embed
/
christianity2.0
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Wiki Activity

Update 10

embed 2023-10-01 09:40:32 +00:00
parent 0d22f92b2b
commit 98448e0b73
31 changed files with 219 additions and 2351 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
CodexHierosolymitanusGreek.md

@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ This question naturally arises because:
that the Epistle of Barnabus in A. is in fact his.
2. Greek Codex Vaticanus (B.), known to exist as far back as the time of
Erasmus (he rejected it), yet shows the same scribal hand in Mark 8
as the fake Sinaiticus.
as the Sinaiticus fraud.
These two codicies were used as the basis for Wescott/Hort/Shcaff to claim
all of the world's bibles needed replacing by a new work based on this

26
CodexSinaticusGreekFraud.md

@ -9,20 +9,35 @@ that does not conflict with an upcoming "One World Religion". Or both.
A bibles based on the combination of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are based
on a fraud and are to be avoided.
See [[Greek Codex Hierosolymitanus]]
### Links
* https://www.sinaiticus.net/
* https://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/tag/codex-sinaiticus/
Steve Avery has excellent coverage at the Pure Bible Forum:
"And there even could be some elements involving the counter-Reformation
attempt to make a new Bible version against the Received Text,
and this sorely needed a full Bible companion manuscript to Vaticanus"
* https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/03/sinaiticus-is-not-forgery-setting-stage.html (comments by steve avery)
* https://purebibleforum.com/index.php#sinaiticus-authenticity.301
* https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-forging-of-codex-sinaiticus-by-william-cooper.261/ (not read yet)
* https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/why-the-james-keith-elliott-book-tells-you-very-little-about-sinaiticus-authenticity.240/
* https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/james-snapp-attempts-to-defend-authenticity-of-sinaiticus-multiplication-of-nothings.468/
* https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-must-see-spots-for-understanding-the-simonides-athos-creation-of-codex-simoneidos.1616/
* https://archive.org/download/literaryforgeri01farrgoog/literaryforgeri01farrgoog.pdf
An epic film:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG9PuqP4QvY
* W. R. Cooper, "The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus", Creation Science Movement, 2016
* David Daniels, "Is the World's Oldest Bible a Fake?", 2018.
* https://christianpublishinghouse.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/A-Review-of-The-Forging-of-Codex-Sinaiticus.pdf
(Warning about anything from that publisher, and we find his arguments weak.)
David Daniels has some good research on Sinaiticus as videos:
David Daniels has some good research on Sinaiticus as videos
(we do not necessarily vouch for him on other topics):
* David Daniels, "Is the World's Oldest Bible a Fake?", 2018.
* 20151205 - [01 Is Sinaiticus a Fake](https://youtube.com/watch?v=OVjOhDJ5HKo)
* 20151210 - [02 KJV Sinaiticus and the NWO](https://youtube.com/watch?v=RcgRR1NWFGU)
* 20160926 - [The Sinaiticus Smoking Gun](https://youtube.com/watch?v=OmfGK1CtMSI)
@ -33,6 +48,9 @@ David Daniels has some good research on Sinaiticus as videos:
* 20180629 - [The real reason Sinaiticus was created](https://youtube.com/watch?v=VIdA6lVQpJk)
* 20190407 - [Sinaiticus and Apotheosis](https://youtube.com/watch?v=o6xLMyNGoSs)
* https://christianpublishinghouse.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/A-Review-of-The-Forging-of-Codex-Sinaiticus.pdf
(Warning about anything from that publisher, and we find his arguments weak.)
---
See also:

46
DidMarcionWritePaulsLetters.md

@ -4,6 +4,31 @@ Parent: [[Home]]
## Did Marcion Write the "Pauline" Letters
We ask the question because it is central to the thesis of the Tubingen
School [[PaulineEpistlesDetering]]: is there any evidence of the existence of
the Paulines before Marcion? Not just things that sound like they're Paulunist,
but explicitly referring to the Paulines as if they are Epistles.
The Letters of Ignatius of Antioch are very Paulunist, but so far we haven't
seen anything that makes me say "Pauline Epistle". And they're about the only
supposed retort the classic Tubingen/F.C. Bauer/Detering thesis we know of.
As the Letters are so much of a mess, we decided they can't be used for
anything serious anyway. But we came across a [supposed retort](https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/08/ignatius-reliance-on-pauls-letter-to.html)
that assumes some recension of the letters is valid, but the only things in
there that we saw was "literary contact", "similarities in vocabulary" etc.;
nothing that would come up to our standards.
So we're still left with nothing serious referring to the Paulines before
Tertullian or [P46](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46), which is 200AD +/- 25
There is a really good summary article one why this is important by Hermann Detering:
[The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles](http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Detering.html).
It's a summary but there is at least one new thing in there which stopped
us dead in our tracks (pun intended):
### Proxy baptism for the dead (1Cor. 15:29)
See 4.4 in [[PaulineEpistlesDetering]]:
@ -19,6 +44,27 @@ See 4.4 in [[PaulineEpistlesDetering]]:
also have been practised among the (equally Gnostic) Cerinthians
(Epiph. Haer. 28.6.4).
There is absolutely no way proxy baptism could be in a pre-60 AD story line.
NO WAY. The Jamesian church was less than 30 years old, and they were all
deep Hebrew believers (except the Apostate SPaul).
Hence 1Cor. is post-150 AD at least; proxy baptism would not be until whatever
the Marcionite church was well established, with enough dying Marcionites to need
proxying, to such an extent they felt it necessary to work it into Holy Scripture.
So in keeping with Detering, we take a confirmed position on this:
1Cor. and by implication 2Cor., Rom., and Gal. (at least) are Marcionite works,
and the Paul of the Paulines is a literary extrapolation of the Paul of Acts
by the Marcionites (Marcions mentors, or Marcion, or his followers).
There's also the "husband is dead"/"Jehovah is dead" part of Romans 7
which is also purely, and unabashedly, Marcionite.
We understand that the Paulines post-150 AD will have some dating reprecussions,
be that as it may, but we can let the Tubingen school speak to that.
*
### JWO Web Site
* [[Recommended-Reading/marcionism]](.../Recommended-Reading/marcionism.html)

64
GreekHierosolymitanus.md Normal file

@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
<!-- -*-mode: text; fill-column: 75; tab-width: 8; coding: utf-8-unix -*- -->
## Greek Codex Hierosolymitanus
Imagine this story line:
1. A young Lutheran pastor spends a 13 month long year traveling around the
libraries of Italy when the custodian of the Vatican library wants to
write him poetry.
2. After a young Lutheran pastor gets private audiences with the Pope, he
is given access to the most prized document of the most secretive library in
the world, under a ex-(sic) Jesuit soon-to-be Cardinal who has a reputation
for keeping everything to himself. With the help of another Cardinal, no less.
3. After a 13 month year in and around the Vatican he goes to the ends of the earth
to make the hugest find in ecclesiastical history, in one of the oldest and most
important monasteries of a church that hates Lutherans as much as the Catholics do.
4. On your way home to his wife, he stops off in Constantinople (having flunked
geography) to visit one of the next most restrictive libraries in the world,
and again is [left alone in the library](https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-theft-and-mutilation-of-manuscripts.91/) on the OK of yet another Patriarch,
of a church that still hates Lutherans as much as the Catholics do. Shortly
after which, the library makes the next hugest find in ecclesiastical history.
5. The 2 codices in the story are then said to be the basis for cabal of "scholars"
(Wescott/Hort/Shcaff) to claim that all of the world's bibles need replacing
immediately, even though one of the Codices was rejected by the TR's Erasmus,
and the other one comes in either lily-white or lemon-tea-yellow.
So the question naturally arises: what role does [[CodexHierosolymitanus]]
play in all of this? Clearly the tea and lemon juice years imply that the
Greek Orthodox hierarchy is cooperating fully, as well as the Patriarch of
Jerusalem Orthodox hierarchy, and the Pope and Vatican hierarchy, just like
all they did during the plandemic. So we must assume they are cooperating on H.
So the question naturally arises: what role does Greek
play in all of this? Clearly the tea and lemon juice years imply that the
Greek Orthodox hierarchy is cooperating fully, just like they did during
the plandemic. So we must assume they would/are cooperating on H.
We love [[TheDidache]] - it is truly the finest Early Church document after Matthew.
But because of its beautiful simplicity, it can't see it playing a role in this
affair - it can't be used for anything but primitive Christian simplicity.
(It's in our draft of an [[EbioniteCanon]].) It also came out later (he didn't
notice a work that everyone has been looking for for 1900 years, at first)
so maybe it was a distraction tossed in to take the heat off the Simonides affair.
We can't see Barnabas playing a role either - Simonides turned the Sinaiatic one
into a real embarrassment - and having 2 is two much. It's not a document we like,
nor can see it would be any use - it would be immediately branded as anti-Semitic.
So were left with scrutinizing the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch. What role
could they play? Conveniently, they can say almost anything and not be caught
out because the field is such a mess. And the only question that we can think of
(having been worn out by the preceding story line) is: Tubingen/F.C. Bauer/Detering's
[[DidMarcionWritePaulsLetters]].
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-theft-and-mutilation-of-manuscripts.91/
Tischendorf alludes to the theft of this leaf, Travels in the East,
tr. from "Reise in den Orient" by William Edward Shuckard
https://books.google.sc/books?id=KBYEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA274

58
HealingCommentary.md

@ -1,58 +0,0 @@
Parent: [[Commentaries]]
== HealingCommentary
Places in the NT where people are healed or demons cast out.
Healing is a hallmark of Jesus' ministry.
|| Matt. 12:22 | Healing of a blind and dumb demoniac ||
|| Matt. 12:9-13 | Healing of a man's withered hand ||
|| Matt. 15:21-28 | Exorcism of a Canaanite (Syro-Phoenecian) woman ||
|| Matt. 15:29 | Healing of large numbers of crippled, blind and mute ||
|| Matt. 17:14-21 | Exorcism of a possessed boy ||
|| Matt. 20:29-34 | Healing of two blind men at Jericho ||
|| Matt. 8:1-4 | Cure of a leper ||
|| Matt. 8:14-15 | Cure of Peter's mother-in-law's fever ||
|| Matt. 8:29-34 | Expulsion of demons in Gadara ||
|| Matt. 8:5-13 | Cure of centurion's son (servant) ||
|| Matt. 9:1-8 | Cure of a paralytic at Capharnaum ||
|| Matt. 9:18-26 | Raising (curing) of Jairus' daughter ||
|| Matt. 9:20-22 | Healing of a woman with a hemorrhage ||
|| Matt. 9:27-31 | Restoration of two men's sight ||
|| Matt. 9:32-34 | Healing of a mute demoniac ||
|| Mark 10:46-52 | Healing of two blind men at Jericho ||
|| Mark 1:23-28 | Cure of a demoniac ||
|| Mark 1:29-31 | Cure of Peter's mother-in-law's fever ||
|| Mark 1:40-45 | Cure of a leper ||
|| Mark 1:40-45 | Cure of a paralytic at Capharnaum ||
|| Mark 3:1-6 | Healing of a man's withered hand ||
|| Mark 4:35-41 | Expulsion of demons in Gadara ||
|| Mark 5:21-43 | Raising (curing) of Jairus' daughter ||
|| Mark 5:24-34 | Healing of a woman with a hemorrhage ||
|| Mark 7:24 | Exorcism of a Canaanite (Syro-Phoenecian) woman ||
|| Mark 7:31-37 | Healing of a deaf-mute ||
|| Mark 8:22 | Restoration of a man's sight at Bethsaida ||
|| Mark 9:13-28 | Exorcism of a possessed boy ||
|| Luke 13:10-17 | Healing of a woman on the Sabbath ||
|| Luke 14:1-6 | Healing of a man with dropsy ||
|| Luke 17:11-19 | Healing of ten lepers ||
|| Luke 18:35 | Healing of two blind men at Jericho ||
|| Luke 4:12-19 | Cure of a paralytic at Capharnaum ||
|| Luke 4:33-37 | Cure of a demoniac ||
|| Luke 4:38 | Cure of Peter's mother-in-law's fever ||
|| Luke 5:12-19 | Cure of a leper ||
|| Luke 6:6-11 | Healing of a man's withered hand ||
|| Luke 7:1-10 | Cure of centurion's son (servant) ||
|| Luke 7:11-17 | Raising of the son of the widow of Nain ||
|| Luke 8:26-39 | Expulsion of demons in Gadara ||
|| Luke 8:40 | Raising (curing) of Jairus' daughter ||
|| Luke 8:43 | Healing of a woman with a hemorrhage ||
|| Luke 9:37-43 | Exorcism of a possessed boy ||
|| John 11:1-44 | Raising of Lazarus from the dead ||
|| John 4:46-54 | Cure of centurion's son (servant) ||
|| John 5:1-15 | Cure of a sick man at Bethesda ||
|| John 9:1-38 | Healing of the blind man Bartimaus ||
---
[[Home]] [[TitleIndex]]

3
Home.md

@ -33,8 +33,7 @@ It's time for Christianity 2.0.
who later fled to Pella just before the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
* We hold to a revised [[EbioniteCanon]], augmented by [[RecentCanonAdditions]].
* We follow their rejection of Paul as an Apostate as shown in Acts,
and we reject of the "Pauline" Epistles:
we ask [[DidMarcionWritePaulsLetters]].
and we reject of the "Pauline" Epistles: we ask [[DidMarcionWritePaulsLetters]].
## Jesus' Words Only or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2

2
JWO/JWO_05_11_MartinLutherDefendsPaulsAttributionoftheLawtoAngelsandItsAbolishedNature_0020.md

@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ force them out of the wineskin.
28. Passover dinner, which precedes the feast of unleavened bread, is
optional for the Sojourner. However, if he "will keep it," then the
Sojourner has to be circumcised. (Exod. 12:48; Num. 9:14). Thus,
Sojourner has to be circumcised. (Exod. 12:48; (Num. 9:14)). Thus,
Passover was an honor for a nonJew sojourner to celebrate. If he chose
to do so, he must be circumcised. As discussed in Appendix C, Jesus
contemplated His Jewish apostles would keep Passover, and amended the

2
JWO/JWO_05_13_HowActs24_14UnravelsPaulsAuthority_0022.md

@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ Acts 24:14 proves Paul is guilty of perjury, then this also undercuts
the reliability of all of the Book of Acts. If so, then where does
Paul's authority come from any more?
36. John Knox recently suggested Luke-Acts was written to bring Paul down and thereby counteract Marcion. (Knox, Marcion, supra, at 11439.) If so, then it was Paul's own friend Luke who saw problems with Paul and presented them in a fair neutral manner. On their friendship, see 2Cor. 8:18; Col. 4:14; 2Tim. 4:11.
36. John Knox recently suggested Luke-Acts was written to bring Paul down and thereby counteract Marcion. (Knox, Marcion, supra, at 11439.) If so, then it was Paul's own friend Luke who saw problems with Paul and presented them in a fair neutral manner. On their friendship, see 2Cor. 8:18; (Col. 4:14); 2Tim. 4:11.
### How Acts 24:14 Unravels Paul's Authority

12
JWO/JWO_05_15_Conclusion_0024.md

@ -10,12 +10,12 @@ Paul is blunt in (Eph. 2:15),
nailed to a tree, has faded away, and was only ordained by angels who
are no gods. If we were to cite Paul's condemnations of the Law in one
string, the point is self-evident that Paul abrogated the Law for
everyone. See 2Cor. 2:14 ("old covenant"); Gal. 5:1 ("yoke of
bondage"); Rom. 10:4 ("Christ is end of the law"); 2Cor. 3:7 ("law of
death"); Gal. 5:1 ("entangles"); Col. 2:1417 ("a shadow"); Rom. 3:27
("law of works"); Rom. 4:15 ("works wrath"); 2Cor. 3:9 (ministration
of condemnation); (Gal. 2:16) ("cannot justify"); Gal. 3:21 (cannot give
life); (Col. 2:14) ("wiped out" exaleipsas); Gal. 3:19, 4:8-9 ("given by
everyone. See 2Cor. 2:14 ("old covenant"); (Gal. 5:1) ("yoke of
bondage"); (Rom. 10:4) ("Christ is end of the law"); 2Cor. 3:7 ("law of
death"); (Gal. 5:1) ("entangles"); (Col. 2:14-17) ("a shadow"); (Rom. 3:27)
("law of works"); (Rom. 4:15) ("works wrath"); 2Cor. 3:9 (ministration
of condemnation); (Gal. 2:16) ("cannot justify"); (Gal. 3:21) (cannot give
life); (Col. 2:14) ("wiped out" exaleipsas); (Gal. 3:19), 4:8-9 ("given by
angels...who are no gods [and are] weak and beggarly celestial
beings/elements").

4
JWO/JWO_06_01_PaulContradictsJesusAboutIdolMeat_0025.md

@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ false Jezebel who "teaches my servants to commit fornication, and Word
Pictures confesses the Nicolaitans defended eating such meat based on
Paul's gospel:
These early Gnostics practiced licentiousness since they were not under law, but under grace. [Robertson's Word Pictures on Rev. 2:14). 3
These early Gnostics practiced licentiousness since they were not under law, but under grace. [Robertson's Word Pictures on (Rev. 2:14)). 3
"You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who
taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating meat
@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ sacrificed to idols. Jesus is just as absolute and unwavering on this
prohibition as James is in Acts. When Jesus says it, we are not free
to "diminish" it by making up exceptions. (Deut. 12:32).
Notice too how three times James in Acts repeats the point. Then three times Jesus repeats the point in the Book of Revelation. (Rev. 2:6, 14 (Ephesus); Rev. 2:14-15 (Pergamum); (Rev. 2:20) (Thyatira)). In the New Testament, there is no command emphasized more frequently than the command against eating meat sacrificed to idols.
Notice too how three times James in Acts repeats the point. Then three times Jesus repeats the point in the Book of Revelation. (Rev. 2:6, 14 (Ephesus); (Rev. 2:14-15) (Pergamum); (Rev. 2:20) (Thyatira)). In the New Testament, there is no command emphasized more frequently than the command against eating meat sacrificed to idols.
This three-times principle, incidentally, is not without its own
significance. For Paul says three times that it is permissible to eat

4
JWO/JWO_07_01_WhyDoesJesusMentionBalaaminRevelation2_14__0028.md

@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ heaven. They claim Paul means that fornicating Christians (a) only are
at risk if they practice fornication and (b) if so, they only risk
losing a reward (i.e., sharing ruling authority in heaven.)
They point to Paul's use of the term "practice" in Gal. 5:21. They
They point to Paul's use of the term "practice" in (Gal. 5:21). They
insist Paul means that occasional fornication by a Christian is
permissible. 9 Paul's words are "they who practice such things [ e.g
., fornication] shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Paul's threat
@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ Christianity. His position reflects this.
9. James, by contrast, says a single act breaks all the law. ((Jas. 2:13).)
10. Paul's occasional-practice distinction is at variance to the Hebrew Scriptures. The Law says it only takes one act of adultery or murder to be deemed worthy of death. (Lev. 20:10, (Num. 35:16); Ezek. 33:18.)
10. Paul's occasional-practice distinction is at variance to the Hebrew Scriptures. The Law says it only takes one act of adultery or murder to be deemed worthy of death. (Lev. 20:10, (Num. 35:16); (Ezek. 33:18).)
Some people wonder if that verse means a Christian can lose his
salvation if he has ever done any of those things. Although the

2
JWO/JWO_07_02_strongestverseintheBibleforoncesaved,alwayssavedandIwouldnotdisagree.(R.T._0029.md

@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ familiar "judicial process" whereby a "wicked person being put out of
their midst" was done by the "destruction of the flesh." (Tertullian,
Against Marcion. Book 5, ch. VII.) This is evident in Paul's language
about purging. It was taken directly from the death penalty laws in
the Mosaic Law, e.g., Deut. 17:7, 21:21, 22:21. Furthermore, Paul uses
the Mosaic Law, e.g., (Deut. 17:7), 21:21, 22:21. Furthermore, Paul uses
the language of a judicial officer rendering a verdict in 1 Cor.5:3,
which a death sentence would require. This incident reveals a flaw in
Paul's ideas that all the Law was abrogated, even its civil rights to

8
JWO/JWO_08_01_DoesJesusShareSalvationDoctrinewithPaul__0033.md

@ -78,11 +78,11 @@ In fact, in the Synoptics, the point is that mere faith without works is useless
* See (Matt. 25:31-46) (the sheep who do charity go to heaven; those goats who refuse go to hell).
* See Matt. 19:17 and Luke 10:25-27 (Jesus' answer how to have eternal life starts with keeping the Law, quoting (Deut. 6:5) and (Lev. 19:18)).
* See (Matt. 19:17) and Luke 10:25-27 (Jesus' answer how to have eternal life starts with keeping the Law, quoting (Deut. 6:5) and (Lev. 19:18)).
* See Matt. 5:20 (your righteousness must exceed the Pharisees to enter the kingdom of heaven which Jesus then defines as not cursing, lusting, etc.).
* See (Matt. 5:20) (your righteousness must exceed the Pharisees to enter the kingdom of heaven which Jesus then defines as not cursing, lusting, etc.).
* See Matt. 16:2 (Son of Man will come and "reward each according to his works").
* See (Matt. 16:2) (Son of Man will come and "reward each according to his works").
* See (Mark 9:42-48) (better to cut off a body part causing you to sin and enter heaven maimed than to not repent of sin and go to hell whole).
@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ In fact, in the Synoptics, the point is that mere faith without works is useless
13:42 the ensnared are thrown into the "fiery furnace" where there is weeping and gnashing).
* See Matt. 13:3-23 and Luke 8:5-15 (those who "believe for a while" but in time of temptation fall away or who are choked and bring no fruit to completion are lost, but the one who in a good and noble heart brings forth fruit to completion in patient endurance is saved).
* See (Matt. 13:3-23) and Luke 8:5-15 (those who "believe for a while" but in time of temptation fall away or who are choked and bring no fruit to completion are lost, but the one who in a good and noble heart brings forth fruit to completion in patient endurance is saved).
What About John's Gospel?

2
JWO/JWO_08_03_Conclusion_0035.md

@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ verses at odds with this Parable of the Sower are well-known:
released from the law, so that we serve in a new way of the Spirit,
and not in the old way of the written code").
* Gal. 2:16 ("A man is not justified by observing the law, but by
* (Gal. 2:16) ("A man is not justified by observing the law, but by
faith in Jesus Christ, because by observing the law no one will be
justified").

291
JWO_05_11_MartinLutherDefendsPaulsAttributionoftheLawtoAngelsandItsAbolishedNature_0020.md

@ -1,291 +0,0 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Martin Luther Defends Paul s Attribution of the Law to Angels and Its Abolished Nature
If you believe I have stretched things, I am in good company in
concluding Paul taught: (1) the Law originated with the angels; (2)
God did not intend to bless Jews with the Law; and (3) we are free to
treat the Law as simply from Moses and disregard it entirely. Martin
Luther goes so far as to say these are valid reasons why Christians do
not have to obey the Law. I thus enjoy the very best of company in
understanding Paul's words. The only problem is my companion so
thoroughly rejects Moses that he does not see how what he is saying
makes himself an apostate, tripped up by Paul's
teachings. (Thankfully, Luther later repented. See page 106.)
In a sermon entitled How Christians Should Regard Moses given August
27, 1525, Martin Luther simply assumes Paul's words are authoritative
on who truly spoke at Sinai. While Moses said it was God, and
Scripture calls this person God, Luther says it really meant angels
because Paul says this is who truly gave the Law. Listen how a man
caught in a contradiction reasons this out. Luther says:
Now the words which are here written [in the Law of Moses] were spoken
through an angel. This is not to say that only one angel was there,
for there was a great multitude there serving God and preaching to the
people of Israel at Mount Sinai. The angel, however, who spoke here
and did the talking, spoke just as if God himself were speaking and
saying, "I am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,"
etc. [Exod. 20:1], as if Peter or Paul were speaking in God's stead
and saying, "I am your God," etc. In his letter to the Galatians [3:19],
Paul says that the law was ordained by angels.
21. Martin Luther, "How Christians Should Regard Moses," Luther's Works: Word and Sacrament I (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960)
Vol. 35 at 161-174.
That is, angels were assigned, in God's behalf, to give the law of
God- and Moses, as an intermediary, received it from the angels. I say
this so that you might know who gave the law. He did this to them,
however, because he wanted thereby to compel, burden, and press the Jews.
Luther is distancing God from the Law of Moses, just as Paul had
done. It was delivered by angels, not God personally. Luther is
ignoring that Jesus Himself said that God was
the direct deliverer of the Law from the burning bush. Having planted
a false seed to distance God from the Law, Luther next begins talking
as if God did not give the Law. Because Jesus is God, Luther's next
remark has all the earmarks of someone who has not thought through the
implications of his statement:
We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to
let Moses return and to let Christ be torn out of our hearts. We
will not have Moses as ruler or lawgiver any longer.
But it is not Moses who gave the Law. Nor did angels. It was Jesus who
is the "I AM" who gave the Law. (Ex. 3:14, "tell them I AM sent you";
John 8:58, "before Abraham was, I AM") Rewrite this and you can see
how incongruous Luther's statement now appears:
We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to
let [Jesus's words to Moses] return and to let Christ [preached by
Paul] be torn out of our hearts. We will not have [I AM who is
Jesus who gave the Law] as ruler or lawgiver any longer.
Martin Luther then announces proudly his total rejection of the Law.
22. (Mark 12:26); Luke 20:37.
So, then, we will neither observe nor accept Moses. Moses is
dead. His rule ended when Christ came. He is of no further
service.... [[E]]ven the Ten Commandments do not pertain to us.
If this is true, then why did Jesus teach to the contrary that whoever
taught the smallest commandment of the Law should no longer be
followed would be least in the kingdom of heaven? (Matt. 5:19).
### Luther Was Sometimes On the Right Track In This Sermon
In fairness to Luther, at other times in the same sermon, Luther's
answer on whether the Law applies to us is to examine whether the
passage is addressed to Jews alone. This is the only correct
limitation. For example, if a command is solely to Jews, such as the
law of circumcision (Gen. 17:11); (Lev. 12:3), (Josh. 5:2), then it
obviously does not apply to Gentiles. In the Jerusalem council in Acts
chapter 15, James ruled this command does not apply to Gentiles. (Acts
15:19). James said this not because the Law was abrogated in its
entirety, but rather because the circumcision command was limited to
Jews whom James later told Paul must still, as converts to Christ,
follow the circumcision command. (Acts 21:21,25).
23. However, if a Gentile chose to enter the Temple proper of Jerusalem, Ezekiel says even "strangers" must be circumcised. (Ez. 44:9).
24. The KJV atypically accepts one late textual corruption. This is in James' mouth in Acts 15:24. This makes it appear James said the Law does not apply at all to Gentiles. The KJV has it that James says some have tried "subverting your souls, saying. Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law. to whom we gave no such commandment." (Act 15:24). However, the ASV and NIV correctly omits "ye must be circumcised and keep the law," saying instead some tried "subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment." Why did the KJV add the above bolded words? The UBS' Greek New Testament (4th Ed) says this entire phrase first appears in the miniscule 1175 (pg. 476), which dates from the Tenth Century A.D. (pg. 17). The phrase "keep the Law" first appears in quotations of Acts 15:24 in the Apostolic Constitutions and in the writings of Amphilochius (pg. 467). Amphilochius died "after 394," and this copy of the Apostolic Constitutions is dated to "about 380" (pg. 31.) All the earlier texts omit both changes to Acts 15:24.
That James was following this principle is evident again when he
imposed on Gentiles prohibitions on eating certain animals with their
blood still in it (Acts 15:20).The Law of Moses said this food-rule
applied not only to Israelites but also to 'strangers' in the
land. ((Lev. 17:10),12 (food with blood).) James likewise adds that
Gentiles must refrain from fornication. James no doubt had the Hebrew
meaning of that word in mind, which meant adultery. Once again, we
find this command against adultery was stated in Leviticus to apply
not only to Jews, but also to "strangers that sojourn in Israel."
(Lev. 20:2, 10.) 26
Was James following Scripture in making this distinction? Yes,
indeed. The Law of Moses had an example that a command for a son of
Israel not to eat meat of an animal that died naturally did not apply
to non-Israelite sojourners who were permitted to each such
meat. (Deut. 14:21). Thus, this proves that commands to Israelites do
not automatically apply to the non-Israelite. James simply applied
this principle to interpret the scope of other commands in the Law of
Moses.
If you apply the Israel-sojourner distinction which James employed,
then of the Law of Moses which applies to non-Jews it would primarily
be the open-ended Ten Commandments as well as sojourner-specific
provisions in Leviticus chapters 19 and 20 and 24:13-24, and
(Exod. 12:19) (prohibition on leaven during feast of unleavened
bread)" which Jesus alludes to many times. These are commands that do
not introduce themselves as commands to only Israelites. If James'
approach is valid, then all the fuss about the Law as some terrible
burden is a non-starter. The burden on Gentiles is quite insignificant
if we follow the distinction in the Law of Moses itselfbetween "sons
of Israel" and "sojourners" as James was obviously doing. The alleged
burdensome nature of the Law on Gentiles was a red herring all along.
25. See page 138 et seq.
26. On why the idol-food command that James also gives was a deduction as applicable to both Jew and Gentile, see Footnote 1 on page 118.
James thus did not add to the Law. Instead, he refused to apply
Israel-only principles to Gentiles. He kept to the strict letter of
the Law. James says the reason to maintain this distinction of Jew
versus Gentile in the New Covenant is so that "we trouble not them
that from among the Gentiles turn to God." (Acts 15:19). His ruling
also complied with (Deut. 4:2).
So if James is right, when Jesus says "Whosoever therefore shall break
one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be
called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19), Jesus meant us to
understand as to Gentiles, that no obedience would be required as to
Israel-only commands (unless Jesus extended them). And if James is
right, when Jesus says whoever teaches you to obey the least command
in the Law would be the greatest in the kingdom, Jesus meant as to
Gentiles that if you taught them to obey open-ended commands and
commands directed at sojourners in the Law then you would be the
greatest in the kingdom. (Matt. 5:19). But if you go beyond this, and
add Israel-only commands on Gentiles which God (including Jesus) never
imposed on them, you are unduly burdening their entry into the kingdom
of God. You are violating (Deut. 4:2) by adding burdens nowhere in the
Law itself (unless a prophet, such as Jesus, added the command,
pursuant to Deut. 18:15).
27. Some argue that the Ten Commandments (Decalogue) are not
open-ended, implied from (Exod. 20:2) which says "I...brought you out
of the Land of Egypt." This is largely irrelevant. You can find
specific mention of most of the Ten Commandments imposed on
sojourners: blasphemy - using God's name in vain (Lev. 24:16; Num
15:30); murder (Lev. 24:17); Sabbath-breaking (Deut. 5:12-15;
Lev. 25:6; Exo 23:12); adultery (Lev. 20:2, 10), etc. Even if the
Decalogue as a whole does not apply, Bonhoeffer says Jesus extended
the Decalogue to all in the New Covenant when He spoke to the young
rich man. ((Matt. 19:16-26); (Mark 10:17-31); Luke 18:1826). See
Bonhoeffer. Cost of Discipleship (1937) at 72-84.
Did Jesus ever speak this way Himself? Yes, this is one of the obvious
applications of the principle behind the lessons about the old and new
cloth and the old and new wineskin. (Matt. 9:16-17). Combining the two
items in each case makes things worse, and fails to preserve the old
sideby-side with the new. The new cloth put on old clothing causes a
"worse rent." New wine in an old wineskin causes the wine to be
"spilled and the skins perish."
James similarly speaks that putting the Israel-only commands upon
Gentiles is "trouble" for those "turning to God." You cause more
problems that you solve by doing so. The new cloth is not of the same
inherent material as the old cloth, and lacks the same elasticity. It
cannot be stretched as far as the old. The Jew can be pushed further
in commands than a Gentile. It is inherent in their culture, as God
molded the Jews. The new wine in an old wineskin will swell up from
pressure trying to stay within the bounds of the old wineskin. The new
wine will spill out ( i.e ., become lost) if you try to make the new
fit the stiffness and boundaries of the old wineskin. Gentiles cannot
be pressed to follow the Israel-only provisions; the pressure will
force them out of the wineskin.
28. Passover dinner, which precedes the feast of unleavened bread, is
optional for the Sojourner. However, if he "will keep it," then the
Sojourner has to be circumcised. (Exod. 12:48; (Num. 9:14)). Thus,
Passover was an honor for a nonJew sojourner to celebrate. If he chose
to do so, he must be circumcised. As discussed in Appendix C, Jesus
contemplated His Jewish apostles would keep Passover, and amended the
Passover remembrances to include His anticipated work on the Cross. If
Gentile Christians observe Passover, it is an honor. When we do so, we
were to do the remembrances that Jesus outlined in the last
passover. This explains why the early apostolic church was anxious to
and did keep Passover; and this is why Passover is a feast worldwide
in all forms of Christianity (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox)
except in English-speaking nations where it is known as Easter. Why
the different nomenclature? Because Catholicism could not root out the
English/Germanic preference to call that season by the name of the
goddess Eastre. As a result, English-speaking Christians have lost
memory of what festival they are attempting to celebrate while
Christians of all denominations and faiths in non-English speaking
countries keep Passover under its proper name. For more discussion,
see Appendix C: The Easter Error [[JWO_20_01_HowTheCanonWasFormed_0112]].
29. Yet, bear in mind, Jesus as Prophet can add a command to the Law of Moses.
Unfortunately, Luther in this sermon did not consistently maintain
this valid Israel-Sojoumer distinction. Luther ends the sennon by
throwing off of the Gentiles all the Old Law, even the sojourner
commands. He put the New beyond any testing for its validity against
the Law given Moses. Luther says:
The sectarian spirits want to saddle us with Moses and all the
commandments. We will just skip that. We will regard Moses as a
teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver - unless he
agrees with both the New Testament and the natural law . 30
Here you see how one falls into apostasy. No longer do you accept the
Law given to Moses to define what is a false prophet. Thus, you have
accepted a set of new teachings that are beyond the reach of God's
prior revelation to test its validity. Luther thereby became in 1525
totally antinomian - making the validity of principles in the Mosaic
Law turn on the superior validity of what Luther regarded as New
Testament writings but only if also confirmed by natural law.
Please note, however, that later from 1532 to 1537 Luther reversed his
position on the Law. He denounced antinomianism in the Antinomian
Theses (1537). He said a Christian can spiritually die and become like
a non-Christian. To revive, they must examine themselves by the Ten
Commandments, and repent from sin. Luther's Catechisms of late
1531-1532 (which the Lutheran church uses to this day) state Jesus'
doctrine on salvation and the Law while ignoring Paul's doctrines
(except on how to treat government officials, wives, etc.) For this
reason, evangelicals condemn Luther's Catechisms. Miles Stanford said
the "Lutheran Church" turned into "legalism" by adopting an
"unscriptural application of 'the law as the rule of life' for the
believer." Likewise, Pastor Dwight Oswald regards Luther's Catechism
as making Luther so at odds with Paul's doctrines that even Luther
must be deemed lost and responsible for having led countless numbers
to perish in hell. Similarly, Calvinists at Calvin College skewer
Luther's 1531 edition of his catechism for departing from the faith he
previously taught so boldly. 34
30. Luther repeats this statement later in his 1525 sermon: "In the
first place I dismiss the commandments given to the people of
Israel. They neither urge nor compel me. They are dead and gone ,
except insofar as I gladly and willingly accept something from Moses,
as if I said, 'This is how Moses ruled, and it seems fine to me, so I
will follow him in this or that particular.'"
31. Martin Luther, Don't Tell Me That! From Martin Luther s Antinomian
Theses (Lutheran Press: 2004).
However, prior to this radical switch, Luther was willing to endorse
everything Paul said. Luther inspired by Paul said the angels gave the
Law; the Law was a curse on Jews; Jesus never intended the Law applies
to non-Jews who follow Him; and the Law is dead and we only follow
those aspects that coincide with reason ('natural law') if re-affirmed
in the New Testament. Accordingly, unless Luther in 1525 misread Paul,
Paul must be understood to have thrown off the entire Law by
denigrating its origin and purpose. I therefore enjoy the very best of
company in my reading Paul the same way.
But we can take heart from the fact that Luther later made a radical
separation from his own earlier antinomianism. Luther must have
finally seen the error of the doctrine Luther deduced from
Galatians. In fact, it appears no coincidence that Luther's switch
quickly followed his lecture on Galatians. For in that epistle, we
have Paul's most virulent anti-Law writings, with Paul's rationale
clearly exposed in (Gal. 4:22) ff. With such new conviction, Luther
had the courage to reform himself. That's the best explanation for why
we find Jesus' Words Only emerging in Luther's Catechisms. Luther made
one more radical revolution, once more willing to face the charge of
being a heretic. This time, however, it was for basing his core
doctrine on Jesus' words only.
32. Quoted in Bob Nyberg's Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism A Matter of Law Versus Grace, reprinted online at
http://4himnet.com/xobnyberg/dispensationalismOl.html.
33. See Pastor Dwight Oswald, "Martin Luther's Sacramental Gospel," Earnestly Contending For The Faith (Nov-Dee. 1997). See also, Lutheran Heresy at
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com.
34. Calvinists thereby find the 1531 Catechism defective spiritually. See Calvin College at
http://www.ccel.0rg/s/schaff/hcc7/htm/ii.v.xiv.htm.

100
JWO_05_13_HowActs24_14UnravelsPaulsAuthority_0022.md

@ -1,100 +0,0 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## How Acts 24:14 Unravels Paul's Authority
Finally, to prove Paul upheld the Law, Messianics cite to Luke's
quoting Paul in a tribunal (Acts 24:14). Paul tells Felix that he
"retains all my belief in all points of the Law." If Paul truly made
this statement, it has no weight. It cannot overcome Paul's view on
the Law's nullification. Those antiLaw views are absolutely clear-cut,
repeated in numerous letters with long picturesque explanations.
Rather, the quote of Paul in Acts 24:14 brings up the question of
Paul's honesty, not his consistency with the Law. If Luke is telling
the truth, then Paul perjured himself before Felix. To prevent the
casual Christian from seeing this, Acts 24:14 is usually translated as
vaguely as possible.
However, pro-Paul Greek commentaries know Paul's meaning. They try to
defend Paul's apparent lack of ethics. They insist Paul was not out to
trick Governor Felix. For example, Robertson in Word Pictures makes it
clear that Paul deflects the charge that he heretically seeks to
subvert the Law by asserting he believes in all of it:
Paul has not stretched the truth at all....He reasserts his faith
in all the Law....A curious heretic surely!
Robertson realizes that Paul disproves to Felix any heresy of seeking
to turn people from further obedience to the Law by affirming "his
faith in all the Law....," as Robertson rephrases it. Yet, Paul's
statement (if Luke is recording accurately) was a preposterous
falsehood. He did not believe in "all" points of the Law at
all. Robertson pretends this is not stretching the truth "at all." The
reality is there is absolutely no truth in Paul's statement. Paul did
not retain his "belief in all points of the Law," as he claimed to
Felix.
This account of Luke represents Paul making such an outrageous
falsehood that a growing segment of Paulunists (such as John Knox)
believe Luke was out to embarrass Paul in Acts ? 6
If we must believe Luke is a malicious liar in order to dismiss that
Acts 24:14 proves Paul is guilty of perjury, then this also undercuts
the reliability of all of the Book of Acts. If so, then where does
Paul's authority come from any more?
36. John Knox recently suggested Luke-Acts was written to bring Paul down and thereby counteract Marcion. (Knox, Marcion, supra, at 11439.) If so, then it was Paul's own friend Luke who saw problems with Paul and presented them in a fair neutral manner. On their friendship, see 2Cor. 8:18; (Col. 4:14); 2Tim. 4:11.
### How Acts 24:14 Unravels Paul's Authority
Luke alone in Acts preserves the accounts of Paul's vision of
Jesus. That is the sole source for what most agree is Paul's only
authority to be a teacher within the church. The visionexperience
nowhere appears in Paul s letters. If Luke is a liar in Acts 24:14,
why should we trust him in any of the three vision accounts which
alone provide some authority for Paul to be a 'witness' of Jesus?
As a result, the Paulunists are caught in a dilemma. If Paul actually
said this in Acts 24:14, he is a liar. If Paul did not say this, then
Luke is a liar. But then Paul's sole source of confirmation is
destroyed. Either way, Paul loses any validity.
Escapes from this dilemma have been offered, but when analyzed they
are unavailing. If Paul made this statement, he clearly was lying to
Felix.
37. The literal Greek means: "I worship the God of our Fathers,
continuing to believe [present participle active] in all things which
are according [kata] to the Law and in the prophets." The ASV follows
this translation. Some Paulunists emphasize the word according in the
verse. They argue Paul means to reject anything that is no longer in
agreement with the Law. Thus, Paul is read to mean that he only
affirms agreement with the part of the Law with which he can still
agree. (Given O. Blakely, A Commentary on Paul s Defense Before Felix
at
http://wotruth.com/pauldef.htm). This argument fails because Paul
believes in nothing from the Law except that it was pregnant with its
own abolition. Paul was still being deceptive. Paul was in effect
saying, he believes still in everything in the Law that is valid
today, but since this is nothing, the statement is empty
patronizing. Blakely commends Paul for his shrewd way of saying
this. Paul made it appear he was affirming all the Law was valid when
instead Paul meant to affirm its entirely fulfilled nature, and hence
its defunct nature. Whether a shrewd way of expressing this or not,
the literal words are still a falsehood in how Felix would understand
the statement in a court of Law.
Thus, Acts 24:14 cannot be cited to prove the truth of what Paul
asserted. Instead, it raises an unsolvable dilemma. Either Luke is
lying or Paul is lying. This means Acts 24:14 proves the impossibility
of accepting Paul's legitimacy whichever way you answer the
dilemma. If Luke is lying here, it undermines all of Acts, upon which
Paul's authority as a witness rests. If Paul is lying (and Luke is
telling the story truthfully), then Paul is disqualified ipso facto
because he is committing perjury. (Acts 24:14) proves to be a passage
that unravels Paul's authority any way you try to resolve it.
Bless the Messianics. They cited (Acts 24:14) to insist Paul was
upholding Torah. What they did is bring to everyone's attention a
verse whose very existence destroys viewing Paul as a legitimate
teacher.

78
JWO_05_15_Conclusion_0024.md

@ -1,78 +0,0 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Chapter 5 Conclusion
Paul is blunt in (Eph. 2:15),
(Col. 2:14),
(2Cor. 3:11-17),
(Rom. 7:13) et seq, and
(Gal. 3:19) et seq. The Law is abolished, done away with,
nailed to a tree, has faded away, and was only ordained by angels who
are no gods. If we were to cite Paul's condemnations of the Law in one
string, the point is self-evident that Paul abrogated the Law for
everyone. See 2Cor. 2:14 ("old covenant"); (Gal. 5:1) ("yoke of
bondage"); (Rom. 10:4) ("Christ is end of the law"); 2Cor. 3:7 ("law of
death"); (Gal. 5:1) ("entangles"); (Col. 2:14-17) ("a shadow"); (Rom. 3:27)
("law of works"); (Rom. 4:15) ("works wrath"); 2Cor. 3:9 (ministration
of condemnation); (Gal. 2:16) ("cannot justify"); (Gal. 3:21) (cannot give
life); (Col. 2:14) ("wiped out" exaleipsas); (Gal. 3:19), 4:8-9 ("given by
angels...who are no gods [and are] weak and beggarly celestial
beings/elements").
To save Paul from being a heretic, some claim Paul is talking against
false interpretations of the Law. But this ignores that Paul tears
away at the heart and soul of the Torah.
39. Martin Abegg, "Paul, 'Works of the Law,' and MMT," Biblical Archaeological Review> (November/December 1994) at 52-53.
He disputes it was given by God. He claims instead it was given by
angels. Paul says no one can judge you any longer for not keeping the
Sabbath. This is one of the Ten Commandments. Paul, as Luther said,
clearly abolished the Sabbath. All efforts to save Paul that do not
grapple with these difficult passages are simply attempts at
self-delusion.
Rather, Calvin was correct when he said "this Gospel [of Paul] does
not impose any commands, but rather reveals God's goodness, His mercy
and His benefits."
To Paul, faith was everything and a permanent guarantee of salvation. There was no code to break. There was supposedly no consequence of doing so for Abraham. We are Abraham's sons. We enjoy this same liberty, so Paul teaches.
Then how do we understand the Bible's promise that the time of the New Covenant would involve putting the "Torah" on our hearts? ((Jer. 31:31) et seq.) How do we understand God's promise that when His Servant (Messiah) comes, God "will magnify the Law (Torah), and make it honorable"? ((Isa. 42:21) ASV/KJV.)
You have no answer if you follow Paul. He says you no longer have to
observe all God's Law given Moses. You just choose to do what is
expedient. You do not worry about the letter of the Law. You can,
instead, follow your own conscience. Whatever it can bear is
permissible.
How are the contrary verses about the Law in the New Covenant Age then explained? It is seriously asserted by commentators that when Christ returns, the Law of Moses will be re-established. Thus, prior to Paul, there was Law. After Paul but before Christ comes again, there is no Law. When Christ returns, the Law of Moses is restored. (See Footnote 20 on page 393). So it is: Law-No Law-Law. God is schizophrenic! It is amazing what people can believe!
Consequently, one cannot escape a simple fact: Paul's validity as a teacher is 100% dependent on accepting his antinomian principles. Then what of (Deut. 13:5) which says someone with true signs and wonders must be ignored if he would seduce us from following the Law?
Paul even anticipated how to defend from this verse. Paul has shielded himself from this verse by ripping away all of the Law. He would not even acknowledge that we can measure him by (Deut. 13:5). This is part of the Law of Moses. Paul claims it was given by angels (Gal. 3:19). Paul says you are not to believe even an angel from heaven if it should contradict "my gospel" (Gal. 1:8). Hence, Paul would reject the test from Deuteronomy 13:5.
Yet, Paul has not escaped thereby. For Jesus in (Matt. 7:23)
reiterated (Deut. 13:1-5). In doing so, Jesus specifically warned of
false prophets to follow Him that would teach anomia. They would come
with true signs and wonders. However, they are false because they
taught anomia. As discussed earlier, they would be workers of
negation of the Law. This is a legitimate dictionary definition of
the word anomia in the world's best Greek lexicon-the LiddellScott
Lexicon. For a full discussion, see page 60 et seq.
Now Christians must ask themselves this question: do you really believe Jesus made all those warnings about false prophets who come with true signs and wonders yet who are workers of anomia (negation of Law) (Matt. 7:23) so we would disregard the protective principle of (Deut. 13:5)? So we would disregard even Jesus' words in (Matt. 7:23)?
You can only believe this if you are willing to disregard Jesus. You
can only believe this if you then disregard the Law of Moses was given
by God Himself. The Bible clearly says God delivered it personally in
Exodus chapters 19-20, 25. Jesus likewise says it was God in the bush
speaking to Moses. ((Mark 12:26); Luke 20:37.)
Or will you allow Paul to convince you that the Law was given by
angels (Gal. 3:19) and thus Paul's words are higher than of angels
(Gal. 1:8)? Will you be seduced to believe you are thus free to
disregard (Deut. 13:5)? And have you also somehow rationalized away
(Matt. 7:23), and its warnings of false prophets who bring anomia ?
Your eternal destiny may depend on how you analyze these simple questions.

218
JWO_06_01_PaulContradictsJesusAboutIdolMeat_0025.md

@ -1,218 +0,0 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Paul Contradicts Jesus About Idol Meat
### Introduction
Jesus in (Rev. 2:6), 14 takes on those persons teaching the Ephesians
that it was acceptable to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Among them
Jesus says were the Nicolaitans. The Nicolaitans were an actual
historical group. They taught Paul's doctrine of grace permitted them
to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Jesus commends the Ephesians for
refusing to listen to the Nicolaitans on the issue of eating meat
sacrificed to idols.
Yet the Nicolaitans were not merely deducing it was pennissible to eat
such meat from Paul's doctrine of grace. Paul, in fact, clearly
teaches three times that there is nothing wrong per se in eating meat
sacrificed to idols. ((Rom. 14:21); (1Cor. 8:4-13), and (1Cor. 10:19-29).
However, Jesus, as we will see, three times in Revelation says it is
flatly wrong. The Bible says when God commands something, we are not
free to "diminish" it by articulating our own exceptions. "What thing
soever I command you, that shall ye observe to do: thou shalt not add
thereto, nor diminish from it." 1
Paulunists claim that this prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to
idols (which was sold in meat markets) was not an absolute command. It
was flexible enough to fit Paul's approach. Paul taught idol meat was
perfectly acceptable unless someone else thought it was
wrong. Paulunists argue that the Jerusalem Council only meant to
prohibit eating such meat if it would undermine a weaker brother who
thought it was wrong, as Paul teaches.
1. (Exod. 34:13) says Jews were to tear down the altars of the
Gentiles rather than make a covenant ( i.e ., a peace treaty). In Exo
34:15-16, God says if you prefer making a covenant and allow their
pagan altars, you risk "one call thee [to eat with him] and thou eat
of his sacrifice." The command to destroy the pagan altars was so that
Jews would avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols even inadvertently at
a meal at a Gentile home. This altar-destruction command also had the
indirect affect of preventing a Gentile from eating idol meat. For
this apparent reason, James in Acts 15:20, 25 and 21:25 prohibits
Gentiles from eating idol meat. (On how James construed when the Law
applies to Gentiles, see page 102.) It is ludicrous to argue, as some
do, that God was concerned only that one knowingly ate such meat. If
true, the Bible could have just prohibited such food as it did with
other foods. However, idol meat cannot be identified by
appearance. Thus, merely prohibiting eating such meat would not be
enough if God was displeased by you eating it unknowingly. Hence, to
prevent unknowing eating of such meat, God commands the destruction of
pagan altars. Thus, Paul's allowance of eating such meat by not asking
questions is precisely what the Bible does not countenance. in
itself. It is also no less absolute a prohibition than the prohibition
on fornication. Had the Jerusalem Council ruling intended the
eating-idol-meat rule to be only a command to follow during social
intercourse, then the council used the wrong words to convey such an
interpretation.
In fact, the prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to idols was stated
three times in Acts. It was never once stated with an exception or
qualification. There is no hint that eating such meat was pennissible
in your private meals. In fact, when we later look at Jesus' words in
Revelation absolutely condemning such practice, Jesus is talking after
Paul's words are written down. Had Jesus intended to affirm Paul's
view that eating such meat is permissible, Jesus' absolute directives
against ever eating such meat were the wrong way to communicate
this. Jesus left no room to find hairsplitting exceptions.
This absolute prescription first appears at the Jerusalem Council in
Acts 15:20. Initially, James decided that "we write unto them, that
they abstain from the pollutions of idols...." (Acts 15:20). Second,
Luke then quotes James' letter to the Gentiles as saying one of the
"necessary things" is "you abstain from things sacrificed to idols."
(Acts 15:29). James reiterates this for a third and final time in Acts
chapter 21. James is reminding Paul what the ruling was at the
Jerusalem Council. He tells Paul that previously "we wrote giving
judgment that they [ i.e ., the Gentiles] should keep themselves from
things sacrificed to idols...." (Acts 21:25).
James restates the principle unequivocally. skandalon) before the
children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit
fornication." Jesus does not say the error was eating meat sacrificed
to idols only if you believed an idol was real. Nor did Jesus say it
was wrong only if the person involved thought eating such meat was
wrong. Jesus simply laid down a prohibition. Nothing more. Nothing
less. (Deut. 4:2) prohibits "diminishing" from God's true inspired
words by making up exceptions.
In this (Rev. 2:14) passage, the use of the word skandalon is
important. In (Matt. 13:41-43), Jesus warned that on judgement day all
those ensnared ( skandalizo-ed ) will be gathered by the angels and
sent to the "fiery furnace." Hence, Jesus was telling us in
(Rev. 2:14) that eating meat sacrificed to idols was a serious sin. He
called it a skandalon -a trap. It was a salvation-ending trap.
Jesus reiterates the prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to idols in
(Rev. 2:20). Jesus faults the church at Thyatira for listening to a
false Jezebel who "teaches my servants to commit fornication, and Word
Pictures confesses the Nicolaitans defended eating such meat based on
Paul's gospel:
These early Gnostics practiced licentiousness since they were not under law, but under grace. [Robertson's Word Pictures on (Rev. 2:14)). 3
"You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who
taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating meat
sacrificed to idols."
Jesus in (Rev. 2:14)
2. Later, we will examine whether Jesus was identifying Paul in Rev.2:2 as a false apostle. See "Did Jesus Applaud the Ephesians for Exposing Paul as a False Apostle?" on page 215 et seq.
3. Irenaeus around 180 A.D. wrote that Nicolas, their founder
"departed from sound doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating
indifference of both life and food." (Refutation of All Heresies,
![Picture #34](images/img_0034.png)
Therefore, we see Jesus extols those who hate the Nicolaitan's grace
teaching which says Christians can eat meat sacrificed to idols. Jesus
then condemns twice those who teach a Christian may eat meat
sacrificed to idols. Jesus is just as absolute and unwavering on this
prohibition as James is in Acts. When Jesus says it, we are not free
to "diminish" it by making up exceptions. (Deut. 12:32).
Notice too how three times James in Acts repeats the point. Then three times Jesus repeats the point in the Book of Revelation. (Rev. 2:6, 14 (Ephesus); (Rev. 2:14-15) (Pergamum); (Rev. 2:20) (Thyatira)). In the New Testament, there is no command emphasized more frequently than the command against eating meat sacrificed to idols.
This three-times principle, incidentally, is not without its own
significance. For Paul says three times that it is permissible to eat
meat sacrificed to idols, as discussed next. God wanted us to know for
a fact He is responding to Paul.
"To the pure, all things are pure."
Paul in Titus 1:15
### Paul Permits Eating Meat Sacrificed To Idols
Paul clearly teaches three times that there is nothing wrong in itself
eating meat sacrificed to idols. ((Rom. 14:21); (1Cor. 8:4-13), and 1
Corinthians 10:19-29). The first time Paul addresses the question of
"eating meat sacrificed to idols," Paul answers: "But food will not
commend us to God; neither if we eat not...." (1Cor. 8:8). Paul then
explained it is only necessary to abstain from eating such meat if you
are around a "weaker" brother who thinks an idol is something. (1
Cor. 8:7, 8:10, 9:22). Then, and only then, must you abstain. The
reason is that then a brother might be emboldened to do something he
thinks is sinful. The brother is weak for believing eating meat
sacrificed to an idol is wrong. This is thus a sin for him to eat,
even though you know it is not sinful to eat meat sacrificed to
idols. Thus, even though you know better than your weaker brother that
it is no sin to do so, it is better to abstain in his presence than
cause him to sin against his weak conscience and be "destroyed."
(1Cor. 8:11). 4
"The first sin committed by man was not murder or adultery or
stealing; it was eating something they were told not to eat."
Gordon Tessler, Ph.D. The Genesis Diet
![Picture #35](images/img_0035.png)
![Picture #36](images/img_0036.png)
Paul is essentially laying down a principle on how to be considerate
of others who think it is wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols. At
the same time, Paul insists as a matter of principle, there is nothing
wrong eating such meat. If you were instead the weaker brother, and
read Paul's epistles on this topic, you certainly would walk away
knowing Paul teaches it is permissible to eat meat sacrificed to
idols. You would even think your weak-mindedness on this issue should
be abandoned. You should no longer burden your conscience on your
brother who refrains due to your overly sensitive conscience. With
Paul's instructions in hand, you would certainly know that it is
pennissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols. You can now get over your
undue and ill-founded concern about eating such meat.
4. Paul is thought to teach you should not take communion if one was
eating idol meat at a pagan service. In 1Cor. 10:20-21, Paul says you
cannot be partaker of the Lord's table and the "table of devils." This
was thus not a flat prohibition on eating idol meat. Most commentators
reconcile Paul to Paul by saying Paul means you cannot go to a pagan
sacrifice and eat the meat during a pagan service and still partake of
communion. There is still thus nothing inherently wrong in eating such
meat. In the context in which Paul says this, Paul also repeats his
famous axiom, "all things are lawful, but not all things are
expedient." (1Cor. 10:23). Then Paul says when you buy food or eat a
stranger's home, "ask no question for sake of your conscience."
(1Cor. 10:25,27). Thus, Paul says it is best you not know what you are
eating. Don't let your conscience wrong. There are no excuses,
hairsplitting qualifications, situationalethics, or easy outs in
deciding whether to obey God. It is wrong and prohibited.
### Paul Clearly Teaches It is Permissible to Eat Idol Meat
Yet, Paul teaches it is pennissible to eat idol meat. This is
transparent enough that Pauline Christians admit Paul is saying meat
sacrificed to idols is clean and permissible. They make these
admissions apparently unaware that Jesus in Revelation reconfirmed the
prohibition on meat sacrificed to idols. 5 A Presbyterian pastor
unwittingly admits:
Paul says to his readers that even though there is no ontological
or theological basis for refusing to eat meat that has been
sacrificed to an idol, nevertheless out of consideration for
brothers and sisters in Christ for whom it
5. Kenneth Loy, Jr. in My Body His Temple: The Prophet Daniel's Guide
to Nutrition (Aroh Publishing: 2001) at 69 writes: " Idol Meat Is
Clean ((Rom. 14) and (1Cor. 8)): God had forbidden idol meat
originally because it caused the children of Israel to go 'whoring
after' the gods of other nations. ((Exod. 34:15-16)). Since the
Gentiles were now equal in the sight of God, this restriction was no
longer necessary. Jewish Christians even preferred idol meat since it
was usually less expensive in the market place. ...Paul stipulates
another reason why idol meat is permitted'. 6
This pastor unwittingly destroys Paul's validity for a person who
wants to obey Jesus Christ.

679
JWO_07_01_WhyDoesJesusMentionBalaaminRevelation2_14__0028.md

@ -1,679 +0,0 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Why Does Jesus Mention Balaam in Revelation 2:14
### How Jesus' Reference to Balaam Applies to Paul
If we dig a little deeper into the eating of idol-meat issue, we find
Jesus mentions Balaam in (Rev. 2:14). 1 Jesus says the source of this
heretical idol meat doctrine is a "teaching of Balaam." Jesus says
Balaam taught one can eat meat sacrificed to idols, among other
things. Why is Jesus mentioning Balaam, a figure from the era of Moses?
Evidently because Balaam is a figure who resembles the one who in the
New Testament era teaches eating meat sacrificed to idols is permissible.
What do we know about Balaam that would help us identify who was the
Balaam-type figure in the New Testament church?
The Biblical story of Balaam in the book of Numbers does not reveal
the precise nature of the teachings of Balaam. Jesus alone tells us
that Balaam taught the Israelites they could eat meat sacrificed to
idols and commit fornication. (Rev. 2:14). Thus, with these additional
facts, let's make a synopsis of the story of Balaam. Then we can see
whether anyone appears similar in the New Testament era.
* Balaam was a Prophet in the Hebrew Scriptures who was changed from
an enemy to a friend by an angelic vision on a Road.
1. (Rev. 2:14:) "But I have a few things against thee, because thou
hast there some that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to
cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things
sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication." (ASV)
* Balaam, after properly serving the Lord for a time, changed back
into being an enemy.
* This inspired prophet is deemed to be an enemy of God because he
taught it was permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols and to
commit fornication. This part of the story was omitted in Moses'
account. Jesus alone reveals this.
Who else is a prophet of God who was changed from an enemy to a friend
by an angelic-type vision on a Road, but then later taught it was
permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Who likewise taught an
act of fornication condemned by Jesus ( i.e ., remarriage after
divorce if certain circumstances were lacking) was perfectly
pennissible? (See page 138). Who likewise is interpreted by most
Paulunists as saying fornication is no longer strictly prohibited and
no longer leads to spiritual death but instead the propriety of
fornication is examined solely based on its expediency? On those key
points, we shall see in this chapter that Balaam identically matches Paul.
Jesus is putting a thin veil over the fact He is talking about
Paul. Jesus reveals His purpose by referring to Balaam in (Rev. 2:14).
By citing the example of Balaam, Jesus reminds us that a true prophet
who is turned from evil to good then could turn back and completely
apostasize. Jesus' citation to Balaam in this context destroys our
assumptions that Paul could never apostasize. By referencing Balaam,
Jesus is telling us, at the very least, that Paul could turn and
apostasize after his Road to Damascus experience. Paul could be just
like Balaam who did so after his Road to Moab experience.
### Is (Rev. 2:14) A Type of Parable?
Did Jesus mention the "teaching of Balaam" as a parable to identify
Paul? It appears (Rev. 2:14) is a type of parable. Jesus identifies
the false teaching as the "teaching of Balaam." Yet Balaam is dead.
Someone in the apostolic era is like Balaam. To know whom Jesus meant,
one has to find someone who matches Balaam's historically-known qualities.
Furthermore, we have a second reason to believe a parable is intended
in (Rev. 2:14). At the end of Revelation chapter 2, Jesus says: "He
that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches."
(Rev. 2:29). This is Jesus' standard catch-phrase when He wanted you
to know there are symbolic meanings in His words.
Let's next try to identify who was the Balaam-like figure in the New
Testament apostolic era by studying the life of the original Balaam.
### Balaam Was Changed to A True Prophet By A Vision on A Road
In the book of Numbers (written by Moses), Balaam begins as a
soothsayer intent on accepting money from Moab's King Balak. He was
offered payment to travel to Moab to curse Israel. As such, he begins
as an enemy of the true God.
God then appeared to Balaam and told him not to curse
Israel. ((Num. 22:5-12)). King Balak then called on Balaam again to
come to Moab. However, God appeared to Balaam and allowed him to go on
condition Balaam did only what the Lord told him to do. (Numbers
22:20). Apparently after starting on his trip, Balaam decided to still
curse Israel. On route to Moab, Balaam (on a donkey) and his two
companions are stopped on a road by an unseen angel of the Lord. (Some
commentators think Numbers 22:35 proves this was actually Jesus, the
"eternal" angel of His presence-Gill.) Then the famous incident takes
place where Balaam's donkey talks back to him. The donkey complains
that Balaam is goading him by smiting him with his staff: "What have I
done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?"
((Num. 22:28).) At first Balaam cannot see the angel which is blocking
the donkey. (Num. 22:25-27). Balaam is in a sense blinded. However,
then God "opened the eyes of Balaam" and he could see the
angel. (Num. 22:31-33).
Balaam then confesses to the angel that he sinned. ((Num. 22:34).) He
offers to go home. The angel tells Balaam to continue onto Moab, but
repeats the command that Balaam must only bless the
Israelites. (Num. 22:35). Then Balaam proceeded to Moab.
(Num. 22:36).
Next when Balaam arrived in Moab, he warned King Balak that he could
only do what the Lord allowed him to say. ((Num. 22:36-38).) Balaam's
famous oracles of blessings over Israel then followed. (Num. 23:1-29).
While giving the blessing, God through Moses says Balaam was directly
led by the Holy Spirit. Balaam simultaneously turned away from his
prior practice of using omens. Moses writes in (Num. 24:1-2)
(1) And when Balaam saw that it pleased Jehovah to bless Israel,
he went not, as at the other times, to meet with enchantments, but he
set his face toward the wilderness.
(2) And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel dwelling
according to their tribes; and the Spirit of God came upon him.
[Then Balaam blesses Israel.]
Thus Balaam had become a true prophet whom Moses reveals was having
true communications from Yahweh God. Balaam is indwelt by the Holy
Spirit and repeats precisely what God wants him to say. God wants us
to know through Moses that Balaam begins as a truly inspired prophet
of God Almighty. The last we see of Balaam in action, he is acting as
a good prophet. His words of blessings end up as part of standard
synagogue services to this very day, known as the Mah Tovu.
### How Balaam Fell: His Idol Meat and Fornication Teaching
Then something negative happens that Moses only cryptically
revealed. In (Num. 31:16), Moses writes: "Behold, these caused the
children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass
against Jehovah in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the
congregation of Jehovah." Balaam had counseled the Israelites that
they could sin in some unspecified manner. This cryptic statement is
the only explanation why later in Numbers 31:8 that the Israelites,
during their slaying of the Midianites, also kill Balaam.
Rabbinic tradition tries to fill in the missing information. It
attributed to Balaam the lapse of Israel into the immorality we find in
(Num. 25:1-9).
Jesus, however, gives us an inspired message on what was missing in
the Biblical account. Jesus says Balaam misled the Israelites by
teaching them they can eat meat sacrificed to idols and they can
commit fornication. Jesus is the only inspired source of this
infonnation. Jesus says:
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there some
that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a
stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things
sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication. (Rev. 2:14, ASV.)
The Rabbinic tradition in Judaism supports what Jesus said, but only
in general terms.
2. Morris Jastrow Jr., "Balaam," Encyclopedia of Judaism (online at
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=161&letter=B&search=balaam.)
If we look at (Num. 25:2), we will see the Israelites were invited to
the sacrifices to idols, and ate the idol meat. ((Num. 25:2),
"for they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods; and the
people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.")
### So Who is Balaam in the New Testament Era?
The prophet Balaam was a person whose life mirrors apostle Paul's life
to an extraordinary degree. Absent Jesus telling us that Balaam taught
it was permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols, we would never
have known how virtually identical are the two lives. Yet when Jesus
filled in the missing detail, it made the parallel between Balaam and
Paul become extraordinarily uncanny.
In particular, Balaam's Road to Moab experience has many striking
parallels to Paul's Road to Damascus experience. In fact, how it
affects both Paul and Balaam is identical. Balaam is on his road with
the wrong intent to curse God's people. This is true for Paul too,
aiming to imprison God's people. (Acts 22:5). Balaam is on the road
with two companions. Paul likewise has companions with him. (Acts 22:9.)
Next, Balaam is given a message by the angel that converts his way to
the true God. Gill even says this 'angel' is the "eternal angel"
(non-created) of the Lord's presence- Jesus-because of the unique
wording of (Num. 22:35). Likewise, Paul gets a message from Jesus that
converts his way to the true God. (Acts 22:8). Both Balaam and Paul
follow God/or a time. Both apostasize when they teach it is
permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
There is another odd parallel between Balaam and Paul. After Balaam
strikes his donkey to make him move, Balaam's donkey asks: "What have
I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?"
((Num. 22:28).) The donkey in effect asks Why are you persecuting me ?
Balaam then learns that an angel of God was itself stopping the donkey
from moving. Balaam learns it is hard for the donkey to keep on
kicking (moving ahead) against the goads of God's angel. It is hard to
keep on kicking against divine goads.
Now compare this to Paul and his vision. Paul is likewise confronted
by Jesus with a similar question: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou
me?" (Acts 22:7). And most telling, Jesus adds in the "Hebrew" tongue:
"it is hard for thee to kick against the goad." (Acts 26:14.)
When Jesus spoke to Paul on the road in the Book of Acts, He was
speaking in a manner that would allow us to invoke the memory of the
story of Balaam. In Acts, Jesus laid the seeds for us to later
identify Paul as the apostolic era Balaam. To repeat, first Jesus asks
Paul why Paul is persecuting Jesus. The donkey asked Balaam the same
question. He asked why was Balaam persecuting him. Second, Jesus said
to Paul that it is hard for Paul to keep moving forward against God's
goads. Likewise, Balaam's donkey was up against the goads of God's
angel. Jesus' words in the vision experience with Paul were well
chosen to invoke a precise parallel to the story of Balaam. Thus, we
could never miss the point in (Rev. 2:14). We thereby could identify
the NT Balaam.
### What Does It all Mean?
Paulunists apparently sense a problem if Balaam's story were ever told
in detail. They always identify Balaam as merely a false teacher or
someone who prophesied for money. But this misses Jesus' point.
Balaam is precisely the example, unique in Hebrew Scriptures, of an
enemy converted by a vision on a road, turned into a true spokesperson
of God, but who later apostasues by saying it is pennissible to eat
meat sacrificed to idols. Balaam precisely matches Paul in an uncanny
way despite millennia separating them.
Thus, in Paul's vision experience, God laid the groundwork for a
comparison to events two millennia earlier. What an amazing God we
have! Jesus specifically made sure the encounter with Paul would have
all the earmarks of the Balaam encounter:
* It would be on a road.
* There would be a divine vision.
* Jesus would ask why is Paul persecuting Him.
* Jesus would let Paul know it is hard to go up against the goads of God.
* The experience would turn Paul around to be a true spokesperson of God for a time.
* Finally, Paul would fall like Balaam did by teaching it was
permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
Of course, to understand this, you have to have ears to hear. (Rev. 2:29.)
In other words, God set in motion what happened on the Road to Moab,
just as He did on the Road to Damascus. Paul apparently indeed had the
experience he claims. That's why Jesus could cite the teaching of
Balaam as repeating itself in the apostolic era. Yet, to cement the
similarity, Jesus had to give us a crucial new similarity between
Balaam and Paul. By disclosing Balaam's idol meat teaching, Jesus in
(Rev. 2:14) suddenly made appear an extraordinary parallel between
Paul and Balaam that otherwise remained hidden.
Just as Jesus said Elijah was John the Baptist, "if you are willing to
receive it" (Matt. 11:14), Jesus is saying the teaching of Balaam that
deceives Christians is the teaching of Paul, "if you are willing to
receive it."
### What About Permission to Commit Fornication?
Jesus in (Rev. 2:14) says the Balaam of the apostolic era also taught
Christians that it is permissible "to commit fornication."
In the Hebrew Scripture, the word fornication meant primarily
adultery. In English, it has evolved into almost exclusively the
meaning of unwed sexual intercourse. The reason for this change in
meaning is because Paul used the synonym for this word in (1Cor. 7:2)
apparently to mean unwed sexual intercourse. However, in the Hebrew,
fornication's meaning differs from our own usage.
Brown-Driver-Brigg s Hebrew Dictionary defines the contexts for
fornication (Hebrew zanah ) as:
lal) to be a harlot, act as a harlot.
Ia2) to commit adultery
la3) to be a cult prostitute
la4) to be unfaithful (to God)
Thus, fornication in Hebrew is synonymous with adultery. (Out of this
arises metaphorical meanings such as lal, la3 and la4 above.) In turn,
adultery was sex with another man's wife. (Lev. 20:10). There is no
concept within zanah of 'to have sex among unwed partners.' One can
also see in context of (Matt. 5:32) that the Greek word tox
fornication, as Jesus intended it, had to have the underlying Hebrew
meaning of only adultery. Jesus says you can only put your wife away
if she committed zanah, translated in Greek as fornication but which
must mean she committed adultery. Thus, because the word fornication
in Hebrew here did not mean sexual relations among unwed people which
meaning mismatches the context, we know Jesus' original spoken
language only meant adultery. This then was innocently translated as
fornication but is too broad in meaning.
3. The debate has raged whether the New Testament word porneia had the
primary meaning of unwed sexual intercourse, or the more limited
meaning of sexual intercourse with a cultic or commercial
prostitute. It seems clear that Paul's usage was intended to mean
unwed sexual intercourse. Jesus' usage in (Matt. 5:32) can only mean
adultery. The word has many broad meanings in Greek, but the
corresponding word in Hebrew {zanah) meant adultery' and
metaphorically prostitution.
So if we rely upon the primary Hebrew meaning of the word fornication
- adultery, let's ask whether Paul ever pennitted an act of adultery
which Jesus specifically prohibited? The answer is yes. It is a most
disturbing contradiction.
This involves Paul's statement on remarriage. Paul says a wife whose
"unbelieving [husband] leaves ( chorizo )" 4 her is "not under
bondage." (1Cor. 7:15). No divorce certificate was issued, yet she is
not under bondage to her departing husband. Almost every commentator
agrees the context means she is free to remarry without committing
adultery. (Calvin, Clarke, Gill, etc.) Yet, as Paul describes the
situation, the Christian woman was not abandoned because she committed
adultery. Nor had she received a certificate of divorce.
However, Jesus said in the Greek version of (Matt. 5:32) the husband
who unjustifiably leaves the wife "causes her to commit adultery" if
she remarries. In the Hebrew version of the same verse, Jesus says
instead that a husband who leaves a wife without giving a certificate
of divorce causes the wife, if she remarries, to commit adultery. 5
4. This was not the word used for divorce in the NT: apoluo. Chorizo
means to place room between, depart, or separate. (Strong's # 5563.)
5. There is an apparent corruption of the Greek version of Matthew in
this verse, in the Hebrew version, what Jesus is saying is when a man
leaves a wife without a bill of divorcement, and the woman remarries,
she commits adultery as does the one who marries her. In The Hebrew
Gospel of Matthew by Howard, (Matt. 5:32) reads in part: "And I say to
you that everyone who leaves his wife is to give her a bill of
divorce." Then it goes on to treat the violation of this principle as
the cause of adultery, both by the man leaving and the wife who
remarries another. The Hebrew appears more correct because
(Deut. 24:2) allows a woman who receives a certificate of divorce to
remarry. However, even if the Greek version of 5:32 were correct,
Jesus is merely saying that if the certificate were improperly
delivered to the wife, without her being guilty of an unseemly thing
as required by (Deut. 24:1), the divorce was invalid and the right of
remarriage under (Deut. 24:2) does not exist. This makes sense even if
Jesus never said it.
Whether you accept the Greek or Hebrew version of Matthew, Paul says
the Christian woman who both was unjustifiably abandoned and abandoned
without a divorce certificate does not commit adultery by
remarrying. However, Jesus says she absolutely does commit adultery
under either of those circumstances. Since adultery is synonymous with
fornication in Jesus' original vernacular, Paul permits the very act
of fornication which Jesus prohibits.
Incidentally, if the Greek text were correct, Jesus would be resolving
a dispute under the divorce Law on what unseemly thing was necessary
to justify a bill of divorce. 6 Yet, if the Hebrew version of
(Matt. 5:32) were correct, Jesus was re-invigorating the requirement
of using a bill of divorce, which apparently had fallen into
disuse. Men apparently were abandoning their wives and simply
remarrying with impunity. Whether the Greek or Hebrew text is correct,
Jesus was reinvigorating the Law of Moses, and as Campenhausen
explains, Jesus "reaffirmed" it. (For more on the fact that Matthew
was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek, see
[[JWO_19_01_GreekIssues_0111]].
Regardless, what remains the problem is that under either text
tradition, Paul permits the very act of fornication/adultery that
Jesus prohibits.
### What About Paul s Anti-Fornication Statements?
If we ignore the prior example, could Paul ever possibly be faulted
for permitting fornication? Didn't Paul oppose fornication, as he says
in (Gal. 5:19) that those who "practice fornication" shall not
"inherit the kingdom of God"? 8
6. The Bible required ''some unseemly thing" for divorce. (Deut. 24:1). Hillel thought any trivial reason qualified, while Shammai believed adultery alone justified divorce. ("Adultery," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.) In the Greek version of (Matt. 5:32), Jesus would be siding with Shammai's view.
7. Hans van Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible
(J. A. Baker, trans.) (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972) at 13.
Yes, (Rev. 2:14) still could apply to Paul. First, most Paulunist
commentators dispute Paul means to threaten Christians in
(Gal. 5:19). (Clarke, Barnes, Gill.) Because of Paul's other teachings
of eternal security, these commentators claim (Gal. 5:19) means only
unsaved persons who engage in fornication are threatened with
exclusion. Thus, they contend Galatians 5:19 is not a message to
Christians. Hence this verse does not prove what Paul taught
Christians about the consequences of fornication.
8. This is Paul's strongest anti-fornication statement. His other
negative statements are weaker. For example, Paul in 1Cor. 6:18 says
"Flee fornication...he that commits fornication sins against his own
body." This is not very strong because Paul did not say you sin
against God; you sin against yourself. This means it affects only
yourself, giving you room to permit it. Again Paul in 1Cor. 7:1 says
it is "good for a man not to touch a woman." In context, the concern
is it can lead to fornication. Yet, again, Paul is not strong. He does
not make the prohibition direct or threaten a serious loss. Again in
(1 Thess. 4:3) ASV, Paul says "the will of God" is that "you abstain
from fornication." Paul goes on to say that if you "reject this"
(i.e., 'annul this'), you "reject God who gives His Holy Spirit to
you." (1Thess. 4:8). This appears strong-to threaten loss of
salvation for fornication by a Christian. However, the Pauline
commentators explain the context does not justify this is talking
about fornication in its broad sense. The New American Standard
(Protestant-Lockman Foundation) commentary in the footnotes says that
the word translated "fornication" or "immorality" here really only
means "unlawful marriage." It explains "many [incorrectly] think that
this passage deals with a variety of moral regulations (fornication,
adultery...)." It then explains this passage deals in this context
instead with "a specific problem, namely marriage within degrees of
consanguinity...." (See reprint of this commentary at
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/lthessalonians/lthessalonians4.htm).
Furthermore, most Paulunists find Paul's doctrine of eternal security
trumps this verse. Because this verse threatens God will deny you for
the sin of "fornication" (as translated), this must be directed at a
nonbeliever. It does not say the person has received the Holy Spirit
yet. Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting himself that salvation
does not depend on what you do. ((Rom. 4:4).) Thus, this is read to be
a warning to a non-believer, not a believer. As a result, while 1
Thess. 4:3, 8 at first appears strongly against fornication,
Paulunists interpret it so it does not apply to anything but to a very
specific consanguinity issue or not to a Christian at all.
### What About Paul's Anti-Fornication Statements?
However, this view is unsatisfactory because clearly Paul's warning in
(Gal. 5:19) is intended for Christians. The Book of Galatians is
addressed to genuine believers (Gal 1:8-9). In Galatians 5:13, Paul
refers to those addressed in (Gal. 5:13-26) as brethren. Furthermore,
in (Gal. 6:1), Paul again refers to those being warned as brethren.
This has led other Paulunists to admit that Paul is warning Christians
in (Gal. 5:19-21). However, they still have a response that permits a
Christian to commit fornication without losing their inheritance in
heaven. They claim Paul means that fornicating Christians (a) only are
at risk if they practice fornication and (b) if so, they only risk
losing a reward (i.e., sharing ruling authority in heaven.)
They point to Paul's use of the term "practice" in (Gal. 5:21). They
insist Paul means that occasional fornication by a Christian is
permissible. 9 Paul's words are "they who practice such things [ e.g
., fornication] shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Paul's threat
does not intend to warn a Christian who engages in occasional
fornication that they should fear the loss of salvation. 10
John MacArthur is a major voice of modern evangelical
Christianity. His position reflects this.
9. James, by contrast, says a single act breaks all the law. ((Jas. 2:13).)
10. Paul's occasional-practice distinction is at variance to the Hebrew Scriptures. The Law says it only takes one act of adultery or murder to be deemed worthy of death. (Lev. 20:10, (Num. 35:16); (Ezek. 33:18).)
Some people wonder if that verse means a Christian can lose his
salvation if he has ever done any of those things. Although the
Authorized Version says 'they who do such things shall not inherit the
kingdom of God,' the Greek word for do is prasso, which means 'to
practice.' It is a verb that speaks of habitual practice rather than
occasional doing. Thus, the verse refers to those who habitually
practice such things as an expression of their characters. The word of
God bases its evaluation of a person's character not on his infrequent
actions, but on his habitual actions, for they demonstrate his true
character. The people who habitually perform the works of the flesh
will not inherit the Kingdom because they are not God's people.
Some Christians may do some of those things infrequently, but that
doesn't mean they will forfeit the full salvation of the Kingdom of
God. Rather they will receive divine discipline now and forfeit some
of their heavenly rewards. 11
MacArthur thus concedes Paul's threat in (Gal. 5:19) is only for a
person who practices fornication. MacArthur says a true Christian will
never practice this, and thus is never threatened actually with loss
of salvation. A true Christian at most will occasionally commit
fornication. The Christian who does so has an eternal destiny as safe
and secure as the Christian who resists all acts of fornication.
In the quote above, MacArthur then adds to Paul's words to make Paul
appear to say fornication is not entirely permissible for a
Christian. Paul does not ever say anything anywhere about Christian
fornicators receiving divine disciple. That is John MacArthur's
hopeful addition.
11.John MacArthur, Liberty in Christ, reprinted at
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg 1669.htm .
Putting this unfounded addition to one side, what is still clear is
MacArthur admits Paul does not intend to alarm Christians who
"infrequently" commit fornication that they have anything serious to
concern themselves about. Paul's warning in (Gal. 5:19) does not apply
to warn a Christian who occasionally fornicates. Thus, MacArthur can
reassure such Christians that heaven awaits them despite committing
unrepentant occasional fornication. MacArthur says God would never
condemn you for occasional fornication, citing Paul's words in (Gal. 5:21).
Furthermore, Dillow insists that even if a Christian practices
fornication, Paul does not mean to threaten anything more than loss of
rewards. Dillow argues that (Gal. 5:19) and the comparable (1Cor. 6:9)
mean by threatening the loss of an inheritance of the kingdom to
threaten only a loss of rewards. The argument is a forced-one,
stretching over chapters 3-5 of Dillow, Reign of the Servant
Kings. Yet, if this is how Paulunists construe Paul to keep him
squared with his faith-alone doctrine, then I can rely upon Dillow to
conclude Paul never puts a serious threat over the Christian who
practices fornication. And when I combine MacArthur's distinction with
Dillow's views, I can say Paul never threatens at all a Christian who
occasionally commits fornication.
### Paul Is Boldly Claimed To Teach Fornication Is Permissible
Now that we see how Paulunists dismiss the threats in (Gal. 5:19-21),
it should come as no surprise that mainstream Christians declare Paul
says a Christian can commit fornication, not repent, and expect to be
saved. Galatians 5:19-21 never enters their analysis.
They argue strenuously that Paul permits fornication, apparently to
make their point more blatant about Paul's doctrine of grace. To prove
Paul permits fornication, they rely upon three independent proofs.
1. Paul's Says Fornication is Permissible But It Might Be Unprofitable
First, Paulunists say Paul declared the Law abolished, and that in its
place the new criteria is: "all things are lawful but not all things
are expedient" (1Cor. 6:12). Paul thereby implied it was permissible
you could commit fornication. The test is expediency; it is no longer
whether it is absolutely prohibited.
This reasoning is bluntly stated by Bob George. Mr. George is an
author of numerous mainstream theological books on eternal
security. Over the past several years, he has been a national radio
talk host whose daily topic is often eternal security. You have been
able to hear him on the radio in Los Angeles every week day. He
bluntly said in a 1993 broadcast that Paul says it is permissible to
commit fornication:
And as Paul said, All things are permissible, but not all things
are profitable.' So is committing fornication permissible? YES. Is
it profitable? No, it isn't. 12
George is not alone. John Mac Arthur, a giant of modem evangelical
Christianity, says the same thing. In addressing whether fornication
is permissible in the article quoted on page 143, Mac Arthur never
once cites any absolute prohibition on acts of fornication from the
Hebrew Scriptures. Instead, he quotes Paul's axiom "all things are
lawful...." Then MacArthur tries to prove fornication is not
expedient. Fornication hanns you, it enslaves you, etc. He tries to
squeeze out a negative answer using Paul's principle, "All things are
permissible, but not all things are profitable."
Thus, the starting point is that fornication is not wrong per se. You
have to look at its expediency, i. e. , its costs versus its
benefits. Then if the costs outweigh the benefits, it is wrong.
12. Bob George, People to People (Radio Talk Show), 11/16/93.
13. John MacArthur, Back to Basics: The Presentation of My Life: Sacrifice at
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/1390.htm (last accessed 2005).
Thus, George and MacArthur reflect Paul's paradigm shift. The Law is
gone. In its place a new analysis is applied. Under it, fornication is
permissible but not necessarily profitable. A strong case can be made
about its unhealthy results, etc. Therefore George and MacArthur say
'don't do it.' This is an antinomian (anti-Law) shift away from simply
knowing that the Law says it is wrong. In its place, we now have a
cost-benefit analysis whether fornication works for you.
Under Paul's balancing test, we can see the result just as easily
could be that fornication is more beneficial for me. As long as the
guilt from violating the Law is erased, then I do no wrong if I think
"fornication" works for me. As long as I applied a cost-benefit
analysis of what is more expedient, and I reasonably justify it, it is
no sin. For example, if I love someone and commit "fornication" with
her, and it suits our mutual needs to ignore the legalities of the
situation, then in a very cogent way, I have justified fornication in
a manner that passes the cost-benefit analysis Paul offers. "All
things are lawful" and in this scenario it is more "expedient" to not
be hyper-technical about our behavior.
This example raises the dilemma the church faces today: it desperately
wants to give a cost-benefit analysis for this scenario to steer
people away from such fornication because Paul removed the ability to
cite the Law itself as reason enough. Consequently, the modern
Pauline-Christian analysis of right-and-wrong starts from "all things
are permissible," including fornication. Then by applying the costs
versus the benefits test, their analysis tries to steer people to an
outcome parallel to the Law.
Thus, clearly Paul's saying all things are pennissible includes
fornication. It is only to be abandoned if the costs outweigh the
benefits. However, there are going to be times where the benefits of
fornication will outweigh the costs.
That is why Paul is still the leading candidate to be the Balaam
figure of the New Testament era mentioned in (Rev. 2:14).
### Paul's Doctrine of Grace Means Fornication is Permissible
Other Paulunists defend that Paul teaches fornication is permissible
with no significant penalty for a Christian on another ground. This is
Paul's doctrine of grace. All your future acts of fornication are
already forgiven when you became a Christian, they insist. Such a sin
might cause the loss of rewards, but there is no loss of something you
cannot afford to lose. Luther defends this idea:
[[N]]o sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit
fornication and murder a thousand times a day. 14
Zane Hodges, a leading evangelical writer, similarly says:
Paul does not say...his readers should question their salvation if
they become involved in sexual impurity . 15
Unless these mainstream writers are wrong, Paul is teaching a grace
that pennits sexual immorality with no serious loss. At least there is
no penalty.
14. Martin Luther, Luther Works, I Letters (American Ed.) Vol. 48 at 282.
15. Zane Hodges, Absolutely Free! (Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva, 1989) at 94.
What about loss of rewards? Paul never says expressly you lose a
reward for fornication. But assuming he did say this, if anyone loses
a reward that does not affect salvation, it is certainly not a
penalty. It is not even a set back. You simply do not move ahead. In
fact, you will have eternity to overcome the loss of initial
rewards. It is no problem at all. How many would not trade a few lost
rewards you can live without to take today the delectable pleasures of
fornication? In sum, Paul's grace doctrines are read to pennit
fornication with no serious consequence or penalties. This second
proof reconfirms that (Rev. 2:14) is Jesus' direct identification of
Paul as the one bringing the "teaching of Balaam."
### The Sexually Immoral Man in 1Cor. 5 Was Never Lost
As the third and final proof that Paul says fornication is
permissible, Paulunists actually cite (1Cor. 5:5). They insist this
passage proves that a sexually immoral Christian is never at risk of
losing salvation.
In that passage, Paul deals with a sexually immoral member of the
Corinthian church who lives with his father's wife, his
step-mother. If the father is alive, this is incest. Paul decrees:
"deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that
the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1Cor. 5:5.)
Dillow contends Paul ordered the man was to be expelled and then
killed. Paul's wording therefore proves that if the man were killed in
his unrepentant state that Paul meant this carnal Christian was still
saved. Dillow, whose book is now treated as required reading at many
evangelical seminaries, explains:
An extreme example of the 'consistently carnal Christian' seems to
be found in (1Cor. 5:5) .... Paul hands this carnal Christian over
to physical death, but he notes that he will be saved at the day
of the Lord Jesus. 16
16.Dillow, Reign of the Servant Kings (1993) at 321.
Thus, Dillow means that Paul wants the man killed immediately. (Paul's
conduct shows disregard for the civil rights protected in the Law of
the accused.) Dillow understands Paul's other words as assuring us
that the man's death in this situation means the man will enjoy
salvation despite his unrepentant and consistent sin. Thus, this verse
proves eternal security, Dillow claims.
Dillow is not an aberrant view of this passage. The mainstream idea of
once saved always saved boldly proclaims this passage teaches a
Christian is free to commit repetitive unrepentant fornication without
the slightest threat to their salvation.
The man who had 'his father's wife'-a terrible sin-didn't lose his
salvation thereby. (Dave Hunt.) 18

65
JWO_07_02_strongestverseintheBibleforoncesaved,alwayssavedandIwouldnotdisagree.(R.T._0029.md

@ -1,65 +0,0 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Some have regarded (1Cor. 5:5) as the strongest verse in the Bible for once saved, always saved and I would not disagree.
Many commentators try to avoid what Dillow so gladly affirms. They
argue Paul did not mean the person should be killed. However, the
early church fathers correctly understood Paul's command was to kill
the man. Tertullian said Paul was invoking the Hebrew Scripture's
familiar "judicial process" whereby a "wicked person being put out of
their midst" was done by the "destruction of the flesh." (Tertullian,
Against Marcion. Book 5, ch. VII.) This is evident in Paul's language
about purging. It was taken directly from the death penalty laws in
the Mosaic Law, e.g., (Deut. 17:7), 21:21, 22:21. Furthermore, Paul uses
the language of a judicial officer rendering a verdict in 1 Cor.5:3,
which a death sentence would require. This incident reveals a flaw in
Paul's ideas that all the Law was abrogated, even its civil rights to
protect the accused. Under the Law, a hearing was necessary where two
eye witnesses tell the judge the persons were caught in the very
sexual act prohibited in the Law. No inference was permitted in
capital cases. (Deut. 17:7; cf John 8:4). Second, the witnesses in an
incest case with a stepmother had to confirm the father was alive at
the time of the act. Otherwise, as some Rabbis pointed out, the act
was not precisely prohibited by the Law. Then, in strict compliance
with the Law, Paul should have required the two witnesses to be the
first to throw stones. (Deut. 17:7; John 8:4 et seq.) Paul instead
presumptuously declares the death penalty over an accused without
hearing testimony and questioning the circumstances. Paul's abrogation
of the Law thus cut out barriers against precipitous actions by those
in authority. Paul took full-advantage of a freedom he gave himself
from the Law of Moses to ignore civil rights protected in the Law.
Kendall, Once Saved Always Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985) at 156.)
In spite of the sin of fornication, Paul still regarded the person as
a saved man. (Gromacki, Salvation is Forever (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976) at 138.)
If Dillow and these writers are correct (and they are accepted as
correct by mainstream evangelical Christianity which Moody Press
typifies), then Paul taught a carnal sexually immoral and unrepentant
fornicating Christian has nothing significant to lose. Paul is
supposedly saying a Christian can commit even incest with his
step-mother and be saved all the while. Thus, of course, the same must
be true of "consistently unrepentant fornicating Christians."
### Recap: How Mainstream Christianity Proves Paul Teaches A Christian May Fornicate
Accordingly, mainstream Christianity offers several proofs that Paul
teaches it is permissible for a Christian to commit fornication
although it may not be expedient:
* The Law is abrogated.
* If one said fornication were strictly impermissible, that is not
only Legalism, but also it implies a works-salvation.
* Paul only warns loss of rewards in (Gal. 5:19) if a Christian
practices fornication. (Dillow.) Thus, no rewards nor salvation are
lost for occasional fornication; and
* Paul's language in (1Cor. 5:5) implies consistent acts of
unrepentant incest do not even threaten loss of salvation, so
practicing unrepentant fornication cannot possibly pose such a threat.
18. Dave Hunt, CIB Bulletin (Camarillo, CA: Christian Information Bureau) (June 1989) at 1.

390
JWO_08_01_DoesJesusShareSalvationDoctrinewithPaul__0033.md

@ -1,390 +0,0 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Does Jesus Share Salvation Doctrine with Paul
### Introduction
Did Jesus and Paul have any doctrine in common on salvation? Some cite Luke 7:47 and others John 3:16. The Lucan passage is infrequently cited as compared to John 3:16. Luke's passage is viewed as potentially being consistent with Paul while John's passage is widely thought to be the same as Paul's gospel message. However, on close scrutiny, even these two passages of Jesus are indeed in conflict with Paul's salvation theology. Let's see why.
### Luke 7:47
Jesus encountered a woman who loved Him much, washing His feet with her tears. Jesus declares her sins forgiven. He tells us why in ways that when Paulunists look closely at the passage, they cringe. Can Jesus forgive someone because they love much, and not on faith alone? Nevertheless, we read in Luke 7:47:
Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
(ASV].
The word-for-word translation of the literal Greek of the key phrase is: "released are her many sins because she
loved much." the consequence of her loving much, which is causing the tree to produce the root, and not the root the tree [i.e., it would contradict Paul's views]. I have considered ioe here as having the sense of aeioe, therefore;... we must suppose her love was the effect of her being pardoned, not the cause of it.
However, to arrive at Adam Clarke's solution, you have to suppose a completely different Greek word is used to erase the causation between her love and Jesus 'forgiveness of sins. Clarke confesses this by suggesting a different Greek word would convey the meaning that fits Pauline doctrine.
Moreover, on close examination, the Greek is clear. The Greek conjunction underlying ''for she loved much" is hoti. Strong's #3754 says it means "causatively because " or can mean that. In this context, all the translations into English realize it has a causative sense. They render it for. Its more concrete synonym in English is because. The word hoti means because here, especially due to its clear placement in the sentence. To repeat, the literal Greek is: "released are her many sins because she loved much." Only the meaning because makes sense. The alternative meaning that would render the second part unintelligible.
Other commentators are so fraught with dismay they simply assert Jesus cannot mean what He says in Luke 7:47. Based on the presupposition of Paul's validity, they assert her great love was the "proof, not the reason for her forgiveness." (Robertson's Word Pictures.)
1. A more literal translation would also render the introductory charin as "for this reason'' rather than use the vague term wherefore'. "For this reason I am saying to you released are her many sins because she loved [aorist tense understand the clear meaning of words. The Christian who is barraged by the drum-beat of salvation by faith alone no longer senses the contradiction by Paul of Jesus. Any person free from this barrage can easily read Jesus' words and see the linguistic impossibility that both Paul and Jesus are saying the same thing. Thus, this galvanizing thumping on Paul's salvation themes has glued in place an adherence to Pauline teachings that actually contradict Jesus. Any slight questioning of the paradigm leads to firm and loud accusation that one is returning to Rome. The poor soul who holds up Jesus' words against Paul's is to be branded a heretic. Thus, repetition and social pressure has nullified our sense of a loyalty to Christ that should trump our loyalty to Paul. For these Paulunists, questioning Paul's validity has become non-sense. They assume the scholars and theologians have worked out what they themselves take no time to study. Social conditioning thereby has made Paul's doctrine, not Jesus' teachings, something that must be protected at all costs\ It is like brainwashing. You can hear it over and over, like a mantra.
The commentators' approach to solving the dilemma of Luke 7:47 is just one more example of this mantra. The Pauline commentators vigorously utter the textually-unsupportable notion that Jesus does not mean the love she had was the "cause of her remission" of sins. This would be works in addition to faith, they admit. It just cannot be viewed that way, they insist. causative reasons her sins were forgiven. Jesus contradicts Paul. The only way to save Paul is to repetitiously insist Jesus' words do not mean what they literally mean.
As a result of this torture of Jesus' words, the Pauline interpretation of this passage is that Jesus meant she was forgiven for no particular reason other than faith. Of course, Jesus gave faith a role too in her salvation. "Thy faith has saved you." (Luke 7:50). However, seeing faith as the sole reason for her forgiveness is wilful self-delusion. One is squeezing out of the passage only the one part that sounds like Paul. You are ignoring the causative statement glaring back at you that contradicts Pauline doctrine: "Released are her many sins because (hoti) she loved much." (Luke 7:47.)
The Uniqueness of Luke 7:50 in the Synoptics
What is most interesting is that in all of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), this is the only passage where Jesus goes on to say someone is saved by faith. Jesus next says to the woman (Luke 7:50):
And he said unto the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee ; go in peace.
Yet, to repeat, the Greek is unmistakable that her love mixed with faith were the causative elements in "forgiveness" and "salvation." Jesus says she was forgiven and saved because "she loved much" and had "faith." Faith alone did not save this young woman!
We have more to say below on the strange fact that this is the only time in the Synoptic Gospels that faith is mentioned as having any positive Synoptic Gospels. The special purpose of John's Gospel and why believing is so often mentioned awaits discussion below.
One Paulunist confesses the Synoptics are anti-Paul, but then provides an odd explanation:
Ever notice that the first three gospels (the synoptic gospels) never explicitly speak of salvation through faith in Christ (except for [the
non-canonical] (Mark 16:16)). 2 In fact in those gospels when Jesus is asked the question,
'What must I do to have eternal life?' he responds with the Law -a performance based concept of righteousness. [It is not] the gospel of grace which is a faith based righteousness, which is...found in Paul's writings [such] as in Romans. Why the difference?
I infer that the synoptic gospels were primarily to prepare people to hear the gospel of grace,
rather than actually presenting the gospel
message explicitly. 3
There is a much more likely reason the Synoptics are antagonistic to Paul's doctrines than the reason this Paulunist suggests. It is so self-evident that it is startling it is never considered: the Synoptics were written specifically to counter the message of Paul!
The fact nothing in them confirms Paul's gospel of grace is startling in its historical context. Paul's many letters certainly were in circulation for at least 10-20 years continu
2. For a discussion on the erroneous addition of (Mark 16:16), see page 29.
3. The Message: Attitudes of Faith prior to Matthew, Mark and Luke having been written. Standard dating of Mark is as early as 65 A.D. The Hebrew Matthew could be in the same vicinity. Luke was written between 64 and 85 A.D. 4 By comparison, Paul's letters date from the 40s through the 60s. Paul's writings were clearly in circulation for as much as twenty years when the Synoptics were written.
Yet, how strange that Matthew and Mark provide absolutely no confirmation of Paul's salvation-by-faith message! There is not a single passage in Matthew or Mark that links faith to salvation in a causal sense. This is true too of Luke, Paul's own companion. 5 The only half-exception is in Luke where the woman who bathes Jesus' feet in tears. Jesus says her "faith has saved her." However, as already noted, even there Luke's research led him to a passage that Jesus li nk s both her "great love" and "faith" to salvation and forgiveness, not faith alone. (See Luke 17:47-50, and discussion page 157 etseq.)
Thus, as surprising as this may sound, if you look only at the Synoptic Gospels ( i.e ., Matthew, Mark and Luke), Jesus actually never says that you obtain eternal life by faith alone. The only time faith is given a causal role, the
4. For a defense of early dating and discussion of standard dates, see John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament had "faith." (Luke 7:47-50). Faith and love are mixed. They were the causative elements in her forgiveness and salvation, according to Jesus. Thus, rarely, if ever, does anyone look at the Synoptics for support of Paul's doctrine of salvation by faith, let alone his ideas of salvation by faith alone.
The Synoptics' Doctrine on Works Proves Its Agenda on Paul
What demonstrates beyond doubt that the Synoptics were designed to prove Paul as a false apostle is their strong emphasis on salvation by works beyond mere faith. As one author puts it, in the Synoptics, the "main path to salvation
that [[Jesus]] described is based on good works and attitudes." 6
In fact, in the Synoptics, the point is that mere faith without works is useless. There is no countervailing Pauline concept that if you once believed this somehow excuses or satisfies the requirement of repentance from sin, good works, and obedience to the Ten Commandments to enter "eternal life." For example:
* See (Matt. 25:31-46) (the sheep who do charity go to heaven; those goats who refuse go to hell).
* See (Matt. 19:17) and Luke 10:25-27 (Jesus' answer how to have eternal life starts with keeping the Law, quoting (Deut. 6:5) and (Lev. 19:18)).
* See (Matt. 5:20) (your righteousness must exceed the Pharisees to enter the kingdom of heaven which Jesus then defines as not cursing, lusting, etc.).
* See (Matt. 16:2) (Son of Man will come and "reward each according to his works").
* See (Mark 9:42-48) (better to cut off a body part causing you to sin and enter heaven maimed than to not repent of sin and go to hell whole).
6. SALVATION: According to the synoptic gospels cf. Matt.
13:42 the ensnared are thrown into the "fiery furnace" where there is weeping and gnashing).
* See (Matt. 13:3-23) and Luke 8:5-15 (those who "believe for a while" but in time of temptation fall away or who are choked and bring no fruit to completion are lost, but the one who in a good and noble heart brings forth fruit to completion in patient endurance is saved).
What About John's Gospel?
If we look at the context of John's very different recollections than those in the Synoptics, we will see the Apostle John had the same secondary objective as the Synoptics: to address the question of Paul.
### What About Faith in John s Gospel?
Luther once said that the "science of theology is nothing else but Grammar exercised on the words of the Holy
n
Spirit." Luther is correct that deciphering the Bible's meaning must start with the grammar of each particular verse. If you have the wrong grammatical construction, you do not have the intended meaning. Thus, for example, the correct meaning of John 3:16 is dependent on having the correct grammatical understanding of the verse.
If you look at John 3:16, when properly translated, it is not about salvation by faith. It is about endurance. It is about (Matt. 10:22:) "He who endures to the end shall be
7. Johann Brecht Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament (ed. A. Fausset) (trans. J. Bandinel, J. Bryce, W. Fletcher)(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1866) at 1.44 (quoting Luther), as quoted in Alan J. Thompson, "The Pietist Critique of Inerrancy? J.A. Bengel's Gnomon as a Test Case," JETS pisteuo, meaning he who continues to believe/trust. The theme of John is that trust must endure for salvation to be realized, not that a one-time faith saves.
One can easily see this by reading Young's Literal Translation of John's Gospel. Young renders each Greek present active participle of believe as "is believing." (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:35,40,47; 7:38; 11:25-26; 12:11,
37, 44, 46; 14:12; 17:20). 8 The form is believing is known as the English Present Continuous Tense of believe.
For an extensive explanation why Young's Literal reads this way, it is in Appendix A: Greek Issues. (A short synopsis will appear below.)
Thus, all these verses in John's Gospel have been mistranslated in the KJV and NIV to be talking about salvation caused by a one-time verbal or mental acknowledgment {believes) of Jesus as savior. This translation matched Paul's salvation formula in (Rom. 10:9). Paul used the Greek aorist tense for believes in Romans 10:9, which corresponds to a one-time faith. However, John's literal words in the continuous tense-the Greek present active tense -have nothing to do with a one-time action-the Greek aorist tense. The meaning of John 3:16 is in the true translation of the verb tense: continues to believe or trust. All who keep on trusting in
Jesus "should" be saved, says John 3:16. 9 It is about endurance in trust, not salvation by faith.
In fact, one could interpret John's gospel as being intentionally anti-Pauline.
For consider that when you compare John to the Synoptics ( i.e ., Matthew, Mark and Luke), Jesus never utters any statement in the Synoptics comparable to John about faith. Why was John summoning this message about pisteuo from
8. To verify the Greek verb's grammatical usage, download the
Interlinear Scripture Analyzer 10 The Synoptics had not enough impact
on the budding church to expose the stark difference between Paul and
Jesus. Some Christians were still persuaded that Paul had the true
gospel. Thus, John's gospel was the Holy Spirit's inspiration to John
to fix this, by showing Jesus' true doctrines on faith and believing.
In other words, John was remembering all the times Jesus used the word pistis or its relative pisteuo (the verb form, to believe or trust ) when linked somehow to eternal life. (Of course, Jesus spoke in Aramaic or Hebrew, but John was translating to Greek.) This way we could make a comparison between Jesus and how Paul uses the similar word in relation to salvation. No one has offered a more reasonable explanation why John reads so differently than the Synoptics. There was something pressuring John. It was the question of Paul.
Thus, John must have asked the Holy Spirit to call to his mind every instance Jesus mentioned faith as somehow causally related to salvation. This way we could examine Paul's teaching in this regard. This produced a Gospel with a very different set of recollections which were not as important to the original Gospel writers.
### How John's Gospel Addresses the Issue of Faith and Salvation
So how does John answer the key question whether a one-time faith or a
one-time confession saves as Paul teaches in (Rom. 10:9)? Does John
back Paul up? Or does John expose Paul as a false teacher?
10. See Paul or James ' Church: Wiio Was The Most Successful
Evangelist? faith/trust is mentioned as causally connected to eternal
life in the Gospel of John, it is in a verb form of the present active
in Greek. (See John 3:16, 5:24, 6:35, 37, 40, 47 etc.) Every time!
Thus, John's Gospel is repetitious on the issue of salvation. This is
for emphasis by John. He could not recall it once said any other
way. What does this imply?
A short synopsis follows which summarizes the discussion in Appendix A. Greek grammar makes John's point unmistakable.
### Synopsis of Appendix A on the Greek Present Active
First, unlike English, Greek has a specific verb tense for a one-time
action. It is kn own as the aorist tense. This can be rendered in
English by use of the English Simple Present Tense, e.g., "believes."
We can read "believes" in English to mean a one time expression of
faith. 11 English Simple Present Tense thus can correspond to the
aorist participle in Greek.
Paul in (Rom. 10:9) uses the aorist tense to signify salvation is by
one time events: "if ever ( ean ) you confess (<aorist active
subjunctive) by your mouth that Jesus is Lord and [if] you [ever]
believe ( aorist active subjunctive) that God raised Him from the
dead, you shall be saved." (This is my literal word-for-word
translation.) Thus, Paul is using the Greek aorist verb tense. He
means you are saved if you ever once confess and believe. No
continuity is implied in verse nine.
11. For this reason, Charles Stanley, the head of the Baptists, says
"believes" in John 3:16 (which is the KJV and NIV translation)
means a one-time faith. Stanley explains "believes"-the English
simple present tense of to believe -can mean a one-time event that
does not have to continue. From this, Stanley deduces a one-time
faith saves. (Charles Stanley, Eternal Security of the Believer
exact opposite meaning from the aorist tense is conveyed by the
Greek present indicative active or present participle active. In
Greek, these two forms of the present active tense mean the action
is continuing. It is best translated into English using "continues
to" or "keeps on" in front of the English gerund. For example, "he
who continues to believe" or "he who keeps on trusting" is the
better translation.
This distinction is confessed by leading Calvinists who are staunch
Paulunists. Dr. James White is a wellrespected Calvinist. He writes
about the verb tense in John 6:35-45 in his book Drawn by the Father:
A Summary of John 6:35-45 (Reformation Press: 1999) at pages 10-11:
Throughout this passage an important truth is presented that again might be missed by many English translations. When Jesus describes the one who comes to him and who believes in him [3:16, 5:24, 6:35, 37, 40, 47, etc.], he uses the present tense to describe this coming, believing, or, in other passages, hearing or seeing. The present tense refers to a continuous, on-going action. The Greek contrasts this kind of action against the aorist tense, which is a point action, a single action in time that is not on-going.... The wonderful promises that are provided by Christ are not for those who do not truly and continuously believe. The faith that saves is a living faith, a faith that always looks to Christ as Lord and Savior.
12.See Appendix A: Greek Issues for a full discussion. Young's Literal
Translation always renders the Greek present indicative active or the
present participle active with "is...ing" (the gerund form of the
verb). This is the English present continuous tense. It is a
satisfactory rendering. However, to catch the nuance of the Greek, the
NIV was correct to use "keeps on" or "continues to..." as it did so
often. However, only Youngs Literal i.e ., "believes") rather than the
English Continuous Present (, i.e ., "is believing" or "keeps on
believing"). The KJV thus conveyed a completely opposite meaning than
John intended. The KJV English translation corresponds to the Greek
aorist tense of (Rom. 10:9), not the Greek present active tense of
Apostle John. The KJV corresponds to a teaching of a onetime faith
should save rather than an ongoing trust doing so.
The KJV was either protecting Paul from the implication of John's
gospel or committed a gross blunder. The New International Version
(NIV) fixed the KJV translation of the Greek present active in over
seventeen instances by adding to the verb clause "keeps on" or
"continues to" each time. The only principal time the NIV would not
correct the translation of the Greek present active was when the Greek
word for believes was involved. The NIV left us still in the dark on
the most important doctrine of all: salvation. There is no defense for
this inconsistency.
The NIV thereby held back the true meaning of John 3:16 is keeps on or
continues to believe/trust. The NIV was unwilling to inform us that
John contradicts Paul. We are actually being misled by the NIV to
believe John was agreeing with Paul that a one-time faith saves! If
this were true, John in John 3:16 would have used the aorist tense
just as Paul does in (Rom. 10:9). It did not happen.
When the translation is repaired, other verses in John take on
diametrically different meanings as well. For example, another
Paulunist favorite is John 5:24. Instead of a onetime faith causing
you to have passed from death to life, it now depends on continuous
trust on your part. John 5:24 correctly translated reads:
13.See Appendix A: Greek Issues [present active indicative) the one who keeps on listening [present participle active) to my teaching and keeps on believing [present participle active) in the one who sent me [aorist active participle) keeps on having [present active indicative) eternal life and does not come [present middle deponent) into condemnation but has departed [perfect active indicative) out of death into life.
You can verify the verb tenses by downloading the free Interlinear Scripture Analyzer.
Thus, while Paul says a one-time ( aorist ) belief in certain facts saves you ((Rom. 10:9)) and now there is no condemnation (Romans 8:1), a contrary meaning arises from John 5:24. There is no condemnation for those who keep on listening to Jesus and who keep on trusting/believing in the Father. In other words, John is remembering words of Jesus at total odds with Paul. Yet, our KJV and NIV lead us to believe there is agreement between Paul and Jesus by using in John 5:24 hears and believes. These are in the English Simple Present form. They are not in the English Continuous Present. Both the KJV and NIV translations use a tense that corresponds to Paul's aorist tense in Romans 10:9, not John's actual present active tense. It is completely obvious when you peak under the covers and look at the verb tenses. Now anyone can do this by using the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer free for download. The emperor has no clothes any more.
If you are tempted to throw out John's Gospel now that you know its
intent is anti-Pauline, it is pointless to do so. You would also have
to get rid of Luke. For the verb pisteuo was used in the same manner
as John in Luke's account of the Parable of the Sower. Jesus in this
account uses believing in the identical manner as in John's
Gospel. For in Luke, Jesus identifies a believing negative manner. The
Parable of the Sower teaches that the failure to continue in faith or
trust leads to becoming lost. It never says faith that later fails
saves. In fact, the only person saved among the seeds is the one who
produces fruit to completion. Thus, in this parable Jesus addresses
faith and works in a way totally at odds with Paul. Now please note
this is not a parable that Paulunists can avoid by claiming its
meaning remains a mystery. Jesus explained its symbolic meaning in
excruciating detail.
Let's analyze with care the Parable of the Sower.
The first seed never believes because Satan snatches the word from his
heart before he can believe "and be saved." (Luke 8:12). Unlike the
first seed, the second seed ( i.e ., the seed on rocky soil) (Luke
8:6) "sprouted." Jesus explains this means the second seed "received
the word with joy" and "believes for a while." (Luke 8:13.)
In Luke 8:13, the Greek tense for "believes" is the present indicative
active of pisteuo. Jesus is saying the seed on rocky ground "keeps on
believing." Jesus then adds an adverb meaning "for a while." In this
context, the present indicative is indistinguishable from the present
participle active of pisteuo which is used unifonnly in John's Gospel. 14
14.The Greek word for believes in Luke 8:13 is pisteuosin. This is one
form of the present participle active when a masculine dative is
involved. Pisteuosin is also a present indicative active if the
subject is a third person plural. (Walcott-Hort online at
Perseus.com.) The subject pronoun in 8:13 is hoi, a masculine plural
noun. Thus, believes in Luke 8:13 is the present indicative active. By
comparison, believe in John 3:16 is pisteuon, which is the present
participle active because the subject is a masculine nominative. This
difference in believes between Luke 8:13 and John 3:16 is not
substantive. Both correspond to a continuous tense. See Appendix A:
(i.e., shriveled up). (Luke 8:6). Jesus explains this means it fell
into "temptation" (sinned) and "fell away." (Luke 8:13, aphistami.)
Why did it fall away? It shriveled up "because it lacked moisture."
(Luke 8:6). The Greek of this verb was present active as well, meaning
"it did not continue to have moisture." Jesus explains again why,
saying the seed "did not have root." (Luke 8:13). The verb, however,
is again present active in Greek ( ecousin ) and means "it did not
keep holding on to the Root."
Table captionTABLE 4. Parable of the Sower: Second Seed
| Second Seed Metaphor | Jesus' Explanation |
| sprouted | received the word with joy\\continued to believe for a while |
| did not continue to have moisture | did not keep holding to the root |
| withered away (shriveled up) | tempted, fell away |
Thus, Jesus is saying that someone who received the word with Joy,
"continued to believe for a while," and thus "sprouted," then fell
into temptation. This person ends up withered away (dead). Dead means
no life. No life means no eternal life. The reason is they "did not
keep holding to the Root" and so they "fell away." This was a lesson
about faith lacking endurance and being destroyed by sin
(temptation). Thus, it is a negative message about faith.
![Picture #37](images/img_0037.png)
![Picture #38](images/img_0038.png)
![Picture #39](images/img_0039.png)
you are opposite of the saints who "keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." (Rev. 14:12). By falling into temptation you fail to "keep...the commandments...and faith of Jesus" and become lost.
There is no missing this point if you see the precise parallel to (Rev. 2:4-5).
There Jesus tells the Ephesians they have "left your first love," and
"art fallen," so "repent" and do your "first works."
Compare this then to the second seed in the Parable of the Sower. The
second seed had "joy" in the word at first, like the Ephesians had
"love at first." The second seed "sprouted" and thus had "first
works," just like the Ephesians. The second seed then sinned and "fell
away," just as the Ephesians "art fallen." The solution, as always, is
"repent," as Jesus told the Ephesians in (Rev. 2:4-5) and do your
"first works."
Now who is the only saved person in the Parable of the Sower? It is
the fourth seed, which is the only one who brings forth fruit
or...dare I use the synonym...works.
The fourth seed is the good and noble heart that is saved. To
understand the fourth seed, we must see the contrast to the third
seed. The KJV says the third seed "brings no fruit to perfection."
(Luke 8:14, KJV.) However, the translation is lacking. The third seed
is choked by thorns ( i.e ., the worries of this world) and so does
not telesphorousin. This Greek word combines teleos, which means end,
with phore, which means to produce, bring forth. Together, the two
words literally mean "to complete" or "bring to a finish." Telesphore
is often used with regard to fruit, pregnant women or
animals. (Robertson s Word Pictures.) Telesphorousin is the present
active fonn in Greek. So it means "did not keep on producing to the
end" or "did not continue to the finish." The idea of "bringing fruit
to perfection'' is incorrect. The word "fruit" is also not actually in
this verse. Completion, not perfection, is in view. They did not
telephorousin, i.e., i.e., incomplete. ( Cfr. KJV "works not
perfect"). Failure to complete your works leads to a loss of
salvation.
Knowing the flaws of the third seed opens our understanding of the
fourth seed's reason for being saved. The fourth seed, by contrast,
"fell into good ground, and grew, and brought forth fruit a
hundredfold." (Luke 8:8). Listen to Jesus' explanation of why this
person alone among the four is ultimately saved:
And that in the good ground, these are such as in an honest and good
heart, having heard the word, hold it fast, and bring forth fruit with
patience. (Luke 8:15 ASV).
The Greek verb for "hold it fast" is in the Greek present active
again. It means "keep on holding down." It is not hold "fast," but
hold "down." (. Robertson s Word Pictures.) This is a significant
point. As Jesus tells the parable, the devil swooped down and stole
the word from the first sewn seed, depriving it of salvation. By
continuing to hold down the word, the fourth seed is guarding
itself. It is doing everything possible to keep Satan from snatching
the word away. It is the same meaning behind John 8:51. He who has
"kept guard" over Jesus' word "should never [ever] taste death." (John
8:51, ASV.)
Finally, what does it mean that the only saved person in this parable
"brings forth fruit with patience." (Luke 8:15, ASV)? Salvation
depends on completing works to the end.
Luke 8:15 really means: "who keep carrying on producing fruit with
endurance." The Greek verb this time is karpos (carrying) combined
with phore (produce, bear) in the Greek present indicative. So it has
a continuous meaning. This is followed by hupomeno in Greek. In most
translations of this verse, hupomeno is rendered as patience. However,
almost everywhere else hupomeno appears in the NT it is translated as
endurance, which is the more likely intended meaning of Jesus. The
combination of karpos and Parable of the Sower: Fourth Seed
| Fourth Seed (The Saved) | Jesus' Explanation |
| good ground | noble and good heart |
| seed sewn | heard the word |
| grew | kept holding the word down (protecting it) |
| keeps on producing fruit a hun | keeps on carrying on producing |
| dredfold | fruit with endurance. Cfr.\\To hold onto Pauline 'faith alone' doctrine, one has to do many twists and turns with this parable. Jesus explained it, so you cannot say it is a parable hard to understand. Jesus already explained it! |
![Picture #40](images/img_0040.png)
{{images/img_0041.png|Picture #41}}
{{images/img_0042.png|Picture #42}}
{{images/img_0043.png|Picture #43]

61
JWO_08_03_Conclusion_0035.md

@ -1,61 +0,0 @@
Parent: [[JesusWordsOnly]]
## Does Jesus Share Salvation Doctrine with Paul?
### Conclusion
The Parable of the Sower is an amazing nugget of Jesus' doctrine. For
here is the whole true gospel of salvation from Jesus' lips. It is all
contained in a very unassuming Parable of the Sower. Jesus tells you
how to be saved and what is necessary to complete your
salvation. Jesus tells you also how to be lost even after you have
faith and accepted His word with joy and experience initial growth
("sprouted").
Accordingly, the Parable of the Sower puts an end to the salvation by
faith alone idea. It puts an end to the idea that producing fruit is
not essential. It shows the folly of thinking you can get to heaven
having believed and withered, or having grown significantly and then
having been choked, never bringing your works to completion.
Thus Jesus in this parable shows the error of Paul's starkly different
doctrine. If you read Paul, it is all over once the seed is
successfully sown , no matter what happens next. Paul's main salvation
verses at odds with this Parable of the Sower are well-known:
* (Rom. 3:28) ("man is justified by faith apart from observing the law").
* (Rom. 4:5) ("To the man who does not work, but trusts God who
justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness").
* (Gal. 5:4) ("You who are trying to be justified by law have been
alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace").
* (Rom. 7:6) ("Now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been
released from the law, so that we serve in a new way of the Spirit,
and not in the old way of the written code").
* (Gal. 2:16) ("A man is not justified by observing the law, but by
faith in Jesus Christ, because by observing the law no one will be
justified").
* (Eph. 2:8-9) ("For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith, this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.")
Paul has a different voice than our Lord Jesus. Paul's themes are alien to Jesus's message of salvation. They undercut, if not destroy, the message of Jesus. The true sheep of Jesus recognize His voice, and will not follow another. (John 10:27-29). Who are you following?
Thus, how many times must Jesus make the same points about repentance from sin and productivity at odds with Paul's different message before we will listen? If we think the Parable of the Sower is some distorted addition to Scripture, then think again. It appears in all three Synoptic gospels. (Matt. 13:3 et seq\ Luke 8:5 et seq\ (Mark 4:3) etseq.) There is no lineage of any early manuscript that ever omitted it. You have to deal with Jesus' Words alone versus Paul's different message.
The fact we cannot find Paul's gospel in Jesus' words brings us back to the fundamental questions presented in this book:
* When will we finally make a commitment to keeping Jesus' words only?
* What is our Biblical justification for adding Paul to Scripture?
* What fulfilled prophecy did Paul give?
* Even if Paul gave a valid prophecy, does Paul seek to seduce us from
following the Law and thus is disqualified from being added to
Scripture by virtue of the Law's strict disqualification rule in
(Deut. 4:2) and 13:1-5 and (Isa. 8:20)?

38
KingJamesIRulesOfTranslation.md

@ -120,31 +120,36 @@ Almost all of the Tyndale family are explicitly refered to; in
chronological order (still to be checked for the exact order) they are:
1. Tyndale’s 1524 1534,
2. Coverdale’s,
4. Matthew’s 1537,
2. Coverdale’s 1535,
4. Matthew’s 1537 1549,
3. The Great Bible 1539,
5. The Bishops Bible 1568, 1572, 1602,
5. The Bishops Bible 1568 1572 1602,
Tyndale's bible had a couple of versions but was incomplete in the OT,
and was completed after his execution by Coverdale
(with Archbishop Cramer's support), to give Coverdale's bible. But Coverdale
read neither Greek nor Hebrew and may have worked from English or German translations,
notably of the Vulgate. Tyndale worked from Erasmus' 2nd. edition,
read neither Greek nor Hebrew and may have worked from German and Latin translations,
notably Luther's andx the Vulgate. Tyndale worked from Erasmus' 2nd. edition,
before the latter's 3rd edition corruption(s).
Matthew’s bible was the completion of Tyndale's work by John Rogers (with
Coverdale's help), as John Rogers had visited Tyndale in prison while he waited
2 years to be burned at the stake, and brought back Tyndale's latest corrrections
and translations into the Matthew's. Rogers also added footnotes that were
Sola Scriptura/Protestant in nature, and ruffled some catholics when the bible
came out - this may be another reason why James prohibited commentary footnotes.
Archbishop Cramer somehow managed to get Henry VIII's licence to publish the bible,
but it was called Matthew's as the possession of a Tyndale bible was
still punishable by death (and torture) at the time. John Rogers was a preacher
in London, and was the first person Bloody Mary burned at the stake.
[Matthew’s bible](https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-Matthew-Bible-NMB/)
was the completion of Tyndale's work by John Rogers (with Coverdale's help),
as John Rogers had visited Tyndale in prison while he waited 2 years
to be burned at the stake, and brought back Tyndale's latest
corrrections and translations into the Matthew's. Rogers also added
footnotes that were Sola Scriptura/Protestant in nature, and ruffled
some catholics when the bible came out - this may be another reason
why James prohibited commentary footnotes. Archbishop Cramer somehow
managed to get Henry VIII's licence to publish the bible, but it was
called Matthew's as the possession of a Tyndale bible was still
punishable by death (and torture) at the time. John Rogers was a
preacher in London, and was the first person Bloody Mary burned at the stake.
The Great Bible was just a large format version of the Tyndale-Coverdale-Cramer
version, and by Henry's command, to be placed in all Church of England churches.
Cramer and Crowell had [previously ordered all churches in England](https://newmatthewbible.org/firstauthorizedbible.pdf)
to buy a copy of the Coverdale or Matthews version. Coverdale was
involved in the production of the Great Bible.
The Bishop's bible was a revision of the Great Bible, in an attempt to
remedy the OT translation from the Vulgate rooted in the
@ -170,3 +175,6 @@ burned at the stake, he still had time to
back at the sadist defending his translation of eklesia as "Congregation"
not "the Word Church". The book explains in detail his reasons for the
critical choices of translation he made of the "et. cetera" words:
---

1
Mark16Ending.md

@ -357,6 +357,7 @@ evidence for (Mark 16:9-20) in some Bible footnotes and commentaries
should not be believed, and need to be corrected.
* https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0/ENG/Epiphanius%20of%20Salamis%20-%20The%20Panarion,%20Book%20I%20(Sects%201-46).pdf
* https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/marks-dependence-on-luke-the-end-of-markan-priority-plus-support-for-the-traditional-ending.1308/
---

31
NazoreansCommentary.md

@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
Parent: [[Commentaries]]
== NazoreansCommentary
Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel
http://home.talkcity.com:80/ParadiseDr/nkuehl/Nazaraeans.html
|| Matt. 10:16 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans -- The Jewish Gospel: [wise] more than serpents. The sense of 'wise' here appears to be caution, not cunning. ||
|| Matt. 11:12 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel has: [the kingdom of heaven] is plundered. ||
|| Matt. 11:25 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel has: I am grateful to thee. ||
|| Matt. 12:10 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 12:13)--In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use, which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call the authentic [Gospel] of Matthew, the man who had the withered hand is described as a mason who begged for help in the following words: 'I was a mason, earning a living with my hands; I beg you, Jesus, restore my health to me, so that I need not beg for my food in shame.' Here is the admission by Jerome that 'most people' call the original Hebrew gospel (that the Nazarenes and Ebionites - sects of messianism - use the authentic (original) gospel. He also tells us here that he translated it from Hebrew to Greek (thus the additions, deletions, etc. that we now have in our New Covenant). ||
|| Matt. 12:40 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel does not have: three days and three nights. ||
|| Matt. 15:5 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel has: Corban is what you should gain from us. ||
|| Matt. 16:17 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel has: 'son of John' [for 'Bar-Jona']. ||
|| Matt. 16:2 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans: 'When it is evening' to the end of v. 3 is not found in other manuscripts, and is not found in the Jewish Gospel. In other words, what we have here is an addition to the text, one that Jerome apparently wanted to elaborate on with another chance to call the Jews 'hypocrites'. ||
|| Matt. 18:22 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel has, immediately after 'seventy times seven': For in the prophets also, after they were anointed by the Holy Spirit, a word of sin [sinful speech?] was found in them. ||
|| Matt. 20:22 | Gospel of the Naassenes (in Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, V.8.11)--'But' he says, 'even if you drink the cup which I drink, you will not be able to enter where I go.' Yahshua is telling the disciples that even though they might die with him, they would not yet sit at the Father's right hand; that event is for a future time, after Yahshua has 'prepared' a place for them. ||
|| Matt. 21:12 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans, quoted in a marginal note of a thirteenth century manuscript [thus if this is true, and there are other sources that also seem to have had access to the Hebrew gospel at that time, then this Hebrew Gospel was available even in the 13th century] of the Aurora by Peter of Riga -- In the Gospel books which the Nazarenes use it is written: From his eyes went forth rays which terrified them and put them to flight. ||
|| Matt. 23:27 | Gospel of the Naassenes [again, probably a reference to Nazaraeans] (in Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, V.8.23)--'You are whitewashed tombs filled within with dead men's bones,' that is, there is not within you the living man. ||
|| Matt. 25:22 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in Eusebius, Theophany on Matt. 25:14f.)--But the Gospel [written] in Hebrew letters which has reached our hands [Eusebius, by his own admission, claims that there was a gospel written in the Hebrew] turns the threat not against the man who had hid [the talent], but against him who had lived dissolutely--for it told of three servants: one who wasted his master's possessions with harlots and flute-girls, one who multiplied his gains, and one who hid the talent; and accordingly, one was accepted, one was only rebuked, and one was shut up in prison. ||
|| Matt. 26:74 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel has: And he denied, and he swore [i.e., took an oath], and he cursed. ||
|| Matt. 27:16 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 27:16)--In the Gospel according to the Hebrews Barabbas is interpreted as 'son of their master (teacher?).' He had been condemned because of insurrection and murder. This makes complete sense. Barabbas, means literally 'son of the father' (or in the philosophical sense 'teacher' or 'master'). He was probably a leader of the Zealot faction who were then attempting to do away with Roman administration in Jerusalem. He might well have been associated with Judas the Galilean, the head of the Zealot movement. ||
|| Matt. 27:51 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia and Commentary on Matthew 27:51): In the Gospel that is written in Hebrew letters we read, not that the curtain of the temple was torn, but that the astonishingly large lintel of the temple collapsed. ||
|| Matt. 27:65 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans, as recorded in a marginal note of some mss: The Jewish Gospel has: And he delivered armed men to them, that they might sit opposite the cave and guard it day and night. ||
|| Matt. 4:5 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel has not to the holy city, but to Jerusalem. ||
|| Matt. 6:11 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 6:11)--In the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews, for 'bread essential to existence' I found 'mahar,' which means 'of tomorrow'; so the sense is: our bread for tomorrow, that is, of the future, give us this day. ||
|| Matt. 7:5 | Gospel of the Nazaraeans: The Jewish Gospel reads here: 'If you be in my bosom and do not the will of my Father who is in heaven, I will cast you away from my bosom.' ||
---
[[Home]] [[TitleIndex]]

67
PeshittasCommentary.md

@ -1,67 +0,0 @@
Parent: [[Commentaries]]
== PeshittasCommentary
Notes on the PeshittA (Eastern) and PeshittO (Western) differences:
* [Aramaic Peshitta and aramaic Peshitto (similarities and differences)](https://archive.org/download/aramaicpeshittaandaramaicpeshittosimilaritiesanddifferencesyoutubeviatorchbrowser.com/)
To this we have added:
* [Aramaic mistranslations](http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=2893)
|| Matt. 10:8 | 'raise the dead' Not in peshA and not in peshO ||
|| Matt. 11:19 | mistranslation - 'children/sons' should be deeds/works ||
|| Matt. 21:4 | The PeshittA: has 'all this happened' as does Younan, Etheridge, Murdock, Alexander, Pashka, The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, and Lamsa. Martin has 'This all took place'. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also has the PeshittA reading. The Byzantine Greek (Greek Orthodox Church, Majority Greek Text, and the Textus Receptus) and The Latin Vulgate text has the Eastern PeshittA reading. The Mingana Ms. reads the same as the Khabouris text. (3) ||
|| Matt. 27:35 | 'When they had crucified him, they parted his garments, and did cast lots: to fulfil that was spoken by the Prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots' Not in peshA and not in peshO ||
|| Matt. 27:9 | 'Jehovah' Not in peshA and not in peshO ||
|| Matt. 4:21 | The PeshittA: has 'and Eshu' called them' Vat. Sir.13 (736 A.D.), The Khabouris, The Asahel Grant Manuscript, The Mingana, The 1886 Mosul, and Paul Younan's Interlinear text, all have 'and Eshu called them.' The Curetonian has 'and Eshu called them'', but the Sinaitic has 'and he called them'. English translations that have the Khabouris or Eastern PeshittA reading: Paul Younan, Andrew Roth, James Murdock, John Etheridge, George Lamsa, Joseph Pashka, Lonnie Martin, Victor Alexander, The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, and Kiraz's Antioch Bible. (1) ||
|| Matt. 6:32 | The PeshittA: The Khabouris, in its secondary script (East Adiabene), which is a later scribal replacement page, has 'the Nations/Peoples of the World' as does Younan's Interlinear, Etheridge, Murdock, Roth, Magiera, Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa, The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, and Kiraz's Antioch Bible. The Curetonian text reads as The Khabouris PeshittA text does here. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. text in its extant 10th century Arabic translation from an 8th century Aramaic MS has the Khabouris PeshittA reading. And the 1886 Mosul Printed PeshittA has 'of the world'. Neither the Latin vulgate version or any of the Greek versions have 'of the World' in their text. (2) ||
|| Mark 14:31 | The PeshittA: has 'all' the Disciples said' as does Younan, Etheridge, Murdock, Roth, Alexander, Pashka, Lamsa, Martin, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation. The Way International's ANT and MS. ADD 14453 (5th-6th century) has 'T'almiyd'e' (the Disciples). The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also has the PeshittA reading. Neither the Latin Vulgate or any Greek version has 'the Disciples', nor do they have 'my Lord' in this verse, as does both the Eastern and Western forms of the Aramaic NT. The Diatessaron though, has the PeshittA text's reading 'my Lord'. The Mingana Ms. reads the same as the Khabouris text. (5) ||
|| Mark 1:20 | The PeshittA (i.e. The Khabouris and all Eastern texts) does not have the added clause 'in the boat/ship' in the verse, as the Western PeshittO text has. The Greek versions all have it as far as I have checked. Etheridge, Lamsa, Alexander, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, have The PeshittA's (Eastern Text) reading. (4) ||
|| Luke 10:6 | 'son of peace' should be 'harmony' or 'peace' ||
|| Luke 22:17 | The PeshittA: Younan, Magiera, Roth, Martin, The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, and Kiraz's Antioch Bible does not have this verse. Neither does the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) or the Curetonian. The Way International's ANT and MS. ADD 14453 (5th-6th century) does not have it. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also lacks the reading. Vat. Sir.13 (736 A.D.), and The Mingana MS. doesn't have it. (6) ||
|| Luke 22:18 | The PeshittA: Younan, Magiera, Roth, Martin, The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, and Kiraz's Antioch Bible does not have this verse. Neither does the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) or the Curetonian. The Way International's ANT and MS. ADD 14453 (5th-6th century) does not have it. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also lacks the reading. Vat. Sir.13 (736 A.D.), and The Mingana MS. doesn't have it. (7) ||
|| Luke 7:35 | mistranslation - 'children/sons' should be deeds/works ||
|| Luke 9:51 | 'to set one's face...' means 'to make up one's mind' ||
|| Luke 9:53 | 'to set one's face...' means 'to make up one's mind' ||
|| Luke. 22:17 | 'And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said: Take this, and divide it among you. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come ' Not in peshA and not in peshO ||
|| John 16:27 | The PeshittA: has 'from the presence of The Father' as does Younan, Etheridge, Murdock, Roth, Lamsa, Alexander, Martin, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. has 'from my Father'. Alexandrian Greek versions have 'from The Father'. Vat. Sir.13 (736 A.D.), and The Mingana MS. reads the same as the Khabouris text. (10) ||
|| John 1:14 | 'only begotten' is 'firstborn' in Lamsa ||
|| John 7:53 | The PeshittA: Younan, Etheridge, Roth, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, does not have it. Neither does the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) or the Curetonian. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also lacks the reading. The Mingana does not have it. (8) ||
|| John 8:1-11 | (The story of the Woman caught in adultery) The PeshittA: Younan, Etheridge Roth, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, does not have it. Neither does the Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest (Old Scratch) or the Curetonian versions. The Diatessaron of 165 A.D. also lacks the reading. Many Greek Ms copies lack it, and some have the passage in other places, such as John chapter 21. The Mingana Ms. does not have it. (9) ||
|| Acts 15:34 | 'Notwithstanding it pleased Sylas to abide there still.' Not in peshA and not in Peshitt ||
|| Acts 15:34 | The PeshittA: Younan, Etheridge, Magiera, Roth, Martin, The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, and Kiraz's Antioch Bible does not have it. The Way International's ANT and MS. ADD 14473 (5th-6th century) does not have it. The Mingana Ms. does not have it. (13) ||
|| Acts 18:23 | The PeshittA: reads '...in the regions of Phrygia and of Galatia.' as does Etheridge, Murdock, Roth, Pashka, Alexander, Lamsa, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation. Also, the 1199 (Asahel Grant MS.), the Mingana MS., the 1846 Urmia printed PeshittA text, and the 1886 printed PeshittA text have the same reading as the Khabouris does here. (14) ||
|| Acts 18:6 | 'your blood upon your own heads' Not in peshA and not in peshO ||
|| Acts 20:28 | The PeshittA: reads '...The Church of Meshikha... as does Etheridge, Roth, ¹Alexander, Lamsa, Martin, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, all having the Eastern reading. The Mingana reads as the Khabouris does. (15) ||
|| Acts 21:13 | The PeshittA: reads '...Eshu Meshikha.' at the end of the verse. Etheridge, Murdock, ¹Roth, 2Pashka, Alexander, Martin, Lamsa, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, all have it as the Khabouris does. Also The 1199 Asahel Grant MS, The Mingana MS, The 1886 printed PeshittA text, and The 1846 Urmia printed PeshittA text has it as The Khabouris MS does. ¹Roth has the same Eastern PeshittA reading here as Murdock, since he revised Murdock's translation, but, his Aramaic text to the right in his editions have the UBS reading, since he revised the UBS PeshittO text, while leaving a number of Western readings in...like this one. His note says as much. (16) ||
|| Acts 26:28 | The PeshittA: reads '...King Agrippa said...' as does Etheridge, Murdock, Lamsa, Martin, Alexander, ¹Roth, 2Pashka, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation. The 1199 Grant MS, The Mingana MS, the 1846 Urmia PeshittA, and the 1886 PeshittA, all agree with the Khabouris. ¹ Roth has the same reading as Murdock here, though his interlinear (UBS with edits) has the Western PeshittO reading still there. 2 Pashka has the Eastern PeshittA reading in his translation, while his Aramaic text has the UBS reading. (17) ||
|| Acts 28:29 | Not in peshA and not in peshO and not in Tyndale; http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=2755 ||
|| Acts 28:29 | The PeshittA: Etheridge, Magiera, Roth, Martin, The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, and Kiraz's Antioch Bible, does not have it. The Way International's ANT and MS. ADD 14473 (5th-6th century) doesn't have it. The Mingana Ms. does not have it. (18) ||
|| Acts 3:6 | The PeshittA: reads, '...of our Lord Eshu' Meshikha...' Etheridge, Murdock, Lamsa, Pashka (and shows the variant in brackets), Martin, Alexander, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, have the Eastern PeshittA reading. The 1199 Asahel Grant Mss has the Khabouris reading, as does the Mingana Codex, and the 1886 Mosul PeshittA. (11) ||
|| Acts 8:37 | 'Philip said unto him: If thou believe with all thine heart, thou mayst He answered and said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God ' Not in peshA and not in peshO ||
|| Acts 8:37 | The PeshittA: Younan, Etheridge, Magiera, Roth, Martin, The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, and Kiraz's Antioch Bible don't have it. The Way International's ANT and MS. ADD 14473 (5th-6th century) does not have it. The Mingana does not have it. (12) ||
|| Rom. 5:6 | mistranslation - 'died for the ungodly' should be 'died for the righteous' ||
|| Rom. 8:39 | The PeshittA: reads literally '...will be able that it might separate me from the love of Alaha...' The Goodspeed MS 716 (6th century), The 1199 Asahel Grant MS, The Mingana MS, the 1846 Urmia Printed PeshittA text, and the 1886 Mosul Printed PeshittA text all read as the Khabouris here. Note: No English translator in a published printed edition has translated this distinction of the Eastern text for this verse, and while it may be a small difference, it is present there in the manuscripts. The only translation I know of that has this distinction is from the online translation found at TheAramaicScriptures.com (19) ||
|| 1Cor. 16:24 | The PeshittA: reads '...in Mshikha Eshu. Amen.' the same as the Byzantine Greek text form, as does Etheridge, Murdock, Roth, Lamsa, Norton, Alexander, Martin, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation. Also The Mingana Codex has the same reading as the Khabouris, and the other Eastern PeshittA Manuscript I can see, from 1199, given to the English Protestant Missionary Asahel Grant, by Mar Abraham, The Patriarch/Catholicos of The Church of the East, has the same reading as the Khabouris. (20) ||
|| 2Cor. 13:1 | The PeshittA: reads '...three times that I'm ready to come unto you.' as does Roth, Murdock, Etheridge, Lamsa, Norton, ¹Alexander, 2Martin, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation. ¹ Victor Alexander's version reads '...three seasons that I have desired to come to you.' The Mingana reads the same as the Khabouris text. 2 Lonnie Martin's version reads '...the third time that I have prepared to come to you. As does Roth's and Murdock's version. (21) ||
|| Gal. 6:17 | The PeshittA: reads 'Our Lord Eshu Mshikha' as does Roth, Etheridge, Murdock, Norton, Alexander, Martin, Lamsa, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation. The Mingana reads the same as the Khabouris text. (22) ||
|| Eph. 1:15 | The PeshittA: reads 'all the Holy Ones' as does Etheridge, Murdock, Roth, Lamsa, Norton, Alexander, Martin, The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, and Kiraz's Antioch Bible, and even ¹Bauscher, (though his Interlinear Aramaic text and word for word translation has the Western PeshittO reading). The Mingana reads the same as the Khabouris text. (24) ||
|| Eph. 1:8 | The PeshittA: reads 'of The Spirit' at the end of the verse, as does Etheridge; where Roth, Murdock, Lamsa, and Martin, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, all have ('Spiritual') and Norton has ('the Spirit's') and Alexander has ('of Spirit'). The Mingana reads the same as the Khabouris text. (23) ||
|| Phil. 1:25 | The PeshittA: has 'be with your spirit, my brothers. Amen.' as does Roth, Etheridge, Murdock, Norton, Alexander, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation. The Mingana reads the same as the Khabouris text. (26) ||
|| 2Thess. 3:6 | 'which he received' in peshA but 'which ye received' in peshO ||
|| 1Tim. 3:16 | 'God was' is not expressed - 'He was' is understood in both in peshA and in peshO ||
|| Heb 10:32 | mistranslation - 'being enlightened' should be 'received Baptism' http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=2893 ||
|| Heb 10:34 | verse rhymes in Aramaic; http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=2893 ||
|| Heb 6:4 | mistranslation - 'once enlightened' should be 'descended unto Baptism'; http://www.peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=2893 ||
|| Heb. 2:16 | Not '[the form of] angels' but '[the form of] Messengers' in peshA ||
|| Heb. 2:16 | The PeshittA: Etheridge, Roth, Murdock, Magiera, Alexander, Norton, Lamsa, Martin, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, all have the Eastern reading. The Mingana has the Eastern reading. (28) ||
|| Heb. 2:9 | The PeshittA: Roth, Lamsa, ¹Martin, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation, have the Eastern reading. The Mingana Ms. has the Eastern reading 'who apart from God, for all men, tasted death'. (27) ||
|| Jas. 3:10 | The PeshittA: has 'curses and blessings' as does Etheridge, Roth, Murdock, Norton, Alexander, Lamsa, Martin, and The Aramaic Scriptures Translation. This is a unique reading only found in the Eastern Aramaic text. The Mingana reads the same as the Khabouris text. (29) ||
|| 1John 5:7-8 | 'For there are three which that bear witness in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy ghost. And these three are one.' Not in peshA and not in peshO ||
---
[[Home]] [[TitleIndex]]

41
TheDidache.md

@ -9,6 +9,47 @@ in the Didache (circa 96 A.D.) Historically these sacred instructions
are [also] known as The Lord's teaching to the heathen by the Twelve Apostles.
* [[TheDidache1]]
* https://prophecytoday.uk/study/resources/item/1457-the-didache.html
## Background
The Didache (from a Greek word related to "doctrine," "didactic,"
etc.), which was revised over time into varying forms at various
places, seems to have been a sort of church manual for primitive
[early] Christians, probably in rural areas dependent mostly on
itinerant ministers.
The only known complete Didache in Greek is
the[[CodexHierosolymitanusGreek]] Hierosolymitanus, which was first
published by Bryennios in 1883. The Greek Oxyrhynchus Papyrus
No. 1782, dating from the late 4th century, contained fragments of a
codex that preserved Didache 1:3b-4a and 2:7b to 3:2a in slightly
variant and expanded form. A Coptic fragment from the 5th century
contains Didache 10:3b through 12:1b,2a, and appends a prayer for oil
at 10:8.
A 19th-century manuscript preserved at Constantinople contains a
complete Georgian version of the Didache, the translation of which
may be as early as the 5th century. It lacks Didache 1:5-6 and
13:5-7. The title includes the words "written in the year 90 or 100
after the Lord Christ." Although never published, readings were
made available in 1931.
The Greek "Apostolic Constitutions" has many references to the
Didache, re-worked with additional Scriptures and other traditions,
as does the Ethiopic "Ecclesiastical Canons of the Apostles."
Arabic versions both add and subtract from the Didache.
Several writers (Eusebius, about 325 A.D., and Athanasius of
Alexandria in a letter of 367, etc.,) and lists from the beginning
of the 4th century and onward refer to a writing known as the
"Teaching" or "Teachings" of the Apostles, but inasmuch as nothing
is specifically cited, we cannot be sure if the references are to
the document we know today as the Didache.
Our present version of the ancient Didache is a reliable guide to
help us understand the conduct code of the earliest Christian
community.
from:
http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/apocryphas/nt/didache.htm
### JWO Videos

152
ThomasParallelsFunks.md

@ -1,152 +0,0 @@
== Funks New Gospel Parallels
[New Gospel Parallels](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0944344216/TheSecularWeb)
=== A: Variants/Strong Parallels
["Mt.13:3"]=9
["Mk.4:3"]=9
["Lk.8:5"]=9
["Lk.12:49"]=10
["Mt.10:34"]=16
["Lk.12:51"]=16
["Mt.13:31"]=20
["Mk.4:30"]=20
["Lk.13:18"]=20
["Mt.7:3"]=26
["Lk.6:41"]=26
["Mt.15:14"]=34
["Lk.6:39"]=34
["Mt.12:29"]=35
["Mk.3:27"]=35
["Lk.11:21"]=35
["Mt.25:29"]=41
["Lk.19:26"]=41
["Mt.7:16"]=45
["Lk.6:43"]=45
["Mt.11:11"]=46
["Lk.7:28"]=46
["Mt.5:3"]=54
["Lk.6:20"]=54
["Mt.22:3"]=64
["Lk.14:16"]=64
["Mt.21:33"]=65
["Mk.12:1"]=65
["Lk.20:9"]=65
["Mt.21:42"]=66
["Mk.12:10"]=66
["Lk.20:17"]=66
["Ps.118:22"]=66
["Mt.9:37"]=73
["Lk.10:2"]=73
["Mt.8:20"]=86
["Lk.9:58"]=86
["Lk.11:39"]=89
["Mt.7:6"]=93
["Mt.7:7"]=94
["Lk.11:9"]=94
["Mk.12:13"]=100
["Lk.20:22"]=100
["Mt.24:43"]=103
["Lk.12:39"]=103
["Mt.18:12"]=107
["Lk.15:3"]=107
=== B: Weak Parallels
# (replace-regexp "\\([0-9][0-9]*\\): \\([A-Z][a-z]\\)\\([1-9][0-9]*:[1-9][0-9]*\\)\\(-[1-9][0-9]*\\)*," "[\"\\2 \\3\"]=\\1 \\1:" nil nil nil nil)
# (replace-regexp "\\([0-9][0-9]*\\): \\([A-Z][a-z]\\)\\([1-9][0-9]*:[1-9][0-9]*\\)\\(-[1-9][0-9]*\\)*" "[\"\\2 \\3\"]=\\1" nil nil nil nil)
["Jn.8:51"]=1
["Lk.17:21"]=3
["Mt.10:26"]=5
["Lk.10:2"]=5
["Mt.13:47"]=8
["1Cor.2:9"]=17
["Isaiah.64:4"]=17
["Mt.18:20"]=30
["Mk.6:4"]=31
["Lk.4:23"]=31
["Jn.4:44"]=31
["Mt.5:14"]=32
["Mt.6:25"]=36
["Lk.12:22"]=36
["Mt.15:13"]=40
["Mt.12:32"]=44
["Mk.3:28"]=44
["Lk.12:10"]=44
["Mt.18:19"]=48
["Mk.11:23"]=48
["Mt.13:24"]=57
["Mt.11:28"]=58
["Jn.7:34"]=59
["Jn.13:33"]=59
["Lk.12:16"]=63
["Mt.5:11"]=68
["Lk.6:22"]=68
["Mk.14:58"]=71
["Lk.12:13"]=72
["Mt.22:14"]=75
["Mt.11:7"]=78
["Lk.7:24"]=78
["Mt.11:28"]=90
["Lk.6:34"]=95
["Lk.14:12"]=95
["Mt.13:33"]=96
["Lk.13:20"]=96
["Mt.12:46"]=99
["Mk.3:31"]=99
["Mt.10:37"]=101
["Lk.14:26"]=101
["Mt.13:44"]=109
["Lk.17:20"]=113
---
[[Home]] [[TitleIndex]]

2
WastheNewTestamentReallyWritteninGreek.md

@ -130,5 +130,7 @@ This video about Aramaic New Testament is also recommended:
* https://archive.org/details/NTAramaic
* https://archive.org/download/WastheNewTestamentReallyWritteninGreek1e/WastheNewTestamentReallyWritteninGreek1e.pdf
* https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-languages-involved-in-mark-matthew-hebrews-and-revelation-can-include-greek-latin-hebrew-and-aramaic.2720/
---
[[Home]] [[TitleIndex]]

78
WtNTRWiG1eCommentary.md

@ -1,78 +0,0 @@
Parent: [[Commentaries]]
== WtNTRWiG1eCommentary
PeshittA-Textus Receptus differences from
[Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek](https://archive.org/details/WastheNewTestamentReallyWritteninGreek1e)
* https://archive.org/download/wasthenewtestamentreallywritteningreek1e/wasthenewtestamentreallywritteningreek1e.pdf
|| Num. 25:4 | Aramaic mistranslation (B) - 'And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.' the Aramaic reads 'And the LORD said to Moses, Take all the chiefs of the people and expose them before the LORD in the daylight that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from the children of Israel.' ||
|| Matt. 11:19 | Aramaic mistranslation (7.4) - But wisdom is justified of all her children' should be 'But wisdom is justified of all its works' ||
|| Matt. 11:25 | Aramaic idiom (F1) - 'answered and said' ||
|| Matt. 11:8 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.12) - 'are in kings' houses' should be 'are among kings ||
|| Matt. 12:38 | Aramaic idiom (F1) - 'answered and said' ||
|| Matt. 19:12 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.6) - 'eunuch' should be 'believer' ||
|| Matt. 22:10 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.36) - 'the wedding was furnished with guests' should be 'the wedding hall was furnished with guests' ||
|| Matt. 23:5 | Aramaic wordplay (4.7) - 'phylacteries' should be 'tefillin' (Num. 15:38) ||
|| Matt. 23:8 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.14) - 'Rabbi' should be 'Great One' ||
|| Matt. 26:6 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.5) - 'leper' should be 'jar maker (potter)' ||
|| Matt. 27:13 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.16) - 'vile passions' should be 'diseases of disgrace (venerial diseases)' ||
|| Matt. 27:13 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.26) - 'I must walk today, and tomorrow, and the day following' should be 'I must do my work today and tomorrow, and I will leave the next day' ||
|| Matt. 27:46 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.2) - 'Why have you forsaken me?' should be 'Why have you spared me?' ||
|| Matt. 7:23 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.18) - 'gall of bitterness' should be 'bitter anger' ||
|| Matt. 7:6 | Aramaic mistranslation - 'Give not that which is holy unto the dogs' should be 'Do not hang rings on dogs' ||
|| Matt. 9:24 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.3) - 'camel' should be '(thick coarse) rope' ||
|| Matt. 9:8 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.28) - 'they marvelled' should be 'they were afraid' ||
|| Mark 10:24 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.3) - 'camel' should be '(thick coarse) rope' ||
|| Mark 13:30 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.9) - 'that this generation shall not pass' should be 'that this (Christian) family shall not pass away' ||
|| Mark 14:3 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.5) - 'leper' should be 'jar maker (potter)' ||
|| Mark 15:34 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.2) - 'Why have you forsaken me?' should be 'Why have you spared me?' ||
|| Mark 16:18 | Aramaic wordplay (4.1) - 'take up serpents' should be 'handle their enemies' ||
|| Mark 1:14 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.26) - 'priest' should be 'priests' ||
|| Mark 9:43 | Aramaic idiom (7.11) - ||
|| Mark 9:44 | Aramaic idiom (7.11) - ||
|| Mark 9:45 | Aramaic idiom (7.11) - ||
|| Mark 9:46 | Aramaic idiom (7.11) - ||
|| Mark 9:47 | Aramaic idiom (7.11) - ||
|| Mark 9:49 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.8) - 'salted with fire, and every sacrifice will be salted with salt' should be 'destroyed with fire and seasoned with salt' ||
|| Luke 10:5 | Aramaic idiom (4.13) - 'son of peace' should be 'harmony' ||
|| Luke 12:32 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.25) - 'shall be perfected' should be 'shall be finished' ||
|| Luke 14:26 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.7) - 'hate' should be 'put aside' ||
|| Luke 18:25 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.3) - 'camel' should be '(thick coarse) rope' ||
|| Luke 24:32 | Aramaic idiom (4.14) - 'Did not our heart burn within us' should be 'We were sluggish' ||
|| Luke 7:35 | Aramaic mistranslation (7.4) - But wisdom is justified of all her children' should be 'But wisdom is justified of all its works' ||
|| Luke 7:41-42 | Aramaic wordplay - Khoba:debt Khuba:Love ||
|| Luke 7:45 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.18) - 'since the time I came in' should be 'since she entered' ||
|| John 11:31 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.7) - 'saying' should be 'thinking' ||
|| John 12:11 | Aramaic mistranslation (4.12) - 'many of the Jews went away , and believed on Jesus' should be 'many of the Judeans, on account of him, were trusting more and more in Jesus' ||
|| John 21:17 | Aramaic mistranslation (5.22) - 'Feed my sheep' (3rd) should be 'Feed my ewes' ||
|| John 8:34 | Aramaic wordplay - abed:commits abada:slave ||
|| Acts 11:28 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.20) - 'throughout all the world' should be 'throughout the land of Israel' ||
|| Acts 14:17 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.21) - 'filling our hearts with food' should be 'filled their hearts with good cheer' ||
|| Acts 2:24 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.10) - 'having loosed the pains of death' should be 'the cords of death' ||
|| Acts 8:23 | Aramaic mistranslation - 'gall of bitterness' should be 'bile of bitterness' ||
|| Acts 8:27 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.6) - 'eunuch' should be 'believer' ||
|| Acts 9:34 | Aramaic wordplay (3.28) - 'Aeneas' should be 'Afflicted one' ||
|| Acts 9:7 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.13) - 'hearing a voice' should be 'hearing a sound' ||
|| Rom. 3:15 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.19) - 'feet' should be 'foot soldiers' ||
|| Rom. 5:7 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.1) - should be 'For one would scarcely die for a wicked man; though perhaps for a good man someone would dare even to die' ||
|| 1Cor. 11:10 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.3) - 'power on her head because of the angels' should be 'a covering on her head because of the angels' ||
|| 1Cor. 13:3 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.1) - 'and though I give my body to be burned,' should be 'if I surrender my body so that I may boast.' ||
|| 1Cor. 6:19 | Aramaic idiom (7.11) - ||
|| 1Cor. 6:20 | Aramaic idiom (7.11) - ||
|| 2Cor. 6:12 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.24) - 'in your own bowels' should be 'in your own love' ||
|| Phil. 2:1 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.24) - 'if any bowels' should be 'if any love' ||
|| Col. 3:12 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.24) - 'bowels of ' should be 'love of ' ||
|| Col. 3:6 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.4) - 'cometh on the children of disobedience'...'in them' should be 'deeds of disobedience'...'in them' ||
|| Phlm. 1:1 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.32) - 'prisoner of' should be 'servant of (bondsman)' ||
|| Phlm. 1:12 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.24) - 'mine own bowels' should be 'my love' ||
|| Phlm. 1:2 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.33) - 'beloved' should be 'sister' ||
|| Phlm. 1:20 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.24) - 'refresh my bowels' should be 'refresh my love' ||
|| Phlm. 1:7 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.24) - 'bowels of ' should be 'love of ' ||
|| Jas. 3:18 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.22) - 'is sown in peace of them that make peace' should be 'is sown in the cultivated land of them that make peace' ||
|| 1John 3:17 | Aramaic mistranslation (1.24) - 'shutteth of my bowels of' should be 'shutteth of my love of' ||
|| Rev. 2:20 | Aramaic mistranslation (2.11) - 'cast her into a bed' should be 'cast her into a coffin' ||
---
[[Home]] [[TitleIndex]]

43
YltCommentary.md

@ -1,43 +0,0 @@
Parent: [[Commentaries]]
== YltCommentary
Miscellaneous notes, usually to Youngs Literal Translation, but maybe KJV.
|| Gen. 5:18 | Enoch of the Book of Enoch http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html ||
|| Eccl. 6:10 | Verses indicating preexistence: 'That which hath been is named already, and it is known that it is man.' ||
|| Jer. 1:4-5 | Verses indicating preexistence: 'Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.' ||
|| Matt. 16:1 | Play on words in Aramaic on the word Pharesee meaning 'discern' (Prisha) https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/afc54bfe/files/uploaded/thenatzariyeshuavskairite.pdf ||
|| Matt. 17:12 | Verses indicating reincarnation: Elaijah as John the Baptist. ||
|| Matt. 18:3 | Verses indicating preexistence: 'Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' To become like little children could be understood as become newborn, being born again 'in the flesh'. ||
|| Matt. 19:28 | palingenesía mistranslated - 'That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration...' - should be reincarnation ||
|| Matt. 19:5 | argument for monagamy 'and said 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'' (Gen. 2:24) ||
|| Matt. 23:25 | Jerome says the Hebrew dialect version has 'son of Jehoida', which is right, instead of 'son of Barachia' which is wrong. ||
|| Matt. 26:3 | "high priest, who was called Caiaphas" who was removed in AD 36 ||
|| Matt. 27:9 | Jerome says the Hebrew dialect version has 'to Zechariah, which is right (Zec. 11:10), instead of 'to Jeremiah' which is wrong. ||
|| Matt. 5:25-26 | The Gnostics related these verses to reincarnation, and that one has to reincarnate again until one has reconciled with the enemy. ||
|| Matthew 10:8 | "freely give" - as in the Didache, pastors should be unpaid ||
|| Luke 15:28-59 | The Gnostics related these verses to reincarnation, and that one has to reincarnate again until one has reconciled with the enemy. ||
|| Luke 24:10 | "Mary the mother of James" - James was the brother of Jesus! ||
|| John 13:17 | YLT uses apostle - 'a servant is not greater than his lord, nor an apostle greater than he who sent him' ||
|| John 1:11-12 | should read "For all that received Him, He gave them the RIGHT (exousian) to become sons of God -- to the ones OBEYING UNTO (pisteuosin eis) His name" - see Rev. 22:14 ||
|| John 5:7 | Newton states 'When they got the Trinity, into his edition (3rd and final) they threw their manuscript... as an alamanac out of date. ||
|| Acts 7:43 | star of the deity of Rephan - the "Star of David" ||
|| Rom. 3:7 | What kind of gospel can be based on lies? ||
|| Rom. 9:11-13 | Verses indicating preexistence: 'For the children being not yet born, ... Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.' How could God hate Esau if this is not because of something that was before he was born? ||
|| 1Cor. 10:4 | Mithras was referred to as 'the spiritual Rock' ||
|| 1Cor. 11:24 | Mithraism inititation included begin washed in the blood of a sacrificed bull, and drink the blood. ||
|| 1Cor. 6:12 | "All things are lawful unto me" = "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." A. Crowley ||
|| 2Cor. 12:16 | Paul is deceitful. ||
|| Eph. 1:4 | Verses indicating preexistence: 'According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.' ||
|| 2Tim. 2:3 | Mithraism had its austerities, typified in the severe initiation rites endured by a 'Soldier of Mithras ||
|| Heb. 11:5 | Enoch of the Book of Enoch http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html ||
|| Jas. 3:6 | 'trochón tês genéseôs' - Trochós has only one meaning: 'wheel, round disk.' Any other translation is at least figurative. The related word tróchos may mean 'turn, revolution', but this is no contradiction. Genéseôs is derived from genésios, 'belonging to the tribe' or '...to the birth'. ||
|| 2Pet. 3:2-4 | Refers to the apostles and "our ancestors" as belonging to a previous generation - 2Pet. is written after Jude. ||
|| Jude 1:14 | 'Enoch' the author of the books of Enoch which are additional to Old and New Testatment, accepted as canon in some Ethiopic churches. Also found in a Dead Sea Scroll 4Q204 in Aramaic. Accepted as scripture by Clement of Alexandria, Iraneus, Origen and Tertullian. ||
|| Jude 1:15 | A quotation from the Enochian Book of Watchers. https://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm ||
|| Jude 1:19 | Verses indicating preexistence: 'Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being.' ||
|| Rev. 3:12 | Verses indicating preexistence: 'Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out.' He shall no more incarnate? ||
---
[[Home]] [[TitleIndex]]