Ephesians 1:3-6

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." Ephesians 1:3-6

Dear Scripture-twisting Calvinists, please curb your presuppositions and preconceptions from being imposed upon the text and pay attention to precisely what verse 4 is saying and what it is not saying. It does not say, "just as He chose us to be in Him." Rather, it is talking specifically to those of us who are "in Him," and speaks of us with such an esteemed position as being chosen before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before Him.

In verse 5, the word "predestined" does not refer in the least to God choosing who will be saved and who will not be, misquoting this passage and claiming that such choices were made before the world existed. Paul is writing to Christians, to "saints...who are faithful in Christ Jesus" (v.1). He is saying to believers, those who are "in the Beloved," that such persons, because of the condition of being "in Christ," are therefore predestined to "every spiritual blessing" that Yahweh chose before the foundation of the world for all who are in Christ.

From before the foundation of the world, Yahweh God had determined to bless us, who are "in Christ," with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. From before the foundation of the world, Yahweh God had determined that we, who are "in Christ," would be holy and blameless before Him. From before the foundation of the world, Yahweh God had determined to adopt us, who are "in Christ," as sons. Everything is determined by our being "in Christ."

Yahweh does not pick and choose who is going to be "in Christ." Numerous New Covenant passages contradict and oppose such a false teaching. He does, however, have a condition — faith (Rom. 4:16; Heb. 11:6). Yahweh invites and will bestow His blessings on whoever will come (Matt. 11:28; 22:9; Rev. 22:17).

A Pagan Origin for the Sermon

Taken from To Preach Or Not To Preach by David C. Norrington, pages 44-48.

Rhetoric

Through the classical period the theory and practice of rhetoric did not change greatly and what follows is a brief outline of its main features in the Greco-Roman world.⁷

Rhetoric was particularly the province of the rich and powerful and was the most prestigious of all forms of learning. Furthermore, eloquence had become the principal aim of education; acquiring the art of speaking was perceived as the route not only to culture but also to thinking and acting correctly, since wisdom and eloquence (and social status) were believed to be intimately connected.⁸ Acquiring rhetorical competence was a lengthy process and a hallmark of a higher education. It required the mastery of an elaborate technique dominated by the traditions of the past and centered on invention and arrangement of material, style, purity of language, memory, delivery, voice modulation and posture. The principal medium of rhetorical expression was the public speech or lecture and capable exponents of the rhetorical arts looked forward to a distinguished career, fame, wealth, power over others and the admiration of the populace.⁹

The Greeks were intoxicated by rhetoric and the Romans later fell under a similar spell. Roman rhetoric was an adaptation of the Greek form with perhaps less emphasis on persuasion and more on style and artistic effect.¹⁰

Rhetorical displays ranked with theatrical performances as great spectacles of entertainment—even if the audience could not understand the language of the speaker—for a fine rhetorical display was regarded as a true work of art (Philostratus Vit Soph 491, 589).¹¹ These performances could excite the same kind of enthusiasm as that generated by popular entertainers in our own day.

Not only was rhetoric popular, it had real merits. It offered a clear-cut framework within which practitioners could express themselves coherently and fluently. As these techniques were widely appreciated, rhetoric offered a common standard throughout the Greco-Roman world which all could appreciate, irrespective of education.¹² It demanded some thought, logical ingenuity and psychological observation.¹³ Rhetoric also exercised a liberalizing influence. Rhetoricians were prone to argue for and against, with often the same rhetorician arguing both sides of a disputed case in quick succession. This demonstrated that there were two sides to each issue and that even the worst examples were entitled to a hearing.¹⁴ Lastly, as G.A. Kennedy points out:

In political debate there was in the best periods of ancient history a willingness to entertain the opinions of others when expounded with rhetorical effectiveness. At the very least rhetoric imparted vigor to ancient intellectual life; it has long been noted that oratory flourished most in the democracies and least under tyranny.¹⁵

For many, the virtues of rhetoric were self-evident and no alternative foundation for education was seriously considered.¹⁶

The problems with rhetoric surfaced early on and became increasingly severe with the passage of time. Indeed, when rhetorical studies dominated the timetable the disadvantages were formidable. First, style and form took precedence over substance to the extend that, for many listeners, content was immaterial.¹⁷ Second, rhetoric was not primarily a method of instruction, encouraging a disinterested analysis of data, but rather a technique of persuasion more akin to seduction than ratiocination. As its emotional content was often high and its subject matter distorted, audiences were frequently swayed by specious argument. The rhetorician himself was likely to be swayed by his own speech even more than his audience.¹⁸ Third, as the influence of rhetorical traditions gained in strength, rhetoric gradually discouraged independent thinking and intellectual curiosity, and in their place emphasized conventional content.¹⁹ Fourth, in spite of a concern for honesty in rhetorical theory, rhetoric failed to encourage a love of truth. For many rhetoricians, since content was secondary to victory in argument, truth was almost irrelevant.²⁰ Fifth, the rhetorician like any stage performer, was concerned, at least in part, to display his genius and to receive the acclaim of the audience.²¹ Such a method inevitably fostered egotism and arrogance (Philostratus Vit Soph 616). This was particularly the case in the unreal atmosphere of the schools where declaimers had difficulty at times in preserving their own mental balance.²² The judgment of Sir William Tarn that rhetoric 'debased everything it touched' is perhaps not too severe, particularly of rhetoric during the latter days of the empire, the period the sermon came to prominence within the church.²³

The Influence of Rhetoric in the Church

A hundred years ago [sic], Edwin Hatch argued that the extensive use of the sermon arose under the influence of Greek rhetoric brought into the church by those Christians who had been trained in rhetoric, and perhaps even taught rhetoric themselves—before or after conversion—and who subsequently achieved influence in the church. Many of the church's fathers—Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius and Augustine among them—had been professional rhetoricians before becoming Christians.²⁴ Moreover, as rhetoric was the mainstay of the educational system, the Christian community had little choice but to recognize it and respond to it in one way or another.²⁵ But the Christian use of speeches and rhetorical forms did not arise form copying the activities of pagan religion. There were no 'sermons' in Greco-Roman religion as, for the most part, it knew little dogma and so required little use of formal teaching. The church, on the other hand, valued dogma and used formal teaching methods. It was here that rhetoric made its impact. The christian rhetorician would expound the sacred text of Scripture, just as the sophist would supply an exegesis of the near-sacred text of Homer, although the Christian aimed to teach the congregation, including the simple, and to change lives, rather than to concentrate on the rhetorical arts.²⁶ Simplicity of style was achieved on occasion as in the homilies of the 4th century²⁷ but, more often than not, although the content was more or less Christian the style was Greek. Often indeed the content was mixed, for pagan ideas were corrupting Christian thought even by 100AD, as can be seen from the writings of Clement of Rome; the influence of techniques current in the schools is clearly visible in Augustine's biblical exegesis.²⁸ As the majority of great Christian leaders had received a better training in rhetoric than philosophy,²⁹ the finer points of philosophical debate frequently eluded them, with the result that pagan philosophical/theological³⁰ ideas were unwittingly incorporated into the corpus of Christian doctrine even by those who, like Tertullian, claimed to despise pagan philosophy.³¹ This tendency should not be confused with the deliberate use of pagan philosophy by Christians as a weapon against their opponents. The problem of inadvertently utilizing non-Christian ideas and thought forms in the explication of Christian faith is a perennial one.

It may be objected that Greek rhetoric entered the church at least as early as the apostle Paul and that later developments stem from his contribution. Paul's precise knowledge and use of rhetoric are still disputed, but his epistles reveal a considerable understanding of the rhetorical conventions taught in the schools.³² Whatever the case may have been, rhetoric did not dominate Paul's presentation of the gospel in substance or form, and he rejected the cultural values associated with rhetoric (1 Cor. 1:10-2:5; 1 Thess. 2:1-12).³³ Moreover, although Paul relied on public speaking to a great extent in introducing the gospel to others, there is no reason to suppose that he was limited to this one method. As well as the home, the workshop and other locations may have been used for missionary activity among small groups or with individuals, using a variety of means. But it should be noted that there was often no sharp distinction between the home and the workplace.³⁴ Later, we shall see that Paul did not advocate the use of public speaking as a means to Christian growth. The church's use of rhetoric does not have its origin in the work of Paul.

When men such as Origen, John Chrysostom and Augustine made extensive use of the sermon, this was seen not as a distortion of New Testament methods but as a revival of the noble art of preaching as practiced by Paul. Many since have viewed preaching as re-awakening of spiritual power. But the use of Greco-Roman rhetoric depended for success entirely upon the skills and self-confidence of the individual rhetorician (to whom went the acclaim).³⁵; it involved forms designed to entertain and display genius rather than instruct or develop talents in others; it had little interest in the spiritual welfare of the hearers,³⁶ and it seldom required action on their part.³⁷ Such a method was not designed to foster Christian virtues or intellectual maturity, and there is little evidence to suggest that it can do so.³⁸ It seems that even the sermons of Augustine, delivered to his congregation at Hippo, failed to develop critical skills or independent judgment and were of questionable value in the development of spirituality.³⁹ Furthermore, as we shall see, the use of the sermon even without rhetorical coloring distorted New Testament practice considerably. The belief that methods into Christianity are unimportant, eloquently summed up in the assertion of Adolf Harnack that 'a living faith needs no special methods',⁴⁰ may sound deeply spiritual but is a distortion of the teaching of both testaments and certainly of the work of Paul, who was concerned with method as well as content—as we may see, for example, in his discussion of rhetoric, his practice of evangelism and his attitude to money and gifts.⁴¹

From a Christian standpoint, the pagan origins of rhetoric do not pose a problem. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the church embracing ideas from the surrounding culture. The Old Testament supplies several cases where the results of pagan influences were beneficial such as the appointment of judges to assist Moses (Exod. 18:13-26), the (possible) use of ancient Near Eastern concept of wisdom and the design of the Tabernacle.⁴² More frequently, however, syncretism and acculturation were harmful both to Israel and the church. This was because they led to the absorption of ideas and practices inimical to biblical faith and frequently to subsequent contempt for that faith.⁴³ So it was with rhetoric, with its insatiable demand for speeches as the medium for its artistic expression and its unavoidable confrontation with the more personal methods of the New Testament.

Internet Troll Warning

Trolls are to be ignored. Do not speak to them or of them. Anything else will encourage them.

Why would you want to spend HOURS of your life debating energy sucking vampires and delusional crazy people who refuse to argue the main point and can never provide a reasonable refutation or intelligent counter-argument, and are incapable of having a serious, mature, respectful, intelligent, rational, honest conversation?

For 10 years, I debated worldviews and religions in comment sections, wasting HOURS of my life daily. I gave up comment-section debates 15 years ago for better pursuits. Now, I just post facts. If you like it, great; if you don't, fine. I'm NOT here to impress you!

You do not owe any of your time, energy, nor emotions to these people who are disconnected from reality and rely on denial, deflection, IMAX-level projection, censorship, "cancelling," manipulation, smearing, gaslighting, jamming, framing, ad hominem, name calling, character assassination, attempted intimidation, and the use of fallacious arguments that have no basis in reality.

Limiting replies is how mature, sane people filter out the drama, hatred, and intolerance of clueless clowns. These are the strong ones. They are not looking to have their ego stroked and they do not require validation from others. Time is too precious to be wasted on nonsense.

For your mental, physical, and spiritual health, it is best to stop reading and responding to social media comments, especially that of trolls. The amount of time (HOURS!) wasted on this can be monumental.

Also, you do not have to respond to every stupid person on the Internet—or at all.

Be your own person!

The Homeless Preacher

A preacher transformed himself into a homeless person and went to the church that he was to be introduced as the head preacher that morning. He walked around his soon-to-be church for 30 minutes while it was filling with people for service. Only three people said "Hello" to him, most looked the other way. He asked people for change to buy food because he was hungry. Not one gave him anything.

He went into the sanctuary to sit down in the front of the church and was told by the ushers that he would need to get up and go sit in the back of the church. (See James 2:2-4.) He said "Hello" to people as they walked in but was greeted with cold stares and dirty looks from people looking down on him and judging him.

He sat in the back of the church and listened to the church announcements for the week. He listened as new visitors were welcomed into the church that morning, but no one acknowledged that he was new. He watched people around him continue to look his way with stares that said, "You are not welcome here."

Then the elders of the church went to the podium to make the announcement. They said they were excited to introduce the new preacher of the church to the congregation: "We would like to introduce you to our new preacher." The congregation stood up and looked around clapping with joy and anticipation. The homeless man sitting in the back stood up and started walking down the aisle.

That's when all the clapping stopped and the church was silent. With all eyes on him, he walked up to the podium and reached for the microphone. He stood there for a moment and then recited so elegantly a verse from the Bible...

“Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'"

After he recited this, he introduced himself as their new preacher and told the congregation what he had experienced that morning. Many began to cry and bow their heads in shame. "Today I see a gathering of people here, but I do not see a church of Jesus. The world has enough people that look the other way. What the world needs is disciples of Jesus that can follow this teachings and live as he did. When will YOU decide to become disciples?"

He then dismissed service until the following Sunday.

His sermon had been given.

If this describes YOUR character and behaviour toward a homeless person in your church, or someone wearing shorts in your church, I suggest you REPENT, remove the log buried in your eye, and earnestly seek Christ Jesus to be Lord of your entire life so that you may imitate Him fully and completely WITHOUT hypocrisy and unbelief.

To Preach or Not to Preach

"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it."
—Will Durant, Twentieth-century American Historian

Basically, the same disobedience committed by Israel when they possessed the Promised Land and were commanded by Yahweh to destroy all the other peoples was committed by the Christians in the fourth century and beyond—especially by the Roman Catholics. They adopted every form of paganism imaginable in an attempt to "convert" followers. Christians are supposed to remove all elements of sin from among themselves (Eph.5:3, et al.) and live holy lives (2 Tim. 3:12, et al.), living as lights to this dark world (Matt. 5:14-16, et al.). Our lives are the only 'Bible' some people will ever read, and yet we willfully and deliberately live as unbelievers and hypocrites, and then attempt to make excuses for the sin we continue to harbour in our lives. May Yahweh have mercy on our souls!

We ass-u-me there are all these "sermons" in the Bible, but in reality there are none. We call Jesus' instructions on what it looks like to live as His followers and to serve as members of Yahweh's Kingdom the "Sermon on the Mount," and we refer to Peter's speech in Acts 2 and Paul's speaking until midnight in Acts 20 as "sermons," because we are imposing our experience and understanding back upon the text. There were no "sermons" back then. The "sermon" has no roots in Scripture! It was borrowed from pagan culture, nursed, and adopted into the Christian faith. If you would like to debate this irrefutable historical fact, let's have at it! If you would like to learn more, pick up To Preach or Not to Preach by David C. Norrington.

While Augustine was the first person to title Matthew 5-7 as "The Lord's Sermon on the Mount," it was not generally referred to as "The Sermon on the Mount" until the sixteenth century. (Hmm... Notice how all the corrupt teaching the "Church" embraces was first taught by Augustine, quite often in contradiction to that which was taught, practiced, and believed for the first 300 years? Ponder that point promptly.) Not only were there no "sermons" back then, but a "sermon" was not the central focus of the assembling of the saints as it is today. They came together around a feast, in which they partook of the Lord's Supper.

The early New Covenant congregations (A.D. 30-300) did not listen to a 30-60 minute "sermon" based on a couple verses ripped out of their immediate context, with every word scrutinized for its potential meaning (and then choose the one that best fits with their beliefs and agenda), and a preacher spewing his opinion of what the section was teaching. It is important for us to remember that the early Christians shared the same languages, the same customs, and the same culture as that of the apostles. Being of the eastern mindset, they understood precisely what was spoken and written to them. Most of our preachers, having the mark of their particular seminary stamped upon them, engage in proof text methodology, eisegesis, and Scripture twisting when they attempt to convey the Word of Yahweh to the members of their particular organized religious institutions.

The "sermon" detracts from the actual purpose for which Yahweh designed the congregational assembly, and it has nothing to do with genuine spiritual growth. The New Covenant letters demonstrate that the ministry of Yahweh's Word came from the entire congregation in their regular gatherings (1 Cor. 14:26, 31; Rom. 12:4ff; Eph. 4:11ff; Heb. 10:25). From Romans 12:6-8, 15:14, 1 Corinthians 14:26, and Colossians 3:16, we see that it included teaching, exhortation, prophecy, singing, and admonishment. These gatherings were also conversational (1 Cor. 14:29) and marked by respectful interruptions (1 Cor. 14:30). They were not chaotic, as we might imagine such to be today, but were done in order. To be done in order does not mean to follow a pre-set structure that you never veer from. Exhortations from local elders (not the way we understand "elders" today) were normally impromptu, not planned out in advance.

When the saints of Yahweh assembled together, what did they do? Well, if we bother to pay attention to Scripture, it tells us in the plainest words possible. They read!

"Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!"" Exodus 24:7

"when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place which He will choose, you shall read this law in front of all Israel in their hearing." Deuteronomy 31:11

"Then afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law." Joshua 8:34

"Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan who read it." 2 King 22:8

"Moreover, Shaphan the scribe told the king saying, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read it in the presence of the king." 2 Kings 22:10

"And all the people gathered as one man at the square which was in front of the Water Gate, and they asked Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel. Then Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly of men, women and all who could listen with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month. He read from it before the square which was in front of the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of men and women, those who could understand; and all the people were attentive to the book of the law." Nehemiah 8:1-3

"He read from the book of the law of God daily, from the first day to the last day. And they celebrated the feast seven days, and on the eighth day there was a solemn assembly according to the ordinance." Nehemiah 8:18

"While they stood in their place, they read from the book of the law of the LORD their God for a fourth of the day; and for another fourth they confessed and worshiped the LORD their God." Nehemiah 9:3

"On that day they read aloud from the book of Moses in the hearing of the people; and there was found written in it that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever enter the assembly of God," Nehemiah 13:1

"So you go and read from the scroll which you have written at my dictation the words of the LORD to the people in the LORD'S house on a fast day. And also you shall read them to all the people of Judah who come from their cities." Jeremiah 36:6

"Baruch the son of Neriah did according to all that Jeremiah the prophet commanded him, reading from the book the words of the LORD in the LORD'S house." Jeremiah 36:8

"Then Baruch read from the book the words of Jeremiah in the house of the LORD in the chamber of Gemariah the son of Shaphan the scribe, in the upper court, at the entry of the New Gate of the LORD'S house, to all the people." Jeremiah 36:10

"Micaiah declared to them all the words that he had heard when Baruch read from the book to the people." Jeremiah 36:13

"They said to him, "Sit down, please, and read it to us." So Baruch read it to them." Jeremiah 36:15

"Then the king sent Jehudi to get the scroll, and he took it out of the chamber of Elishama the scribe. And Jehudi read it to the king as well as to all the officials who stood beside the king." Jeremiah 36:21

"When Jehudi had read three or four columns, the king cut it with a scribe's knife and threw it into the fire that was in the brazier, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the brazier." Jeremiah 36:23

"Then Jeremiah said to Seraiah, "As soon as you come to Babylon, then see that you read all these words aloud," Jeremiah 51:61

"And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read." Luke 4:16

"After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, "Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it."" Acts 13:15

"For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him." Acts 13:27

"For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." Acts 15:21

"Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching." 1 Timothy 4:13

"But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;" 2 Corinthians 3:14-15

"Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near." Revelation 1:3

If you are having a hard time with all the texts from the Old Covenant, then I suggest you pay close attention to 1 Timothy 4:13. To "exhort" is to encourage or advise. What is meant by "teaching"? Modern preachers would claim this means to dissect the Word of Yahweh into all its parts and "exposit" it. Considering "sound doctrine" (or "healthy teaching") to Paul had to do with your behaviour, your conduct (see Titus 2:1-10), and not what you believe, quite obviously "teaching" had to do with how to live rightly while sojourning in this world. Remember, we are called to be salt and light to the world around us. This is not our home, we are only passing through. Anyone who lives for this world is a fool!

In the Jewish synagogues, any member who wished could stand up and read to the people. Today, it requires a "specialist." When the early Christians assembled together, they would read an entire book or letter of the New Covenant. This exposes not only the short attention span of many members today, but also their lack of commitment to the Lord Jesus. Do you know how long it would take (on average) to read each of the books/letters of the New Covenant?

Matthew: 2.5 hours
Mark: 1.5 hours
Luke: 2.5 hours
John: 2 hours
Acts: 2.25 hours
Romans: 1 hour
1 Corinthians: 1 hour
2 Corinthians: 40 minutes
Galatians: 20 minutes
Ephesians: 20 minutes
Philippians: 14 minutes
Colossians: 13 minutes
1 Thessalonians: 12 minutes
2 Thessalonians: 7 minutes
1 Timothy: 16 minutes
2 Timothy: 11 minutes
Titus: 7 minutes
Philemon: 3 minutes
Hebrews: 45 minutes
James: 16 minutes
1 Peter: 16 minutes
2 Peter: 10 minutes
1 John: 16 minutes
2 John: 2 minutes
3 John: 2 minutes
Jude: 4 minutes
Revelation: 1.25 hours

The Israelites and the early Christians were more committed to the Word of Yahweh and the commandments of Jesus than most modern professing believers. Many today want out after 45 minutes to 2 hours, having done their religious "duty" for the week. They are eager to go engage in their worldly activities, affairs, and events. The early Congregation could spend the entire day with each other and they were joyful about it. They had young children, too, so that is an extremely poor excuse used by parents today. We tend to offer up a great many excuses as to why our lives are so shallow in comparison with the early Christians, or even Christians 500 years ago. Some of these Christians had 10 children and wrote volumes of Christian works, and we attempt to offer excuses as to why we don't or can't do the same as them with only two children! Even 100 years ago, they did not have the same distractions that we have today. Be self-controlled and deal with your distractions and you will find you have the same time Christians 100 years ago and more had.

If we pay close attention to the early Christians, we can witness a vacuum being created in the later half of the third century when mutual ministry faded from the Body of Christ. Members put more and more onus on their "leaders" and took less and less responsibility themselves. In such cases, abuse is bound to happen as certain types of people grab for that kind of power and influence. To fill this void, the clergy began to emerge and open meetings began to die out. The gatherings became more and more liturgical, devolving into a "service." During the fourth century, the Congregation had become fully institutionalized. As former pagan orators and philosophers converted to Christianity, rather than leave their philosophies behind, they began infiltrating the Christian community as these people became their leaders. Augustine is embraced by both Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants alike, despite the vast plethora of false and heretical teachings he either developed or put his name to.

By the way, the concept of a "paid teaching specialist" was borne out of Greece, not Judaism. As noted Jewish rabbi Hillel said, "He who makes a worldly crown of the Torah shall waste away." It was the custom of Jewish rabbis to take up a trade so as to not charge a fee for their teaching. We see this evidence in the life of Paul. The early Christians considered it heresy to be paid to deliver the Gospel. Yet what do 99% of "churches" today do? They pay the preacher! Both Martin Luther and John Calvin vehemently railed against the idea that the Pope was the Vicar of Christ, yet both argued that the preacher is the "mouth of God." Funny how they set themselves up as their own popes over their own State religions. But I digress.

The "sermon" makes the preacher the virtuoso performer of the regular assembly, hampering or precluding the participation of other members, which stalemates spiritual growth and encourages passivity by preventing the Body from functioning as intended. If you doubt this, simply look at the scores of Christians who have been sermonized for decades are are still babes in Christ. We are transformed by encounters with the living Lord Jesus, not by information about Him. How can the preacher learn from other members of the Body when they are muted? How can the members learn if they cannot ask questions during the preacher's oration? If we pay attention to the New Covenant Scriptures, their goal is to get each one of us to function in order to mature (Eph. 4:11-16). The "sermon" lacks any practical value and does not equip the saints (regardless how much the preacher drones on about "equipping the saints for the work of the ministry," which is just empty rhetoric), but rather de-skills them. New Covenant-styled preaching/teaching equips the Congregation so it can function without the presence of a clergyman.

Being that today's "sermon" is highly impractical, how can a preacher speak as if he is an expert on something he has never personally experienced? Hearers should be put into a direct, practical experience of what has been preached. Sadly, this is rarely the case. Doctrine has to be practical: "doctrine that is according to godliness" (1 Tim. 6:3). Paul said, "let everyone that names the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (2 Tim. 2:19). Those who do not act according to this righteousness he says, "from such withdraw yourself" (1 Tim. 6:5). God cares more about our fruit than He does our particular theological dogma! As mentioned earlier, "sound doctrine" (or "healthy teaching") to Paul had to do with your behaviour, your conduct (see Titus 2:1-10). A practical "sermon" would convey as much, but more often than not they are designed to convince us to believe a certain belief the preacher holds dear, despite being unbiblical and lacking Christ.

If we rightly understood the Scriptures and the early Congregation, perhaps we would live better lives today, holy and not hypocritical. Our lives are the only 'Bible' some people will ever read, so we should live accordingly. We tend to willfully and deliberately live like the heathen and then offer up excuses as to why the power of Yahweh is not present within our lives.

"My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's
wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your
faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."
—Paul of Tarsus in 1 Corinthians 2:4-5

How to Tell Time CORRECTLY!

If you want to discover just how easy it is to brainwash people and convince them of something that is 100% WRONG, look no further than telling time on digital media.

Despite modern delusion, 12:00 Noon was, is, and will always be 12:00AM, and 12:00 Midnight was, is, and will always be 12:00PM. Unfortunately, modern digital media reversed these and 99% of people have been none the wiser to it. They apparently forgot how they were taught to tell time in school. People today think Noon is 12:00PM; that you start counting with 12 and then go to 1 and 2 and 3... How retarded is that? Who counts this way?!?!?

One second after midnight was always the start of the new day (even with the 24-hour clock). For Noon, old clocks either displayed 12:00AM until the first minute after, changing to 12:01PM, or they displayed AM until 1:00, changing to PM.

Each number from 1 through 12 is the top of the hour. What this means is that when the clock turns 10:00, the 10th hour has arrived. 10:01 belongs to the 11th hour. If your brain is not able to comprehend this, think about your birthday. From the day you are born until you turn 1 is your 1st year. The first day after you turn 1 is part of your 2nd year, which culminates when you turn 2. Everything after you turn 1 is not part of your first year. Understand now?

It is the same in understanding centuries. The 1900s are referred to as the 20th century. Why? Because from 1901 until 2000 is the 20th century. From year 1 until year 100 was the first century. Are you beginning to understand?

Modern digital media royally screws this up. They have each 12-hour period start counting with 12:00, moving to 1, then 2, then 3... Who counts this way?!?!? They attempt to begin with the top of the hour rather than to end with it. When stores say they're open until 12:00PM (mistakenly thinking this means Noon), they are actually saying they are open until Midnight!

Think of the 24-hour clock. From Midnight on is 00:## until the top of the hour, when it changes to 01:00. This tells you how many hours have passed since the start of the day. Modern digital media wants us to believe that 12:00 Noon begins the 13th hour culminating with 1:00 (or 13:00 on the 24-hour clock). It is called AFTER-Noon for a reason. Noon is the culmination of the 12-hour count from the beginning of the day. Ergo, as it has always been, Noon is 12:00AM!!! 12:01 belongs to the first hour of the afternoon, which culminates with 1:00PM. Midnight is the top of the hour for the 12th hour of the afternoon, which means that as it has always been, Midnight is 12:00PM!!!

12:00 Noon has always been 12:00AM. The top of the first afternoon hour culminates with 1:00PM. We start counting with 1, not with 12!!!

Even Paul Brians' 'Common Errors in English Usage' acknowledges this modern error in the ability to tell time correctly:

"AM/PM
"AM" stands for the Latin phrase Ante Meridiem—which means "before noon"—and "PM" stands for Post Meridiem: "after noon." Although digital clocks routinely label noon "12:00 PM" you should avoid this expression not only because it is incorrect, but because many people will imagine you are talking about midnight instead. The same goes for "12:00 AM." you can say or write "twelve noon," "noon sharp," or "exactly at noon" when you want to designate a precise time.
It is now rare to see periods placed after these abbreviations: "A.M.," but in formal writing it is still preferable to capitalize them, though the lower-case "am" and "pm" are now so popular they are not likely to get you into trouble.
Occasionally computer programs encourage you to write "AM" and "PM" without a space before them, but others will misread your data if you omit the space. The nonstandard habit of omitting the space is spreading rapidly, and should be avoided in formal writing."

The Christian Era

"The Christians Era should properly begin with the year Christ was born; and in devising it, the intention was to have it begin with that year. By the "Christian Era" is meant that system upon which calendars are constructed, and by which historical events are now dated in practically all the civilized world. But the originator of the system made a miscalculation as to the year (in the calendar then in use) in which Christ was born, as the result of which the year A.D. 1 was fixed four years too late. In other words, the Lord Jesus was four years old in the year A.D. 1. [This explains the grave error and colossal blunder of Christians who mistakenly claim that Jesus was crucified in A.D. 33, despite all the evidence. So today's correct year based on this is not 2024 but 2020!]

"The mistake came about in this way: The Christian Era (i.e. the scheme of dates beginning A.D. 1) was not devised utnil A.D. 532. Its inventor, or contriver, was a monk named Dionysius Exiguus. At that time the system of dates in common use began from the era of the emperor Diocletian, A.D. 284. Exiguus was not willing to connect his system of dates with the name of that infamous tyrant and persecutor. So he conceived the idea of connecting his system with, and dating all its events from, the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. His reason for wishing to do this was, as he wrote to Bishop Petronius, "to the end that the commencement of our hope might be better known to us, and that the cause of man's restoration, namely, our Redeemer's passion, might appear with clearer evidence."

"For the carrying out of this excellent plan, it was necessary to fix the date of the Incarnation in the terms of the chronological systems then in vogue. The Romans dated the beginning of their history from the supposed date of the founding of the city (ab urbe condita or A.U.C. as usually abbreviated). Dionysius Exiguus calculated that the year of our Lord's birth was A.U.C. 753. He made his equivalence of dates from Luke 3:1, "now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" etc., at which time Christ was 30 years of age according to Luke 3:23. But it was ascertained later that a mistake of four years had been made; for it clearly appears by Matthew 2 that Christ was born before the death of Herod, who died in 749 A.U.C. Tiberius succeeded Augustus, Aug. 19, A.U.C. 767. Hence his 15th year would be A.U.C. 779; and from those facts Dionysius was right in his calculation. But it was discovered in later years that Tiberius began to reign as colleague with Augustus four years before the latter died. Hence the 15th year mentioned by Luke was four years earlier than was supposed by Dionysius, and consequently the birth of Christ was that many years earlier than the date selected by Exiguus, which date has been followed ever since. This must be allowed for in any computation of dates which involves events happening before Christ.

"We have now found, according to our reckoning, that Christ was born An. Hom. 4041. Therefore, His crucifixion, when He was in His 34th year, would be 4041+34=4075. This is equivalent to 30 A.D.; and to get the true measure of years of any event in our era from the Incarnation it is necessary to add four years to its accepted date. [That would put us at ~6069 A.H. (Anno Hominis, year of man or year of humanity).]

"To get the corresponding date in terms of B.C. for any event of Old Testament history, it is only necessary to deduct the years An. Hom. from 4046. For the birth of Christ being 4041 An. Hom. and the Christian era four years later, then B.C. 1 would be equivalent to 4045 which is 4046-1."

—Philip Mauro, The Wonder of Bible Chronology

Christians Do Not Celebrate Christmas!

Kirk Cameron can ignorantly attempt to defend his idolatry of Christmas by engaging in proof text methodology, eisegesis, and Scripture twisting, but biblical Christians know better.

Let those outside of true and spiritual Israel have their Winter Solstice and Saturnalia back, which still includes the date of its celebration, the evergreen tree, holly and ivy decorations, yule logs, wreaths, mistletoe, orb decorations, candles and lights, human-shaped cookies, singing from house to house, and gift giving.

Is it not funny how this passage sounds an awful lot like a description of the pagan celebration of Christmas?

"Thus says Yahweh, "Do not learn the way of the nations, and do not be terrified by the signs of the heavens although the nations are terrified by them; for the customs of the peoples are delusion; because it is wood cut from the forest, the work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. They decorate it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers so that it will not totter. Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field are they, and they cannot speak; they must be carried, because they cannot walk! Do not fear them, for they can do no harm, nor can they do any good."" Jeremiah 10:2-5

Jeremiah wrote in the 7th century B.C. Note that cutting down and setting up a tree is termed "the way of the nations [heathen, KJV]." Note also how Yahweh commanded that we are to "not learn the way of the nations." No matter how you attempt to dice it, this is idolatry, which violates the commandment against idolatry.

Not only was Jesus not born on December 25th, but the early Christians of the first three centuries never celebrated Jesus' birth; only His resurrection (which has nothing to do with the pagan celebration of Easter). After the false conversion of Emperor Constantine and his subsequent turning Christianity upon its head, many errors were introduced and pagan practices were adopted by the "Church" in an attempt to "Christianize" them. The idea to celebrate Jesus' birth was first birthed (no pun intended) during the 4th century by Pope Julius I, and was done in an effort to adopt and absorb the traditions of pagan festivals such as Saturnalia. Pagan elements were supposed to be renounced entirely when people came to Jesus, but the Catholics retained them, and their attempted defenses of this are illogical and weak.

In the Middle Ages, Christmas (Christ Mass) celebrations were rowdy and raucous, a drunken carnival-like atmosphere similar to today's Mardi Gras. In the 17th century, religious reform in Europe and America cancelled and outlawed Christmas. Are you aware that until the 19th century, Christmas was mostly observed by Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and Episcopalian congregations? Americans began to really embrace Christmas in the 19th century, Christmas first being declared a federal holiday on June 26, 1870. To fill the cultural needs of a growing nation, Americans re-invented Christmas by changing it from the raucous carnival holiday it had been and turning it into a family-centered day of peace and nostalgia. As Americans embraced Christmas, old customs were unearthed. Christmas is now widely celebrated by all denominations, and even by atheists and followers of other religions. Its modern popularity is due to its worldly seductions, pleasures of gifts, and entertaining symbols. Let me be clear: The adoption of this practice has nothing to do with the worship of King Jesus!

As someone who professes to be a follower of Christ Jesus, if you are celebrating Jesus, ask yourself why you are doing so by use of pagan elements. Why would you want to associate Jesus with pagan festivals and celebrations? Why would you want to participate in the same decorations that are clearly associated with these pagan festivals and celebrations? Is this how you learned Christ? Is this what you think of Jesus? You are engaging in idolatry and are not even aware of it. Ask yourself if fellowship, prayer, and instruction consume the majority of the holiday for families who celebrate this pagan holiday, or if presents and worldly conversations do.

If you claim to hold to "sola Scriptura," I challenge you to find the word "Christmas," or even the occasion of the celebration of Christmas, in the Scriptures. You will find no such thing! Professing Christians who pose ridiculous questions such as "What could possibly be wrong about celebrating Christ? Isn't it great to want to celebrate Him? Who wouldn't want to do that?" are clearly ignorant of Yahweh's Word and His Commands. They likely do not even know Him. Yahweh determines when and how we worship and celebrate Him. For you to associate Him with pagan festivals and celebrations and engage in the same decorations is to marry Him to pagan practices.

'Christmas' might begin with 'Christ,' but keep Christ out of Christmas as Jesus is not the reason for the season. He was never in Christmas to begin with and it has nothing to do with Him nor His birth!

Two Great Eras

Yahweh's holy Word, the Bible, does not distinguish seven "dispensations," as the cult of Dispensationalism teaches, but two great eras. This is seen in a number of ways:

First, the Bible is split into two great divisions: the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Why did I say 'Covenant' and not 'Testament'? Because not only does the word "testament" never occur even once in the Old Covenant, but also because the correct interpretation for the Greek diatheke (διαθηκη) is "covenant." It should always be translated as "covenant."

Second, a period of 400 years separates these two great divisions, between the last book of the Old Covenant and the first events recorded in Luke 1.

Third, Yahweh's dealings with men in two great eras is clearly witnessed in a number of passages of Scripture. "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached" (Luke 16:16). "For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son" (Heb. 1:1-2).

From the last passage, it is clear that there are two different eras: (1) "in time past," and (2) "in these last days." This is verified further from the writings of the New Covenant authors. Observe:

"'AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says, 'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;'" Acts 2:17

"Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." 1 Corinthians 10:11

"But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come." 2 Timothy 3:1

"Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure!" James 5:3

"For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you." 1 Peter 1:20

"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts," 2 Peter 3:3

"Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour." 1 John 2:18

We have been in the "last days" for the past 2,000 years. The next event to occur is the Second Coming of King Jesus. There will be no "Millennial Kingdom." Everything about this nonsensical belief, and Jewish myth, is illogical. Not to mention that 2 Peter 3:10 completely obliterates the possibility for this belief. When Jesus returns, everything is going to be burned up. So where does it leave this seventh "dispensation"? When Jesus returns to judge the world in sin and righteousness, eternity begins.

As if that was not clear enough, it is acknowledged in Hebrews 9:26 that the period of Jesus' First Coming and of His sacrifice belongs to "the end of the ages": "Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation [end] of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Dispensationalists place in the "dispensation" of law so that they can separate His words (particularly His Teaching on the Mount) from us, Yahweh's children. Perhaps this is why they believe that the believer does not have to repent or be obedient, attempting to label them as "works" because, like most believers, they have no clue what Paul was addressing.

It is time believers started acting like the Bereans and searching the Scriptures, paying attention to what is actually said—in context, rather than blindly believing what some preacher behind a pulpit, or a "study" Bible, has to tell them. Stop outsourcing your intellect and faith and start proving yourself "a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."

Jesus on Non-violence

From the very beginning, Christians had always renounced war, violence, and killing of every sort. However, from the fourth century onward, and especially within American "Christianity," men opposed the teachings of Jesus and attempted to use Scripture to justify their perverse and godless thinking and behaviour. One ignorant clown, Jeffrey Mann, attempts to argue that it is a "myth" that Jesus taught and practiced non-violence. Anyone who thinks this has never read the Scriptures and quite obviously refuses to submit to and be obedient to Jesus' commands.

Jesus said that Christians are to be peacemakers. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Matt. 5:9) But He does not stop there. "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kings of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matt. 5:10-12). How were the prophets persecuted? They were violently assaulted and/or put to death! Followers of Jesus are to be peacemakers, following the path of peace (Rom. 12:18; Heb. 12:14; cf. 2 Cor. 13:11; Gal. 5:22; James 3:17).

Jesus' position on non-violence was made abundantly clear in His Teaching on the Mount. "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you" (Matt. 5:38-42). This was not just about one's honour being assaulted. Paul explained this further when he said, "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone" (Rom. 12:17), and then quoted from the Old Testament: "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head" (Rom. 12:20).

Jesus went even further: "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:43-48).

Why were you commanded to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"? The answer is crystal clear: "So that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." Scripture reveals that Jesus did not just teach these things, but practiced them (Matthew 10:23; 26:51-53; Luke 4:28-30; John 8:49; 10:39). This operates on the principle found in Romans 13:10: "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Jeffrey Mann ignorantly argues, "This sweet sentimental notion of love would surely denounce locking people in cells for decades. We could never imprison murderers. Should we all simply forgive them when they do awful things? This clearly cannot be what Jesus intended." This demonstrates his vast ignorance of reality, and of Scripture. He makes a great many assumptions and conclusions drawn from assumptions. Yes, Christians are to forgive. See Matthew 18:21-22. The government, however, is to met out justice. That is their role. The government puts people in prison according to their laws. If someone murders a member of a Christian's family, the Christian is to forgive them while the law is to judge and condemn them. There is no opposition or contradiction here, save for the ignorant and unlearned.

Jesus also said, "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell" (Matt. 5:21-22). Jesus expanded the meaning of this command by revealing the spirit of the law against taking human life. He showed that it is not just the physical act of murder that breaks the command, but inner anger and hostility toward others also breaks it. The apostle John made clear this teaching: "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him" (1 John 3:15; cf. 1 John 2:9-11).

When Jesus was going to travel through Samaria on His way to Jerusalem, a route that would typically be avoided by Jews, the Samaritans refused to receive Him. "When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." And they went on to another village." (Luke 9:54-56). Jesus rebuked His disciples because violence was to have no place in their practice or in their hearts.

On the night of His arrest, "Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus" (John 18:10). What was Jesus response? "Put the sword into the sheath" (v.11). "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword" (Matt. 26:52). He then healed the man's ear.

Jesus taught how to prevent violence and cut it off at its origins by teaching His followers to love their enemies (Matt. 5:43-45). By refusing to see anyone as an enemy, the violence that begins in the heart is stopped before it can fester. If and when violence should break out, Jesus taught how to use practical transforming initiatives that intervene and stop the escalation of violence (Matt. 5:38-42). Jesus taught how to attack and overcome the causes of violence through civil resistance—non-violent direct action. Jesus taught and modeled the way to reconcile a community after it has been ravaged by violence and division in order to bring the community back together again (Matt. 18:15-17, 20; 18:21; Luke 23:14). Jesus demonstrated how to defend both the innocent and guilty with non-violent action instead of violence (John 8:4-10). Jesus taught how to build a community and culture of non-violence as an antithesis to regimes of domination through violence. He taught and modeled how to live a life of non-violence to the full, and to the end. If you love your neighbour and your enemy, you will do nothing but good to him. No matter what he might do to you, you are commanded to love him.

Out of his ignorance, Jeffrey Mann argues, "While the idea of Jesus as the paragon of niceness and non-violence sits well in our imaginations, it is not true to the historical individual; it is not fair to those who serve in our militaries; and it is not helpful in working through the complex ethical questions that we must struggle with in a violent world."

Jeffrey Mann knows nothing of the historical individual of Jesus. Yes, the teaching of non-violence is fair to those who serve in our militaries because those who profess to be Christian should not be doing so! At least not in a capacity where it involves taking the lives of others. The early Christians lived in a world that was more violent than our own and yet they obeyed the teachings of Jesus and did not seek violence against those who sought to violently assault them. Nowhere in the New Testament or the first three centuries of the early Christians will you find advocacy for "self-defense"! Jesus does not differentiate between "being persecuted for your faith" and "being violently assaulted," and neither did the early Christians. All violence was repudiated: "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone" (Rom. 12:17). Jeffrey would do well to educate himself on history instead of spewing his perverse anti-Christ nonsense.

Jeffrey would do well to not only read the Scriptures and pay attention to the teachings of Jesus, but also to pay attention to the first three centuries of Christian believers who took Jesus' teachings literally. Christians refused to serve in the military, and if they were already serving in the military when they got saved, they sought another position within it so that they did not have to violate their consciences. Until the heretic Augustine, biblical Christians who were obedient to the teachings of Jesus would rather suffer a harm than to harm another individual. "Self-defense" was not a legitimate argument! Ignorant people attempt to dismiss the legitimacy of non-violence by asking a person who believes in such ridiculous questions like, "What would you do if someone broke into your house and wanted to rape and murder your wife or daughter? To do nothing makes you worse than the perpetrator, does it not?" They erroneously assume that the only way to protect someone threatened with violence is with intervening violence. They neglect to explain Jesus' intervening for the woman caught in adultery and the multitude that wanted to stone her to death. Jesus did not respond with violence in order to protect her.

Augustine, the Roman Catholics, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the like are not the authority on this issue. If you desire to understand the biblical truth, you must pay attention to the teachings of Jesus and the actions of His disciples who were the recipients of those teachings. Out of his sheer ignorance, Jeffrey Mann (and those like him) references where Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple as his "proof" that Jesus engaged in violence. When Jesus did this, He alluded to Isaiah 56:3-8 to remind the leaders that the Temple was meant to be the city on the hill whose light would reach all nations, and added an allusion to Jeremiah 7:1-14 (itself delivered from the gate of the Temple) to warn against relying on ritual purity if accompanied by social injustice.

Maybe Jeffrey should learn how to read Scripture in context when it is addressing those who wield the sword and met out the justice of God. Paul is writing to Christian believers and telling them to submit to the secular authorities because God has instituted them. People like Jeffrey read into this text what is not there and impose their own godless ideas upon it.

Both the early Christians of the first three centuries and the Anabaptists taught and practiced non-violence, and their numbers grew as a result of the persecution they endured. If you are a Christian, American, America is not your home. You are a stranger and a sojourner here. Your citizenship is in Heaven, and as such you should be behaving in a manner that is reflective of being an ambassador thereof.

Let us review what the early Christians had to say on the issue, shall we:

"Christians … love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life.  They are poor, yet make many rich;  they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonored, and yet in their very dishonor are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless;  they are insulted, and repay the insult with honor; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life. They are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred." —Letter to Diognetus

"We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies" —Justin Martyr

"For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" [Is. 2:3]. And that this did come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem men went out into the world, twelve in number and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking; but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God. Now we who used to murder one another do not only refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ. For that saying, "The tongue has sworn but the mind is unsworn" [a justification for lying used in Justin's time], might be imitated by us in this matter. But if the soldiers enrolled by you, who have taken the military oath, prefer their allegiance to their own life, parents, country, and all kindred, though you can offer them nothing incorruptible, it would be truly ridiculous if we, who earnestly long for incorruption, should not endure all things in order to obtain what we desire from him who is able to grant it." —Justin Martyr

"We who were filled with war, mutual slaughter, and every wickedness have each, through the whole earth, changed our warlike weapons—our swords into ploughshares and our spears into implements of tillage. In their place, we cultivate godliness, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father himself through the One who was crucified." —Justin Martyr

"We have learned not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us. Instead, even to those who strike us on one side of the face, we offer the other side also." —Athenagoras

"For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism? Who does not reckon among the things of greatest interest the contests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those which are given by you? But we, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How, then, when we do not even watch, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder?" —Athenagoras

"For we are not to delineate the faces of idols, we who are prohibited to cleave to them; nor a sword, nor a bow, since we follow peace." —Clement of Alexandria

"The Christian does no harm even to his enemy." —Tertullian

"God puts His prohibition on every sort of man-killing by that one inclusive commandment: 'You shall not kill.' " —Tertullian

"They will inquire concerning the works and occupations of those who are brought forward for instruction. If someone is a pimp who supports prostitutes, he shall cease or shall be rejected. If someone is a sculptor or a painter, let them be taught not to make idols. Either let them cease or let them be rejected. If someone is an actor or does shows in the theater, either he shall cease or he shall be rejected. If someone teaches children (worldly knowledge), it is good that he cease. But if he has no (other) trade, let him be permitted. A charioteer, likewise, or one who takes part in the games, or one who goes to the games, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. If someone is a gladiator, or one who teaches those among the gladiators how to fight, or a hunter who is in the wild beast shows in the arena, or a public official who is concerned with gladiator shows, either he shall cease, or he shall be rejected. If someone is a priest of idols, or an attendant of idols, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses, he shall be rejected. If someone is a military governor, or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God. The prostitute, the wanton man, the one who castrates himself, or one who does that which may not be mentioned, are to be rejected, for they are impure. A magus shall not even be brought forward for consideration. An enchanter, or astrologer, or diviner, or interpreter of dreams, or a charlatan, or one who makes amulets, either they shall cease or they shall be rejected. If someone's concubine is a slave, as long as she has raised her children and has clung only to him, let her hear. Otherwise, she shall be rejected. The man who has a concubine must cease and take a wife according to the law. If he will not, he shall be rejected." —Hippolytus

"To those who inquire of us from where we come, or who is our founder, we reply that we have come agreeably to the counsels of Jesus. We have cut down our hostile, insolent, and wearisome swords into plowshares. We have converted into pruning hooks the spears that were formerly used in war. For we no longer take up 'sword against nation,' nor do we 'learn war anymore.' That is because we have become children of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our Leader." —Origen

"Who among the believers does not know the words in Isaiah? "In the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be revealed, and the house of the Lord on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills. All nations shall come to it. Many people shall go and say, 'Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us his way, and we will walk in it." For out of Zion shall go forth a law, and a word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people. They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall they learn war any more [Isa. 1:2-5]." —Origen
[The early Christians used Isaiah 1:2-5 so regularly that every Christian was familiar with it, believing this passage to be fulfilled by Jesus and His apostles who brought the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem to the entire world, creating a kingdom that lived in peace and refused warfare.]

"Christians do not attack their assailants in return, for it is not lawful for the innocent to kill even the guilty." —Cyprian

"The whole world is wet with mutual blood, and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, yet is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale." —Cyprian