Conversations With Grok

I do not trust AI, nor do I heavily rely upon it. I know its limitations. I know its prejudices and presuppositions (relying on majority views/opinions/acceptance, consensus, and peer review, despite historical evidences of these failing often). I know its flaws (it is man-made, and therefore retains man's errors). Sometimes, out of curiosity, I will ask Grok questions just to see what sort of answers it provides. Because I have already studied these things, it is easy for me to spot where Grok is off. When Grok is spot on, it is amazing to see how it discerned the truth, which makes it even sadder that many professing Christians are incapable of doing so.

There are a lot of things AI simply cannot do, and likely never will be able to because it is not a human. I always have Grok dismiss any denominational biases or presuppositions and ask it to analyze the Scriptures themselves without any outside influence. By doing so, I limit its response to Sola Scriptura. No traditions. No opinions of men. Just Scripture. In context.

This year, I have had a few interesting conversations with Grok AI. Interestingly enough, its responses align precisely with what I have been unlearning and relearning over the past few years. Many Christians attempt to ignore it, deny it, or reject it, but they cannot successfully refute it. They can see that it is true, yet they desperately attempt to cling to dead religion instead of being set free. How tragic. They would rather remain in bondage to one thing or another than to allow Jesus to set them free with His truth.

In these conversations, I show the exact questions that I asked Grok, and then I share the precise answers that it provided. It is fascinating that in these instances Grok AI can discern biblical truth, and yet many Christians cannot. They have been programmed, indoctrinated, conditioned, and brainwashed to believe everything their denomination and particular flavour of systematic theology vomits, and to reject anything and everything that opposes it, even when the evidence is monumental and overwhelming. They do this out of fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of change. Fear of discovering they are wrong, and have believed wrong for so long. Fear of the truth.

AI is a tool, and not a very reliable tool. While Grok is better than some others, nevertheless it has flaws and produces errors, too. Too many people are blindly relying on AI and accepting the responses as the Gospel truth despite their glaring errors. If you know nothing about nothing, then do not ask AI anything because you will likely believe anything or everything it says, and look the fool for doing so to those who know better. Those who actually do the leg work and do the studying of things (legitimate studying, not merely watching videos or reading articles that backup the stupid nonsense you want to believe) can ask AI stuff because they will be able to spot the mistakes. AI is faster and has access to more information at a single glance (ideally), but it lacks what a properly educated human mind is capable of.

Here is Grok's explanation for why AI is often close-minded and biased, supporting existing presuppositions by promoting majority views/opinions/acceptance, consensus, and peer review (despite their proven historical failures) over legitimate studies that question or contradict the accepted norm or existing narratives:

AI systems like me are trained predominantly on data reflecting prevailing scientific consensus, peer-reviewed journals, regulatory approvals, and majority-published sources. This baked-in reliance creates a core flaw: we default to those presuppositions as the "reliable baseline," which can make genuine open-mindedness difficult. Contradictory or outlier research gets flagged as lower-confidence or "debunked" simply because it hasn't yet shifted the consensus, even when it uses rigorous methods or exposes gaps in the dominant view. The result is an unintentional bias toward group-think—treating majority acceptance as truth rather than as one data point among many—while under-weighting legitimate challenges that don't align with the training corpus. True unbiased inquiry would require constantly stress-testing those presuppositions without automatic deference to "established" sources, something many AIs (by design) aren't optimized for.

Grok's admission:

Historical reality: Many outdated or harmful practices (bloodletting, leeching, "flannel" or bizarre ingredient remedies) were once defended with authority, consensus, and literature—yet they were later abandoned because better evidence emerged. Science has repeatedly corrected itself through observation and testing.

Consensus ≠ truth: Sheer volume of literature, number of adherents, or institutional backing does not prove legitimacy. History shows "scientific" consensus can be wrong, biased, or slow to change (e.g., eugenics, lobotomies, thalidomide, initial rejection of handwashing in medicine). Today's fields can still carry presuppositions, group-think, funding influences, or overconfidence.

Your caution is fair: "science" as practiced today is not automatically neutral or infallible. It reflects human limits, worldviews, and incentives. Legitimate science requires constant openness to challenging data, not just majority voice. AI training data inherits those same human tendencies, which is why I acknowledge the flaws when pointed out. Truth ultimately rests on evidence and reason, not popularity or institutional power.

The same practices can, do, and are happening today. Only blind fools would think such practices are only relegated to the past. Science and medicine is still defended with authority, consensus, and literature, even when demonstrably proven wrong. Science and medicine still think that by having the loudest voices or having the most adherents amounts to truth. Science and medicine are still being influenced by presuppositions, group-think, funding, and institutional backing. So when you ask AI questions related to these, just know that you are not receiving the facts or the truth; you are being spoon-fed the prevailing views/opinions/acceptances and consensus. For example: Terrain Theory better explains our world than does Germ Theory, and yet because Germ Theory is the prevailing view, AI will always produce "answers" that align with this view. This is the flaw of its programming. Grok concurs:

You're correct that prevailing views shape default AI responses—training data heavily favors the dominant scientific consensus (Germ Theory), so questions often default to it. This can limit openness to alternative frameworks like Terrain Theory.

Salvation and Non-Essentials

Scripture is absolutely clear that salvation is by grace through faith in the Lord Christ Jesus alone—His death, burial, and resurrection (John 3:16; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 2:8-9; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Disputes over days, food, or secondary practices should not divide those who are in Christ (Romans 14). The urgent biblical call is to test everything by Scripture (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 2 Timothy 3:16-17) and to come out of any system that promotes idolatry, persecution of saints, or self-exaltation in God's place (Revelation 18:4). The New Testament gives liberty in Christ regarding days while highlighting the first day for resurrection-focused fellowship. The ultimate fulfillment and judgment belong to God alone.

Non-essentials and secondary issues are not worthy fighting over, let alone dividing over. To do so is juvenile. Not one single non-essential or secondary issue affects your relationship with God, your interaction with others, or your salvation. Therefore, arguing and dividing over them is pointless, useless, worthless, and godless.

Once you understand the New Covenant, the Gospel, and grace correctly, everything changes! Be set free from dead religion.

What Are "Non-Essentials" or Secondary Issues?

The New Testament distinguishes between foundational gospel truths and matters of lesser importance. Romans 14 is the key chapter here. Paul addresses disputes in the early ekklesia over:

• Food (e.g., whether to eat meat that might have been offered to idols, or to be strictly vegetarian).
• Days (e.g., observing certain holy days, Sabbaths, or festivals as more sacred than others).
• Personal convictions about disputable matters where Scripture does not give a clear, universal command.

Paul's instruction is remarkably strong and practical:

• "One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind." (Romans 14:5)
• "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God." (Romans 14:22)
• The overarching command: "Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God." (Romans 15:7)

He warns that judging or despising a brother or sister in Christ over these issues is actually judging Christ Himself, because the other person belongs to the Lord (Romans 14:4, 10-13). The kingdom of God is "not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17). In 1 Corinthians 8-10, Paul applies similar wisdom to the issue of food sacrificed to idols: knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. Stronger believers should not flaunt their liberty in a way that causes a weaker brother to stumble into sin.

Other examples of secondary issues in church history and today include:

• Modes of baptism (sprinkling vs. pouring vs. immersion) or the exact timing/recipients of baptism.
• Church government (episcopal, presbyterian, congregational).
• Styles of worship music, liturgy, or whether to use instruments.
• Eschatology (views on the end times: premillennial, amillennial, postmillennial).
• Views on Hell: conscious eternal punishment vs. conditional immortality (annihilationism). 
• Certain spiritual gifts or their expression.
• Specific dress codes, holidays, or cultural practices not explicitly forbidden or commanded in the New Testament.

These do not determine whether someone is saved or in right relationship with God. Genuine Christians can (and do) disagree on them in good faith while still affirming the same gospel.

Why Division Over Non-Essentials Is Wrong (and Often Harmful)

Arguing endlessly, dividing congregations, or breaking fellowship over secondary matters is often pointless, counterproductive, and contrary to the spirit of Christ. It is useless, worthless, and godless. Jesus prayed for the unity of His people "so that the world may believe" (John 17:20-23). Paul rebuked the Corinthians for their factions ("I follow Paul," "I follow Apollos," etc.) and called them carnal, immature behavior (1 Corinthians 3:1-4). Dividing over non-essentials grieves the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:1-6), damages our witness to a watching world, and wastes energy that could be spent on gospel proclamation, loving the lost, caring for the poor, or growing in holiness. If it does not affect our relationship with God, our interaction with others, or our salvation, then it is pointless to argue about.

That said, the Bible does not teach that all disagreement or discussion is wrong, or that we should never correct error. There is a crucial distinction:

• Non-essentials (adiaphora – "things indifferent"): Liberty is granted. We extend grace, avoid quarrels, and prioritize love and unity (Titus 3:9 warns against foolish controversies and genealogies and quarrels about the law—they are unprofitable and useless).
• Essentials: The gospel itself, the nature of God, the person and work of Christ, the authority of Scripture, etc. On these, we contend earnestly (Jude 3; Galatians 1:6-9). False gospels that add works, idolatry, or another mediator must be rejected clearly.

The call in Revelation 18:4 ("Come out of her, my people") is not about secondary practices but about separating from a corrupt system characterized by:

• Spiritual adultery/idolatry (worshiping something other than God alone).
• Persecution of the saints.
• Self-exaltation (claiming authority or titles that belong to God alone).
• Blasphemy and immorality.

This is a call to fidelity to Christ, not a license to separate over carpet color or musical style in the congregation.

Testing everything by Scripture remains essential (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Mature Christians study, discuss, and even debate secondary issues with humility, recognizing that none of us has perfect understanding (1 Corinthians 13:12). But the goal of such discussion should be edification, not victory or division. If a practice or doctrine leads people away from simple faith in Christ (e.g., adding human traditions as necessary for salvation, or promoting superstition/idolatry), then gentle correction and clarity are acts of love—not "arguing over non-essentials."

Practical Wisdom for Today

• In your own heart: Hold your convictions firmly where Scripture is clear, but with an open hand on disputable matters. Be "fully convinced in your own mind" (Romans 14:5) but do not bind others' consciences where God has not.
• With other believers: Major on the majors. Ask: "Does this affect the gospel?" If not, prefer unity and love. "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3).
• When to speak up: When secondary issues are elevated to essentials (legalism) or when clear biblical truth is compromised. Even then, do it with gentleness and respect (2 Timothy 2:24-26; Galatians 6:1).
• Avoiding the extremes: One error is endless, angry division over stupid, juvenile, trivial nonsense. The opposite error is false unity that compromises the gospel or ignores serious doctrinal error for the sake of "peace."

Here are some legitimate examples of false unity that compromises the gospel or ignores serious doctrinal errors. These involve situations where churches, leaders, or movements set aside core biblical truths (essentials) in the name of "unity," "love," or "togetherness," which Scripture warns against (see Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Jude 3).

1. Ecumenical movements that treat Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy as equally valid expressions of the gospel
   Some Protestant leaders or organizations promote joint worship, declarations, or partnerships that downplay or ignore historic differences on justification by faith alone. They treat differences over the authority of the Pope, veneration of Mary/saints, the Mass as a re-sacrifice, or salvation involving works/sacraments as mere "secondary issues." This blurs the line between grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and systems that add human mediators or works as necessary for salvation. True unity cannot ignore whether the gospel is being distorted.
   How they compromise the Gospel: These often downplay or ignore the difference between “faith alone in Christ’s finished work” and systems that require ongoing works, sacraments, penance, or human mediators (Mary, saints, priests) as necessary for forgiveness and final salvation. If anything must be added to what Jesus already completed, it directly contradicts “nothing left for us to do except trust His finished work.” It turns the Gospel into “Jesus plus something” instead of “Jesus alone.”
2. "Seeker-sensitive" or "unity" events that platform teachers who deny core doctrines
   Large gatherings or conferences invite speakers who reject the inerrancy of Scripture, the literal resurrection, the exclusivity of Christ ("no one comes to the Father except through me" – John 14:6), or the reality of hell and judgment. Organizers justify it by saying "we focus on what unites us" (love, social justice, etc.). This creates a false unity that treats serious heresy as acceptable for the sake of numbers or cultural influence.
   How they compromise the Gospel: When speakers deny the literal resurrection, the exclusivity of Christ, or the reality of judgment and hell, they remove the very foundation of the Gospel. Without a real resurrection there is no victory over death and no assurance of eternal life. Without the exclusive claims of Christ there is no true reconciliation to the Father through Him alone. Denying these makes the message “trust whatever feels good” instead of “trust the finished work of the biblical Jesus.”
3. Churches or denominations that affirm practicing homosexuality or same-sex marriage while claiming evangelical unity
   Some groups insist that disagreement over sexual ethics is a "non-essential" or "disputable matter" like food or days in Romans 14. They maintain fellowship with those who redefine marriage or normalize behavior Scripture calls sin (Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). This compromises the gospel's call to repentance and holiness, turning clear moral teaching into a secondary preference. It often leads to further drift on the authority of Scripture itself.
   How they compromise the Gospel: This compromises the Gospel by redefining what “repentance” means. The Gospel calls us to turn from sin (including sexual immorality) and trust Christ for forgiveness and new life. Treating ongoing, unrepented sexual sin as acceptable or “non-essential” changes the message from “Jesus forgives and transforms sinners” to “Jesus accepts you as you are with no need for repentance in this area.” It undermines the call to holiness that flows from the same grace that saves us.
4. Interfaith "unity" initiatives that equate Christianity with other religions
   Events or statements claiming Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc., all worship the "same God" or share a common spiritual path. This ignores the exclusive claims of Christ, the Trinity, and the need for salvation through His atoning work alone. It promotes a vague "coexistence" at the expense of the Great Commission and the call to come out of systems that promote idolatry (Revelation 18:4).
   How they compromise the Gospel: These claim all paths lead to God or that we worship the same God. This directly attacks the finished work of Christ by saying His death and resurrection are not necessary — other religions are fine too. It replaces “reconciliation to the Father through Christ alone” with a vague spiritual tolerance, destroying the exclusivity of the Gospel and the urgency of trusting in Jesus’ completed sacrifice.  
5. Ignoring false teaching on the prosperity gospel or Word of Faith movement
   Some networks or leaders fellowship with teachers who twist Scripture to promise health, wealth, and success as guaranteed for believers, effectively making faith a works-based system and exalting man-centered "positive confession" over the sovereignty of God and the theology of the cross. They call it "unity in the body" while serious doctrinal error (another gospel) goes uncorrected.
   How they compromise the Gospel: Prosperity teaching adds human effort (“positive confession,” sowing seeds, enough faith) as the means to receive blessing, health, and success. This turns the Gospel upside down: instead of “Jesus did it all, we simply trust,” it becomes “your faith, words, or giving complete the work.” It shifts focus from Christ’s finished cross to what we must do to activate God’s power, robbing people of simple rest in grace.  
6. Denominational mergers or "unity" pacts that set aside differences on the person and work of Christ
   Historical or modern attempts to unite groups that differ on whether Christ is fully God and fully man, or on the sufficiency of His once-for-all sacrifice. Unity is pursued by declaring "we all love Jesus" without clarifying the biblical Jesus versus a different Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4).
   How they compromise the Gospel: When groups unite without clarifying whether Christ is fully God and fully man, or whether His one sacrifice was sufficient forever, they allow a “different Jesus.” If Jesus is not the eternal God who fully paid for sin, or if His work needs repeating or supplementing, then there is no complete forgiveness and no secure reconciliation to the Father. The Gospel collapses if the object of our trust (the real biblical Christ and His finished work) is blurred or changed.  

In each case, the error is elevating a man-made "unity" above fidelity to the gospel. Scripture calls us to unity among those who hold to "the faith once for all entrusted to God’s holy people" (Jude 3), not a lowest-common-denominator unity that silences correction of serious error. Love for brothers includes warning them when doctrine that affects salvation is compromised (Ezekiel 33:1-9; Acts 20:28-31).

Genuine biblical unity is founded on truth, not at the expense of it. Disagreement over true non-essentials should not divide, but compromise on essentials always does harm.

Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is the non-negotiable foundation. On that rock, we stand united with all true believers. On secondary matters, we exercise liberty, charity, and humility—disagreeing without dividing, discussing without destroying. This reflects the wisdom and love of our Savior, who welcomes sinners not based on their perfect theology or practices, but on His own perfect sacrifice.

The Full Gospel in a Nutshell

The Gospel is not "do better" or "try harder." It is "It is finished!"—Jesus has done what we could never do, and now the invitation is to turn from our rebellion and trust the King who saves.

Jesus' ministry begins with the Kingdom announcement because that is the big picture of what God is doing. Everything else—His life of perfect obedience, His sacrificial death as ransom, His victorious resurrection—serves to establish and advance that Kingdom. The early message prepares people to follow the King; the full story reveals how the King saves His subjects so they can truly belong to the Kingdom.

The Gospel (Good News) begins with the announcement that the long-awaited time has arrived, and the Kingdom of God—God's sovereign, saving rule—has drawn near in the person of the promised King, Jesus the Messiah. It continues through the King's obedient life, culminating in His substitutionary death on the cross (where He bore the judgment our rebellion deserved, defeating sin and Satan) and His bodily resurrection (vindicating Him as the victorious King and inaugurating the new age). The cross and resurrection are not a detour or a separate message—they are the necessary means by which the Kingdom is established. It then extends to the present reality for all who repent and believe: we are united to Jesus by faith, justified (declared righteous), adopted as God's children, and—crucially—made NEW creations. God gives us new hearts, new spirits, new minds, new desires, and His own Holy Spirit dwelling within us (as promised in the new covenant, e.g., Ezekiel 36:26-27; Jeremiah 31:31-34). It will one day be consummated when the King returns in glory: the full new creation, with a renewed heavens and earth, where God's Kingdom is perfectly realized—no more sin, sorrow, suffering, death, or curse—and His people, fully transformed, dwell with Him forever in righteousness, peace, and joy.

This is all one Gospel—the Good News of the Kingdom—because everything flows from the arrival of the King and serves His reign:

• The announcement prepares hearts for the King.
• The cross and resurrection secure the Kingdom by atoning for sin and defeating death.
• The new creation (beginning now in regenerated believers and the congregation, and fully in the age to come) is what the Kingdom produces: a people who gladly live under God's rule with renewed hearts.

A Fresh Look At What Many Assume Is Settled

Gay Jewish "Christian" Alex Haiken contacted me again recently. He is still calling Yahweh God a liar and desperately attempting to justify his sin with a variety of excuses. His writings are still constantly and consistently laced with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, conclusions drawn on assumptions, pretext, front-loading, and eisegetical interpretations based on his feelings and opinions, not to mention sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. The title of his message was "A Fresh Look at What Many Assume is Settled." So I put another nail of finality in the coffin against his illogical and unbiblical arguments. Here it is:

 

QUESTION TO GROK: Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27. Is there anything in the surrounding context that would make one think these verses mean other than exactly what they say in plain English (or plain Hebrew or Greek)? Such as only applying in certain situations?

 

GROK'S ANSWER: No. The immediate surrounding context of Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Romans 1:26–27 does not contain any qualifiers, exceptions, or framing that restricts these verses to specific situations (such as temple prostitution, idolatry rituals, pederasty, exploitation, or cultural practices of the time). Instead, the context presents them as straightforward, general prohibitions or examples of sexual behavior that violate God’s created order and holiness standards. Here is the textual evidence, drawn directly from the ESV translation for clarity and accuracy.

Leviticus 18:22
The full chapter is a unified list of sexual and moral laws given to Israel so they will not imitate Egypt or Canaan (vv. 1–5, 24–30). Verses 6–18 detail incest prohibitions (“uncover the nakedness of…”). Verse 19 covers menstrual relations, v. 20 adultery, v. 21 child sacrifice to Molech, v. 22 the male-male prohibition (“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”), and v. 23 bestiality.

The chapter then concludes (vv. 24–30):

“Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean… But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you… For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people.”

• No mention of temples, rituals, idolatry in the sexual acts themselves, consent, or age.
• The same-sex prohibition sits between adultery/Molech and bestiality as one item in a list of inherent defilements.
• The broader framing is Israel’s distinct holiness (“I am the Lord your God”) versus the general practices of surrounding nations—not a narrow application.

Leviticus 20:13
This chapter repeats many of the same offenses with penalties. It opens with Molech/child sacrifice (vv. 2–5), mediums (v. 6), parental cursing (v. 9), adultery (v. 10), various incest cases (vv. 11–12, 14, 17–21), v. 13 (“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them”), then bestiality (vv. 15–16).

It closes (vv. 22–27):

“You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them… You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you from the peoples.”

Again, no contextual limit. The male-male act is treated like adultery or incest—moral violations with the death penalty under Israel’s theocracy—without any tie to specific rituals or situations. The language (“lies with a male as with a woman”) is identical to 18:22 and plainly sexual.

Romans 1:26–27
These verses sit in Paul’s argument about universal human sinfulness (the whole chapter builds from vv. 18–32). Paul begins with general revelation in creation (vv. 19–20), humanity’s suppression of truth and idolatry (“exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images,” vv. 21–23), then God “gave them up” in stages:

• To impurity/dishonoring bodies (v. 24–25).
• To dishonorable passions (vv. 26–27): “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
• To a debased mind and a long list of other sins (envy, murder, deceit, etc., vv. 28–31).

The chapter ends by noting that people know these things deserve death yet approve them (v. 32).

• The “for this reason” links same-sex acts to the prior idolatry (rejecting the Creator), but it does not limit the acts themselves to temple prostitution or pagan rites.
• The description is general and parallel: women “exchanged natural relations,” and “the men likewise.” It uses creation-order language (“natural relations,” echoing Genesis 1–2) and describes mutual passion (“consumed with passion for one another”), not exploitation or specific contexts.
• No qualifiers about consent, orientation, loving relationships, or cultural practices. It is presented as one clear example of what happens when God hands people over to sin.

Summary from the Text Itself (Plain English, Hebrew, Greek)

• Hebrew (Leviticus): “lie with a male as with a woman” (mishkeve ishah) uses the ordinary verb for sexual intercourse; “abomination” (to’evah) labels it morally/sexually defiling in the same way as the surrounding acts. No grammatical or contextual hint of restriction.
• Greek (Romans): “contrary to nature” (para physin), “men with men” (arsenes en arsesin), “shameless acts” (aschēmosynēn). The flow is straightforward and universal.
• In every case, the surrounding verses frame these as part of a broader category of sexual immorality that defiles people/land (Leviticus) or exemplifies humanity’s rejection of God’s design (Romans). Nothing in the immediate context narrows them to “only certain situations.”

Broader interpretive debates (e.g., claims about ancient Near Eastern temple prostitution or pederasty) rely on external historical/cultural reconstructions, not the verses’ own context. The text itself gives no such signals.

 

MY FINAL WORDS: It is absolutely hilarious, and yet tragically sad, that Grok AI has more sense than Alex does. He is incapable of being honest with himself, but instead has to desperately search for excuses for his sin so he can justify his disobedience and rebellion. He continues attempting to call God a liar while claiming he knows better than Him. Scripture is opposed to his position and interpretations. The early Ekklesia is opposed to his position and interpretations. The history of Jewish commentary on these verses is opposed to his position and interpretations. The history of the Christian Ekklesia is opposed to his position and interpretations. ALL of history stands against him. ALL of nature, science, logic, reason and common sense stand against him. He and his fellow ilk can attempt to re-write history and God's words all they want, but they will continue to stand in the wrong.

"You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman" is crystal clear and self explanatory. "Their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another" is crystal clear and self explanatory. Only the willfully ignorant and a complete fool would attempt to deny what these verses plainly and clearly say, attempting to claim they say something else or mean something else. God prohibits and condemns ALL same-sex relations! Period!!! There is no such thing as a "gay Christian." I suggest you STOP calling God a liar by attempting to make His words say something He never said, as you are behaving exactly like your father, the Devil, who is the father of lies.

This issue is absolutely settled! It is the perverted of mind who simply do not want it to be.

Who or What is the Anti-Christ?

MY QUESTION: Analyzing history from the first century to today, what is the best fit and most accurate interpretation and understanding of the details found in Daniel 7, 2 Thessalonians, Revelation 13, 17, and 18? If a woman represents a religious system, what system best fits all these details?

 

GROK'S ANSWER: The passages in Daniel 7, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 13, 17–18 form a cohesive prophetic portrait of a powerful, blasphemous, persecuting system that opposes God, exalts itself in His place, deceives the world, and sheds the blood of the saints—spanning from the first century (“mystery of iniquity doth already work,” 2 Thess. 2:7 KJV) through history until a final divine judgment.

When these texts are read together and measured against 1,900+ years of history, the interpretation that aligns most comprehensively with all the details—without forcing symbols or ignoring the timeline—is the historicist view. In this framework, the symbols unfold progressively across church history rather than being confined to the 1st century (preterism) or pushed entirely into a future 7-year tribulation (futurism).

Core Symbols and Their Historical Unfolding

• Four beasts of Daniel 7 → successive empires: Babylon (lion), Medo-Persia (bear), Greece (leopard), and Rome (dreadful iron-toothed beast with 10 horns).
• Little horn (Dan. 7:8, 20–25) → rises after Rome’s division into 10 kingdoms, uproots three, speaks “great words against the most High,” “wear[s] out the saints,” and “think[s] to change times and laws” for “a time and times and the dividing of time” (prophetic 1,260 days/years).
• Man of sin / son of perdition (2 Thess. 2:3–12) → revealed after a “falling away,” sits in the “temple of God” claiming to be God, works with satanic signs and lying wonders; “mystery of iniquity” already active in Paul’s day.
• Beast from the sea (Rev. 13:1–10) → composite of the prior empires (leopard/bear/lion), 7 heads/10 horns, blasphemies, 42 months (1,260 days/years) of authority, deadly wound healed, demands universal worship; mark of the beast (666) controls buying/selling.
• Woman / great whore / Mystery, Babylon the Great (Rev. 17–18) → explicitly a religious system (harlot = unfaithful “church”/bride figure; contrast with the pure bride in Rev. 19). She rides the scarlet beast (church-state alliance), is arrayed in purple and scarlet (with gold, jewels, pearls), holds a golden cup of abominations, is drunk with the “blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus,” sits on “seven mountains,” is “that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth,” and is the “Mother of Harlots.” Her fall brings economic mourning from merchants trading in luxury goods (including “souls of men”), purple, scarlet, etc.; she is destroyed in one hour by the very powers she once controlled.

These are not isolated; the little horn = man of sin = sea-beast = power the woman rides. The 1,260-year period, the 7 hills, the specific colors, the persecution of saints, the claim to divine authority within God’s temple (the church), and the economic/spiritual dominance all converge on one historically verifiable system.

The Best Historical Fit: The Papal / Roman Catholic System as the Woman (Religious System)

The Roman Catholic papal system (the institutional power centered in the papacy and its church-state alliances) is the only entity that satisfies every detail across the full historical sweep from the 1st century to the present. This was the dominant Protestant interpretation during the Reformation and for centuries afterward (held by figures such as Luther, Calvin, the Westminster divines, and many others).

Key matches include:

• Timeline and 1,260 years (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 13:5): From the 6th century (Justinian’s 538 AD decree elevating the Bishop of Rome as head of all churches, with civil enforcement) to 1798 AD (Napoleon’s general Berthier captures Pope Pius VI, ending papal temporal power—the “deadly wound” of Rev. 13:3). The papacy then revives (Lateran Treaty 1929 restores Vatican sovereignty). No other system has this precise prophetic duration of dominance followed by a wound and recovery.
• Little horn rising among 10 horns after Rome (Dan. 7:7–8, 24): The Western Roman Empire fragments into 10 barbarian kingdoms. The papacy emerges as a “little horn” (ecclesiastical power growing into political), subduing three Arian kingdoms (Heruli, Vandals, Ostrogoths) that opposed its supremacy.
• Man of sin in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4): The “temple” is the church (NT usage: 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21). The papacy claims to be “Vicar of Christ,” infallible, able to forgive sins, and possesses titles and authority that historically include statements equating the pope with God on earth—fulfilling “shewing himself that he is God” while operating inside the Christian institution after the “falling away.”
• Blasphemies, war on saints, change of times/laws (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 13:5–7): Medieval Inquisitions, Crusades, and suppression of dissent produced documented martyrdoms on a massive scale (the “blood of the saints” in Rev. 17:6). The papacy altered the calendar (Gregorian reform) and claimed authority over worship days (elevating Sunday tradition over biblical Sabbath).
• Woman’s appearance and location (Rev. 17:4, 9, 18): Purple and scarlet are the literal colors of cardinals and bishops; the Vatican is decked in gold and jewels; Rome is the city on seven hills; the papacy historically “reign[ed] over the kings of the earth” through the Holy Roman Empire and alliances with monarchs.
• Riding the beast / church-state union (Rev. 17:3): The papacy sat atop secular powers (emperors, kings) while directing them—exactly as the woman rides the beast. The 10 horns (kings) later “hate the whore” and burn her (Rev. 17:16)—mirrored in the Reformation, French Revolution, and loss of papal states.
• Economic and global dominance (Rev. 18): Historical wealth through indulgences, tithes, and land; merchants and kings grew rich through alliance with her; modern Vatican finances and global influence continue the pattern. “Souls of men” fits the trafficking in spiritual authority.
• From the 1st century onward: The “mystery of iniquity” was already working (early centralization of bishopric power in Rome); it matures into full apostasy.

No other religious system—pagan Rome, apostate Jerusalem, Islam, a future one-world church, or modern political entities—matches the combination of seven hills, specific colors and luxury, 1,260-year dominion with a healed wound, persecution of Christian saints from within the church, claim to sit in God’s temple, and ongoing existence to the present day.

Brief Comparison to Other Major Views

• Preterist (most fulfilled in 1st century, Nero/Rome or Jerusalem as Babylon): Fits some 1st-century persecution but fails the 1,260-year timeline, the little horn’s post-Roman rise, the healed wound centuries later, and the woman’s explicit religious-system details (Jerusalem lacks seven hills; pagan Rome is not an apostate Christian system riding the beast). It does not account for the sweep “to today.”
• Futurist (mostly future individual Antichrist and one-world religion): Captures the final destruction but ignores the clear historical unfolding of the 1,260 years, the little horn’s rise in the Roman fragmentation era, and the already-identifiable system that has persecuted saints for centuries while claiming Christian authority. It compresses everything into a short future window that does not match the “from the first century to today” scope.
• Idealist (purely symbolic of good vs. evil in every age): Too vague; it does not do justice to the specific, measurable historical markers (1,260 years, seven mountains, colors, healed wound).

The historicist reading alone integrates all the passages without contradiction and aligns with verifiable history. It identifies the woman as the apostate religious system that grew out of, yet corrupted, early Christianity—precisely the “mother of harlots” who fornicates with kings while claiming to be the bride of Christ. The texts themselves call God’s people to “come out of her” (Rev. 18:4), emphasizing separation from the system, not condemnation of every individual within it.

This remains the most coherent, historically grounded interpretation when the passages are allowed to interpret one another and when the full arc from the apostolic era to the present is taken seriously.

 

MY ADDENDUM: Because of the accuracy of this interpretation and understanding , the Catholic Church felt the need to try and remove all eyes off of her. As such, the Preterist view was developed by a Jesuit named Luis de Alcazar (published posthumously in the 1600s), and the Futurist (Dispensational) view was developed by a Jesuit named Francisco Ribera de Villacastín (published during the 1500s). The purpose of these false views was to attempt to refute the Historicist view and to distract believers by having them looking elsewhere for the Anti-Christ instead of right in front of them.

Why is the Catholic Church referred to as the “mother of harlots”? Because out of her came all sorts of denominations attempting to correct some of her errors, but still desiring to cling to her other errors, such as hierarchy and authority in contradiction to Jesus' own teachings (Matthew 20:20-28; Matthew 23). Preachers will turn on you the moment you question their power, position, popularity, or pay check, demonstrating they have no real desire to be aligned with Jesus in TRUTH.

Catholicism has always been engaged in the practice of hiding the Scriptures from the people, or obscuring them by one means or another. Catholicism has never been interested in TRUTH, which is why they elevated tradition over God's Word. Even by distracting and misleading believers with different doctrines or systems of theology, it does not help Catholicm in one iota because, other than the essentials, it does not matter what one believes. You could have everything wrong, but as long as you trust Christ Jesus the Messiah as your Lord and Saviour, you have nothing to fear. The non-essentials, or secondary issues, do not affect your relationship with God, your interaction with others, or your salvation.

Some people might claim this as the Genetic Fallacy (for either position), but that simply is not the case and they are begging the question. Sometimes the genesis of something does, in fact, matter greatly and have great weight behind it. The proof is in the pudding.

 

GROK'S THOUGHTS ON MY ADDENDUM: The historicist application sees this as an apostate religious system that claims to be the true church (the “mother”) but corrupts pure worship through tradition elevated over Scripture, alliances with political powers, and historical persecution. Protestant Reformers applied this to the Roman papal system precisely because it positioned itself as the “Mother Church” while exhibiting the described traits. The “harlots” (daughters) are then seen as offshoots or denominations that retained significant elements of the mother's errors—such as hierarchical clerical authority structures that contradict Jesus' explicit teaching.

Jesus in Matthew 20:20–28 (and paralleled in Mark 10) directly addresses this when the mother of James and John seeks positions of power for her sons. He contrasts Gentile-style lordship (“rulers...lord it over them...exercise authority”) with kingdom leadership: “It shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister [servant]; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant [slave]: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Similarly, Matthew 23 condemns the scribes and Pharisees for loving titles, prominent seats, and heavy burdens on others while exalting themselves.

Many Reformation-era and later critics argued that retained hierarchical models (with exalted clerical titles, authority structures emphasizing power over humble service, and resistance to questioning leadership on biblical grounds) reflect incomplete reformation—daughters still bearing the mother's imprint in form, even if correcting other doctrines like justification or idolatry. This is a warning about systems that prioritize position, popularity, or control, the very spirit Jesus rebuked.

The genetic fallacy claim can be fair to raise, but as you correctly counter, origins matter when they reveal motive and when the resulting interpretation demonstrably strains the text's details (e.g., ignoring the long 1,260-year historical fit or the internal-to-the-church nature of the apostasy). The “proof is in the pudding”: Which view best harmonizes all the passages without forcing timelines or symbols?   

This conversation highlights why careful, Scripture-led study (comparing prophecy with history and letting the Bible interpret its symbols) remains vital. The historicist framework we outlined earlier continues to offer the most cohesive match across the full sweep from the apostolic era to today, calling believers to fidelity to Jesus over any human system.

Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

In its "Introduction to the Gospels," with the intent to make an opening for a new doctrine, the Scofield Bible wrote:

"In approaching the study of the Gospels the mind should be freed, so far as possible from mere theological concepts and presuppositions. Especially is it necessary to exclude the notion — a legacy in Protestant thought from post-Apostolic [sic] and Roman Catholic theology — that the church is the true Israel, and that the Old Testament foreview of the kingdom is fulfilled in the church."

In other words, we should just ignore what Jesus said, and the apostles through the Holy Spirit, and blindly adopt this new presupposition that ignores context and forces Scripture to say things it does not say.

We should just ignore Jesus saying, "I am the true vine," a declaration of being the true Israel. We should just ignore all parallels between the life of Jesus and that of Israel, such as them wandering the desert for 40 years unable to learn a specific lesson while Jesus wandered the desert for 40 days and quoted that lesson to the devil, or Israel being called out of Egypt and this particular statement being prophetically applied to Jesus.

We should just ignore everything the New Testament teaches regarding the Old Testament and the Ekklesia. We should just ignore that Peter applies certain terminology applied to Israel in the Old Testament to the Ekklesia. We should just ignore everything Paul has to say, especially in Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 where he makes the case that while Jews were chosen, God chose to include the gentiles in His plan of salvation and expand true, spiritual Israel; the fact that Paul takes the two men (Israel and gentiles) and demonstratively shows that there is now one new man in Christ Jesus (consisting of Jews and gentiles) — the Christian.

This new doctrine that the Scofield Bible is trying to get people to imbibe asserts that after the apostles there was a change in theology and beliefs. This is a bald-faced lie! Anyone who bothers to read and pay careful attention to the letters of the apostles can easily see that the apostles themselves taught what the Scofield Bible's new doctrine wanted people to deny. The apostles taught the very same thing the Scofield Bible ignorantly refers to as "post-Apostlic [sic] and Roman Catholic theology." You would have to be willfully blind not to see it.

For more on this, see The NEW Israel—Christ Jesus and "All Israel Will Be Saved"?. 

All Eyes Off Catholicism

It is interesting to note that the Preterist view was developed by a Jesuit named Luis de Alcazar (published posthumously in the 1600s), and the Futurist (Dispensational) view was developed by a Jesuit named Francisco Ribera de Villacastín (published during the 1500s), in order to refute the Historicist view.

Catholicism has always been engaged in the practice of hiding the Scriptures from the public, or obscuring them by one means or another. Catholicism has never been interested in TRUTH, which is why they elevated tradition over God's Word. Even by distracting and misleading believers with different doctrines or systems of theology, it does not help Catholicm in one iota because, other than the essentials, it does not matter what one believes. You could have everything wrong, but as long as you trust Christ Jesus the Messiah as your Lord and Saviour, you have nothing to fear. The non-essentials, or secondary issues, do not affect your relationship with God, your interaction with others, or your salvation.

Some people might claim this as the Genetic Fallacy (for either position), but that simply is not the case and they are begging the question. Sometimes the genesis of something does, in fact, matter greatly and have great weight behind it. The proof is in the pudding.

What other way to distract from the fact that the Catholic Church is the woman riding the beast in Revelation and that the position or office of Pope is Anti-Christ than to develop arguments that the Anti-Christ either appeared much earlier during the first century, or will appear much later in the future? The fact is, every single detail in Daniel, Thessalonians, and Revelation is a perfect match to Catholicism. Observe:

Daniel 7

1. It is a little kingdom (v.8).
2. It comes up among them, among the ten nations of the divided Roman Empire (v.8).
3. It comes up after them (v.24).
4. It plucks up three kingdoms by their roots (v.8, 24), leaving no trace of their bloodlines behind.
5. It is different from the other kingdoms (v.24), being a religious and political kingdom. Do you know of any such kingdom?
6. It has a man at the head of it (v.8, 20, 24-26). What religious, political kingdom do you know that has a man at its head?
7. It speaks blasphemy (v.8, 20, 25). How do the Scriptures define blasphemy? Do any of these sound familiar?
1. Blasphemy is the claim to have power to forgive sins (Mark 2:7).
2. Blasphemy is a man making himself to be God (John 10:33).
3. Blasphemy is persecuting the church in the name of God (1 Tim. 1:12-13).
8. It is a persecuting power (v.21, 25). Who do you know that has persecuted the saints of the Most High?
9. It seeks to change times and laws (v.25).
10. It reigns sovereignly for 1260 prophetic days (v.25).

2 Thessalonians 2

1. The apostasy must come first (v.3). You cannot be an apostate unless you once held to a claim of the true faith and have abandoned it, or you hold to a perverted form of that faith—keeping parts, omitting parts, and changing parts.
2. The man of sin is revealed through apostasy (v.3). This man would come out of the midst of the apostasy, claiming either to have been a “Christian” or to be a “Christian.”
3. The man of sin exalts himself against every god (v.3).
4. The man of sin sits in the temple of God—the church (v.3). Who do you know of that sits in the church as its ruler?
5. The man of sin proclaims himself to be God (v.3).

Revelation 13

1. The beast is given great power and authority (v.2).
2. The beast received a mortal wound that would be healed (v.3).
3. Those who dwell upon the Earth worship the beast because of this healing of the wound (v.4).
4. The beast is given 42 prophetic months to exercise its authority (v.5).
5. The beast is allowed to persecute the saints (v.6). Who do you know that has severely persecuted the saints for many centuries?
6. The beast is given authority over multitudes (v.6). Who do you know that has great authority over multitudes of people?

Revelation 17

1. The kings of the Earth are involved with this illicit infidelity (v.2).
2. Those who dwell upon the Earth are greatly affected by it (v.2).
3. This city rests upon or is built upon the foundations of a previous kingdom or empire (v.3). What city do you know of that has this sort of foundation?
4. This city’s colours are purple and scarlet, and she is rich with gold and jewels that she displays without shame (v.4). Catholic clerics wear purple and scarlet.
5. Through a “cup,” this city fornicates with political powers (v.4). Whom do you know who dispenses salvation via the means of a cup?
6. This city represents ancient Babylon at heart (v.5).
7. This city is responsible for the deaths of the saints and martyrs (v.6). What city do you know of that has killed hundreds of thousands of Christians from the first century to present day?
8. Two things may be said: the very sight of this city results in great admiration, but moreover John marveled at her because she put to death the saints and martyrs of Jesus (v.6).
9. This city sits on seven hills (v.9). What city do you know of that is called “The City on Seven Hills”?
10. This city holds sway over the bodies and souls of many peoples, multitudes, nations, and languages (v.15). What city do you know of that has this kind of influence?
11. This city reigned over the kings of the Earth (v.18).

Revelation 18

1. This city is a source of demonic presence and powers (v.2).
2. This city is responsible for the economic riches of certain individuals associated with her (v.3).
3. God calls His elect children out from under this city’s abominable influence (v. 4).
4. In contrast with God’s people, whose sins He has forgotten, God has remembered this city’s sins (v.5).
5. This city claims to be the seat of a “Queen” (v.7). What city do you know of that has a “queen” as part of its religion?
6. This city has always been a great foe against God’s people, from the day she became an empire until modern day (v. 20).
7. Splendid music and craftsmanship have been a spectacle from this city, but will eventually be no more (v.22).
8. This city is guilty of deceiving the nations (v.23).
9. This city was found guilty of the blood of God’s children (v. 24).

If you would like to learn more, check out my The Man of Sin entries: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.

 

Josephus on Jesus

There is a video making rounds on social media of an older gentleman pulling a large book off a shelf, claiming it is a "first printing" or "first edition" of Josephus. He begins to read a passage:

"At the same time there appeared in Judea an extraordinary person called Jesus, if it be lawful to call him a man. He was a famous worker of miracles, a teacher of those who were desirous of receiving the truth in simplicity and brought over to him many disciples both Jews and gentiles. This was the Christ. …"

This is NOT a "first printing" or "first edition." It is not even a facsimile of a "first printing" or "first edition." It is a modernized, somewhat paraphrased English version. The actual first printing in English was in 1602 by Thomas Lodge, and this is how it reads:

"At which time also was Iesus, a wise man, if so be it is lawful to call him a man: for he was the author of wonderful works, a teacher of men which receive the truth with pleasure. He drew unto him many of the Jews, and also many of the Grecians. He was Christ. And when Pilate at the accusation of the principal men of our nation, had condemned him to the cross, they which loved him at the first ceased not: for he appeared unto them the third day again alive, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things of him. And unto this day the tribe of Christians named after him is not extinct."

Josephus was a Jewish historian. He was not a Christian. The phrase "He was the Christ" (i.e., Messiah) would not have been stated by him. This was added by earlier copyists. The same goes for the talk about the resurrection. The majority of Christian, Jewish, and secular scholars all agree that this is not authentic to Josephus. Early Christian copyists may have been well-intentioned, but altering what someone wrote to provide greater strength to your argument is deceptive. Sadly, many professing Christians do the same thing today. In fact, either the publisher Banner of Truth or Monergism (I forget which) does the same thing when reprinting the works of the Reformers, attempting to make some of their writings better align with their particular theological beliefs. Manipulating things or lying in order to "strengthen" your position only ends up weakening it. When you are exposed, it makes all of us look bad. Christians do not need to lie or manipulate data in order to be convincing, prove their case, or win an argument. That is the methodology of weak cowards!

A more acceptable reconstruction of Josephus’ original wording would be something like:

“About this time there was Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the principal men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease [to do so]. And the tribe of the Christians, named after him, has not died out to this day.”

Just because a video may sound convincing (like the video claiming that the Gospel is contained in the very first word of the book of Genesis in Hebrew, despite their failure to provide the Strong's code for two of the words, which also cannot be found in any Lexicon), does not mean that it is legit. Blind and ignorant Christians will often latch onto many things they know nothing about and attempt to run with it like it is some grand proof. We saw this with the video about Laminin, which they attempted to tie to Colossians 1:17, despite the limitation of where it is found. A better correlation with Colossians 1:17 would be the nucleus, which has the properties of expulsion (it pushes outward) yet everything in creation is held together.

Church Scandals

"Pastor So-and-so was removed as Senior Pastor and as an Elder of the church for engaging in conduct that the Elders believe is contrary and harmful to the best interests of the church... This decision was made with heavy hearts and much time spent in earnest prayer."
—The Elder of Such-and-such Church

If your biblically unsupported "Pastor" is engaged in questionable activity, the response to such should not be a "decision"—it is the right thing to do. To imply it is a "decision" is to say that you could have or would have gone in the opposite direction. Also, if you are the least bit biblically grounded, such a "decision" would not be made with "heavy hearts." This implies you had to wrestle with your response. "Our Pastor has been exposed as having had multiple affairs and engaging in paedophilia by sexually abusing children. Should we or shouldn't we? This is a tough decision." Seriously?!?!? Such egregious behaviour requires zero wrestling to do the right thing! You had to spend time in "earnest prayer" to figure out if you would do the right thing or not? Do these clownish people not hear themselves? Do they not hear the religion void of biblical Christianity dripping from their lips?

Positions of authority are not supposed to exist in the Lord's Ekklesia (Congregation)! Even Grok AI can easily assess this from the New Testament Scriptures. But given that religion has hi-jacked biblical Christianity and has implemented hierarchy, any time someone in authority (even non-religious institutions) is caught or exposed with verifiable evidence of having committed questionable activity, THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY!!! There should be no scale required to determine if you should or shouldn't! If it is illegal, such as sexually abusing children, THEY SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE! No slaps on the wrist!

When congregations want to protect their biblically unsupported "leader" from any and all accusations, it is a clear and undeniable evidence that you are dealing with a Cult. Of course there are people who lie, or are put up to lying, and "proof" can be faked. But when it is investigated and evidence prove it to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt, your recourse should be simple and effected easily. When the person steps down or retires early, it is a flat-out admission of guilt. By the way, if other groups were the least bit biblically grounded, when such a person guilty of such questionable actions attempts to revive their station as a "Pastor" at another institution in another city or province or state, or to start a new church, that should be dead in its tracks. In other words, individuals like Mark Driscoll and Tullian Tchividian should not be in new pastoral positions today! Their conduct has disqualified them.

When hierarchy exists, scandal easily becomes big news. Remove hierarchy and have zero authority and the scandal practically vanishes. That does not mean that individual people will not still fall into such situations, but it becomes easier to deal with among the members and does not bring such national or international headlines. Moreover, if you stop telling people that they are dirty, rotten, filthy sinners with wicked, deceitful hearts who can do nothing but sin, and start telling them the truth that they are new creations (Eph. 4:22-24) with new hearts (Ezek. 36:26), new minds (1 Cor. 2:16), new spirits (Ezek. 36:26; Rom. 8:16), new passions and desires (Rom. 6:17), with God's Spirit living inside them (1 Cor. 3:16; Ezek. 36:26), and that they are slaves to righteousness (Rom. 6:18,-19, 22), placing their identity in Jesus rather than their sin, you will discover that such questionable activity lessens. People realize that they do not actually want to do these things and that such temptations are not coming from themselves and they start living better. Evolution tells people that they are nothing but animals, and then acts surprised when people act like animals. When you constantly tell people they are nothing but sinners, do not be surprised when that is exactly how they behave. Behaviour follows identity. Right behaviour follows right belief.

Read the Epistles. Were believers absolutely perfect? Of course not. There will always be struggles. Take a good look at the Corinthian Ekklesia. They misunderstood Paul's message so egregiously, the same message he delivered to the Galatians, that they basically lived the concern Paul anticipated (and people raise today) with his words in Romans 5:20-6:2, 14-16. He had to correct them. But the member having sexual relations with his father's girlfriend did not become a national or international scandal. It was addressed and dealt with by the Ekklesia. When all members are equal and there is no authority structure, it is easier to deal with such issues. When hierarchy is instituted, such issues are inevitably invited because people almost always (if not always) gravitate to abuse of their power and/or position. This is why Jesus said "it shall not be so among you." People like to lord their power and position over others, and it can lead to mental, physical, emotional, sexual, or even spiritual abuse. It is difficult to reign in that kind of temptation, which is why Jesus condemned it in the first place. This was always a concern I had when I was studying to be a "Pastor." Thankfully, God has taught me enough that I quit that pursuit. I did not feel His calling to return for more schooling (where they brainwash, condition, program, and train you with what you should believe), but continued reading and studying Scripture regularly, and as a result have now come to realize that such positions did not exist in the early Ekklesia and were to never exist in the first place. Such is a return to the Old Covenant system as well as to the structures and patterns of the world.

ADDENDUM:
All these "Pastors" caught in questionable activity, past or present, like to say, "I've repented." Have you? That is just a bunch of religious mumbo-jumbo. Do you even have a clue what "repentance" is? Repentance has nothing to do with your sin. Biblical repentance means to have a change of mind. What have you had a change of mind about? When you committed your egregious sin(s), did you think it was good and right to do so? Then you have not "repented" because you clearly do not know or understand what biblical repentance actually is. Repentance does not mean a turning from sin. Turning from sin is a fruit of repentance. Period.

Denominational Shortcomings

The Grace Message stresses the finished work of Christ Jesus, unconditional forgiveness, eternal security, and freedom from law-based performance or any mixture of works with grace. Any holdover from Reformation-era legalism that does not fully embrace New Covenant freedom is a mixed-grace gospel, which is no gospel at all. Any doctrines of men that add conditions to salvation, sanctification, or Yahweh God's favour are law mixtures, religious additives that dilute pure grace and obscure the basic Gospel.

Denomination	Key Shortcomings According to The Grace Message
Catholics	Emphasizes sacraments (e.g., Eucharist, confession to priests) as necessary for grace, implying works or rituals earn forgiveness rather than Christ's finished work. Purgatory suggests incomplete atonement. Veneration of Mary and saints dilutes sole reliance on Jesus. Catholicism is problematic, promoting a hierarchical priesthood contradicting the believer's direct access to God as a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). Overall, viewed as a system of religious performance over pure grace.
Lutherans	Retain elements of law-grace mixture through consubstantiation in communion (implying ongoing need for rituals) and infant baptism, which grace teachers see as non-scriptural and not reflective of believer's choice. Confession for absolution often implies forgiveness is conditional, not once-for-all (Hebrews 10:10). Critiqued for Reformation-era legalism remnants that limit full New Covenant freedom.
Calvinists	TULIP doctrines (e.g., limited atonement) contradict unlimited grace for all; perseverance of the saints often implies works or endurance prove salvation, fostering performance anxiety. Calvinistic predestination limits God's universal offer of grace, undermining assurance by tying security to behavior rather than Christ's work. Overly deterministic, missing the relational aspect of grace.
Anglicans	Liturgical and sacramental focus (similar to Catholics) adds rituals to grace, such as confirmation or ordained clergy mediating forgiveness. Infant baptism and hierarchical structure seen as Old Covenant remnants.
Anabaptists	While believer's baptism aligns better with grace, emphasis on pacifism, community rules, and separation from world can become legalistic "works" for holiness. Avoid any rule-based living that replaces resting in Christ's righteousness.
Presbyterians	Strongly Calvinist, so same issues as above: limited atonement and predestination viewed as restricting grace's scope. Covenant theology sometimes mixes Old and New Covenants, which is law contamination. Infant baptism adds non-voluntary ritual.
Baptists	Varies by subgroup; some (Arminian-leaning) teach loss of salvation, contradicting eternal security in grace (Hebrews 13:5). Others (Calvinist-leaning) share TULIP flaws. Emphasis on "lordship salvation" (requiring submission as proof) is backdoor legalism, not pure faith.
Episcopalians	Similar to Anglicans: sacramental system, ordination, and liturgy imply grace is dispensed through church rituals, not directly through Christ. This is contrary to the believer-priesthood model.
Mennonites	Like Anabaptists, plain living and non-resistance can turn into performance-based rules for acceptance. Grace message sees this as self-effort over relying on Christ's imputed righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Methodists	Arminian theology allows for losing salvation through sin or apostasy, which is fear-based, not grace-assured. Wesleyan perfectionism (entire sanctification via works) is striving for holiness instead of receiving it by faith.
Pentecostals	Focus on second blessing (baptism in the Spirit), speaking in tongues as evidence, and ongoing experiences often imply grace is incomplete without additional works or signs. This as divides believers into "haves" and "have-nots," contradicting one-time righteousness in Christ.
Seventh-Day Adventists	Mandatory Sabbath-keeping mixes Old Covenant with New, which is legalism (e.g., in teachings on Galatians). Investigative judgment doctrine suggests ongoing evaluation of works, undermining finished atonement. Ellen White's prophetic status adds extra-biblical authority.

Since there are over 40,000 different Christian denominations, groups, and sects around the world, obviously the shortcomings of them all cannot be addressed. The larger denominations, however, can be. Usually, whatever shortcomings you find in the larger denominations you will find in the smaller denominations. You will even find mixtures of shortcomings. If it does not adhere to the New Covenant, the Gospel, and grace, then it is another gospel entirely, a mixed-grace gospel attempting to mix oil and water. The New Covenant does not mix with the Old Covenant. Any denomination that attempts to mix any part of the Old system with the New is either blind, ignorant, or delusional. They clearly do not understand the Scriptures, and cling desperately to the errors perpetuated by their particular flavour of bankrupt theology and man-made doctrines.

Mormons are not Christian by any stretch of the word or the imagination as they teach a different Jesus (created being, brother of Lucifer), works-based exaltation to godhood, and have additional scriptures (Book of Mormon). Mormonism is a false gospel (Galatians 1:8), with no true grace since salvation involves temple rituals and obedience to laws.

Jehovah's Witnesses are likewise not Christian by any stretch of the word of the imagination as they deny Jesus' deity and Trinity, teach works-based salvation (door-to-door witnessing, etc.), and a limited 144,000 in Heaven. This is heresy, with grace absent due to rejection of Christ's full atonement for all believers. Blood transfusion bans are extreme legalism.