The Charolite Trilogy
The purpose of this trilogy is to help you see the Jewish Christian polemic in a new light. Instead of presenting the arguments of Judaism against Christianity, or Christianity’s response to those arguments, the arguments are presented in a different format. The same Jewish Christian polemic is presented as a debate between Christianity and the fictional faith of the Charolites.
In the first section of this trilogy introduces Charlie and the development of the Charolite faith. In this new religion, Charlie takes the position of Jesus while Harry takes the sation of Paul.
The second section of the trilogy is an apologetic work of the Charolite faith. The arguments of the Charolite apologist, Dr. Green, will perhaps ring hollow in your ears. You will recognize that these are not answers, but excuses. Anyone can claim that those who disagree with them are stricken with “spiritual blindness”. But does this argument prove anything? Anyone who publicizes a theory about vicarious atonement will cause people to associate this theory with Isaiah 53, but this does not make the theory any more credible. Each of these Charolite excuses are taken from various works of Christian apologists. We put these arguments in the mouth of a Charolite in order to help you assess the true weight of this line of reasoning.
The third section, “Contra Green”, puts some of the core Jewish arguments against Christianity, in the mouth of a counter-Charolite activist. Some Christians find it difficult to understand some of the basic Jewish arguments against Christianity. By putting these same arguments in the format of an attack on the Charolite faith, we hope to help these Christians appreciate the logic that stands behind the Jewish rejection of Christianity.
It is our hope and prayer that you find this trilogy helpful in understanding the Jewish position in her debate with Christian missionaries.
A Brief History of Charlie and the Charolites
Charlie H. Smith was a traveling Christian preacher. He began his public ministry in the summer of 2012, about July or August. It did not take long for Charlie to gather a loyal following. His followers were few in number and even smaller in the aggregate of their intellectual and spiritual credentials, but their loyalty to Charlie was absolute.
Charlie’s preached a mixed message. On the one hand he spoke of love, peace, tolerance and self-negation. On the other hand, Charlie railed against the respected figures of Christendom. He called them all types of names and rained upon their heads all manners of curses. Until today, it is not clear which part of his message was more appealing to his followers. Some historians argue that his simplistic teachings on love and peace spoke to the hearts of those who found themselves so hurt by the injustices of society. Other historians contend that it was his message of hate towards the established figures of Christian society that attracted those who felt intimidated by the high society of Christendom to begin with.
Towards the end of his rather brief ministry, Charlie began dropping hints as to what he believed was his role in the cosmic plan of Christian eschatology. By the spring of 2015, Charlie’s followers were convinced that their leader was no less than a second incarnation of Jesus. Charlie’s devoted followers firmly believed that they were witnessing and participating in the Second coming of the Christian Savior.
When Charlie was killed in a car accident in April of 2015, his followers were shell-shocked. But their shock did not last more than a few days. Due to the confusion that arose at the time of Charlie’s hasty burial, some of Charlie’s followers became convinced that a certain empty mausoleum was the place were Charlie had been laid to rest. The fact that the mausoleum was subsequently found empty convinced these followers that Charlie had risen from the dead. This report was followed by the rumor that some of his followers had actually seen Charlie since he had died.
Those followers of Charlie who believed in Charlie’s resurrection expected Charlie to return and take his rightful place as the incarnation of Jesus. These believers maintained their own Churches for some time after Charlie’s death or disappearance. Although they attempted to recruit followers from amongst the Christians, their efforts did not meet with much success. The fact that the establishment Churches spent time and effort criticizing Charlie’s followers energized Charlie’s devoted believers, but made it difficult for them to grow their Church.
In 2033, all of this changed. That was the year of Harry S Percy’s conversion to the Charolite faith (as Charlie’s followers came to be called). Harry was a man of vision and energy. Harry quickly developed his own understanding of Charlie’s cosmic role and his own mission to the world. According to Harry, Charlie was the fourth person in the Christian god-head. He was one and the same with Jesus, but he was a different person in the god-head. Charlie’s death had been an atonement for the sins of the world. According to Harry, the death of Jesus could only have been a foreshadowing of Charlie’s supreme sacrifice. Harry and his theologians (and it did not take long for Harry to raise schools of theologians), argued that since Jesus had never sinned, his death could not rightfully atone for sin. As someone who never sinned, Jesus could never be able to atone for sin. Harry argued that it was only Charlie, as a man who was intimately familiar with the concept of sin, who could provide atonement with his death. It was Harry who attributed to Charlie the statement; “No one comes to Jesus but through me”. And it was Harry, of-course, who invented the concept of a “third coming”.
Harry also believed that he was appointed by Charlie (who appeared to Harry several times) to minister to non-Christians. Harry’s message was strongly opposed by the original following of Charlie, and it was certainly challenged by the establishment Churches of Christendom, but Harry did not care. Harry traveled to the far-east and to Africa where he made millions of converts to the Charolite faith. It did not take long for the converts of Harry to outnumber and overpower the original Charolite Church.
Once these followers of Harry gained the reigns of power in the Charolite movement they set about to eradicate every last vestige of opposition to the doctrines of Harry. The followers of Harry did not stop at killing the original followers of Charlie and burning their Churches. They tried to eradicate every last bit of documentation that could serve as a refutation to the doctrines of Harry. The followers of Harry rewrote and edited the Newer Testament touted by the original Charolites. They did not stop there but they appended Harry’s epistles to the Newer Testament, making Harry’s teachings equal with those of Charlie.
It is fortunate that Harry’s followers were not entirely successful. The authors of this article has come into possession of some historical documentation that has escaped the clutches of the Charolite inquisitors. With time we hope to make these documents available to the public.
Answering Christian Objections to Charlie
600 years since Charlie’s Resurrection
Much has happened since the Charolite faith was founded. Its adherents number in the billions and inhabit every continent. Many wars were fought between the Christians and the Charolites. In the most recent spate of wars, 2539-2545, the Charolites massacred millions of Christians. But most denominations of Charolites now reject the aggressive philosophy of the old Charolite Church and promote love peace and tolerance of all people, especially of Christians.
The following is an interview with the author of the highly acclaimed 5 volume series: “Answering Christian Objections to Charlie”, Dr. Michael L Green. Dr. Green graciously agreed to be interviewed by Joe Parker of the Kentucky Independent Gazette.
Joe: “If Charlie was truly an incarnation of Jesus, why then didn’t the Christians of his time “get it”? Why is it that he only attracted those with little or no knowledge of the rudiments of Christianity?”
Dr. Green: “That is an excellent question Joe. In response I will read a selection from the Christian Testament. You might be surprised that these words are actually found in the book held in such high esteem by Christians. The philosophy of the paragraph I am about to quote is so obviously Charolite, that many people immediately assume that this is a selection from the Charolite Newer Testament. But it is not. This is actually a quote from the Christian Bible, 1Corinthians chapter 1. This only serves to demonstrate that the Charolite faith is the only true continuation of Christianity.
Here are Paul’s words; “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”
Joe: “But over the years, there has been such vehement opposition from Christians to Charlie and the Charolites. If Charlie is truly the Christian Messiah then why haven’t more Christians come to faith in Charlie? Where are the pastors and priests of Christianity? Why are they not flocking to join the Charolites?”
Dr. Green: “There are several factors involved in this national rejection of Charlie. Most Christians have simply never bothered to read the Newer Testament. The Christian prejudice against Charlie runs so deep, that many good Christians are prevented from discovering their own Messiah.
Another factor that prevents Christians from coming to true faith is the violence that was practiced by the Old Charolite Church. Can we blame these Christians for failing to see the beauty of Charlie’s teachings, when so many Charolites have so seriously misrepresented him?
In addition, you may be surprised to learn how many Christians actually did come to faith in Charlie. The reason you don’t hear about them is because as soon as a Christian leader joins the Charolites, the Christian historians immediately erase his name from the pages of history.
Finally, and it hurts me to say this, but I cannot withhold the truth – our people were stricken by a spiritual blindness. As it is written, and I quote from the 5th chapter in Harry’s epistle to the Manchurians: “A spirit of blindness has come upon them as Isaiah prophesied: “they have eyes but do not see, they have ears but do not hear”. This was the divine retribution for failing to recognize their Messiah when he came.”
Joe: Now that you touched upon the violence of the Charolite Church throughout the ages, particularly against Christians, how do you explain this? If Charolite is the true faith then why has it produced so much violence?
Dr. Green: No true follower of Charlie ever hurt a fly. How could a follower of a man who preached: “if he steals your cell-phone, give him your i-pod, if he scratches your car, let him burn down your house” (Gospel of Jerry 12:7) ever hurt anyone? Those who persecuted Christians were only Charolites in name, but they certainly weren’t real followers of Charlie.
It is also worthy of consideration that the violence was not always one sided. It would be more accurate to say that there was a cycle of violence. Many prominent Christian leaders called Charlie’s sanity into question, and they referred to his followers as “charlatans” – so the violence wasn’t all that one sided.
Joe: “But what of the statements of Charlie himself? In the Gospel of Joanne (8:44) we have Charlie calling all Christians murderers and children of the devil. In the Gospel of Jerry (chapter 23) Charlie refers to all Evangelical pastors by the terms “hypocrites”, “vipers” and other such unkind epithets. How do you explain these statements?”
Dr. Green: “These statements must be understood in the context of the larger picture of Charlie’s message, and in the historical context of the gospels. Since the central teaching of Charlie was love and tolerance, we can understand how these statements cannot be understood in the racist sense attributed to Charlie by the Old Charolite Church. When Charlie calls Christians “children of the devil”, he is not referring to Christians alone. He is speaking to all who live in their sins and refuse the divine grace extended to them through the sacrifice of Charlie. All of us fall short, and no one comes to Jesus but through Charlie.
When Charlie was castigating the leadership of the Evangelical movement, it must be understood in light of the fact that Charlie himself was a paying member in an Evangelical Church. This was an argument amongst brothers. Charlie was rebuking the Evangelical leaders for straying from the true faith of Jesus which only points to Charlie.”
Joe: “How do you respond to the charge that the Newer Testament contains numerous contradictions? One example that comes to mind is the discussion concerning Charlie’s first post-accident appearance to his disciples. Was it in Kentucky, as the Gospel of Pat asserts, or did it take place in Texas as per the Gospel of Thomas?”
Dr. Green: “Joe, let me ask you a question. You are a reporter. Didn’t you ever interview witnesses to a car accident? Did you get the same exact testimony from each of the witnesses? Of-course not. I am sure that you are aware that Christian apologists use the “car-accident” analogy to explain the contradictions that surround the crucifixion of Jesus. But Jesus did not die in a car accident. Jesus died through crucifixion, which is a long and drawn out process. Charlie did die in a car accident. It was over in an instant. Are you then surprised that the testimonies of his disciples don’t match up?”
Joe: “Christians argue that the concept of a third coming has no basis in the Old or New Testaments. They contend that this concept was only invented when Charlie failed to usher in the Messianic age as his followers had hoped. How do you respond to this Christian challenge?”
Dr. Green: “On the contrary, the events are progressing right on schedule. The three Old Testament holidays of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles serve as a precise parallel for the three comings of the Messiah. Christians who reject the truth of Charlie’s mission are forced to condense Passover and Pentecost as if they were one event on order to justify the belief in two comings. But a plain reading of the text indicates that these are two separate holidays leading us to the belief that there must be three comings of the Messiah.”
Joe: “Is it not true that Charlie predicted that the Messianic age will begin in the lifetime of his immediate followers? Here is the quote from the Gospel of Jerry (16:22): “this generation will not pass until these things come to pass”. Some Christians point to this prediction of Charlie and accuse him of prophesying falsehood.”
Dr. Green: “Do you think that the authors of the Newer testament would preserve a false prophecy of Charlie in their Gospels? It is obvious that we are misunderstanding Charlie’s words because otherwise his followers would have never preserved them. There are actually several explanations that are possible when we consider Charlie’s words in their proper context. Charlie says “this generation”, but how do you know which generation he was referring to? It is entirely possible that he was talking of the final generation that will actually usher in the Messianic age. Another explanation offered by the most erudite scholars (Charolite scholars of-course), is that only some of the events will come to pass in the lifetime of his immediate followers, but the rest of them will only come to fruition at the end of the age. Yet another explanation of Charlie’s prediction tells us that the original followers of Charlie will come back to life before the Messianic age begins, and that they will not die an eternal death before they see Charlie come back in his glory. Any of these explanations are possible, so there is no way that Charlie can be accused of false prophecy.”
Joe: “Dr. Green, can you please tell us what you consider to be the most convincing proof of the Messiah-ship of Charlie?”
Dr. Green: “Gladly! Turn to Isaiah 53 of the Old Testament. Ask yourself: “who is this talking about?” people throughout the world, immediately associate this passage with Charlie. I am well aware that in countries where the message of Charlie has not yet permeated, people do not associate this passage with Charlie. In fact , in many states in North America, where the Charolite literature is banned by the Christian Churches, people never heard of Charlie, so they are incapable of making the correct associations. Still, wherever people have heard of Charlie and of his atoning death, they immediately associate this passage with him.
The fact that some associate this passage with Jesus is not a contradiction to the Charolite faith because Charolites believe that this passage in Isaiah actually refers to both Jesus and Charlie. The Scripture actually supports this concept because it identifies a plurality of saviors (Obadiah 1:21). This fits perfectly with the theology of Charolite because Charolites believe in two Messiah’s. But I have yet to hear a satisfactory Christian explanation that works in the passage in Obadiah.
Furthermore, and I want your undivided attention for this one, Jesus could not have been the ultimate fulfilment of Isaiah 53. This passage can only be understood if we recognize that Jesus partially fulfilled this prophecy while Charlie came and fulfilled it in its entirety. In verse 9 of this passage we learn that the suffering servant is to die with the rich and be buried with the wicked. Now if we turn to the New Testament of Christianity we find that Jesus dies with the wicked, (remember the robbers crucified on either side of him), while he is buried in the grave of a rich man. Charlie on the other hand fully fulfilled the prophetic prediction. In the pile-up that took his life, there two Porsches and a Lamborghini. Charlie certainly did die with the rich. When Charlie was laid to rest, it was with the wicked. The people buried on either side of him were both well known criminals. One of them had been caught for tax-evasion while the other had several traffic violations on his record. It is only in Charlie that the prophetic word is fully fulfilled.”
Joe: “The Charolite claim that Charlie is the fourth person of the god-head sounds strange to many Christians. Christians accuse the Charolites of polytheism and paganism. Could you please shed some light on this matter from a Charolite perspective?”
Dr. Green: “Sure. First of all, I want to make clear that we Charolites fully affirm both the monotheistic creed of Judaism and the Trinitarian creed of Christianity. Many Charolite Churches recite the Nicean creed as an essential part of their service. So we do not believe in four separate gods.
Another matter that I would like to clarify is that the term “fourth person in the god-head” appears nowhere in the Newer Testament. I find that this term only confuses people and I believe that it should be avoided, Charolites believe that the second person in the god-head is both Jesus and Charlie. It is not as if Charlie became Jesus, for that would be an absurdity, we believe that Jesus became Charlie. The sinless nature of Jesus came to dwell in the sinful personality of Charlie.
There is abundant Scriptural evidence for this doctrine. Psalm 89:27 reads: “Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.” Many Christians recognize that this is referring to the second person in the god-head. Yet verse 30 of that same passage speaks of the sins of this individuals children. This cannot be a reference to Jesus, who never sinned and never had children. This passage only reached its full fulfillment in Charlie who was both sinful himself and had sinful children. Similarly, Psalm 41:9, which Jesus explicitly claimed to have fulfilled, speaks of the sins of the Messiah (verse 4). Since Jesus did not since in his first earthly ministry, it is obvious that he must return and live a sinful life in order to fulfil this Messianic prophecy.
The key concept here is that way back in the days of Jesus people could not fathom a sinful Messiah. God had to break this concept in slowly, through progressive revelation. First, it had to be demonstrated that the divine could be semi-human, and finally it was demonstrated that the divine could be totally human.”
Joe: “Why do you refer to Jesus as “semi-human”? Do you not accept the Christian doctrine that Jesus was 100 percent human?”
Dr. Green: “It is only the Charolites who truly accept that doctrine. Christians who reject the Messiah-ship of Charlie believe in a semi-human Messiah. It is an essential part of human nature to sin. It is only through belief in Charlie that Christianity comes to its true goal of belief in a human Messiah who was both 100 percent human and 100 percent divine.”
Joe: “Can God sin?”
Dr. Green: “I would not be so quick to place limitations on God’s abilities. God could do whatever He so pleases.
I would ask you a question Joe. Do you want to believe in a savior who has never tasted the shame and the guilt of sin? Would you rather believe in a savior who was always right and never knew what it felt like to be wrong? As a Charolite I could fully identify with my savior who has “been there and done that” and I can be confident that he fully identifies with me.”
Joe: “Didn’t Jesus promise that those who believe in him will have eternal life? How does this square with Charlie’s claim that there is no path to eternal life only through faith in him?”
Dr. Green: “How could Christians receive eternal life if they rejected Jesus when he returned? True believers in Jesus recognize that Charlie is the true incarnation of Jesus, and throughout history, the true believers in Jesus were looking forward to the ultimate sacrifice of Charlie.”
Joe: “Thank you Dr. Green for sharing your time and your scholarship with us today.”
Dr. Green: “You are more than welcome.”
Since the great war of 2539-2545, a spirit of reconciliation descended upon the Charolites. In place of the persecution of Christians, Charolites are rediscovering the Christian roots of their own faith. In the same Charolite countries where for centuries Christians were denied citizenship, today Christians are even permitted to disseminate counter-Charolite literature. While there are still pockets of Anti-Christian sentiment in the Charolite world, but the region of China, Mongolia, Japan, and the Koreas, where the Fundamentalist Charolites hold sway, the mood is decidedly pro-Christian.
In an extreme show of the spirit of reconciliation, the prominent Mongolian newspaper, the Mongolian Tribune, presented their readership with an interview with a counter-Charolite activist; Jesse C Belmonte. The interview was conducted by the well known Mongolian Tribune reporter; Genghis X Kahn.
Genghis: “Could you please give us a synopsis of the basic philosophy of the Christian opposition to the Charolite faith?”
Jesse: “With pleasure. I understand that your readership expects me to go through the various Scriptural proofs for the Messiah-ship of Charlie and present the Christian refutations for these proofs. If that is what your readership is expecting, I will disappoint them. I prefer to focus on the larger picture, rather than quibble over translations and interpretations.”
Genghis: “I understand that there is an advantage in stepping back and seeing the big picture as opposed to getting bogged down in details. Is there any other reason behind your decision to avoid the Scriptural proof-texts? Are you perhaps not confident with your refutations to the Charolite arguments?”
Jesse: “It is not an issue of confidence. Many Christian writers have already refuted the Charolite proof-texts, and I believe that a study of the texts in context will reveal the emptiness of the Charolite claims. I think there is a deeper issue here. If I debate a Charolite about a given Scriptural text, I have already given the Charolite faith more credit then it deserves. The Charolite has no business holding a Christian Bible in his or her hand.”
Genghis: “Why would you say that? The Charolite’s cherish the Christian Bible and believe that by reading the Christian Bible one will come to faith in Charlie.”
Jesse: “We must ask ourselves: how did we come into possession of the Christian Bible? What method did we follow to determine that the Christian Bible is true? If we ask these questions, the Charolite faith would not get off the ground, the debate would never begin.”
Genghis: “Could you please explain these statements?”
Jesse: “Genghis, you tell me. How do you know that the Christian Bible is truly the inspired word? How do you know that the books of Matthew, John, Peter and James belong in the Biblical canon, while other books do not?”
Genghis: “I don’t profess to be a theologian, but I do remember from my days in Monday school that Norman Geisler wrote something on this subject.”
Jesse: “I must say that I am impressed by the range of your knowledge. Most Charolite’s are not even aware that Dr. Geisler existed.
Genghis: “I will admit that I did not read Geisler’s original work. I read this particular quotation in the book “A Verdict that Generates the Evidence” by McHowell, the famous Charolite apologist.”
Jesse: In any case, I will remind you of Geisler’s teaching on the subject, and I quote: “For whatever subsequent debate there may have been about a book’s place in the canon, the people in the best position to know its prophetic credentials are those who knew the prophet who wrote it. Hence, despite all later debates about the canonicity of some books, the DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE is that which attests to its original acceptance by the contemporary believers (Quoted by Josh McDowell in the “New Evidence that Demands a Verdict” page 22).” In other words, the only way we know that the Christian Scriptures are truly inspired is if we first accept that the Christian community had the ability to discern and separate between truth and falsehood. But the basic premise of the Charolite faith is that this very community of believers in Jesus did not possess the ability to determine who is a true prophet and who is a fraud. The Christian community as a community, rejected Charlie’s claims. If it is as the Charolites argue, that the Christian community is not capable of sensing between the true prophet and the fraud, the canon of the Christian Bible ought to be discarded.”
Genghis: “But the Charolites argue that the early Christians were OK, they were Godly and spiritual people. It was only the later Christians that lost the ability to discern between the true prophets and the frauds.”
Jesse: “That is a very convenient theory, and is totally arbitrary. Either you accept that the Christian community was appointed by Jesus to serve as his witnesses for posterity, or you reject that belief. You can’t have it both ways.”
Genghis: “Certain Charolites, specifically the recently formed movement of “Christians for Charlie”, argue that it is the Charolites who are the true Christians. They contend that one can only be a fulfilled Christians if he or she accepts Charlie as their personal savior. If this logic holds true, than it is the Charolites who are the true continuation of Jesus’ witness community and not the Christians who rejected Jesus when he returned.”
Jesse: “God set down a clear sign that would mark His covenant community throughout the generations. That sign is the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-17). When the Charolites moved the day of worship from Sunday to Monday, this covenantal sign disappeared from the Charolite community. For many long centuries there was not one Charolite church where the sign of the true covenant community could be found. The fact that some Charolite churches are reinstating the old day of worship does not take away from the fact that the Charolite community as a whole had the curse of Ezekiel 13:9 fulfilled against them in its entirety. There is no way one can believe in the Bible and accept that the Charolite community is the true covenant community at the same time.”
Genghis: “Are there any other arguments such as the one you just presented that focus on the larger picture as opposed to the debates over Scriptural grammar?”
Jesse: “There are many arguments that refute the Charolite faith long before we get involved in technical debates over Scripture. For example: According to the Charolite faith, Jesus returned in order to test his followers, to see if they truly love him. But when Jesus speaks of his return in the New Testament, we get a totally different picture. In the Christian Bible we read how Jesus’ return would be rewarding to his followers and bring down punishment on the enemies of his followers. When Charlie came along, the followers of Jesus were cursed, because they could not accept Charlie, while their persecutors were blessed with faith in Charlie. Charlie’s mission according to the Newer Testament, and Jesus’ mission according to the New Testament are not only incompatible, they are polar opposites.
This is actually true on another level as well. The central character of the New testament is Jesus. Everything in the New Testament points to Jesus. True faith according to the New Testament is a total and unshakeable faith in Jesus. The return of Jesus is supposed to vindicate this faith. Charlie, however, points people to faith in himself. The central figure of the Newer Testament is Charlie and not Jesus. The fact that Charlie claimed to be “one and the same” with Jesus does not change the facts on the ground. The fact remains that it is Charlie who lives in the heart of the Charolites and not Jesus.”
Genghis: “I noticed the sarcasm in your voice when you spoke of the “blessing” that Charlie brought to the persecutors of the Christians. Wouldn’t you agree that the Chinese, who used to be atheists before the advent of Charlie, were blessed through Charlie with a faith that is closer to the truth?”
Jesse: “Perhaps that is true, but the blessing is certainly a mixed blessing. Before the advent of Charlie, the Chinese were not consumed with a deep hatred for Christians. Their conversion to the Charolite faith induced them to murder millions of Christians over the centuries. Now I do recognize that the Fundamentalist Charolite Church has rejected this violent interpretation of Charlie’s teachings, and they are to be commended for that. But stepping back and looking at it from a historical perspective over the centuries, many Chinese people were spiritually poisoned with a hatred for Christians – something that would not have occurred without the advent of Charlie.”
Genghis: “How do you respond to the claim of some Charolite theologians that it was the sin of rejecting Charlie that brought divine retribution upon the Christians? According to these theologians, the Christians were massacred in the millions because they did not accept their own Messiah.”
Jesse: “If the sin of rejecting Charlie brought these massacres upon us, we are thankful that this same sin prevented us from being the perpetrators of these massacres.”
Genghis: “How do you respond to the miracles preformed in Charlie’s name? People are healed, the blind receive sight, amazing things happen. These miracles do not just occur on a material level. On a spiritual level we see that people’s lives are radically changed through faith in Charlie. How do you explain this phenomena.”
Jesse: “I could tell you that many religions share similar claims, including Christianity, Mormonism and Doormanism. Instead, I will point you to some Scripture. In the Old Testament we read that false prophets are also empowered to preform miracles (Deuteronomy 13:2). Even the New Testament provides a parallel to this concept (Matthew 7:22). We must move the miracles and the transformed lives aside, and focus on the logical arguments. God allows false belief systems to produce miracles and transformed lives. He does not, however, allow them to share the still small voice of truth that appeals to the sensitivity to truth that God breathed into our nostrils.”
Genghis: “One last question if I may. Why do you refuse to debate Dr. Green?”
Jesse: “I don’t see any point in debating face to face. The issue is not between the two of us as performers. The question is: who has the truth? I laid out my arguments in writing, and I continue to do so, while it is Dr. Green that is failing to respond. My article “Contra-Green” was published some time ago, and as of yet there has been no response. I have since published other articles explaining my position without receiving any response from Dr. Green. I await his rebuttals to my argument and I aim to take the arguments from there.”