BIBLE TROLLS UNITE!!!

To get the bit picture of this, go here, and read.

Tony Jones’ fascinating exchange with Chris Rosebrough

And put on your focus on this comment of Jones'

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Chris, I have deleted all of the Bible verses that you've cut and pasted from elsewhere. You are free to come and troll here on my blog, but you cannot copy-and-paste from elsewhere. We can all read the Bible for ourselves. Also, prepare to be ignored. Those of us to spend time on this blog daily have changed a lot since your last visit. We don't really argue with trolls anymore.]

So, in other words, you go around quote Scripture to Tony Jones, then you're a troll.

The article linked to above has the Scripture passages that Jones deleted.

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.” (1 John 2:1–5)


“without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Hebrews 9:22)

“Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:23–28)

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)

Yep, posting those four passages above made Rosebrough a troll. Doing something similar would likely make any of us one, too, in the eyes of Jones and those like him.

Fine with me. Just call me Detritus.

book review--Angels in the Realms of Heaven by Kevin Basconi

tedious and scripturally suspect

I received a free copy of this book through the Destiny Image Book Review program

Where to begin? Well, first, this book is tedious and repetitious. Each account of his encounters begins in roughly the same way, proceeds along the same lines, and basically seem like minor variations on each other. Whatever else may be said about Rick Joyner and his own accounts of similar encounters, at least his books make for interesting reading.

But that aspect could be accept, or at least tolerated, if Basconi's book was biblical sound in what it teaches. I don't think it is, though. A lot of what is taught seems more than a little suspect scripturally.

While he doesn't go into it much in this book, he does make mention a few times of his teaching about Melchizedek. "However, as I taught in the second book of this trilogy, you can also access the realms of Heaven as a priest after the order of Melchizedek in this lifetime. You can visit Heaven now." However, when the author of Hebrews deals with Christ being a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, it uses that in reference only to Christ, and never even hints at applying it to believers.

Plus, there is his idea that "You can visit Heaven now". "Thus also allowing you and I to have these same supernatural privileges by blazing a trail and making a way for us to be seated at God’s right hand in the heavenly places far above all principality, power, might, dominion, and every name that is named among men. That is our call- ing and inheritance—and we can step into it in this lifetime (see Eph. 1:18-20, Rev. 1:5-6; 5:9-10)." However, these passages say nothing about us having the power or the right to visit Heaven now.

And, like any good NAR minister would, he ties his experiences to health and wealth. "Jesus took me from sickness to health. He took me from hopelessness to happiness. The Messiah transformed my mindset and took me from poverty to prosperity in the natural realm. All of these wonderful blessings unfolded in my life in a supernaturally quick and efficient manner once I began to visit Heaven. Supernatural grace and favor with both God and man are the fruit of heavenly visitations." Considering that he relates times when he would blow off his job, I guess he needed a bit of angelic assistance to get the bills paid.

Funny, though, when Paul talks about the revelations he had (I'm not so sure he was referring to himself when he talked about a man who had been to the Third Heaven, but that's a side issue at best), he doesn't seem to have gotten the health and wealth aspect of them. Instead, he got some hardships, like the much-speculated-about thorn in the flesh, and all the physical hardships he listed in II Corinthians.

Concerning Basconi's accounts of his visits to Heaven, as far as I'm concerned, he really had encounters of some kind. But I think there are a few reasons for questioning the sources of those encounters.

One of the biggies is a time when he claimed to have seen and touched the wound in one of Jesus' hands, "This was the first time that I had looked closely and studied the scars of His hands. Jesus allowed me to place my index finger into the indention where the nail pierced His palm." The problem is, very likely the nails were driven through Christ's wrists, not the palms of His hands.

At one point, he claimed that he was taken to a vault full of mantles. "I saw boxes that contained the mantles of saints of old, and I saw mantles of people who had lived in more recent times such as Smith Wigglesworth, Maria Woodworth Etter, Kathryn Kuhlman, and William Seymour." There is nothing in the Bible about such mantles.

This part about mantles gets really weird when he talks about the mantles of people who were and are not children of God, like the Beatles. Again, nothing in the Bible about these mantles. Not a word.

He relates another time, where he goes to a place with spare body parts floating around in jars. "This was the vault of spare body parts, and they would be released to people on earth who needed them." Who knew that God could only heal you if He has the right spare parts around?

And, for some reason, both the mantle vault and this place with the body parts have doors with hermetic seals, and he assures us that the spare body parts room is sterile. Didn't know Heaven had germs.

To sum it up, this book is simply not all that good. Do we need these kinds of encounters to know that Heaven is real, that God is real? I'm reminded of the story that Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus, where Abraham told the rich man in Hell that even if one should return from the dead, the rich man's brothers would not believe. I'm reminded as well of Paul's own silence on the things seen in the Third Heaven by himself or some other man.

And far too much of what this man teaches doesn't add up biblically. The Bible nowhere tells us to try to have trips to Heaven in this life. It nowhere says that these trips to Heaven are guarateed to give us health and wealth.

There're so many better books out there that will teach you what the Bible says. Look for those, and don't bother with this one.

en passant, and it's free

So, it looks like the time for the free offer has expired.

Well, for a few days.

En Passant

It's only in the Kindle format, and it'll be free for only a few days, but I do hope you'll take a gander of it, and maybe give some feedback, good or ill. Either would be welcomed, and appreciated.

a bit of something funny

I found this amusing.



I think Hobbes sums it up best at the end of this comic strip.

http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2010/06/02

book review--Growing in the Prophetic by Mike Bickle

one reason the prophetic is a joke

Assuming, at least for the moment, that the prophetic is still something for today (debatable), it would still be true that no small amount of what Bickle writes in this book is not just unhelpful, but damaging, and I've little doubt that it is one of the reasons that the prophetic has deservedly earned itself a bad name.


For example, take this statement, "The primary way that the Father will show us what He is doing is by speaking to us in the “still, small voice.” The Father will also give us whispers or hints of what He is about to do. The “divine hint” may come as a subtle prophetic impression on our mind." (Kindle Locations 3386-3389). He tries to tie this to the account of the prophet Elijah hearing a still, small voice while he was on the mountain, but what happened to the prophet is not what Bickle says he and others experience. Elijah heard a real voice, not some kind of vague internal 'voice' that's actually little more than a feeling that can be interpreted any number of ways.

I would dare say that few modern-day teachings has been the source of more confusion, mistakes, hesitancy, and just all-around goofiness than the stress so many put on trying to hear some kind of quiet, inner voice. The Bible teaches nothing about our need to hear such a thing.

Another example is how he waters down the biblical requirement that anyone who prophecies be 100% accurate. "The New Testament doesn’t require the same standard of its prophets who prophesy by faith and often from subtle impressions of the Holy Spirit. (Kindle Locations 1121-1123). He gives no place where that is stated in the New Testament, but simply tries to extrapolate it. "In the New Testament, Paul taught us specifically to “let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (1 Cor. 14:29, emphasis added). The Revised Standard Version translates the passage this way: “ . . . let the others weigh what is said.”" (Kindle Locations 1124-1126). But he does not explain how that means that prophetic accuracy is no longer required, or how it downplays the importance of accuracy, or for that matter what the church was to do to those who prophecied falsely.

And in the New Testament, we are not given any instances of someone prophecying something wrong. All of the prophets in the New Testament were just as accurate as those in the Old. If one is going to say that prophecy is still for today, then watering down the need and requirement for absolute accuracy is dangerous.

But to work around this, Bickle spend much of this book explain his rather convoluted measures for determining who can prophesy, what kinds of prophecies they can give when, who has what level of prophetic ability, how to handle it when prophecies are wrong, and so on. It makes one long for the blunt simplicity of the Old Testament--you'd better be right, or the consequences will be serious. In other words, you'd better be very sure it's God telling you to say this and that. If all you got is a vague inner feeling, you'd best keep your trap shut.

One serious warning sign about Bickle's teachings has to do with what he says about a false prophet and teacher of yesteryear, "However, Branham ended up preaching some doctrinal heresy, although never to the extent of denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or doubting the authority of the Scriptures." (Kindle Locations 2244-2246). But the truth is, those are the very things Branham got very wrong. He was a modalist who even taught that "In the beginning He (Jesus) wasn't even God", and he taught that the Zodiac and the pyramids were equal to the Bible. Bickle is flat-out wrong in his statement about Branham.

All in all, this book is a theological mess.

movie review--hansel and gretel

not really worth it


I kinda wish I could give this movie a better review than I'm going to, but the truth is, it's not all that good of a movie.

It's kinda fun. It has a few little twists and turns. The effects aren't bad. There's a bit of effective humor. But in the end, it was rather a "blah" kind of movie.

Renner is one of the better action movie actors, which was shown last year with The Avengers and the Bourne movie, and he put in a solid enough performance here. In fact, the acting itself was fairly good, overall. And I'll give the idea, what happened to the two kids after they escapse the witch in the candy house, a bit for creativity.

So, what's my problems with the movie?

First, the scene at the pool. I'll not go into details about it, but it was a bit more than I was expecting, and not in a good way.

Second, while there were a few original elements, all in all the story was very typical. No real surprises.

Third, the language, especially going up to the last fight scene. There were a few instances of language throughout, and there are probably plenty of movies out there with much more, but for whatever reason, it was still jarring and unwelcomed.

The enemies, the witches, were almost all extremely typical of the types of villains on shows and in movies these days--bizarrely made-up and screeching, reminding me most of Wraiths from the Stargate: Atlantis series. They just weren't interesting enough.

And, of course, we're told that there are good witches, too. Yeah, I know, if you've seen The Wizard of Oz, that's hardly a new idea. Just don't buy it.

I don't think I'll be re-watching this one. Just not worth it.

book review--The Call by Rick Joyner

tastes funny

There is an impression I get when I read the things written by modern prophets, like this book by Joyner, "The Call". It's not a subtle thing, though it's not an easy thing to correctly label. The best way I can think of to compare it to is "taste". Things like "The Call" taste funny. For me, comparing biblical prophetic books like Isaiah, Ezekial, and Zechariah to things like "The Call" is like comparing a fine, quality cheese to processed, plastic-wrapped cheese slices, or a well-prepared grilled steak to a hastily-prepared fast-food burger.

But while I think there is something to that impression, it is only an impression, only subjective. There are objective reasons, though, for a reader who practices biblical discernment to question the things Joyner has written in this book.

One is found in the Introduction, where Joyner writes, "Never are we told that prophecy is infallible, which is why we must judge prophecy" (p 22); however, Deuteronomy 18 says otherwise, "21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."

In chapter 1, Wisdom, some kind of personification of Jesus, speaks against examining oneself. "You began to look at yourself. This will always bring confusion, making it harder for you to hear Me...You must learn to abide in My presence without becoming self-conscious and self-absorbed..." (p 31); however, in I Corinthians 11 we are told to examine ourselves when we partake of the Lord's Supper, and in II Corinthians 13 Paul tells them to examine and test themselves, to see if they are really in the faith, because they have been listening to false apostles.

In chapter 2, he gives a bizarre interpretation to Revelation 13, which he says came to him from Jonah. " If you will wake yourself up, repent and go the way that He sends you, you will not have to be swallowed by the beast... As you read in that chapter (Revelation 13), this beast is given to make war with the saints and to overcome them. This will happen to all who do not repent." (p 48); however, that is not what Revelation 13 says, "5 And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. 7 Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, 8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." The beast will be against the saints and will to overcome them, but the unrepentent will worship it.

In another place, he claims that the Lord said to him, "...I can command the heavens and they obey Me, but I cannot command love. Love commanded is not love at all." (p 60); however, what did Christ say was the first and greatest commandment? To love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. What did He say was the second? To love your neighbor as yourself. Love isn't just commanded, but is it commanded in the two greatest commandments.

Lot tells Joyner, "What the Lord did to Sodom, He did as an example so that others would not have to be destroyed in this way." (p 42); however, II Peter 2 tells us something a bit different, "6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, a making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;". Peter's statement, made through the Spirit's inspiration, is rather the opposite of Joyner's.

One of the more interesting statements comes from Wisdom, "The wages of sin is death, and the wages of righteousness are peace, joy, glory, and honor. All are about to receive their worthy wages." (p 56). The first part is not the problem, but the part about "the wages of righteousness" is rather bothersome biblically. Consider this, from Romans 4, "What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,". And this, from Romans 3, "21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," I have not found the phrase "wages of righteousness" anywhere in the Bible; in fact, "wages of righteousness" seems an oxymoronic statement. If we were to receive our wages, we would receive death. God's righteousness is not a wage, but a gift received by faith.

Another strange statement from Wisdom is this, "The truth that I am sending will not just convict My people of their sin, but will cleanse them from their sin." (p 175); however, we who believe in Christ already have been cleansed from sin by His blood, as Ephesians 1 says, "7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,"

To finish off this review, here's a bit of something Jonah tells him, "When you go through that door, you will enter the times when the Lord's power and glory will be released on the earth such as He has not done since the beginning of time. All of heaven has been waiting for the things you are about to see." This is simply an example of what seems to be the fundamental premise of the book--how important Joyner is. Because in his visions he goes through a door, something unprecedented is going to happen. Wisdom tells him all kinds of things, so that he'll be able to tell everyone else. Even when he gets rebuked, it only serves to emphasize his importance.

To sum up, we have good reason to think that the visions Joyner claimed to have receive and written about in this book are less than divine. The way the people in his visions mishandle biblical passages and statements is a sure clue that something is rotten in them. There is much sounder biblical teaching out there.

he may as well admit that he denies it

Do I Deny the Resurrection?

There is a certain aspect of postmodernism that is especially annoying; namely, their lack of ability to actually give answer a question. Instead, what we get is a lot of words that basically don't answer the question at all.

For example, this guy claims that people sometimes ask him this kind of question. One would think that it would be a simple enough question to answer. But, oh, no, not for a super-clever postmodern like him, no indeed-y.

Instead, he quotes something from Peter Rollins. That's never a good sign, unless you're doing it to show how ridiculous Rollins is. For some reason, this guy thinks Rollins isn't ridiculous. The PR quote basically doesn't answer the question. But if you point that out, well, here's this article writer's reply...

As you might expect, this does not calm the questioners down. They accuse me of not understanding the question. I understand the question perfectly well. I think they are the ones who do not know what they are asking.

Translation: "Ah, yes, you silly idiotic people, how dare you expect me to actually answer your question!"

He goes on to try to make his position even more clear, and it basically comes down to this...politics. Apparently, Jesus' death was less about Him dying for our sins, but rather about Him spitting in the eyes of those in power in Rome, even though Jesus lived and was crucified several hundreds of miles away from the city of Rome, never visited Rome, and never tried to cause a rebellion against Rome.

If I act hateful, or in fact, less than loving to my neighbor, I have denied the resurrection just as surely as my selling state secrets to China denies my allegiance to the USA...And I can believe whatever you want about what happened that Sunday morning, but if I am not using what power I have to help God bring the Kingdom into fruition, to help make it on Earth as it is in Heaven, I don’t expect you to call me a Christian.

So, that's his position...it doesn't matter. Do you believe Jesus really rose from the dead, or not? It's not important, just do whatever this guy things you should do to "...help God bring the Kingdom into fruition...".

In other words, salvation by works. Grace alone, faith only, through Christ alone? Hogwash!! No, you've got to work for it!

See, his wishy-washiness isn't grace, it's law. It puts you back under the burden of keeping the law, or at least his version of it. Fight the powers, be a good little socialistic activist, try to bring God's kingdom to earth. It doesn't matter what you belief, but it sure matters what you do.

And so he denies the resurrection, and so he is not a Christian.