure there is room for Planned Parenthood … and another Gosnell. THAT’S what created Gosnell’s “house of horrors”… nothing else.

      • Amonite

        It is the abortion which stops the human from developing any further. ‘Nonviability’ is just a fancy phrase for saying that a human is in the fetal stage, or an insect in the egg, or a plant in the seed – that they are not ‘born’ yet, as they are being fed nutrients in future preparation for birth, and cannot survive independently as they can in later life stages. They are still growing and developing in-utero.

        Also, if a fetus was a nonviable lump of tissue instead of a highly complex fertilized embryo, the body would naturally abort. In false pregnancies, a lump of tissue implants rather than an embro, or sometimes an unfertilized egg which tissue grows around. The body always aborts within a month or two, because there is no actual growing child! The body can still experience ‘symptoms’ of pregnancy, however, leading many women to think they are pregnant when they are actually not, and then be depressed when they misscarry.

        (And where are you getting the assumption that poor women don’t have access to abortions? They have good access (a -lot- more centers in poor and minority areas), and for very cheap. Great if you want the poor and the black to *kill off their own population* actually, as abortion seems intent on doing).

        There is no health reason to abort a child. The mother can be treated or given surgery, and the baby may naturally abort because of that; this is far safer and more humane than forced abortion.

        And murdering a human to make life supposedly easier for another human is not supporting the rights of women, it is discarding the rights of the infant. The child becomes slave (property of the mother), loses his future (loses pursuit of happiness), and is grotesquely murdered (loses his right to life).

      • wjgreen314

        As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. so brilliantly stated, “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” PP’s own lobbyist stated before the Florida State legislature that PP’s position on babies that survive botched abortions is that what happens to him/her next is entirely up to the woman and her doctors; e.g. it is fine to Gosnell them! BTW, this is Obama’s belief, too; he thinks “punishments” should be punished with death even if they survive a botched abortion.

    • Amonite

      Very true. To understand the idea of ‘irrelevance’ or ‘nonpersonhood’, you have to examine the way Kantian ethics has infiltrated and percolated through academia. Even Kant himself admitted his theory had problems, and that if an unborn child was not a person, so was an unconcious person, sleeping person, etc! His original idea being that if someone was unable to -express- their moral relevance to society in some way, then they did not have any right to moral relevance. (And, as sleeping people and unborn babies both lack the ability to convey awareness/relevance to the world, they would be equally ‘irrelevant’). Yet, that has presented no problems to some people who have latched onto the idea of the unborn as ‘morally irrelevant non-persons’ – since it suited their agenda and convenience.

  • Chris Fogarty

    This is an interesting site that is interestingly silent on the recent government suppression of political groups out of step or divergent from the current administration. This site, has a section on abortion, and a cursory reading shows a very delicate avoidance of the grizzly details involved in an abortion, as manifest in the recent Goznell trial. Bizarrely there is an attempt to argue that you can be pro life while voting pro-choice, yet the same logic needed to buttress this position, is not applied consistently to other positions such as gun control.

    Karl Barth said, ” ‘to take your Bible and take your newspaper, and read both. But interpret newspapers from your Bible.'” It is manifestly clear that this site is very selective of what news stories it reads.

    I suspect if you wanted to be anti-holocaust, while be supporting the Sudanese government, the logic utilized to allow you to be pro-life while voting pro-choice would suit you just fine. Having grown up in a nutty fundamentalist church, this site is a nice corrector for that strain of Christendom, however, this site fails miserably in applying it’s arguments consistently to itself and across its varied positions.

    RLC, you stare into the Abyss, and you fail to see what is staring back at you.

    • Eden Murphy

      Often those who speak of the grizzly details of abortion are often quite frankly bold faced liars and/or uninformed individuals who believe everything they hear on Faux News and read on the interwebs. The women who went to Gosnell where mostly poverty stricken and many of them immigrants. People who are undeserved medically and have lower levels of education. If you have a problem with abortion, address the root cause. Educate women and provide them opportunities to provide for a family rather than telling them to sit in the corner with their legs closed. Denying women equitable access to reproductive choice and preaching abstinence only is what created Gosnell’s house of horror. Not the other way around.

      • Daniel Olson

        I’m thinking you meant “underserved” not “undeserved”.
        I’m not sure what your source is for your first statement, but I cannot imagine a supportable connection between the 2. What part of ending a potential life that could live and breathe and praise its Creator is NOT grizzly? Denying women equitable access/preaching abstinence only did not create Gosnells’ house of horror. Believing lies did.

      • wjgreen314

        You just made that specious allegation with no empirical data to substantiate it. Gruesome and grizzly remain so quite apart from one’s political-economic ideology or the cable news channel s/he watches; though thanks for recognizing that Fox is the number 1 cable news channel by far.

    • wjgreen314

      Excellent. Thanks so much for you keen and observant post.

    • Kevin1985

      The word is “grisly”, unless you are referring to bear attacks.

  • Pingback: Red Letter Revolution | a room of her own()

  • Alyssa B

    As a former Christian (current atheist) it is encouraging to see Christians speaking with, what I feel to be, sense. I came here for research and started reading article after article. If the people around me had been teaching these ideas of understanding and fellowship instead of hate I may have stayed. Probably not, but I would have had much more respect for the faith that I turned away from. Thank you all for your well thought out and reasoned responses. I look forward to reading more and better understanding my fellow humans. My hat is off to you!

    • wjgreen314

      So you never told us WHY you left the faith? Did you decide you’d rather engage regularly in sin but didn’t want to be a hypocrite or did your decide to but your faith in evolution whose Statistical probability is ~ 1 x 10 ^-38 ? I’d really like to know for my research. Thanks.

      • redandblack

        Gee, maybe she left because of judgement from other Christians.
        But that would be too crazy.

        • wjgreen314

          And maybe time will start gong backwards. No indication it will but why not widely conjecture about an improbability.

          • Kevin1985

            There’s nothing “improbable” about judgmental “Christians” running people away from the faith.

          • wjgreen314

            If people blame the sins of others for preventing the forgiveness of their own sins then they did NOT get THAT faith from God; that’s not faith, that’s predicate, contingency and blame-shifting. True Christians do NOT blame others’ sins for their own.

    • GodLovesThruAction

      Hey Alyssa…are u still on here? I was really sad to see the reply below. Pls don’t leave us sister. Jesus is still here and u are wanted, accepted and equal here regardless if u are a current atheist and regardless if u stay that way. Thank u for sharing your heart in your post. You were very clear why u left the Faith…because of people teaching hate and Jesus would have supported that decision. It is unfortunate that many Christians have used Jesus as an excuse for their own narcissism and need to be superior and judgmental of others but that is not who HE is. I am so sorry for the pain, confusion and disappointment u have experienced and still continue to experience even in places like this site that work so hard to stay safe. Broken people will always exist and shine darkness in the Light and u are a Light here and YOU are valued and welcome. Blessing to u my fellow human. ;) My hat is off to u for your courage to even come on here when it has been hurtful in the past. You are very strong and gracious! I hope to hear from u!

  • John in Alice Springs, AU

    Hi everyone I’ve been in the website for 20 mins, and despite the fact that the intro video makes the (really valid) point that there are very few verses about homosexuality, but lots about justice, the poor etc, in this last 20 minutes I can’t help but notice the emphasis about homosexuality!

  • Pingback: Labelled with love | rojnut()

  • Eddie

    He also says not to let your right hand know what your left hand is doing, so posting all about it on the Internet means…you have your reward.

    • Camino1

      Unless they’re not doing it for a reward.

  • Pingback: A Canon Within The Canon? | The Tension()

  • Michael Crass

    Jesus said much more than the words in red in the four gospels. These massages are from Jesus as a Jew under law, to Jews under law. These are to Israel and have to do with God’s prophetic program to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. God started a new dispensation (Eph 3:2) with the apostle Paul, who is the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13). Paul revealed the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery(Rom16:25), which was not revealed in the four gospels. If the words of Christ in the Jewish four gospels should be in red, the words of Christ to Gentiles and Jews in Paul’s revelation should be in gold. They are the capstone of divine revelation! Have you yet heard of the dispensation of the grace of God committed to Paul? (1 Cor 9:17).

    • Messianic

      REALLY?!? So what you’re saying is that Jesus’ words spoken to Jews, are inferior in importance and spirituality to Paul’s words spoken to Gentiles? Because obviously, the teaching given to recently-converted, formerly “without hope and without God” pagans, must contain a revelation more Divine than the teaching given to the people who had already had a relationship with God for two milennia? That Paul’s teaching doesn’t just add to Jesus’ teaching, but actually makes Jesus’ teaching obsolete?

  • Joshua Shanholtz

    Has Illuminati Built the Third Temple Yet?

  • Josh Shanholtz

    ..Has Illuminati Built The Third Temple Yet? What year is this? Are
    Americans Still Sending Aborted Fetuses to Moloch @ Bohemian Grove?

    • JD

      Not sure of the answer to number one. It is currently 2013, and yes, Americans are still sending aborted feti to Moloch @ Bohemian Grove en masse.

  • Pingback: Christianity without the Old Testament? - Page 3 - Religious Education Forum()

  • Vince

    Jn 5:46-48: “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 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?’ Jesus says all scripture is about Him.
    I think this movement seems to be saying that the red letters are more important than the black ones. I disagree. They are all about Jesus and what He did for us on the cross.

  • Rev. Dawson

    So what if all of the words in the bible from Genesis to Revelation that aren’t in “red letters” are Jesus’ words too? After all, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and are not merely the words of men: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16-17. Even when the devil himself speaks in scripture (Genesis 3, Job 1, Matthew 4, etc.), he’s being quoted by the Holy Spirit through a human author. I commend your desire to live according to Christ’s teachings, and agree that precious few “Christians” care about justice for the poor. This is unfortunate and should be rebuked, but there is so much in both the old and new testaments beyond just the “red letters” that commands us to care about the poor. Its all over the prophetical books. And I’m sorry, but even the levitical condemnations of sexual sin (homosexual or otherwise) are Jesus’ words too. I am not even remotely a “fundamentalist”, just a pastor who believes in a historic Biblical orthodoxy. I commend some of your motives, but your view of scripture is seriously lacking and dangerous.

  • Fake Christian site

    Remember what the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to write –

    II Timothy 4:2-4 2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

    He was speaking of this site.

  • BrotherRog

    Random questions. Can anyone tell me what phrase/expression Jesus said the most? I’m of the understanding that it was “let those who have ears to hear.” Similarly, can anyone tell me what word Jesus spoke the most (other than of/and/it/he/she/a, etc)? I’m of the understanding that it’s “hear.”

    • JD

      repent, kingdom of heaven

  • Stephen

    Red Letter Christians have been around for centuries. They are called Anabaptists. If this group that calls themselves Red Letter Christians think they are being innovative and radical, then they know nothing of church history. Anabaptists churches will look at this organization and say, “what took you so long?”

  • Bart Breen

    It’s entertaining to see the reaction of some Foundationalist, literalists who can’t get past the idea that the Scriptures are a hand that points to Jesus Christ and not Jesus Christ Himself.

    Glad you’re here. Your voice is needed and when the Pharisees cease trying to crucify you, you’ll know you no longer sound like Jesus.

  • geraldkinen

    I want to learn more

  • geraldkinen

    Maybe it’s time To start

  • d. paul

    Like this website. As to the views on inerrancy, an example of why viewing scripture as errant will never hold water:

    Jesus said, “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matt. 5:18). If this is a “red letter” webpage and one purports to be a “red letter Christian” then one cannot claim to follow the words of Jesus while simultaneously articulating a view of scripture directly contrary to his. But the point goes deeper. Christ found the Hebrew Scriptures to be completely accurate as per his statement above because he claimed he came to “fulfill” them (the verse prior). So in fulfilling them, would he really allow or intend for his words to become errantly recorded? Seriously, Jesus would really do that?

    Then again, if one sees scripture as fallible, then maybe Jesus did not say any of that in the first place. Or, if Jesus is not quite God (which depending on things that one finds errant in the Bible could easily be the case), then he would be powerless to keep his even potentially inerrant words from being errantly recorded because he is more mortal than divine…which ni teh end realy means he is just mortal.
    Inerrancy eventually finds itself settling on:
    -Christ is only human
    -God’s nature is defined by me-as I would like to see it, therefore:
    -Our view of right and wrong is as legitimate as his, so:
    -He loses authority, power, and dominion, which makes:
    -Good and evil ultimately the same…then irrelevant…and finally…
    -Life becomes meaningless
    This is admittedly a truncated explanation of the many flaws of the “I am a disciple of Jesus even though I believe the scriptures are not inerrant” perspective but my point is to simply challenge you to look at Jesus for who he was, how he lived, and what he said before making statements that clearly do not comport with all of that.

  • Kristian Denman

    So can I assume then you dont give the same weight to the comments of the apostles?

  • tamalynk

    LOL. I’m not sure if it was a Nashville deejay who first coined the phrase, “Red Letter Christians.” I’m pretty certain the idea has been around a good, long while. I do appreciate the fact that you’re taking the idea and running with it, however. On behalf of those who endeavor to live out the teachings of Jesus, I thank you.

  • Daniel Ambrose

    Interesting project! I am a Christian. My forefathers and mothers have been Christian for maybe 1500 years. In all that time, I don’t think a one of us has ever read the Bible! On reflection, I don’t know how much of my Christianity comes from the Bible. The Universe as incontrovertably brought forth from Oblivion by The Creator is endlessly fascinating. The Bible is, for the most part, very very boring. Over the years I have found this to be a guiding paradigm.

  • mqw

    I find it ironic that a group that purports to only follow Jesus’ (the ultimate example of humility in the universe) words, would be so arrogant…”I’m a RED-LETTER Christian”…in other words “I’m better than all other Christians because I do it the right way.” I’m embarrassed for you.

  • Dante Prudente

    So called red letter Christians are not Christians at all. Just because you claim to believe and follow Jesus doesn’t make you a Christian. The first Christians were called so at Antioch and they were a community of believers who accepted not only the teachings of Jesus but the death and resurrection of Jesus and that he was thus the Messiah (Christ). The passion of Jesus is NOT in in red letters so does this mean they do not believe in it? Technically it should. In fact Jesus’ words on the cross (do appear in red) would make no sense without the narrative. Also the traditional Orthodox Churches preserved the very words in red so if so called red letter Christians only believe or follow the words in red then they are accepting “Church tradition” on what he said. So why not everything else? Reason: Rebellion against authority. Power usurpation. They oppose the original mother church who is all of us and the bride of Christ. (Also see the serpent and the garden of Eden story on the fall of man for more incite).
    The truth is…we do have a historical perspective on church people claiming to follow Christ. THEY WERE CALLED THE GNOSTICS. They were heretical beliefs to the common beliefs all orthodox Christians held. Maybe if these “red letter Christians” want to have a more :historical” basis for their red letter only dogma they can get themselves a more historical text and basis for their beliefs instead of “trusting” our traditional preservation of the NT and teachings of Christ and follow the Gospel of Thomas (a purely sayings gospel of early Christian Gnosticism) that has been dated as early as the first century and has close ties to the source text of all three synoptic Gospels (called by historians and scholars as Q fr. Ger. Quelle). However let’s call a spade a spade… THEY ARE modern GNOSTICS and NOT CHRISTIANS. …and that’s that.

  • Dante Prudente

    Lot’s of Gnostics here, non believers, even New Ager types who simply DO NOT understand Christianity or the Bible. Much of what is expressed is just learned from alternative media sources lol like this very blog).
    Maybe some should take a basic biblical studies course (just to start) oh that’s right sorry alternative media dis’ formal academic education in favor of blogs like this. For heaven’s sake even the internet can resolve most of the nonsense written here if people had basic research skills, could think critically and weren’t so busy looking for ways to dis authority and the bible, orthodox (traditional) Christianity in general.
    This blog is useless just another NWO Illuminati schism propaganda designed to water down and the eliminate Christianity altogether “prepping” the masses (the useless eaters as they call you all) for accepting of a NWO.

    • cajaquarius

      So, you are a worshipper of tradition and human greatness. Good for you. Must be convenient, being able to lick the bottom of the false apostle Paul’s feet and hide behind your empty tautology and legalism instead of getting up and making the world a better place and following in the foot steps of this Christ you claim to follow (but don’t). Mighty, mighty convenient. Enjoy that wide and easy path, chum. Tell me if the worldly treasures you store up and the legalisms you hide your failings behind actually get you anywhere in the end.

      • Dante Prudente

        What the heck… lol are you mumbling about? You people are foolishly yapping about things you have no knowledge of. You knowledge is nonsensical BS. You have not qualified a single statement you’ve made?
        When you make a vague negative statements about what people believe or do… pls provide an example of what you mean, otherwise it’s just an “ad hominine” attack. Most of you type people have either NEVER been to church… or understood what your church taught in the first place. this was due to your own ignorance and stubbornness to accept and learn. If you are an ex catholic I will bet any thing (theoretically) that you rarely attended mass and even when and if you did you just mumbles and never really even tried to understand or experience the “celebration” (not worship) of the Mass.
        The same goes for Protestant services… if you an ex church goer you could not have really ever tried very hard. Most who agree with this blog (and oppose me) were just loose non devoted “part time” Christians in the first place or were unbelievers altogether. Look no further then the parable of the sower and see what ground YOU represent and you will most likely find why traditional expressions of faith and Christianity DO not work for you.
        The fact is Pauline is the “chosen” form of Christian expression as history has revealed Gods plan perfectly. All Gnostics hate the true and faithful Apostle Paul. We read in Paul’s letters all about people like you. YOU are the false teachers. Even the Holy Mother Church was inspired (lead by the Holy Spirit) to Paul’s contribution that half the New Testament is his teaching. Oh I forget YOU don’t accept the New Testament do you… excuse me are you “claiming to be a ‘Christian'”? Huh.
        The Gospels are in unity with Paul’s teachings and Acts agree too as a testimony. You false teachers bring “another” Gospel NOT that of Paul or the Mother Church. For almost two thousand years all the true followers of Christ have agreed… and suddenly in the last century or so you heretics claim that YOU have the true message? Brahahahahahahaha! YOU are a JOKE.
        I store up worldly treasures? Where is my wealth except in the faith of Christ and his Church? What legalisms…. Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. You are under Christ not the Law of the Jews… but to be free from the law of the Jews one must be obedient to Christ and HIS CHURCH. The New Testament confirms this NOT in a legal statement but in the historical record of what those communities believed and did. Don’t say you can’t find it either…. you hypocrite you just railed bout legalisms yet you try and use legalism as an excuse for your own disobedience!
        You yap how I don’t do anything to make the world a better place… lol, why? …because I am not doing what you want me to do, ie. Rebel. I teach against false teachers/believers (like you) and reprove then as scripture requests. I do my own charitable works which you know NOTHING about, Nor will I boast them. I profess and preach the faith as revealed in the Gospels and in accordance with our faith and traditions of the Church that are authentic. Yours are not.
        I am a commentator on the NWO and Illuminati (of which you are a part of but are just to ignorant and deceived to realise) warning and providing the most simple solution and counter active measures to prevent a NWO. Uphold your traditional faith and get involved with your community on all levels, Church, family, local government and media etc. Avoiding a Illuminati NWO is defending (and nurturing the Old World Order.
        Only Libertarian minded, New Agers, Gnostics, Occultists, Illuminists, Luciferians, Satanists, Atheists, Pseudo -Christians and Freemasons etc etc etc…. are looking for a NEW ORDER. They are busy doing “a great work’ (as they call it) trying to break down and discredit the current “Christian” order for their evil Luciferian New Age Occult NWO.
        These (and more) are my contributions to fighting evil, corruption and making the world a better place and I am proud of it in Christ’s name. What are you doing… spreading a false gospel and pseudo Christian message contrary to what Christianity IS and has ALWAYS been by slandering it and making up pseudo history, taking things out of context… things you never understood in the first place? And for what? To help destroy it and set up a false Christianity a counterfeit one taught by the anti-Christ and his brainwashed followers so that they can set up his kingdom (government) on earth (a NWO)?
        My beliefs are authentic, sound and consistent. You are the deceiver. Now get lost and stop your useless evil fork tongued chatter. I reject your lies.

        • cajaquarius

          Hey, look here a Paul Worshipper who thinks he has a shot of not looking like a total fool when his views are picked apart. Most of them are cowards like their master, so this is a rare treat. I am going to offer a translation of his stuff for the lay person who might read this later.

          [What the heck… lol are you mumbling about? You people are foolishly yapping about things you have no knowledge of. You knowledge is nonsensical BS. You have not qualified a single statement you’ve made?]

          Translation: “You are talking crazy! Following Christ isn’t about setting aside worldly ambitions and following in his footsteps, it is about your belief in magical rituals and priest-craft.”

          [When you make a vague negative statements about what people believe or do… pls provide an example of what you mean, otherwise it’s just an “ad hominine” attack. Most of you type people have either NEVER been to church… or understood what your church taught in the first place. This is due to your own ignorance and stubbornness to accept and learn. If you are an ex catholic I will bet any thing (theoretically) that you rarely attended mass and even when and if you did you just mumbled and never really even tried to understand or experience the “celebration” (not worship) of the Mass.]

          Translation: “How could anyone be an ex-Catholic? The only way that is possible would be if you somehow had a problem with their claiming to be the One True Church based off a very specific reading of one part of the Bible where Jesus told Simon Peter “upon this rock I build my Church” – or is it Simeon Peter? That guy could never seem to spell his own name right in the texts found from him. Oh well, it is probably nothing. Back to the point, how could you not follow a Church that claims infallibility in serving as Christ’s voice on Earth. Because they butchered people during the Crusades? That was so long ago! Because they wrote the Malificarum – a book that explains how to torture innocent young women to death because they might be witches? That is silly! You are taking all of these historical facts out of context. Clearly Jesus would have been okay with absolutely everything the Church has done forever and ever and an infallible tree can sometime produce rotten fruit just like Jesus never said.”

          [The same goes for Protestant services… if you an ex Protestant church goer you could not have really ever tried very hard. Most who agree with this blog (and oppose me) were just loose non devoted “part time” Christians in the first place or were unbelievers altogether. Look no further then the parable of the sower and see what ground YOU represent and you will most likely find why traditional expressions of faith and Christianity DO not work for you.]

          Translation: “How could anyone dislike Protestants? They believe in the Gospels of the Lord as handed down through the ages (for real, guys, the Catholics got it wrong, I was jk about before). Never mind that the concept of Saved by Faith Alone was an invention by Paul that contradicts Christ and never mind that Paul bragged about himself constantly, claimed to use lies to get his way (just like Jesus would do, lol). Never mind that there are hundreds of Protestant sects yet many of them hold a high view of Scripture as infallible as is and never mind we don’t actually know that the word ‘abomination’ means ‘not functional’ in Hebrew and doesn’t denote moral good and evil. Clearly, the only way you can doubt us is if you just weren’t paying attention.”

          [You yap how I don’t do anything to make the world a better place… lol, why… (Blah blah blah, bunch of nonsense about a fictional secret group of Reptillian aliens called the New World Order or Illuminati that secretly controls the worlds supply of Maple Syrup and all the money, and can shape shift, is also Satanic as well as Aliens, and also their eyes can shoot lasers, and they are time travelers who are also immortal, and despite seeking to control the world couldn’t touch Dante’s version of Christianity even though that would be their most logical tool for controlling the world, but why ruin this nonsense with logic, and allowing for that possibility would mean Dante would actually have to get off his butt and study his faith and there is a Law and Order Marathon on and he is so tired, can’t he just sleep?) … current “Christian” order for their evil Luciferian New Age Occult NWO.]

          Translation: “All hail our Holy and Most High Father Saul of Tarsus and his Most Cherished and Holy Son Constantine who killed tens of thousands of people for our sins! Let us mindlessly defend these empty traditions, Roman legalistic nonsense, and insist on black and white legalism in order to hide the fact that we are really atheists to cowardly to admit that we don’t actually feel the presence of God in our lives. If we did have faith in God, we wouldn’t be so scared of the NWO and the machinations of man all the time. Our fruits are rotten but we try to sell them as good by insisting that we are right and everyone else is wrong. Are you as scared as we are yet? Are you as faithless as we are yet? Are you as blind as we are yet? Be scared of anything that comes from the East and be suspicious of everything except our Sacred Traditions that we totally didn’t get from one Pharisee butcher who claimed to be knocked off his horse on the road to Damascus in order to consolidate power for himself in the budding Christianity forming in the first century. And never mind that Christ said that ‘Heaven is for ones such as these Children’ implying that we should follow our conscience as opposed to empty legalism – clearly Paul was right when he said that we have to listen to him and you have to do five Hail Marys and say this magic phrase to really be saved.”

          [These (and more) are my contributions to fighting evil, corruption and making the world a better place and I am proud of it in Christ’s name. What are you doing… spreading a false gospel and pseudo Christian message contrary to what Christianity IS and has ALWAYS been by slandering it and making up pseudo history, taking things out of context… things you never understood in the first place? And for what? To help destroy it and set up a false Christianity a counterfeit one taught by the anti-Christ and his brainwashed followers so that they can set up his kingdom (government) on earth (a NWO)?]

          Translation: “My contributions to following in the footsteps of Christ involve fighting an organization that I can’t prove exists and obeying Tradition with the unquestioning loyalty of a Brown Shirt, even when there is archeological evidence that it might be wrong, even when peer reviewed science casts a questionable light on it, and even when it violates what little of my conscience remains. Because this web site presented me with something scary that violates Paul’s authority, I am going to reassert that my faith is the real one and you are a liar liar pants on fire.”

          [My beliefs are authentic, sound and consistent. You are the deceiver. Now get lost and stop your useless evil fork tongued chatter. I reject your lies.]

          Translation: “I follow empty legalism because I have no faith. I follow black and white theology based on years of tradition because questioning that tradition scares me as it might make me realize I am an Atheist, deep down, and have no spirituality to speak of. My fear drives me to concoct vast conspiracies to fight that secretly seek to sway me and claim my soul, but in truth, if I had faith I wouldn’t feel all this fear and the fact that you realize this and called me on it scares the hell out of me. The real message of Christ isn’t about how you live, it is about what you think because I can control that, and even though Christ had no love for the Pharisees I now follow the teaching of one because I am blind, my heart is hardened, and my faith never really existed. Any who rock this shack I have built on the sand are clearly people who are supporting the NWO. My fingers are in my ears now la la la la la I can’t hear you.”

          • Dante Prudente

            What the hell are you talking about all you did was paraphrase and translate my words to mean whatever you want them to!. Complete googlygook. You have offered no proofs of anything (now I’m sure you THINK you have em but you don’t). Your conspiracy theories have been a) proven wrong buy countless scholars and historians (oh yeah right they are all part of the Conspiracy) alike… simple research would reveal it so much that I will not bother to try an source what is so readily available on the net and in libraries everywhere!. Most of what you have yapped here is even addressed in the NT itself! 1 example is that it’s all about what you think not what you do.
            True what come out of the body is what kills/defiles not what you put in or if you follow laws for the sake of following laws…but Paul dealt with this too where Gnostics said they could not sin anymore and sin did not apply to them because they believed in Jesus name. The Christian response is NO NO NO! If Christ and his law are in your heart you will have the ability to avoid sin. This is not the same as it magically happening no matter what you do. Being mindful of what is right and wrong and what is in the law (written on our hears) is still a part of it. What this means is even if we fail and still sin we have hope… and that hope is the redeeming work (a charitable act) of Jesus death and resurrection.
            Of course you can’t hear me… lol that’s the point what you say and think and have been brainwashed into is complete nonsense….Just more Illuminati disinfo and brainwashing. Go suck canal water buddy your NWO will be defeated and that’s that. I am Soooooo glad you have your fingers in your ears (probably lying about that too) and so you will not respond to this. Prove me wrong. Don’t respond… keep your word for once Satan… you liar! You picked nothing apart but just shows how arrogant and Ignorant you really are. Remember… la la la la you can’t rear me so don’t respond.

          • Dante Prudente

            Sone how my original response did not post so rather then bother to say it all a gain so that Cajagoogoo can paraphrase it…. I will just concede for arguments sake.Ok you are right and I must be wrong. Your “paraphrases of what I said (and meant) have convinced me that what I real said was not what I meant but what you meant and now I see that I was wrong in thinking what I thought and that I should have realized that what I thought was not what I really thought and meant butt what you said I said in your paraphrase. Thanks for saving me and bringing me to the real Christ. I’m sure you can paraphrase this too coz man you are really really really smart. I am know a red letter Christian too! Hallelujah!

          • cajaquarius

            Awww~ I am flattered you are attempting to use sarcasm and humor to defeat me here. You crazy lovable little conspiracy nut~ Listen, chummo, I came at you hard in the hopes you would cite sources and really come back at me with some facts that substantiate your precious Pharisee Paul was the real deal. What I got was what I always get – empty legalism, Appeal to Authority, and no sources cited yet, assurances, that they are plentiful and I should go look them up. I have seen your “sources” – one is an assurance that Scripture is God Breathed and protected from change by God. The other was the idea that if we throw out Paul we have to throw out the other Disciples because, according to Galatians, they approved of Paul. You want rebuttals?

            If the Bible was protected by God then differing translations couldn’t possible exist. If differing translations exist this is a sign that there is no force protecting this God Breathed totally Literal Document as that couldn’t happen if it were protected by an almighty God. The argument is invalid.

            Paul wrote the letters to Galatians. Using a liars claims to substantiate his authority is asinine. The argument is invalid.

            Don’t gem me wrong, your crazed AM Coast to Coast mumbo jumbo about shape shifting New World Order Reptilians running the world and how my name has Aquarius in it and, therefore, I must be a shape shifting Reptilian alien member of the New World Order and Illuminati are hilarious to read and totally make me look like the sane one in our discourse, but you are wrong and your traditions are lies as I just proved. Thank you for playing.

          • Kristine Rowland


            Did Jesus ever make fun of someone else’s name? I’m just wondering. I don’t think he did. Not very loving, are you?

          • k_Lutz

            I don’t mean to interrupt the ‘conversation’, but @cajaquarius:disqus, you have expressed an opinion I believe I came upon in my own study of Christ and Christianity: “the concept of Saved by Faith Alone was an invention by Paul that contradicts Christ and never mind that Paul bragged about himself constantly, claimed to use lies to get his way.” What groups, blogs, organisations, etc. are proficient in this understanding? It gets lonely out here.

            I have noticed this sentiment in your other responses, as well, and find much of what you say appealing, and would love to converse with you in a gentler setting than the blogs. (I would even leave my email up long enough for you to get it.)

            If nothing else, be it known that I …

            Trust God.

          • k_Lutz

            It seems your comment has got held up in moderation. I was able to review it, and find it quite compelling. And I looked at the link which, as you said, is in defense of legalism, which is far far from my p.o.v. will be removed in 12hrs, unless I am notified that of your response prior.

            Trust God.

          • cajaquarius

            Ah thank you for the email. I did get it though tend not to be as good at starting conversations. Still, if you want to email me in turn or ask me anything, feel free (I will share mine since you trusted me with yours, after all):

  • sonshinedragon


  • Kenneth Vaughan

    Sure, I would love to talk about things other than abortion and homosexuality. Though, this isn’t entirely the fault of Christians. The secular world often has no interest in asking us about our caring for these least of these, which statistically we are blowing the secular world out of the water when doing. I am a graduate student focusing on sociology of religion, and truly believe the data out there, including by scholars critical of religion, shows that Christians are not the hate mongers we are made out to be, and that we are the earths most compassionate people. Do not get me wrong, we are not perfect and have a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way to go. But I believe in all of our shortcomings, not only are we sinning for each shortcoming, but we are also committing the sin of conforming to the ways of the world. But knowing that Christians (particularly conservative Christians) are statistically the worlds most charitable people, why is it that talk show hosts would rather interview someone to talk about homosexuality? When Christians are empirically shown to be the most persecuted religious group on earth (I am not referring to incidents in the west), why is it the media is looking to see who Christians are allegedly victimizing? Why did Anderson Cooper do a special on a weird sermon about homosexuality that was recorded with a cell phone or something, in a church nobody had ever heard of, when the church once again being a global force against modern day slavery, while we are some of the most important people in securing freedom for refugees for Syrian, North Korean, and other refugees?

    Look at Ephesians 3:20-21

    20 Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, 21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

    God should be glorified in the church. I believe the church is doing a lot more to glorify God than we are given credit for, and we should be showing this off to the world, deflecting all glory away from us, and on to God.

  • Kenneth Vaughan

    I love the reminder for Christians to go out and love and serve the least of these. I do want to remind people of these red letters –

    Matthew 5:18

    18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or
    one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.


    Happened upon this sight and found it interesting.

    So I’m wondering who here has the signs of the true Christ believers following after them as stated in Mark 16:17-18

  • Linda Wade

    exactly WHEN and WHY did the Bible, a book created in 300 something AD at the bequest of the Roman emperor become the ONLY word of God to some… it is still a puzzlement to me why no one questions this… there are many other texts about Jesus and if you want a cleaner version of the Bible, go to the Torah, which is a more complete text.

    Beyond the red letters… what does anyone need to follow what Jesus taught.

    • wjgreen314

      CORRECTION: It is 66 books, a veritable library, written by at least 40 different authors over a span of ~ 1,500 years. You may be referring to the canon which was the decision about which books to include but that’s different than the authorship of the individual books.

  • Pingback: Why Tony Campolo Will Make You See Red | Pointes of View()

  • shanholtzjoshua

    Is Obama Still Eating dead kids @ Bohemian Grove? Or just the high priest? When will illuminati build the third temple? Welcome To The End Of Days.. I need $ = Im dead inside and Moloch is my daddy ….

  • shanholtzjoshua

    Is Obama Still Eating dead kids @ Bohemian Grove? Or just the high priest? When will illuminati build the third temple? Welcome To The End Of Days.. I need $ = Im dead inside and Moloch is my daddy …….

  • shanholtzjoshua

    Is Obama Still Eating dead kids @ Bohemian Grove? Or just the high priest? When will illuminati build the third temple? Welcome To The End Of Days.. I need $ = Im dead inside and Moloch is my daddy……. ….

  • Josh Shanholtz

    .Is Obama still raping kids to death @ Bohemian Grove or just the high
    priest? What pagan sun year is this again? Has Illuminati built the
    third temple yet? “I need $ to help the Poor” = Im dead inside and
    Moloch is my Daddy.. Welcome to the end of days ;)

  • Pingback: Ancient Aliens, The Great Deception? (The Cosmic War) | Hip Hop | Instrumental | Beats | Buy Beats | Instant Downloads | #1 Beat Store Online | Trenton Divine | | Rap | Instrumentals()

  • Rebecca Dann

    Maybe you guys discussed this already but in my area people are suddenly crowing about going to a “Bible-based” church (insinuation is that mine is not Bible-based which is Lutheran) and I don’t enter conversations about it but what exactly do they mean to say?

  • San Juan

    Sadly at best, your sincere, well meaning, Liberal man-made theology equals C I N O’s and Faux Christians as in the Religious Left.

  • San Juan

    Sadly at best, your sincere, well meaning, Liberal man-made theology equals C I N O’s and Faux Christians as in the Religious Left.

  • selene luz

    To me it’s always just been common sense…I had one of those red-letter Bibles growing up…and fortunately was surrounded by a community who, for the most part, tried to live the red letters(it was as they say, a simpler time)…and, thinker that I am, saw that his words WORKED to make the world a better place. So, it’s always been a ‘duh.’ As a kid, Jesus’ words were the bottom line for instruction…all the other stuff was for context(history). Seems simple, and I have little tolerance for those who won’t think. And, may I add this to discussion…in this era of acronyms and labels, Jesus was a liberal, both socially and politically in word and deed…don’t know why there’s such a fear of that word…well, yes I do: the world’s full of fear mongers and in our 24-7 tech. age, we are constantly exposed…back to thinking…it’s an invaluable resource for humanity, and yet the schools in my area barely teach a child to read, much less think.

  • Susan Cottrell Freedhearts

    Hey there, you RLC bloggers, let me know how I can be part of this! Susan Cottrell at Freedhearts

  • Hoppyman50

    I know this may piss people off but, you do realize that the 4 gospels are part of the old testament, right? The so called red lettered passages were and are for those who are part of the Kingdom of David or better know as the Gospel of the Kingdom.

    One may call themselves Christians but if one thinks that they were called to live in the flesh and do good deeds, you are sadly mistaken. If one thinks God is for what He is clearly against, again you are a bit delusional.

    When I read about how God is for contraceptives and is for the homosexual life style in the open letter to evangelicals I was a bit taken a back, my heart goes out to you who believe such bullish!t. I can tell you without reservation, homosexuals can be saved but the work of the flesh will not be rewarded for their sexual life style. This goes for heterosexuals as well. And for those who think abortion and contraceptives are part of Gods plan, that thought is mind blowing. This shows openly the shallow level one is in when these are the focus of ones walk. I know it makes one puff up and one is shamed in feeling guilty of the scripture but it’s not of God. This digs to the flesh and human nature wanting to be important and viewed by others as compassionate.

    Yet one fails to come to the judgement seat of Christ, these red letter words are a bit to controversial and God forbid, they’re even condemning of sin. There are two judgement seats in the bible, I’d suggest not to be at the second one, the same Jesus you claim to be compassionate will condemn man to eternal separation from God.

    I know without a doubt that this site is not Christian, one may ask how?, well I pose these question, how does one get saved? Are we saved by the gospel of the grace of God or the gospel of the kingdom? Are we baptized in water or are we baptized by one spirit into one body? Are we obligated to do good works or are we created unto good works?

    We are saved from judgment and sin, “sin nature”, by Christ sacrifice on the cross, His blood and His taking our sin onto Himself, it is His faithfulness that assures us ever lasting life. Not your bs works, it is His finish work.

    Rather then running to Gandhi for wisdom and judgement of Christians in general, why not at least use a scripture in your blog. Rather then following social theology, which denies the power of the cross, follow St Paul’s teachings in the new testament.

  • wjgreen314

    Why Does Barack Hussein Obama keep getting HAMMERED in the courts?

    Chief Justice John Roberts did Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Sebelius a SOLID by changing his mind at the last minute and voting for Obamacare with the caveat that the Obamacare mandate can’t Constitutionally be a mandate but must be a tax. So Obama raised taxes on Americans but still speciously refers to them as a mandate. Perhaps Roberts was concerned about his own legacy and how it would be affected if he overturned and ruined the legacy of the 1st Black President.

    But that’s where the SOLIDS end. Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Sebelius (and now Burwell) did themselves EPIC FAILS with their insistence that they not garner a single vote from the Grand Old Party of Know, the “not a dime for abortions” as an Executive Order rather than codifying it within the bill proper, the Contraception Mandate, and writing that subsidies are ONLY available to U.S. citizens who purchase their Obamacare from State Exchanges (there are only 16 out of 50 States!) and NOT Federal Exchanges.

    Citizens United, McCullen, Hobby Lobby, NRLB vs Canning, and NOW Obamacare itself! Appeals Courts & SCOTUS are over-ruling, rebuking, refudiating, rejecting, reproving and repealing Obama’s laws, policies, appointment, regulations and social agenda.

    Thank God. The beautiful and sublime thing about the Rule of Law is that the Law Trumps Unlawful Rules!

    How did Obama and his 21st century erstwhile Pakalolo Choom Gang get in so much trouble this time?

    Obama and his Gang refudiated (New Oxford Dictionary’s 2010 Word of the Year) bipartisanship for partisanship and sunk their own battleship!

    POTUS’s eponymous healthcare law did NOT receive one single bipartisan vote from the Grand Old Party of Know in either chamber of Congress but instead got rammed through both chambers as a result of the Democratic-controlled House passing a veterans housing benefits bill, which Dirty Harry Reid gutted and inserted Obamacare, which then passed in the Dem-ruled Senate under the sneaky rules of Reconciliation — a type of Nuclear Option light — without a single GOP vote and less than the normally requisite 60, and was then shipped back to the Dem-ruled House and passed with a simple majority, again without a single GOP vote and with 34 Democrats voting against.

    Warts and all. Errors and all. With express language stipulating that only purchases on State Exchanges are eligible for Federal tax subsides (Over-ruled on 7/22/14), and in opposition to the Constitution’s mandate that all revenue raising bills (that’s the mandate that’s a TAX that Obama still calls a mandate, see Article I, Section 7, par. 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America) ORIGINATE in the House of Representatives but which originated in the Senate after Dirty Harry Reid gutted the veterans’ housing benefits bill and shoved Obamscare inside the remaining shell; more lawsuits are pending against the latter unConstitutional maneuvering by Dirty Harry (see Sissel v US Dept of HHS; pacificlegal DOT org/cases/Sissel-3-1374)

    “Republicans invoked Thomas Jefferson’s observation that ‘great innovations should not be forced on a slender majority – or enacted without broad support.’ They cited broad legislative innovations like Social Security and Medicare, both of which enjoyed bipartisan support. They complained that one fewer vote in the Senate or a change of four votes in the House would have been enough to defeat ObamaCare. Democrats responded just as vociferously and passionately that this healthcare reform package was too important and overdue to delay or compromise.”

    Thank God, before whom POTUS and Congress swear a solemn oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help them God,” that Democrats were NOT able to inject more of their Marxist Progressive agenda into our politics. Their failure to do so has been our nation’s salvation. Now we need to replace the Progressive Failures with Constitutional Conservatives who can take America forward and into the future. Arriba Y Adelante!

    forbes DOT com/ sites/physiciansfoundation/2014/03/26/a-look-back-at-how-the-president-was-able-to-sign-obamacare-into-law-four-years-ago/

    michellemalkin DOT com/ 2009/10/15/shhhh-sneaky-dems-create-obamacare-reconciliation-loophole/

  • Diana Johnson

    Hello Shane and Tony. I have been following your sermons for some time now. I have taken a few years off of religion altogether and have been defending my move away from the church by some of whom used to be my best friends. Who are now, sadly, against every word I say. I wanted so badly for you guys to show up at the church I was attending in Jefferson, Georgia. It was one of those churches that started out good and community outreach (but at a cost to those who would receive) and all they had to do was give their lives to Christ and they could get much needed clothing and goods and food. That to me was conditional love and I voiced it. And I was immediately alienated within our church organization. I was even considered for ordination as a minister. I am glad I left as it would have been even more painful to leave the church as it already was! Anyway I learned a great deal about the bible, who wrote it and when that the knowledge actually weighed against the misinformation and utter silence to my questions moved me and my family away from church life and religion altogether. I now do not currently believe in the Christ of USA. And I certainly hope that God is indeed real so I can ask him the powerful questions that I have received vagaries from the religious, unsatisfactorily generalized and teeming with self righteous snobbery. I do not mean to be judging here but I was hurt real bad by so called Christian friends. I have lost my life in Georgia, my job, my wife was called the help, when I asked questions I never realized that they would answer with hatred and bigotry and racism. My wife was told to shut up when the pastor told her that I returned to my life of sin. She was defending me and he told her to shut up. I was not there at the time and then I found a rock that was hurtled through my wife’s windshield of her car that said “sinner!” on it. My tires were slashed and our friends shut us out. All because I refused to go along with them and vote as they did in the elections. BTW you might ask what have I done to deserve this treatment from our once loving friend the pastor and other church leaders?
    There was this couple who were on disability who were reaching out for help one Sunday. They were going to be kicked out of their home by the landlord. They were only a month behind, but my guess it was not the first time. Hence the harsh treatment by the landlord. I heard them ask the pastor and he waved them off. I asked them what was going on and they told me I engaged several researches into their plight and helped them find a place to live that would accommodate their pay rate. They also rectified a long standing family spat. There was love and forgiveness in the air as the family opened their doors to these two and I had a huge part in getting them back together again. I thought it was wonderful to be used by god to help folks out. My pastor found out and he told me that the poor are suffering because it is god’s will for them to learn a lesson and that I had interfered with god’s plan for that couple. I was shunned and asked for the keys to the church and I was stunned!
    From that moment on I have removed any and all religious documents from my home and especially those given to me by those people who were once the best of friends. I could see now that they were anything but good friends and it was conditional love to belong to their inner circle and through an act of kindness be shunned by them hurt more than anything else I have ever been through. except for losing 2 of my sisters as a teen.
    So learning about god and genocide and incest and contradictory bible verses and watching Christians re interpret the bible to suit their arguments moved me away as well. SO I am afraid that you are too late in coming to talk to those people who so desperately needed to un-politicize their belief system and return to helping the shunned and social outcasts and homeless families in and around Atlanta. They actually demonize those folks who are receiving economic help through governmental programs. They have called upon the lord to strike Obama dead and his family. These people are extremely dangerous and their congregation is so simple minded that violence will soon move from rhetoric to action. Please help us to understand the considerable hurt that these people have put us through. I hope to be able to at least land on some ground of belief rather than slipping off over to the other side. My faith has been severely damaged from these “conservative compassionate” Christians. They have proven to be anything but compassionate.

    • davidnrobyn

      Diana, I’m coming into this as an outsider to the discussion, but I just want you to know that I’m very sorry at what you’ve had to endure. The saying, “the church is the only army in the world that shoots their wounded” comes to mind. Please don’t give up on Jesus because other people have failed you. Look to Him, and not to people. This unconditional love thing is a toughie. In fact, it’s impossible–for us. He’s the only one who can do it, through us. Blessings to you.

  • Guest

    One man, so many arguments.

    • NorCal Native

      Trust in Jesus Christ is pure, holy Faith.

      Religion is trust in man’s institutions, including government-sponsored creations called “churches.” If you have a 501(c)(3) tax exemption/license, your “god” is the government, for you cannot serve two masters. Hence, we have the mess that most call “Christianity” today.

  • lily

    Doclo and others – The reason some Christians deny the whole truth of scripture is because they don’t like what they read, it makes them uncomfortable. The LGTB folk would agree with you because the Scriptures rebuke them, to name but one instance. I would like to ask you who is going to be the arbiter of which bits of scripture are the light weight parts and which the real heavy weights You or someone else. I also suggest that to say that those of us who take the Bible seriously are ignorant is untrue and very patronising. Take a pair of scissors and cut out the bits you don’t like, don’t believe, can’t agree with and before you know it all you will have left is the cover. That of course would be quite convenient as then everyone can do what they want.

    • Widge Widge

      We all take bits of the bible we do not like even the so called literalists we all do it the rlc are honest enough to admit it.

      • lily

        Widge Widge -You may pick and choose or mix and match if you want but please speak for yourself. You don’t speak for me.

        • Widge Widge

          Everytime someone makes claims like yours they are always proved wrong. If you support Israel fighting back you go against Jesus teachings is one obvious example relevant to you.

          • lily

            Widge Widge – You sneer at Christians who take the authority of Scripture seriously but make dogmatic statements on your own account when expressing your personal opinions, — hypocritical perhaps??? And neither you nor anyone else has answered my question “who should be the arbiter of the relevance of scripture, who should decide which scriptures are heavy weight and which can be thrown out?” From your attitude I would guess you would feel more than qualified to decide for yourself! Without discussing the rights and wrongs of Israels’ responability to defend its’ people against aggression I would remind you that, Jews on the whole don’t accept the teaching of Jesus – they are still waiting for the Messiah – so your comment is stupid. That is why the authority of scripture is to be preferred to personal opinions from arrogant, self appointed gurus who feel qualified to correct Scripture.

          • Widge Widge

            You are the one sneering at other christians saying they do not understand the truth of the scriptures is the Holy Spirit in you? Do you speak in tongues have your prayers been answered? I have! Are you Gods vessel? You are the hypocrite and you interprate scripture from your own personal opinions

          • lily

            Widge Widge – I said no such thing. And yes I do speak in Tongues, ,have had prayers answered many times, am a born again spirit-filled believer. Although why I should have to justify myself to you is beyond me.. Your last statement is a lie and arrogant. But who is to determine which scriptures are true and which need reinterpretation by modern man? You don’t address the question. Why is that I wonder? I really would like to hear your views. You sound like a young man, so hopefully you will gain wisdom as you mature spiritually, and yes that is a bit condescending. But you really invited that with your statements.

          • Widge Widge

            Lilly your first post here criticised other Christians with no grace l. Jesus only condemned the church at the time are you attempting to do the same? The Holy spirit determines what is true when did I sneer at christians who take the Bible seriously? I take the Bible seriously but I dont worship it like some on here. You say I am arrogant but it is pot calling kettle black as you attacked other Christians I just rebuked you if I came across harsh I apologise thanks for calling me young we are all immature believers

          • lily

            Widge Widge, – what a strange moniker that is – I don’t know what planet you live on, my first post didn’t criticise other Christians I merely said that it is convenient to pick the scripture to pieces as it allows men and women to please themselves with a “clear” conscience. You are very transparently full of yourself as you make sweeping statements about others as well as me. But you still don’t answer my question – why? If the scriptures are sometimes light weight and sometimes heavy weight tell me please, if you can, just who is qualified to decide which is which? And frankly just who are YOU to “REBUKE” me or indeed anyone! That attitude is very indicative of immaturity in spiritual matters, so if you are of mature years you don’t come across that way. Sorry! btw your statement about Jesus condemning the church is a strange thing to say; the church didn’t exist in Jesus day it was birthed at Pentecost.

          • lily

            The comment by Josh below makes very sound wisdom.

          • Widge Widge

            Hypocrite you make claims about other Christians and make excuses then shout at people dare speak out it is easy to finger point at LGBT and Christians with different views and claim they cherry pick when in reality we all do it. Some of us are honest enough to admit it. I cherry pick with the help of the Holy spirit. The church has changed its mind on so many topics any honest mature Christian realises that . Jesus condemned the temple which was the church then. The answer to your question is the Holy Spirit

          • lily

            Widge Widge – This is the last post I shall make on the subject. From your ramblings it is obvious that you are an angry man, who twists the words of others to excuse your viewpoint. Cherry pick from scripture all you want but please don’t insult the Holy Spirit by claiming that He directs your personal interpretations. The Holy spirit will never speak in contradiction to the Word of God, That claim borders on blasphemy in my book. But beware that you don’t lead others astray by your off beat interpretations, that would be a very serious matter. – Children and millstones come to mind – I feel sorry for you for your puffed up attitude to anyone who dares to stand an the authority of Scripture as the revealed inerrant Word of God. What false teaching are you defending I wonder. Could it have anything to do with your comment about Homosexuality? The “churches” may have changed their minds over some biblical precepts BUT the Bible hasn’t. and yes there are modern Christian speakers who now preach a different gospel, but that also doesn’t change the truth.

          • Widge Widge

            I am not angry at all. I do get angry at injustice like Jesus though. The fact is we all cherry pick. You speak in tongues good. Do you do it in church? Are you a lady? If so you are going against Paul tge apostle again most people realise it was a letter to a church not instructions for us all. I stand on the authority of the Bible it is not perfect but it is Gods message tp us but I read it through Jesus. I agree the church is people but Jesus condemned the hypocrites pharisee and those law givers not full of grace those criticising othe christians are often pharisees you criticise me saying Iam leading people astray how? Also why are you stalking me?

          • lily

            Widge Widge please don’t reply again I AM NOT STALKING YOU O.K.!?
            You flatter yourself my younger friend. I did not say you were leading people astray but to avoid doing so. If you believe the bible to be imperfect as you state then of course I fully understand why you feel free to pick and choose which parts you accept and which you reject. I would say that Jesus never said that the scriptures, as He would have known them, were faulty.
            ” And everyone did what seemed to be right – in their own eyes – and there was chaos”

          • Widge Widge

            Then why are you following me on disques? Jesus never said the Bible was perfect but he trusted it and interpreted it Gods way e.g not stoning adulteress and allowimg disciples to pick food on the sabbath

          • lily

            for the same reason You are stalking me I guess. David Widgington

          • Widge Widge

            I am not stalking I am just replying to you whereas you are my only follower on disques. Dont understand the David Widgington thing I assume it is a joke

          • lily

            You flatter yourself – I am not stalking you – the very idea. I didn’t say you were deceiving people But to make sure that you don’t . And the fact that, according to you, the Bible is imperfect, explains much about you. To pick and choose which parts you accept and which reject is very convenient. “and everyone did what seemed right – in their own eyes – and there was chaos in the land” Cheerio my younger friend

          • Guest

            Widge widge I will not respond again after this as it is a rather futile exercise. You name call, distort what I say, make sweeping statements that you can’t back up and sneer at those of us who accept the Bbibl as the inerrant revealed word of God.

          • lily

            Widge Widge This is my last post on this subject, conversation with you is futile. You name call, distort my words, put words in my mouth, and sneer at those of us who accept the Bible as the inerrant, revealed Word of God. Cherry pick scripture if you will, that is your choice, BUT remember the Holy Spirit will never disagree with scripture, if you think that, I suggest that borders on Blasphemy. So please be careful it is a very serious matter to lead others astray with deceitful teaching. Children and millstones come to mind. You of course are responsible for your own actions. True the “churches” have changed their minds on scripture but that is their mistake and NOT the work of the Holy Spirit, and they will answer for that in due time. The Temple was the centre of Jewish worship in the time of Jesus it was manmade of stone, the CHURCH is not a building made with hands but is made of living stones, men and women redeemed by the blood of the Lord Jesus. Don’t confuse the two. You finally reveal that you are defending the LGBT lobby which of course is forbidden in both the O.T. and the NEW; so in order to excuse this I presume the relevant scriptures are among those that you cherry pick to ignore. Transparency at last. Honest you may be – Mature spiritually, I don’t see much evidence of that.

        • NorCal Native

          Have you sold all you own and given the proceeds to the poor? (Luke 18:22)

  • Chris C

    Jesus meant for us to follow what he MEANT, not merely what he ‘said’.

  • Guest

    Where’s the piece(s) about the Islamic Jihadi Terrorists ISIL, aka ISIS?

    Virtually every recent President dating back to Jimmy Carter has had to fight, in one way or another, against Jihadi Muslims waging war against U.S. and our allies in Benghazi (Tripoli), Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq and/or Iran; and before Carter, dating back to George Washington who had to contend with the Moslem Barbary Pirates off the North Coast of Africa; to say nothing of the fact that we had to fight Muslims in both WWI and WWII, in the latter the Muslims sided with Hitler over the Jews, the U.S. and our allies.

    Even after President John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 the equivalent of Islamic Jihadists continued to demand “jizya” (an Islamic tax on non-Muslims for ‘safe passage’), and under President Thomas Jefferson the Pasha of Tripoli (modern-day Libya) violated the Treaty when it captured the U.S. ship, Catherine, on September 25, 1800, robbed the crew and plundered its cargo, and then declared war against U.S. on May 10, 1801.

    It turns out the late 18th/early 19th century Moslems, despite what poor English Translations of the Treaty of Tripoli from Arabic said, continued to believe we were a Christian nation and would not not [sic] demand ‘jizya,’ and did not stop attacking our trading vessels. If you ask 21st century Islamic Jihadi Muslims comprising ISIL, living in Iran, most of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and much of Northern Africa they’ll also tell you we’re a Christian nation; how is it our enemies know this but so many Godless American Progressives deny it?

    The lesson of history is Islamic Jihadi Terrorists (or pirates) can not be appeased; they can either be kowtowed to or utterly defeated. There is no Western reasoning with them and there is no lasting accommodation. Israel has tried for decades and failed to broker peace with Islamic Hamas and the PLO.

    Either we submit to “dhimmitude” including the choice to convert to Islam, pay “jizya” or die by crucifixion, beheading or other torturous execution, or we confront them with overwhelming firepower and completely annihilate them. This will not end the Christian and Jew/Muslim conflict – it can’t be ended on non-Muslim terms – but it will Pyrrhicly “buy” time to live in relative peace unless and until a new generation of Jihadists grows up and chooses to re-ignite the Crusades.

    Even Pope Francis, a man of unquestionable peace more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Barack Hussein Obama, is praying for a cessation of the hostilities by Muslims against Christian minorities. Stopping short of calling for another Crusade as did 11th through 13th century Popes, he nonetheless spoke,

    “In these cases, where there is an unjust aggression, I can only say that it is licit (not forbidden, LAWFUL!) to stop the unjust aggressor…I underscore the verb ‘stop.’ I’m not saying ‘bomb’ or ‘make war,’ just ‘stop.’ And the means that can be used to stop them must be evaluated…One nation alone cannot judge how you stop this, how you stop an UNJUST AGGRESSOR.”

    ‘Nuff said.

    British Sailors Boarding an Algerian Moslem Pirate Ship

  • wjgreen314

    Virtually every recent President dating back to Jimmy Carter has had to fight, in one way or another, against Jihadi Muslims waging war against U.S. and our allies in Benghazi (Tripoli), Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq and/or Iran; and before Carter, dating back to George Washington who had to contend with the Moslem Barbary Pirates off the North Coast of Africa; to say nothing of the fact that we had to fight Muslims in both WWI and WWII, in the latter the Muslims sided with Hitler over the Jews, the U.S. and our allies.

    Even after President John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 the equivalent of Islamic Jihadists continued to demand “jizya” (an Islamic tax on non-Muslims for ‘safe passage’), and under President Thomas Jefferson the Pasha of Tripoli (modern-day Libya) violated the Treaty when it captured the U.S. ship, Catherine, on September 25, 1800, robbed the crew and plundered its cargo, and then declared war against U.S. on May 10, 1801.

    It turns out the late 18th/early 19th century Moslems, despite what poor English Translations of the Treaty of Tripoli from Arabic said, continued to believe we were a Christian nation and would not not [sic] demand ‘jizya,’ and did not stop attacking our trading vessels. If you ask 21st century Islamic Jihadi Muslims comprising ISIL, living in Iran, most of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and much of Northern Africa they’ll also tell you we’re a Christian nation; how is it our enemies know this but so many Godless American Progressives deny it?

    The lesson of history is Islamic Jihadi Terrorists (or pirates) can not be appeased; they can either be kowtowed to or utterly defeated. There is no Western reasoning with them and there is no lasting accommodation. Israel has tried for decades and failed to broker peace with Islamic Hamas and the PLO.

    Either we submit to “dhimmitude” including the choice to convert to Islam, pay “jizya” or die by crucifixion, beheading or other torturous execution, or we confront them with overwhelming firepower and completely annihilate them. This will not end the Christian and Jew/Muslim conflict – it can’t be ended on non-Muslim terms – but it will Pyrrhicly “buy” time to live in relative peace unless and until a new generation of Jihadists grows up and chooses to re-ignite the Crusades.

    Even Pope Francis, a man of unquestionable peace more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Barack Hussein Obama, is praying for a cessation of the hostilities by Muslims against Christian minorities. Stopping short of calling for another Crusade as did 11th through 13th century Popes, he nonetheless spoke,

    “In these cases, where there is an unjust aggression, I can only say that it is licit (not forbidden, LAWFUL!) to stop the unjust aggressor…I underscore the verb ‘stop.’ I’m not saying ‘bomb’ or ‘make war,’ just ‘stop.’ And the means that can be used to stop them must be evaluated…One nation alone cannot judge how you stop this, how you stop an UNJUST AGGRESSOR.”

    ‘Nuff said.

  • Pingback: Reflections on Charity and Justice - Views from the Pews()

  • Pingback: Tony Campolo: Neem Jezus serieus()


    The older I grow the more frequently I examine my beliefs and the application of those beliefs. I have discovered over the years that I have become quite a realist. And being a realist has, at times, made believing in God, interesting and enlightening.

    As a realist, it is easy to understand and comprehend anything that can be seen, felt, tasted, smelled or heard. Anything that exists outside of those individual parameters are more difficult to accept as real. Even those considerations that have been proven to exist through indirect observation and experimentation can still be questioned as to their actual existence. At least for me, the most common and useful example is the quark, a well known subatomic particle. While the direct visulation of a quark is currently unavailable, the existence cannot readily be denied due to the plethora of facts obtain by decades of detailed scientific experimentation by hundreds, if not thousands, of investigators. However, until there is an acceptable or practical way for the direct visualization of a quark, the existence of such a structure can still be questioned. Regardless of how ridiculous and impractical the question may be, until it is fully confirmed with repeatability by any of our five senses, the question of existence of the quark is still open, at least to me as a realist.

    So how do I handle God’s existence and my faith as a Christian with my dilemma of being a realist. First, I should attempt to define exactly what it means to be a realist. A realist sees things for what they are and not what somebody tells them they are or what they may be. A Realist has their own views, opinions, doesn’t accept for unscientific statements or theories, misconceptions, or descriptive titles.

    Most individuals in the current scientific community state as fact, since God and His existence cannot be visualized, measured or proven, God therefore does not exist or ever existed. These scientific individuals believe that all that has been attributable to God has occurred or happened randomly. Or more precisely, all these instances have happened purely by chance or by accident. They believe there is no type of intelligence behind any of these unbelievable and truly fortunate “accidents”.

    As a realist I should not have difficulty accepting their scientific explanation or hypothesis. However, the realist in me forces me to be more pragmatic and critical in dealing with the existence or non-existence of God. This pragmatism forces me to consider certain facts and statistics that most wish to deny or ignore. In truth, some in the scientific and intellectual community have gone as far as to create unprovable hypotheses to support their beliefs and to attempt to disapprove even the possible existence of an intelligent designer.

    Statistically, using all current applicable scientific facts relevant to each instance that will be mentioned, the resulting analysis of the statistical impossibilities are quite beyond amazing. In truth, I find these statistical results literally exciting. Take for instance the exact moment of the creation of the universe, often called “The Big Bang”, without intellectual control, statistically, the universe would not have happened. This also applies to the continued existence of the universe, the creation of the planets, the creation of our solar system, the creation and the continued existence of earth, and more importantly, the creation of life on earth and the creation of mankind. These are just a few of the statiscally impossibilities that have occurred to support our existence. Without an intelligence to exert the “precision” to control or to direct the multitude of circumstances that has lead to, supported or continues to support our existence, it is statistically impossible to have occurred by random chance or accident. Also, consider the fact that just one or even two of these statistical impossibilities were necessary for our existence, that taken together as a whole and analyzed statistically, how can anyone deny the existence of an intelligent designer, better known to all of us as God our Father.

    But even with this knowledge that God does exists, has always existed and will always exist in and out of our concept of time, space, reality, etc., plus several personal experiences I have had that cannot be explained except by divine intervention, I still occasionally find myself asking the question, “does God really exist?”. But is this questioning of God’s existence caused as a result of being a realist? Or is there another explanation that is more accurate available? Every time I find myself question if God does exists, I am usually exceedingly fatigue, feeling low, depressed, upset, angry, frustrated or I am in another negitive state or some negative emotional condition. It is then without being aware of what is happening, that Satan starts his demonic attack on my beliefs. Satan and his demons start to whisper questions questions in my ear that they hope may weaken my faith in some subtle way. It is then that I have to cast out Satan and his demons back to the dark pit of Hell where they belong.

    So I have come to the conclusion that being a realist is not at all detrimental to my belief in God. It seems that being a realist, at least for me, helps me to better understand that God’s existance can be seen all around us, every day, no matter where one looks. That is until I let my guard down and make myself more vulnerable to attacks by Satan and his demons and all the lies they spew.


  • Pingback: An article that broke me. | adventureswiththebrowns()

  • Angie Alvarez

    Wow.. I thought I was the only one who thinks this way about the Bible! It’s being used as a weapon to condemn, judge, and control others simply because people have deemed it the ‘inerrant word of God” for centuries when in reality God Himself didn’t pen all of these words, they were penned by men. People are imperfect, people make mistakes so there’s no way it’s inerrant. Doesn’t make it less Holy or valid to me. I just don’t want to worship the Bible, I want to worship my Lord and Savior.

    • NorCal Native

      To fallen humans, worshiping the Bible is far easier than worshiping Yahshua the Messiah.

  • Duane Stewart

    My beliefs has evolved as I have grown older. I am no authority. The way I understand it…
    1) The Bible was written by man not God. It is a collection of many books, many authors, over many centuries and thus has many contradictions. Accuracy of God’s message is a problem.
    2) The Old Testament is a history of what God used to expect from us and lays a foundation for us to understand what Christ was accomplishing for us.
    3) Christ came and gave us new laws to replace the old laws, the two most important are namely “Love the Lord…” and “Love thy Neighbor…” Christ wrote nothing down that we know of, rumors of Christ were written down, sometimes by men who never met Christ, sometimes hundreds of years later. Accuracy of Christ’s message is a problem
    4) Christ was the master. Any person who teaches contrary to Christ’s teachings or examples, is not a follower of Christ, certainly not a Christian, this “proof” or “test” must include historic figures such as Paul, Peter, and etc.
    5) Christ was very respectful and tolerant to Lucifer, while being tempted on a mountain, setting the example for us on how to treat each other. Christ lived his message.
    6) Ghandi, many members of the Hindu religion, many members of Islam, and many members of the Sihk religion (and others) practice Christ’s teachings better than some mainstream American Christians. We should be ashamed that they live the message of Christ better than we do. Our practice of saying one thing and doing another, breeds contempt against us.
    7) Our faith in God is not really threatened by Gay Marriage, Evolution, Women’s Rights, helping the poor, drinking alcohol, smoking pot and etc. Gays do not want to kill all Christians, some ARE Christians. Some christians are just refusing to Love their Neighbor and want to irrationally hate someone, anyone, perhaps to take the focus away from their own failings.
    8) We need to do good unto others daily, not oppose or hate, protect all our neighbors so they are respected, do not suffer, have equality, and achieve happiness. If our example is good enough, they seek out Christ too.
    God be with You.

  • Pingback: Why Progressive Christians Need God Part 1 – Approaching Justice()

  • Pingback: A Year in Review | Anne Vyn's Theology Connect()

  • Mick

    So basically to promote Red Letter Christians you attack other Christians who do not measure up , who you believe you are better then , while adopting the beliefs of the present culture into a loving all inclusive secularized Jesus . Okie dokie .

    • NorCal Native

      Those who are members of government-sponsored institutions called “churches” declare all who do not believe as they are “unsaved” and “not Christians.” Faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and a desire to follow Him are the only requirements to be a Christian. Yet man’s institutions have added countless “requirements” to that.

      As for “loving and inclusive,” that is descriptive of the Jesus who prevented the adulteress from being stoned for her sin.

      I believe homosexuality is a mental and moral defect, and, in the Bible’s term, sin. It is never acceptable, but neither are so many sins so many of us struggle with.

      How many church-goers and preachers of “family values” are divorced? “Great Christian leaders” (sic) like Hal Lindsey are multiple divorcees (now on his fourth wife). Are any of us in authority to judge righteously if we, too, are sinners of the same or similar sins?

      • Mick

        I guess that is one way to look at it . I see Marriage as a covenant ordained by God . It provided security and stability for the couple and children for the love of each other to florish and the Love of God to be Honored . Never seen adultery glorified in this culture , perhaps in Hollywood , open marriages where mates are swapped have become acceptable in some socio groups . But those who promote a view that God’s design is bigoted or attempt to minimize the importance of marriage to the equal importance of it diminished because it is equal to any other “sin” are missing the point . Everyone is better off following the design of marriage , not sure if homosexual is mental or moral defect , but it is something that if seen as just another sin , just another sin , is the sin of gossip just another . Gossip can destroy a life . You appear to be attempting to diminish the gift of marriage by promoting it as just another aspect of life . Its the design of God to promote and create life . As we see recently the importance of a man and women has lost value in this culture . I am a sinner , divorced, have done more then I will say here of things that I am ashamed of and totally against the word of God . But just like some of my friends who have showed a propensity for same sex attraction , we do not suggest our sins of the past be cause for not showing the Love of Christ for the future . Marriage in the form God designed it is sharing the Love of Christ . Only satan will attempt to remind us of our past to stop us from loving Christ . I think you meant well , but attempting to diminish the importance of marriage using the failures of us all is just what this world is doing on so many issues today . A good comeback has always been when satan reminds you of your past , remind him of his future . God will not be mocked , His design is Holy . marriage is Holy . We can agree on the fact we need to promote that in our churches , and as God told that adulteress , to sin no more . That is inclusion and loving from A Christian view .

        • NorCal Native

          You are arguing against strawmen you created.

          I never said, not once, that marriage is not a holy institution between man, woman, and God Almighty.

          Holier than thou types condemn homosexuals while committing serial adultery, unrepentant love of money, and a myriad of sins. Churchianity would have much more moral authority against homosexuals if holiness was practiced consistently, and not merely used as a vain political weapon for self-gain.

          • Mick

            Well I guess we are coming from different straw man .My original comment was against attacking Christians , you replied to me with an argument I had not been involved in at all , stating homosexuals had a defect also which I found insulting to gays , but I believe you did not mean it to be . Be careful how you say things , that could be hurtful to an unbeliever , especially if he or she was gay . They do not have the benefit of the Lord in their life . . I attempted to explain the importance to marriage and the gift it is from God . That gift is to all of us . Not intended as a wedge I agree. The attacks against homosexuals , which I found your comments also to show of course have hurt the church . I agree with you on that . The importance of marriage being undermined in this culture has reflected on all of us ,today the political attacks are against those who support traditional marriage , even though I believe most people just go to the side that has more of the bully pulpit so to speak . Most people have little concern for the homosexual or minority , it shows in the tolerance of how we treat the least of these , to be a religious Catholic or Christian on a college campus today does not make one feel as part of the mainstream for sure , or does Hollywood for the most part show religious people of any kind except as non compassionate , ignorant and bigoted . far from my experiences of the people I know in my Evangelical settings , non political and more concerned about how to show the Love of Christ then to show how much to other Christians have failed to do so . But I am an Evangelical and go to AG church . We are growing in numbers world wide and in this country because of those who Immigrate to this country . Perhaps you may consider looking at how Christians are marginalized today , I know we have problems in the American church , but there is a secular move to undermine the beliefs and morality that Christianity blesses us with . God had it right . ;0)

          • NorCal Native

            “stating homosexuals had a defect also which I found insulting to gays”

            You’re joking, right? I’d say it’s a mighty big defect, to willfully embrace the “lifestyle” that led to God annihilating two cities. Telling people that their “lifestyle” is defective and grossly sinful is “insulting”? And you use the perversion of the good English word “gay” to accommodate Sodomites?

            Prideful sin is rampant in our society, including within all the worldly churches (all of those with a government-sponsored license/tax exemption, in other words, nearly all of them). My position is that it ALL needs to be addressed, homosexuality AND adultery, abortion AND war (which is often post-birth abortion), etc., etc. You may wish to look in the mirror as part of the problem the Church has today, if telling homosexuals (and other sinners) that their “lifestyle” is defective is “insulting” and should not be done. A sinner that refuses to accept he IS a sinner, that is, refuses to accept something is dearly wrong in his life, and, especially, is “insulted” by the fact, has no interest in believing in the Christ.

          • Mick

            Sorry but I read the Bible numerous of times . Where does it say that God annihilated two cities because of homosexuality ? In Jude in the New Testament it speaks to sexual immorality , in the Old Testament it spoke to pride and also to being uncharitable to those in need . But that is what the Bible says . I can show you the scriptures but I believe it would benefit you more if your researched it your self . See we are never too old to learn . ;0)Your free to have your own opinions . Sorry I thought you were a Bible believing Christian . But I take the word of God as my source , sometimes I need some help from the Holy Spirit , sometimes from good teachers . But you will not find anywhere in the Bible that says Sodom was destroyed for Homosexuality .
            I know it took myself to transform to understand many things about the Gospel and the Lord in time , not in the blink of the eye . Many can be saved through fire and brimstone , seen it done , but many through compassion for the physical and spiritual needs being met through Christ . I drank milk in the beginning . .To me being transformed is a continuous act , but sorry it appears you are quite strong in your opinions . I was just trying to say using those words are insulting to people who have no clue , it appears bigoted . I guess saying what is stated in the OT would be worse , so I see your point . Yes I use the word homosexual , gay is used as way of making it sound nicer you are right . The culture effects me also , thanks for pointing that out .

          • NorCal Native

            I am a Bible Believing Christian, but apparently not your “bible.” Perhaps you read the Queen James Version, where it has sanitized all verses that “insult” homosexuals? It is clear that the chief defining characteristic of the Sodomite “lifestyle” was just that, sodomy – and illustrated clearly when the males demanded Lot bring out the angels so the Sodomites may “know them” (definitely not just a chat, but the old Biblical euphemism for sex).

            My “opinions” are based on God’s teachings. If it’s right, I endorse it; if wrong, I declare it so. And passionately! In this New Age, we “mustn’t offend” any of the unrighteous, of course. (rolls eyes)

          • Mick

            Then please show me one verse , just one that connects homosexuality with Sodom . Just one …. Should be easy , don’t get angry .It Figures the one guy who seems to agree with me that the Red Letter Christians are full of bunk is also a very nasty fella .

          • NorCal Native

            “Nasty”? LOL – you are the one who is smarmy and self-righteous without true righteousness.

            Genesis 19:5: “And they [the males of Sodom] called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [that is, have anal/oral sex with them].” In Genesis 19:8-9, the Sodomites refused women and insisted on the men.

            Of course, I logically presume you will now try sophistry to weasel out of the obvious meaning of that passage.

          • Mick

            “Where does it say that God annihilated two cities because of homosexuality ?”
            But your right the rape of the Angels could be seen as a homosexual act . But as the Bible states and the scriptures in the word of God , no where does it say Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality . I would thinking learning something would make you feel better ? I always enjoy learning more and more about God and His word .
            You sort of kicked the can down the road after this . As the Bible Teaches God had decided to destroy Sodom when he visited Abraham . The scriptures from the Bible is the word of God and state why it was destroyed . Remember afterwards Lot’s daughters got him drunk and slept with him to keep the blood line going . Incest is also a violation of God’s Law. Which is worse to you , incest or homosexuality . I think both are perverted . Lot was saved by God .
            Sorry but when Jesus spoke to the adulterous women he did not call her names , he did not condemn her . He showed Love to her , This opened Her up to the Love of God . Then she realized her sin , not till she Knew God did she realize it . Your calling people names before they know God , and your name calling Christians will possibly drive away some who need that Love , that changing power to with stand the nature of sin . You sound like it comes from your superior knowledge . The Red Letter Christians and you seem to deny the power of Christ to change the person , Christ did not come promoting your concept of morality and need to point out the defects in their life , He came to offer a way to the Father using the Love of God . Through that love homosexuals can and have been changed , you deny that power .in your own theology , God does not need your help in changing and transforming lives .
            Sorry we have nothing left to exchange . I believe you have a religious spirit that makes you need to be right instead of needing to share Christ .

          • NorCal Native

            Your wrote: “you seem to deny the power of Christ to change the person…you deny that power in your own theology”

            You like to make plenty of assumptions. You establish strawmen so you can “defeat” them to make yourself feel good. Such strawmen do not describe me or my “theology.”

            I have met homosexuals who have come to Christ, and, guess what, they all admit their “lifestyle” was sin, and they aimed to do what Christ commanded, “go, and sin no more.” You, on the other hand, seem to want to make apology (defense) for their “lifestyle,” following the “Gay Christian” propaganda that the Sodomites weren’t, well, sodomites. For almost 2000 years, Christian teaching has been clear & solid, but now, we have the Church of the Apostasy reigning as pertains to sexual perversion (all of it). “Church-building” and political correctness have replaced conviction for wrongdoing.

            You wrote: “I believe you have a religious spirit that makes you need to be right instead of needing to share Christ.”

            You’d rather be wrong? You prefer falsehood rather than truth? Sharing Christ and calling for repentance go hand in hand. Remember, “go, and sin no more,” not, “go, and sin some more.”

          • Mick

            Jesus himself singled out only Sodom’s
            inhospitality (Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:23, and Luke 10:12). Rejecting His
            disciples, or refusing to show them hospitality, He said, was a worse sin than
            anything that went on in Sodom (Matthew 10:15). The sin here, according to the
            Bible itself, had nothing to do with homosexuality.

            God already was going to destroy sodom before
            the situation you offer ever happened with the Angels . .

            Ezekiel 16:49-50: “Behold, this was the guilt
            of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and
            careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty
            and committed abominations before Me.[8] Therefore I removed them when I saw it.” No mention of
            homosexuality here.

            Was their homosexuality in Sodom , I would
            think so . It was a city lost to perversion I agree . But interesting you
            started out speaking to all the other sins that we commit and you now are just speaking to homosexuality that was never mentioned even here . Are you OK ?

          • NorCal Native

            I’m very OK; God sent His Son for me, and has bestowed me with the wisdom that is considered “hate” and “ignorance” and “bigotry” by this fallen world.

            Your wrote: “‘Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me’…No mention of homosexuality here.”

            The Bible writes: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)

            The homosexual “lifestyle” is, today, identical to what happened in Sodom. Hedonistic, self-serving perversion.

  • Pingback: ~~ The Feminist Question ~~ | Grace@Sixty()

  • Pingback: Who are the Red Letter Christians? - Stand Up For The Truth()

  • Josh Zepnick

    You must repent and believe the gospel (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 16:31, Acts 20:21, Luke 24:47, etc.). This is what Jesus Himself taught. This is the new birth (John 3:3,7) which Jesus spoke of. It is the narrow road to eternal life (Matthew 7:12-14). Jesus Christ is the Word of God, and when someone is born again, they believe it, because they have placed their trust in HIM, who is the Word. Anyone who says differently is a liar and deceiver (Acts 20:28-30, 2 Peter 2:1). This is the Gospel which many of the apostles died for, and which millions of early Christians were killed for. Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried, rose again, and will return to judge (1 Cor. 15:1-4, Rev. 19, 2 Cor. 5:21). We are to place our faith in Him alone for salvation (Eph. 2:8-10, Romans 3:20,28). Nothing else saves. Everything else is a false Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). The men who run this site are liars and deceivers who deny the Lord who “bought them” (2 Peter 2:1). The narrow way is the only way to salvation, through Jesus Christ on His terms (Romans 10:10-13, John 14:6). This is the faith that Polycarp died for, that Wesley and Whitefield were ridiculed about, and ended Spurgeon’s life early. It is the moving of the Holy Spirit behind John Huss, William Tyndale, John Bunyan, John Owen, Alexander MacLaren, A.W. Pink, A.W. Tozer, Leonard Ravenhill, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones, to name only a few. They encountered much opposition from false institutions and teachers, yet they spoke the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). May God open the eyes of the blind (Isaiah 35:5) and turn them from this deceptive organization and millions like it. Look to Christ as He reveals Himself in the Bible and live- repent and believe (Mark 1:15)! If you want to contact me my email is

  • Pingback: Red-Letter Journey (Introduction) | Melanie Anderson, Pilgrim()

  • Laura George

    Red letter Christians are scary. You either accept the whole Bible as God’s Word or you don’t. All Scripture is breathed out by God.

    • NorCal Native

      The Word of God is Jesus Christ Himself (John 1:1). As for “all scripture,” who defines it? A council of fallible men? Do we accept the Apocrypha, as well? It was in the King James Bible of 1611, and the Septuagint, which Jesus and His apostles used.

  • rrubdp

    If Jesus is the God of Israel, what about the Old Testament? Should much of the Old Testament be printed in red? Isn’t Jesus then the author of the Ten Commandments – and much else? And if so, how does the concept of Red Letter help us?

  • Clint

    Greetings from New Zealand
    I have just finished the book Red Letter Christians”
    Now I need to read it again with a highlighter.
    I really enjoyed the book,thank you for publishing it.
    I am tired of complicated Christianity and over recent years have moved more into a social justice side of my faith.
    Your book has challenged me deeply and I am excited as I move into a renewed passion to be a Red Letter Christian.
    Go well