Was Jesus a "spiritual terrorist"? -- Senlatheil vs. Bible John

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between Senlatheil and Bible John who will debate the following resolution:

Resolved: Jesus was a "spiritual terrorist".

Senlatheil will affirm and Bible John will oppose. The debate will have 4 rounds and posts will be submitted concurrently, per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3670379&postcount=23).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3671511#post3671511) is set up in the General Religious Discussions forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Enjoy the debate!

- NS, FD Moderator

[Bible John]

INTRODUCTION

I want to thank iidb.org for hosting this debate and NightShade for moderating it. Before we dive into the debate I'd like to introduce myself to those reading the debate that have never heard of me. First of all my names John Wolf and I am the Founder and Director of Church Education Resource Ministries. CERM is a web ministry mostly for the Christian, or those working in Church Ministry that need Biblical resources on a wide variety of Biblical topics. CERM is also a ministry that hunts down, confronts and exposes Spiritual Terrorists and other such workers of the Devil. Perhaps this is the biggest difference between CERM and the other Director of another web ministry that posts here. In this debate I plan to use the New International Version as the standard text. I will at times quote from the KJV, NKJV, NASB or other translations, but since this debate is more Theological in nature, instead of Exegetical, I do not believe that a literal translation (like the KJV or NASB) will be necessary. And besides I'm sure most of you would agree that the old King James English is more difficult to understand over a modern translation like the NIV.

In this round I will be discussing what a Spiritual Terrorist is and will provide a bit of a more detailed definition and profile of these deceivers. In the following round I will be persuading my opponent in my argument that Jesus was not a Spiritual Terrorist as he claims. Jesus came and challenged the world to move away from the pharisaical legalism of his day, but his coming and actions were a fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy, as I will explain in the next round. Also nothing Jesus did nor said was against the will and providence of His father. More detail of this in the next round that in order to be understood my opponent and the other atheists and agnostics reading this debate must understand what a Spiritual Terrorist is.

BIBLICAL PROFILE OF A SPIRITUAL TERRORIST

First one must realize is that the word "Spiritual Terrorist" is just one of many words that can be used to describe false deceivers. Looking at the book Words of Delight by Biblical Scholar Leland Ryken, he says that archetypes often recur throughout the Bible and there are many different themes and archetypes that recur throughout the canon of scripture (Ryken, 26). Likewise “False Prophet” or “Spiritual Terrorist” is a recurring theme throughout the Bible.

Below are other words (archetypes) to describe "Spiritual Terrorists" that are used in the Bible. (From the New International Version)

1. Snakes & Vipers- Mt 23:33
2. Scorpions-Lk 10:19, Dt 8:15, Eze 2:6
3. Wolves-Mt 7:15,Mt 10:16,Lk 10:3,Acts 20:29, John 10:12
4. False Prophets- Mt 7:15,Mt 24:11,Mt 24:24,Mk 13:22, 2 Pet 2:1,1 John 4:1
5. False Teachers-2 Pet 2:1,1 Ti 1:3
6. Brute Beasts-2 Pet 2:12
7. Animals- 2 Pet 2:12 (NASB, ESV and HCSB)
8. AntiChrists-1 Jn 2:18, 1 Jn 4:3

Although the word "Spiritual Terrorist" is never explicitly mentioned in the scriptures, the word can be used to label those that match the criteria of the words above. Based on criteria from these passages and from 2 Pet 2 and Jude below is a better profile of a Spiritual Terrorist and what they wish to accomplish. (From the New International Version)

1. The Terrorists are inside the Christian Church- Jude 1:4, Jude 1:12, 2 Pet 2:1-2, 2 Pet 2:13
2. The Terrorists lack the Holy Spirit-Jude 1:19
3. The Terrorists teach another Gospel Message- Gal 1:8, 2 Pet 2:1, Jude 1:4, 2 Pet 2:12,
4. The Terrorists lack the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22ff)-Mt 7:16,20, Jude 1:12, 2 Pet 2:14,
5. The Terrorists are all about Self Promotion-Jude 1:12,Jude 1:16,Jude 1:18,
6. The Terrorists attack all those that disagree with them-Jude 1:10
7. The Terrorists will spend eternity in Hell/The Lake of Fire-Jude 1:13, 2 Pet 2:3,2 Pet 2:9,2 Pet 2:15, 2 Pet 2:17

I use the criteria above to spot out Spiritual Terrorists not only for others on CERM, in Usenet Newsgroups and in my general life as well. Hank Hanegraaf is one of my Biblical heroes and he publicly exposes many contemporary Terrorists on his Bible Answerman radio program and in his books The Counterfeit Revival and Christianity in Crisis. John MacArthur also exposes many Terrorists in his book Charismatic Chaos. Besides these books there are a half dozen-web ministries out there that expose the Terrorists. Apologetics Index, Deception in the Church, and Biblical Discernment Ministries are just a few of the many faithful men out there that are called to spot out and expose these "Brute Beasts".

So it makes perfect sense why the Atheist, the Agnostic nor the rest of the world whom are blinded by the Devil Satan (2 Cor 4:4) can spot out these Terrorists. To them all Christians are all wrong, and all too often the Spiritual Terrorists are just another type of Christian.

THE DANGER OF THE SPIRITUAL TERRORISTS

Speaking personally I know of one such Spiritual Terrorist whom I engage often on the Internet. This man speaks very abusively against matters he does not understand (Jude 1:10). For example, he often refers to those that disagree with him as "False Christian Scum" or "False Christian Filth." This man teaches hellfire doctrines as he denies that Jesus Christ is God. According to Jude 1:4 and 2 Pet 2:1 this is enough to condemn this man to everlasting darkness.

[Jude 4] For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

[2Pe 2:1] But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves.

This man publicly broadcasts his telephone number, email address and snail mail address on his website. I have taken the initiative to confront his hellfire teachings in an attempt to silence this man and to help others that are under his hellfire teachings (the Bible says that His people must be discerning towards those that do not teach sound doctrine). But this man got very angry and very offended that someone would question his authority and completely ignored verses like Acts 17:11, which says.

[Ac 17:11] Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

All who have public ministries must be held up the scriptures. This man does not want to be held up to the authority of scripture, and thus the reason for his overreaction to my testing of his teachings. The HUGE difference between Jesus and this man is that Jesus knew and was accountable to the Bible. This man is not accountable to the Bible. In his worldview his perverted view of the scriptures is the only correct way to heaven. This man is a fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy and is a “Spiritual Terrorist.”

THE ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC VIEW OF THE SPIRITUAL TERRORIST

I know that my atheist and agnostic critics believe that both this man and myself are "Spiritual Terrorists." But what they often fail to read and understand is that over and over again on my web ministry do I cite that I welcome the critique of those that can rationalize with me from the scriptures just like how the Bureans tested Paul daily with the scriptures. I am not trying to use myself as the Biblical Authority, because I am not, but I do have an example of how I have and continue to welcome Biblical critique.

For example this week a Charismatic gal whom I matched with on eharmony said in a message to me that I was a false prophet. I responded and challenged her to show me Biblically where I am a False prophet. For if I truly was a false prophet I would be teaching another gospel message (Gal 1:8), as I would be in denial of essential Christian doctrines (The authority of the Bible, The Virgin Birth, The Deity of Jesus Christ, the Atonement for mankind's sins on the cross, and Justification through Faith and not works). But in her reply she was very emotional but not one word of her reply contained any Bible verses. This tells me that the Bible is not this gal's authority as it should be and she was not filled with it (Heb 4:12, Col 3:16, Josh 1:8-9). For if I am a "Spiritual Terrorist" or a “False Prophet” then there would be sufficient Biblical Support to prove such a claim. Her argument about me being a "False Prophet" and the Atheist and Agnostic view that my critics often implant in me that I am a “Spiritual Terrorist” is just plain hogwash.

I believe that my opponent is mistaken in his views of a “Spiritual Terrorist” and his incorrect view that Jesus was one. I will demonstrate in the following round why Jesus was not a “Spiritual Terrorist” but first we needed to get a working Biblical definition of a “Spiritual Terrorist.”

John Wolf
Church Education Resource Ministries
www.cerm.info

[Senlatheil]

First, I would like to thank IIDB for hosting this debate and Nightshade for moderating. I would also like to thank Bible John for joining me in this educational debate.

Resolved: Jesus was a Spiritual Terrorist.

In any such debate, the definition of ‘spiritual terrorist’ is very important. In order to understand what, precisely, we were debating, Bible John and I have discussed what it means to be a ‘spiritual terrorist.’ We have come up with the following, formal definition:

Spiritual Terrorist: a person who parasitically subverts followers of a religion to form a new cult which would not be viewed by members of the original religion as harmonious to their beliefs.

Although this is the working definition that Bible John and I have agreed upon, we have also noted biblical passages that further support this definition. This was an easy parallel to make because the Bible refers to “false prophets” who would try and lead Christians in the Early Church away. Bible John and I have agreed there are many synonymous aspects of ‘spiritual terrorists’ and ‘false prophets’ (Bible John, 2006).

We are warned by Jesus,

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

False prophets were apparently common in the Early Church, as they are commented on often in the New Testament. Jude describes men who pervert Jesus’ teachings, although I note that Jude did not specifically call them ‘false prophets’; the language is similar in Jude 1:4.

For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

Peter is clearer in his description of false prophets:

But false prophets also arose among the people, as false teachers will also be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction. Many will follow their immoral ways, and as a result, the way of the truth will be maligned.

False prophets in the Early Church, and by extension spiritual terrorists, were altering the teachings of Jesus to their own ends. They were leading members of the Church astray like a false shepherd, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, guiding Christians away from the true flock. It is important to note that spiritual terrorists and false prophets need not be aware that they are leading others astray—their intentions are separate from the results of their actions. Thus, a false prophet may appear either as a good and honorable servant, or as a manipulative thief. It is their words and actions that we use to define them as spiritual terrorists, not their intentions or moral fiber. With this definition of what a spiritual terrorist is in mind, I want to briefly review two people whose actions resulted in altering the Christian creed for many people. The two people I will describe, Martin Luther and Joseph Smith, are not necessarily spiritual terrorists—many reading this won’t think they are—but they will serve to demonstrate that Christian belief is diverse enough to hold many views on Christian doctrine, and the gradation between what is and is not a spiritual terrorist might be a point of perspective.

Historically, Christianity has had numerous people that greatly affected the evolution of Christian belief. Most notably, Martin Luther brought about a division within the Catholic Church of Western Europe with his 95 Theses on the practice of indulgences. (Indulgences are remissions of punishment that could be purchased from the Catholic Church, for ones own sins or for those of a relative in Purgatory.) Martin Luther posted these Theses on the Castle Church in Wittenberg in 1517, which denounced greed and worldliness within the Catholic Church. His actions eventually led to the Reformation and establishment of several Protestant traditions, including Presbyterianism (Mullett, 2004). While not important to the content of this debate, I find it interesting that Bible John’s “Statement of Faith” from his website is heavily influenced by Reformist teachings (Bible John, 2006).

More recently, and more drastically in terms of changes in Christian belief, Joseph Smith founded the Latter Day Saint movement in the early 1800s. He claimed to have been visited on multiple occasions by God, Jesus, two angels named Urim and Thummim, and received golden plates that detailed Jesus’ visit to the Americas. These golden plates were later translated by Joseph Smith and became the book of Mormon (Arrington and Bitten, 1992). Although Mormonism has essentially added an additional gospel of Jesus Christ, they believe the Book of Mormon is a companion to the bible, not a replacement. Importantly, Mormons also believe in Christ’s Atonement for people’s sin. Additional comparisons between Mormon belief and Christian belief can be found at their main website, www.mormon.org.

It will surprise no one reading this that the people who followed the Reformation, or the followers of the Mormon tradition of Christianity, do not see Martin Luther or Joseph Smith as spiritual terrorists or false prophets. Even the Branch Davidians did not see their spiritual leader, David Koresh, as a spiritual terrorist. Predictably, no one views the founder of their belief system as a spiritual terrorist. The examples of Martin Luther and Joseph Smith tell us that Christianity has evolved since the Early Church to contain many faiths, many denominations. Conflicting denominations, while fundamentally following Christ, might view each other as spiritual terrorists. The result: Spiritual Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. I would like to ask Bible John to briefly explain in the next round whether he thinks Martin Luther or Joseph Smith are considered spiritual terrorists. (Such a conclusion is not stated in Bible John’s CERM article on Mormonism (Bible John, 2006)).

In order to more objectively ascertain whether Jesus could be considered a spiritual terrorist, it is necessary to view his life and teachings from outside the Christian faith. Therefore, for the remainder of this debate, I have chosen to view Jesus’ gospel from the perspective of a devote follower of Judaism. Judaism, much like Christianity, is not a monolithic religion. There are subsets of Judaism just as there are denominations of Christianity. For any Jew that reads this debate, please accept my apologies if I present Judaism in a superficial fashion, my intention is to concentrate on how Jesus twisted Judaism to start Christianity, not to present a comprehensive overview of Judaism.

Judaism’s raison d'être is to follow a covenant between God and the Jewish people. This covenant is reviewed in several places in the Torah (ex: Deuteronomy and Leviticus) but for brevity it can be stated that if the Jewish people live by God’s laws (Deut 30:16) they will reach a level of righteousness causing them to be a “light unto the nations” (Isa 42:6) of the world, eventually bringing about an age of peace and prosperity. Thus, Judaism does not characterize itself so much as a religion as a way of life. It does not concentrate on the afterlife, but believes doing good deeds is right in and of itself, not a means to heaven.

Due to limitations of space, fundamental differences between the teachings of Jesus and Judaism will not be discussed. Instead, to concentrate on Jesus the person and his role as a spiritual terrorist, I will discuss views of Jesus that would convince a devout follower of Judaism that Jesus was leading followers away from halachah, the “proper path” of religious law that is central to Judaism (www.Torah.org).


Evidence of Jesus’ Spiritual Terrorism #1: Faith vs. Works

In Judaism, the purpose of the Torah is to teach that good works are just as important, or more so, than faith and belief. An old Jewish proverb summarizes this, saying, “if you hear that the Messiah has come, and you are doing a job, finish the job properly, then go and see.” In Mark, we see how Jesus’ siren song is so strong that people would drop whatever they are doing to follow him.

As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea--for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, "Follow me and I will make you fish for people." And immediately they left their nets and followed him.

In Judaism, righteousness is found in obeying God’s commandments. God writes the name of a follower of Judaism into the “Book of Life” after judging their actions and observance to the Torah. In contrast, in Christianity everyone is a sinner. Only belief in Jesus, and not one’s own works, can change that damnatory sentence. Throughout his life, Jesus taught that people are ‘saved’ by faith and belief that He was the Son of God.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

And expounded upon in Galatians

Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.

This is anathema to the followers of Judaism. The all-important element of life in Judaism is to live in accordance to the 613 Mitzvot, or commandments in the Torah, to live one’s life as God wishes. Thus, to a follower of Judaism, Jesus is teaching salvation by breaking fundamental aspects of the Covenant. Jesus’ contradictory teaching defines him as a spiritual terrorist.


Evidence of Jesus’ Spiritual Terrorism #2: the Messiah

In Judaism, they believe a descendent of King David would arise and usher in an age of peace, prosperity, and spiritual understanding that would center on the Kingdom of Israel. This descendent of King David is given the name Moshiach, or in English, the Messiah. The Hebrew word moshiach means “anointed one,” and refers to a mortal human being. This Messiah is to be fully human, born of human parents, with no supernatural intervention (Rabbi Barash, 2006). Maimonides, a Jewish rabbi, describes the Messiah in this way:

And if a king shall stand up from among the House of David, studying Torah and indulging in commandments like his father David, according to the written and oral Torah, and he will coerce all Israel to follow it and to strengthen its weak points, and will fight The Lord's wars, this one is to be treated as if he were the anointed one. If he succeeded and built a Holy Temple in its proper place and gathered the strayed ones of Israel together, this is indeed the anointed one for certain … But if he did not succeed until now, or if he was killed, it becomes known that he is not this one of whom the Torah had promised us, and he is indeed like all [other] proper and wholesome kings of the House of David who died. (Fox, 1990)

For Christians, Jesus is the saving Messiah. He is simultaneously fully human and fully God. By his self-sacrifice, all who accept him are granted entry into Heaven. When Jesus was on trial, Caiaphas asked if Jesus was the Messiah (Greek : Christ)

Again the High Priest addressed Him. "In the name of the ever-living God," he said, "I now put you on your oath. Tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God." "I am He," replied Jesus… Then the High Priest tore his robes and exclaimed, "Impious language!”

The contradiction to Judaism is clear, and explains why the High Priest was so upset that he ripped his fine robes. The Messiah of Judaism is a physical king, not a spiritual king. The Messiah of Judaism is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, not build a temple in the heart. The Messiah of Judaism was not part God, or the Son of God. The Messiah of Judaism is to usher in a period of peace and prosperity, not die on the cross. It was obvious to Caiaphas: Jesus was not the Messiah.

To a devout follower of Judaism, the death of Jesus on the cross would be the final nail in the… coffin. The Judaic perspective was that Jesus was not the Messiah. The insistence of Jesus’ disciples that Jesus was the Messiah would be heretical and treated as such—this explains why the disciples fled ahead of the arrest of Jesus. During the trial of Jesus we see crowds of Jews calling for Jesus’ death. They knew Jesus was a false-Messiah because he did not fulfill the signs the real Messiah would demonstrate. They knew him as a spiritual terrorist.

The incongruities between what the Jews expected the Messiah to be and what was claimed about Jesus are incompatible. Jesus sought to lure devout followers away from Judaism. Therefore, Jesus, by definition, was a spiritual terrorist.


Evidence of Jesus’ Spiritual Terrorism #3: False Prophet

We have seen in the previous two Evidences of Jesus’ Spiritual Terrorism how Jesus meets the definition of a Spiritual Terrorist. In this last Evidence, I will concentrate on how a devout follower of Judaism would see Jesus as a False Prophet.

Bible John and I have previously discussed the differences between a Spiritual Terrorist and a False Prophet. When I asked Bible John to explain any differences there were, he said:

False Prophets are Spiritual Terrorists. The Bible has many names for a Terrorist. Wolves, Savage Wolves, AntiChrists, False prophets, False Teachers, deceivers, devils,etc.. Terrorists is just another name.

The bible teaches us how to identify a False Prophet:

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

This means if Jesus made a prophecy that did not come true, he was a false prophet. The Bible instructs us to kill false prophets (Zech 13:3). In Matthew chapter 24 Jesus goes into great detail about events that would transpire shortly after he left.

Jesus predicted the rapture,

He will send out his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together his chosen ones from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

and the second coming,

and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky. Then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.

According to Jesus’ prophecy, these events would happen before his first century disciples had died


Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


Jesus declared that his Second Coming was so close, that even Caiaphas, who tried him, would see him coming in the clouds

Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

These prophecies clearly did not come to pass. There was no rapture. No Second Coming. Clearly, Jesus failed the test of a true prophet, as the bible tells us. To a devout follower of Judaism, this would pronounce Jesus as a false prophet, and therefore a spiritual terrorist.


Summary

Bible John and I disagree on whether Jesus could be classified as a Spiritual Terrorist. We set about to define a spiritual terrorist as

Spiritual Terrorist: a person who parasitically subverts followers of a religion to form a new cult which would not be viewed by members of the original religion as harmonious to their beliefs.

When seen from the perspective of a devout follower of Judaism during the time of Jesus, we can clearly see Jesus sought to alter the fundamental beliefs of Judaism to start his own religion. Based on his teachings, Jesus was able to start a cult built up around his gospels, which has subsequently grown into a religion of its own.

In 2 Peter 2:1-2, a false prophet or spiritual terrorist is described as “bring(ing) in destructive heresies.” This is exactly what Jesus has done. Further, such teachings will cause the spiritual terrorist to have “(brought) on themselves swift destruction” which we see in Jesus’ crucifixion. Lastly, the warning in 2 Peter 2:2 that listening to these false teachings would cause “the way of the truth (to) be maligned” for those led astray is obviously true from the Judaism perspective.

1. Jesus taught a method of salvation contradictory to the beliefs in Judaism.
2. Jesus used his teachings to lure followers of Judaism into his cult.
3. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, or Christ, which was contradictory to Judaic belief.
4. Jesus failed to pass the test of a true prophet.

Clearly, Jesus’ teachings are contradictory to the Judaic creed, he led people away from the Covenant to start his own cult, and therefore we recognize Jesus as a spiritual terrorist.


References:

1. Author Unknown, “Halachah Overview.” www.torah.org (http://www.torah.org/learning/halacha-overview/) Accessed 08-18-2006
2. Arrington, Leonard J. and Bitton, Davis. “The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints.” Urbana Press, 1992.
3. Bible John, “Spiritual Terrorists” online CERM article. http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/Spiritual_Terrorists.htm. Accessed 08-14-2006.
4. Bible John, “Statement of Faith” online CERM article. http://www.cerm.info/faith.htm. Accessed 08-14-2006.
5. Bible John, “Mormonism” online CERM article. http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/mormonism.htm. Accessed 08-23-2006.
6. Fox, Marvin. “Interpreting Maimonides.” University of Chicago Press, 1990.
7. Mullett, Michael. “Martin Luther.” Biography. Routledge Press, 2004.
8. Rabbi Beryl Barash, personal communication. Aug 22, 2006.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The next set of concurrent statements will make up Round 2.

[Senlatheil]

For this round, I would like to first respond to the excellent comments made by Bible John in the first round and continue to provide further evidence that defines Jesus as a “spiritual terrorist.”

As you may recall, Bible John and I discussed how best to define a “spiritual terrorist” before this debate began. We chose this formal, concise definition:

Spiritual Terrorist: a person who parasitically subverts followers of a religion to form a new cult which would not be viewed by members of the original religion as harmonious to their beliefs.

Both Bible John and I have agreed upon this definition of “spiritual terrorist.” When I first posted the above definition based on Bible John’s lengthy description of spiritual terrorists, he replied:

I do not mind your def of a Terrorist as it looks to be accurate.

We have additionally agreed this definition can be augmented with biblical passages for clarity. Bible John and I both cited Jude and 2 Peter 2 in our opening arguments, which are biblical passages we discussed before commencing this debate.

I was initially surprised to see that Bible John had not included any mention of our agreed upon definition of “spiritual terrorist” in Round 1. Bible John seems to have forgotten all about it—in the last sentence of his above post he mentions “first we needed to get a working Biblical definition of a ‘Spiritual Terrorist.’” Apparently he has even forgotten that the definition of “spiritual terrorist” that we agreed upon is worked into the parameters of this debate, to which Bible John agreed to before the start of this debate: (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3670379&postcount=23)

3) The scope of the debate.

The debate will focus mainly on arguments from Christian theology and the Bible. The term "Spiritual Terrorist" can be defined as "a person who parasitically subverts followers of a religion to form a new cult which would not be viewed by members of the original religion as harmonious to their beliefs."

Bible John said in his opening argument that he “will provide a bit of a more detailed definition and profile” of spiritual terrorists. I did not see a definition of spiritual terrorism in his post, perhaps it is assumed the definition would be known from the debate parameters. Having said that, I should give credit to Bible John for his “Biblical Profile of a Spiritual Terrorist” that I found insightful and will repeat below:


1. The Terrorists are inside the Christian Church- Jude 1:4, Jude 1:12, 2 Pet 2:1-2, 2 Pet 2:13
2. The Terrorists lack the Holy Spirit-Jude 1:19
3. The Terrorists teach another Gospel Message- Gal 1:8, 2 Pet 2:1, Jude 1:4, 2 Pet 2:12,
4. The Terrorists lack the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22ff)-Mt 7:16,20, Jude 1:12, 2 Pet 2:14,
5. The Terrorists are all about Self Promotion-Jude 1:12,Jude 1:16,Jude 1:18,
6. The Terrorists attack all those that disagree with them-Jude 1:10
7. The Terrorists will spend eternity in Hell/The Lake of Fire-Jude 1:13, 2 Pet 2:3,2 Pet 2:9,2 Pet 2:15, 2 Pet 2:17

This is an excellent primer for recognizing a spiritual terrorist in the Church. It can and should be used for such a purpose. Since CERM is dedicated to identifying spiritual terrorists in the Church, it is easy to understand why Bible John’s profile of a spiritual terrorist is directed at terrorists he sees most often (ie. in the Christian Church). However, and I think Bible John will agree with me on this, not every Spiritual Terrorist (in the Church or otherwise) would meet all the criteria within this Profile.

Let us consider Joseph Smith, which I presume Bible John will classify as a “Spiritual Terrorist” in this Round, based on his CERM article (Bible John, 2006). Joseph Smith fails to meet the first criterion of the Profile in that he was never “inside the Christian Church [sic],” rather he was ordered by Jesus during one of his visions not to join any church as the denominations were “corrupt” (Wikipedia, 2006). Further, Joseph Smith had the “fruits of the spirit” described in Gal 5:22 which he practiced his whole life, and was also filled with the Holy Spirit (Consider #4 and #13 of his Articles of Faith (Wikipedia, 2006), respectively). We can see that, using Bible John’s Profile as a guide, Joseph Smith does not fit all of the requirements in the Profile of a Spiritual Terrorist. This does not mean that Joseph Smith should not be considered as a spiritual terrorist, only that he does not fit the Profile exactly. We can confidently state that this Profile has many characteristics associated with spiritual terrorists within the Christian Church, but does not do a satisfactory job of defining what a spiritual terrorist is. One of its weaknesses is that it does not describe spiritual terrorists that are members of other religions.

Bible John has led the charge on many spiritual terrorists within the Christian Church online, and especially on Usenet. Similarly to Spiritual Terrorists that Bible John describes in his online arguments, so should a person from Hinduism, Islam, or another religion who alters spiritual texts and interpretations in the same way be considered a Spiritual Terrorist. Bible John and I discussed this before debating, and he seemed to agree when he accepted the definition of a “Spiritual Terrorist” that is not restricted to the Christian religion. Due to Bible John and CERM’s focus on finding spiritual terrorists within the Christian Church, it is understandable why his Profile so closely matches that goal. However, it is inadequate when considering spiritual terrorists outside Christianity. Curiously, Bible John claims that atheists, agnostics, and the world in general can not discern spiritual terrorists.

So it makes perfect sense why the Atheist, the Agnostic nor the rest of the world whom are blinded by the Devil Satan (2 Cor 4:4) can spot out these Terrorists. To them all Christians are all wrong, and all too often the Spiritual Terrorists are just another type of Christian.

Due to the context of the above quote, I will assume that Bible John made a “typo” and meant to claim that atheists can NOT spot spiritual terrorists due to interference by the devil. Ignoring the fact that 2 Cor 4:4 is referring to an inability to recognize Jesus’ gospel and become saved, not in recognizing false prophets or spiritual terrorists, I find the argument facetious. A similar rationale tells me that atheists and agnostics would have a unique perspective in recognizing spiritual terrorists because they are not trapped by religious dogma. Ironically, the ability of an atheist to recognize the founder of a religion as a spiritual terrorist, but a member of that religion can not, is the cause of this debate.

Additionally, during his opening arguments, Bible John spent an inordinate amount of time discussing his concerns about whether atheists and agnostics (and a female acquaintance from Eharmony.com) view him as a spiritual terrorist. On this particular topic I should only say that Bible John’s concern that others think he is a spiritual terrorist is neither relevant, nor appropriate, to our current debate about Jesus.

Much of Bible John’s online ministry focuses on the actions of a certain Unnamed Christian. Whether this person is or is not a spiritual terrorist is beyond the scope of this debate; however, the types of arguments in which Bible John uses are telling.

All who have public ministries must be held up the scriptures. This man does not want to be held up to the authority of scripture, and thus the reason for his overreaction to my testing of his teachings. The HUGE difference between Jesus and this man is that Jesus knew and was accountable to the Bible. This man is not accountable to the Bible. In his worldview his perverted view of the scriptures is the only correct way to heaven. This man is a fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy and is a “Spiritual Terrorist.”

Here Bible John has summarized his arguments for classifying this Christian as a spiritual terrorist, which are understood in addition to the “Profile”:

1. He doesn’t want to be upheld (ie. held accountable) to the authority of the scriptures.
2. His own view of salvation is the only way to heaven.
3. He is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy concerning spiritual terrorists (ie. false prophets).

I hope my arguments in Round 1 have already convinced many people that Jesus fits the requirements Bible John stated in #2 and #3 with the Evidence of Jesus’ Spiritual Terrorism: Faith vs. Works, Messiah, and False Prophet. However, I have not yet demonstrated that Jesus does not want to be held accountable to the scriptures. By demonstrating this final requirement, I will have shown Jesus matching all the characteristics Bible John summarizes above for his accusation that the Unnamed Christian is a “Spiritual Terrorist.”


Evidence for Jesus’ Spiritual Terrorism #4: Not Accountable to the Scriptures

In my opening statement I presented three arguments for Jesus’ spiritual terrorism from the perspective of a devout follower of Judaism. In particular, I demonstrated that Jesus’ teachings violated halachah, the “proper path” of religious law (www.torah.org) that is central to the Judaic religion. Further, Jesus’ teachings were incompatible with the Covenant between God and Israel by teaching that only belief in him would lead to salvation. For this round, I will be returning to the perspective of a devout follower of Judaism to demonstrate how they would perceive Jesus as a spiritual terrorist because of his unsanctimonious disregard for the scriptures, particularly around the religious law.

Personally, I believe that Jesus was an exceptional person. In terms of humanitarian effort, he was far beyond his time. Central to the teachings of Jesus was the idea that the focus of the religious law, in particular the Mosiac law, should be the development of a person’s morality and ethics—development of the inner person. In the time of Jesus, however, the focus of the Torah was for laws that guided a person throughout his day—development of the outer person through observations of the law. Jesus taught that outward observances to the law did not make someone inwardly righteous. The paradigm shift in Jesus’ teachings from outer to inner development was, in my opinion, enlightening. Irregardless, during Jesus’ life he disrespected many of the Judaic traditions that were set down by the Torah. This had a phenomenal effect on the devout follower of Judaism.

It is necessary, at this time, to explain how important observances of the religious law were in the life of a devout follower of Judaism during the time of Jesus. Quite frequently the Jews of Jesus’ time were such devout followers of the law that they would sacrifice their lives to keep it from being broken. A case in point would be the first day Pontius Pilate arrived in Jerusalem. The historian Josephus records that when Pilate first entered Jerusalem, he did so at night with his legions and he was unopposed. However, when daylight broke hundreds of resident Jews gathered to protest urgently the breaking of the law against icons seen on the legionary standards. Such was their commitment to the law that when Pontius Pilate threatened the mob with violence, they offered up their necks to be cut. They would rather die than continue to see even the smallest of laws disrespected. Impressed by their beliefs, and perhaps fearing a rebellion, Pilate ordered the removal of the legionary standards (“The Jewish War,” Josephus).

Although Jesus said in Matt 5:17 that he had come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, he repeatedly overthrew old customs, renounced old teachings, and improved upon the Mosaic Law. In Judaism, one of the most important laws in the Torah regards the Sabbat, or Sabbath, which is the Jewish day of rest. It is most often translated as “rest” or “period of rest,” but a more literal interpretation is “to cease.” It represents a cessation of work that commemorates God’s finished creation, redemption of slavery in Egypt, and a taste of life once the Messiah finally arrives (Wikipedia, 2006). During the Sabbath, Jews are commanded by God to refrain from forbidden activity. One such forbidden activity is harvesting crops.

At that time, Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the grain fields. His disciples were hungry and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said to him, "Behold, your disciples do what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath."

The Pharisees refer to Exodus 16:29, which instructs people to stay in the camp on the Sabbath and not to pick up food off the ground, and Exodus 34:21 which instructs us that the Sabbath applied to harvest season. Jesus, however, disavows the charge by claiming that he is greater than the Sabbath.

“But I tell you that one greater than the temple is here… the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath”

This must have surely infuriated the devout followers of Judaism, who recognized that Jesus was not the Messiah. One of the signs of the true Messiah is that he would observe and teach the Torah, not change it. As I outlined in my opening arguments, the prominent Rabbi Maimonides described the true Messiah as one who would uphold the Torah and lead others to follow it. In this one instance, Jesus is both claiming to be the Messiah and disregarding traditions set down in the Torah, although the latter contradicts the former. Jesus’ disregard for accountability to the scriptures in Matthew chapter twelve would instantly flag him as a false Messiah, and as a spiritual terrorist, to followers of Judaism. Is it any wonder that after Jesus’ death, Paul and the disciples had to leave Israel to successfully find converts among the Gentiles, who would not know the difference between a false Messiah and the true Messiah? It is not surprising in the least.

Jesus also worked to change the Judaic religious law. Exodus 21:23 explicitly teaches that punishments should be equal to the crime. It claims “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand.” However, Jesus disregards this law:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus was clearly a reformer of Judaic Law. Bible John himself recognized this when he said, “Jesus came and challenged the world to move away from the pharisaical legalism of his day. [sic]” I do not believe Bible John understands how reproachful Jesus was. He censured revenge and insisted upon total forgiveness of offenses. He prohibited divorce and made desire as much of a sin as adultery. He forbade harsh language and swearing. For every change and revision to Judaic Law, Jesus underscored his desire to be held unaccountable to it. This demonstrates the final characteristic in Bible John’s summation of why the Unnamed Christian is a spiritual terrorist, and how we know Jesus was also a spiritual terrorist.


Summary

Bible John’s “Profile of a Spiritual Terrorist” is a useful guide to recognizing spiritual terror in the Church. However, while it does demonstrate characteristics common to spiritual terrorists, the list of characteristics makes a poor definition of spiritual terrorism. Bible John and I have already agreed to a definition of a “Spiritual Terrorist,” although I am mystified by his apparent disregard of it.

Spiritual Terrorist: a person who parasitically subverts followers of a religion to form a new cult which would not be viewed by members of the original religion as harmonious to their beliefs.

Bible John says “nothing Jesus did nor said was against the will and providence of His father.” Says who? The failure of Bible John’s argument is in his lack of perspective.

I have demonstrated, in my opening arguments and in this round, how Jesus can be classified as a spiritual terrorist by his differential teachings of salvation by faith, his dubious claims to be the Judaic Messiah, his false prophecies, and his disregard of the Judaic Law. Jesus has lured followers of Judaism from their creed and founded a cult (now a religion) bearing his name. The Christian faith is not harmonious in its beliefs with Judaism, and therefore we recognize Jesus as a Spiritual Terrorist.


References:
1. “History of Latter Day Saints.” Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement. Accessed 08-24-2006.
2. “Articles of Faith (Mormonism).” Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_of_Great_Price/Articles_of_Faith. Accessed 08-25-2006.
3. Josephus, “The Jewish War.” 2.169-174.
4. “Sabbat.” Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat. Accessed 08-26-2006.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Bible John has requested an extension until Sept. 9 to post his next statement. I have agreed to grant his request.

- NS, FD Moderator

[Bible John]

Hello everyone and thanks for keeping up with this debate. First I want to apologize for the tardiness of this debate, but I am afraid that it was unavoidable. Most recently my PC laptop’s hard drive (which hosts my debates) crashed giving me a Smart Drive 1720 error. However after buying a used 10GB drive from a computer warehouse in Sunnyvale, CA called Weird Stuff I finally got my laptop up and running on 9-6-06.

In my Introduction round I gave a brief definition of a Spiritual Terrorist. Although there was much more I could say, and certainly much more could be written on the term, I felt that 1,500 words was appropriate for a introduction. But most certainly a entire book on the topic of Spiritual Terrorism in the church could be written. Unfortunately it appears that my opponent and me were a little confused on the proper definition of a Spiritual Terrorist. Unfortunately he tried to get me to admit that Jesus was and is a Spiritual Terrorist. In this round I will be convincing him and the other atheists and agnostics that are reading and fault finding my every word from the Peanut Galleries and Usenet Newsgroups that Jesus was not a Spiritual Terrorist. Sadly I doubt they will listen, but needless I will try.

ARGUMENTS FROM JUDAISM

My opponent says

In Judaism, the purpose of the Torah is to teach that good works are just as important, or more so, than faith and belief.

Which is the entire problem behind Judaism. I am not claiming to be a Jewish expert here, for I am not. But I will say that any cult or religion that believes that works are just as important than faith are in error. You see in Christianity we believe in Christ’s death upon the cross, and his sacrifice for the sins of mankind (being the atonement) opens the bridge for mankind to enter heaven. There is no work that one could do that would make man good in the eyes of God.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NKJV) 8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,9not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism, and all other false religions have one thing in common. They are all engineered by the devil Satan in his attempt to mislead mankind. No other religion, or Christian cult holds Christ as the central authority. All place a unhealthy emphasis on works of righteousness. But in the Biblical view, it is all about Justification through Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

My opponent continues his argument that Jesus was a Spiritual Terrorist by using a passage of scripture from Mark 1:16-20 and then says.

This is anathema to the followers of Judaism. The all-important element of life in Judaism is to live in accordance to the 613 Mitzvot, or commandments in the Torah, to live one’s life as God wishes. Thus, to a follower of Judaism, Jesus is teaching salvation by breaking fundamental aspects of the Covenant. Jesus’ contradictory teaching defines him as a spiritual terrorist.

No it does not define him as a Spiritual Terrorist. It does not, because the Jews did not, and still do not see Jesus as the Messiah. There are many, many evidences that Jesus is the Messiah as foretold in the OT. However I do not have the time to get into all these details. But there is a brief article on this subject on CERM’s website. http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Theological/messiah_prophecies.htm

What Jesus did was bridge the gap for mankind to heaven. No one can be saved by obeying the law alone. Judaism teaches that salvation is found in obedience to the Torah. This is not what the Bible teaches as outlined here. The Law was fulfilled with Christ’s death on the Cross.

Rom 10:4 KJV For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Gal 2:16-19 NIV
16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. 17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.

Jews like Catholics, like cults, and like others have several things in common.

1. They do not believe that the Bible is THE Word of God and THE standard for one’s doctrine, life, practice, and salvation. (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21)
2. They take passages out of their CONTEXT to support their doctrines.
3. They have been blinded by Satan because they are not saved (2 Cor 4:4)
4. They do not believe that Jesus Christ is God and existed with God in the beginning (John 1).
5. They teach that salvation is not a free gift, but must be earned (Eph 2:8-9).

Taking the Bible out of the Context is a very dangerous thing to do, and sadly is practiced all the time. When I was living in Redding, CA there was a very large church down the road from Simpson that was a heavy supporter of the Word of Faith heresy. I visited this church a number of times for observation reasons, and I noticed on one of their walls was printed this Bible verse.

Isa 53:5 NIV
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

The verse above is correct and theological accurate once the CONTEXT is understood. But sadly this church taught a Word of Faith theology, being that the Biblical Sign gifts as given to the Apostles in Mark 16 are alive and active today. This church used this verse from Isaiah as a proof text to support their view that all believers have these gifts and if one is truly walking in the Lord, then they will be able to practice the Signs and Wonders that the First Century Apostles could practice. This is a false doctrine, because the CONTEXT is not considered, but the verse is taken out of the CONTEXT to support their teaching.

PROOF THAT JESUS WAS AND REMAINS TO BE THE MESSIAH

My opponent provides several sections where he feels that he has proved that Jesus is a Spiritual Terrorist.

The contradiction to Judaism is clear, and explains why the High Priest was so upset that he ripped his fine robes. The Messiah of Judaism is a physical king, not a spiritual king. The Messiah of Judaism is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, not build a temple in the heart. The Messiah of Judaism was not part God, or the Son of God. The Messiah of Judaism is to usher in a period of peace and prosperity, not die on the cross. It was obvious to Caiaphas: Jesus was not the Messiah.

The Jews did not understand Jesus nor the scriptures that were written about him and why they failed to see Jesus as the Messiah.

Lets look at what the Bible says about Jesus’ fulfillment’s of Biblical prophecy.

The Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem
Old Testament Prophecy- Mi 5:2
New Testament Fulfillment- Mt 2:1-6

Messiah was to be born of a Virgin
OT Prophecy- Isa 7:14
NT Fulfillment- Mt 1:18-25

Messiah was to be a prophet like Moses
OT prophecy- Dt 18:15
NT Fulfillment- Jn 7:40

Messiah was to enter Jerusalem in triumph
OT prophecy- Zec 9:9
NT Fulfillment- Mt 2:1-9

Messiah was to die by crucifixion
OT prophecy- Ps 22:14,16,17
NT Fulfillment- Mt 27:31

Messiah’s bones were not to be broken
OT prophecy- Ex 12:46
NT Fulfillment- Jn 19:31-36

Messiah was to die as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind
OT prophecy- Isa 53:5,6,8,10,11,12
NT Fulfillment- Jn 1:29, Ac 10:43

Messiah was to be raised from the dead
OT prophecy- Ps 16:10
NT Fulfillment- Mt 28:1-10

Messiah is now at God’s right Hand
OT prophecy- Ps 110:1
NT fulfillment- Mk 16:19; Lk 24:50,51

If one holds the Bible as the authority for life, faith, practice, and doctrine then one would see the parallels between the OT and the NT and see Jesus Christ as fulfillment for all the prophecies.

My opponent later says

According to Jesus’ prophecy these events (the rapture and the second coming) would happen before his first century disciples had died

I admit that looking at Mt 24:34 out of the context one can conclude that Jesus was a liar. But one must read the Bible in the context of the chapter, the book, the Testament, and the Bible as a whole to properly understand it. However this verse is one of those end time verses that have caused some division in the church, because of improper interpretations that do not consider the Biblical Context.

But lets take a look at the Greek of Mt 24:34 and Lk 21:32 as we should understand the word “generation.”

Looking at the New American Standard Bible translation and my Strong’s Concordance of Greek words I see that the word generation is translated from the Greek word genea which means race, family, generation or generations. This same Greek word is also used in Lk 21:32. This Greek word appears some 37 times in the NASB translation.

Know looking at my King James Version Greek helps I see that the same Greek word is used. However the space required to type out all the information from my AMG Complete Word Study Dictionary on the NT will require more space than I have remaining, so here is a screen shot.

http://www.cerm.info/misc/graphics/CERM/genea.jpg

You see in the Greek the word genea has more than one meaning, which is often hard to see in English.

These prophecies clearly did not come to pass. There was no rapture. No Second Coming. Clearly, Jesus failed the test of a true prophet, as the bible tells us. To a devout follower of Judaism, this would pronounce Jesus as a false prophet, and therefore a spiritual terrorist.

As explained in the above screenshot and text, the word generation has more than one connotation. In the context, Jesus was referring to the Jewish race. The Jewish race remains alive today, or was Israel recently destroyed? No Israel will remain until Jesus returns.

MARTIN LUTHER AND JOSEPH SMITH AND SPIRITUAL TERRORISM

My opponent in his own Introduction states that both Martin Luther and Joseph Smith are not Spiritual Terrorists and asks me to explain what I think about Martin Luther and Joseph Smith. I think that Martin Luther is saved and in heaven. I know this because I have compared his teachings to the authority of scripture. I strive to be like the Bureans.

NIV
Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

However I argue that Joseph Smith is a Terrorist because his own cult was a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy as the Bible indicates below.

Gal 1:8-9 KJV
(8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
(9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

In the early 1800s while Joseph Smith was a boy an angel named “Morini” visited him and led him to a cave and it was there were he discovered the golden plates that detailed Jesus visit to the Americas. This was translated to the book of Mormon at a later date (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/book_of_mormon/people/angel_moroni.html. The book of Mormon is considered by Mormon’s to be a companion and a replacement that has more authority than the Bible. Also to note that the Mormon Bible both takes away and adds to the Bible. After you read my introduction, you also should have read the books of 2 Peter and Jude because I made a point based on the criteria mentioned in there which is.

The Terrorists teach another Gospel Message- Gal 1:8, 2 Pet 2:1, Jude 1:4, 2 Pet 2:12

The Mormon Church both takes away and ads to the Bible in their own Bible version.

The Bible says

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

This alone, and the establishment of a new gospel is enough to make the Church of Mormon, a church of Spiritual Terrorism. I argue this based on the Bible’s definition of a Spiritual Terrorist. I could go on and on about the hellfire doctrines taught in the Mormon Church, but I will not, since their hellfire teaching is not the theme of this debate. But if anyone wants to learn more about these deceivers, then they are encouraged to visit the following websites.

The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry- www.carm.org
The Christian Research Institute-www.equip.org
Biblical Discernment Ministries
Church Education Resource Ministries-www.cerm.info

PROBLEMS WITH MY OPPONENTS LOGIC

You see my criteria to determining if someone is a Terrorist is always the scriptures. Martin Luther passed the exam. This does not mean that everything that Luther taught I agree with. For there are many, many secondary issues that we would disagree on. But on the core essentials, which are:

The Deity of Jesus Christ
The authority of the Bible
The Atonement
The Virgin Birth
Salvation through Grace

The problem with Mormonism and the other Spiritual Terrorists is that they take away the authority of Jesus Christ, and have a different salvation message. My opponent thinks that someone is a Spiritual Terrorist because they subvert their followers to another way of thinking. But I would argue that there is much more to the term than this. For example if I went into the church of a certain very vocal OneNess Pentecostal pastor (whom often posts on Usenet newsgroups) and subverted his flock to turn away from this man’s false teachings, then I would be labeled as a False Teacher or Spiritual Terrorist there. But what people do not understand is the Bible. If the Bible is true, than its impossible for Jesus not to be God (as this man teaches in his denial of the Trinity). This pastor denies Jesus Christ’s divine nature, he ads to salvation by requiring that one be baptized in order to be saved (which is contrary to the Bible’s teachings) he also teaches that Jesus is both the Holy Spirit and God the Father, and to top it off this man teaches that one must speak in Tongues in order to be saved! (http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/Oneness_pentecostalism.htm).

Since none of these doctrines are what the Bible says and this man is unrepentant of his views, and his unfruitful public behavior towards others, this pastor and all others in that movement are Spiritual Terrorists.

My opponent says.

In order to more objectively ascertain whether Jesus could be considered a spiritual terrorist, it is necessary to view his life and teachings from outside the Christian faith.

And I think this is a huge mistake. First because outside of Biblical Christianity there is no authority in the Holy Scriptures and there is no Salvation. One thing that the cults all have in common, is that they lower Jesus down a notch from God to man, or God to created being. The Bible is quite clear in John, and many other places that Jesus Christ is God, whom is known as God the Son, a member of the Triune nature of God. The other two members are the Holy Spirit and the Father. OneNess Pentecostalism, the Way International, and many other cults all deny Jesus Christ’s divine nature. Another poster on Usenet Newsgroups who happens to be a member of the way International (http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/the_way_international.htm) has taught many times that Jesus Christ was created by God and did not exist with God the father before the dawn of time.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The next set of concurrent statements will make up Round 3.

[Senlatheil]

In this round, I will discuss whether Martin Luther and Joseph Smith fit the definition, and spiritual description, of spiritual terrorists. I will then use Bible John’s reasoning for describing spiritual terrorism to expound on the spiritual terrorism.

I asked Bible John to review the lives and teachings of Martin Luther and Joseph Smith and provide us with his analysis of whether they could be considered spiritual terrorists or not. I had intended this exercise to provide examples of people who played a significant role in the evolution of various Christian traditions but might be differentially seen as spiritual terrorists. I agree with Bible John that Martin Luther is not a spiritual terrorist—he does not fit the accepted definition or any of the characterizations of spiritual terrorism. While Martin Luther was a significant proponent to changes within Christianity, he sought to improve the religion, not change it into another religion. Importantly, Martin Luther’s Reformation did not promote any new concepts of God. Similarly, I agree with Bible John that Joseph Smith was a spiritual terrorist. He fits the definition of spiritual terrorism we agreed upon in that he authored a new Gospel and used it to lure members of Christianity away to start a new religion, or at least a Christian tradition with tenuous grasps to its parent religion. In this way, Bible John and I are in agreement.

The Terrorists teach another Gospel Message- Gal 1:8, 2 Pet 2:1, Jude 1:4, 2 Pet 2:12.

…the establishment of a new gospel is enough to make the Church of Mormon, a church of Spiritual Terrorism.

However, I have taken a step that Bible John has not. I see that just as Joseph Smith teaches another gospel message from the rest of Christianity, creating and using a new Gospel to lure devout followers of Christianity away from their faith, so does Jesus teach another gospel message from Judaism. We have established, and Bible John does not deny, that Jesus taught a new Gospel that included a different salvation message than the rest of Judaism. This is an obvious product of this logic, and it is easy to understand why Bible John denies it.

When Bible John describes Joseph Smith as a spiritual terrorist, he breaks down his analysis into the promotion of a new gospel that was used to lure Christians into a false religion. Thus, our perception is:

Martin Luther did not teach another gospel...........Not a spiritual terrorist
Joseph Smith taught another gospel....................Is a spiritual terrorist
Jesus Christ taught another gospel......................Therefore, is a spiritual terrorist

I challenge Bible John to explain why when Joseph Smith teaches another gospel message he is a spiritual terrorist, but when Jesus did likewise, he is not a spiritual terrorist. They both fit the agreed upon definition of spiritual terrorism, and they also fit the scriptural definition of spiritual terrorism. In all likelihood, Bible John accuses people of spiritual terrorism when their beliefs do not match closely enough with his own. Since his own beliefs closely match those of Martin Luther and Jesus Christ, they can not be spiritual terrorists. I have, and will continue to argue that Jesus fits the major criteria of a spiritual terrorist that Bible John uses.


Evidence of Jesus’ Spiritual Terrorism #1: Faith vs. Works Response

In my first argument that Jesus should be considered as a spiritual terrorist, I outlined how Jesus’ teachings that faith in him is the only way to heaven contradicted the Covenant in Judaism between God and Israel. This incongruity is not harmonious to the Judaic faith, and underscores how a devout follower of Judaism during the time of Jesus would see Jesus as a spiritual terrorist luring people away from the true faith to start Christianity.

Bible John’s response to this discussion was very disjointed. He first demonstrates that he has no understanding of my argument by denying that salvation could be acquired through works, which is part of his Christian perspective. Bible John is confused: I did not argue that observance to the Torah was the only way into heaven, but that Jesus’ contradictory teachings on how to enter heaven were not harmonious to Judaism. It is this doctrinal difference that faith and not works that leads to heaven is the very reason why Jesus is considered a spiritual terrorist by his Jewish contemporaries. Bible John has not addressed my argument in the least. He has simply repeated my argument back to me and then paradoxically pretends that he has refuted it.

Subsequently, when I argued that Jesus’ teachings of salvation contradicted the 613 Mitzvot and the Covenant, and Jesus was thus a spiritual terrorist, Bible John responded:

No it does not define [Jesus] as a Spiritual Terrorist. It does not, because the Jews did not, and still do not see Jesus as the Messiah.

Although Bible John quotes my argument, it is unclear what Bible John is trying to refute. His response borders on imbecilic—the Jewish conclusion that Jesus is not the Messiah does not address a Jew’s opinion that Jesus’ contradictory teachings of salvation would label him as a spiritual terrorist. By saying this Bible John demonstrates that, once again, he does not understand my argument. Perhaps he is thinking of my second argument concerning the Jewish opinion that Jesus is not the Messiah. Bible John’s comment about the Jews not accepting Jesus as the Messiah has no value in opposing Jesus’ spiritual terrorism.


Evidence of Jesus’ Spiritual Terrorism #2: Messiah Response

In my second argument for interpreting Jesus as a spiritual terrorist, I outlined what signs the follower of Judaism expected the Messiah to fulfill. Among other things, I quoted the prominent Rabbi Maimonides’ description of the Messiah:

And if a king shall stand up from among the House of David, studying Torah and indulging in commandments like his father David, according to the written and oral Torah, and he will coerce all Israel to follow it and to strengthen its weak points, and will fight The Lord's wars, this one is to be treated as if he were the anointed one. If he succeeded and built a Holy Temple in its proper place and gathered the strayed ones of Israel together, this is indeed the anointed one for certain … But if he did not succeed until now, or if he was killed, it becomes known that he is not this one of whom the Torah had promised us, and he is indeed like all [other] proper and wholesome kings of the House of David who died. (Fox, 1990)

I explained how Jesus would be viewed by a follower of Judaism as a false Messiah because he did not fulfill the signs the true Messiah would:

1. The Messiah is a physical king
2. The Messiah will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem
3. The Messiah is not the Son of God, but an ordinary man
4. The Messiah will usher in a period of peace and prosperity
5. The Messiah will not die

Even though Bible John quotes these signs in his argument as if he will address them, he ignores them. Instead, Bible John lists a few irrelevant and inconsequential “prophecies” that the early Christians used to try and make Jesus look like the Messiah. Although these “prophecies” are thoroughly debunked in many scholarly articles, I will not be reviewing them here due to space restrictions. However, they are inconsequential to our discussion. Whether or not Jesus was born in Bethlehem, entered Jerusalem in a triumphant manner, or had bones broken, were not the signs that would announce the Messiah to the Jews to begin with. Certainly, they were not the signs that would convince a devout follower of Judaism that Jesus was the Messiah. Bible John has not addressed this point. Although Bible John admits he is not an authority on Judaism or the Torah, the “prophecies” that Bible John listed were analyzed by people who were, indeed, authorities on the Torah and deemed non-substantial. This explains why followers of Judaism today dismiss Jesus as the Messiah.

Bible John fails to address my argument however, because whether or not Jesus is the Messiah is inconsequential to this debate as well as outside its scope. I argued that Jesus was viewed as a spiritual terrorist because the Jews did not recognize him as the Messiah. Bible John has ignored the context of Judaism around the time of Jesus, and has not argued how Jesus’ contradictory teachings could not be viewed as spiritual terrorism in the eyes of his Jewish contemporaries. Bible John’s argument of how Christians view Jesus as the Messiah does not address in the slightest how Jews view him as a spiritual terrorist.


Evidence for Jesus’ Spiritual Terrorism #3: False Prophet Response

In this evidence for Jesus’ characterization as a spiritual terrorist I relied upon the parallels between the definition of spiritual terrorism and the Bible’s description of false prophets. By showing that Jesus made a false prophecy about the Rapture and his Second Coming, I demonstrated that Jesus was a false prophet, and by extension a spiritual terrorist. Jesus prophesied that the Rapture and Second Coming would happen before his first century disciples had died.


Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


At least, for once, Bible John demonstrates that he understands what I am arguing. Bible John responded that I was misinterpretting the word “generation.”

But one must read the Bible in the context of the chapter, the book, the Testament, and the Bible as a whole to properly understand it… the word generation is translated from the Greek word genea which means race, family, generation or generations.

Bible John is correct that “generation” here could mean a literal generation (as I am interpreting it) or as the Jewish race (as Bible John is interpreting it). However, Bible John has not provided any evidence to support that his interpretation is the correct one. In originally giving my argument I supplied the context that would prove Jesus meant a literal generation.


Jesus declared that his Second Coming was so close, that even Caiaphas, who tried him, would see him coming in the clouds

Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.


Jesus is telling Caiaphas that he will be alive to witness his Second Coming. I am amazed Bible John did not address this. He has willfully ignored the evidence that proves him in error. Early Christians were absolutely convinced Jesus would be returning soon. Matthew 24:34 is not the only place in the Bible Jesus suggested that his return would be imminent:

Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Jesus is not even using the word “generation” here, but directly telling his audience some will still be alive to see his Second Coming! Since Bible John claims to be so knowledgeable about the scriptures and wishes to be challenged as the Bureans challenged Paul, it is baffling that Bible John’s apparent ignorance would shine so brightly in his response. To further demonstrate that Jesus did indeed mean a literal “generation,” one only has to look at the urgency in which his disciples spread the gospel after Jesus left.

You also must be patient. Strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near.

The end of all things is near therefore be serious and discipline yourselves for the sake of your prayers.

Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour.

Can you imagine Jesus’ disciples desperately urging people to get their affairs in order and prepare for the End because it is a) the last hour or b) the last two millennia, before his return? Choose one. Bible John’s claim that Jesus’ use of “generation” implies thousands of years is patently absurd and is in direct conflict with the scriptures. It is unclear what Bible John was trying to accomplish by misrepresenting the words of Jesus. It is obvious that Jesus meant “generation” in the literal sense, and that his return would be soon. Because Jesus did not return in his Second Coming, nor perform the Rapture, Jesus made a false prophecy. Jesus was a false prophet and, by extension, a spiritual terrorist.


Summary

Bible John’s inability to understand and respond to my arguments has wasted an entire round of this already short debate. I can not express how disappointed this makes me feel. Remarkably, Bible John argues that Jesus, his teachings, and the Bible need to be examined in “context,” but since I have been arguing from the perspective of a devout follower of Judaism during the time of Jesus, all of my arguments have been in context. Bible John, on the other had, argues from scriptures that were not written down until long after Jesus had died. I certainly hope Bible John exercises some self-discipline and focus in the upcoming round of this debate—it is the last round and I expect quality responses to the arguments I have given.

We have seen, again and again, that whatever rationale Bible John uses to characterize someone as a spiritual terrorist, the same rationale applies to Jesus. In his final comments, Bible John tells us

if I went into the church of a certain very vocal OneNess Pentecostal pastor (whom often posts on Usenet newsgroups) and subverted his flock to turn away from this man’s false teachings, then I would be labeled as a False Teacher or Spiritual Terrorist

We can view this from the perspective of Judaism, and thus in the context of Judaism, and see that this is exactly what Jesus has done. Jesus came to the followers of Judaism and subverted their flock to turn away from the Judaic creed. This is exactly the definition of “spiritual terrorist” that Bible John and I agreed to before the start of this debate, and it is also the characterizations that led Bible John to denounce Joseph Smith as a spiritual terrorist.

Another interesting comment made by my opponent in his summary statements also reveals how Jesus should be characterized as a spiritual terrorist.

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6096/columncomparision3dl3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Just as Bible John’s perspective demonstrates the Unnamed Christian is a spiritual terrorist, when seen from the perspective of a devout follower of Judaism, in the context of Judaism, Jesus is clearly identified as a spiritual terrorist.

1. Jesus taught a salvation message contradictory to Judaic beliefs (ie. Faith, but not observance to the Torah, leads to salvation).
2. Jesus lured Jews away from Judaism to start his own cult, which is now a religion that bears his name.
3. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but failed to fulfill the signs necessary for that title, causing the Jews to see him as a false messiah and a spiritual terrorist.
4. Jesus failed the test of a true prophet, predicting his Second Coming to be around the time his 1st century disciples lived. The bible equates false prophets with spiritual terrorists.
5. Jesus demonstrated his unaccountability to the Torah by altering religious law and traditions set down in the Torah.

The actions of Jesus characterize him as a spiritual terrorist. He fits the definition of spiritual terrorism Bible John and I agreed upon before the start of the debate, he fits the scriptural definition of spiritual terrorism, and he fits all the major criteria spiritual terrorists possess that Bible John uses in his accusations of spiritual terrorism in others. Hopefully, since the next round in the last round, Bible John will finally get down to addressing these evidences.

[Bible John]

Hello everyone and welcome to the third round of my debate. I want to again thank you for following this debate. I want to thank my opponent for his round II post, and appreciate the serious effort that he put into it. I also want to thank him for not stooping down to personally attacking me, like so many skeptics do a daily basis on Usenet. I can appreciate the non hate-filled tone of my opponent’s previous rounds, and only look forward to the next two rounds Lord Willing and if the Lord does not call me home before the end of this debate.

Before I begin my rebuttal of my opponent’s arguments in the second round, I want to first address something that I said in my last round. I made a statement that was misinterpreted by some and has led them to believe that I am into Anti-Semitism. I am in no way, shape or form into Anti-Semitism, and personally condemn the actions of all those that are. Judaism was not engineered by Satan, but Jews in Judaism are deceived by Satan is what I should have said. Thanks for understanding this simple mistake of words and Lord willing no further major mistakes of words will be made on my part.

My opponent says

For this round, I would like to first respond to the excellent comments made by Bible John in the first round and continue to provide further evidence that defines Jesus as a “spiritual terrorist.” As you may recall, Bible John and I discussed how best to define a “spiritual terrorist” before this debate began. We chose this formal, concise definition:
Spiritual Terrorist: a person who parasitically subverts followers of a religion to form a new cult, which would not be viewed by members of the original religion as harmonious to their beliefs.

I was initially surprised to see that Bible John had not included any mention of our agreed upon definition of “spiritual terrorist” in Round 1.

I believe you have misunderstood the definition of a Spiritual terrorist. A terrorist does fulfill the simple definition we agreed upon in the Intro, but this is not all that they do, and this alone does not make one a terrorist. You need to read my Introduction a little closer. A Spiritual Terrorist will subvert followers into another cult, and will teach another message. A terrorist will also lack fruit, and what they teach will not be what the Bible teaches. Read my Introduction again, and after read the books of 2 Peter and Jude. Also read John 15. It’s impossible for someone to be saved and not bare fruit is my interpretation of the text. The Spiritual Terrorists lack fruits, and are more interested in self-promotion. I know that some of my critics after reading this statement will say that this only proves that I and another well-known minister on these boards are Spiritual Terrorists. But then the question is not solely on our self-promotion tactics, but on our teachings. Do me and this other minister teach another gospel message? The answer to this question is most definitely no. I admit that I struggle with self-promotion at times, and some other sins. But the difference between me and the Spiritual terrorist is that I have a regenerate heart and seek to do the will of the Lord. This means that I am not a Spiritual Terrorist.

Since CERM is dedicated to identifying spiritual terrorists in the Church it is easy to understand why Bible John’s profile of a spiritual terrorist is directed at terrorists he sees most often (ie. in the Christian Church). However, and I think Bible John will agree with me on this, not every Spiritual Terrorist (in the Church or otherwise) would meet all the criteria within this Profile.

No my definition of a Spiritual Terrorist is only what the Bible says. The doctrines and behaviors of the two vocal Terrorists on Usenet Newsgroups only fulfills Biblical prophecy. As the Bible clearly indicates a Terrorist will deny the deity of Jesus Christ and will teach another gospel message (Gal 1:8, 2 Pet 2:1, Jude 1:4, 2 Pet 2:12).

The terrorists deny the Lord Jesus Christ and his Divine nature. The terrorists that I mention in the Newsgroups do this.

The words of one of the terrorists.
Jesus Christ is not, never was,
and never will be the Creator God Who is the Father of the Son Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is a lesser god to God.

One cannot make a statement like this and be saved. Without Jesus there is no sacrifice for one’s sins. Sadly the individual posting this nonsense is not saved, and because he teaches another gospel message, he is a Spiritual Terrorist. I am very concerned about Terrorists, and take them very seriously. Both Jesus and Paul did the same, and so should all those who claim to be a minister of the gospel. Paul stayed up night and day and warned his flock of the Spiritual Terrorists of his day. The reason that many contemporary evangelicals are not concerned with the false teachers, is probably because they are sucked into the lie of Postmodernism, Relativism, multiculterism and Pluralism.

Let us consider Joseph Smith, which I presume Bible John will classify as a “Spiritual Terrorist” in this Round, based on his CERM article (Bible John, 2006).

Absolutely.

Joseph Smith fails to meet the first criterion of the Profile in that he was never “inside the Christian Church [sic],” rather he was ordered by Jesus during one of his visions not to join any church as the denominations were “corrupt” (Wikipedia, 2006).

A Terrorist does not have to meet all the criteria in successive order that I outlined. But a Terrorist will teach another gospel message and will teach another way to Salvation (Gal 1:8-9). But the criteria is generally the profile of a Terrorist.

Further, Joseph Smith had the “fruits of the spirit” described in Gal 5:22 which he practiced his whole life, and was also filled with the Holy Spirit (Consider #4 and #13 of his Articles of Faith (Wikipedia, 2006), respectively). We can see that, using Bible John’s Profile as a guide, Joseph Smith does not fit all of the requirements in the Profile of a Spiritual Terrorist. This does not mean that Joseph Smith should not be considered as a spiritual terrorist, only that he does not fit the Profile exactly. We can confidently state that this Profile has many characteristics associated with spiritual terrorists within the Christian Church, but does not do a satisfactory job of defining what a spiritual terrorist is. One of its weaknesses is that it does not describe spiritual terrorists that are members of other religions.

The most important attribute to define them is that they teach another gospel message (Gal 1:8). Sure there are terrorists that may appear to have fruit, but perhaps the fruit is false. Perhaps they are deceived, and deceive others by their false fruit, in order to gain coverts into their hellfire churches (Jude).

Additionally, during his opening arguments, Bible John spent an inordinate amount of time discussing his concerns about whether atheists, agnostics, (and a female acquaintance from Eharmony.com) view him as a spiritual terrorist. On this particular topic I should only say that Bible John’s concern that others think he is a spiritual terrorist is neither relevant, nor appropriate, to our current debate about Jesus.

I apologize for these statements then. Yes some from eharmony.com have referred to me in very derogatory terms) but without the authority of scripture, everything they claim about me is done in vain, and without any Biblical authority. The huge difference between these Spirit Filled types and me is the Bible. No I am not saying that the Pentecostals and other Charismatic women I have met on eharmony are Spiritual Terrorists.

Much of Bible John’s online ministry focuses on the actions of a certain Unnamed Christian. Whether this person is or is not a spiritual terrorist is beyond the scope of this debate; however, the types of arguments in which Bible John uses are telling.

It is against the rules of the debate to name people publicly. I do not understand these rules and personally do not practice them on CERM, for Paul publicly named and exposed people (1 Tim 1:20). But the point I was trying to make, was that he was a classic example of a Spiritual Terrorist. You believe that Jesus is a Spiritual Terrorist, only based on the definition we agreed upon. But what is not seen is that this unnamed man is a fulfillment of the profile, while Jesus is not.

I hope my arguments in Round 1 have already convinced many people that Jesus fits the requirements Bible John stated in #2 and #3 with the Evidence of Jesus’ Spiritual Terrorism: Faith vs. Works, Messiah, and False Prophet. However, I have not yet demonstrated that Jesus does not want to be held accountable to the scriptures. By demonstrating this final requirement, I will have shown Jesus matching all the characteristics Bible John summarizes above for his accusation that the Unnamed Christian is a “Spiritual Terrorist.” Although Jesus said in Matt 5:17 that he had come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, he repeatedly overthrew old customs, renounced old teachings, and improved upon the Mosaic Law. In Judaism, one of the most important laws in the Torah regards the Sabbath, or Sabbath, which is the Jewish day of rest. ….During the Sabbath, Jews are commanded by God to refrain from forbidden activity. One such forbidden activity is harvesting crops.

My opponent makes some very good points above, that Jews and others often misinterpret to come to a conclusion that Jesus was a false teacher, because He did not observe the law. I will argue that He did observe the law, He just did not observe the traditions that were added to the Biblical moral codes.

I will show my opponent some scriptures here that Jesus was falsely accused of breaking the law, but in reality the law that He was breaking was man made, and not God made.

Verse #1 Matt 12:2 NIV
When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

The Pharisees and other legal experts were very quick to accuse the Lord and his disciples here of breaking the Jewish law. But the real problem here was not the Biblical Moral code, but the man made moral code. The disciple’s were hungry and so they picked the grain and ate. This was not against the Biblical law. Dt 23:25 allows such an activity.

[Dt 23:25] If you enter your neighbor's grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to his standing grain.

However Harvesting was forbidden on the Sabbath as illustrated in this passage (Ex 34:21). What the Pharisees did not see, and what my opponent does not see is that the Disciples were not harvesting to gain a profit, as this was a forbidden activity on the Sabbath. They were only harvesting the grain because they were hungry (Life Application New Testament Bible Commentary). The Pharisees often followed around Jesus to find fault in his teachings and practices. I have been wrongfully accused many times of being a Pharisee, because I too follow the Charismatics and false teachers, to find fault in their doctrines and life. But I do so because the Bible clearly has said that in the Last Days there will be many false prophets, and in the last days men will not endure sound doctrine. Jesus was not a false prophet and his coming was predicted in the scriptures.

Verse #2 Mark 2:23-24 ESV
One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”

Here we go the same situation from another Gospel book and from another Translation. Jesus Disciples are picking Grain on the Sabbath day and the Pharisees and other legal experts think that they are doing unlawful things and are breaking the law. But lets look a little deeper at the CONTEXT here. As mentioned earlier in Ex 34:21 it is forbidden to harvest crop for personnel gain on the Sabbath rest. This law was there for farmers to find rest, and to protect workers from being overworked. In the Bible days and living under the authority of the Lord working on the Sabbath was definitely a no-no. Jesus and his disciples were not picking the grains to gain financially, they were picking the grains only because they were Hungry. The Pharisees were just so focussed on rules and laws that they overlooked the laws intention. The law was not meant to bind people in a bunch of knots, as the Pharisees did by adding to the Biblical laws found in the Pentateuch.

One of my Biblical Exegetical sources says that the Pharisees often misinterpreted the Bible, and often emphasized their book of moral codes and laws called the Mishnah above God's Holy Word. The Mishnah did not provide Biblical support for it’s many laws and traditions that were added to their Biblical interpretations. This is what Jesus was attacking. Jesus was not attacking those that honestly tried too follow the Bible. I hate it when people call me a Pharisee because I am a Fundamentalist Baptist. They do so in ignorance of Rabbinical Theology, and a basic general understanding of the context in what Jesus was addressing. Baptist Fundamentalists are not Pharisees, for they look to the Bible and it alone. We do not have a second work of moral laws and codes outside of the Bible, as the Pharisees and other legal experts in Jesus day did.

The Pharisees refer to Exodus 16:29, which instructs people to stay in the camp on the Sabbath and not to pick up food off the ground, and Exodus 34:21 which instructs us that the Sabbath applied to harvest season. Jesus, however, disavows the charge by claiming that he is greater than the Sabbath.

No as explained above the Pharisees used a work called the Mishnah, which had its own set of moral codes and traditions that were not supported by the Bible. Go to Wikepedia and look up the term and there is a chart of the many different books in this work. I could not find one book in this work that was also in the Bible. But besides the passages that you refer forbid one to work on the Sabbath in an effort to gain financially. What Jesus and His disciples were doing was in no way a violation of the Torah. Dt 23:25 allows one to pick up grain if one is hungry as explained earlier Jesus was not breaking the Jewish law and is not a Spiritual Terrorist.

Jesus was clearly a reformer of Judaic Law. Bible John himself recognized this when he said, “Jesus came and challenged the world to move away from the pharisaical legalism of his day. [sic]” I do not believe Bible John understands how reproachful Jesus was. He censured revenge and insisted upon total forgiveness of offenses. He prohibited divorce and made desire as much of a sin as adultery. He forbade harsh language and swearing. For every change and revision to Judaic Law, Jesus underscored his desire to be held unaccountable to it. This demonstrates the final characteristic in Bible John’s summation of why the Unnamed Christian is a spiritual terrorist, and how we know Jesus was also a Spiritual Terrorist.

What Jesus did was he broke the many man made laws and traditions as found in the Jewish Mishnah and other Jewish non-Biblical works and sources of authority in the Jewish culture. Jesus never broke any scripture, and if one believes this, they do so because they o not read the context. The Pharisees accused Jesus of picking grain on the Sabbath and said it was unlawful. But Deuteronomy gives support to picking grain, if it is done in hunger, and not as a means to gain financially. The context of the law against harvesting on the Sabbath is in the context that one must not do it for financial gain. For if what my opponent says is true and if everyone obeyed this, then I imagine that most of the Jews would not have lived, for surely it was not unlawful to eat food on the Sabbath, was it?

SUMMARY

In this round I have provided more support and rebutted more of my opponents arguments that Jesus was a Spiritual Terrorist. My opponent apparently has not studied the Jewish works that lack Biblical support such as the Mishnah. What Jesus did in His culture was break the man made laws and traditions that were not part of the Biblical teachings. He never and not once broke a single Biblical Commandment, for it was impossible for the Son of Man to Sin. The son of Man had 2 natures in one personality. He was both 100% human and 100% God. The Teachers of the Law and Pharisees often misinterpreted the Bible and took passages out of the Biblical Context to draw their own conclusions on Jesus. To learn more on how to read the Bible, he should purchase the book “How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.”

Jesus was not a Spiritual Terrorist and its so sad that my opponent has made such a big deal trying to get me to admit to this. He thinks that one simple 3-line definition is all there is to know about the term. He forgets that entire books have been written on the subject. See the following works.

Charismatic Chaos
Christianity in Crisis
The Counterfeit revival

John Wolf
Church Education Resource Ministries
www.cerm.info

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The next set of concurrent statements will make up the Final Round.

[Senlatheil]

Welcome to the final round of this debate. In this round I will be responding to Bible John’s comments from previous rounds, but I will be refraining from introducing any new evidences of Jesus’ spiritual terrorism since Bible John will not have a subsequent round to respond to them. In the end, I will summarize my arguments and provide a bit of my own critique.


Spiritual Terrorism

It seems throughout this debate Bible John has used many definitions and descriptions of spiritual terror. We initially started this debate with a definition of spiritual terrorism that we mutually agreed too.

Spiritual Terrorist: a person who parasitically subverts followers of a religion to form a new cult which would not be viewed by members of the original religion as harmonious to their beliefs.

Amazingly, it took Bible John three rounds to acknowledge this definition, which I believe has wasted a good deal of time. Bible John also submitted a Profile of Spiritual Terrorism, which he first proposed as a definition with characteristics that spiritual terrorists had. However, when people he accused of being spiritual terrorists did not fulfill all the characteristics within the Profile, Bible John whittled down the definition.

A Terrorist does not have to meet all the criteria in successive order that I outlined. But a Terrorist will teach another gospel message and will teach another way to Salvation (Gal 1:8-9).

Subsequently, Bible John has defined spiritual terrorists as those who teach a different gospel. At first Bible John wanted to keep some of his Profile:

A Spiritual Terrorist will subvert followers into another cult, and will teach another message. A terrorist will also lack fruit, and what they teach will not be what the Bible teaches.

Although Bible John’s description of a spiritual terrorist includes a “lack of fruit,” he contradicts himself later in his post in order to fulfill his already pre-conceived notion that Joseph Smith was a spiritual terrorist.

The most important attribute to define them is that they teach another gospel message (Gal 1:8). Sure there are terrorists that may appear to have fruit, but perhaps the fruit is false. Perhaps they are deceived, and deceive others by their false fruit, in order to gain coverts into their hellfire churches (Jude).

Bible John’s definition of spiritual terrorism has been an ever shifting landscape. But there has been a constant factor to Bible John’s use of spiritual terrorism: A spiritual terrorist will teach another gospel message, whose message would not be viewed by Christians as harmonious to their beliefs. How ironic it is that it is synonymous to the definition of spiritual terrorism that we started with at the beginning of this debate. After three rounds Bible John has finally arrived at the beginning.

Several times Bible John has accused others of being spiritual terrorists because of the overriding fact of their teaching a new gospel message. This is the overriding fact that we see in Jesus’ spiritual terrorism. Jesus taught a new gospel message. Jesus was a spiritual terrorist. Bible John desperately clings to his belief that Jesus was not a spiritual terrorist, but has forsaken his own rationality in doing so.

I had an interesting thought: Jesus has said, “Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” Bible John has accused so many Christians of being spiritual terrorists, I wonder if Jesus considers that Bible John has treated Him in the same way.


Evidence for Jesus’ Spiritual Terrorism #4: Not Accountable to the Scriptures Response

In my second round post, I demonstrated that Jesus fit the same rationale that Bible John uses to accuse several Christians on Usenet of being spiritual terrorists. One characterization of spiritual terrorism that Bible John used (but has dropped in his third round post) is that spiritual terrorists do not want to be upheld to the authority of scripture. Since Jesus worked to edit the Mosaic law, I argued that he did not want to be held accountable to it. Specifically, I mentioned his disregard for obeying the Sabbath.

At that time, Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the grain fields. His disciples were hungry and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said to him, "Behold, your disciples do what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath."

And Jesus responds

…the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath

Bible John argued from two perspectives. The first was that this restriction is only to prevent monetary gain, not to alleviate hunger.

Harvesting was forbidden on the Sabbath as illustrated in this passage (Ex 34:21). What the Pharisees did not see, and what my opponent does not see is that the Disciples were not harvesting to gain a profit, as this was a forbidden activity on the Sabbath

Apparently Jesus did not see it either, because that is not how he responded to the Pharisees. Instead, Jesus just declared himself higher than the Law. The obvious reason here is that there is no “profit” requirement outlined in Ex 34:21. Bible John wrongfully combines the laws of the Sabbath in Exodus with Deut 23:25, which allows travelers to harvest a bit of crops for food, but this is not a Sabbath-related law. Jesus’ disciples were harvesting the wheat to eat on a Sabbath. It was being on the Sabbath that made this against the Law, and the Pharisees pointed this out. This was probably not an issue for the Jews of Jesus’ time because traveling on the Sabbath was against the Law as well. I mentioned that the Law also directs people to stay in their camp during the Sabbath (Exodus 16:29) and Jesus disregards this as well. Bible John responds, which is his second perspective, that Jesus has not broken the Mosaic Law, only the moral guidelines outlined in the Mishnah.

The Mishnah did not provide Biblical support for it’s many laws and traditions… This is what Jesus was attacking.

Remarkably, despite my demonstration of where in Exodus Jesus was violating the law, Bible John brings up the unrelated Mishnah. The Mishnah is the Oral Law in Judaism which is passed down from Rabbi to Rabbi, and was first written down in 200 AD. The Mishnah contains laws that were passed down in parallel to the Written Law (the five books of Moses), but the two are separate entities. However, they are both of equal importance to Judaism. Bible John argues that Jesus was attacking the Oral Law, but I showed him where in Exodus (a book of the Written Law) that Jesus violated laws.

My opponent apparently has not studied the Jewish works that lack Biblical support such as the Mishnah.

My opponent apparently has not understood my argument. I demonstrated where Jesus disregarded the Law in the Written Law, not the Oral Law, as Bible John claims. The Mishnah has no relation to my argument.

What Jesus did in His culture was break the man made laws and traditions that were not part of the Biblical teachings.

I have already shown that Jesus disregarded the Laws in Exodus, which contain the laws passed down by God. Jesus broke the commandments of God. This is not the Oral Law (ie. the Mishnah). Because Jesus is disregarding the Laws written down in the Old Testament, in the Written Law, he shows that he does not want to be held accountable to them. Thus we see that Jesus can be viewed as a spiritual terrorist.

The Teachers of the Law and Pharisees often misinterpreted the Bible and took passages out of the Biblical Context to draw their own conclusions on Jesus.

Déjê vu?


Summary

I have presented multiple evidences and lines of rationale to explain how Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries would view him as a spiritual terrorist. Bible John has accused many Christians of being spiritual terrorists when they teach a new gospel and a new way to salvation. Jesus taught a new gospel and a new way to salvation. When I asked Bible John to discuss the spiritual terrorism of Jospeh Smith, the founder of the Mormon tradition of Christianity, he said

The Terrorists teach another Gospel Message- Gal 1:8, 2 Pet 2:1, Jude 1:4, 2 Pet 2:12. …the establishment of a new gospel is enough to make the Church of Mormon, a church of Spiritual Terrorism.

I have demonstrated that Jesus’ teaching of a new gospel message, apart from Judaism, would make his Jewish contemporaries see him as a spiritual terrorist. By the vary scriptures that Bible John uses to denounce Joseph Smith we see that Jesus was a spiritual terrorist. Bible John puts great emphasis on biblical scriptures in his accusations that others are spiritual terrorists. In part, he uses Gal 1:8, 2 Pet 2:1, and Jude 1:4. Let us examine these verses and see if they also characterize Jesus as a spiritual terrorist.

But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any "good news" other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed. As we have said before, so I now say again: if any man preaches to you any "good news" other than that which you received, let him be cursed.

Indeed, Jesus did preach another “good news” different than what God had previously revealed to the Jews. Jesus taught a “good news” that was contradictory to the Covenant. This destructive heresy that Jesus taught is a characteristic of spiritual terrorism that Bible John most frequently uses in his accusations of others as spiritual terrorists.

But false prophets also arose among the people, as false teachers will also be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction.

Yes, Jesus rose among the people and brought in destructive heresies. From the perspective of a devout follower of Judaism, every person who believed in Jesus’ salvation message would have their name struck from the Book of Life. Destructive indeed! Again, this prophecy is fulfilled in that Jesus “(brought) on (himself) swift destruction” through his crucification.

For there are certain men who crept in secretly, even those who were long ago written about for this condemnation: ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master, God, and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Certainly, Jesus would be viewed as an “ungodly man” from the perspective of a devout follower of Judaism. He sought to lead followers of Judaism away from their faith. While not “lasciviousness”, Jesus’s teachings contradicted the Judaic faith and led others astray from Judaism. By teaching another salvation message and voiding the Covenant, Jesus sets himself against the foundation of Judaism. For these reasons, we know that the scriptures themselves condemn Jesus as a spiritual terrorist.

The Terrorists teach another Gospel Message- Gal 1:8, 2 Pet 2:1, Jude 1:4, 2 Pet 2:12. …the establishment of a new gospel is enough to make Jesus a Spiritual Terrorist.

Throughout this debate, I have demonstrated Jesus as a spiritual terrorist because he fulfilled both the definition and scriptural description of spiritual terrorism. I have also used Bible John’s own accusations of others to show Jesus as a spiritual terrorist. This summarizes the evidences of Jesus’ spiritual terrorism:

1. Jesus taught a salvation message contradictory to Judaic beliefs (ie. Faith, but not observance to the Torah, leads to salvation).
2. Jesus lured Jews away from Judaism to start his own cult, which is now a religion that bears his name.
3. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but failed to fulfill the signs necessary for that title, causing the Jews to see him as a false messiah and a spiritual terrorist.
4. Jesus failed the test of a true prophet, predicting his Second Coming to be around the time his 1st century disciples lived. The bible equates false prophets with spiritual terrorists.
5. Jesus demonstrated his unaccountability to the Torah by altering religious law and traditions set down in the Torah.

Bible John has failed to address these evidences. He has also failed to account for his accusations of others as spiritual terrorists grounded on far less evidence. It should now be obvious to everyone that Jesus fulfills all the requirements necessary to be considered a spiritual terrorist.

I would like to thank everyone who stayed with this debate for their time and attention, as well as IIDB for hosting this debate. I would also like to thank Bible John for participating in this debate. I do not believe Bible John’s mind has been changed, based on previous posts, but I hope this debate serves to educate others. Please post your comments in the Peanut Gallery—if you have any constructive criticism to my debating style I would appreciate your thoughts and the opportunity to improve my skills.


Personal Note

Throughout this debate I have learned a great deal about Bible John through his website and various posts on this forum and others. What I have seen is greatly troubling, and I would like to briefly address my concerns. I believe Bible John has forgotten that a central theme to Jesus’ message was to develop inward growth toward righteousness. Jesus taught that outward observance to the Law did not bring inward righteousness. Similarly, if Jesus was present today, I believe he would chastise Bible John for focusing his efforts on nitpicking over superficial doctrines of faith, and not promoting Christ’s true message of salvation. Jesus’ salvation message does not contain requirements that you think He is part of the Trinity or not, that you think He is God or Man or some combination thereof, whether you believe he was born of a virgin, or that you can correctly interpret John 1:1. Bible John has obsessively separated Christians into various categories based on inconsequential doctrines of faith, and then presumes to judge whether they will enter Heaven or not. Jesus instructs us not to judge others in Matthew 7:1 and 7:5, and Bible John’s very public accusations of several Christians being spiritual terrorists are remarkably un-Christ-like. Despite the cloak of “scripture” that Bible John wraps himself in, there is a spirit of arrogance in Bible John that I have never seen in any other Christian. When you get right down to it, Bible John should not strive to become like the Bureans, but to become like Christ. Be satisfied that you do good things because it is the right thing to do, not because of a religious text or doctrine, and righteousness will naturally follow. With that said, Bible John, read this last question slowly: if God moved through an atheist like me to teach you how to better grow in Christ, do you think you would recognize His efforts?


Senlatheil

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”
--Thomas Jefferson

[Bible John]

I want to thank everyone for following this rather lengthy debate so far. This is the last round of the debate. I want to again thank IIdb.org for hosting this debate, Nightshade for moderating it, and the professional conduct of the iidb.org staff. Although we disagree on our beliefs, I can honestly and yet regrettably say that the courtesy and professionalness that you have shown on these forums far extends that of a number of Christians. You allow people to criticize you on your own forums, and you usually only discipline those when there is just cause. You cant imaging how many web forums I have been active in, that would ban you just because you criticized them, or would ban you, because they did not like you. I was banned from a Fundamentalist KJVO forum once, because I was a non-KJVO Fundamentalist.

Similarly, I agree with Bible John that Joseph Smith was a spiritual terrorist. He fits the definition of spiritual terrorism we agreed upon in that he authored a new Gospel and used it to lure members of Christianity away to start a new religion or at least a Christian tradition with tenuous grasps to its parent religion. In this way, Bible John and I are in agreement.

It does not matter what you believe, it only matters what the Bible teaches and this is my authority and my standard. The Bible makes it clear in many passages that those that teach another gospel message are condemned.

2Co 11:13-15 KJV For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. (14) And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. (15) Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Sadly the judgement of Smith will be only on his works. Perhaps Smith will receive a better Hell than that of Hitler, and certainly a better Hell than that of the AntiChrist and False prophet, whom the Bible says will be cast first into the Lake of Fire (Rev 19).

However, I have taken a step that Bible John has not. I see that just as Joseph Smith teaches another gospel message from the rest of Christianity, creating and using a new Gospel to lure devout followers of Christianity away from their faith, so does Jesus teach another gospel message from Judaism. We have established, and Bible John does not deny, that Jesus taught a new Gospel that included a different salvation message than the rest of Judaism. This is an obvious product of this logic, and it is easy to understand why Bible John denies it.

As explained in my last round, the Jews perverted the authentic gospel message, by adding to the scriptures, and by establishing new laws and covenants that were not in the gospel. The authority is the Bible and God’s Holy Word. The Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the other Bibles that the other cults use is not the real authority. The real authority is the real Holy Scriptures. The Book of Mormon holds no authority, and is another gospel message. Likewise the book that the Jews used called the Mishnah is not authoritative. The Jews held their books and books added to the Bible as having more weight than the scriptures themselves. The Mishnah is only one of many books that the Jews used at the same weight as the scriptures.

I challenge Bible John to explain why when Joseph Smith teaches another gospel message he is a spiritual terrorist, but when Jesus did likewise, he is not a spiritual terrorist. They both fit the agreed upon definition of spiritual terrorism, and they also fit the scriptural definition of spiritual terrorism. In all likelihood, Bible John accuses people of spiritual terrorism when their beliefs do not match closely enough with his own. Since his own beliefs closely match those of Martin Luther and Jesus Christ, they can not be spiritual terrorists. I have, and will continue to argue that Jesus fits the major criteria of a spiritual terrorist that Bible John uses.

The message that Jesus rebuked was not the gospel. Jesus rebuked the other Jewish works that had neither Godly nor Biblical authority. You keep on trying to get me to admit that Jesus was a Spiritual terrorist, and you keep on claiming that I am not following the agreed upon definition. You say this, because you have failed to produce a good argument that Jesus was a Spiritual Terrorist, and therefore have come to use such tactics and absurd claims that I am not following the Iidb.org rules.

In my first argument that Jesus should be considered as a spiritual terrorist, I outlined how Jesus’ teachings that faith in him is the only way to heaven contradicted the Covenant in Judaism between God and Israel. This incongruity is not harmonious to the Judaic faith, and underscores how a devout follower of Judaism during the time of Jesus would see Jesus as a spiritual terrorist luring people away from the true faith to start Christianity.

You have asked some very good questions. To be honest I do not consider myself a scholar in such matters. The purpose and mission of my ministry is primary Bible Education and the Apologetics section primarily focuses on cult apologetics. But to try to answer this question I will say that Jesus is the Messiah and the Jews missed him, because they were ignorant of the many prophecies that he fulfilled. I have a huge list of these prophecies. But I also wrote a paper on the subject, and you may view it here (http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Theological/messiah_prophecies.htm).

I explained how Jesus would be viewed by a follower of Judaism as a false Messiah because he did not fulfill the signs the true Messiah would: 1. The Messiah is a physical king 2. The Messiah will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem 3. The Messiah is not the Son of God, but an ordinary man 4. The Messiah will usher in a period of peace and prosperity 5. The Messiah will not die

Looking at your list above I think you have the 1st coming of Christ confused with the 2nd coming of Christ. The Second Coming of Christ, Jesus will fulfill the points above. But no doubt Jesus came the 1st time and the list below proves just this. Jesus first coming was that of a humble suffering servant (have you not read Isaiah 53)? His second coming will be as the Conquering King.

Jesus fulfilled all the signs outlined in the Jewish OT. I posted a few of these in the last round. But this time I’ll post all of them.

Messianic Prophecies and Fulfillment’s
(From the Life Application Study Bible Notes)

Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem
Old Testament Prophecy: Mi 5:2
New Testament Fulfillment: Mt 2:1-6; Lk 2:1-20

Messiah was to be born of a virgin
Old Testament Prophecy: Isa 7:14
New Testament Fulfillment: Mt 1:18-25; Lk 1:26-38

Messiah was to be a prophet like Moses
Old Testament Prophecy: Dt 18:15,18,19
New Testament Fulfillment: Jn 7:40

Messiah was to enter Jerusalem in triumph
Old Testament Prophecy: Zec 9:9
New Testament Fulfillment: Mt 21:1-9; Jn 12:12-16

Messiah was to be rejected by his own people
Old Testament Prophecy: Isa 53:1,3; Ps 118:22
New Testament Fulfillment: Mt 26:3,4; Jn 12:37-43; Ac 4:1-12

Messiah was to be betrayed by one of his followers
Old Testament Prophecy: Ps 41:9
New Testament Fulfillment: Mt 26:14-16,47-50; Lk 22:19-23

Messiah was to be tried and condemned
Old Testament Prophecy: Isa 53:8
New Testament Fulfillment: Mt 27:1,2; Lk 2:1-25

Messiah was to be silent before his accusers
Old Testament Prophecy: Isa 53:7
New Testament Fulfillment: Mt 27:12-14; Mk 15:3-4; Lk 23:8-10

Messiah was to be struck and spat on by his enemies
Old Testament Prophecy: Isa 50:6
New Testament Fulfillment: Mt 26:67; 27:30; Mk 14:65

Messiah was to be mocked and insulted
Old Testament Prophecy: Ps 22:7,8
New Testament Fulfillment: Mt 27:39-44; Lk 23:11,35

Messiah was to die by crucifixion
Old Testament Prophecy: Ps 22:14,16,17
New Testament Fulfillment: Mt 27:31; Mk 15:20,25

Messiah was to suffer with criminals and pray for his enemies
Old Testament Prophecy: Isa 53:12
New Testament Fulfillment: Mt 27:38; Mk 15:27,28; Lk 23:32-34

Messiah was to be given vinegar
Old Testament Prophecy: Ps 69:21
New Testament Fulfillment: Mt 27:34; Jn 19:28-30

Others were to cast lots for Messiah's garments
Old Testament Prophecy: Ps 22:18
New Testament Fulfillment: Mt 27:35; Jn 19:23,24

Messiah's bones were not to be broken
Old Testament Prophecy: Ex 12:46
New Testament Fulfillment: Jn 19:31-36

Messiah was to die as a sacrifice for sin
Old Testament Prophecy: Isa 53:5,6,8,10,11,12
New Testament Fulfillment: Jn 1:29; 11:49-52; Ac 10:43; 13:38,39

Messiah was to be raised from the dead
Old Testament Prophecy: Ps 16:10
New Testament Fulfillment: Mt 28:1-10; Ac 2:22-32

Messiah is now at God's right hand
Old Testament Prophecy: Ps 110:1
New Testament Fulfillment: Mk 16:19; Lk 24:50,51

Compare the entire list to the scriptures and you will see that Jesus was the 100% fulfillment of the Messiah. The Jews did not recognize this, because they did not know their own Bibles! They wanted the conquering King, but got a humble servant. They clearly misinterpreted the Bible, and their own Torah!

In this evidence for Jesus’ characterization as a spiritual terrorist I relied upon the parallels between the definition of spiritual terrorism and the Bible’s description of false prophets. By showing that Jesus made a false prophecy about the Rapture and his Second Coming, I demonstrated that Jesus was a false prophet, and by extension a spiritual terrorist. Jesus prophesied that the Rapture and Second Coming would happen before his first century disciples had died.

Bible John is correct that “generation” here could mean a literal generation (as I am interpreting it) or as the Jewish race (as Bible John is interpreting it). However, Bible John has not provided any evidence to support that his interpretation is the correct one. In originally giving my argument I supplied the context that would prove Jesus meant a literal generation.

Like I said in an earlier round, looking at the original text proves your claim to be false.

But I will show you again.

Lets look at a passage that you previously mentioned were proof that Jesus is a Spiritual Terrorist.

Mat 24:34 KJV Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Mat 26:64 KJV Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Jesus is telling Caiaphas that he will be alive to witness his Second Coming. I am amazed Bible John did not address this. He has willfully ignored the evidence that proves him in error. Early Christians were absolutely convinced Jesus would be returning soon. Matthew 24:34 is not the only place in the Bible Jesus suggested that his return would be imminent:
I will address this know.

I do not believe that Jesus was speaking literally to Caiaphas. For does not History tell us that Caiaphas died before the Fall of Jerusalem at the hands of Titus and his army in AD 70? Jesus in this statement refers to the Son of Man. A title used to address him. Lets take a look at a few other scriptures.

Dan 7:13-14 KJV I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. (14) And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Mat 24:30 KJV And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Rev 1:7 KJV Behold, he