Mary had other children after Jesus was born Part 1

Posted on May 25, 2024 by Jerry

 

The Text:

Mar 3:31  There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. (KJV)

Mar 3:31 And his mother and his brethren came; and standing without, sent unto him, calling him. (DRB, Douay Rheims Bible)

Mar 3:31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. (ESV, English Standard Version)

The Plot:

Mar 3:20 Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat.
Mar 3:21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” (ESV)

The Accusation:

Mar 3:22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” (ESV)

My Comment:

This surely was a dark chapter in the Gospel record. The family of Jesus, his brothers and even his mother, turned against him and did not believe him.

Joh 7:3 So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing.
Joh 7:4 For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.”
Joh 7:5 For not even his brothers believed in him. (ESV)

This “advice” from his own brothers was misguided and knowingly would have placed Jesus in greater danger (Luke 13:32). The fact that these negative incidents are faithfully recorded in the Gospels is firm evidence of the historicity and authenticity of the New Testament record and represents the eye-witness testimony of those who were there when these things happened. No later anonymous writer would include such details for they reflect negatively on the character of the individuals involved–the family of Jesus, including his mother.

The Question: did Mary have other children after Jesus was born?

The New Testament record is clear that Mary had additional children by her husband Joseph after Jesus was born.

The Evidence (Mark 3:31):

Mark 3:31  There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.

These are certainly his literal half-brothers, of which Scripture names four.

Jesus also had at least three half-sisters (Mat 13:56 uses “all,” not “both,” indicating more than two):

Mat 13:56  And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

“Brethren” here mentioned in such close connection with Mary, Christ’s mother, certainly points to their being his natural brothers, not cousins. Sons of another woman would not be following Mary around.

While Jesus is Mary’s firstborn son, this does not indicate she had no other children, for if that were the case, the word would have been monogenes, only begotten son (as in Luk 7:12; Luk 8:42; Luk 9:38), not “firstborn” (protokos, Mat 1:25, Luk 2:7, Rom 8:29, +*Col 1:15 note, Col 1:18, Heb 1:6; Heb 11:28; Heb 12:23, Rev 1:5).

For monogenes, only begotten son:

Luk 7:12  Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.

Luk 8:42  For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.

Luk 9:38  And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child.

For first born, protokos:

Mat 1:25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Luk 2:7  And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Rom 8:29  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Col 1:15  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:18  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Heb 1:6  And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Heb 11:28  Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

Heb 12:23  To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Rev 1:5  And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

The term firstborn does not imply that there are no others, for Christ is the firstborn from the dead (Rev 1:5) that he may bring many sons into glory (Heb 2:10) by resurrection (1Co 15:20, 21, 22, 23).

Rev 1:5  And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Heb 2:10  For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

1Co 15:20  But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1Co 15:21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23  But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

It was foretold in prophecy that Jesus would have brothers, and his mother would have other children, **Psa 69:8; **Psa 69:9.

Psa 69:8  I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.
Psa 69:9  For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

If his “brethren” were merely cousins, the term sungenes, used of kin, kinsmen, and kinsfolk (Mar 6:4, Luk 1:36; Luk 1:58; Luk 2:44; Luk 14:12; Luk 21:16; Joh 18:26, Act 10:24, Rom 9:3; Rom 16:7; Rom 16:11; Rom 16:21), and cousin (Luk 1:36; Luk 1:58) was available to indicate this, but was not used.

For kin, kinsmen, and kinsfolk:

Mar 6:4  But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

Luk 1:36  And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Luk 1:58  And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

Luk 2:44  But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.

Luk 14:12  Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.

Luk 21:16  And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

Joh 18:26  One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

Act 10:24  And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.

Rom 9:3  For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

Rom 16:7  Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Rom 16:11  Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.

Rom 16:21  Timotheus my workfellow, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen, salute you.

For cousin:

Luk 1:36  And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Luk 1:58  And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

 

Note that “brethren” is distinguished from “kinsmen” at Luk 14:12 and Luk 21:16. +*Mar 6:3, +*Mat 13:55, Joh 2:12; Joh 7:3; Joh 7:5; Joh 7:10, Act 1:14, 1Co 9:5, 2Co 5:16, Gal 1:19.

Luk 14:12  Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.

Luk 21:16  And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

his mother. The kinsfolk of +Mar 3:21. +Mat 1:16, Act 1:14.

standing without. That they might more easily seize Him (Mar 3:21) [CB].

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Apologetics--Christian, Bible Historicity and Validity, Doctrinal Discussions, False Religions | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Trinity taught in the Bible Itself

Posted on May 24, 2024 by Jerry

 

 

The Text:

Isa 42:1  Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

My Comment:

The Trinity is seen here, for we have the Father as the speaker; the Son as the Servant, the Messiah; and the Holy Spirit. All three persons of the Trinity are also mentioned together in +*Mat 3:16; +*Mat 3:17; +**Mat 28:19 note; Luk 1:35; Joh 14:16; Joh 14:26; Joh 15:26; *Rom 15:30; *1Co 12:4, 5, 6; 2Co 13:14; Eph 2:18; Eph 4:4, 5, 6; 2Th 2:13, 14; 2Th 3:5; Heb 9:14; 1Pe 1:2; 1Jn 5:7; Jud 1:20, 21; Rev 1:4, 5.

Note carefully that 1 John 5:7, 8 in the received text underlying the King James Version contains an addition to the Greek text not supported by the rest of the extant Greek NT manuscripts. The doctrine of the Trinity does not depend upon the words added to suit the purpose at 1 John 5:7.

1Jn 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1Jn 5:8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV)

1Jn 5:7  And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

1Jn 5:8  For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. (ASV)

in heaven. The texts read “the Spirit, and the water,” omitting all the words from “in heaven,” to “in earth” (1Jn 5:8) inclusive. The words are not found in any Greek MS. before the sixteenth century. They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies. Thence they have crept into the text (CB). The fact and doctrine of the Trinity do not depend upon this spurious addition (Robertson, cited by Wuest).

the Father. Note: The genuineness of the latter part of this verse, and the first clause of the next, it is well known has divided the opinions of learned men for nearly four centuries, nor is it yet decided. It is certainly wanting in many of the ancient MSS. and versions; and is not quoted by many of the Fathers: but the number of MSS. collated is but small, only about 400; it exists in some ancient confessions of faith and liturgies; is quoted by numerous Latin Fathers; and appears necessary from the connection in which it stands. It also seems more probable that the Arians should silently omit it in their copies, or that it should be left out by mistake, than that the Trinitarians should forge and insert it; for the latter would only gain one argument for a doctrine which is abundantly taught in other Scriptures; but if it was admitted as the word of God, all the ingenuity and diligence of opponents could scarcely avoid the inference naturally deducible from it. Older scholarship (including Nolan whom I have cited at Act 20:28 note), and other controversial writers on these verses who supported their genuineness include: Dr. Mill, T. Smith, Kettner, David Martin, Calamy, Calmet, Sloss, Travis, Hey, Butler, Middleton, Nolan, Hales, Alber, Bishop Burgess, John Jones, Cardinal Wiseman; the following assert their spuriousness: Simon, Emlyn, Sir Isaac Newton, Benson, Porson, Marsh, Griesbach, A. Clarke, Jowett, Turton, Orme, Scholz, and Horne (as given in Lange, p. 168, commenting “Our limits do not allow us to give the titles of the books in this controversy, which is a library in itself”). Contemporary scholarship, however, fails to support this reading in any form, suggesting it was added to a late Greek manuscript made for the purpose to influence Erasmus to include it in his Greek text, for Erasmus had promised he would include the text if even one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it.

The Challenge:

“the doctrine of the Trinity was a later development within Christian theology and not a teaching directly attributed to Jesus himself in the Bible.”

My Response:

From the Opening Post:

“In conclusion, a thorough examination of historical, biblical, and theological evidence suggests that the doctrine of the Trinity was a later development within Christian theology and not a teaching directly attributed to Jesus himself in the Bible.”

That was hardly a thorough examination even of the Biblical evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Biblical evidence is absolutely conclusive that God exists in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who each share many of the same attributes of God. Since each of these three Persons share the same incommunicable attributes of God, “they belong to God exclusively, and cannot be communicated, delegated, or given to a created being. These include eternity (3), omniscience (6), omnipresence (7), sovereignty (30), immutability (31), and immensity (32). Since only God can possess the incommunicable attributes, yet Scripture ascribes them to Jesus and to the Holy Spirit, all three persons must be God. There is no other explanation which properly agrees with all the statements of Scripture.” Cited from my note at Matthew 28:19 in my book, The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, and in my digital expansion of that resource, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury:

(3) everlasting: **+Rom 16:26, +Rev 22:13, Heb 9:14.

The Father is everlasting:

Rom 16:26  But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

The Son is everlasting:

Rev 22:12  And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Rev 22:13  I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

The Spirit is everlasting:

Heb 9:14  How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

(6) omniscient: +Heb 4:13, +Joh 21:17, 1Co 2:10-11.

God the Father is omniscient:

Heb 4:13  Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

The Son is omniscient:

Joh 21:17  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

The Spirit is omniscient:

1Co 2:10  But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1Co 2:11  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

(7) omnipresent: Jer 23:24, Eph 1:23, Psa 139:7.

The Father is omnipresent:

Jer 23:24  Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

The Son is omnipresent:

Eph 1:23  Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Mat 18:20  For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

in the midst. God the Son is omnipresent. Note,—This is an assertion of the Saviour’s omnipresence, and therefore his divinity (De Burgh).

The Spirit is omnipresent:

Psa 139:7  Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

(30) sovereign: +*Eph 1:11, Mat 8:27, 1Co 12:11.

The Father is sovereign:

Eph 1:11  In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

The Son is sovereign:

Mat 8:27  But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!

The Spirit is sovereign:

1Co 12:11  But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

(31) immutable: +*Mal 3:6, Heb 13:8, Mat 12:32,

The Father is immutable:

Mal 3:6  For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

The Son is immutable:

Heb 13:8  Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

The Spirit is immutable:

Mat 12:32  And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

(32) immensity: Jer 23:24 note. Joh 3:13, Psa 139:7,

God the Father possesses the attribute of immensity:

Jer 23:24  Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

Do not I fill. “The Immensity of God is his essence as related to space. The Divine essence is not measurable, because not included in the limits of space. God’s immensity is spiritual, having no extension of substance. By virtue of God’s immensity, he is Omnipresent” (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, pp. 339, 340).

The Son possesses the attribute of immensity:

Joh 3:13  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

The Spirit possesses the attribute of immensity:

Psa 139:7  Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

For each of the sets of three references given above, the first reference is to the Father, the second is to the Son, the third is to the Holy Spirit.

Searching the Scriptures for yourself using the notes and cross references provided in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury will enable you to see the Bible evidence for yourself far better than any study based upon so-called artificial intelligence!

 

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Doctrinal Discussions | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Bible Text has not been Corrupted

Posted on May 22, 2024 by Jerry

 

The Texts:

Psalm 119:89  LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (KJV)

Psalm 119:89  O LORD, your word is established in heaven forever. (GW, God’s Word translation)

Isaiah 40:8  The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. (KJV)

Isaiah 40:8  Grass dries up, and flowers wither, but the word of our God will last forever. (GW)

The Challenge:

PixelMistakePicasso You state that:

“If you actually read the entire Bible, you will see that the Bible was corrupted, which is why it often contains contradictions. However, the central message from Jesus that he is not God is still present.”

My Response:

I am by profession a reading specialist. I was made a reading specialist because by teaching all my classes in a large high school, Southeastern High School, in Detroit, Michigan, USA, I enabled my students to improve their reading comprehension.

My classes improved so much that Southeastern High School was found to be the most improved high school in reading out of the then 22 high schools in Detroit at that time. The authorities did an investigation to try to learn how and why that happened and traced the results directly to the students in my American History classes.

To raise my students’ reading comprehension, I wrote a reading program called The Language Enrichment Program which is now available worldwide on Amazon under that title under my name. It works for readers of all ages, about age eight and above, from third grade to graduate school, for English language learners, for gifted and talented students, for students who are below grade level in reading comprehension. It helps all users to improve their inference skills.

I mention this as part of my background to let you know that I am here to help, not hinder, all readers to understand what they read, including understanding how to read the Bible more accurately.

I explained to some of you that the text of the Bible in its original languages has not been corrupted. I mentioned to you that the original Hebrew manuscripts and Greek manuscripts show very, very little difference among them when comparing the oldest to the latest extant copies.

For example, the oldest known complete Hebrew text for the book of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls differs little from printed Hebrew texts in modern printed Hebrew Bibles of today. What differences there are to be found are given in the printed critical texts of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible (LXX) and the Greek New Testament. What differences there are are very minor.

I have studied this subject in great depth since 1955 and have the personal print library to prove it. I also have a six-volume critical text of Shakespeare which shows the manuscript variations for Shakespeare’s plays and poetry. The text of the Greek New Testament is more certain than the text of Shakespeare in my judgment. There are more handwritten ancient manuscripts for the text of the Greek New Testament than there are for the much later text of Shakespeare. The sheer abundance of textual evidence for the New Testament accounts for the greater number of variations which have been found. Among those many variations, very few are significant enough to have any bearing upon translations into modern languages like English.

This being true, I trust that you will learn from what I have presented to you as fact, not mere opinion. Having learned the truth about the actual condition of the original language Bible texts, that you will retract your mistaken claims and not repeat them. Should it happen that you refuse to cease from promulgating falsehoods, you shall have proven yourself untruthful, which would unfortunately place you in a very bad position in the light of eternity according to the text of Revelation 21:8. I would wish that upon no one!

Revelation 21:8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Apologetics--Christian, Bible Historicity and Validity, Education Issues, The Language Enrichment Program | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

My Answer to Ten Unprofitable Bible Critics

Posted on May 21, 2024 by Jerry

The Challenge:

It is hard to study the Bible when Bible scholars keep questioning the authenticity of the Bible and provide evidence of mistakes.

Ten Negative Critics:

  1. Bart D. Ehrman

– Findings: Ehrman has written extensively on the textual inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies within the New Testament. In his book *Misquoting7 Jesus*, he details how scribes altered the texts, either intentionally or accidentally, which has led to significant variations in the manuscripts.

  1. John Dominic Crossan

– Findings: A co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, Crossan argues that many of the gospel accounts are not historical records but rather theological constructs. He suggests that the resurrection stories and many miracle accounts were later additions to enhance the divine image of Jesus.

  1. Richard Carrier

– Findings: Carrier is a proponent of the Christ myth theory, arguing that Jesus of Nazareth is a mythical figure rather than a historical person. He points out numerous historical and textual inconsistencies within the gospels and other New Testament writings.

  1. Gerd Lüdemann

– Findings: Critiques the historical reliability of the New Testament, particularly the resurrection narratives. He argues that many of the events described are theological constructions rather than historical events.

  1. Robert M. Price

– Findings: Another advocate of the Christ myth theory, Price argues that much of the New Testament is mythological rather than historical. He highlights numerous parallels between Christian texts and earlier mythological stories, suggesting that early Christians borrowed heavily from surrounding cultures.

  1. Thomas Paine

– Findings: In his work “The Age of Reason”, Paine critiques the Bible from a deist perspective, arguing that it contains numerous contradictions and immoral teachings. He questions the authenticity of many of the biblical books and highlights inconsistencies in the narrative.

  1. Julius Wellhausen

– Findings: Wellhausen is known for his documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) is a compilation of documents from different sources rather than a single, cohesive work. He identifies inconsistencies and duplications that support this theory.

  1. Karen Armstrong

– Findings: Armstrong explores the historical context of biblical texts, arguing that many stories in the Old Testament are not historical accounts but rather mythological narratives that reflect the beliefs and experiences of ancient Israelite society.

  1. Hector Avalos

– Findings: Avalos critiques the Bible from a secular humanist perspective, arguing that it is a human creation full of errors, contradictions, and outdated moral teachings. He examines the historical and cultural contexts in which the texts were written to highlight their human origins.

  1. Thomas L. Thompson

– Findings: Thompson, a proponent of the Copenhagen School of biblical criticism, argues that much of the Old Testament is mythological rather than historical. He suggests that many of the stories, such as the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan, are literary creations rather than historical events.

 

MY ANSWER:

PixelMistakePicasso Why bother with the negative views of unbelieving and/or apostate Bible scholars?

That is not the way to study any literature. I have several volumes in my personal library which argue that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare. I certainly do not go first to them to learn how to understand Shakespeare!

Neither should you give any credence to the opinions of any of the scholars you mention in your Opening Post before you have become absolutely familiar with the content of the Bible itself by taking the steps I previously described for you:

Read three chapters of the Gospel of John each day of the week so that you read the Gospel of John’s 21 chapters weekly for two months. This reading should enable you to become so completely familiar that you can literally think your way through the Gospel of John chapter by chapter “with your eyes closed.”

Next, read the New Testament through three times or more by reading it long enough each day (for a total of at least 20 minutes). This does not mean 20 minutes at one sitting. My suggestion is that the cumulative total for the day add up to 20 minutes or more. Read the New Testament often enough each week (at least four days a week) on a continuing basis to experience the benefits such reading will bring.

Continue, beyond that, to read the rest of the Bible (the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures) three times or more until you are very familiar with its content, especially its narrative and wisdom literature and historical portions.

I have found it helpful to study the Bible topically by studying the topics of special interest to me by using such resources as Nave’s Topical Bible or one of its several modern equivalents and the Thompson Chain Reference Bible.

To dig still deeper, I have found it helpful to consult the cross references found in standard editions of what are called Reference Bibles and far more completely in the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and now in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury.

As for the so-called Bible scholars you have named in the Opening Post:

(1) Bart Ehrman. When he is writing for the academic and scholarly audience about the field of his expertise (textual criticism, not historical or literary criticism) he is sometimes helpful and more level-headed. When writing for a general audience he may be sensational but he is sensationally wrong.

(2) John Dominic Crossan. Pay no attention to the so-called “Jesus Seminar.” They are proceeding upon wrong principles to start with. They may be out to make a name for themselves but their alleged “findings” are nonsense.

(3) Richard Carrier. Anyone who thinks our Lord Jesus Christ is a “myth,” in whatever sense this word is taken, is making a fool of him or herself. The historicity of the life of Christ is proven fact, as is the historicity of the 27 primary source first century documents now compiled in the New Testament.

(4) Gerd Lüdemann. Anyone who thinks the historical record contained in the New Testament of the resurrection accounts are merely “theological constructions” rather than records of actual historical events shows their utter lack of understanding of the nature and purpose of the Gospel records. They are thinking anachronistically–applying the standards of historical writing employed by scholars today by imposing them upon the writings of the First Century. Rather, readers must read “very old books” sympathetically and approach them on their own terms.

(6) Thomas Paine. Benjamin Franklin once criticized Paine for having written his Age of Reason. Franklin told Paine he was spitting into the wind and the wind would drive his spit back on to his face. Paine has been thoroughly answered by a number of authors. Deism has been resoundingly and irrefutably answered by Charles Leslie in his work titled “A Short and Easy Method with the Deists.” I have presented Leslie’s argument in modern English in detail on my Real Bible Study site. Just enter “Leslie” in the search box to access my article.

(7) Julius Wellhausen. The “Documentary Hypothesis” is nonsense. I have recently spent considerable time studying this unfruitful theory. No two exponents of the theory agree with one another. To suggest that just because the names of God within the text are used by different writers is nonsense. For a scholarly refutation of Wellhausen and his followers study carefully the writings of Oswald T. Allis, including his titles The Five Books of Moses as well as The Old Testament: Its Claims and Critics.

(8) Karen Armstrong. I believe Karen Armstrong’s claims are overblown. I prefer the expertise in these matters represented by John D. Currid, as in his book Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament.

9. Hector Avalos. I am not familiar with Avalos. I can say that such views need to be contrasted with two titles which certainly demolish his views. Vishal Mangalowadi, The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization and Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World.

10. Thomas L. Thompson. Anyone who questions the historicity of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan must be living on another planet. I just lately purchased and read two books by Steven Collins titled Let My People Go! Using Historical Synchronisms to Identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus and Discovering the City of Sodom: The Fascinating True Account of the Discovery of the Old Testament’s Most Infamous City. The work of Charles Leslie I previously mentioned likewise supplies irrefutable proof of the historicity of the Exodus event recorded in the Bible.

Link to my summary of Leslie’s unanswerable argument:

Daily Bible Nugget #600, 2 Peter 1:16

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Bible Historicity and Validity, Bible Study Tools, How to Study the Bible | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #852, Genesis 2:17

Posted on May 20, 2024 by Jerry

 

The Nugget:

Genesis 2:17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The Challenge:

Adam lived for hundreds of years after eating the fruit. This means Genesis 2:17 is wrong!

My Answer:

I have furnished in my Bible study resource, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury, the following note on Genesis 2:17 which should answer your question directly:

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

surely. Materialists in theology (like the ancient Arians and their modern day counterpart the Jehovah’s Witnesses, among others) misconstrue Gen 2:17, where God threatened death for eating of the forbidden tree. They take the “death” threatened to be physical death. This interpretation is flawed because:

(1) Adam and Eve did not physically die immediately on the very day that they ate from the forbidden tree;

(2) That they did immediately die spiritually is most evident because they:

(a) became conscious of shame and nakedness;

(b) feared meeting Jehovah in the garden, whose presence they once welcomed and enjoyed.

(c) attempted to hide from Jehovah, all indicating a change in spiritual status and relationship;

(3) This relationship was not restored until God:

(a) made specific provision for them when He clothed them with animal skins (representing the need for blood sacrifice in the atonement) which in type reflect the later animal sacrifices under the Mosaic law which prefigured the priestly-sacrificial atonement of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; and

(b) promised a coming Redeemer (Gen 3:15);

(4) in Gen 3:15 God presented to Adam and Eve the first promise of the Divine Redeemer who would ultimately atone for their sins, making their salvation possible;

(5) if one traces the term “death” through the pages of Scripture it becomes clear that it is used in at least two senses: physical death (which is NOT in view here in Gen 2:17) and spiritual death, which is undoubtedly the meaning to be given here, as proven by the context and such usage found in Eph 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 1Ti 5:6; +**1Pe 4:6; 1Jn 5:16, and numerous other passages, including texts in the Hebrew Scriptures (Eze 18:4 note, *Eze 18:21 note);

(6) Scripture shows the threatened death was not physical, but spiritual, though assuredly physical death was also a consequence (Rom 5:12), but not immediately.

(7) These mistaken interpreters fail to take into account the presence of figures of speech used here by God for emphasis: the emphasis requires that they die in the very day that the disobedience occurs. The figure emphasizes that as soon as they violated God’s commandment, they immediately would suffer the penalty. Some assert that since Adam died before he was 1000 years old, the threat was fulfilled. But there is nothing in the context of Genesis to suggest any such connection of unrelated texts.

 

Levi Akamigbo responded:

HalleluJAH

Abundant Blessings, Sir Jerome Smith.

PixelMistakePicasso replied:

Jerome Smith try to let the Bible speak for itself without personal interpretation and opinion to make the verse work for what you believe. Then you will see the truth. What you are doing now is that you have already set your mind on what the outcome should be, then you try to justify the verse with anything, including figures of speech.

My Reply:

PixelMistakePicasso It seems to me that it is you who fail to let the Bible speak for itself. I am not giving you personal opinion to make the verse work for what I believe.

If you disagree with me about a point of interpretation, present your case! Address the evidence! Discuss one point at a time.

By your comment, it appears that you have an objection to my references to Figures of Speech in the Bible.

That shows me that you would be helped by learning more about how figures of speech are used in the Bible. They are most often used for emphasis.

My resources, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury contain the most complete guide to the figures of speech in the Bible available in English.

Figures of Speech are crucial to the correct understanding of Genesis 2:17.

I did not provide you all the information about the Figures of Speech in Genesis 2:17 in my comment above, so here is that additional information:

17. of the tree. ver. 9. Ge 3:1-3, 11, 17, 19. Ac 5:30. 10:39. 1 P 2:24. Re 2:7. 22:2.

good and evil. Dt 6:4. Ro 3:20.

in the day. Ezk *33:12. ƒ171T2A. Figure of speech Synecdoche; or, Transfer B652: the exchange of one idea for another associated idea. Here, Of the Part, when a part is put for the whole: “in the day” is put for an indefinite time. A noun with the preposition followed by the verb in the infinitive, as here, becomes an adverb of time, and means simply “when,” or “after then,” or “after that.” For other instances of this figure see Ge 2:4. Le 13:14. 14:57. Dt 21:16. 2 S 21:12. *1 K 2:37, 42. 2 K 20:1. Ps 18:18. Is 11:16. Je 11:4, 7. 31:32. 34:13. Ezek 20:5, 6. 36:33. 38:18.

FS121I2, Figure of speech Metonymy of the Subject F/S 570, when the subject (the thing or action) is put for that which is connected with it. Here, of verb, where the action is put for the declaration concerning it. The meaning is not that he would die that very day, but that he would be sentenced to die “in that day.” For other instances of this figure see Gen 27:37; Gen 30:13; Gen 34:12; Gen 35:12; Gen 41:13, Exo 13:2; Exo 20:7, Lev 13:3, Deut 9:1, 2Sa 7:22, Isa 6:10; Isa 8:13, Jer 1:5; Jer 1:10; Jer 4:10; Jer 38:23, Eze 13:19; Eze 13:22; Eze 20:25-26, Hos 6:5, Mat 6:13; Mat 13:14; Mat 16:19, Mar 4:12, Luk 7:29; Luk 7:35; Luk 8:10; Luk 10:29; Luk 16:15, Joh 12:40; *Joh 20:23, Act 10:15; Act 28:26, 27, Rom 7:9; Rom 11:8, 2Co 3:6, Gal 3:23, Jas 2:21-22; Jas 2:24, 25.

thou shalt surely die. Heb. dying thou shalt die. FS147B. Figure of speech Polyptoton, +Gen 2:16. Here again Eve in Gen 3:3 alters the Word of God by saying “Lest ye die”! Thus she changes a certainty into a contingency. Not only does she thus diminish from and alter the Word of God but she adds to it the words “neither shall ye touch it,” which the Lord God had not spoken!

Gen 2:16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

thou mayest freely eat. Heb. eating thou shalt eat. Gen 2:9, Gen 3:1, 2, *1Ti 4:4; *1Ti 6:17. FS147B. Figure of speech Polyptoton F/S 272: verb with infinitive or participle, involving the repetition of the same part of speech in different inflections for emphasis. May be used in strong and emphatic affirmation, or in strong negation. Here it is used in strong affirmation or exhortation. The conjugated verb is strengthened and emphasized by the infinitive preceding it. This infinitive Eve omitted in Gen 3:2, and thus “diminished” from the word of God. For other instances of this figure see *Gen 2:17; Gen 3:16; Gen 28:22; Gen 37:33, Exo 3:16; Exo 19:12-13, Jos 24:10, 2Ki 3:23, Job 27:22 mg. Psa 40:1; Psa 118:18, *Isa 6:9, Jer 22:10; Jer 23:17; Jer 51:58, Dan 11:13, Zec 8:21, Mat 13:13, 14, Mar 4:12, Luk 8:10, Joh 12:40, Act 7:34; Act 28:26, 27, Rom 11:8; Rom 12:15, Heb 6:14.

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Bible 'Contradictions' Answered, Bible Study Tools, Daily Bible Nuggets, Doctrinal Discussions, False Religions, How to Interpret the Bible Correctly, How to Study the Bible | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Paul versus James in Acts

Posted on May 19, 2024 by Jerry

5-6-24 Paul versus James in Acts

The Text:

Act 21:21  And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

The Challenge:

Tell me, When James and Paul was having confrontation at Jerusalem (Acts 21 ) WHY Paul did not tell James that Jesus met him(Paul) and chosen him to preach the abandonment of Law of Moses and circumcision????

 

My Reply:

It seems to me I may have explained Acts 15 and 21 before.

Act 21:17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

Therefore, Luke and Paul were very graciously welcomed in Jerusalem.

Act 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

Paul, Luke, and those who accompanied Paul were known to and welcomed by the church elders of the Jerusalem church.

Act 21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

Paul gave testimony to how God was working through his ministry among the Gentiles.

Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

Here is where the trouble starts. Though James is the leader at the Jerusalem church, he was not as knowledgeable of the principles of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ as he ought to have been.

James thought that it was a good thing that thousands of Jews believed, “and they are all zealous of the law.”

The fact is that Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law (the only person to have ever done so perfectly), and because of Who Jesus is (the very Son of God, John 3:16), was qualified to make atonement for the sins of all mankind (2 Corinthians 5:15. 1 John 2:1, 2. 2 Peter 3:9), confirmed by the FACT that Jesus rose bodily from the dead on the third day, as He himself repeatedly predicted.

The evidence as given in the New Testament, therefore, confirms that James had not yet come to realize the extent of the benefits wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ through His Priestly-Sacrificial Atonement (1 Peter 2:24).

James and the elders of the church at Jerusalem were surely acquainted with the facts and circumstances of Paul’s conversion to belief in Christ.

 

Reply to me:

you need more improvement on biblical exegesis

Please read ALL and feel free to cross examine me

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/vkSVmus1X1arUfUt/?mibextid=cR73hX

 

My Response:

Abe San I visited the page that you linked to just now. I noted that it begins with a reference to Acts 21:21,

“Lets start On Acts 21:21
JAMES asks Paul the hard questions!
With a raised eyebrow, James looks at Paul and says:
And they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to “FORSAKE” Moses, saying that they ought NOT to “CIRCUMCISE” their children, NEITHER to walk after the “CUSTOMS.” ACTS 21:21”

As for the proper exegesis of this text, here is what I have placed at Acts 21:21 in my digital Bible study resource, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury:

Acts 21:21
informed. or, instructed. It implies oral communication and instruction. The circumcision party had been growing in numbers, influence, and bigotry since the council of Jerusalem, and had assiduously maligned and opposed St. Paul not only in Jerusalem but also in Galatia, Achaia, and elsewhere. They seem to have had their appointed emissaries and instructors (Walker). Act 21:24; Act 21:28, Act 18:25, +Luk 1:4 g.

that thou teachest. Act 21:28, Act 6:13, 14; Act 16:3; Act 28:17, Rom 14:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1Co 9:19, 21, Gal 4:12; *Gal 5:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; Gal 6:12, 13, 14, 15.

all Jews which. This, of course, was not the case. The apostle had only claimed full liberty for Gentile Christians (Walker). Joh 7:35, Jas 1:1.

to forsake. or, apostasy from. Gr. apostasia (S# G646, only here and 2Th 2:3; compare aphistēmi, S# G868, +Luk 2:37 and 1Ti 4:1 note). An undesigned coincidence here demonstrates the conformity between the argument of Paul’s epistle to the Romans and this history of Paul in Acts. Here in the history he is charged with having taught the Jews to forsake Moses. This is a very natural inference from Paul’s teaching in Romans, that justification is by faith alone, and not by the works of the law. His object in the Epistle was to put Gentiles on an exact parity with Jews. The effect (here in Acts) is entirely consistent with the cause (in the Epistle); but the consistency is indirect and obviously undesigned (see listing of related notes at Act 12:12). 2Th 2:3 g, note (the falling away).

Moses. FS121A6, +Luk 16:29. +Act 3:22; *Act 6:11; *Act 15:1; *Act 15:21, Mat 8:4.

saying. or, bidding. Act 21:28, 2Jn 1:10, 11.

ought not to circumcise. His action in the case of Timothy (Acts 16:3) was sufficient in itself to rebut such a charge, but party spirit and rumour always misrepresent and pervert facts, wilfully or unconsciously (Walker). Act 15:19, 20, 21; %**Act 16:3, Rom 2:28, 29, 1Co 7:18, 19, Gal 5:11.

to walk. Act 21:24, Mar 7:5, Gal 2:14, Heb 13:9.

customs. +Act 6:14; Act 26:3, *Mar 7:5, 1Co 11:16.

Acts 16:3

Acts 16:3. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. (English Standard Version)

Act 16:3  Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. (King James Version)

And for the proper exegesis of this text, here is what I have placed at Acts 16:3 in my digital Bible study resource, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury:

Acts 16:3
would. Act 15:37; Act 15:40; Act 19:22, Php 2:22.

and took. Act 15:20, 21, Gen 17:23, 1Co 7:19; *1Co 9:20; *1Co 9:21, *Gal 2:3; *Gal 2:8; %*Gal 5:1, 2, 3; %*Gal 5:6; Gal 6:15.

and circumcised. On the principle of expediency (1Co 6:12). Paul had resisted the proposed circumcision of Titus (Gal 2:3, 4, 5) because the rite was then claimed as essential to salvation (Act 15:1). Now, however, as the bearer of the conciliar letter of Gentile liberty (Act 16:4), he carried clear evidence that such a tenet had been officially repudiated, and he could afford to circumcise Timothy without danger of being misunderstood. In order to prevent needless friction with Jewish communities along his line of travel, he deemed it expedient, especially since Timothy was half-a-Jew by birth, to remove any unnecessary ground of offence (1Co 9:20), now that no vital principle was involved in his action. Apparently, the Judaizing teachers tried to make capital out of his action at a later date and to accuse him, though most unfairly, of inconsistency (Gal 1:8, 9, 10; Gal 5:11). We may fairly place Timothy’s ordination also here (1Ti 4:14, 2Ti 1:6, 7) [Walker].

because of the Jews. Act 21:21, 1Co 2:15; **1Co 9:19, 20, 21, 22, %**Gal 5:2; Gal 5:11.

they knew. Gr. oida, Joh 8:55 note.

his father. Act 16:1.

was. or, was by race. Gr. huparchō. Not the verb “to be,” but meaning subsists or exists. Luk 9:48 g. Php 2:6 (being). Php 3:20 (is).

a Greek. Act 16:1, Act 17:4.

 

Reply to me:

dont try to teach me of your TSK or Faulty exegesis… What you are doing is merely copy pasting,

Read the article and explanation, refute it… I am waiting

 

My response:

You can’t have it both ways. When I wrote my explanation above of a portion of Acts 21 verse by verse, you accused me of faulty exegesis.

When I then provided you my exegesis of Acts 21:21 with Acts 16:3 as given in my resource, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury, you accused me of “copy and pasting.”

Get real and respond to the evidence instead of evading it.

 

You state above:

“dont try to teach me of your TSK or Faulty exegesis… What you are doing is merely copy pasting,”

Your comment is just rude nonsense because as you well know I am the person who wrote the resource I am citing, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury. I personally typed every word of my resource. I own the copyright. It is a standard scholarly Bible study reference work. In my scholarly work I of course cite scholarly resources when they clarify the meaning of the verse.

At the time I wrote The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury (2016), I was not focused upon the mistaken Bible interpretations often posted by followers of Islam. I was focused upon errors of interpretation and doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who had previously held a four-year Bible study in my home.

But I am surprised at the applicability of the notes I furnished when it comes to answering mistaken interpretations posted by Muslims who often utterly misunderstand what the Bible teaches.

I suggest that you actually go back and carefully read what I posted regarding the correct understanding of Acts 21:21. My notes most certainly refute your position.

As time permits, I will answer more of your referenced article shortly.

 

 

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Bible Study Tools, Doctrinal Discussions, False Religions, How to Interpret the Bible Correctly, How to Study the Bible | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #851, John 20:31

Posted on May 18, 2024 by Jerry

 

The Nugget:

Joh 20:31  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.

The Questions:

We are talking about God. Why did God make it so complicated to know Him? You have to jump from one Gospel to another, which was written many years apart by different authors. Why wasn’t everything written in the first Gospel? You also need to use Bibles from different versions. I don’t think this is the correct way to explain God.

My Answer:

PixelMistakePicasso You ask:

“Why did God make it so complicated to know Him? You have to jump from one Gospel to another, which was written many years apart by different authors. Why wasn’t everything written in the first Gospel? You also need to use Bibles from different versions. I don’t think this is the correct way to explain God.”

Thank you for asking such good questions this time!

My answer:

Let me explain the answer to this question again for you.

The Gospel of John was written with the explicit purpose to make the way of salvation plain to everyone who will read it:

John 20:30  And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
John 20:31  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.

Consider very carefully: if you refuse to read and reread the Gospel of John until you know its text so well that you can literally think it through chapter by chapter, and if you refuse to believe what the Gospel of John teaches, you will never “have life through his name” until you do.

I suggest by my long experience that if you begin by reading the Gospel of John, you can read it through once a week by reading three chapters a day, since it has 21 chapters. Do this for a month or two, and you will reach the level of knowing the text that I have described.

I further suggest that you read the Bible, starting with John and then the rest of the New Testament first, then the rest of the Bible, by reading the Bible long enough each day (for a total of at least 20 minutes) and often enough each week (for a total of at least four days a week) on a continuing basis to benefit from the results such reading will bring. Remember, I have done this myself since August of 1953, and it changed my life for the better as a result. I continue to this day to read and study the Bible.

As for using different English versions and English translations when explaining what the Bible teaches, I have seen you do the same, if my memory is correct. I use several different translations and versions quite often because some translations or versions are clearer on some points than others.

As I have explained to you and all before, the Bible is not written topically. To learn all that the Bible teaches about any given subject or Bible doctrine or point of Bible prophecy, it is necessary to read all that the Bible has to say about that particular subject or theme.

To find out where else a subject is spoken of in the Bible, you could start with using a Bible concordance. This would be a good start, but often a subject is expressed in different words than the words you may have chosen to look up in a resource like Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible.

You could use a resource like Nave’s Topical Bible or the Thompson Chain Reference Bible. These excellent resources will get you further, but you still would likely miss important information because even these extensive resources are limited in the number of topics they have chosen to cover.

Therefore, to find the rest of what the Bible says about the subject of your interest it is necessary to consult as complete a source of Bible cross references as you can find to use. The most complete cross reference Bible study resources include The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible (which is no longer in print), and The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury.

Set your prejudices against the text of the Bible aside and read it sympathetically, seeking to understand its message on its terms, not yours. Let the Holy Spirit enlighten your mind and heart as you read the New Testament to let Him enable you to understand it. I followed this procedure that I now recommend to you. It changed my life. It will change yours if you are open to its truth.

If you have further questions, I would consider it a privilege to help you with the answers.

 

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Bible Promises, Bible Study Tools, Daily Bible Nuggets, How to Study the Bible | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #850, John 1:1

Posted on May 17, 2024 by Jerry


The Nugget:

John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Challenge:

“If God is eternal and exists outside of time, why do scriptures like John 1:1 use temporal language such as ‘In the beginning’ to describe the existence of God? Does this imply a beginning to God’s existence?”

My Answer:

PixelMistakePicasso You state:

“This verse does not make sense. First, it is said that the Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit are one as God. Now, when it comes to John 1:1, it is claimed that this verse is only about the existence of Jesus. You have to pick one; it cannot be both. If Jesus was created by God in the beginning, then Jesus is not God. But if you say Jesus is God, then something else must have created God after time was created.”

That the verse may not make sense to you has no bearing on the fact it makes sense to most Bible believing readers of this text today.

You are correct to say that the Bible teaches that “the Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit are one as God.” This is specifically affirmed in Matthew 28:19 where it is stated:

Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Note the use of the singular word “name” not the plural word “names.”

You state:

“Now, when it comes to John 1:1, it is claimed that this verse is only about the existence of Jesus.”

As a matter of fact, some Believing Bible Scholars have affirmed in their academic scholarly studies that the term “Logos” was adopted by John because it is a reflection of Hebrew usage in the Old Testament involving the related term “Memra,” as I recall from my recent reading.

Then you state:

“You have to pick one; it cannot be both.”

I respond: says who, and on what basis? Your comment may reflect a misreading of the text.

You further state:

” If Jesus was created by God in the beginning, then Jesus is not God. ”

Jesus was not created by God. Jesus had no beginning. Jesus is God. Jesus the man clearly as man had a physical beginning when He was born of the virgin Mary in what is called in theology the hypostatic union of His eternal divine nature with the newly added human nature which took place in time.

Since God is spirit (John 4:24) He is invisible. Therefore it is understood that instances of visibility when God was seen in the narratives in the Old Testament are either theophanies (when God made Himself visible in human or angelic form) or more likely and far more often they are Christophanies when the Second Person of the Godhead made Himself visible in human or angelic form to persons in the Old Testament.

Lastly, in your comment you claim:

“But if you say Jesus is God, then something else must have created God after time was created.”

This seems to represent faulty or mistaken logic.

Since all three Persons of the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are all eternal, they have always existed and nothing in the Bible suggests that in their eternal nature that they were ever created.

You conclude with the question:

“By the way, did this verse come from Jesus’ mouth?”

These words clearly come from the pen of John, Jesus’s closest disciple. There is no reason to doubt them. John is the divinely inspired author of his Gospel, and he surely is wiser and better informed than his negative critics!

John was there when these events happened. That his Gospel is the last and latest written of the four canonical Gospels does not diminish its authenticity or authority but increases it.

John records incidents and the words of our Lord Jesus Christ that are not always included in the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

They, for example, do not tell about the resurrection or resuscitation of Lazarus for reasons of prudence, for the Jewish leadership in their official rejection of their Messiah (see John 5:15, 16 and context. John 9:22 and context) sought to kill Lazarus for he was a standing miracle wrought before their very eyes and they could not deny it (John 11:46, 47, 48, 53).

The fact that John carefully records the inside debates of the Jewish leadership confirms that John had a close connection to those leaders as elsewhere revealed incidentally in his Gospel (John 18:16).

This confirms John, not a later author, wrote these things. John records the raising of Lazarus from the dead at the much later writing of his Gospel after any possibility of harm to Lazarus had passed. This is just one more positive proof of the authenticity and historicity of the Gospel of John.

 

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Bible Historicity and Validity, Daily Bible Nuggets, Doctrinal Discussions | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #849, Mark 1:15

Posted on May 16, 2024 by Jerry

 

The Nugget:

Mar 1:15  And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

The Question:

Which “gospel” was Jesus referring to in Mark 1:15 when none of the New Testament texts had yet been written?

My Answer:

PixelMistakePicasso You are asking the wrong question. This is probably the case because you have not taken the time and effort to read the New Testament and the Bible as a whole enough to understand its central themes.

The Kingdom of God is a central theme across all of the Bible, Old Testament and New. Very few Christians, even Bible believing Christians, have had or taken the opportunity to study this subject thoroughly. There is a lot more to it than you likely know at the present time.

There is a Bible scholar from the nineteenth century by the name of George N. H. Peters who wrote three whole volumes (each about 700 pages long) carefully exploring and explaining the subject of the Kingdom of God. His volumes are titled The Theocratic Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In a (long!) sentence summary I can explain that Peters shows that the Kingdom was promised in the Old Testament and described in the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant as to its provisions, which are further amplified in the Prophets, then offered and preached by our Lord Jesus Christ (as in Mark 1:14, 15) and His disciples and Apostles, then rejected by the Jewish leadership, then postponed (Matthew 21:43, a point most students of Scripture, even Bible scholars, have missed), then promised to take place on this earth upon the requisite repentance of the nation of Israel as carefully explained by Peter in Acts 3:13-26,

Act 3:13  The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
Act 3:14  But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
Act 3:15  And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
Act 3:16  And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
Act 3:17  And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.
Act 3:18  But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
Act 3:19  Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 3:20  And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Act 3:21  Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Act 3:22  For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
Act 3:23  And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Act 3:24  Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
Act 3:25  Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
Act 3:26  Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Notice particularly Acts 3:19-21,

Act 3:19  Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 3:20  And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Act 3:21  Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

The timing of the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is determined by and depends upon the repentance and conversion of Israel.

When our Lord Jesus Christ returns, He will set up His eternal Kingdom of God here upon this earth as taught in Luke 1:31-33,

Luk 1:31  And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luk 1:32  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Luk 1:33  And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Were you to become fully aware of what the Bible teaches about the promised Kingdom of God, you would understand how far astray your question about the Gospel of the Kingdom actually is. I trust that what I have written will genuinely assist your understanding of this most important subject.

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Daily Bible Nuggets, Doctrinal Discussions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #848, John 5:18

Posted on May 15, 2024 by Jerry

 

The Nugget:

Joh 5:18  Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

The Challenge:

John 5:18 points out that Jesus calling God His Father led to a serious misunderstanding. The Jews of His time saw this as making Himself equal with God, but this interpretation was their perspective, leading to conflict, rather than a clear declaration by Jesus of His divinity.

My Reply:

You claim above:

“Lastly, the verse right before this passage, John 5:18, points out that Jesus calling God His Father led to a serious misunderstanding. The Jews of His time saw this as making Himself equal with God, but this interpretation was their perspective, leading to conflict, rather than a clear declaration by Jesus of His divinity.”

My claim is that the Jews and their reaction to what Jesus said were there when it happened. If the Jews were mistaken, why did Jesus not carefully correct their misunderstanding on the spot?

Instead, Jesus backs up His claim by presenting the witnesses that support or supported His claim.

Therefore, contrary to your denial of the claim Jesus made, Jesus Himself defended it.

For a more detailed exposition and defense of my correct interpretation, see the notes and cross references I have given for John 5:18 in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury:

making himself. At no point does Jesus in the following discourse deny the inference drawn by the Jews, but emphatically supports his claim to equality with God in his nature (Joh 5:18) by claiming equality in power and works (Joh 5:19, 20), in resurrection power (Joh 5:21), in judgment (Joh 5:22), in honour (**Joh 5:23), in giving eternal life (Joh 5:24, 25), in self-existent life (Joh 5:26), in power over death and eternal destiny (Joh 5:28, 29), in absolute justice (Joh 5:30), supported by the witness of John (Joh 5:33), his own works (Joh 5:36), the Father (Joh 5:37, 38), and the Scriptures (Joh 5:39). Clearly their inference was correct, unlike modern day Arians who refuse to acknowledge what the words must mean. To suggest “John is describing what the unbelieving Jews incorrectly thought Jesus meant, that he was ’making himself equal with God,’” and that “This is evident from the fact that they also incorrectly accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath” (The Watchtower, vol. 105, No. 3, February 1, 1984, p. 6) is to deduce from this passage the very opposite of what it says, in the effort to bolster the faulty argument “Why do we not find opposing Jews attacking the doctrine that to them would have been abhorrent?” The Jews, of course, did attack Jesus, seeking to kill him (Joh 5:18; Joh 10:30, 31, 32, 33) for this very doctrine. “For the Jews…it would have been blasphemous to suggest that Christ was equal to God as the second person of the Trinity” (The Watchtower, p. 6). In Joh 10:33, blasphemy is the very charge leveled at Jesus by the Jews: upon what other scriptural grounds could they justify stoning him? Clearly Jesus said what he meant, and the Jews correctly understood him. If not, why did not Jesus simply deny their accusation, and correct their alleged misunderstanding? Joh 5:23, Joh 10:30; Joh 10:33; Joh 19:7, Php 2:6.

Muslim Reply to Me:

In John 5:18, the Jews accused Jesus of making Himself equal with God, but Jesus’ response emphasized His dependence on the Father, saying He could do nothing by Himself but only what He saw the Father doing (John 5:19). This shows a relationship of obedience and submission rather than equality in essence. Additionally, Jesus frequently clarified His role as the Son of God, distinct from God the Father, as seen in John 14:28, where He states, “The Father is greater than I,” indicating a hierarchy within their relationship. The Jews’ accusation of blasphemy was based on their misunderstanding of Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God. In John 10:33, 34, 35, 36, when accused of blasphemy, Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6, illustrating that His claim was consistent with Jewish scripture. Jesus often spoke of being sent by the Father and doing the works of the Father (John 5:36), indicating a role as a divine agent rather than being co-equal with the Father. His mission was to reveal God and bring people to understand Him, emphasizing His role as the Messiah rather than making an explicit claim to be God. In addressing misunderstandings, Jesus’ teachings and actions consistently pointed to His unique relationship with the Father. For instance, in John 17:3, Jesus prays, “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent,” differentiating between God and Jesus. Thus, while Jesus did not directly deny the Jews’ accusations, His responses and teachings emphasized His role as the Son of God, sent by the Father, and dependent on Him, suggesting a relational distinction rather than a claim of equality with God.

My Reply:

Your careful extended response does not address the argument or evidence I presented.

Let me address an important consideration from what is stated by our Lord Jesus Christ in John 5:21, 22.

Joh 5:21  For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
Joh 5:22  For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: (KJV)

Joh 5:21 For just as the Father raises the dead and makes them live on, so the Son too makes alive any whom He chooses to.
Joh 5:22 For the Father passes sentence on no one, but He has committed all judgment to the Son, (Williams NT)

Joh 5:21  In the same way that the Father brings back the dead and gives them life, the Son gives life to anyone he chooses.
Joh 5:22  “The Father doesn’t judge anyone. He has entrusted judgment entirely to the Son (God’s Word translation)

Notice that our Lord Jesus Christ claims that just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son will raise the dead and give life to those He chooses.

No mere prophet has ever been given this authority.

Note further that the Father has entrusted judgment entirely to the Son.

No human being could ever take on such a responsibility. To carry out such judgment, the judge must be omniscient. Jesus is omniscient (all knowing).

Omniscience is an incommunicable attribute of God alone.

Therefore, in this sense, Jesus possesses an important attribute of God or the Godhead, and so in this sense must be acknowledged as God the Son. This is a proof of the Deity of Christ.

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Bible Study Tools, Daily Bible Nuggets, Doctrinal Discussions, False Religions, How to Interpret the Bible Correctly | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment