University of Truth Emails
1. Katlyn believes she has caught me in a double standard. Her statements are in bold, my responses follow.
You said: "The first category is 'passages not spoken by Christ' and these include John 1:1, Luke 2:11, John 4:41, Acts 5:31, Acts 13:23, and 1 John 4:14. I exclude these as being suspect, for they are opinions of men."
Katlyn, when you gave John 1:1 as a reference, you added, "This is easily proven by Christ's own words." Therefore, I categorized John 1:1 as excluded from that statement. I do not exclude John 1:1 in any other way. Dennis and I have discussed that verse many times in recordings, and I have cited it in various writings.
If you can exclude John 1:1, then you need to exclude John 1:14 and not use it in your repertoire of verses that you like to use. Not an accusation on my part, just an obvious contradiction on your part. This behavior of choosing certain verses to be excluded, while other verses written by the same author are truth, is why I could never believe your arguments as being valid in any way.
You are free to believe as you like. You are also wrong. You yourself excluded John 1:1 by including the phrase "This is easily proven by Christ's own words." My advice is to be more careful when making claims. John 1:1 is not words of Christ. Nevertheless, John 1:1 stands on its own. "In the beginning was the Word (Torah), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There is nothing for me to dodge - the verse agrees with me.
Furthermore, John 1:6 says "God sent his messenger, a man named John, who came to tell people about the light, so that all should hear the message and believe." If John is a messenger sent by God, then shouldn't we believe all that he has written in his Gospel? By saying that pieces of what he says can be excluded, you are excluding a message from God! Or, is John 1:6 merely an opinion as well?
You are in error here. John 1:6 is speaking of
John the Baptist, not John the author. But if you were correct that John
is speaking of himself, is he self-anointing? However, this is
hypothetical, since this John is actually speaking of another John. And
even so, every sentence in the book of John is useful to be examined.
Nothing he says have we excluded from discussion. As to whether anything
he says is opinion, the question should be: Who is John that he ought to be
believed without question? The only words I believe without question are
those of Torah. By questioning Christ, we have come to the conclusion that
He is perfect according to Torah. Is it improper to question? Is it
improper to make discernment? Is it improper to exclude that which is
Good luck in your endeavors to spread "the truth." I think we both know that there are some major issues with how you are going about discovering the truth. I hope you will both open your minds and see this.
Your willingness to depart without seeing your errors in the use of the English language causes you to judge what you perceive to be antithetical. For my part, I have expounded John 1:1 here and elsewhere - there is no deliberate exclusion. You will not find that deficiency in us.
As for Jesus, you need to be aware that Dennis and I both believe He is the Son of God, which is exactly who He says He is. Perhaps you ought to ponder why it's important for you to disparage the Hebraic mindset and the lawfulness of Christ. Any further doctrine, specifically that Son=Father (homoousios), can be disproven by Christ's own words and actions. Be sure to read our next book, "The Arrogance," for the full story. I think you'll find it enjoyable.