ZoNATION: Since When Does Free Speech Need a License?

alfonzo
Zo wants to remind some folks that free religious exercise is protected, before free speech in the 1st amendment. It helps to be formally trained on the topics people comment on, sure. It’s not required though. It appears that some people say Zo should only speak openly on things he’s formally trained in. Hear what zo has to say in this ZoNation.

Here’s the video in question:

Hey! Thanks for watching my vids! If you like the message in them then You’ll have a BLAST nukin’ the liberal Narrative with my audio book of Christian Conservalicious profundus, written and read by Me! WEAPON OF A.S.S. DESTRUCTION! CLICK HERE OR IMAGE AND CHECK OUT SOME REVIEWS, AND GET YOUR COPY!!!


  • I think it would awesome if the tablets where sapphire but I think you could be right with the ten Commandments written in sapphire because it is logical. I love it Zo when you talk about God and hope you keep doing so.

  • AmericanLass

    There is always one or two in a crowd who are know-it-alls. Keep doing what you’re doing and pay them no never mind. Moses talked with God, that’s the “highest” degree of all. Can any other theologian say that.

  • TheAnthillGoddess

    Rest assured, Zo, you have at least one person who watches your vids for your take on theology! As I’ve said before…it’s so easy for me to understand the “stories” in the Bible when you break them down the way you do. I enjoy your perspective on all the other matters, too…but I love that you always seem to have a Biblical reference to go to as an answer!

  • Susan

    Doh! Owned it again, Zo! The fact that you can admit to all of that just proves your integrity is solid. Thanks for always being honest and genuine.

  • Bryan Lyman

    “Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.” — Romans 12:16
    “And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” — Luke 9:49,50

    There are many Christian religions, and they all have their own seminaries. It is prideful to say that your license is above that of others because they are not “educated” in your definition. Didn’t Christ chastise those high-minded priests who thought their positions and learning made them a better authority on what God “meant to say”? When Jesus entered the temple as a child and confounded the wisdom of old men who considered themselves “educated”, would you have been one of those wise men who thought to shut him down because he didn’t have a piece of paper from your church saying you are authorized to teach the gospel? When you declare yourself “wiser” than another remember this:

    “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;” — 1 Corinthians 1:27

    Keep speaking truth ZO!

    • Robert Brumbelow

      You might try looking at my original reply to the video in question before you accuse me of being prideful. There is scripture, and then there are things people try and add to scripture. Scripture itself comments to additions: Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

    • Bryan Lyman

      I didn’t read your original reply. Nor did I directly point a finger at you and call you prideful. I was speaking generally to those who consider themselves above others because of their learning.The questions were intended to posit an idea, not to accuse; so please don’t think I am doing so.

      I agree that you shouldn’t add to scripture, meaning you shouldn’t intentionally try and change the meaning to suit a purpose that you know is not in accordance to the truth. I don’t think that is what Alfonzo was doing. And referring to Revelations 22:18, talk about taking things out of context. That scripture was written by John the revelator at the end of a “book”, the book of revelation to be precise. He was speaking specifically of that book. There are other scriptural “books” contained in the collection of books we call the Bible which were written AFTER Revelations, so are those books false (that would be adding to the Bible)? There are other books written that weren’t compiled into the Bible either, so because we don’t consider those books part of the Bible, are you “taking away” from the Bible by not considering them scripture? Just food for thought.

    • Robert Brumbelow

      You are absolutely incorrect about the traditional interpretation of the scripture I cited. It has been taken to mean the summation of scripture. not simply Revelation.

    • Bryan Lyman

      So says you. If you are a scriptorian as you claim to be, you would know that just because Revelations is the last book in the Bible it wasn’t the last book chronologically written. John was a revelator of the second coming and wrote the book called Revelation to that effect, Revelation Chapter 22 is a epilog to his book, and he even uses the words “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book” and “the plagues that are written in this book” speaking of the plagues he prophesied about the second coming. He even says, “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of THIS PROPHECY” mentioning his own writing specifically. I don’t bring this up to fight with you, but I have seen so many people misquote this scripture I feel obliged to point it out.

    • Robert Brumbelow

      No, it is not “so says me.” Scriptorian? please do not make up words, try actually learning about that which speak. Further, there are plenty of other similar prohibitions. For example Deut. 4:2, 12:32, Prv 30:5-6 are 3 that come to immediate mind.

      Chronology has nothing to do with it, instead it has to do with man shall not add to or take away. What God does is in His own pervue. So God can and may add to scripture, man may not.

    • TheAnthillGoddess

      In fact, “scriptorian” *is* an actual word if you go by amount of usage vs dictionary (kind of like saying “twerking” isn’t a word [how I wish it weren’t] when it’s in common usage all across the world)

    • Robert Brumbelow

      Unlike Mr Rachel, I am willing to accept correction. “Scriptorian” is a word, though it has primarily become a Mormon colloquialism. Thank you for calling me on it and making me less ignorant.

      BTW, words are not words directly because of common usage, else Ebonics would be a real language. Twerking is a word because the standard bearers of the English language, in twerking’s case the OED, have deemed it so.

    • American Girl

      So doesn’t that mean you are doing the same exact thing that Mr. Zo did? Let me get this straight… When he interprets scripture he is taking liberties with the text, but when you do it, you’re simply using a commonly used alternate meaning to the text? Do you see a problem here? I do…

    • Robert Brumbelow

      American GIrl, what you fail to understand is that first, there is a substantial difference between Alfonozo doing something that is new as opposed to relying on scripture itself. I am not just using an alternate meaning I am relying on the principle of Analogia fidei which very basically says that one allows Scripture to Interpret Scripture. There are numerous citations (see below for 3 of them) that state the prohibition for man to add tot he words God has spoken through Scripture. Further, I do not rely on the teachings of folk theology to do so. instead stand on the shoulders of the church fathers, the confessions and the creeds to do so. To compare what is going on here in a political manner allow me the following example. Mr Rachel is deciding what he wants to pick and choose then stretching it to fit. Like a 2nd amendment bashing progressive. I have responded that the 2nd is not to be read like that that in fact it should be read as the writer intends and and that the rights shall not be infringed.

    • Raymond Tower

      It seems that you are putting your own spin on the Book of Revelations and it’s meanings. It has been proven that there are other manuscripts that were not included in the bible as we know it.

    • Robert Brumbelow

      There is no Book of Revelations” in the Bible. There are plenty of other manuscripts in existence, including this discussion, they are not scripture and should not be included as such. The Southern Living Cookbook, as much as I still like the cooking I learned from it over the past 30+ years is not scripture either.

    • American Girl

      Again… “to THIS book” and “to THIS prophecy”. Just sayin’…

    • Robert Brumbelow

      You show you do not understand what scripture even is. Scripture is that body of text that God delivered to mankind in order that He might reveal Himself. the sheer arrogance of your comment is virtually overwhelming. Man does not add to or take away from scripture. Only God may do that. It is this that the verses speak to, not particular texts, though that is covered in general prohibition.

      The Christian world has come to understand that scripture has certain bounds. it is because of these bounds we are unwilling to accept the pseudo-canon of other groups like the Roman Catholic Church or the Mormon Church.

      If you actually want to learn something I would suggest the book by Paul D. Wegner:
      Journey from Texts to Translations, The: The Origin and Development of the Bible

    • Raymond Tower

      This book clearly refers to the Book of Revelations. You sir are doing exactly what you accuse Zo of doing.

    • Robert Brumbelow

      There is no “Book of Revelations”
      The substance of your objection has already been answered in my replies. See my other replies, but shortly it has to do with who may add to Scripture. God is not prohibited from doing so, man is.

    • Raymond Tower

      Then explain away the addition of versus. The original manuscripts did not have versus. Each was written as a book. There are also scrolls missing from the bible as well. Omitted by so called authorities.
      God speaks to each of us through his word as he sees fit. You act like you are the all knowing, the opposite of what God wants from us. The references within the Book of Revelation are for that book. God through man can add as he sees fit.

    • Robert Brumbelow

      Versus[sic] what? Like Good versus Evil? Dallas Cowboys versus Washington Redskins?

      If you mean verses, that is an indexing system. It is simply easier to say Genesis 2:1 than to say Torah scroll column 2 line 3 words 4-10 or whatever.

      The original manuscripts were not written as books, books were not invented for a thousand of year after (Dates for Job for example ~6 century BC, the codex {book} came into use ~3 century AD)

      There is an overarching narrative to scripture. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17

      To try and isolate Revelation from the rest of scripture is backwards. In fact Revelation is almost completely references to earlier scripture.

      There are no missing scrolls or books. The text we have has to meet certain criteria, people have claimed other revelation from God, but such texts do not meet the criteria for scripture.

      For the final time: Scripture is a whole, it is complete, it is consistent, it is true.

    • American Girl

      I agree that as Christian laymen we are more than qualified to stand as a witness in Christ; furthermore, we are told to go and spread the good news of God’s Amazing Gift of freedom, life, love, and hope.

  • Robert Brumbelow

    I stand by my original comment and further point out that my statement as to your status as a formal student of theology began with: I am going to assume a few things in my reply.

    That means: Lacking information to the contrary this is the basis of my response.

    So, if you are going to quote me, do it with the proper context. Further, who was this group of people who went with Moses to the mountaintop? Scripture has the 10 Commandments being given in Exodus 20, at a different even in Exodus 24 we find your reference: “24 Now He said to Moses, “Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and worship from afar. 2 And Moses alone shall come near the Lord, but they shall not come near; nor shall the people go up with him.” Still, the people are not with Moses. The elders are worshiping from afar.

    Did they see God from afar? Scripture confirms they did. Was the color of the ground the only thing mentioned as you claim? No, the full text says: 10 and they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. (KJV)

    All I asked was that you not add to scripture with folk theology, instead you prove

    Proverbs 12:1-3

    Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

    12 Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge:
    but he that hateth reproof is brutish.

    2 A good man obtaineth favour of the Lord:
    but a man of wicked devices will he condemn.

    3 A man shall not be established by wickedness:
    but the root of the righteous shall not be moved.

    • Still Studying and Learning

      Robert, let me ask this of you…are you not aware that King Constantine commissioned over 300 “bishops” of various so-called Christian sects to come up with a standard of belief. They met at Nicaea and argued long and hard for quite some time before positing the Nicene Creed in order to have King Constantine allow them to practice Christianity in his kingdom. During that council, they argued over many points of so-called doctrine and also declared the order of the books to be included in the Bible, and the order in which they were to be included. As one of the other commenters pointed out, they were out of order in many instances, and even though the Book of Revelations was NOT the last book written, it was placed there by the Council members to prevent anyone else from adding to the Bible, which was not the purpose of the Book of Revelation. Please read up on the Council at Nicaea and the contortions they went through to agree on the nature of the Godhead, whether God the Father(Elohim), was separate from Jehovah (the pre-mortal Christ) and the Holy Ghost, or the “Three in One”, or about original sin, preordination or predestination, baptism, etc. It’s amazing what one can learn if you really want to find the truth.

    • Robert Brumbelow

      Folks, the above comes from “folk theology”: There was no KingConstantine[sic], there is no Book of Revelations[sic] and the heresies presented as being true above are some of the very issues that The First Council of Nicaea met to correct.

      Church councils did not meet over the years to make new things, they met to show that new things did not fall inline with scripture, and so should be rejected.

      For a brief overview of Nicea for the absolute beginner who desires secular sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

      For someone who wants a bit more depth: http://www.douknow.net/jw_nicea.htm

      For still more information see http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4220867/k.5764/The_Council_of_Nicea.htm and footnotes.

  • Robert Brumbelow

    Let me also comment to the title of this post: At no time did I suggest or state one requires or should require a license to talk on the subject of theology. What I do suggest however is that when one speaks, they actually know what they are talking about, and take responsibility for their actions and statements.

  • Imtoooldforthis

    It seems to me that being EXACTLY right about the word of God is Robert Brumbelow’s whole purpose for his post. I personally, as a Christian woman, could care less how right he is. I read the Bible and try to follow God’s word to the best of my ability. I take His guidance from His book and if I choose to believe the tablets are colored orange or purple it makes no major difference to my learning the word of God. The only thing that counts is that I try to live a good life, be kind to others and be the best person I can. God knows I am flawed and loves me anyway. I really don’t think He worries about what color I assume the tablets are.

  • Cindy Ligtenberg Sween

    Mr. Rachel, I believe you gave solid evidence for why you said what you said. Anyone that argues that is allowing the little things to diminish what God’s plan really is. I checked it out for myself, and I can say I learned something new. That’s the amazing thing about God’s Word – you can’t possibly know it all! A source of never-ending learning? Incredible! He reveals Himself to me more and more by these revelations!

    If it makes you get all squirmy, then you have let what a MAN has said block your view. Mr. Rachel already pointed out he is still learning, and that he doesn’t know for certain. Who can claim for certain that they know EVERYTHING about God and His word? If you claim you have nothing to learn, that just proves you have closed your mind.

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to get the lastest from Alfonzo Rachel!