In Response to comments in Tom Bridgmans "Stupid Geocenrists Tricks"

The following comments are in response to comments made in Tom Bridgman's  "Stupid Geocenrists Tricks"

Tom - Orbits & Lagrange Points: Mr. Martin's entire thesis seems to be that if he doesn't understand it, in can't be real, or that the simple pedagogical models (2-body Kepler problem, 3-body Lagrange problem) can't be expanded to include more complex systems.

JM – Only “seems” to be Tom, or do you know for sure? What’s the evidence either way and why don’t you feel the need to tell us? Really Tom, do you think you are convincing anybody with this childish rhetoric?

Tom - The saddest part of this is in some cases Mr. Martin has actually identified effects that are included in 'real world' analyses, but he lacks the ability to actually apply the theory to explore the actual size of the effects that would make his claim irrelevant.

JM – And the sad part of your analysis is you continue to try to humiliate your opposition with half truths and innuendo, making your position unethical and therefore unconvincing. My observations concerning Lagrange points remain unanswered and until you answer my questions and observations that show Lagrange points are merely maths points derived from assumptions plus maths, which is therefore only an idealized, problematic model, then your claims about Lagrange points are moot.

Furthermore, your statements don’t actually mean anything anyway. What claim becomes irrelevant when I have the ability to explore the size of the effects on the Lagrange points? I’ve claimed the Lagrange points are merely abstract maths points derived from assumptions in physics, plus maths, plus concepts such as a circular orbit, which are inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics and heliocentrism. What’s Toms answer to these criticisms? Nothing but empty rhetoric and bold, chest thumping truth claims.

Tom - After spending time 'disproving' relativity, Mr. Martin then invokes relativity to prove Geocentrism.

JM – This is another falsehood perpetuated by Tom Bridgman. I don’t need relativity to prove geocentrism is true, nor have I used relativity to demonstrate its truth. The truth of geocentrism is founded upon physical experiment, without the need for relativity theory. I only ever evoke relativity as a tool to use against those who embrace relativity theory to show how illogical it is to embrace relativity and then deny geocentrism.

Tom - Talk about oxymoronic!

JM – Talk about an invention by Tom.

Tom - Will the Geocentrists declare war on a future Mars colony because the colonists use Mr. Martin's argument to prove Areocentrism?

JM - No, because the physics already points to the earth as the stationary center to the universe. This physics truth of the stationary earth is also backed up by revealed truths, which Tom seems to be ignorant of.

Tom - Mr. Martin has provided me a few additional good examples of the uselessness of Geocentrist 'science' which I can expand into more concrete examples.

JM – And Tom has provided us with more useful examples of hubris used by anti geocentrists who continue to jump up and down without producing the goods against God’s universe as revealed in geocentrism.

Tom - Therefore, I will reject, for a time, future comments from Mr. Martin, or comments that read like his particular style, so I can spend more time on that effort.

JM – I knew this would happen from experience. Tom has repeatedly lied about me, my arguments and geocentrism and now he is lying about the reasons for not engaging me.

Tom - If Mr. Martin wants to continue his whines, he can do so on his own blog. I check it periodically so posting notifications in my blog by others would be redundant.

JM – The only one whining is Tom. Tom has been soundly beaten by logic and physics experiment and now he wants to go home and take his bat and ball with him. He can do what he wants, but I believe I have gotten the better of him on several occasions and his arguments have been easily answered.

Geocentrism remains forever the true cosmology and Tom has done nothing to counter many physics experiments that confirm the earth is stationary at the center of the universe.

JM

In response to Tom Bridgman's "Geocentrism: Laser Ranging Experiments"

 The following is a response to Tom Bridgman's Geocentrism: Laser Ranging Experiments

Tom - Mr. Martin responds to "Stupid Geocentrist Tricks" with In Response to Dr Bridgmans "Stupid Geocentrist Tricks". I've already made some reply in the comments to the previous article.

Mr. Martin's response is a collection of nonsense that can only be maintained if one is never required to test their claims against real physical measurements.

JM –Tom goes out of his way to make a truth claim that he never establishes. In fact Tom has ignored most of my post that included several evidences for geocentrism, yet he claims the geocentric claims do not stand up to  real physical measurements. Is Tom being genuine about his statements concerning geocentrism or is he making false statements through selective silence and truth claims that ignore much of what I have written on the physical evidence for geocentrism? Evidently Tom is not being genuine.

Tom - Martin: "2. Science has demonstrated physical phenomena occur relative to earth as though the earth was stationary relative to the rest of the universe. As such, the geocentric model alone is the correct model."

All of Mr. Martins 'proofs' of Geocentrism rely exclusively on experiments done on the Earth, while ignoring similar experiments elsewhere in space.

JM – I have not ignored experiments completed in places other than the earth. The CMB derived from WMAP was included as one evidence and WMAP was taken from a satellite not on earth. So there you have it folks, Tom has lied to his audience about what geocentrists do. Its not the first time Tom has lied and it probably wont be the last time either.

Tom - Martin: "If Dr Bridgman denies this problem exists then let him have a look at a similar situation with the lunar laser ranging experiment. According to Dr Tom Murphy the experiment works by the mirror deforming according to relativity theory, causing the laser to bounce back in the mirror frame along a different line from which it entered, thereby the laser returns safely back to the moving earth. A clear indication of the mirror deformation is shown here figure 2, page 2 - http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/velocity.pdf"

Here's an upper-level link to a larger collection of Dr. Murphy's documentation of Lunar Retro-Reflector (LRR) experiments.

Tom - The Murphy paper discusses the aberration effect that must be considered in lunar ranging. I have already demonstrated that aberration effects have been measured and utilized for navigation purposes by satellites around the solar system (see Geocentrism: Ubiquitous aberrations) so Mr. Martin's claim that this is evidence for a motionless Earth are moot.

JM – Tom’s logic is incomprehensible. He has quoted me saying Tom Murphy has a paper showing the light enters and leaves the retro-reflector at angles which the reflector was not designed for. This conclusion shows any normal person that something is afoot with the LLR and the only real explanation is the earth is stationary to save the reflectors functionality as it was designed to reflect lasers along the same flight path from which it enters the reflector. Currently, if the earth is moving at 30km/s around the earth, then the laser cannot return back to the firing station, for the flight time is 2s, the light spread is 20km and the earth has moved through space 60km, so the return beam must miss the earth by about 40km. Yet the return beam is always received by the firing station, so either –

1. The earth is stationary and the retro-reflector really does return the laser beam along the same flight path, just as it was designed to do.
2. The retro-reflectors bounce beams back to earth at an angle, thereby causing the reflector to act in a way that is contrary to what it was designed to do.

Geocentrists have chosen 1 above, which matches the physics, and others such as Bridgman and Murphy have chosen 2, which is not in accord with physics.

Tom has chosen to ignore this simply fact in Tom Murphy’s paper and decided to dive into the matter of aberration. Apparently Tom Murphy’s paper includes aberration of the return beam caused by the motion of the moon. The paper is entitled, “velocity aberration of lunar return” http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/velocity.pdf.  The paper does discuss the motion of the moon in relation to aberration and does not discuss aberration in relation to any motion of the earth. So what’s Tom Bridgman’s point concerning the LLR and aberration? Evidently Tom has made a big blunder here by inferring Tom Murphy’s discussion of aberration is some how evidence for a moving earth, when the aberration being discussed is that of light bouncing back from a moving earth. I hope Tom Bridgman understands that geocentrists believe the moon is moving past the earth and as such Tom Murphy’s comments concerning lunar aberration are inconsequential.

Tom Bridgman also cites his post entitled Geocentrism: Ubiquitous aberrations, where he claims satellites requires precise measurements of aberration to allow satellites to plot flight paths and aberration is taken into account in satellite trajectory planning. Tom thinks aberration is caused by the motion of the earth around the sun, where he says –

“Everyone is probably familiar with the effect of aberration.  The popular analogy is of walking through rainfall.  Even though the rain may be falling vertically, to the walking observer, the rain appears to be falling at an angle.”

Yet Tom must ignore the results of George Airy, who set out to physically demonstrate that aberration was caused by a moving earth and the failure to find such evidence, demonstrated aberration is caused by another mechanism such as motion within an aether flow. Geocentrists do not deny aberration of light occurs, but we do deny aberration of light is caused by a moving earth because the physical evidence points to the existence of aether flow, a motionless earth and motion of light in space.

Other experiments have also been completed to test the aberration of light in a uniformly moving medium here - http://muj.optol.cz/~richterek/data/media/ref_str/gjurchinovski2004a.pdf and here - http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3689/4/1/018 and here http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/328/1574/337.short, which are consistent with geocentric claims of light motion within a moving aether flow. Clearly, such experimental evidence is at odds with Tom Bridgman’s claims concerning the cause of aberration.

How then does the heliocentrist account for aberration in the satellite trajectory planning? The earth’s motions are assumed to be the cause of the aberration for light and as such, these assumed motions are included in the calculations to plan satellite flight paths. Does this mean the flight plans are in favor of heliocentrism over geocentrism, or is there more to this problem than Tom Bridgman wants us to know? Tom wants his readers to think NASA and JPL must use the helio model, with its aberration caused by the motion of the earth against light and geocentrism is therefore invalidated. Yet aberration has been proven to be caused by the motion of light within aether flow and not by the motion of the earth, therefore any light aberration must be caused by motion of celestial objects and not the earth, in accord with physical experiment. So what is the logical conclusion Tom Bridgman can draw from his statements concerning aberration?

1 – physical experiment confirms aberration is not caused by a moving earth.

2 – physical experiment confirms aberration is caused by the motion of light within an aether flow.

3 – satellite flight plans are calculated by assuming light aberration is caused by the motion of the earth.

4 – calculations that assume the earth motion as a cause of light aberration are only used based on convenience and do not reflect physical experiment.

5 – satellite flight plan calculations for light aberration that assumes a moving earth are not evidence against geocentrism

6 - satellite flight plan calculations for light aberration that assumes a moving earth are only done so out of calculation convenience.

7 – aberration can be calculated, by assuming an earth motion that is not observed in any physical experiment, yet those calculations allow accurate flight plans to bring satellites into correct orbits.

8 – Heliocentrism is therefore a relatively convenient way to model light aberration and produce maths calculations that plot satellite flight paths.

When we see the above points it is noted that nowhere is geocentrism invalidated and nowhere is heliocentrism physically confirmed. Accordingly, Tom Bridgman’s claims concerning light aberration are at best only truth claims concerning an assumed earth motion and light aberration calculations that have some pragmatic value and nothing more and nothing less. He cannot conclude that geocentrism is therefore invalidated and heliocentrism is therefore real.

Tom - The LRR is not the only laser ranging experiment.   I can think of three that have operated, or are operating, around the solar system:

• MOLA was in orbit around Mars, 
• LOLA is currently in lunar orbit, 
• Messenger is at Mercury 

JM – Tom fails to tell us that none of these experiments use retro-reflectors and as such, the lasers that bounce from a body, back to the satellite are not the same configuration at that used in the LLR. Therefore the LLR is a unique experiment that clearly indicates the moon is moving past a stationary earth.

Tom - (see Planetary Laser Altimetry). All these instruments operate by bouncing laser signals off the surface of the planet. All operate around the particular planet they orbit as if that planet were the center of the universe, or even as if the instrument itself were the center of the universe. The lasers use the exact same value of 'c' in computing their range from timing even though they are in motion relative to the Earth.  This is as expected from relativity.

JM – Tom doesn’t give us any evidence for his claim that “the instrument itself were the center of the universe”, so why would anyone take his claim seriously, especially when we note the MOLA and other similar experiments don’t use retro reflectors? Does Tom really think everyone will miss this important and somewhat obvious point? Maybe he does.

Tom - If the Earth were truly a distinguished coordinate system as Mr. Martin claims, then you would expect these laser altimeters to operate differently when orbiting another planet.

JM – Laser altimeters only measure the distance between the satellite and the ground surface below the satellite. What is it about laser altimeters that requires the earth to be any different to other objects? Tom merely assumes so and then poses a false challenge to geocentrists to come up with the evidence that is not required.

Tom - Mr. Martin evades specifying what would be different in their operation. The simple fact is the laser altimeters operate exactly like they do when based the Earth, or Earth orbit, as predicted/expected by relativity.

JM – Mr Martin never discussed laser altimeters, so Mr Martin was not evading any issue at all. Tom is lying again.

Tom - This is not an idle question. 

JM – taken in context of what the laser altimeter does, it is a dull and irrelevant question.

Tom - If there were a way to distinguish a frame of absolute motion, it would be possible to build an actual 'speedometer' to ride aboard a spacecraft, instead of using the complex combination of spacecraft orientation and remote Doppler measurements currently required.  If Geocentrists are correct, they should be able to prove their case by the invention of such a device.

JM – Geocentrists claim the earth is stationary relative to the rest of the universe. We also claim the universe is permeated with an aether flow, which is the cause of aberration and motions of objects in the cosmos. How then is it possible to build a speedometer, based upon some absolute property of zero motion on earth? I’m not sure off hand, but maybe as a starter we could suppose that a speedometer is set at a bench mark of zero velocity when placed on the earth’s surface and any motion relative to earths rest is then an absolute motion.

Then again a speedometer isn’t required to determine if the earth is stationary or not because physical experiments have already been performed that show the earth is stationary. As such, Tom is using desperate hand waving to avoid the consequences of all experiments that have failed to detect the motion of the earth.

Tom - Mr. Martin whines that Dr. Murphy won't respond to him.

JM – No, I merely stated the truth. I asked Tom Murphy a series of simple questions, which he answered. Then I asked him if the LLR would work if the earth was stationary and all he had to do was answer either yes or no. This would have taken about 5-10 seconds of Tom Murphy’s time. Why is it that a man of Tom Murphy’s intelligence can answer questions on the LLR, yet when it comes to the matter of a stationary earth, he chooses to remain silent? Tom Bridgman’s reasoning is evidently false, and therefore Tom Murphy has chosen not to answer my question because Tom Murphy knows geocentrism is the only real way to explain the LLR outside of the failed theory of relativity.

Tom - That is no mystery. People doing real work don't enjoy wasting their work time with Mr. Martin's type of silliness, whereas I do this as a hobby outside my day job.

JM – Tom Bridgman finds plenty of time to answer my silliness, so that makes him silly or perhaps unemployed.

Tom - Mr. Martin cannot produce an experiment operating around the other planets, or in the space between them, that suggests Geocentrism is true. There are many experiments operating in these regions providing evidence that Geocentrism is false.

JM – Tom’s claims makes Tom a prophet! No, really Tom, do you think geocentrists are going to ignore all the physical evidence for geocentrism and ignore the fact that you routinely ignore the evidence presented? Do you really Tom . . . come on man, get real and fess up to the fact that your case against geocentrism is very compartmentalized and illogical.

Geocentrism forever remains a truth denied by the professionals, in spite of the physical evidence to save the professionals career, because the science establishment has bought into the moving earth theory, based upon a false understanding of parallax, aberration, the Foucault pendulum and the ad hoc explanations given to the many experiments that have failed to detect the motion of the earth.

Science can and often does make discoveries without the need of divine revelation. Yet in the case of cosmology, the divine creator has chosen to inform man of the stationary earth. As such, science must bow to the truths given to man by God and embrace geocentrism.

Despite any attempts by the relativists and heliocentrists, geocentrism has not been invalidated and it never will simply because geocentrism has been revealed by God, who is the cause of all truth.

JM

Comparison of the Catholic notion of Christ’s sacrifice and its effects, with Calvinism’s penal substitution and its effects.

The following is a Comparison of the Catholic notion of Christ’s sacrifice and its effects, with Calvinism’s penal substitution and its effects.

Catholic- Christ was God
Reformed - Christ was God

Catholic- Christ was sent to save sinners
Reformed - Christ was sent to save sinners

Catholic- Christ instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice in the upper room as a fulfillment of the todah sacrifice, Passover remembrance sacrifice and the unbloody mosaic sacrifices. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0124.html
Reformed - An unbloody sacrifice is not instituted and no fulfillment of the Mosaic unbloody sacrifices is made, nor the todah sacrifices

Catholic- Christ is offered at the time of the Jewish Passover to institute a new Passover sacrifice whereby men are to eat his flesh as the new lamb.
Reformed - Christ’s offering at the time of the Jewish Passover and no new Passover sacrifice is instituted whereby men are to eat his flesh as the new lamb.

Catholic- Christ is without sin.
Reformed - Christ is without sin.

Catholic- Christ does not have the sins of men imputed to him by the Father
Reformed - Christ does have the sins of men imputed to him by the Father

Catholic- Christ does not suffer under the wrath of the Father who does not make Christ suffer in the place of men.
Reformed - Christ suffers under the wrath of the Father who makes Christ suffer in the place of men.

Catholic- Christ suffers under the Romans and Jews for the accusation of blasphemy
Reformed - Christ suffers under the Romans and Jews for the accusation of blasphemy

Catholic- Christ dies and enters into the realm of the dead to preach to the dead
Reformed - Christ enters into hell to suffer the punishment of the damned

Catholic- Christ rises from the dead
Reformed - Christ rises from the dead

Catholic- Christ ascends into heaven to sit at the right hand of the father to act as priest, prophet and king.
Reformed - Christ ascends into heaven to sit at the right hand of the father to be glorified due to his completed work.

Catholic- Christ stands as a lamb slain to have his once for all sacrifice constantly presented to the Father. This action is a representation of the cross made present.
Reformed - Not necessary and not explained

Catholic- Christ rises from the dead and merits for himself a priesthood due to his new immortal life. He uses this priesthood in the order of Melchizedeck to continually offer the unbloody todah sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary as an act of propitiation to take away men’s sins
Reformed - Christ rises from the dead and is a High priest, but there is no need to him to be offering a sacrifice.

Catholic- Christ continually presents his once for all sacrifice to appease the Father.
Reformed - The Father sees Christ’s act as a substitute for all men as a one time act.

Catholic- Christ has his divine life infused into men and then the Father declares them to be righteous because they are his adopted children
Reformed - Christ has his righteousness imputed to the sinner and the Father declares the sinner to be righteous, whilst remaining a sinner.

Catholic- Grace is a participation in the divine life infused into the soul, the intellect and will, whereby men freely make acts of faith, hope and love
Reformed - Grace is a favor, which is vaguely defined.

Catholic- Grace is formally a supernatural thing acting inside a man to make the man act supernaturally towards a supernatural good.
Reformed - Grace is not formally supernatural and man is not elevated to the supernatural life

Catholic- Faith is a theological virtue
Reformed - Faith is vaguely defined as a gift and instrumental cause of justification

Catholic- Men can easily keep the commandments with grace
Reformed - Men cannot keep the commandments with grace

Catholic- Once raised into the supernatural family of God Men are to work out their salvation with the grace given and can lose salvation through mortal sin.
Reformed - Once justified by a favor, men cannot lose salvation, because the imputation is a divine work, which men cannot stop by sin.

Catholic- Justification is a familial act within a covenant, new Israel, new Exodus, new Davidic Kingdom, new law of Christ, new priesthood and new tabernacle, new ark of the covenant and new temple.
Reformed – Justification is a legal imputation within a court room setting.

Catholic- Sanctification is another word for justifying grace making the man intrinsically holy before God.
Reformed – Sanctification is not separate, but a distinct act after justification, whereby the justified man attempts to keep the commandments and gain more rewards in heaven.

The Catholic Alternative to the Reformed Doctrines of the Atonement and Justification.

The following post presents the Catholic Alternative to the Reformed Doctrines of the Atonement and Justification.

The Old Testament has several important covenants as follows –

Adam – covenant of marriage.
Noah – covenant within a family
Abraham – covenant within a tribe and promised nation.
Moses - covenant within a nation
David - covenant within a kingdom

The new covenant for all men as a truly catholic covenant which is made when Christ institutes seven oaths whereby Gods name is evoked to have him act within his people to place them into the household of God and infuse grace into souls to have them become children of God. These seven oaths are sacraments.

The OT contains at least three major events critical to the life of the church. These events are fulfilled in the life of Christ.

The creation event is a liturgically chronological action of God to build a temple for Himself. The creation narrative of day and night and speaking, making the sun and moon to measure feast says is architectonic language, similar to the language used when Noah is instructed to build the ark, Moses is instructed to build the tabernacle and Solomon is instructed to build the temple.

OT- Adam is the high priest, Eve is the church existing in the garden as the holy of holies.
Adam is commanded to keep the garden and therefore offer himself as a sacrifice for his bride. Adam and Eve fail a covenant test, are cursed and sent into exile.

Christ is the new Adam, Mary is the earth and Eve from which Adam comes. Christ is offered as a sacrifice for sin, and his church eats from him as the tree of life.

The second major event in the OT church is the Exodus. The OT exodus event is fulfilled in the NT –

OT- Moses lives in Egypt and then exits into the wilderness as a man to be tried.
NT- Jesus lives in Egypt and then exits into the wilderness as a man to be tried.

OT- Moses is instructed to liberate his people with a staff and his brother Aron, who speaks for him.
NT- Jesus liberates his people as a shepherd, with Peter speaking for him in acts and the gospels.

OT- Moses performs miracles to have Israel believe in him and Pharaoh harden his heart.
NT- Jesus performs miracles to have Israel believe in him and the Pharisees harden his heart.

OT- Moses commands Israel kill and eat the Passover lamb to have the angel of death Passover Israel.
NT- Jesus is the new Passover lamb killed and according to Paul is to be eaten as a feast, to have the new Israel exit the Mosaic covenant.

OT- Israel enters into the desert and has a covenant composed of a high priest, priest, Levites and the priesthood of all believers.
NT-The church is a pilgrim people entering into the new desert with Jesus as the new high priest with the bishops as high priests, new NT priests to replace the OT priest, deacons to replace the Levites and new Israel of believers to replace the old Israel believers.

OT- Israel enters into the desert and receives the miraculous manna and water from the rock
NT-New Israel enters into the desert and receives the new miraculous manna in the Eucharist and water from the rock in baptism.

OT- Israel wanders in the desert for a generation before entering the promised land.
NT-The church is a new Israel in the desert before entering into the promised land of heaven.

The third major event in the OT church is when David has a promise made to him in 2 Sam 7. David’s kingdom continues after his death through the power of the keys granted to the chief minister of the kingdom.
Jesus is the new David, who institutes a new kingdom and new keys are given to Peter for him to be the new chief prime minister.

Salvation comes through Christ being sacrificed as a new Adam, new Passover lamb and first born son. Christ institutes the church as a new Israel of God, with bishops, priests, deacons and the lay priesthood of believers. The church is given seven sacraments through which the Gospel, as the power of God, is enacted.

The sacrament is given and grace is infused into the souls of men, for men to become children of God and thereby justified.

Arguments that Invalidate Calvinism.

The following arguments invalidate one of John Calvin's central doctrines of penal substitution.

1 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means Jesus has deceived the father and therefore the Father and Jesus are not God because God cannot be deceived, or sin.

2 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means the Father sent the son to do a sinful act to deceive the father into believing we are righteous even though we are not.

3 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means there is no need for faith, because a substitute is a substitute for all our sins. Yet the scriptures say we need faith to be justified.

4 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means nobody can go to hell, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin as a substitute.

5 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means the scriptures are wrong because nowhere does the scriptures say Jesus was a substitute for our sins.

6 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, after the Son has deceived the Father into thinking we are righteous, even though we are sinners. Therefore the Holy Spirit has been sent on a mission by a deceiver and the deceived, to guide the church into the truth of forensic imputation of righteousness, which is itself a deception. Evidently the Holy Spirit is also a deceiver and has been deceived.

7 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means there is no precedent in the OT for a substitute atoning for a sinner and the sinner having the substitutes righteousness imputed to the sinner, therefore if penal substitution is correct, it is not base upon the OT, so Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he didn’t fulfill the OT.

8 – If Christ is our substitute and we are imputed a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, this means there is no need for repentance because the substitute has been made and the Father sees all men as righteous.

9 – According to Calvinism, the substitute only has limited value because it’s not applied to all men, even though it’s a perfect substitute. Somehow the father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute. So the Father has been deceived in sending the Son as a substitute because the substitute didn’t work for some men even though Jesus was the perfect substitute. What’s a God got to do to be a substitute and perfect savior when not even an imputed exchange that is external to the sinner cannot cover all men’s sins?

10 – The scriptures have deceived us into thinking we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God, even though according to Calvinism, man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God. Therefore we are told on one had to have faith and this is enough to be justified by a legal process, yet we are also told men cannot do an act pleasing to God, so God justifies man, even though He is not pleased with men’s acts. What’s a man to do to be justified after all? Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? (Yep!) If not, then why does man have to do any act at all to receive justification, when the perfect sacrificial substitute has already been made?

11 – If God sends anyone to hell then He is being unjust, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin.

12 – There is nothing intrinsic to the substitute of Jesus sacrificial act that makes the value limited to only some men, simply because according to Calvinism no man can do any act that pleases God. As no man can do an act that pleases God, then all men must be saved, yet according to scripture, not all men will be saved.

13 – Nowhere do the scriptures teach that the non legal act of faith in an act of another man in the OT or of the God man Jesus Christ in the NT causes a legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinners account.

14 - If the non legal act of faith can have Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinners account then there must be something legal about the act of faith. Therefore according to the substitute theory, a non legal act that does not have legal righteousness, has a legal righteousness through imputation. But this infers a contradiction regarding the value of a non legal act that is then said to have a legal value.

15 - The nature of God is truth itself and when God says something about a thing, it comes into being what God says it to be. When God declares a man to be righteous, his declaration makes the man intrinsically righteous by His grace. However the substitute theory of imputed righteousness says man does not become righteous, but remains a sinner, even though God declares the man righteous. Therefore the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness by faith alone is unscriptural according to Gods infinite power to bring about what he truthfully declares to be real.

16 – If Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the sinners account, then the sinner is not righteous, but only his account is righteous, therefore only the account gets to heaven and never the sinner.

17 - The scriptures teach that those in heaven are without sin, but this is not the same as a sinner having a righteousness imputed to his account, therefore the penal substitution theory is not scriptural.

18 – The scriptures teach God is a supernatural being with an intimate life of the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As God is supernatural the just in heaven can only see God by having there minds supernaturalised by the light of glory as an effect of grace. As the human mind must be supernaturally elevated, and divinized to see God face to face in heaven, then justification cannot be an imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, but an infusion of the divine life of the supernatural God into the soul of the just man. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.

19- Saints in heave are justified, yet there is no faith in heaven. Therefore the saints in heave are not justified by faith alone. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.

20 – St Paul tells us that love is the greatest virtue. If we are justified by faith, then we are also justified by love, for love is greater than faith. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.

21 – Hebrews 5:9 says Christ is a source of eternal life for all who obey him. As obedience is to follow a law, which is the law of Christ, then obedience is distinct and no the same as faith. Therefore those who are justified are justified by obedience and not by faith alone. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.

22 – James 2 says man is justified by works and not by faith alone. However the penal substitution theory of imputed righteousness by faith alone says man is not justified by works. Therefore the penal substitution theory is not scriptural.

23 – Christ is the perfect substitute for our sins, so logically all man can continue in their sins without repentance. But the scriptures say man must repent, therefore Christ was not the perfect substitute.

24 – Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. If this is so, then there is no need to repent, because the Father always sees the sinner as righteous. Yet the scriptures teach men must repent, believe and keep the commandments and as Jesus says the woman caught committing adultery, go and sin no more. Evidently the logical conclusions of penal substitution and imputed righteousness contradict the scriptures.

25 - Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. Therefore according to this theory the Father either has a limited power so he cannot really make a sinner righteous, which is not scriptural, or he has chosen not to make the sinner really righteous, even though he could by his power. If the later, then the Father has chosen an imperfect means by which men are justified, when he could have chosen a perfect means. As an imperfect means is not compatible with the perfection of God, the theory of imputed righteousness is against the perfection of God and is therefore unbiblical.

26 - Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. According to this theory there is no way the sinner can suffer the loss of his salvation, because salvation is only a work of God by his grace of Imputed righteousness, which is external to the sinner. As the imputed righteousness, is external to the sinner (probably in the heavenly court), then the sinner cannot change Gods decree in the sinners account. But scripture says men can and do lose their salvation (see Galatians warning of a false gospel and Hebrew warnings of falling away), therefore men can change their imputed righteousness status by their sins. However according to the imputed righteousness theory, the imputed righteousness was originally given precisely because men are sinners and Christ is there substitute. So sinners are justified by an imputed righteousness, whilst remaining sinners, yet scripture says men are not righteous if they remain or return to their sins. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is both unbiblical and illogical.

27 – Scriptures refers to justification as a process by numerous references to a man having been saved, is being saved and will be saved. These verses indicate a past action that continues and will continue into the future based upon human actions through gods grace. However, the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness requires a once for all time event that occurred in the past for the sinner, who was saved and can never lose his salvation in the future. Therefore the theory of imputed righteousness is unscriptural.

28 – The greatest commandment is to love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself. However according to the imputed righteousness theory, love of God and neighbor does not cause one to have Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinner, because the action of imputing Christ’s righteousness is completed by faith alone. Therefore the greatest commandment has nothing to do with justification, which means God commands men to do acts, when he knows those commandments have nothing to do with making men right with God. Therefore, according to the imputation theory, God commands men to do futile acts. However, according to the scriptures, God cannot command men to do futile acts, because God is perfect, and to command a futile act is to be imperfect. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is both unbiblical and against the nature of God.

29 – According to Acts 2 that says “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift”, forgiveness of sins is obtained by repentance and baptism and not by faith alone. As the scripture require repentance and baptism for forgiveness and forgiveness is required to be justified, then a man cannot be justified by faith alone. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is unbiblical.

30 – Jesus was killed as a sacrifice to appease the wrath of the Father (Eph 2:5). But a sacrifice is not a substitute, for a substitute is to stand in the place of another, whereas a sacrifice is to destroy something of value to obtain favor from the person to whom the act is offered. As scripture says Jesus’ offering on the cross was a sacrifice and it never states Jesus was a substitute, the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness is unbiblical.

31 – According to Calvin, the theory of Imputed righteousness required that Jesus entered into Hell during his time in the tomb and only then did he satisfy divine justice. Yet scripture never states Jesus entered into hell to satisfy divine justice as a substitute for sinners. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is unbiblical.

32 - According to Calvin, the theory of Imputed righteousness required that Jesus entered into Hell during his time in the tomb and only then did he satisfy divine justice. This means that nobody can go to hell because Jesus has already done it for us and for another man to enter into hell would be an act of injustice. As we are told by St Paul that men do go to hell, then the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness is unbiblical.

33 – According to Calvin, the theory of Imputed righteousness required that Jesus entered into Hell during his time in the tomb and only then did he satisfy divine justice for the elect. However there is nothing intrinsically different from the elect and non elect as regards the act of Jesus entering into hell, because the act of Jesus and the acceptance of the act by the Father is extrinsic to the sinner. As this act by Jesus and the Father is perfect, then it must be good enough to justify all men. Yet the acts of the Father and Jesus are said by Calvinists to be only for the elect and not all men, so Jesus’ substitutary action is imperfect and the Fathers acceptance of Jesus act is also imperfect. Therefore the work of Jesus is imperfect as a savior. But Jesus work as a savior must be perfect, because He is God. Therefore the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness is both unbiblical and against the nature of God.

34- According to scripture keeping the commandments is easy (1 John 5:3) and we are not to sin (Matthew 18:8, Mark 10:19) to enter into eternal life –

1 John 5:3 - This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome

Matthew 18:8

If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Mark 10:17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.”

But Calvinism says all man need do to enter into eternal life is to believe and Christ’s righteousness imputed to his account. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with scripture.

35- God never asks man to do something he cannot do without Gods help. But God commands that men keep the commandments to enter into eternal life. Yet Calvinism teaches man cannot keep the commandments to enter into eternal life, therefore according to Calvinism, God is unjust and doesn’t give enough help for men to keep the commandments. But according to scripture keeping the commandments is easy (1 John 5:3), therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with scripture.

36- Calvinism says men are sinners until they enter into eternal life in heaven. And according to Calvinism and scripture, heaven has no sin, but according to Calvinism there must be something done to the sinner between death and heaven to be transformed from a sinner into a saint who keeps the commandments perfectly. But Calvinism denies and intermediate state between this life and heaven. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with itself and scripture.

37- Calvinism teaches the merit of Christ’s atonement is imputed to the sinner when the sinner has faith. Therefore according to Calvinism, Christ’s atonement only has a value whereby Gods righteousness is imputed. But to impute is to merely state or declare something to be, without the righteousness actually existing in the justified sinner. Therefore, as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness has the same value as Christ’s intrinsic righteousness, as he is God, then Jesus must only be declared to be righteous by the Father, because the equivalent value is the same for both Christ and the justified sinner. Therefore Christ is not intrinsically righteous, therefore he did not keep the commandments and therefore he was not God.

38- Calvinism teaches the merit of Christ’s atonement is imputed to the sinner when the sinner has faith. Therefore according to Calvinism, Christ’s atonement only has a value whereby Gods righteousness is imputed. But to impute is to merely state or declare something to be, without the righteousness actually existing in the justified sinner. Therefore, as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness has the same value as Christ’s intrinsic righteousness, as he is God, then the sinner cannot only be declared to be God, but is God, just as Jesus is God. But sinners are not God, but are creatures. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with itself concerning the nature of justification and Christ’s righteousness.

39- The righteousness of God is the divine essence itself, for the divine nature is the eternal law and therefore the divine nature always acts perfectly in accordance with the law, as it is the eternal law. But Calvinism teaches the merit of Christ’s atonement is imputed to the sinner when the sinner has faith. Therefore according to Calvinism, Christ’s atonement only has a value whereby Gods righteousness is imputed. But to impute Gods righteousness to another, is against the nature of God, for God does not impute His own righteousness to himself, but is righteousness itself as the eternal law. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with the nature of righteousness of God and its application to a sinner as an imputed righteousness.

40- The righteousness of God is the nature of God as He is supernatural. The saints see Gods righteousness and participate in His righteousness in heaven. Therefore the saints in heaven must participate in the nature of God as He is supernatural for them to see him face to face as children of God. As this vision of God is the final stage of justification, as glorification, then justification must of itself be an infusion of Gods righteousness into the soul of the saint on earth for the saint to see God in heaven. But Calvinism teaches justification is not the infusion of the divine life into the soul of the saint, but only an imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with the scriptural truth of saints in heaven seeing God face to face as a supernatural vision of the Trinity.

41- Calvinism teaches faith is an instrument of mans justification whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinners account. However faith is a git of God as an effect of the atonement along with other virtues such as hope, love, patient, humility, chastity and so on. Therefore there is nothing unique about the origin of faith as a gift from God. But Calvinism teaches faith is unique as it alone is required to be justified with God. However as there are many other virtues that are given by God, there is no intrinsic reason why the other virtues cannot please god and justify the sinner. Therefore Calvinism is arbitrary in its appointing faith alone as an instrument for mans justification and is therefore invalidated.

42- Calvinism does not define grace as a thing, but only a favour. Yet Calvinism teaches it is by grace that the will of the sinner is brought from loving a creature to loving the Father above all things. But for grace to act in the will, grace must be more than mere favour, but a physical reality acting inside the powers of the human soul to transform the sinner into a saint. Therefore Calvinism is invalidate according to its internal inconsistency by referring to grace as a mere favour and then as more than a mere favour, as a thing acting in the will.

43- Calvinism makes an arbitrary distinction between justification and sanctification. Justification is the imputation Christ’s righteousness to his account and sanctification is the life lived after justification to merit a greater reward in heaven. Yet the life lived after justification is not the life of a man who can keep the commandments, so sanctification is a mere fiction, following upon an imputed justification. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent in its understanding of the value of moral acts after justification.

44- Calvinism makes an arbitrary distinction between justification and sanctification not found in scripture, therefore Calvinism is unscriptural.

45- Calvinism ignores the testimony of the church fathers, who did not teach a man is justified by faith alone, but by faith and works. Therefore Calvinism is inconsistent with the voice of the Holy Spirit teaching within the church and is therefore inconsistent with church tradition.

46 – Calvinism bases its doctrine on the premise that scripture is the Word of God. However the texts said to be written by God, never define the meaning of the term inspiration, other than in 2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. . .

But as “God breathed” is only a metaphor, then all Calvin’s doctrines are based upon a text having the quality of a metaphor. But a metaphor does not inform us directly of the nature of the thing being spoken about. Therefore Calvin’s doctrines are based upon a text, which we don’t know the intrinsic value of regarding Gods authorship, and as we don’t know, then we don’t know if Calvin’s doctrines are from God or not. Therefore as Calvinism is based upon a negative premise (we don’t know the value of the text), and as nothing positive comes from a negative, then any positive conclusion in Calvinism is illogical, which invalidates Calvinism.

47- Calvinism says there is nothing a man can do to be justified. "In thy sight shall no flesh be justified."

But Calvinism also teaches faith is required to be justified.

But faith is an act done by man.

Therefore there is an act man can do to be justified, contrary to Calvinism.

Therefore Calvinism teaches man cannot do an act to be justified, but must do an act to be justified.

Therefore Calvinism is self contradictory and accordingly invalidated.

48- Scripture says God calls the elect by His grace to enter into eternal life. But Calvinism says the elect are so because Gods grace is irresistible and once received, cannot be lost. Yet scripture says the elect can and do resist grace and turn to another gospel in Gal 1:6 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel".

Notice the reference to calling, the explicit reference to the grace of Christ and the turning to a different Gospel in Gal 1:6, meaning a loss of grace for those who were called. Therefore according to the scriptures, the grace of God for the elect is not irresistible, which contradicts what is taught by Calvinism. Therefore Calvinism is a false doctrine not based upon scripture.

A summary Resource for Geocentrism

A unique planetary orbital flower pattern around the stationary earth – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Flower%20Pattern.htm

The problem of the Venus dichotomy has been resolved within a geocentric model and has not been resolved within a heliocentric model – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Schroter.htm

The problem of the weather patterns on earth are clearly in favor of a stationary earth – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

The problem of negative parallax is in favor of a stellartum that moves around a stationary earth – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Negative%20parallax.htm

Cosmic phenomena is in favor of geocentrism, such as – 

1. Quantized galaxy light periodicity showing the galaxies are located in concentric shells around the earth

2. Gamma ray burst focused on the earth

3. Quasars located in spherical shells around the earth

4. BLac and X-Ray bursts having earth centered periodicity

5. Specroscopic Binaries and Globular clusters – axis of binary stars are pointed towards the earth (Barr effect). Globular clusters are also focused on the earth.

6. Quantized planetary orbits – a law of planetary distances matches the preferred redshift of quasars with a ratio of 1:1.23.

7. Sloan digital survey showing the cosmic bodies are organized around the earth in broad shells

8 . Michelson Morley experiment showing a small fringe shift as an ether drift

9. Michelson Gale experiment showing a small fringe shift as an ether drift

10. Sagnac effect showing light moves at c+-v relative to the ether and absolute earth.

11. Many other experimental outcomes as discussed in GWW

There have even been symposiums such as the Copernicus Symposium II in 1973, in which a paper was submitted, entitled – Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, in which evidence was presented for a non Copernican universe.

I also note that the apparently elegant heliocentric model is based upon a problematic Newtonian mechanics as shown here – http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116413-johnmartin2009-s-discussion-of-modern-physics?p=1904170#post1904170

I have also invalidated relativity theory here –
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116413-johnmartin2009-s-discussion-of-modern-physics?p=1907731#post1907731

The posts (including the 58 invalidations) were made in a physics forum where most were avowed relativists and nobody bothered to provide any compelling answers to any of the arguments made after about 1500 viewings of the arguments.