Home Christian Writings Supporting the Trinity Doctrine? – The Trinity Doctrine John 1:1 Page 1,274

John 1:1

John 1:1 says the Word was God. Does that mean that Jesus is God because he is the Word?
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

a) In the beginning was the Word, (en arch hn o logoV)
b) and the Word was with God, (kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon)
c) and the Word was God. (kai qeoV hn o logoV).

John 1:1b says that the Word was with God and John 1:1c says that the Word was God, so how can the Word be God and be with God at the same time? Well part of the answer to discovering the meaning of this verse is found in 1 John 1:1-2

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.

First when we read 1John 1:2, it suggests to us that the God in John1:1b is the Father himself.

Secondly, we see In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (THE). The definite article is before all other instances of the word ‘God’ and ‘Logos’ in John 1:1. (e.g., the Word, The God.), yet is absent in the last mention of God. Read on because this can be significant as you are about to find out.

Greek sentence construction affirms that if a noun doesn’t have a preceding article, (THE) it can be read as an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this is a game changer. Scholars see the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but haven’t made the difference clear regarding the difference between identity and nature or definite and qualitative. Don’t worry if this makes no sense to you. It will.

Look at the difference between these two sentences.

1) You are an angel
2) You are THE angel.

Notice how the first one is using the word angel in a qualitative way while the second is definite. Hence the term ‘definite article’.

In John 1:1, all instances of the word ‘God” are preceded by the definite article ‘THE’, except the last one.

So it literally says:

John1:1
a) In the beginning was THE God.
b) THE Word was with THE God
c) And THE Word was god.

Why is the last word not capitalised? Where Greek uses the definite article in English we capitalise the word. e.g., the god = God.

So it is grammatically correct to read John 1:1c with a qualitative sense rather reading it as identifying the Word as God himself. It is not only grammatically correct to read it this way, it is also theologically correct because if we read it as THE Theos, then that would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God even to the exclusion of the Father. Now we have two good reasons for reading the last word ‘god/theos’ as qualitative and not as THE God or God.

In rebuttal to this, some say that God in the New Testament doesn’t always have a preceding definite article which is true, however looking at the verse contextually, we understand that there is clearly two being spoken of, i.e., one God and one called the Word with is clearly another who is next to God and is not that God he is with.

Let’s look at Adam and Eve as an example of two beings that were with each other. Before I give an example, it is important for you at this point to understand that the Hebrew word for ‘man’ is ‘adam’. This means that qualitatively, Adam and Eve are both adam. This is similar to the word theos which is translated as the ‘God’ & god. The absence of the definite article can qualify just as the word adam qualifies. As I said before, in English we use capitals to denote when being definite. So the difference between ‘Adam’ and ‘adam’ is that Adam refers to a specific man called Adam while the latter could refer to him as well as Eve and any other member of mankind. This is clearly stated in scripture in Genesis 1:27:

So God created man (adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The word for man is adam, so it says: God created ‘adam’ male and female. So saying that ‘Eve is adam’ is a true saying.

In English, If I said “John is the man”, then I am identifying John as  a definite and particular person of the human race. But if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is human; he belongs to the sphere/nature of man.” Can you see the difference now?

To understand how the article can make a big difference to a piece of text, look at this example. Have a guess as to which one is correct.

a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was THE man

a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was man

The correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind or man. Look at the next example:

a) Tools were used by man.
b) Tools were used by the man.

See how the first example is talking about mankind whereas the second example is talking of a specific man.

In other words the word ‘man’ can be used as an attribute or to describe one’s nature. It is not always used to identify a particular person and it can even refer to more than one person.

Now let’s have a look at the above example, but using Adam and Eve instead. Notice in English that we do not have the definite article preceding Adam or Eve, because capitalising both Adam and Eve leads us to view these words in a definite sense, the same way that Greek requires the definite article. Essentially THE adam/man in Greek is the same as Adam in English.

a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was Adam

a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was adam

Notice that the second example is still the correct one.

To further understand the important difference between identity and nature, take a look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he had the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek as you have probably guessed, but most translators deem it necessary to add the indefinite article “a” to complete the thought in English even though it is not present in Greek or any Greek. Greek has no indefinite articles, (a,an).

So Judas wasn’t Satan himself, rather he was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. But that doesn’t rule out the fact that Satan is the Devil because it is not actually saying that Judas was the Devil himself. Rather Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite), (Satan is); he was not an actual devil or demon, he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, who is Satan. So it is with John 1:1c.

The Logos was God has no definite article. It is really saying, The Logos was god. This is why the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible translate John 1:1 as “what God was, the Word was.” The TEV (1976) translates it, “the Word was the same as God.” Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” And Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine.”

So what kind of being is Jesus then if the Word was theos (without the definite article)? The answer according to John 1:1 is that he must be a divine being if Jesus is the Word of God that was with God. In other words he is a being with God’s nature. A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but THE image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn. He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time. He is all these things, but he is not THE God that he is the son of. That God is exclusively the Father and there are many scriptures to prove that which we will look at later in this page.

Many think that the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ always refer to YHWH. They take instances of their choosing to try and prove that Christ is YHWH. In their ignorance they cannot see that there are indeed many god (theos) and many lords, but for true believers there is one God (theos) the Father.

In fact, the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ in scripture are used in reference to God (YHWH), Christ, Man, angels, Satan and idols. So when we see the word ‘theos’ or ‘elohim’, we should ask ourselves what kind of god is being referenced. The god of this age? The Most High God? The Almighty God? The mighty god? A false god? A human? An angel? We must also understand that the word ‘theos’ proceeded by the article (the) is talking of a noun and without the article, it can be an adjective or used to describe or qualify.

Let us now look at some quotes from scholars and writers that understand this. NOTE: this is not an endorsement with all that these authors have written, rather I am appealing to their view regarding John 1:1.

One prominent scholar called Origen is sometimes quoted by Trinitarians who appeal to his wisdom for other purposes. However, they avoid this particular quotation for obvious reasons. Origen wrote in the early 200’s A.D and was a noted expert in Koine Greek.

“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
(Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)

“Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all’, as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the preexistent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false…. A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone’, and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not’. When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea.” e.a.]
-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.

When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God’s Christ, God’s Son, God’s Wisdom, God’s Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word “god” at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English… The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas “my Lord and my god” (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (verse. 17) “Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as “our God”, “my God”, but probably never as “God” without qualification.
– John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.

The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.

We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God” of Paul, Col. 1:15.
-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.

As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.
-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.

The most natural reading of John 1:1 shows that there are two being mentioned (not three): God and a second who was ‘theos’. They are not presented as two coequal persons in a Binity or Trinity. What we really have is one with the character of THEOS who is with TON THEOS (the God), thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique however. He/it is identified further in the gospel as “a son from a father, begotten, as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word THEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “theos.” Either there were two equal Gods or persons called God, or it is talking about a godlike one that is with the Almighty God. When we read all the scriptures we see that the scriptures including the Book of John backs up the last view, that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Father is the only God and the Son is the image of The God.

So what conclusion are we to draw from John 1:1 and the Book of John? In John’s own words he explains the conclusion for his Book. This conclusion is not the Trinity Doctrine. Read the verse below to see what the conclusion is.

John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “

So John wrote this gospel so that we may come to the conclusion that Jesus is truly the Christ and the Son of God. In addition to this important truth we are also told that we may receive life through his name. The Trinity Doctrine is not the conclusion that one should draw from this writing. Belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son is the foundation of true faith and Jesus built his Church on this truth. The Trinity Doctrine is not that foundation, rather it is another foundation.

So why don’t translations of the bible translate John 1:1 as the Word was divine. Well first of all it is not incorrect to say that the Word was god, but Trinitarians translators say the Word was God which makes readers think that Jesus is the God (the person). However, in order to bring out the true meaning, some translations actually use the word ‘divine’. See below:

“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”
An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

“The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine”
by Dr. James Moffatt

So the idea that Jesus Christ is God is often and supposedly supported by John 1:1. However the rest of John’s Gospel makes careful distinctions between Jesus and his Father as well as Jesus and God. This same distinction and separation is found throughout the rest of the New Testament too. The New Testament actually goes much further than merely distinguishing and separating the two. In John 17:3 Jesus, in prayer to his Father, refers to him as “the only true God”. In John 20:17 the resurrected Jesus refers to his Father as “my Father, and your Father; and… my God, and your God.” In I Corinthians 8:6 the Apostle Paul says of Christians, “to us there is but one God, the Father.” In I Timothy 2:5 Paul states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In Ephesians 1:17 Paul refers to the Father as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.” And in Revelation 3:12 the resurrected and glorified Jesus says, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

We must also remember that the judges of Israel were called gods/theos. This doesn’t mean that they were part of God or part of the Trinity, it just means that they had authority given to them by God. It is also written that we can partake of divine nature, so that could also make us divine just as partaking in flesh makes us man. It must be noted though, that being divine or partaking in divine nature is different to actually being the Divine himself.

Also see John 10:34-35:
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods” (theos).
35 If he called them gods (theos), to whom the word of God (ho theos) came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,

2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Also Jesus said that he was one with his Father and he also prayed that we would be one with them. See John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

We humans were intended to share in the divine nature too, yet we are not the God. John 1:1 shows us that the Word was god (divine), not (the Word was/is the God, Yahweh) which many seem to think it says. The Word came from God, is of God, is like God, and this is consistent with the scriptures we have looked at thus far. 1 Corinthians 11:3 reinforces this statement because the word “head” in the Greek is translated “from”, source or authority. Remember that the woman came from Man and Man came from Christ and Christ came from God. This is the divine order.

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, Jesus wasn’t created, rather the Word was born from God in eternity and that is why Jesus is called the Only Begotten of the Father. (John 1:14) (John 1:18) (John 3:16 ) (John 3:18 ) (1 John 4:9 ). The word begotten means (only child, single of its kind). Notice that our spirits are born from God, but through his Word, and our spirits will go back to God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7) . But Jesus was not begotten through the Word because he is the Word, this is why Jesus is unique because he is the only one begotten of the Father and therefore he is the image of his Father. That is why he is called the Image of God and the Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) and it is also why the Bible says in (Hebrews 1:5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”

Unlike his Father who is the invisible Spirit, Jesus does have a body and is visible. Jesus was born from God. We must remember that although his Father is greater than himself, he is also not just a man like us. Yes he partook of flesh and came as a man like us, but he also existed in the form of God as the Word or Logos. We are told that he resides between God and Man and as a man he is our mediator to God. It was indeed the Word that became flesh. God did not  become flesh, instead God resided in Christ who came in the flesh. So just like us, God can be in us who are made of flesh, but God himself did not become flesh. God is not a man and never will be a man. It was the Word who came to us as a man and it was the Word that all things  were created though. See John 1:3.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

And to compliment the fact that God made all things through his Word, and that Jesus is the Word of God, even ignoring the fact that Jesus wears a title, “The Word of God” as recorded in the Book of Revelation, we are specifically told, that God created everything through Jesus Christ. See :Hebrews 1:2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 

So Jesus was begotten not created and again, this is why he is called God’s only begotten Son and this is why he is unique. He is seated at the right hand of God and situated between God & Man. This is also why he is the only mediator between God & Man and the only name under heaven whereby Man can be saved. God made creation through him and for him and God redeemed creation through him too. God cannot fellowship with sin that is why he sent his Son into the world, so he could bring us back to himself through his mediator. Jesus came from God and he was in the beginning with God. So what does it mean when it says ‘beginning’? The Greek word for beginning, in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word” is ‘arche’ and this word means the following:

1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demons

Below I will show you a verse where the word “beginning” or ‘arche’ is also mentioned and I think you will agree that it is rather obvious from this verse that it does not mean eternity or eternal. The verse is John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.

Just for good measure, I will also throw in the first verse in the bible, which also uses the word beginning (note that this a Hebrew word). I am sure we can all agree that the earth has not been in existence for all of eternity.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Certainly if we read John 1:1 correctly and in context with all scripture, we see that it is not teaching that God is a Trinity.

← Go back to ‘Supporting the Trinity Doctrine‘.

Discussion

Viewing 20 posts - 25,461 through 25,480 (of 25,992 total)
123…1,2731,2741,275…1,2981,2991,300
  • Author
    Posts
  • March 10, 2024 at 7:44 pm#946151
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @Jodi,

    I suppose we could go back and forth with our understanding on what these passages say/mean and will never come to an agreement; we view the NT differently. The change for me began with Paul saying according to scripture the messiah was to die for the sins of mankind and be buried and raised up on the third day. The statement “according to scripture” means it was written in the Tanakh. You were the only one who made any attempt to explain it, yet never came up with the language Paul used; you “read between the lines” (opening it up to personal interpretation) to come up with an “answer.” There is no passage, it is written nowhere in the Tanakh the Messiah was to die for the sins of mankind, let alone be raised from the dead. Paul lied! A so called “pillar” of the church lied here, where else did he stretch the truth? You do it once and get away with it, you’re going to do it again. Or you speak to a people who haven’t been raised in the Jewish teachings and can then tell them anything.

    Everything I said against Paul you mostly had a justification for; that tells me Paul cannot to be found a liar, because your entire belief system will shatter.

    You: The entire law then is indeed fulfilled in loving your neighbor, as loving your neighbor is the very act of showing God that you love him.

    Me: Who are we to love first? This statement is a false teaching, you can’t possibly know how to love your neighbor without loving God first. So it’s not one command as Paul says; there are two and there’s a reason why the first command of loving God is first. How are we suppose to love God? As John says, “this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome.” What are Gods’ commands?

    Galatians 5:1-12 is the reason why a Jew (at least a man) could never become a “christian”; and who is that “golden prize” for any evangelist, but to convert a Jew to christianity. If a Jew listened to Paul they would be violating the everlasting covenant God made with Abraham and would be “cut off from his people.” Paul’s teachings aren’t for Jews, just the gentile; so how is a Jew “saved.” Accept the Jesus, but reject the teaching of Paul?!? How can they be “christian” if they reject Paul; isn’t it a package deal?

    You either see it, or you don’t.

    March 12, 2024 at 3:31 am#946152
    Jodi
    Participant

    Hey there DT!

    You believe Paul is a liar a deceiver and that he even boldly states that he is a thief…, whatever else you want to accuse him of, let each accusation have sound scriptural proof. 

    YOU:

    I don’t recall ever reading such statements to other churches. The point was why did Paul unashamedly use the term “robbing” other churches (isn’t there a commandment about stealing); and by saying this, he’s admitting he’s a thief.

    ME: 

    Hoping you can respond to post #946143.

    Chapters/verses leading up to 2 Cornithians 11:8 speak of Paul having asked for and received DONATIONS from churches, INCLUDING FROM CORINTH  and the very next verse doesn’t describe thievery, but rather his brethren supplying for him what he was lacking.

    DT, are you going to continue to assert that Paul was literally robbing churches, that he wasn’t actually receiving donations from those churches?

    Do you care to give your explanation as to why Paul asked Corinth for donations but then later he did not want their donations?

    Can you speak to the fact that Paul’s GOAL WAS FOR THE EQUALITY IN GIVING AMONG THE CHURCHES, INCLUDING CORINTH and to GIVE OUT OF LOVE?

    March 12, 2024 at 4:53 am#946153
    Jodi
    Participant

    DT,

    Let each accusation you have against Paul have sound scriptural proof.

    YOU: Who are we to love first? This statement is a false teaching, you can’t possibly know how to love your neighbor without loving God first. So it’s not one command as Paul says; there are two and there’s a reason why the first command of loving God is first. How are we suppose to love God? As John says, “this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome.” What are Gods’ commands?

    ME:

    Paul said, “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

    Let’s get this straight, FACT from the given text right in front of you, Paul in the above passage DOES NOT say there is ONE commandment, he says all the law is fulfilled in loving thy neighbor as thyself”.

    “your work and labor of love, which ye have shewed toward HIS NAME”.

    “the things which God has prepared FOR THEM THAT LOVE HIM”.

    “God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.”

    “DO ALL TO THE GLORY OF GOD”

    DT, Paul is VERY CLEAR, you don’t receive what God has prepared without love for Him and you show your love to Him through loving your neighbor.

    According to Paul, loving your neighbor you show your love to God. What does that directly equate to DT, Loving our neighbor directly reflects the keeping of BOTH COMMANDMENTS. 

    A total lie on your part DT to say that Paul taught there is only one commandment. He is speaking of one commandment that fulfills commandments “all the law”. 

    Two commandments,

    1.Love God with all your heart and soul (loving your neighbor shows that you love God, if you say you love God but hate your neighbor you are a liar)

    2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

    Without keeping commandment #2 you are not able to fulfill commandment #1 and in fulfilling #2 you are also giving fulfillment to #1. Paul thus speaks 100% truth. 

     

     

     

    March 12, 2024 at 4:41 pm#946155
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @Jodi,

    You keep bringing up “donations”; God says charity is good, DO IT!! I’m speaking of Paul being paid and using the word “robbing” to describe being paid but refusing payment from Corinth even though it’s his “right” to be paid as he teaches the gospel.

    What emotion does the term “robbing” conjure in you? How does it make you feel? Would you call the term positive or negative? The question is why would he refuse payment from Corinth, but is okay being paid by other churches and then have to make a huge point of it? Why not just remain silent; instead he goes to great length to let them know all about his “humility” and not accepting payment from them. EGO?!?

    You: are you going to continue to assert that Paul was literally robbing churches, that he wasn’t actually receiving donations from those churches?

    Me: A projection and putting words in my mouth; I never said Paul was holding the churches at “gun point” demanding their money. Every time I used the term “robbing” it has been in quotes and associated it with payments he received from other churches and question why the usage of the term”robbing.” By the way, it’s not donations he received; it was payment for services rendered.

    Why exactly is this such a sticky point for you? You keep bring up “Paul’s GOAL WAS FOR THE EQUALITY IN GIVING AMONG THE CHURCHES.” Which has nothing to do with him refusing payment from Corinth. This giving you keep speaking of was to support other church bodies who were struggling and since it’s monetary donations, it was used to help financially a struggling church and nothing to do with being paid for “services.” When was the last time you saw a church supporting another financially? Does the church you attend help out other local churches who may have an unforeseen financial need and are struggling to pay bills? It’s nice to understand what is being said; but to practice what you understand, that’s something different.

    Time to move on; speak on Gal 5:1-12 and how the Jewish male is suppose to accept the Jesus as Paul teaches circumcision doesn’t matter; and relate that to Gen 17:1-14. My assessment of Paul stands; he’s a liar, manipulator, and deceiver; and he’s real good!

    March 13, 2024 at 3:40 am#946156
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    DT……You preach the law still stands right? , then when was the last time you sacrifice a lamb for your sins?   When is the last time you kept all “SEVEN”  of the “Holy Days”.  I doubt you even know what they are much less keep then.  If you’re going to be a person, under the works of law, then you better be doing it all yourself , not just mouthing about it.

    I willing to bet, you don’t even understand about why God Commanded those Israelites to “sacrifice those lambs” for their sin, do you? What was He showing them by causing them to do that?

    Before I answer that question, for you, I will give you a chance to explain to us first, why God “commanded” them to do it, surely your “new” understanding  gives you the ability to explain it to us, right?

    As far as the apostle Paul goes,  he was one of,  if not,  the “greatest apostle of them all”, in my opinion.  All your trash talk about him won’t change anything, for me or anyone else,  who has the truth of God “IN” them.
    peace and love to you and yours………..gene

     

    March 13, 2024 at 5:36 am#946157
    Jodi
    Participant

    Hey there DT,

    This is a sticking point to me because you assert your position completely ignoring the surrounding text and the circumstances therein.

    As you yourself have said, churches paid for Paul to travel to serve other churches giving the gospel. Churches also gave charity to support the needs of other churches and for Paul to also give supplies to the poor.

    Paul asked and received from all churches, including Corinth and he spoke to Corinth about equality of giving among the churches and to the giving out of love.

    Why would Paul tell Corinth, “I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you.”?

    You seriously don’t get that Corinth has fallen into some serious problems and Paul is upset about it? What part of Paul saying, “I’m AFRAID” screams at you that Paul is some egotistical jerk?

    11:3 I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

    Paul’s goal was the equality of giving among the churches and giving out of love, giving out of sincere and pure devotion. Paul found out that they were supporting false apostles and that they were committing various sins and he was AFRAID that their sincerity and devotion had been led astray .

    Paul in his apparently big ego, was upset with Corinth and now he did not want their possessions, they certainly by all appearances wouldn’t be giving out of devotion or love, Paul at this point just wanted them.  Paul wanted to preach the gospel to them and lead them back, you know, for the sake of his big ego, not at all for his love of the brethren or for the love of the truth or anything like that. Paul certainly didn’t want his preaching of the gospel to mirror the same terms of the false apostles, which is another direct reason given by Paul.

    In this context Paul tells Corinth, who have gone whoring and sinning, that he’s robbing from other churches to serve them by not asking them for anything. DT, you think that they forgot that Paul asked them to give before? You think they forgot Paul said his goal was for churches to give equally and to give out of love? He’s trying to make them feel guilty, this should be obvious to you if you paid any mind to the surrounding text and circumstances therein. 

    March 13, 2024 at 7:43 am#946158
    Danny Dabbs
    Participant

    @desiretruth

    Why don’t you do a big Bible study instead of asking all these questions?
    Try using Biblehub. There you can find good commentaries on every Bible verse.
    Anyway, there are no contradictions in the Bible.

    God bless

    March 13, 2024 at 1:06 pm#946159
    carmel
    Participant

    Hi DT, and ALL,

    You: Copy and pasting an entire page from a website doesn’t really constitute as research;

    it just means you looked something up and re-posted it.

    Me: IT ALSO MEANS SOMETHING ELSE! JUST READ WHAT I SAID IN MY POST#946135

    I am not that KEEN and as familiar as YOU ARE with the Hebrew scriptures I opted to do some research, THROUGH A JEW AND RABBINIC SOURCES.

    THIS TIME I OPTED FOR:

    https://jewsforjesus.org/learn/the-genealogy-of-the-messiah

    SO HERE YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO CHEW.

    Genealogies and the Bible

    Some have deemed the Bible’s many genealogical passages unnecessary. Yet, the frequency with which genealogies appear in the Scriptures is evidence of their importance. Genealogies established one’s lineage—one’s Jewishness, one’s tribal identity, one’s right to the priesthood and one’s right to kingship.

    From all the genealogies in the Hebrew Scriptures, two observations become apparent. With very rare exceptions, only the male line is traced and only men’s names appear. The descendancy of women is not given and their names are only mentioned in passing. Since biblically it was the father who determined both national and tribal identity, it was reasoned that only his line was necessary.

    The messianic genealogy of King David

    In addition, only one line is traced from the beginning to the end of the biblical history, the line of King David. The Scriptures reveal every name before David (Adam to David) and every name after David (David to Zerubbabel). Since the Messiah was to be of the house of David, this can also be labeled as the messianic line. In fact, the genealogies limit more and more the human origin of the Messiah. As the Seed of the woman, Messiah had to come out of humanity. As the Seed of Abraham, Messiah had to come from the nation of Israel. As the Seed of Judah, he had to be of the tribe of Judah. As the Seed of David, he had to be of the family of David.

    The Jewish Scriptures as background to the New Covenant

    The pattern of genealogy in the Hebrew Scriptures is followed by the New Testament pattern where two genealogies are found: Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Of the four gospel accounts, only those two deal with the birth and early life of Jesus. Both Mark and John begin their accounts with Jesus as an adult, so it is natural that only Matthew and Luke would have a genealogy. While they both provide an account of the birth and early life of Jesus, each tells the story from a different perspective.

    In Matthew, Joseph plays an active role, but Miriam (Mary) plays a passive role. Matthew records angels appearing to Joseph, but there is no record of angels appearing to Miriam. Matthew records Joseph’s thoughts but nothing is recorded about Miriam’s thoughts. On the other hand, Luke’s Gospel tells the same story from Miriam’s perspective. From the context of each Gospel, it should be very evident that the genealogy of Matthew is that of Joseph, and the genealogy of Luke is that of Miriam.

    The question then raised is: Why do we need two genealogies, especially since Yeshua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph? A popular and common answer is: Matthew’s Gospel gives the royal line, whereas Luke’s Gospel gives the real line. From this concept, another theory arises. Since seemingly Joseph was the heir apparent to David’s throne, and Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus could claim the right to David’s throne. On the other hand, Luke’s Gospel gives the real line, showing that Yeshua himself was a descendant of David. Through Miriam, he was a member of the house of David, but he could claim the right to sit on David’s throne through Joseph, the heir apparent. Actually, the exact opposite is true.

    Who Gets to Be King?

    To understand the need for these two genealogies, it is important to understand the two requirements for kingship in the Hebrew Scriptures. These were developed after the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon.…

    One was applicable to the southern Kingdom of Judah, with its capital in Jerusalem, while the other was applicable to the northern Kingdom of Israel, with its capital in Samaria. The requirement for the throne of Judah was Davidic descendancy. No one was allowed to sit on David’s throne unless he was a member of the house of David. So when there was a conspiracy to do away with the house of David (Isaiah 7:5-6), God warned that any such conspiracy was doomed to failure (Isaiah 8:9-15).

    The requirement for the throne of Israel was prophetic sanction or divine appointment. Anyone who attempted to rule on Samaria’s throne without prophetic sanction was assassinated (1 Kings 11:26-39; 15:28-30; 16:1-4, 11-15; 21:21-29; 2 Kings 9:6-10; 10:29-31; 14:8-12).

    With the background of these two biblical requirements for kingship and what is stated in the two New Testament genealogies, the question of Jesus’ right to the throne of David can be resolved.

    Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus

    In his genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition and custom. He mentions the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba (who is the one to whom the pronoun “her” in verse six refers). It was contrary to Jewish practice to name women in a genealogy. The Talmud states, “A mother’s family is not to be called a family.” Even the few women Luke does mention were not the most prominent women in the genealogy of Yeshua. He could have mentioned Sarah, but did not. However, Matthew has a reason for naming these four and no others.

    First, they were all Gentiles. This is obvious with Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. It was probably true of Bathsheba, since her first husband, Uriah, was a Hittite. Here Matthew hints at something he makes clear later: that while the main purpose of the coming of Jesus was to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the Gentiles would also benefit from his coming. Second, three of these women were guilty of sexual sins. Bathsheba was guilty of adultery, Rahab was guilty of prostitution and Tamar was guilty of incest. Again, Matthew only hints at a point he later clarifies: that the purpose of the Messiah’s coming was to save sinners. While this fits into the format of Old Testament genealogy, it is not Matthew’s main point.

    The lineage of Joseph, Jesus’ father

    Matthew’s genealogy also breaks with tradition in that he skips names. He traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of Jesus, by going back into history and working toward his own time. He starts tracing the line with Abraham (verse 2) and continues to David (verse 6). Out of David’s many sons, Solomon is chosen (verse 6), and the line is then traced to King Jeconiah (verse 11), one of the last kings before the Babylonian captivity. From Jeconiah (verse 12), the line is traced to Joseph (verse 16). Joseph was a direct descendant of David through Solomon, but also through Jeconiah. The “Jeconiah link” is significant in Matthew’s genealogy because of the special curse pronounced on Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:24-30:

    As I live,” declares the LORD,
    “even though Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim
    king of Judah were a signet ring on my right
    hand, yet I would pull you off…
    “Is this man Jeconiah a despised, shattered jar?
    Or is he an undesirable vessel?
    Why have he and his descendants been hurled out
    and cast into a land that they had not known?
    “O land, land, land, Hear the word of the LORD!!
    “Thus says the LORD, ‘Write this man [Jeconiah] down childless,
    A man who will not prosper in his days;
    For no man of his descendants will prosper
    Sitting on the throne of David, Or ruling again in Judah.’

    No descendant of Jeconiah would have the right to the throne of David. Until Jeremiah, the first requirement for messianic lineage was to be of the house of David. With Jeremiah, it was limited still further. Now one had to be not only of the house of David, but apart from Jeconiah.

    Joseph and Jeconiah

    According to Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David’s throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David’s throne. Neither could he claim the right to David’s throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.

    The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, then, is to show why Yeshua could not be king if he were really Joseph’s son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew’s viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem. In summary, Matthew deduces that if Jesus were really Joseph’s son, he could not claim to sit on David’s throne because of the Jeconiah curse; but Jesus was not Joseph’s son, for he was born of the virgin Miriam (Matthew 1:18-25).

    Luke’s genealogy of Jesus

    Unlike Matthew, Luke follows strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women. However, if by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of a woman, but wished to trace her line, how would one do so? He would use the name of her husband. (Possible Old Testament precedents for this practice are Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.) That would raise a second question: If someone studied a genealogy, how would he know whether the genealogy were that of the husband or that of the wife, since in either case the husband’s name would be used? The answer is not difficult; the problem lies with the English language.

    In English it is not good grammar to use a definite article (“the”) before a proper name (“the” Matthew, “the” Luke, “the” Miriam): however, it is quite permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article “the” with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph’s name that this was not really Joseph’s genealogy, but his wife Miriam’s.

    Furthermore, although many translations of Luke 3:23 read: “…being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli…,” because of the missing Greek definite article before the name of Joseph, that same verse could be translated as follows: “Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli…”.1 In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Yeshua was “supposed” or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, he was really the descendant of Heli. Heli was the father of Miriam. The absence of Miriam’s name is quite in keeping with the Jewish practices on genealogies. The Jerusalem Talmud recognized this genealogy to be that of Miriam and not Joseph and refers to Miriam as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:2).

    Starting with Adam

    Also in contrast to Matthew, Luke begins his genealogy with his own time and goes back into history all the way to Adam. It comes to the family of David in verses 31-32. However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. So, like Joseph, Miriam was a member of the house of David. But unlike Joseph, she came from David’s son, Nathan, not Solomon. Miriam was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. Since Jesus was Miriam’s son, he too was a member of the house of David, apart from Jeconiah.

    In this way Jesus fulfilled the biblical requirement for kingship. Since Luke’s genealogy did not include Jeconiah’s line, he began his Gospel with the virgin birth, and only later, in describing Yeshua’s public ministry, recorded his genealogy.

    However, Jesus was not the only member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. There were other descendants who could claim equality with Yeshua to the throne of David, for they too did not have Jeconiah’s blood in their veins. Why Jesus and not one of the others? At this point the second biblical requirement for kingship, that of divine appointment, comes into the picture. Of all the members of the house of David apart from Jeconiah, only one received divine appointment. Luke 1:30-33 states:

    And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Miriam; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Yeshua. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end.’
    On what grounds then could Jesus claim the throne of David? He was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. He alone received divine appointment to that throne: “The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.”

    Why Jesus?

    While Matthew’s genealogy showed why Yeshua could not be king if he really were Joseph’s son, Luke’s genealogy shows why Yeshua could be king. When he returns, he will be king.

    Two things may be noted by way of conclusion. First, many rabbinic objections to the messiahship of Jesus are based on his genealogy. The argument goes, “Since Jesus was not a descendant of David through his father, he cannot be Messiah and King.”

    But the Messiah was supposed to be different. As early as Genesis 3:15, it was proposed that the Messiah would be reckoned after the “seed of the woman,” although this went contrary to the biblical norm. The necessity for this exception to the rule became apparent when Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin:

    “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.”

    Whereas all others receive their humanity from both father and mother, the Messiah would receive his humanity entirely from his mother. Whereas Jewish nationality and tribal identity were normally determined by the father, with the Messiah it would be different. Since he was to have no human father, his nationality and his tribal identity would come entirely from his mother.

    True, this is contrary to the norm, but so is a virgin birth. With the Messiah, things would be different.

    In addition, these genealogies present a fourfold portrait of the messianic person through four titles. In Matthew 1:1 he is called the Son of David and the Son of Abraham. In Luke 3:38 he is called the Son of Adam and the Son of God. As the Son of David, it means that Jesus is king. As the Son of Abraham, it means that Jesus is a Jew. As the Son of Adam, it means that Jesus is a man. As the Son of God, it means that Jesus is God. This fourfold portrait of the messianic person as presented by the genealogies is that of the Jewish God-Man King.

    Could the Messiah be anyone less?

    The above article is one solution to the problem of the curse on Jeconiah. For an alternate solution, see “The Problem of the Curse on Jeconiah in Relation to the Genealogy of Jesus”

    This content was adapted from an earlier Jews for Jesus article.

     

    Peace and love in Jesus Christ

    March 14, 2024 at 3:37 am#946160
    Jodi
    Participant

    Hi DT,

    YOU: What emotion does the term “robbing” conjure in you? How does it make you feel? Would you call the term positive or negative?

    ME: Your questioning of “what emotions” conjure in me when I hear the term “robbing”, all the more tells me you aren’t at all invested in sound reasoning and the context of the situation. We are to find truth and understanding through the emotions that words give to us?.. what total nonsense! When leading up to verse 8, we already know full well Paul wasn’t robbing anyone and the very next verse also tells us that, so what emotions should be stirred up when we know Paul wasn’t literally robbing anyone DT, or are we supposed to forget all that and turn instead and define Paul’s heart through the emotions stirred up by a word that he used? This is completely absurd!

    YOU: The question is why would he refuse payment from Corinth, but is okay being paid by other churches and then have to make a huge point of it? Why not just remain silent; instead he goes to great length to let them know all about his “humility” and not accepting payment from them. EGO?!?

    ME: Exactly, why would he refuse payment, but FULL STOP, you are leaving out the very crucial part of, WHY NOW, why now after he had asked and received payment from them before? We aren’t left to guess, Paul tells us exactly why which then tells you why Paul said what he said in verse 8 and why he continues to make a point that he is not going to ask them to be paid. 

    Paul is upset, not only about Corinth’s sins and them being led astray by false apostles but he is also upset that they are putting up with these false apostles who are taking advantage of them, who boast about getting paid. Paul then boasts, not about how well off he is in payments, but in how he has been willing to put his life in danger for the sake of spreading the gospel and tells them all the trials and tribulations he has been through thus far. Paul boasts about that which reflects his sincere and strong devotion to Christ and spreading the gospel.  Now that Paul knows that Corinth is giving money to deceiving super apostles he NOW doesn’t want their money, he doesn’t want to be lumped in with them and he wants to show Corinth that his devotion is to them, not to their money, he doesn’t want their possessions he wants them.  

     

    March 14, 2024 at 5:28 am#946161
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @Gene,

    You preach the law still stands right? Are God’s “laws” not eternal? Jesus seems to think so; didn’t he say that not a stroke or smallest letter will disappear from the “law”?

    then when was the last time you sacrifice a lamb for your sins? What did David say concerning sacrifices (Ps 51:16-17); , what did Solomon say concerning forgiveness (I King 8:46-53); what did Hosea say concerning prayer and forgiveness (Hosea 14:2)? What’s funny is there is nothing in any of these passages concerning a lamb sacrifice. Did blood atone for Nineveh?

    When is the last time you kept all “SEVEN” of the “Holy Days”. I doubt you even know what they are much less keep then. I have never kept any of them as they don’t apply to me, so why should I know them?

    If you’re going to be a person, under the works of law, then you better be doing it all yourself , not just mouthing about it. To wrap this up in a neat tidy little bow for you, I’m not Jewish nor have I converted to Judaism. So I’m not under the laws given to Moses at Sinai. HOWEVER, are there “laws” given to all mankind? The answer would be yes!

     

    I willing to bet, you don’t even understand about why God Commanded those Israelites to “sacrifice those lambs” for their sin, do you? You apparently are under the impression the only thing offered for sacrifice where animals; in Lev 5:7-13 if one couldn’t afford two doves or two pigeons, they where to bring “a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering.” Flour could atone for sin.

    What was He showing them by causing them to do that? This would be a question to ask a Rabbi why God required the use animals? Are the sacrifices about the physical act of bloodshed or is there a deeper “spiritual” meaning. Remember, without true repentance, not all sacrifices where excepted by God.

     

    Before I answer that question, for you, I will give you a chance to explain to us first, why God “commanded” them to do it, surely your “new” understanding gives you the ability to explain it to us, right? Again, I’m not Jewish nor a convert; consult your local Rabbi.

     

    As far as the apostle Paul goes, he was one of, if not, the “greatest apostle of them all”, in my opinion. Again with “opinions”… How can Paul be an apostle when an apostle was to have been around Jesus from the start of his ministry AND witnessed his resurrection (Act 1:21-26)? In Rev 21:14, “The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Or did Paul submit a change in blueprints to have a 13th foundation added? Paul isn’t, wasn’t, and can never be an “apostle.” A fraud!

    All your trash talk about him won’t change anything, for me or anyone else, who has the truth of God “IN” them. Not looking to change anything or anyone, that’s a personal thing. I’m offering my thoughts on the man and have concluded he’s a liar, manipulator, and deceiver. Still waiting for an explanation of the follow words of Paul:

    II Cor 12:16b “Yet because I was a crafty person, I took you in by deceit!” Paul, being “crafty”, deceived these people…how?!? What did he just admit to doing?!?!

    Phil 1:18 “What does it matter? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed. I rejoice in this, yes, and will rejoice.” In “pretense or truth” Paul rejoices in proclaiming Jesus. The definition of pretense, “A false appearance or action intended to deceive” and he “rejoices” in deceit. He admits to deception and I’m suppose to say he’s the “greatest apostle”? He yours, keep him!

    I Cor 15:9 “For I am the least of the apostles, who is not worthy to be called an apostle,” and then look at II Cor 11:5 “For I consider myself not at all inferior to those “super-apostles.” What a contrast from humility to arrogance; and all to the same group of people! No wonder Paul wouldn’t accept payment from them, he knew they saw him for who he was – a false apostle.

    Let’s not forget his forked tongue in I Cor 15:3-4 where he says “according to scripture.” Of course all of christendom says Isa 53 is your answer; what about the second part of Paul’s statement? Where does it say the messiah was to be buried and raised up on the third day?

    March 14, 2024 at 5:41 am#946162
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @Jodi,

    Since we like beating dead horses; who, on payday, says they “robbed” the employer? Most would say their employer “robbed” them looking at the paycheck amount. Who, when providing a legitimate service requiring payment, says they “robbed” the individual? I could careless about everything else you are bringing into this to justify Paul’s wording; his choice of wording for being paid is beyond poor; it’s insulting, to say you “robbed” those who paid you for your teachings! Would you bring back someone who tells another client they “robbed” you? Must wonder if this is why Paul lamented to Timothy about being rejected by all of Asia and moved to Rome…new audience that didn’t question him.

    I Cor 15:9 “For I am the least of the apostles, who is not worthy to be called an apostle,” and then look at II Cor 11:5 “For I consider myself not at all inferior to those “super-apostles.” You don’t consider this egotistical?

    if you paid any mind to the surrounding text and circumstances therein. This is called “context”, something I say all the time. For some reason me picking and choosing the words of Paul is a terrible thing; yet, the modern church will pick and choose and misuse words from the Tanakh, change their meanings, or misapply them is fine.

    Let’s look at Ps 110:1 were Jesus claims it’s a reference to himself and Peter in Acts saying it’s a reference to Jesus and if one were to read this Psalm, and put the words into “context”, one would discover both are wrong. In all your “studying” you have done, why haven’t you picked up on this error? The Psalm was written “to” David and not “by” David as modern translations have corruptly written. Look up the Hebrew and verify it for yourself or not.

    March 14, 2024 at 5:42 am#946163
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @Danny,

    Why don’t you do a big Bible study instead of asking all these questions? You seem like a “young christian.” Instead of telling me to “study”, maybe take your own advice and not rely on the words of those whom you think are telling you truth and verify these words for yourself.

    Try using Biblehub. There you can find good commentaries on every Bible verse. I do use biblehub, along with a plethora of other study aids. What do you use for studying; when studying the Tanakh (aka OT) do you consult the Hebrew or just the modern interpretations? Personally I like going to the original.

    Anyway, there are no contradictions in the Bible. The book of Hebrews is filled with “contradictions” and twisting of the words in the Tanakh; and you accept this as truth and have never verified what has been said. If you would take the time to verify and test the words spoken in your extremely fallible NT, you would also see the real truth and your NT is actually filled with contradictions and isn’t “the infallible word of God” as you are told repeatedly (tell a lie long enough and it will become truth). Ask yourself why you never read “the Lord says” in the NT; but in the Tanakh HE speaks all the time. Ask yourself why the number of NT books changed over time from 22 to 27, why did they add more? Why is a book with an unknown author considered “scripture”?

    March 14, 2024 at 5:43 am#946164
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @Carmel,

    You posted from Jews for Jesus (sigh):

    “The necessity for this exception to the rule became apparent when Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin:

    “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.”

    Couple issues with this passage and claiming it speaks of Jesus; the most glaring and obvious, Jesus was never called “Immanuel.” Then I would encourage you to read chapter 7 in its entirety (as Jodi says context, context, context and Gene says we shouldn’t be “cherry picking” – like picking one verse out of 25 and not applying it in context to what has been written and claiming it’s about Jesus) and tell me what this chapter is about and if verse 7 is really a prophecy pointing to Jesus. Finally, citing Jews for Jesus would not be a reliable source to learn about the Tanakh; they’re a christian organization with Jewish customs. If you really want to study the Hebraic understanding of the Tanakh check out websites like Chabad.org, jewsforjudaism.org, jewsforjudaism.ca. For study aids: chabad.org, sefaria.org, biblehub.com. If you truly want to know, this is where you begin – the source.

    March 15, 2024 at 5:45 am#946165
    Jodi
    Participant

    Hey there DT.

    YOU: I Cor 15:9 “For I am the least of the apostles, who is not worthy to be called an apostle,” and then look at II Cor 11:5 “For I consider myself not at all inferior to those “super-apostles.” You don’t consider this egotistical?

    ME: The “super apostles” Paul speaks to in chapter 11 he clearly identifies as FALSE apostles. He’s NOT speaking about his fellow true apostles in verse 5.

    3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5 I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.”..12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.

    I Cor 15:9 “For I am the least of the apostles, who is not worthy to be called an apostle,”  – Paul is humble here DT. 

    2 Cor 11:5 I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” 6 I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way.   – yah what an ego, Paul compares his speaking ability to the false apostles-posing as ministers of light, humbly admitting he’s not the best at speaking, but makes the point that he has knowledge (what’s more important your speaking abilities or the CONTENT?). Because of Paul’s content to that which he speaks he does not see himself inferior though he admits he is inferior when it comes to the deliver of the content. 

    Nope, not at all egotistical

     

    March 15, 2024 at 6:21 am#946166
    Jodi
    Participant

    Hi DT,

    YOU: I could careless about everything else you are bringing into this to justify Paul’s wording; his choice of wording for being paid is beyond poor; it’s insulting, to say you “robbed” those who paid you for your teachings!

    ME: You say you could care less about everything else, but you yourself said, “the question is why would he refuse payment from Corinth”, so make up your mind, one minute you care and the next minute you could care less.

    Very convenient for you DT to not care at all about the situation provided in the text that gives direct understanding as to why Paul would tell Corinth, “I robbed other churches receiving support from them to serve you”. Further, it’s absolute absurdity to not only say you don’t care but think your position is legitimate, basing your opinion of Paul according to how you feel about a word that he used.

    I speak to the below to defend the truth for others to see, you can stick to your bubble of feelings.

    Considering the situation,

    Paul had found Corinth putting up with boasting false apostles who disguise themselves as ministers of light, where Corinth is giving them payment to the avail of being led astray. Paul is afraid for them and frustrated with them.

    Paul speaks to Corinth calling into question their sincerity and devotion to Christ and the gospel and Paul NOW at this time, unlike before, does not want their financial support and he gives two very honorable reasons as to why. However, this does equate to something unfortunate which Paul wants Corinth to be sure to know. Corinth had been given the goal by Paul the equality of giving among the churches, specifically, “your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need.” In light of Corinth’s actions causing Paul to not want their financial support, he tells them as much and what that equates to, it’s like he’s robbing from other churches to serve them, as it breaks the goal that Paul had aspired Corinth to. I say, “it’s like he’s robbing” because we know that he has not literally robbed anyone, so that is the OBVIOUS context one should read it in.  Paul even lets Corinth know specifically who gave so that he could serve them, the brothers who came from Macedonia.

    Corinth has put Paul into this position and they should feel guilty about it and Paul goes on to tell them he will keep doing so as to not give opportunity for the false apostles to feel equal to him and the other true apostles. He goes further in the next chapter to let them know that he does not want their possessions but them. Paul had told them prior to give out of love, which their sincere devotion has been tainted by their giving to false apostles. Honorable of Paul to not take Corinth’s payment in these circumstances even though it causes a burden to other churches as the equality is lost, where it feels like robbing the other churches. Totally appropriate for Paul to point this out to Corinth. 

    YOU: I could careless about everything else you are bringing into this to justify Paul’s wording.

    ME: “Everything else”, by that you mean, the SURROUNDING  TEXT and the circumstances therein, I am directly giving to provide CONTEXT.

    YOU: if you paid any mind to the surrounding text and circumstances therein. This is called “context”, something I say all the time.

    DT, looks like you need to follow your own advice or be left as a hypocrite.

    March 15, 2024 at 12:56 pm#946167
    carmel
    Participant

    Hi DT,

    You: Couple issues with this passage and claiming it speaks of Jesus; the most glaring and obvious, Jesus was never called “Immanuel.”

    Then I would encourage you to read chapter 7 in its entirety (as Jodi says context, context, context and Gene says we shouldn’t be “cherry picking” – like picking one verse out of 25 and not applying it in context to what has been written and claiming it’s about Jesus) and tell me what this chapter is about and if verse 7 is really a prophecy pointing to Jesus.

    Me: Isn’t that what you’re doing in Paul’s case, ” I ROBBED OTHER CHURCHES…..”

    DID YOU READ  THAT CHAPTER SERIOUSLY AND KEENLY AS YOU SHOULD?

    You: Jesus was never called “Immanuel.” 

    OUR DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT  Isaiah 7:14 AT ALL, NO? 

    SO WHAT ABOUT JECONIAH’S CASE NOW, HAVEN’T YOU GOT ANYTHING  TO SAY?

    That article is one solution to the problem of the curse on Jeconiah. 

     

    Peace and love in Jesus Christ

    March 18, 2024 at 4:47 am#946168
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @ Jodi,

    There seems to be a level of confusion is what we are talking about; what I “don’t care about” is the “equality in giving” you keep inserting into this verse and equating “donations” and “giving” to being paid for services. Paul specifically tells those in Corinth “I robbed other assemblies, taking WAGES from them that I might serve you”; there is nothing spoken in this passage about collecting charitable anything and you have the audacity to continually say I am reading this passage out of “context”!! No matter how much dancing you do defending Paul, the word choice of “robbing” is a negative. Like I keep saying, Paul’s all yours.

    Curious, do you believe those who have accepted Jesus (christians) are now God’s “chosen people” – a “new/spiritual” Israel of sorts?

    March 18, 2024 at 5:09 am#946169
    DesireTruth
    Participant

    @Carmel,

    You: Isn’t that what you’re doing in Paul’s case, ” I ROBBED OTHER CHURCHES…..”

    Me: Funny, I am being condemned for “not reading” all of what Paul says and not putting his words into “context”; yet, this is the same thing that is being done with the Tanakh to support/prove the christian theology. Pick a verse here and there claiming it points to the Jesus or twisting God’s words to mean other than what it says or changing HIS words altogether; I used the example of Isa 7:14 to show how God’s words have been corrupted, twisted, and taken out of context to support the NT. Yet don’t you dare touch the “sacred” words of Paul or take them out of context!

    Is it safe to say you didn’t read chapter 7 to find out what’s really happening? To bad! 🙁 I gave you a case of falsehood and then backed up the claim with proof. The writer of Matthew is a liar.

    You: SO WHAT ABOUT JECONIAH’S CASE NOW, HAVEN’T YOU GOT ANYTHING TO SAY?

    Me: I’ve already said all I can; all you have given me are man’s opinions and reasonings for why Jechoniah is listed. God said it was like he was childless and none of his descendants would sit on the throne of David and Jesus is in that line. So how can Jesus sit on the throne of David, when God said none of his descendants would ever be on David’s throne? Provide proof, not speculation, Jechoniah asked for forgiveness and was restored by God to David’s throne. God using Zerubbabel for HIS will isn’t proof, because nowhere is it said he sat on David’s throne, he was appointed governor and not a ruling king. The writer of Matthew messed up by putting Jechoniah in the lineage of Jesus; and when one begins testing and verifying the words being claimed as truth, Christianity begins to fall apart.

    March 18, 2024 at 8:41 am#946170
    Jodi
    Participant

    Hey there DesireTruth,

    YOU: Time to move on; speak on Gal 5:1-12 and how the Jewish male is suppose to accept the Jesus as Paul teaches circumcision doesn’t matter; and relate that to Gen 17:1-14. My assessment of Paul stands; he’s a liar, manipulator, and deceiver; and he’s real good!

    ME: How about we relate it to not only Genesis 17 but additional OT passages!

    Genesis 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God…10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you.

    God’s covenant with Abraham was a promise that He would give to Abraham and his seed an eternal possession of all the land of Canaan and He would be their God. God set Abraham and his seed apart, they would be for a people unto Himself and have a physical reminder of this covenant, circumcision.

    God’s covenant with Israel,

    Exodus 19: 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

    Exodus 20 begins with the 10 commandments and other specific commands follow.

    Deuteronomy 11 speaks to blessing or cursing dependent upon obedience where preceding chapters speak of commandments and examples of blessings and cursing.

    Below we read that the covenant with Israel is held within His covenant with Abraham,

    Deuteronomy 29:9 Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do. 10 Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, 11 Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: 12 That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day: 13 That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

    So we have God’s covenant with Abraham where God has set Israel apart where he will be their God, they will be a people unto Himself, he will make nations and kings from Abraham’s seed and give his seed an everlasting possession of land. Circumcision is a physical reminder, a token of this covenant. In keeping with this covenant, God brings forth another covenant, He is their God through directing them in the way that they should go, giving them laws, where if they obey they are blessed but if they disobey they are cursed. Israel is to cut themselves off from the world and have no other gods but the true God YHVH, love him with all their hearts and obey His commandments.

    As we read from OT passages below, we see that physical circumcision means absolutely nothing if they turn to idolatry, if they disobey God, however there is but another kind of circumcision that matters.

    Jeremiah 4:1 If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the LORD, return unto me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove. 2 And thou shalt swear, The LORD liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory. 3 For thus saith the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. 4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

    Jeremiah 9: 23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: 24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. 25 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised. 26 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

    Circumcision amounts to absolutely NOTHING, it is circumcision of your heart that counts.

    Deut 10: 15 Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day. 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. 17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

    Deut 30: 1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, 2 And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; 3 That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. 4 If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: 5 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. 6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. 7 And the LORD thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee. 8 And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.

    Ezekiel 36: 24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. 25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

    DT, you see the law could not make Israel righteous, it proved that man can do nothing good of himself. Even in God giving rewards and punishments they were not able to keep the law. Look at the prophecy from Deuteronomy 30! After all the blessings and the curses have been given to Israel and they are scattered among the nations where God drove them away, they will call it all to mind, other passages speak to their repentance, and then God will call them back to the land which He promised them and there He will be their God and they will be His people, He will circumcise their hearts, He will give them a new heart and He will put His Spirit in them and cause them to obey all of His commandments, the laws will be written in their hearts through the works of God’s Spirit dwelling within.

    DT, circumcision IS ONLY A PHYSICAL token to the covenant, a Jew who sins there circumcision means absolutely nothing, it is the circumcision of the heart that matters.

    Romans 2: 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” 25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. 28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

    The OT clearly teaches what Paul stated above!

    Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

    The OT clearly teaches that it is circumcision of the heart that counts. The OT clearly teaches that God’s promise is to give us a new heart and put His Spirit within us whereby such He causes us to be able to walk in all his ways. This is what Paul also teaches, he is no liar. 

    God put His Spirit in Jesus and it did indeed prove his righteousness where he then could not be held to the penalty of death. Jesus is proof of God’s working Spirit in a human being. Because of this proof we are set free from eternal death, as what God can accomplish in one human, He can accomplish in all.  We are promised the Spirit where we too will walk in righteousness, being a child of God, just as Jesus Christ, being fully led by Spirit of God. Our belief in Jesus Christ and faith in God is held in this.

    March 18, 2024 at 1:17 pm#946171
    carmel
    Participant

    Hi DT,

    YOU: I’ve already said all I can; 

    all you have given me are man’s opinions and reasonings for why Jechoniah is listed. 

    ISN’T THAT WHAT YOU ASKED FOR?

    Also, the prophecy need mean no more than Jeconiah’s immediate sons wouldn’t be kings because the Babylonian Exile would go on for too long (cf. Jer. 22:25–28).

    READ AGAIN!

    THEN GIVE ME YOUR OPINIONS, AND REASONINGS, AND CONTRADICT WHAT TO ME IS THE TRUTH REGARDING JECONIAH’S INCLUSION IN MATTHEW’S JESUS GENEALOGY.

    https://jewsforjesus.org/learn/the-genealogy-of-the-messiah

    The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy is to show why Yeshua could not be king if
    he were REALLY Joseph’s son.
    The purpose was not to show the royal line.
    For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy,

    presents the Jeconiah problem,

    and then proceeds with the account of the VIRGIN BIRTH which, from Matthew’s viewpoint,
    is the solution to the Jeconiah problem. 
    In summary, Matthew deduces that if Jesus were REALLY Joseph’s son, he could not claim to sit on David’s throne because of the Jeconiah curse;
     but Jesus was not Joseph’s son, 
    for he was born of the virgin Miriam.

    Matthew 1:18Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. 19Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. 20But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. 

    You: The writer of Matthew messed up by putting Jechoniah in the lineage of Jesus; and when one begins testing and verifying the words being claimed as truth, Christianity begins to fall apart.

    ME: ISN’T THAT ALSO YOUR OPINION AND REASONING?

    TO ME JECONIAH’S PROBLEM IS OVER AND DONE WITH!

    Luke’s genealogy did not include Jeconiah’s line, PLUS he began his Gospel with the virgin birth, and only later, in describing Yeshua’s public ministry, recorded his genealogy.

     

    Peace and love in Jesus Christ

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 25,461 through 25,480 (of 25,992 total)
123…1,2731,2741,275…1,2981,2991,300
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
ACTIVE TOPICS
POPULAR TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER

Recent Replies

ALL REPLIES →

© 1999 - 2026 Heaven Net

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account