Is The Office Of The Pope A Fulfillment Of Moses' Seat?

          "After Jesus established His Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Peter’s chair became the new seat of authority under the New Covenant. This is why, when the Pope officially speaks on a matter of faith and morals with the intention of proclaiming a universal doctrine for the Church (which is rare), we say He is speaking “ex cathedra” (from the “chair”). Jesus’ use of the “chair of Moses” [Matthew 23:1-2] certainly shows a continuum of authority as the New Covenant replaced the Old." (https://www.scripturecatholic.com/qa-seat-moses/)

          A closer examination of Moses' seat reveals a more symbolic and pragmatic role within the framework of theocratic governance. Moses' seat was emblematic of teaching the Pentateuch, the foundational laws of the Hebrew Bible, and encompassed both religious instruction and civil adjudication (Exodus 18:13–27). Those who sat in Moses’ seat wielded authority to interpret and enforce God's laws, but did not possess any mandate to create new doctrines or laws. Their authority was confined to what was divinely established, a key distinction from the idea of papal authority, which purports the ability to articulate new doctrinal declarations under specific conditions.

          If the chair of Moses served as a prophetic precursor to the papal office, it raises critical questions. Foremost among them: why was the authority of Moses’ seat exercised by multiple leaders simultaneously, rather than centralized under one supreme figure? The distributed nature of this authority contrasts sharply with the Roman Catholic model, which emphasizes the singularity of the pope as the universal shepherd.

          The New Testament provides no explicit linkage between Moses' seat and a “chair of Peter.” Neither does it establish Peter as having successors in an authoritative sense that parallels the imagery of Moses' seat. Even if there were historical evidence of a tradition of succession tied to Moses’ seat (which is absent), it does not logically follow that such succession would extend to the Roman bishopric. Furthermore, the Jewish leaders who occupied Moses' seat were never believed to possess infallibility in teaching—a concept central to Roman Catholic dogma concerning the papacy. On the contrary, the gospels portray the scribes and Pharisees, custodians of Moses' seat, as propagators of significant doctrinal errors. Jesus Himself referred to them as "blind guides" (Matthew 23:16) and criticized their elevation of human traditions to divine status (Matthew 15:1–9).

         While Jesus instructed His followers to heed the teachings derived from the Law and the Prophets as communicated by these leaders, He concurrently warned against emulating their hypocrisy and corruption (Matthew 23:3). The religious leaders of Jesus' time prioritized outward displays of piety and public recognition over genuine devotion to God. Their motivations were rooted in human praise, earning them earthly rewards rather than divine favor. This admonition serves as a universal caution against pride and superficial religiosity, which remains relevant across all religious traditions.

          Significantly, Matthew 23 highlights the dangers of authoritarian leadership when it becomes disconnected from genuine humility and accountability. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for using their positions of authority to burden others with heavy, oppressive expectations while failing to offer meaningful guidance or assistance (Matthew 23:4). This pattern of spiritual leadership contrasts starkly with Christ’s model of servant leadership, which prioritizes humility, compassion, and serving others (Matthew 20:25–28). A similar critique can be directed toward the concept of centralized papal authority, which, over the centuries, has at times led to the imposition of doctrines and practices that have weighed heavily on the faithful, sometimes without adequate biblical justification.

          Another key issue lies in the nature of authority itself as described in Matthew 23. Jesus explicitly warned against seeking honorific titles or positions that elevate oneself above others, stating, “You have one Teacher, and you are all brothers” (Matthew 23:8). He admonished the scribes and Pharisees for their desire to be called “rabbi” and for placing themselves in a position of spiritual superiority over others (Matthew 23:8–12). This teaching undermines the hierarchical model of authority embraced by the Roman Catholic Church, where the pope is seen as occupying the highest seat of honor. Such practices contradict the egalitarian ethos promoted by Christ, who emphasized humility and mutual service among His followers.

          Throughout Matthew 23, Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees for their focus on external appearances, such as their elaborate garments and public displays of piety, rather than fostering a heart-centered relationship with God (Matthew 23:5–7). This critique resonates today when evaluating the formal and ritualistic elements of the Catholic Church. Even if liturgical practices have spiritual value, they risk becoming empty formalities when divorced from genuine faith and devotion. Jesus’ warning against this type of superficial religiosity calls for a return to the simplicity and authenticity of worship that prioritizes God over human traditions. The reliance on lineage and tradition as justifications for papal authority mirrors the claims of the scribes and Pharisees, whom Jesus rebuked for placing undue emphasis on ancestral ties and human traditions (Matthew 3:7–9; Mark 7:7–13). If the leaders occupying Moses’ seat could err so gravely despite their lineage, then historical succession alone cannot guarantee doctrinal purity or divine favor. This continuity of human fallibility offers a stark caution against equating institutional heritage with spiritual authority.

Does Daniel 7:13-14 Affirm The Deity Of Christ?

          “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14, emphasis added)

          This profound messianic prophecy, articulated through the inspired vision of Daniel, vividly portrays a scene of cosmic significance. God, referred to here as the "Ancient of Days," is revealed as the eternal and sovereign Judge, presiding over the rebellious kingdoms of the earth. These kingdoms are symbolically represented as various beasts, highlighting their transient and chaotic nature in contrast to the eternal and righteous rule of God's kingdom. The establishment of the everlasting throne of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is presented as the climax of divine providence, underscoring His supremacy over all creation and His unique worthiness of worship. This awe-inspiring vision communicates the shared authority of God the Father and God the Son in their rule over heaven and earth.

          The designation "son of man" in this passage holds immense theological weight, as it is the singular instance in the Old Testament where the term exclusively identifies the promised Messiah. In contrast to the earthly perspective of the gospel writers, Daniel's prophetic lens is oriented from the realm of heaven, presenting Christ in His divine glory. Following His resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven, enveloped by clouds, signifying divine approval and fulfillment of prophecy. Now seated at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 10:12), Jesus reigns in majesty and authority, His dominion encompassing all creation and enduring eternally. His throne is not merely symbolic but signifies the fullness of His kingly authority.

          This imagery echoes forward into the apocalyptic visions of Revelation, particularly chapters 4 and 5, where the Lamb of God is uniquely found worthy to open the scroll that decrees the inheritance of the nations. This act signals the culmination of history, as the rebellious powers of the world are decisively vanquished and the kingdom of Christ is fully realized. The authority, glory, and sovereign power ascribed to Him in Daniel 7:13-14 are fully manifested in this ultimate revelation. His reign is adorned with unparalleled majesty and shared glory with the Father, offering a compelling affirmation of His divinity. Christ is not merely a figure of historical significance; He is God incarnate, reigning eternally with the Father, and worthy of unending adoration and devotion.

          Moreover, the interplay between Daniel's vision and the New Testament writings affirms the continuity of God’s redemptive plan. The Son of Man’s dominion, as described in Daniel, reflects the ultimate hope for believers: the restoration of God's perfect order and the unshakable promise of an eternal kingdom. His rule serves as both a source of comfort and a challenge—comfort for those who trust in Him, knowing that His kingdom will never fail, and a challenge to live in alignment with His sovereign will, as faithful subjects of the King of kings.

          Jerome wrote the following in his commentary on Daniel 7:13:

          “And behold, there came One with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of man.” He who was described in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar as a rock cut without hands, which also grew to be a large mountain, and which smashed the earthenware, the iron, the bronze, the silver, and the gold is now introduced as the very person of the Son of man, so as to indicate in the case of the Son of God how He took upon Himself human flesh; according to the statement which we read in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up towards heaven? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him going into heaven' (Acts 1:11)”.

          Wayne A. Grudem provides further insight on the text of Daniel 7:13-14 being a messianic prophecy:

          "Someone who had heavenly origin and who was given eternal rule over the whole world. The high priests did not miss the point of this passage when Jesus said, ‘Hereafter you will see the Son of man seated on the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven‘ (Matt. 26:46). The reference to Daniel 7:13-14 was unmistakable, and the high priest and his council knew that Jesus was claiming to be the eternal world ruler of heavenly origin spoken of in Daniel’s vision. Immediately they said, ‘He has uttered blasphemy…. He deserves death’ (Matt. 26:65-66).” (Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, p. 238)

AMA Statement on Abortion

"There we shall discover an enemy in the camp; there we shall witness as hideous a view of moral deformity as the evil spirit could present…. Men who seek not to save, but to destroy; men known not only to the profession, but to the public, as abortionists….

“Thou shalt not kill.” This commandment is given to all, and applies to all without exception…. Notwithstanding all this, we see in our midst a class of men, regardless of all principle, regardless of all honor; who daily destroy that fair fabric of God’s creation; who daily pull down what he has built up; who act in antagonism to that profession of which they claim to be members….

It matters not at what state of development his victim may have arrived—it matters not how small or how apparently insignificant it may be—it is a murder; a foul, unprovoked murder; and its blood, like the blood of Abel, will cry from earth to Heaven for vengeance….

Every practicing physician in the land (as well as every good man) has a certain amount of interest at stake in this matter…. The members of the profession should form themselves into a special police to watch, and to detect, and bring to justice these characters. They should shrink with horror from all intercourse with them, professionally or otherwise. These men should be marked as Cain was marked; they should be made the outcasts of society."

American Medical Association 1871 statement on abortion, as cited by Randy Alcorn in "Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments," p. 217

Evaluating Roman Catholic Claims Of Apostolic Succession

• The Catechism Of The Roman Catholic Church Says In Regard To Apostolic Succession:

          -“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority. Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.” (CCC # 77)

          -"The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (CCC # 882)

• Apostolic Succession As Defined By The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

          -“…the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic succession...Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles, no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession.…Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles…” (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, "Apostolicity")

• Biblical Arguments Against Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession:

          -There is very little evidence that the Apostle Peter stayed in Rome, apart from the timing of his martyrdom. No one can rightly claim to have the same authority as the apostles, since they are not eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection (Acts 1:22; 1 Corinthians 9:1).
          -The New Testament never records the apostles passing on their authority to successors.
          -The original teachings of Jesus Christ, the apostles, and their closest associates have been accurately recorded and preserved in the New Testament. Scripture equips the man of God for every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Truth can easily be determined when Scripture is properly exegeted.
          -The determining factor of the truthfulness and faithfulness of a church is its adherence to Scripture (Acts 17:11-12). The scribes and Pharisees claimed to have a physical, traceable lineage back to Abraham, yet Christ rejected them (John 8:36-45). We do not need a chain of apostolic successors from Christ and the original apostles to preserve divinely revealed truth (Matthew 3:7-9; Galatians 3:7). The scribes and Pharisees claimed to posses divine extra-biblical tradition, yet Christ publicly refuted them with Scripture (Matthew 15:1-9).
          -The only known historical record containing the inspired words of Jesus Christ and the apostles is the New Testament itself. That is the remnants of apostolic authority. The Encyclopedia Britannica affirms that, "the origins of episcopacy are obscure."

• Is Acts 1:15-26 An Example Of Apostolic Succession, As Roman Catholic Apologists Claim?: 

          -The context of this passage is talking *specifically* about the traitor Judas. Moreover, Acts 1:15-26 does not mention anything about the apostles having future successors. If this passage proves anything at all, then it does not provide us with an argument for apostolic succession. Rather, it provides biblical warrant for replacing ungodly and unfaithful church leaders with ones who are actually fit to serve God.
          -At this point, the apostles did not begin their apostolic ministry. They did not even receive the power Christ had promised to bestow upon them earlier in this chapter (Acts 1:8). The apostles did not receive it until the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, this is not an example of the apostles passing on spiritual authority to successors. The apostles did not have any power at this time.
          -This occasion was the actual replacement of an apostle with another apostle. This is dissimilar with the Roman Catholic teaching of apostolic succession, considering that they teach that only apostolic authority is passed on (not the essence of the office itself). Papal "successors" themselves do not become apostles like Matthias did.

• Does 2 Timothy 2:2 Provide Evidence For Apostolic Succession?:

          -The Apostle Paul exhorts Timothy to pass on the truth of the gospel to "faithful men," not "priests and bishops." This passage merely describes the simple process of discipleship and the passing on of apostolic doctrine (i.e. "what you heard from me"). In fact, this theme is echoed throughout the two epistles written to Timothy (1 Timothy 4:6-11; 16; 2 Timothy 1:13-14; 3:14-15). There is no mention in this context of passing on extra-biblical oral tradition or infallible teaching authority. Catholics simply read these concepts into Scripture. Note that Paul does not say anything in reference to a future successor for himself. Instead, he pointed to Scripture as our rule of faith (2 Timothy 3:16-17). He mentions nothing else for us to turn to in times of deception.

• Apostolic Succession And The Early Church: 

          -When references to apostolic succession appear in the earliest Christian writings, they bear little resemblance to the concept often associated with a process of doctrinal evolution over time. For early Christians, apostolic succession primarily served as a safeguard for preserving doctrinal truth rather than as a framework for the gradual unfolding or adaptation of teaching. Churches founded by the apostles during the first century upheld apostolic succession as a defense against heresies such as Gnosticism, ensuring continuity in the unchanging teachings handed down directly from the apostles. The emphasis was not on the development of doctrine but on its faithful preservation.
          -Some modern perspectives suggest that doctrinal continuity can be maintained through a process of organic development. However, the earliest expressions of apostolic succession emphasize the importance of preserving an unaltered deposit of faith. The early churches operated autonomously, fostering fellowship and collaboration when addressing disputes. This decentralized approach further underscores that doctrinal integrity was safeguarded by adherence to apostolic teaching rather than by evolving theological constructs or centralized authority.
          -The Jewish background of the earliest Christians provides further context. Concepts of succession, such as the priestly transition from Aaron to Eleazar, were familiar to them as mechanisms for preserving spiritual leadership. However, the early church placed its emphasis on the continuity of apostolic truth rather than on processes of change or adaptation. Creeds were crafted on the foundation of Scripture, and any new ideas were subjected to rigorous scrutiny to ensure fidelity to the truths originally delivered by the apostles. This method ensured that any theological developments adhered strictly to apostolic teaching, rather than reflecting an evolving understanding of doctrine.
          -Apostolic succession, as practiced in the early church, was a means of safeguarding apostolic truth in its original form, rather than accommodating an evolving theology. The preservation of doctrine was paramount, with a focus on maintaining the spiritual and doctrinal lineage established by the apostles. This view presents a marked contrast to interpretations that place value on the adaptation or development of doctrine over time, demonstrating that the priority of the early Christians was unwavering fidelity to the teachings handed down by the apostles.

• Contradictions In Early Succession Lists Of Roman Bishops:

          -The succession lists of Roman bishops from the late second and early third centuries are fraught with inconsistencies. This discrepancy arises because, according to many scholars, there was no clear succession of a single bishop until around A.D. 150. This lack of continuity led to conflicting accounts among later church fathers regarding the earliest bishops. For instance, Irenaeus, writing around A.D. 180, claimed that Peter and Paul appointed Linus as the first Roman bishop, followed by Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, and Eleutherius (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.3). Contrarily, Tertullian, writing around A.D. 200, argued that Peter ordained Clement directly as the first Roman bishop, placing Clement at the beginning of the line instead of the third position as Irenaeus stated.

• The Papacy And Its Historical Development:

          -No historical evidence from the first or second centuries affirms that the Apostle Peter was appointed as the first bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. The earliest Christian writings, which form the foundation of the faith, are conspicuously silent on the necessity of believing in Peter’s primacy or the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church. This silence is critical, as it challenges the claim that these doctrines were essential elements of the faith established by Christ. Furthermore, in early apologetic debates, neither pagan critics nor heretics such as those confronted by Justin Martyr and Tertullian raised objections regarding the existence of a papacy. Such an omission is revealing, as it would have been a natural point of contention if the concept of a singular, supreme papal office had existed in the early church. Instead, what we find in the earliest writings is a consistent emphasis on congregations being governed collectively by a plurality of elders—a model reflective of shared leadership rather than centralized authority.

          -The absence of evidence for the papacy’s early existence is further underscored by the writings of the apostolic and post-apostolic fathers, who, while addressing various theological and ecclesiastical concerns, never refer to a central, supreme bishop in Rome. Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians (circa A.D. 96), exhorts unity within the church but does so from a position of moral authority, not papal supremacy. The letter provides no indication that Clement perceived himself as the head of all Christendom or that the Roman church wielded jurisdiction over others. Similarly, Ignatius of Antioch, in his early second-century epistles, emphasizes the importance of bishops and unity within individual churches but makes no appeal to a singular bishop in Rome as the ultimate arbiter of faith or practice. If the papacy were a foundational component of early Christianity, one would reasonably expect explicit recognition of its authority in these seminal writings. Instead, these documents reflect a decentralized structure of church governance, undermining the claim that the papacy was divinely instituted from the beginning.

          -For the first three centuries of Christianity, the Roman church was indeed held in high regard among Christians, but its esteem arose not from a divinely mandated primacy but from its unique characteristics and circumstances. Rome was the capital of the empire, the "Eternal City," and this location alone conferred a degree of prestige. By the mid-third century, the Roman church had grown to an estimated 30,000 members, becoming the largest congregation in the West, despite periods of intense persecution by the Roman authorities. Its size and resources allowed it to become a focal point of charity and a bastion of theological orthodoxy. Apostolic tradition attributed its founding to both Peter and Paul, further enhancing its reputation by the second century. However, this recognition was based on custom and tradition, not on any explicit divine appointment. The absence of any early writings that confer primacy upon the Roman church underscores the argument that its prominence was circumstantial, not institutional or theological.
           -A major shift in the trajectory of ecclesiastical authority coincided with the political realignments of the Roman Empire. In the fourth century, Emperor Constantine relocated the imperial capital to Byzantium, later renamed Constantinople, or "New Rome." This momentous move shifted the empire's political focus to the East, naturally elevating the stature of the bishop of Constantinople. Over time, this bishop acquired a position of prominence akin to that of a religious head, further challenging the Roman church's claim to primacy. This transition was accompanied by a cultural divide: the Western church continued to use Latin, while the Eastern church adopted Greek as its primary language. The linguistic and cultural differences deepened after Constantine's death in A.D. 337, when his sons inherited a divided empire, further fragmenting the unity of the early church.
          -The assertion of the papacy's divine institution is profoundly challenged when viewed through the lens of historical progression. Rather than emerging as a clear mandate from Christ or a definitive apostolic teaching, the papal office developed gradually over centuries, shaped by political, cultural, and ecclesiastical shifts. The earliest Christian communities, spread across diverse regions, displayed remarkable autonomy in governance. They adapted their leadership structures according to local needs, with no indication of centralized authority vested in the bishop of Rome. Indeed, early writings such as those of Ignatius of Antioch emphasize the role of bishops in maintaining unity within individual congregations but are silent on the existence of a singular leader presiding over the universal church.
          -In A.D. 381, Emperor Theodosius convened an assembly that formally elevated the bishop of Constantinople to a position of supremacy, citing the city's status as "New Rome." This decree sparked immediate opposition from the Roman church. Bishop Damasus, in response, was the first to explicitly declare the supremacy of the Roman church. His arguments rested on passages such as Matthew 16:18, claiming that Christ instituted this authority—a line of reasoning that remains central to modern Roman Catholic apologetics. Yet, this appeal to Scripture remains unconvincing when weighed against the historical record, as no trace of such claims is found in the earliest centuries of Christianity.
          -By the time of Bishop Leo's appointment in 440, the Roman church had further entrenched its authority. Leo introduced the argument that the church's authority was grounded in the figure of the Roman bishop, whom he presented as Peter's successor. Leo interpreted the "keys of the kingdom" given to Peter by Christ as the foundation for papal power. However, this claim represents a misinterpretation of Scripture that deviates significantly from the teachings of the early and apostolic church. Crucially, such assertions arose over 400 years after Christ's ministry, underscoring the historically contingent nature of papal authority. Councils like Nicaea and Chalcedon, convened to resolve theological disputes, notably did so without reliance on papal authority. If the papacy were integral to the church's structure, it would undoubtedly have served as the primary mechanism for defining orthodoxy in such debates. Its absence from these critical moments highlights its later development as a historical innovation, not an apostolic foundation.
          -As historian Joseph F. Kelly noted in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity: “The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.” These historical developments strongly suggest that the rise of the papacy was not an apostolic institution but a later innovation shaped by political, cultural, and theological shifts.

• Forgeries And The Papacy:

          -The Donation of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are prime examples of medieval forgeries crafted to enhance the papal authority. The Donation of Constantine, purportedly written by Emperor Constantine I, grants vast privileges and territories to the pope. It claims to transfer control over the Western Roman Empire to the Pope, which significantly bolstered the papacy's claims to temporal power. However, this document was later proven to be a fabrication, likely created in the 8th century, centuries after Constantine's death.

          -Similarly, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, a collection of forged documents produced in the 9th century, were designed to support the independence and supremacy of the Church. These documents attributed various legal decisions and decrees to early popes, enhancing the papal authority against secular rulers and local bishops. By presenting these decrees as ancient and authoritative, the forgers aimed to create a historical precedent that strengthened the papal position in ecclesiastical and political matters.

          -The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online says that the, "Substitution of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages." Indeed, the creation and use of fraudulent documents was not uncommon during this period, as competing powers sought to legitimize their authority and claims through seemingly ancient and venerable sources. These forgeries had a lasting impact on the medieval church and its structure, influencing the balance of power between the papacy and other political entities. Although they were eventually exposed, their effects continued to resonate throughout the centuries, demonstrating the potent role of written documentation in shaping historical narratives and authority.

Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel?

• Defining The Issues: 

          -The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ and Michael the Archangel are the same person. They teach that Michael is Jesus in His preexisting form. Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Christ was the first part of God's creation, prior to the formation of Adam. It is believed that Christ resumed His role as Michael the Archangel after His death and resurrection. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the concept of a bodily resurrection, so they teach that He rose spiritually from the grave. This view carries with it a number of exegetical and theological problems, however. For instance, Jesus cannot simply be Michael the Archangel because the angels worshiped Him:

          "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?...And let all the angels of God worship Him...Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands... But to which of the angels has He ever said, “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies A footstool for Your feet”?" (Hebrews 1 paraphrased)

          Jesus Christ is exalted by God in a way never given to angels. His name is above that of the angels. Further, angels are never called the Son of God. Never has God said that He is their Father. Thus, the author of Hebrews clearly distinguishes Christ from the angels. 

          Consider the following passage from Revelation in which angels worship Christ. He is given adoration, which no angels can justifiably claim for themselves:

          "And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped." (Revelation 5:13-14)

          Christ has a position of authority over creation that only God Himself can legitimately be said to have. If He is a created being, then the angels who offered Him worship would have been condemned by God for acts of idolatry. Scripture forbids the worship of creations (Deuteronomy 6:13), including angels. Therefore, Jesus Christ must not be an angel, but God Himself. 

          The Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Interlinear Translation renders Hebrews 1:3 as follows: "[Jesus] is the reflection of [God’s] glory and the exact representation of his very being." If Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim, then, according to the logic of the cited text, then that would mean the very essence or nature of God must be that of an angel. That would be nothing short of sheer blasphemy.

          If Jesus is Michael the Archangel, then why is it that he had to call upon the name of the Lord in order to cast judgment on the devil?:

          "But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you." (Jude 9)

           Christ openly rebuked Satan without invoking any name of authority. He wields the same power and authority as God because that is who He is:

          "and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only." (Matthew 4:9-10)

Indicators Of False Witnessing

• Notice The Remarks Of The Apostle Paul Within The Context Of 1 Thessalonians 2:3-10 In Regards To The Nature Of False Preaching:

          1.) It stems from doctrinal error.
          2.) It revolves around impure motives; teachers glorify themselves rather than Christ.
          3.) False witnessing involves deceit; twisting Scripture, faulty logic, and manipulation.
          4.) False witnessing includes pleasing people through flattery and teaching what itching ears want to hear.
          5.) False teaching involves selfish gain; profiting from the gospel.

          The people whom these factors are applicable have proven to be burdensome to the church, especially to Christians who are new or lacking in discernment. False teachers need to be rebuked sharply and avoided.

Excerpts Exposing The Fraudulent Nature Of Mormonism

• Joseph Smith's Delusional Cosmological Ideas:

          -"The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform than the inhabitants of the earth, being about six feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style and are quite general in style or the one fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years."

• President Brigham Young's Delusional Cosmological Ideas:

          -"So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun...Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 271)

• An Example From The Book Of Mormon Revealing Mormonism's Racist History On Native American Indians:

          -"they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21)

• Mormons Celebrate The Disobedience Of Adam And Eve: 

          -"And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who oweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." (2 Nephi 2:22-25)

• The Incredible Arrogance Of Joseph Smith: 

          -"Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet...When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go." (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408, 409)

• Mormons Believe That The Garden Of Eden Is Located In The State Of Missouri: 

          -"The Garden Of Eden was in Missouri. Noah was taken to the old world by the flood. This teaching was given by Joseph Smith and is still accepted as true doctrine. Given this teaching, Mormons have to accept the flood as a global phenomena" (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, "Adam-Ondi-Ahman", p. 19-20)

• Remarks From Joseph Fielding Smith, The Tenth Mormon President, On Man Reaching The Moon: 

          -"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen." (Honolulu Stake Conference 1961)

Constructing A Case For Paul's Apostleship

• Defining The Issues:

          -There is a theory that the Apostle Paul corrupted the original teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in the New Testament. It is claimed by some that present-day Christianity has fallen victim to the allegedly apostate theology of Paul, namely regarding his teachings on Christians not being under the Mosaic Law and the deity of Christ. These kinds of arguments are generally circulated by members of the Hebrew Roots Movement and Black Hebrew Israelites. Muslims also make the claim that Paul was a false apostle. However, it is not difficult to pit two individuals against each other (i.e. Paul vs. Jesus) by taking their statements out of context. The Apostle Paul did not contradict the teachings of Christ, but elaborated on His teachings. He did this both in writing and in speech. The evidence in favor of Paul being a genuine apostle is so strong, that it is incredulous that anyone would even try to discredit his apostleship as being fraudulent.

• Luke Records Eye-Witnesses Being Present During The Time Of Saul's Conversion:

          -"Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one." (Acts 9:3-7)

          -If one accepts Acts as being reliable historical material, it should be noted that Jesus Christ commissioned Paul to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. The men who had accompanied him were baffled at this encounter.

• Notice How Both The Apostles Paul And Barnabas Preached The Gospel: 

          -“Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses...As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath. When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God." (Acts 13:38-39, 42-43)

          -If Paul were a false apostle, it is certain that Barnabas would not have accompanied him in preaching the gospel to the Jews. Further, the apostles and elders accepted Paul's teaching on circumcision during the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.

• The Apostle Peter Believed Paul To Be A Beloved Brother Who Produced Inspired Scripture:

          -"And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

          -Even if we rejected Petrine authorship of this epistle, it would still be outside affirmation of the authenticity of Paul's apostleship. Other men in the early church who accepted Paul would be Clement of Rome and Polycarp. 

• The Apostle Paul Had Supernatural Abilities Like That Of The Other Apostles:

          -"The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works." (2 Corinthians 12:12)

          -Paul has credibility since he made reference to personal faults (2 Corinthians 12:7-9; 1 Timothy 1:12-16). He openly rebuked Peter for not living according to the gospel (Galatians 2:11-14).

• Examples Of Agreement Between Paul And The Four Gospel Writers:

          -Jesus Christ is a man (Philippians 2:6; 1 Timothy 3:16)

          -Christ is a descendant of King David (Romans 1:3-4; 2 Timothy 2:8)
          -The ordinance of the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
          -Jesus Christ died to make atonement for our sins (Romans 4:25; 1 Timothy 2:5-6)
          -Jesus Christ died, was buried in a tomb, resurrected from the grave, and appeared to people (Romans 10:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:1-6)
          -Christ testified of Himself as being the promised Jewish Messiah before the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate (1 Timothy 6:13-16)
          -Jesus Christ was crucified (1 Corinthians 2:1-2; Galatians 3:1)
          -He ascended into heaven to be glorified (Philippians 2:6; 1 Timothy 3:16)

          The evidence supporting the Apostle Paul as a genuine apostle is robust, coming from multiple attestations within Scripture and historical context. He was accepted by other apostles, validated by miraculous signs, and recognized by early church leaders. His teachings harmonize with the essential teachings of Christianity. Therefore, claims against Paul’s apostleship should be critically examined and ultimately considered unsubstantiated when weighed against such compelling evidence.