Da Bauz's Take

Greetings I am but s simple Christian who has become completely disenchanted with “chasing the ‘almighty’ dollar” thus now pursue knowing The Almighty G-d; Jesus Christ / Yeshua Ha Mashiach; Rabbi Yeshua Bar Yosef. It is my hope that I may present some insightful yet provocative food for thought. I welcome all who read this to ask questions. In fact please do not take anything I write at face value, rather research and verify the facts and form your own opinions. Blessings in Christ, Da Bauz

Monday, 13 August 2012

Something literally came out of the AnsweringChristianity website

H/T my good friend Mari B. Kaima, who posted this via Facebook

"" At least there is one good thing that has come out of answeringchristianity dot com, and I mean literally came out of it :)

His name was Issa Ahmad Khalid, and he was a former contributor to the AnsweringChristianity website. He writes:

It is not my wish or intention to insult the feelings or the faith of Muslims, but I find it most prudent to share my experience in order to spread the truth of the Lord Jesus in the hopes that it will not only deter any confused Christian into making the mistake of embracing Islam as I had, but also to share with all Muslims why I returned the loving arms of my Lord and Saviour, Christ Jesus. I pray that you read these words with an open mind and heart.

BORN A ROMAN CATHOLIC

If anything, I was submersed in the Christian Faith from a young age. My mother was, and continues to be, a devout Roman Catholic, and in spite of whether or not one agrees with Catholic theology, I admire her for her faith. It was this faith that rubbed off on me as I went to Catholic school as a child, along with serving as an Alter Boy at Sunday Mass. Eventually, as I became older, I also served as an Usher, Lector with aspirations of moving on to become a Roman Catholic Priest. I don?t want to get into any intricate details with respect to my life, but let?s just say that I wanted to serve the Lord in any capacity I could. It was during the years I spent in study that I began to have questions flood into my head with respect to what exactly it was that I was following as a Roman Catholic, seeing that many of the dogmas and traditions held no support from The Holy Bible. I began to learn that the Catholic Church felt that only they reserved the right to interpret the Bible in the way they saw fit, however, even in this case I was at a loss to understand how one can interpret the Bible into believing that reverence should be given to Mary, the virgin mother of our Lord Jesus, as this only served to compromise that it was Jesus who came to be the intermediary between God and man, and that the need to pray to Mary and other Saints was both unnecessary and in complete violation of the first and second commandments. However, it is not my wish to defame the Catholic Church, nor Catholics themselves as they too are Christians, but I felt it necessary to share this bit of information so as to give you and understanding and background into why I left the Church. Sadly, it wasn?t until many years later that I came to realize that my disillusions about Christianity was not in Christianity itself, but rather in the Catholic interpretation of such. This would be no more reflected than in the many articles I wrote for the propagation of Islam, as they were deeply indicative of my Catholic upbringing and indoctrinated beliefs, rather than the pure Biblical teachings of Christianity that would have become more apparent if I had just taken the time to study them. None the less, some years after leaving the Church, I embraced Islam and became a Muslim, changing my name to Issa Ahmad Khalid, and as I may reference to just prior, began a writing campaign against Christianity in my propagation of Islam. I was heavily influenced by the direct approach of Sheikh Ahmed Deedat, going so far as to imitate his approach to the joy of the Muslims who were more than happy to accept a former "wanna be" clergyman into their fold with my somewhat "limited" knowledge of The Holy Bible.

ISSA AHMAD KHALID

As I mentioned already, I took this name and spent several years being a rather influential force in my local Muslim communities, giving lectures at many Mosques and even appearing on television twice with a local Muslim celebrity. As ashamed as I am of saying this, I took great joy in angering the feelings of Christians with my rhetoric, even behaving in a most confrontational manner as I did everything within my power to completely insult and deride the Christian Faith, all with the blessings of the Muslims. This was so obvious in my writings as I pulled no punches in lashing out against the Bible, going so far as to call it pornographic and immoral. I would spend hours upon hours going through its pages in an attempt to find anything I could to further insult it, even if it meant quoting passages out of context as any knowledgeable Christian would be able to deduce from my writings, but I imagine I was aiming my works to a demographic that was not knowledgeable. I will say this though; that if anything good came out of my bad intentions towards the Bible, it is that my deep study into it for the purpose of defaming it only proved itself to be the reason for my return to the Christian Faith.

DISILLUSIONS WITH ISLAM

There were many factors that eventually led to my disillusions with Islam, all of which stemmed not only from the behaviour of the Muslims themselves, but by their teachings and literature as well. In the forefront of it all was the character of Muhammad, who I came to accept as the greatest of all the Prophets of Almighty God (Allah), and the bearer of God?s final revelation to mankind which the Muslims believe is embodied in the pages of the Qur?an. I read so much in the way of Islamic literature that I not only propagated the belief that Islam was the most perfect of religions, but that Muhammad was the culmination of God?s perfection. So much of this Islamic literature was aimed at using The Holy Bible as a tool to prove the validity of both Muhammad and Islam with claims to Biblical references to Muhammad?s prophethood. On the one hand, Muslims (myself included) would continually rant about the corruption of The Holy Bible, and yet on the other hand we would use the same Bible we defamed as a tool to prove the advent of Muhammad. This was pure hypocrisy not only on my part, but on the part of all Muslims who continually follow this criteria, and the criteria I make mention of is taking certain passages of The Holy Bible and quote them completely out of context in order to spin them into our own ideology and interpretation. This is no different than the dishonest archer. Where a true archer would draw the target first and then shoot the arrow into the bull?s eye, the dishonest archer would shoot the arrow first and then proceed to draw the target around the arrow. Needless to say, no such proofs of Muhammad exist in The Holy Bible and any such examples used by Muslims, like those I myself used as a Muslim, is nothing more than the fancy work of spin doctors. I will now address some examples.

"The burden upon Arabia." Isaiah 21:13

In this passage, Muslims will try and convince all who will listen that this is in reference to both Muhammad and the Muslim world as the heralds of God?s everlasting Law simply because the word Arabia appears, but in no wise does this refer to any burden placed upon Arabia as such Muslim scholars as Sheikh Ahmed Deedat would have you believe in his "Bible Combat Kit", rather it is a warning (prophecy) against Arabia.

When read and studied in its proper, historical context, it deals with the Dedanites, who had availed themselves of the hospitality of the Arabs whenever they travelled through the desert, would now lodge in the forests because the Arabs would be driven from the land. So again, in this we have no reference to Muhammad.

"The Lord came from Sinai and rose up from Seir; He shined forth from Mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints; from His right hand went a fiery new law." Deuteronomy 33:2

This passage chronicles the journey of the Children of Israel under the Prophet Moses; from their escape out of Egypt into the desert, to the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai, to finally coming forth into the Promised Land out of Paran with the Law. Muslims claim that Mount Paran and the fiery new law refers to Mecca and the Qur?an, and that when Muhammad had entered into Mecca he brought with him 10,000 of his followers. Again, the problem for the Muslims here lays in the fact that this passage has a historic significance in that Moses was educating the new generation of Israelites, as the old had died out, about the journeys of the Israelites into the Promised Land. As far as the term "Ten Thousands Of Saints" is concerned, the obvious fact is that thousands is in the plural, which denotes a great myriad in the hundreds of thousands being that the Hebrew script of the time had no zeros, which is why thousands is in the plural. Also, Mount Paran is not in Arabia, but rather in the Sinai Desert. This in no way makes any notion to the advent of Muhammad.

"The villages that Kedar doth inhabit." Isaiah 42:11

"Arabia and all the princes of Kedar." Ezekiel 27:21

Again, we have a failure on the part of the Muslims to understand the historic significance of these passages. While it is true that among the sons of Ishmael one was named Kedar, to use this passage to prove the advent of Muhammad is groundless as Kedar was another name for Arabia during the time of both Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel. Also, Ezekiel makes it clear that he was referring to local merchants when speaking of the "Princes Of Kedar".

"For to you every vision has become like the words of a sealed book. You give it to someone able to read and say, read that. He replies, I cannot because it is sealed. You then give the book to someone who cannot read and say, read that. He replies, I cannot read." Isaiah 29:11-12

Muslims use this passage in reference to Muhammad being given the revelation of the Qur?an, in spite of the fact he could not read. They also lay this claim on the fact that the first chapter (surah) of the Qur?an is titled "Al-Fatihah" (The Opening) forgetting that this particular chapter of the Qur?an was not the first one supposedly revealed to Muhammad. This passage, in fact, deals with the Prophet Isaiah reprimanding the Israelites for rejecting the Word of God and following false prophets.

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put My Words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I command him." Deuteronomy 18:18

Here God is telling Moses and the Children of Israel that He will raise prophethood from among their brethren, and this is proven from the long line of prophets sent to the Israelites. The Muslim use of this passage to prove the advent of Muhammad stands on a shaky foundation as the Ishmaelites are not the brothers of the Israelites but rather the cousins, and that to use the term "brethren" in any other context is wrong as proven from the use of the word is the same chapter 18 of Deuteronomy, verse 7.

"The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes." Psalms 118:22-23

Muslims claim this refers to Muhammad, however, our Risen Lord Christ Jesus quoted this prophecy in Matthew 21:42-43, indicating that He was the fulfillment of this prophecy.

"The Coming Light" made reference to in Isaiah 42:1-2, 6-7 once again deals with the Lord Jesus, who walked the earth 600 years before Muhammad was even born.

"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever; the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept Him because it neither sees Him nor knows Him, but you know Him for He lives with you and will be in you." John 14:16-17

Muslims claim that Jesus was referring to Muhammad, but as Christians we know that Jesus was speaking of the Holy Spirit. For example, the passage states that the Counselor will be with us forever. Muhammad did not abide with us forever, but rather he died. The passage also states that the world could neither see nor know the Counselor, but Muhammad was seen and known by many people. The passage also says that the Counselor would live and abide inside us; Muhammad could do no such thing as he was not a spirit. Jesus makes it quite clear that this passage speaks of the Counselor as the Holy Spirit in the following;

"But the Counselor; the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." John 14:26

Once again we have the following;

"But I tell you the truth; it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you." John 16:7

In this passage also Muslims claim Jesus was referring to Muhammad, but had they known The Holy Bible more thoroughly, they would have realized what Jesus said later about this prophecy as He was being taken up to Heaven;

"Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift My Father promised, which you have heard Me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Acts 1:4-5

Jesus clearly said that this would happen in a few days and not 600 years later as Muslims would have us believe. In fact, this was fulfilled in Acts 2:1-4.

I can continue onwards with many more examples, but to do this would seem as if I am singling out Muhammad, which is something I have no wish of doing as it would be counter productive to establishing a relationship with Muslims. However, this new found knowledge, as well as the repetitive nature of the rituals of Islam, led me to realize that the truth of Almighty God lays in the Saving Grace of Christ Jesus. Salvation does not lay in submitting one's self to the whims of an Arabian who lived over 1400 years ago, to which the Muslims today follow fanatically. Many examples of this can be found on http://

www.answering-islam.org/ so in that I will spare dragging this testimony on longer than it has to. I will say this though, that Muslims live in fear; whether it is from God or fellow Muslims as the Hadiths leave a Muslim will little or no other option. As a Christian I now have no fear of hellfire as I have put myself in the Saving Grace of Jesus, but sadly Muslims have no such comfort as the Qur?an teaches that God saves who He Wills and condemns who He Wills, leaving the Muslim to wonder right to the very end of his/her life here if in fact they will achieve Paradise regardless of all their wonderful deeds. It is this type of mind set that has led so many Muslims to die in the Name of God and Islam, calling themselves Martyrs. But the nature of Martyrs differs drastically from Christianity to Islam, as Muslims believe any who die fighting for the cause of God is a Martyr, whereas a Christian believes that one is a Martyr who dies for the preservation of their faith, refusing to relinquish their belief in Christ Jesus.

I TESTIFY

Aside from this testimony, I made my intentions clear to the Muslims I once called brothers and sisters some time ago in returning to my Christian Faith. Sadly, I was met with scorn and ridicule, as well as threats of damnation for my apparent apostasy. I was somewhat shocked at how easily I was turned against in such a venomous manner, but none the less, I have only God to fear and not man, for Jesus taught us to fear Him that can destroy the soul and not him that can destroy the body. Ironically, among the Muslims I testified to was an individual who has his own Islamic web-site. You see, I had contributed many works for the propagation of Islam to his web-site, and even though I made my intentions clear about returning to Christianity, my works still appear on his web-site. I have requested that he remove them, but instead he merely removed my name and simply put my initials (A.T.), claiming these to be the works of a new convert to Islam. This is most hypocritical on his part, not realizing that by doing so, he is going against the tenants of his own religion. You see, in Muslim circles I am now an apostate, and as such any Muslim who continues to having any dealings with me is also an apostate; and the fact that my works are still on this web-site is leaving him to indirectly continue to having dealings with me, which again contradicts many of the Hadiths of Muhammad. These articles can be found on
http://
www.answering-christianity.com/a_t/index.html

I am not proud of these works, and no doubt they will be a source of life long shame on my part, but please know that these were the works of one whose ignorance of The Holy Bible would eventually blossom into true knowledge and return to Christ Jesus; Hallelujah. I pray that this brief testimony will be a source of enlightenment to those who read it, a source of comfort to those who can relate, and a source of knowledge to those who are contemplating a choice to live in accordance to either Muhammad or Jesus Christ.

I now live in accordance to the Saving Grace of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, taking every step as if He will return at any moment. I now work for the Lord, having become an Ordained Minister, and sharing my experiences with all who wish to hear me. To all who claim that The Holy Bible contradicts itself, I claim that The Holy Bible does not contradict itself, but rather it contradicts the chosen lifestyle of those who make such foolish accusations. To all who try to correct The Holy Bible, I say rather than correct The Holy Bible, let The Holy Bible correct you. As I mentioned earlier, I can go on and on with respect to Islam, Muhammad and the Qur?an, but a wealth of information exists on this web-site answering-islam.org that I implore you all to take the time a read through all you can to gain a better understanding of the Christian Faith and the origins of the Islamic religion. Knowledge is strength, and when we have this strength, we can teach others. I like to think that I am proof of that. Thank you for taking the time to read my testimony and may Almighty God Bless you all abundantly through the Saving Grace of our Risen Lord and Saviour, Christ Jesus. Amen.

Reverend Anthony Tarasca of the
ARMOUR OF GOD CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
United In Christ Jesus ""

Tuesday, 5 June 2012

DO NOT FRUSTRATE THE GRACE OF G-D (CHRIST)

Do not frustrate the Grace of G-d (Christ)

While I whole heartedly agree with many, that scripturally speaking, the Sabbath is the seventh day, and that based upon my modest research into the Messianic’s worship practices there is very compelling evidence to suggest that Sunday is indeed a gross misrepresentation for the Christian’s “day of worship”. I find myself contemplating the words of our Lord, Jesus Christ / Yeshua Ha Mashiach (Rabbi Yeshua Bar Yosef) regarding man and the Sabbath:

“^{23 One Sabbath He was going along beside the fields of standing grain,
and as they made their way, His disciples began to [n]pick
off the grains.}

^{24 And the Pharisees said to Him, Look! Why are they doing what is not
permitted or lawful on the Sabbath?}

^{25 And He said to them, Have you never [even] read what David did when
he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were accompanying him?—}

^{26 How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was the high priest,
and ate the sacred loaves set forth [before God], which it is not
permitted or lawful for any but the priests to eat, and [how
he] also gave [them] to those who were with him?}

^{27 And Jesus said to them, The Sabbath was made on account and for
the sake of man, not man for the Sabbath;}

^{28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.}” Mark 2:23-28 (AMP)

Specifically that the “…The Sabbath was made on account and for the sake of man, not man for the Sabbath.” Verse 27

And thus I find myself asking two questions: (A) “Which is MORE important to G-d (Christ) then, that man observes the Sabbath on the seventh day, or that man observes a Sabbath days’ rest?” And (B) “Is it really worth publically criticizing a member of Christ’s Church over a dogma?”

If one says that observance of the Sabbath on the Seventh Day is THE MOST important, then it would seem that one is not only contradicting the importance and placement of the Sabbath according to our Lord’s teachings, but that effectively one is saying that the “Son of G-d (Christ) sinned” as He was criticized by the Pharisees for not keeping the Law.

It must also be considered then, that IF one MUST keep the Sabbath on the seventh day (because that’s what it says in Genesis) then one must also keep the Sabbath correctly, and in accordance with the LAW. What do I mean by this? Well the Sabbath, according to Genesis begins at sunset on the 6^th day, and continues through to sunset on the 7^th day. And if one seeks to be under the law, then one is UNDER the whole Law: “For whosoever keeps the Law [as a] whole but stumbles and offends in one [single instance] has become guilty of [breaking] all of it.” James 2:10 (AMP)} and similarly as in Galatians 5:3 – “…that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”, and effectively nullifies the Crucifixion, “…do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Galatians 2:21 KJV

Am I saying that the Catholic Church is in fact a Christian Church? Yes, in fact quite emphatically I am. Am I some huge fan of, or otherwise a “great defender” of all things Catholic (Roman Catholic Church (RCC) or other Catholic Churches)? The answer to both of the latter questions is a resounding “NO, I am not”! Disagree with me that the RCC is a bonā fidē Christian Church! Then please feel free to reply directly and highlight specifically BOTH what (A) it is that makes one a bonā fidē Christian and / or a bonā fidē Christian Church, and (B) what expressly disqualifies the RCC from said inclusion.

The Bible, Torah / Tanakh plus the New Testament (for our Jewish & Messianic friends) makes it clear that to deny for example the Deity of Christ, is Anti-Christ - 1 John 2:22. Thus the Mormon church and the Jehovah’s Witness (JW) church are befitting the label “cult”, as for the RCC… I think one will find, if one looks at their exegetical core tenets of Faith, they are part of Christ’s Body.

Well then, do I not (or can I NOT) see that the RCC is terribly FLAWED? Of course I can and do, see that the RCC is indeed flawed. Can other people NOT also see that ALL churches are likewise, to some degree, FLAWED?

Please consider reading “THE CHURCH, AS AN INSTITUTION, IS FLAWED… AND…” [http://dabauzstake.blogspot.ca/2012/01/church-as-institution-is-flawed-and.html]

So again I pose the question: “Is it really worth publically criticizing a member of Christ’s Church over a dogma?” Considering that according to the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, He was breaking the Law with respect to the Sabbath, do those actions of Christ make Him a sinner? I think NOT, in fact I “KNOW” not! Jesus Christ / Yeshua Ha Mashiach was without sin!

“For we do not have a High Priest Who is unable to understand and sympathize and have a shared feeling with our weaknesses and infirmities and liability to the assaults of temptation, but One Who has been tempted in every respect as we are, yet without sinning.” Hebrews 4:15 (AMP)

Do the WORDS of G-d (Christ) Himself mean anything to us as followers of Jesus / Yeshua? If so, then please remember that we (Christians) will be known / recognized by:

“… this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” John 13:35 KJV

As far as the flaws, errs and misguided teachings of Catholicism, or Orthodoxy, or Pentecostalism, or the Baptists, etc., etc., etc… is concerned, we should let G-d (Christ) deal with their “flaws”, and deal with our HEARTS.

May G-d (Christ) Bless you all!

PLEASE let's ALL continue to work together to present a UNIFIED Christ to our UNbelieving friends!!!! Remember, Jesus said – “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15 KJV See footnote ^[1] below.

“No Jesus, NO peace” and yet, “Know Jesus, KNOW peace”

How does one get to “know” Jesus? Simple, invite Him into your heart, as Jesus says: “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.” [Revelations 3:20 NIV] How can we be assured that this Jesus stuff means anything, anything at all? Well because the Bible tells us so, as the Apostle Paul wrote:

“If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.” [Romans 10:9-10 NIV]

And for those of you who say to me, I can’t be bothered reading the Bible, “it’s confusing” or “it’s a waste of my time”, may I draw your attention to what the Bible says about wisdom: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” [Proverbs 9:10 NIV]

If nothing else, PLEASE read two chapters from the Bible – (don’t own one, sorry NO excuse, if you’re reading this, you can access this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&version=NIV) John 3 and John 14!

John 3:16 says: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

And John 14:6 says: “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Footnote [1] – What is / are Christ’s “Commandments”? According to Matthew,

“36 Teacher, which kind of commandment is great and important (the principal kind) in the Law? [Some commandments are light--which are heavy?]

37 And He replied to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (intellect).

38 This is the great (most important, principal) and first commandment.

39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself.

40 These two commandments sum up and upon them depend all the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 22:36-40 (AMP)

Sunday, 3 June 2012

BREIVIK, A MILITANT CHRISTIAN

Anders Behring Breivik, a militant Christian?

Firstly, - did (or has) Breivik actually call / called himself a Christian of any kind, radical, militant, fundamentalist or otherwise? Answer, - Well it seems he has, at least in some degree, taken the label “Christian” for himself. Once again, I learn something new every single day, according to a Wikipedia write-up, I see that “The manifesto states its author is "100 percent Christian",^[3] but he is not "excessively religious"^[3] and considers himself a "cultural Christian" and a "modern-day crusader".^[2][3]” [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anders_Behring_Breivik&oldid=495027620]

Secondly, a “militant Christian”? Isn’t that a rather brazen oxymoron!

There are three (3) things I’d like to hone in on about the content of the above Wiki article. The first one being “A” the words “cultural Christian”, the second one being “B” the phrase “Christian-agnostic” and finally the third one being “C” the phrase “Christian-atheist”, and I suppose I could even add a fourth one being “D”, what really is a “Biblical Christian”?

Let’s look very briefly at each of the three, well okay now four (4), A, B, C & D things noted above, and some short definition(s):

“A” – cultural Christian: “A cultural Christian is a secular or irreligious individual who still significantly identifies with Christian culture. Deists of the 18th and early 19th centuries, such as Napoleon and various Founding Fathers of the United States, similarly considered themselves part of Christian culture, despite their doubts about the divinity of Jesus.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Christian&oldid=488656973]

“B” – Christian-agnostic: “Christian Agnostics (distinct from a Christian who is agnostic) practice a distinct form of agnosticism that applies only to the properties of God. They hold that it is difficult or impossible to be sure of anything beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith. They believe that God exists, that Jesus has a special relationship with him and is in some way divine, that God should be worshipped and that humans should be compassionate toward one another. This belief system has deep roots in Judaism and the early days of the Church.^[3]” [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agnostic_theism&oldid=486001370]

“C” – Christian-atheism: “Christian atheism is an ideology in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_atheism&oldid=491952866]

Before I truly bore you out of your mind, with endless Wiki quotes, and also before I make note of the fourth item noted above, please let say this: In my opinion, and yes I truly mean my opinion. (I say this because, although I feel given sufficient space I could provide many compelling arguments in support of said opinion, yet I do not believe that I would be capable of irrefutably and empirically PROVING my position.) In my opinion, there is an almost immeasurably vast difference between bonā fidē Biblical Christianity and, either all three collectively or individually of, the type(s) of Christian / Christianity noted above and defined by Anders B. Breivik.

Also before I move onto the fourth item “D”, I’d like to draw particular attention to a few of either direct or implied quotes of Breivik’s.

The quote I’ll begin with here, I will call “i”, is from the original Wikipedia article I cited above: “…considers himself a "cultural Christian"…”

and then later in that same Wikipedia article Breivik’s next quote which also appears in the cite I note following quote, this one I will call “ii”, where he is quoted as saying is: “It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)).” [http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4910/is_norway%E2%80%99s_suspected_murderer_anders_breivik_a_christian_terrorist]

The final quote, which I will call “iii” is, “If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.” [http://au.christiantoday.com/article/norway-massacre-suspect-manifesto-rejects-personal-relationship-with-jesus/11623.htm]

You will notice that he (Breivik) in the above quotes “i”, “ii” and “iii” takes the liberty of defining what a Christian is, in his opinion. The use of words and phrases like “considers himself” and “It is enough” and “believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian”. Additionally, you will notice that Breivik in this “third” quote makes the assertion that: “If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian …” And to that expression, I do take personal exception, and say “what bunk”!

The rudimentary definition of RELIGION (religious follower of something) is:

a) a series of man-made do’s, don’ts and veritable ‘wherefore art thou’s’, based upon some man’s interpretation of something else. Said interpretation may well be based upon a first hand reading of source material (reading from the God’s (Christ’s) Holy Word, the Holy Bible) , or be effectively based upon years N’ years of handed down traditions (a virtual hearsay, if you will) of do’s, don’ts & ‘wherefore art thou’s’! and

b) an adherence to said series of man-made do’s, don’ts and veritable ‘wherefore art thou’s’.

The very notion that a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ, makes one a religious Christian is almost beyond comprehension for me. Please permit me to digress for a moment, whilst I address the concept and definition of religion(s).

Religion is defined by:

Dictionary dot com as:

“noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.” [Dictionary dot com]

Merriam-Webster online as:

“RELIGION

a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b :

(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural

(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3: archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” [Merriam-Webster online] and finally…

Wikipedia as: “Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.” [Wikipedia]

Now I find it personally interesting and also noteworthy too, that out of all the various points noted to define religion (religious following) by non-church related sources, very few even infer (let alone clearly define) having a PERSONAL REALTIONSHIP with the Living G-d, Jesus Christ as a “religion” or religious. The dictionary dot com list includes such comments as: “…devotional and ritual observances…” and a “…set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons…”, ergo man-made…

The other two Merriam-Webster online and Wikipedia seem to offer little in terms of variants from the broad notion of ‘adherence to man-made rules N’ reg’s’ by way of defining what “Religion” is. Alas enough about “religion”, I am in no way either impressed by that word, or even remotely motivated towards any sense of “religious” adherence. I might be perhaps one of the LEAST religious people you know, or will ever meet.??

Back the opening points, three (3) to begin, then bumped to four (4) “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”, they have not been forgotten. The first three “A”, “B” & “C” have been defined above, and I will address them vs. bonā fidē Biblical Christianity shortly. The fourth “D” I will attempt after I address the first three in more detail. But first please permit me to digress one more time from these four, while we explore the term “christian” in a very broad and perhaps overly simplified manner.

In the broadest sense of the word “christian” it very simply means to be christ-like or a “follower”, “believer in” and “worshipper of christ”. Great, now then, what does the word “christ” mean? By the way, although I am sure that you already KNOW this, Christ is NOT Jesus’ surname. Christ literally means Messiah, ergo Jesus Christ or Yeshua Ha Mashiach essentially means: “the Christ who is Rabbi Jesus, the son of Joseph / the Messiah who is Rabbi Yeshua Bar Yosef”.

So, who is Messiah then? Or a better question might be who THE Messiah is then? Once again, by way of reminders, a christian is NOTHING more than a follower of, believer in and worshipper of Christ (messiah). Thus it would seem that defining clearly WHO this Messiah is would be an important step. Are there more than one “messiahs,” or is there but ONE Messiah (THE Messiah, if you will)? Several of the world’s religions purport having some sort of messiah. The Zoroastrian’s do, for example, have a messiah, who is known as “Saoshyant” {Persian for messiah} by the name of “Zarathustra”. How about some other religious order’s “messiahs” then, say for example “Muntazar” the Sunni Muslim’s “messiah”, or what about an Aztec or Mayan “messiah” known as “Quetzalcoatl”?

Based upon the above very broad and simple, perhaps oversimplified, definition of a “christian”, any follower, believer in and worshipper of ANY of these few noted above (amongst many indeed, please see – “Name That Messiah!” for more info on numerous “messiahs” throughout the ages), by merely translating the word messiah (or the linguistic equivalent from whatever original language “messiah” came) to the English word “christ”, and *bam* any and ALL followers of said “christ” become, by definition “christians”. Hardly a “bonā fidē Biblical Christian” mind you, more on this when we define and address “D” Biblical Christianity from above.

And now back to those first four points “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”, the first three of which have been defined above. Now let’s look at addressing them one-by-one and their respective connection with Christianity. Let us begin with a look at phrases (labels) like a Militant Christian, and also from above, “A” “cultural Christian”, “B” “Christian-agnostic” and “C” “Christian-atheist”. All three (3) of these labels are really oxy-moronic of what Biblical Christianity means, at least according to the source, the Holy Bible.

First, let’s refer back to the opening comment a militant Christian. “Militant” literally means confrontational, aggressive, radical, revolutionary, combative, rebellious, and belligerent and while I would whole heartedly agree that individual persons may demonstrate any number of “militant” traits, I would have to say that Biblical Christianity as a whole does NOT fit said description.

Next “A” The notion of a “cultural Christian” seems at best to fly in the face of the definition of a Biblical Christian (in its simplest and broadest of forms from above at east), being: “to be christ-like or a “follower”, “believer in” and “worshipper of christ””, as the cultural Christian it would seem follows no ONE single messiah. Leaving us with the “B” “Christian-agnostic” and “C” “Christian-atheist”, and if ever I saw something that epitomized an oxymoron it would be either of those two, especially the latter - “Christian-atheist”. For, to be a Christian or “to be christ-like” or a “follower”, “believer in” and “worshipper of christ” means, (or at least implies at some level) acknowledging a deity, if not THE Deity. Thus it would seem that both “A” the “cultural Christian” and “C” the “Christian-atheist” do not appear to fit the Biblical definition of Christianity.

Agnosticism on the other hand, combined with Christianity may seem like less of a stretch (at least at a glance), as the agnostic generally believes in some form of higher power, but lacks the conviction (or is lacking in being personally convinced) that there is but ONE SPECIFIC GOD. A God who is both Truly God and who also absolutely out ranks all other gods. To that end I suppose one could argue that my short list of three messiahs from above, leading to three possible definitions of a “christian”, might be defined as “B” “Christian-agnostic’s”. I’d have to agree with said assertion, and that definition too flies in the very face of what Biblical Christianity is.

Thus it would seem that all four labels from above, Militant Christian, “A” “cultural Christian”, “B” “Christian-agnostic” and “C” “Christian-atheist” are somehow lacking in terms of meeting basic, rudimentary and foundational Biblical Christianity criteria. But wait, you haven’t yet even defined or otherwise explained “Biblical Christianity”. And how can one either agree or disagree without seeing / reading said definition? Great question, let’s do just that… So now let’s continue with the fourth item “D” from above by asking the question, and then eventually (hopefully) defining precisely, what really is a real bonā fidē Christian (Biblical Christian)?

“D” – A real Christian – being a real Christian is a sort of THREE-FOLD process, a process that involves three things, and defining which of (in any one) is more important that either of the other two, is indeed a challenge. A real Christian is someone who:

Has surrendered one’s life to the Lordship / Saving Grace of G-d (Christ) – Revelations 3:20

Believes in the TRUE Christ, {Jesus Christ / Yeshua Ha Mashiach (Rabbi Yeshua Bar Yosef)} i.e. to deny for example the Deity of Christ, is Anti-Christ – 1 John 2:22 and.... Romans 10:9-10

Bears fruit (eventually) does Christ-like things, as faith without works is dead - "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." – James 2:17 KJV

Now again, is “Surrendering” to Christ's Lordship the most important of the three? Is “Surrendering” to Christ's Lordship more important than the other two? What if the christ one has surrendered to is the half-brother of Lucifer, as some churches teach? Or what if the christ one has surrendered to is also Michael the Arch-Angel, as some other churches teach? Are these people Christians...? I'd be sceptical, as they (these churches) deny the Deity of Christ, YET as one can see from passages in Jeremiah 17 “…I the Lord search the mind, I try the heart, even to give to every man according to his ways…” and 1 Samuel 16, “… the Lord looks on the heart.” T'is God (Christ) who both KNOWS and Judges a man's heart. Thus it would seem that “surrendering” alone, one’s life to the Lordship of a christ, will not in fact make one a Biblical Christian.

So then how about “BELIEVING” in the ONE TRUE Holy God (Christ) who is in fact ONE God is this the most important of the three? Is “BELIEVING” in the ONE TRUE Holy God (Christ) who is in fact ONE God, part of the Holy Trinity more important at than the other two...? Well James tells us that “You believe that God is one; you do well. So do the demons believe and shudder [in terror and horror such as [a] make a man’s hair stand on end and contract the surface of his skin]!” James 2:19 (AMP) “...demons believe and shudder...”, I'd say it's a very safe bet, demons aren't *SAVED*... ergo “believing”, in and of itself does NOT appear to be sufficient (as a stand alone) to make one a Biblical Christian...

And finally what about doing GOOD WORKS and “BEARING FRUIT” are these the most important of the three? Is doing a GOOD WORK and “BEARING FRUIT” more important than the other two...? I think if one would just read the Bible, one’s self, one would agree; we do NOT get saved (or even STAY SAVED) by doing Good Works. That's a very legalistic works based view, and one that get's many churches and well intentioned Christians in trouble. The WHOLE reformation of Martin Luther revolved around “…the just shall live by Faith…” Hebrews 10:38 KJV, see also Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11 and of course Hebrews 10:39 “…but of them that believe to the saving of the soul!” So once again, it would appear as though doing a good work / “bearing fruit” is not, intrinsically sufficient to make one a Biblical Christian.

Two more quick thoughts before I wrap up.

The word “opinion”, I clearly said that it’s my opinion that there is an almost immeasurably vast difference between bonā fidē Biblical Christianity and, any one of “cultural Christian”, “Christian-agnostic” and “Christian-atheist” concepts. And yet I also made a point of minimizing Breivik’s opinion when I said that Breivik “…takes the liberty of defining what is, in his opinion, a Christian.” The difference between the two is that Christianity is something that springs forth from the Holy Bible, and as such should best be defined by said Holy Bible, and NOT by someone’s varied or varying “opinions”.
Giving that the very concept of a “militant” and Biblical Christianity are virtually 180º opposed to each other, I’d have to ask if the words militant and Christian should even be used as a compound word, “militant Christian”.

Was, or rather is, Anders Behring Breivik a militant? I’d say it’s a safe bet to say “yes”. Is he a Christian? Well I suppose if it would be okay for one to define what a Christian is, in his opinion, then one could, in his / her opinion, make the brazen statement that “I am a Christian”. Similarly, one could define say a Medical Doctor, in his / her opinion, and then subsequently, proclaim himself / herself (based upon his / her opinion) to be a Physician. Now there’s a scary thought! Thus, Breivik a Christian.. sure I guess in his mind he is. Does he represent,, even remotely (let alone fairly) mainstream Biblical Christianity? Read the Holy Bible, G-d’s (Christ’s) Holy Word for yourself, and you decide.

As noted earlier, the dictionary dot com list includes such comments as: “…devotional and ritual observances…” and a “…set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons…”, when it comes to defining religion. And for many folk, that is essentially what being a Christian is, adherence to a series of “do’s” and “don’ts” (especially man-made “do’s” and “don’ts”. Folk often times think of following a but of edicts and commands (Commandments), but did you know that Jesus Christ / Yeshua Ha Mashiach (Rabbi Yeshua Bar Yosef) had (HAS) very very few express / specific commands / commandments? In John 14, Jesus said – “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15 KJV So what are the commandments of Jesus? See footnote ^[1] below for more information. In the mean time, would you like to know the one true God, Jesus Christ / Yeshua Ha Mashiach (Rabbi Yeshua Bar Yosef)? Please read on.

“Know Jesus, know peace whereas no Jesus, no peace”