Feed on Posts or Comments 26 November 2014

Christianity &Islam Thomas on 12 Mar 2010 12:05 am

Marjoe – The Pentecostal Preacher

Preachers, faith healers, and other conmen: The story of ‘Marjoe’

Marjoe (named after Mary and Joseph) was born in 1944 to Pentecostal preacher parents. His father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were also evangelists and his parents noticed early in his life that he had a precocious self-confidence and good mimicry skills. They had the idea of making him a child preacher, publicizing a story of him at the age of three being visited by the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues while having a bath.

This is the full-length Academy Award-winning 1972 documentary about Marjoe:

It turns out the whole thing was a giant con, like all religion. If you are religious and you wish to understand how badly you are being conned by your religion, here is your chance to understand.

28 Responses to “Marjoe – The Pentecostal Preacher”

  1. on 12 Mar 2010 at 1:37 pm 1.Rostam said …

    Yep. the Bible warns about false teachers posing as children of the Light. Once again, Scripture is proven wise and valuable for reproof.

    Live the golden rule today Mat. 22:37

  2. on 12 Mar 2010 at 2:21 pm 2.Questioner said …

    Rostam – Scripture also tells you to kill people who work on the Sabbath. Why don’t you do that?

  3. on 12 Mar 2010 at 6:26 pm 3.Non-Believer said …

    Were the Catholic priests that were raping all the alter boys false teachers? Or just doing Gods will…

  4. on 12 Mar 2010 at 7:14 pm 4.Rostam said …

    Q,

    You refer to law given to the Hebrews. Hebrew cultural practices do not apply to modern man. If doesn’t apply today as taught by Christ in an encounter with the Pharisees.

    NB,

    Catholicism left the real Gospel years ago and have added a bunch of man-made nonsense. Hope that is clear enough.

  5. on 12 Mar 2010 at 10:10 pm 5.Questioner said …

    Rostam – Scripture tells you to hate your family – do you?

    “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

    “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.” (Matthew 10:34-35)

    Scripture tells you to drink poison to prove you are a believer – will you do that?

    And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well. (Mark 16:17-18)

  6. on 13 Mar 2010 at 12:43 am 6.Rostam said …

    LK 14:26 is a comparison statement if you look at the Greek. Your love for Christ must be so great that it pales in comparison to the love of your family. Any Sstematic theology book deals with this easily.

    Mat 10:34-35 if you look at the context of his teaching is not difficult. Those who follow Christ will bear the resentment of their own families may times due to their hatred of the Gospel. It is evident on a daily basis.

    Mk 16:17-18 “These signs shall follow them that believe.” It is generally held that this is a promise limited to the apostolic age and to a few of the disciples of that age. Mr 16:14 the apostles suffer from unbelief because they believed not them who had seen him after he had arisen. They are commended to go, and assured that miraculous credentials shall be given to those of them who believe.

    Hope this helps Q. Believe upon the name of Christ and you to shall be saved.

  7. on 13 Mar 2010 at 2:32 am 7.Questioner said …

    Believe upon the name of Christ and you shall be able to drink poison, according to scripture. But strangely you cannot.

  8. on 13 Mar 2010 at 3:33 am 8.Observer said …

    Rostam- The Catholics left the Gospel years ago? I hate to break to you pal, but the Catholics invented the nonsense you call Christianity. It is Peter and Paul’s church. The Catholics wrote the New Testament, etc. The Catholics added a bunch of man-made nonsense? Are you too dumb to see it is all man-made nonsense?

    Let us not forget the crack and pink pipe toking evangelical Christian luminary and role model Ted Haggard. Remember the film “Jesus Camp”? It was chilling, but great. IF there was an award for showing the world the truest Christian, sort of a Christian of the decade, Ted Haggard would be my man.

    Your patronizing comments to Questioner makes me want to call you a buffoon. But while you are funny like a buffoon, you do not dispense any wisdom.

  9. on 13 Mar 2010 at 8:09 am 9.Severin said …

    Rostam 6
    “It is generally held that this is a promise limited to the apostolic age and to a few of the disciples of that age.“

    „It is generally held“, „it is well known“, „as we all know“….. a bunch of typical phrases used to produce fog, to hide the fact that what was told had no real sources, no logic, and no foundation.

    It was „generally held“ some time ago that slavory was acceptable. It was „generally held“ that earth was a plate. It was „generally held“ that sun orbited earth.

    Whenever something in the Bible does not fit reality, especially modern understanding of morality, some „generally held“ appears, but you can NOT find it in the Bible.
    Reading the Bible, I did not see any remarks such as „Please do not take it literally“, or „This is only for my disciples“….
    So please inform us WHEN was the Bible revised, and especially WHO did it, and inform us WHERE to find the new, revised Bible, with clear, unmistakeable explanations of “god’s words”.

    If what you call „generally held“ was YOUR opinion….please! Why would it be better or more accurate than mine?

  10. on 13 Mar 2010 at 8:25 am 10.Severin said …

    Rostam
    How don’t you become tired of „translating“ the Bible?
    It repeats ALL THE time:
    Bible is unconsistent, illiogical, cruel, does not fit moder science and moder concept of morality, and DOES NOT contain any additional „user friendly manual“!
    What is written there is ALL we can find there. If god had to tell us something, he did it in the Bible, end!
    If he said it in a way described above (inconsistently, illiogiclly…) it was HIS will, and I can find at no place in the Bible that he ever authorized you or anyone else to interpret his words.
    So WHY are you doing it?
    If god was illiterate, stupid, uneducated, cruel, inconsistent, illogical, WHY do YOU find yourself authorized to explain his words to others? Are you more clever than your god? Was he so stupid to need YOU to explain him?
    In that case….

  11. on 13 Mar 2010 at 2:26 pm 11.Rostam said …

    “it is Peter and Paul’s church. The Catholics wrote the New Testament, etc. The Catholics added a bunch of man-made nonsense?”

    Yes, at one time the church as outlined in Acts 2 was fulfilling the mission Christ called it to fulfill. They didn’t write the OT or the NT books. At one time the Catholic church was indeed fulfilling the mission as well. They no longer do so.

    As a side note, the Catholics did not write any of the Biblical text unless you consider Peter, Paul, Luke, Moses etc Catholics?

    Not familiar with Ted can’t help you there.

    I take it Observer you and Severin are from the same mold?

    Please be clear on these patronizing comments I utter to Q. From what I have read, no blogger on this url is more patronizing than you.

  12. on 14 Mar 2010 at 8:05 am 12.Severin said …

    “I take it Observer you and Severin are from the same mold?”

    Yes,from the mold of knowledge and common sense.

  13. on 15 Mar 2010 at 4:15 am 13.C Woods said …

    I saw this Marjoe film on PBS when it first aired. At the time I was a very closeted, 27-year-old atheist.

    A month or so ago, my husband brought the DVD home from the library. I did some research on Marjoe and was going to post the information on my blog, but I’ve never gotten around to it. Thanks for posting this.

    As usual, the people who need to see it will not, and if they do, they will not want to see the truth, that evangelists are all a big scam.

  14. on 15 Mar 2010 at 11:16 am 14.3D said …

    4.Rostam said …
    “You refer to law given to the Hebrews. Hebrew cultural practices do not apply to modern man. If doesn’t apply today as taught by Christ in an encounter with the Pharisees.”

    Oh OK. So you believe that God, at one time, thought it was good and just to stone people. But then he changed his mind.

    How about you? Do you think that stoning people is wrong? I do. All the time, with no qualifications, in any era, past present and future, it is wrong. Do you agree?

  15. on 15 Mar 2010 at 3:06 pm 15.Rostam said …

    Of course I don’t agree with stoning. We have progressed over the Hebrew culture of that day. We electrocute and gas our offenders. Much better than the gallows!

    We tend to judge the ancients as cruel and barbaric while we use the much more sophisticated methods of sucking a baby right out of the womb of a mother while calling it “pro-choice”. Most atheist are liberal and most atheist tend to believe it is a mother’s right. If mother is not sure, we attempt to talk into the procedure explaining to her how this baby will ruin HER life. Great!

    How about you 3D? I disagree with sucking innocent children out of a mothers body is wrong past and present. Do you agree?

  16. on 15 Mar 2010 at 7:41 pm 16.Observer said …

    Rosta-

    I can think of no one who thinks an abortion is a great idea. It is a very sad thing. Conditions where unwanted pregnancies occur coincide with conservative values for society: lack of academic education, poor health care, poor to no sex education, etc. Only white-trash of the ilk one sees harassing women going into health clinics seem to believe women like getting pregnant and aborting fetuses. Of course, the biggest abortionist on the planet is your (imaginary) God.

    As for that crude Hebrew culture from which the crude, dumbed-down, and paganistic version of Judaism called Christianity arose, and from which you now say we have progressed from: how and when did we improve? Well, to the extent we have improved it only happened as Western Civilization moved away from Christianity via the rediscovery of Aristotle, the Reformation (the order is arguable), which created the political and economic groundwork for the Enlightenment, and modernity where we can leave even more superstitions, like theism, behind. It is really pretty clear, progress comes from progressive people. You should also note, progressive is often used interchangeably with liberal. I would agree with your assertion that most atheists are liberals, but not exclusively.

    Is George Will a liberal? He is not a theist. Actually, many establishment conservatives are agnostic or atheist. Also, the guys pulling the strings of the Tea Party rabble are mostly secular Jews.

    You really should check-out Sunni Islam. Ditch Jesus and his little troop of conspicuously unmarried sweethearts. Man-up, honor the Prophet, and reach for the potential of becoming a Taliban.

  17. on 18 Mar 2010 at 12:33 am 17.Recovering Episcopalian said …

    Thanks for a great website.

    Those who are deceived and will not learn see your words of wisdom before them as swine would see pearls. Blind.

    The God Virus is MY new bible!

  18. on 20 Mar 2010 at 11:07 pm 18.Burebista said …

    Your healing is now 1/2 completed. Now you need to find Jesus.

  19. on 10 May 2010 at 12:44 am 19.A tipper said …

    Doesn’t surprise me a bit to hear a crazy story/video like this. Pentecostals are the most conceited, stingy, “I’m better than you” pigs I have ever known. And trust me I have known a lot of P’s Most arrogant, most rude customers at restaurants, and no matter how much you kiss their feet they STILL do not leave a tip.

    To all Pentecostals reading this who fit into the set I have mentioned above. It takes more than long hair, long skirts and speaking in so-called tongues to get to your so-called heaven. You people think you are better than the whole world and make me sick. If you can’t afford to leave a tip for a waitperson making $2.13 per hour, KEEP YOUR FAT ASS AT HOME AND COOK!!!

  20. on 10 May 2010 at 12:49 am 20.A tipper said …

    Observer says:

    “….lack of academic education, poor health care, poor to no sex education, etc. Only white-trash of the ilk one sees harassing women going into health clinics seem to believe women like getting pregnant and aborting fetuses. Of course, the biggest abortionist on the planet is your (imaginary) God. ”

    So I see it’s been established you are an anti-white racist. All whites do not think like this. And YOU are the trash if you think so. Most of the time the teenage sluts you speak of do not abort their kids, they have one after another on purpose to bilk the government out of every dollar they can. I agree with you that abortion clinic patients have a right to not be harassed, but your hate is misplaced because probably just as many whites have abortions as nonwhites. STOP BRINGING RACE into it.

  21. on 10 May 2010 at 2:51 pm 21.Ben said …

    “If you can’t afford to leave a tip for a waitperson making $2.13 per hour”

    You do not make $2.13/hr and you know it. Whatever you make including tips that comes out below minimum wage, the company is required to subsidize to get you to minimum wage. That is rare in most restaurants. You usually end up making more than the minimum.

    My son is a waiter so I understand your frustration with non-tippers, but I know folks who work jobs making minimum wage with NO chance to make more with tips. Tips are a privilege for a job well done but NOT a right.

  22. on 10 May 2010 at 8:20 pm 22.3D said …

    15.Rostam said …
    Of course I don’t agree with stoning. We have progressed over the Hebrew culture of that day. We electrocute and gas our offenders. Much better than the gallows!

    Phew! That’s a relief, I thought you were going to say that stoning is sometimes OK and sometimes not. I agree with you, stoning is always wrong. So is electrocution, hanging, and any other form of death penalty. So I am glad we agree that all forms of state-sanctioned killing are wrong.

    Next follow-up question: if the barbaric condition of society dictated burnings and stonings as punishment, why did God choose to condone this in the Old Testament?

    I can see a few possible answers:

    1) God liked stonings and burnings, but then changed his mind. (But that makes God fallible — and immoral, at least at some point, till he corrected himself — so it seems like that would be wrong, at least if we accept the idea of God as the ultimate and infallible arbiter of morality.)

    2) God knew stonings and burnings were immoral, but he gave the people the laws they wanted. (But that invalidates the whole point of the Bible… why use it as a moral code if God’s laws are gonna shift and slide around to conform with the laws of men?)

    3) God STILL likes stonings and burnings and all the other old laws, but the New Testament which provides a do-over on those laws is wrong (Jewish POV — more or less).

    4) The Bible was made up by men, and they imposed their own barbaric beliefs on God based on the society at the time of the writing. (Seems to make the most sense to me: Old Testament-Era society was barbaric and cruel; by 300 A.D. it had mellowed out considerably.)

    Which do you think it is? Or is there another option or options I am missing?

    We tend to judge the ancients as cruel and barbaric while we use the much more sophisticated methods of sucking a baby right out of the womb of a mother while calling it “pro-choice”. Most atheist are liberal and most atheist tend to believe it is a mother’s right. If mother is not sure, we attempt to talk into the procedure explaining to her how this baby will ruin HER life. Great!

    I definitely don’t agree with any policy or advice that leads to more abortions. I think a goal of society should be to reduce the number of them that occur, by sex education, by birth control and by prophylactics. With enough education, I believe we can lower the number of desired abortions to a number that is near enough to zero to be negligible.

    Unfortunately, most theists are against these preventative measures as fervently as they are against abortion, so this provides a stumbling block.

    Many theists I talk to don’t even care about the fetus’s well-being, they only want to punish young girls who they perceive as sluts for having what they perceive as a promiscuous lifestyle. I don’t put you in that category, not knowing you, but I feel this is another stumbling block to rational debate on this issue.

    How about you 3D? I disagree with sucking innocent children out of a mothers body is wrong past and present. Do you agree?

    The general answer is “no”, because a fetus is not a child. It’s just a bundle of cells, no more alive than a Kleenex full of ejaculate. In other words, I object to the wording of your question, so it’s unanswerable.

    The more specific answer would be, after the central nervous system is developed and functioning, yes, it’s wrong; because it’s possible that a fetus, though not an independent living thing, can feel pain after that point and it would be cruel.

    Sorry for not giving a one-word answer, but it’s a complex issue and you framed it in a way that is unanswerable, as in “do you still beat your wife?!”.

    I hope you can stay on topic with the original point despite this derailment into a hot-button issue, which I fear may have been your intention in mentioning abortion to begin with, but you deserved a straightforward answer to the question since you have been answering mine.

  23. on 11 May 2010 at 12:38 am 23.Lou said …

    Let me in on this.

    “So is electrocution, hanging, and any other form of death penalty.”

    Why? And if you believe that why are you not outraged at secular society for electrocuting and gassing law offenders? That is happening today, not 6000 years ago.

    “Many theists I talk to don’t even care about the fetus’s well-being, they only want to punish young girls”

    Yeah, sure you do. What a load of ignorant stupidity. Many atheist I talk to don’t care about any human being only themselves. See how easy it is just to make up a claim?

    “It’s just a bundle of cells, no more alive than a Kleenex full of ejaculate.”

    Have you ever witnessed a video of a baby being aborted? Probably not, they don’t let those out to keep the masses ignorant. I challenge you to get a hold of one to be honest in your opinion. You probably will not, but you have been challenged. Your answer is in complete ignorance.

  24. on 11 May 2010 at 11:09 am 24.3D said …

    23.Lou said …
    Let me in on this.
    “So is electrocution, hanging, and any other form of death penalty.”
    Why?

    Do you really have to ask why it’s wrong to kill another human being?

    And if you believe that why are you not outraged at secular society for electrocuting and gassing law offenders? That is happening today, not 6000 years ago.

    I am against any form of the death penalty in any kind of society, secular or non-secular.

    “It’s just a bundle of cells, no more alive than a Kleenex full of ejaculate.”
    Have you ever witnessed a video of a baby being aborted? Probably not, they don’t let those out to keep the masses ignorant. I challenge you to get a hold of one to be honest in your opinion. You probably will not, but you have been challenged. Your answer is in complete ignorance.

    I have. Doesn’t change the point, if the fetus is past a certain time in the pregnancy then it’s wrong. Otherwise it’s not.

  25. on 11 May 2010 at 10:06 pm 25.Lou said …

    “Do you really have to ask why it’s wrong to kill another human being?”

    Yes, if the human being is a serial killer why is it wrong?

    “I have. Doesn’t change the point, if the fetus is past a certain time in the pregnancy then it’s wrong.”

    Well that is the key question is it not? This “certain time” is the question. Hardly a Kleenex full of snot as you so crudely call this life in formation. I don’t think your snot is on the same path. Some say never some say partial-birth abortion is just fine. Yet we do it.

    And you think the ancients who stoned were horrible? So how are we any different? We kill babies while in birth because the government says it is OK, not God.

  26. on 14 May 2010 at 4:16 pm 26.3D said …

    25.Lou said …
    “Do you really have to ask why it’s wrong to kill another human being?”

    Yes, if the human being is a serial killer why is it wrong?

    Because it’s wrong to murder. More so if a governmental body sanctions it, because then they send the mixed message that killing is OK, but only when we do it.

    Because murder is wrong. It’s wrong when the serial killer does it and it’s wrong to murder the serial killer. Period. The value judgment of the person’s actions is irrelevant; murder is wrong.

    An atheist knows murder is wrong, but a theist is confused, because the Bible says sometimes it’s wrong, and other times it’s great.

    Well that is the key question is it not? This “certain time” is the question. Hardly a Kleenex full of snot as you so crudely call this life in formation. I don’t think your snot is on the same path.

    I said “Kleenex full of ejaculate” though, not snot — ejaculate meaning sperm, not snot.

    So, by your own definition, a sperm definitely could be “on the same path” to becoming a child. So does that mean you’re against any spilling of sperm that doesn’t make a baby?

    Actually, all sperms are potential babies, and 99.99999999999999999% of them “die” even when one sperm fertilizes the egg. Why aren’t you against this horrible, 100,000-times-the-Holocaust-level murdering of potential babies?

    I’ll tell you why, because you have enough common sense to know that a sperm is not alive, it’s just a little cell without thoughts or feelings that does its job, or falls by the wayside.

    An early term fetus is no different and no more alive than a sperm, except that, if you stick it under a microscope, it looks kinda like a cute anthropomorphic character and you have convinced yourself it’s alive, probably because you watch too many Disney movies about talking animals. Fetuses are cuter to you than tadpoles so you think they’re alive. But they aren’t.

    Some say never some say partial-birth abortion is just fine. Yet we do it.

    “Some say” isn’t an argument. Some also say that we shouldn’t prosecute child-molester priests or that condoms should not be used to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa; that doesn’t mean it’s OK.

    And you think the ancients who stoned were horrible? So how are we any different?

    Far fewer state-sanctioned executions than 5,000 years ago, far fewer animal sacrifices to please the nose of the LORD, etc. etc. I agree, we are still not perfect, but much much much better.

    The remaining flaws in our society’s laws stem from clinging to the Abrahamic religions. Eye for an eye, etc. When we drop them we will take another step forward.

  27. on 14 May 2010 at 7:33 pm 27.Horatio said …

    “Because it’s wrong to murder.”

    That not an reason, that is an opinion. We murder death row inmates, babies and terrorist. apparently it is not wrong.

    “An atheist knows murder is wrong, but a theist is confused”

    One word, China. Atheist practice murder daily.

    “Actually, all sperms are potential babies”

    That is stupid. All eggs are potential babies but we eat them! Sperm is fertilizer. Without an egg, they are fertilizer without soil.

    “Some say” isn’t an argument. Some also say that we shouldn’t prosecute”

    How about partial-birth abortion is LEGAL. Is that now an argument 3?

    “There are fewer state-sanctioned executions than 5,000 years ago”

    So where is the proof? Just more opinion? I doubt you are correct. Many more people on earth than 5K years ago and they didn’t practice partial-birth abortions which is also state sanctioned murder. Those horrible monsters!

  28. on 06 Aug 2013 at 8:16 pm 28.Steve Finnell said …

    YOU MIGHT NOT BE A TRUE APOSTLE
    SIGNS OF A TRUE APOSTLE.

    2 Corinthians 12:12 The signs of a true apostlewere performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.

    If you are not performing signs, wonders and miracles, you might not be a true apostle.

    Acts 9:36-41 ….Tabitha…37 And it happened at that time that she fell sick and died…40 But Peter sent them all out and knelt down and prayed, and turning to the body, he said, “Tabitha, arise.”….41…he presented her alive.

    If you cannot pray the dead back to life, you might not be a true apostle.

    Romans 1:11 For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established;

    If you do not possess the ability to impart spiritual gifts, you might not be a true apostle.

    Acts 3:1-8 …2 And a man who had been lame from his mother’s womb….6 But Peter said, “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!”……8 With a leap he stood upright and began to walk…

    If perhaps, you do not have the power to heal men who have been crippled from birth, you might not be a true apostle.

    Acts 5:3-10 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit…9 Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.” 10 And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last….

    If you cannot predict the immediate death of someone who has lied to the Holy Spirit, you might not be a true apostle.

    Acts 13:8-11…..9 But Saul, who was also know as Paul…10…said, “You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? 11 Now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time….

    If for some unknown reason you lack the ability to temporarily blind a sorcerer, you might not be a true apostle.

    Acts 16:16-18 …a slave-girl having a spirit of divination… 18 But Paul was greatly annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!” And it came out at that very moment.

    If you cannot cast out occult spirits, you might not be a true apostle.

    Acts 2:43 Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe, and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles.

    If you are not capable of performing many signs and wonders, you might not be a true apostle.

    THE FACT OF THE MATTER, IS THE APOSTLESHIP CEASED WITH THE DEATH OF THE APOSTLE JOHN.

    YOU MIGHT NOT BE A TRUE APOSTLE;BECAUSE ALL THE TRUE APOSTLES ARE DEAD!

    YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. Google search>>>>>steve finnell a christian view

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply