Lies Preachers Tell #9

Jesus, like Jonah, was a false prophet. Jonah's prophecy against Nineveh was eight unequivocal words in length: "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown [Jonah 3:4e]." This overthrow did not occur, according to Jonah 3:10.

Jesus' prognostication concerning his own death and the sign it would provide was likewise false. Jesus said, "... as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth [Matthew 12:40]." Preachers, in covering for Jesus, repeat this lie.

In two thousand years of Christian scholarship, there is no record I'm aware of of anyone having said Jesus' stay in the tomb consisted of more or less than three days and three nights. This lie is, however, easily refuted by a quick glance at a calendar.

Jesus was, according to the gospels, crucified on a Friday: expired that evening at the earliest. Our modern calendars refer to this day as "Good Friday." None of the gospels record the precise moment of his egress from the tomb, but all four gospels agree that at sunrise of "the first day of the week, [et. al.]," Jesus was out of the tomb.

The amount of time from Friday evening to Sunday morning is not three days and three nights. It is two nights and one day. Can Christians not count to three-- at least once in two thousand years? Is the moral of this enduring lie that false prophecy is the sign of Jesus?

Lies Preachers Tell #8

The late Pete Ruckman was fond of saying, "A text without a context is a pretext." This is a true saying, and apropos to the subject of preachers and the lies they tell. It's also germaine to the subject of false 'psychics' and mediums and the 'glittering generalities' with which they tell their lies, though this is perhaps beside the point.

One passage of scripture it seems impossible for preachers to apply a proper context to is found in the 'sermon on the mount'. According to Matthew, the Word of God said, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust [Matthew 5:44 & 45]."

The contextual element absent from preachers' exegeses on this passage is the simple fact that this sermon was preached by the Word to a people he called 'the children of the devil [John 8:44a]': the Jews who murdered the same Word of God long before they ever met him [Exodus 32:16 & 19 being one case in point]. The Word of God is, after all, the veritable 'words and work' of God made flesh, and the Jews attempted to kill him every day they didn't kill him: from birth to Calvary.

Protestant preachers say the text in question from Matthew 5 applies to Christians, and their congregations "Amen!" this, but if they ever applied it in their personal walk, they would know better. Who is the enemy? Who is it that curses God's children? Who is it that hates God's children? Who despitefully uses us? Is not the answer in each case the Devil? Are we then to serve, bless, pray for, and love the Devil?

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God [James 4:4]." If 'playing friendly' with the world makes us the enemy of God: what does outright collusion with the Devil against God make us? The hermeneutic does not equate. It's a pretext, precisely because it's taken out of context.

Before explaining the contextual error extant in the above exegetical train wreck, it seems only fair to expose the hypocrisy of it. These preachers and their congregations 'respect persons'. They don't practice what is preached, though they vociferously "Amen!" the sermons. In this case, I can state unequivocally and existentially that, when these preachers and their sheeple label a man 'Satan', it's for enmity they do so, not for 'friendship'. They only turn the back to 'Satans' in their midst. Queers are welcome in the pulpits of their churches, and 'Satan' is compelled to flee their gay company. Who's their 'Satan', if not the prophets and the one sending them?

As for the contextual 'faux pas' committed by the preachers and their sheeple: it's really simple. The Jews to whom the 'sermon on the mount' was preached are the friends of the world written of by James. They proved their enmity with God at Calvary in a rage that stinks to high heaven for all eternity, and so doing received the just reward of their traitorous 'servitude' in exchange: a wound forever incurable; a bruise which never fades and never goes away. It's not by hyperbolic device that the Word of God says to them, "Ye are of your father the devil [John 8:44a]." This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation. They are indeed the devil's spawn. They are that "evil" basking in God's sun. They are the "unjust" soaking up the undeserved rain. Calvary proves it beyond any shadow of doubt.

As such, what else could the Word of God have said that would have been understood by them while remaining true and faithful? He couldn't tell them to serve God: Satan is their 'God'. If he had told them to flee Satan, they would have run from God at his Word's behest. God is their 'Satan'. Likewise, he couldn't tell them they are the children of 'their' Father in heaven: only that they "may be" the same. The only encouragement he could lend them is "love your enemies." Only in loving, praying and doing good for, and blessing their enemies could they ever be anything but adversaries to God and his children.

"The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools [Proverbs 26:7]."

Lies Preachers Tell #6

John Baptist (a.k.a. Johnny B) is an endlessly fascinating character, and that largely because of the lies told about him by professing and professional 'believers.' Across the river from where I write this, for instance, there's a 'Saint John the Baptist Catholic Church.' This, in itself, is a lie. If Johnny B were a "saint," he would be in the kingdom of heaven, after all, but according to the King, Johnny's not in. Jesus said, "he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than [Johnny B]." (Matthew 11:11)

In Matthew 14 and Mark 6, the story of John Baptist's demise is recorded. Matthew tells a "little white lie" about this event when, in 14:3, he writes, "Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife." This is a lie inasmuch as, by the time Johnny was imprisoned, Herodias was Herod's wife: not Philip's. Mark records this "little white lie" as being first told by Johnny B, writing in 6:18 "John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife."

Understand: Johnny's usage of the term "lawful" indicates the subject of conversation was law; and exactly because he was arguing law, his calling Herodias Philip's wife is a lie. That is to say, it's a legal perversion. According to law, Herodias could not be referred to as Philip's wife because Herod already had her. Deuteronomy 24:1 & 4 sets the legal bar in such cases thusly: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." And, "Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife..." This means she could never legally be Philip's wife, again. To state it another way: Johnny B broke the law referring to Herodias as Philip's wife-- a thing she was no longer and could never legally be, again.

Nowhere in scripture are we informed as to how Philip's marriage to Herodias ended, but we can assume it was ended by either death or divorce. Either way, the spirit of the law remains the same, even if the letter changes. Preachers are quick to lie for Johnny B in applauding his misunderstanding of law as a firm grasp of the same, but the truth is: Johnny was wrong. It was precisely right for Herod to marry Herodias: and that according to the law. It was, In fact, even his legal duty as Philip's brother: by the spirit of the law, in the case of divorce; or by the letter of the law, in the case of death. Deuteronomy 25:5 plainly says, "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her."

As stated above, if Philip's marriage to Herodias ended-- as it seems most likely to have-- in divorce, then Herod was under no legal obligation to marry Herodias. However, this would mean his marrying her was more laudable than if it had been obligatory, being as it was certainly in keeping with the spirit of the law; not an obligation to the letter of the same. As the apostle Paul wrote: "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2 Corinthians 3:6) Johnny B should have applauded king Herod's legal acumen and obedient temperament; not rebuked him as a perverter of law. Johnny B was simply perverting law, and therefore wrong. Preachers who say otherwise lie and pervert law like Johnny B.

In Proverbs 18:21, Solomon wrote, "Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof." Johnny B's life and death bear this out, inasmuch as it was Johnny who-- with the same mouth that made his living-- pronounced death on the Son of God by calling him "the Lamb of God;" and Johnny who ultimately pronounced death on himself when he called Herod's marriage a perversion of law. "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Lies Preachers Tell #4

"Christian" preachers and their proselytes always say "believing in Jesus means you'll never go to hell," but according to scripture and their own testimony, this is patently false. Let's begin with the scriptural evidence.

Christ-- while rebuking the apostle Peter for rebuking him-- said, "I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, [that is to.say "a stone;" not "a rock"] and upon this rock [meaning himself] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18) He did not say his church wouldn't go to hell: quite the opposite. This amounts to a frank admission that his church-- in part, at the very least -- will go to hell, but instead of staying there they will go through: In 'n' Out. (Burger King's burgers are better, by the.way, and you don't have to live buried in excrement in California to enjoy a flame- broiled Whopper.)

Why would a true child of God be scared of hell, anyway? Psalms 139:8 says, "if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou [O Lord (verse 1)] art there." Why be afraid of any place where the Lord is, unless you're an enemy of his, or-- like Peter-- you presume to lord- it over the Lord? So much for staying out of hell.

As to what these "Christian" preachers and their proselytes call "believing in Jesus:" they prescribe a "little" [like Zoar] heresy they refer to as "the sinners' prayer" and baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Ghosts scare them!)." The successful comp!etion of this ritual renders one "born again," according to them. Never mind the fact that this is-- according to the scriptures they claim to believe in-- utter nonsense.

1 Peter 1:23 says of rebirth, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed [such as the words of a sinner in prayer, for instance], but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." As the Lord told the Jews who would return into Egypt, "[they] shall know whose words shall stand, mine, or theirs." (Jeremiah 44:28) So much for sinners' prayers.

As for baptism, if it were so important to take a bath with another man, why is it "Jesus himself baptized not?" (John 4:2) There is a necessary baptism, but it's not after the manner of John Baptist's baptism. It is in fact the same operation described in the already- cited passage from 1 Peter. Ephesians 5:26 says, "That he [Christ] might sanctify and cleanse it [the church] with the washing of water [baptism] by the word." And Christ himself said-- again, in rebuking Peter-- of John Baptist's manner of baptizing, "He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet," (John 13:10) when he washed the apostles' feet and Peter asked to be washed after the manner of John Baptist's baptism. So much for the rub- a- dub- dub tub. So they oppose the scriptures.

As to how these preachers and their proselytes oppose themselves: they say the same Christ who said, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me," (Matthew 16:24) rode his own cross straight to hell-- and that so his followers wouldn't have to go there. What, then, is following?

They're "leaving their King in India," in the words of Alexander in the movie by Oliver Stone, and expecting rewards from the same King to lay at the foot of his cross instead of their own. How's that supposed to work?

There are some people who are too good for hell, and there is a place prepared for them: it's called "the lake of fire." ( Revelation 20:10)

Heaven can't help those whom hell won't have.

Lies Preachers Tell #2

Probably the second- most- repeated lie told by preachers is: "When the children of Israel observed the first Passover, they had to put blood on the doorways of their houses so the angel of death would know which houses were theirs and would kill none of them."

Wrong answer.

Jeremiah 7:22 & 23 says of this, "I [God] spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices [meaning no blood of lambs, goats, or bullocks]: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you."

Why, then, do preachers say there had to be blood on the door? Because that's what Moses said was necessary, and preachers give more credence to Moses than to God: every time. Moses-- speaking always presumptively for God-- said (Exodus 12:7 & 13), "And they shall take of the blood [of the Passover sacrifice], and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it... And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt."

It's not germaine to this subject, perhaps, to wonder why Moses would deem it necessary to-- under cover of the power of darkness-- "sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes," (Exodus 8:26) but what is germaine is the recent existential knowledge all the children of Israel had with which to debunk this preposterous claim of Moses' that God couldn't properly identify the Israelites from the Egyptians without blood to help him in making this identification.

The children of Israel had seen the Lord demonstrate time and again (as he promised to do in Exodus 8:22 & 23) his ability to properly discern the Jews from the Egyptians; and likewise to differentiate the livestock of the Jews from the livestock of the Egyptians, as he said he would in Exodus 9:4 .

The Israelites didn't choke on the swarms of flies which corrupted the land of Egypt. Their livestock weren't afflicted with the grievous murrains which killed all the Egyptians' livestock. The Israelites and their livestock were spared the torment of the boils with blains that tortured man and beast of Egypt. They suffered no damage from the fiery hail that killed man and beast, flax and barley in the fields of Egypt. They weren't lost in the darkness which could be felt as the Egyptians were. Yet, they, like Cain, found bloodshed reasonable and practicable, though unprescribed by the God of the prophets.

So, who ordered the "bloodbath?" Amos gives two possibilities, though there may be more: "Have ye offered unto me [God] sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves." (Amos 5:25 & 26)

Lies Preachers Tell #1

Here's the lie I've heard most from preachers: "Jesus had to die to save you from the wages of your sins."

This is wrong.

Before Jesus was born, God said: "But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live." (Ezekiel 18:21 & 22)

This means that by the simple act of repentance -- minus any mention of confession-- the old ways of a man are forgotten. Thus, condemnation is forgotten. Things not mentioned don't come up in court proceedings. I offer this as the simplest explanation for why the thing the preacher says is false. There are many more such reasons.

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, (a long time before Jesus of Nazareth was born) "was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him." (Hebrews 11:5) Elijah was taken up in a chariot of fire, (2 Kings 2:11) unlike Moses who was put down in an unmarked grave. (Deuteronomy 34:5 & 6) The way to God was always available, as was the way to hell. Jesus didn't have to die to open those doors or pave those ways. They've always been extant.

What, then, should these preachers say? What is the way to God? Jesus is the way, but his cold- blooded murder through false witness and false accusation is not the way. Jesus' life is the way. How did he live? He said of himself, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17)

If we are to live as he did, we should-- like he did-- fulfill the law and the prophets with the living sacrifice of our lives. How, then, is this life's work of fulfilling the law and the prophets accomplIshed? The answer, in a word, is: love. Christ said, (Matthew 22:37- 40) "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

So did Christ die to save you from your sins? Hebrews 13:8 says, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." What this means respective of the present subject is, John 8:58 and John 14:6 can be married, without either of them losing their meaning, and without a lie being told, thusly: "Jesus said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." If he is the savior, he was the savior, and always will be the savior, according to Hebrews 13:8. Nothing about him changed at his death. God's esteem of his murderers, on the other hand, did.