I am indebted to the following people who have inspired me in my search for truth. In fact I am seriously impressed. These are my heroes. If my views deviate a little from theirs it is not a criticism. It is just where I am at in my search for truth. Despite some differences of opinion I highly recommend these leaders and their video clips to those who have an interest in knowing the truth.

 

 

Dr. Michael Brown – A Jewish convert - An exceptional intellect – a debater and teacher.  I agree with about 98% of his teachings. That would have to be a record. We deviate a little on homosexuality, the trinity and some Old Testament foreshadowing of Jesus. Having said that I probably need to explain my position. See notes below.)

Recommend start with his testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y52AFriobOE

 

Rabbi Johnathan Cahn – A Jewish convert - A mine of fascinating information – Famous for his book  “The Harbinger”. Recommend starting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptlsXtTf6n0

​

The late Nabeel Qureshi – A muslim convert – Achieved more than most in his 34 years of life.

Recommend starting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZGXjrSRWk

 

Daniel Wallace – A professor of New Testament Studies focusing on Textual criticism.

Recommend starting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0v6JItV5-w

 

David Rohl - From rock band musician, to recording engineer, to director of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences, to Egyptologist, and best selling author. An exceptional intellect. His work on Biblical history is invaluable although heavily criticized by the establishment. Not sure of his faith.

Recommend starting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEm-ovpMM5c

 

 

Notes

Why my view differs a little from that of Dr. Michael Brown (and others).

 

The Trinity

I was brought up to believe in the trinity. I still worship in a trinity believing church and I am comfortable with others holding that belief. In fact one of my favorite video clips - https://gloria.tv/post/JSde7mKED9Me4k1mTzjY3muCh - promotes the trinity.  I am the odd man out. The reason I have abandoned that belief is that it is not taught in the Bible. Dr. Michael Brown has come close to my thinking – as close as you can come and still believe in the trinity. The common belief in the trinity is that in the beginning there were three spirits (presumably three Holy Spirits) that collectively make up God. Where did they get that from? Not the Bible. There is not a single text in the entire Bible that points to a trinity. I discuss all the texts that are supposed to support a trinity in a separate article under the Articles menu.

 

In the beginning God was and still is one spirit. He incarnated into human form as Jesus. At that point in history, God in the body of Jesus was constrained in knowledge and power while at the same time God beyond the body continued to operate with full omnipotence and omniscience. God in both forms has only ever been one spirit. At the present time in history Jesus and the father are the same one spirit - not two or three and there has never been a third person. That is a fabrication of the church. Whether Jesus was a second person during his time on Earth, comes down to definitions. I won’t argue if you want to say it, but it doesn’t fit my definition.

 

Homosexuality

For many years I held pretty much the same view as Dr. Brown. I have moderated my view after considerable reflection and the realization that Satan wants us to take a hardline stiff-necked position that is actually off beam. He wants us to forget that God is compassionate. He wants us to think God has commandments that are just there for no other purpose than to test the obedience of certain unfortunate people.

 

We are called to selfless love. This is the reigning standard of God’s requirement of us. It is absolutely consistent with the admonition to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with God. I suggest the only additional requirement is to meticulously honour any agreement you make with God.

 

Why does the Old Testament project a hardline view? It’s because the Israelites made a critically important agreement with God – so important it was inscribed in stone. Contrary to common belief the stones are inscribed with the whole agreement, not just ten commandments.

 

The Israelites agreed, (albeit rather blindly) to become actors in pre-enacting God’s plan for humanity. The terms of the agreement became known as the “Law”. Just as Hollywood requires perfection of its actors, God required perfection of his actors. Why were the blind and lame not allowed in the temple? For the same reason Hollywood didn’t hire a blind and lame person for the role of Superman. On one level the Levitical clauses on homosexuality fall into this category. The stage had to be spotless to teach spotless redemption.

 

Why does Leviticus call homosexual acts between men as an abomination or loathsome act whereas sacrificing children to horrific death by incineration avoids that description? My guess is that abomination is referring to anal sex which physically fits that description. However I believe anal sex is common among heterosexual couples and would also deserve that description. In the New Testament do not be misled by the bias of translators. The references to homosexuals in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 are specifically references to all who practice anal sex.

 

On another level the Levitical clauses relate to a “custom” of the land. Canaan had an overt custom of sexual depravity, an apparent drawcard of which was anal sex with the qedishim priests of Ashteroth. In other words it was integrated with idolatry. The idolatry was seemingly encouraging of incest, adultery and bestiality. According to Plutarch, the worship of Molech involved the sacrifice of children by sliding them into a furnace in the belly of an idol. A loud clamour of flutes and drums was used to drown out the screams of the infants. God had a reason for driving the Canaanites out of the land and it was far more serious than testing the obedience of those unfortunate few who had a particular sexual persuasion.

 

However here is the important thing to note. The punishment for homosexuality among Israelites was death because of the agreement the nation had made. The punishment for homosexuality among Canaanites was far more mild. It was simply displacement and I would suggest the prime reason for displacement was idolatry not homosexuality per se.

 

If we take Leviticus as a commandment to the whole world surely we should be equally warning men who trim their beards or have haircuts in direct violation of God’s commandments in Leviticus 19:27. My guess is that it is not a commandment to the whole world. It is a commandment within the context of the stage play the Israelites signed up for, just as Hollywood decides what haircuts its actors must have.

 

We are called to keep the commandments of Jesus.  His general commandments to the world are: Repent, love, forgive and do not  blaspheme the Holy Spirit. His numerous other instructions are either good advice or specific to an audience.

 

I have had the privilege of witnessing a loving relationship between homosexuals that would put 99% of heterosexual relationships to shame. I saw selfless love even to death that would have put 99% of Christians to shame. On top of that it was Jesus motivated love. I am certain God holds them in highest honour. Yes, homosexuality is out of accord with God’s design, but is this nature producing faulty units? Who am I to judge? Can we be certain that all these individuals are truly man or truly woman or something else? Of course we cannot. We cannot universally put all seemingly homosexual relationships in the sexual immorality basket.  In my judgement there are far more heterosexual relationships that disappoint God than there are homosexual relationships. It has been reported that more than one third of marriages are characterized by either domestic abuse, unfaithfulness or both.

 

A homosexual marriage doesn’t fit the criterion of sacred marriage. It might reflect the love but it is not capable of reflecting the relationship between Christ and the bride of Christ. The church can bless it but it cannot make it fit the sacred marriage mold.

 

So where do we draw the line on God’s commandments? It works like this. Jesus rails against hardheartedness and legalism, warns against greed and lust and promotes love and compassion in looking after widows, supporting the poor, clothing the naked, and supporting the sick and imprisoned. The genuine follower is the one who is so committed to loving and serving that hate, anger, greed, bitterness, unfaithfulness, unfairness, hard-heartedness, abusiveness or depravity are simply over-ruled by love and compassion. They walk humbly with God exulting in the joy of a spotless spirit.

 

They reach out to the poor and suffering whereas previously they may have lived in luxury while others suffered in poverty. They sacrifice their own comfort to bring peace, love, healing, comfort and the knowledge of salvation to others.

 

So now I draw a distinction between those genuine homosexuals who form faithful loving relationships who keep their sexual intimacy to themselves (and possibly never engage in any sex for all I know), and those who engage in the “custom” of depraved sexual practices referred to in Leviticus.

​

The thing I find most disturbing is churches joining the LGBGTQI movement, marching in Gay Mardi Gras parades and proudly displaying the LGBTQI rainbows as if it is an extension of the teaching that "red and yellow black and white all are equal in his sight." I believe the promotion and celebration of  freedom of sexual identification is a prime factor in misorientating vulnerable young people. I have a theory that what a vulnerable child experiences prior to puberty powerfully influences their developing sexual persuasion. In the extreme it leads to vulnerable children seeking surgical sex changes contrary to their chromosome make up. In other words the evil is failing our nurture of vulnerable young children, failing to assist them to develop their natural sexual persuasion, while aiding them to develop unnatural desires and  destroying their lives. 

 

 

Old Testament foreshadowing of Jesus

I see much more foreshadowing of Jesus in the Old Testament than Dr. Brown does. My rationale is that every event has a deliberate meaning. You have to find the meaning that makes sense.  In many cases foreshadowing is the only meaning that makes sense. Dr. Brown rejects the claim that Moses raising his arms is a valid foreshadowing of the crucifixion. When Moses raised his arms the Israelites prevailed and when he lowered his arms the Amalekites prevailed. There is no rational explanation why his raised arms should cause the Israelites to prevail. It has to have a figurative meaning. When Moses arms were tired, Aaron and Hur stayed his arms. The implication is that they secured his arms in an outstretched fashion exactly as if he was secured to a latin cross. When they did so the enemy was defeated. So what figurative meaning would you give to that? I can only think of one that has any consistency with scripture. When I look at Salvadore Dali’s “Christ of St John of the cross” https://www.allposters.com/-sp/Dali-Christ-of-St-John-of-the-Cross-Plastic-Sign-Posters_i9907922_.htm I easily see Moses with his tired arms stayed by Aaron and Hur.