Alpha and Omega Ministries

4.5K posts

Alpha and Omega Ministries banner
Alpha and Omega Ministries

Alpha and Omega Ministries

@AominOrg

The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc a 501(c)(3) Non Profit Organization

Phoenix, AZ Se unió Ağustos 2011
7 Siguiendo32K Seguidores
Alpha and Omega Ministries retuiteado
𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡
𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡@HwsEleutheroi·
Quick note on the debate last night against Jacob Hansen, neo-Mormon/Oslerite. I used one term during the debate a number of times, and repeated it with almost every person I talked to afterward while greeting folks: reprehensible. “deserving censure or condemnation.” Irresponsible. Dishonest. And in this case, based upon a clear and obvious prejudice, bias, and animosity, not so much toward me, but toward “Calvinism.” His opening statement was, quite honestly, below Dave Hunt. Seriously. And for those who listened to the debate review we did with Joe Heschmeyer, that was truly surprising. Hansen is smart. He was prepared to address the Papacy. But last night? Nothing but emotional mud slinging. All the standard heart-string pulling “oh its about the babies” tripe that you can find in any corner of YouTube. And the entire night the man did not raise a single verse that I had not addressed, fully, in _The Potter’s Freedom_ a quarter century ago. Yet he did not give the slightest evidence of knowing what I had written, though he quoted from the book. I am convinced Hansen’s “crew” put most of his notes together. At one point he “quoted” Aaron Shafovaloff (who was seated in the back row) and Aaron literally interrupted him, “I never said any such thing.” Before the cross ex Hansen asked to have time to apologize and admitted the quote was “second or third hand.” Then, during cross, he “read” me a quote from _The Potter’s Freedom.” I was sitting right next to him and I asked, “Are there any dots (ellipses) in that quote?” and asked for a page number. I watched him scanning his computer screen like he had never even seen the citation before. He admitted there were ellipses. I said, “Of course there are.” And he never gave me the citation. A kind young lady in the first row happened to have TPF with her, and she handed it to me. So he decided to go on to the next question. My conclusion is others “quote mined” the book and gave him a file with “good quotes to use.” As I pointed out, he never even attempted to refute the exegesis in the book because he lacks the capacity to do so. And he clearly did not read it seeking to understand the position. When he presented what “Limited Atonement” meant in his opening, it wasn’t even close. Jack Chick level silliness. So, I gave him no quarter. I was not going to play “buddy buddy” with someone who showed so little respect for simple honesty as to behave and speak as he did. He is not an orthodox Mormon on any level, and that came out when I tried to get him to at least admit that his god became a god by obedience to gospel ordinances and principles. I wanted to make the point (and did) that a finite god who became a god is insufficient grounding for transcendent principles and morality, hence undercutting the claim of his thesis. Oh, and the first question from the audience to him was whether God had killed every man, woman, and child in Noah’s flood. Not exactly surprising, he rejected the flood story on the basis of “science.” (Joseph Smith accepted the flood story as history). I am looking forward to the video coming out. If you think the cross-ex with Heschmeyer or Austin was “hot,” well…nothing compared to last night. But if you were hoping for a really thought out presentation from the LDS side…nothing. Think of the 1 million “John Calvin was a heretic” videos done by KJVO fundies on YouTube: same stuff. So when you see how I let him get away with nothing in cross-ex, the reason is simple: I knew he was capable of serious interaction, but had chosen the cheap way of dishonesty and misrepresentation, joined with emotional appeals to the audience. I have zero respect for such behavior. None. When I wrote TPF, I showed Geisler the utmost courtesy in researching his position, accurately representing it, etc. Hansen showed me, and the position, and the audience, nothing but smarmy condescension and disrespect. Finally, it is truly enlightening to watch neo-Mormonism, or maybe Oslerism, developing. Why the GAs are not only allowing this, but seemingly, promoting this, is beyond me.
English
93
17
160
28.8K
Alpha and Omega Ministries retuiteado
𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡
𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡@HwsEleutheroi·
Here is the debate from last week. Wandered away from the topic many times, unfortunately, but if you want to see how modern Islamic apologists channel the spirit of Rahmatullah Kairanawi, here it is. Cobble together quotes from...everywhere, no matter how incoherent the sources, while never allowing that to be done to your position. youtu.be/Dz8cQCJqjfk
YouTube video
YouTube
English
11
22
124
10K
Alpha and Omega Ministries
Alpha and Omega Ministries@AominOrg·
@RiccioDiAngelo We have actually explained this before. An apologist cannot be an expert at everything but should instead focus on the subjects that he has been called by the Lord for and be an expert on those. Can we answer SDA? Sure we can. But we aren't the only apologetics org around.
English
0
0
2
131
Alpha and Omega Ministries retuiteado
𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡
𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡@HwsEleutheroi·
Exactly. Read this closely. Unitarians of all kinds, from the "Biblical Unitarians" to the Muslims to the Jehovah's Witnesses to mainstream apostates, use this argument. You have to be prepared to dismiss it, accurately, and quickly.
DK@darknytPB

Ah, yes, what I like to call the “Moses fallacy,” more formally known as the fallacy of equivocation. So, “Reves,” where’s the actual A-game material? The Unitarian line runs like this: “Sure, Jesus is called ‘God,’ but ‘Elohim’ (God) is also applied to Moses and human judges in the Old Testament. So what’s the big deal?” The problem? Those uses aren’t equivalent - not in sense, not in context, not in implication. Equivocating on the term is the whole sleight of hand here. Let me clarify it for you: The New Testament never describes Moses (or anyone else) as the one “ by whom all things were created” (ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, Col 1:16), or as the one in whom “the fullness of deity dwells bodily” (τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς, Col 2:9). Not once. John never claims Isaiah saw Moses in the temple vision of YHWH’s glory (Isa 6; John 12:41). That’s absent. The writer to the Hebrews never calls Moses “the exact imprint of [God’s] nature” (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, Heb 1:3). Nowhere to be found. John never records Moses receiving - from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation - the identical doxology and latreutic worship given to the Father and the Lamb (Rev 5:9–13). It simply isn’t there. No crowd ever falls before Moses crying, “My Lord and my God!” (Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, John 20:28) - not Aaron, not Miriam, not Israel, not even Pharaoh. Hebrew or the LXX - the scene doesn’t exist. Moses never declares before handing the reigns to Joshua, “Before Abraham was, I Am” (πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί, John 8:58), nor does he later affirm, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come” (Rev 1:8; cf. 22:13). The point is straightforward: the sense in which Scripture calls Jesus “God” bears no resemblance to the way it applies “Elohim” (or equivalent language) to Moses, judges, or idols. The categories aren’t even in the same universe. This is entry-level stuff—amateur hour, waiting at the door hoping a novice takes the bait. Bring something stronger next time.

English
12
19
121
17.1K

Descubrir

@RiccioDiAngelo @elonmusk @BarackObama @taylorswift13 @cristiano @BillGates @NASA @nikifrancismediavine