Notice in Luke 3: 36 that Cainan is within the lineage of Christ. But if you go back to the lineage in the Old Testament (in Genesis 11:12), Cainan is not in the lineage.

Yet... The Septuagint does include Cainan and agrees with the book of Luke on the ancestry. It reads: Genesis 11: “12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. 13 And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Cainan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died



Exodus 1:5 in the Masoretic text says “70” people went into Egypt while Stephen said “75” in Acts 7:14.

The Septuagint states in Exodus 1:5 states that “Seventy-five” people went into Egypt. The Dead Sea scrolls also support this number by saying “Seventy-five.” Stephen was quoting the then known Old Testament (the Septuagint).

Paul

What happens when you get a translator who mistranslates scripture? How about a translation that is the only accepted version allowed to be used? And what if that translation was the only Bible used for over 1000 years. Could one simple mistranslation alter our view on scripture for over 1000 years? You bet your horny Moses!

Medieval artwork sometimes portrays Moses with horns. This depiction derives from Jerome's mistranslation of verses in Exodus 34. Verse 29: "he knew not that his face was horned from the conversation of the Lord." Verse 30: "And Aaron and the children of Israel seeing the face of Moses horned, were afraid to come near." Verse 35: "And they saw that the face of Moses when he came our was horned." Rather than being "horned" Moses face "shone," as in the Old Latin and the Septuagint read.

1)(Qal) send out rays
2) (Hiphil) display (grow) horns (be fully developed).

Qaran is derived from H7161, which is a noun meaning "horn." Jerome took the basic meaning of the word and neglected its derived meaning of "to emit rays." Many times in Hebrew one must assign the meaning of a word based on its context. In Psalm 69:31 qaran is used to describe an ox or young bull. There the translation as "horn" is appropriate. But in Exodus 34:29 qaran is used in conjunction with the phrase "skin of his face." From the context of following versus the meaning as "horns" is not supported. The Apostle Paul understood this to mean "shone" and not "grew horns" as can be seen from 2 Corinthians 3:7-13.

Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate, which was the official bible of the Catholic Church for well over 1000 years.

Take a look at Michelangelo's Moses at the Cistene Chapel Masoretic text… vs… the Septuagint



https://encrypted.go...w=1920&bih=1054

Yes, for over 1000 years the Masoretic text gave us a horney Moses!!!

Now, the time for fun and games are over…. Let’s get down to the biblical truth…... The Masoretic text… vs… the Septuagint

The oldest translations of the ENTIRE Masoret Tanakh tend to come from the Leningrad Codex of 1008 AD.  There's another from 925 AD, but nothing before that date has all the books of the Tanakh.   So our oldest Masoret texts are from a rather recent date.  There are a few Torahs from further back than that.  There are partial scrolls from further back than that.  But often the translation we generally get is from a text that is only about 1000 years old...

Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT. Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible.

Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior....

AGE OF LEVITICAL SERVICE...

Numbers 4:3 ; 23; ; 30 ;35; 39

Numbers 8:24

The Septuagint say between 25 and 50 each time. There is no discrepancy!

So How Many Horsemen?

2 Sam 8:4
1700 horsemen!

1 Chr 18:4
7000 horseman!

The LXX: agrees with both. It reads: 7,000 in both passages



How many years of famine?

2 Sam 24:13 says (7 Years)…

1 Chr 21:12 says (3 Years)


You guessed it…. The LXX reads: 3 years famine in both


Paul

How many Foremen?

1Ki 5:16 3,300 foremen....

2Chr 2:18 3,600 foremen...

Yet the LLX reads: 3,600 in both passages.

Here is where Bible attackers have a field day.

II Chronicles 21:20-22:1-2. (KJV)
Jehoram was 32 when he began to reign. He reigned 8 years.
This makes him 40 years old.
His son Ahaziah reined immediately after him. Ahaziah was 42 when he began to reign.
Thus Jehoram’s son was 2 years older than himself

•LXX
II Chronicles 21:20-22:1-2
•
•21:20 He (Jehoram) was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. And he departed without honour, and was buried in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings. 22:1 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ochozias (AHAZIAH) his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of robbers that came against them, even the Arabians and the Alimazonians, had slain all the elder ones. So Ochozias (AHAZIAH) son of Joram king of Juda reigned.

22:2 Ochozias (AHAZIAH) began to reign when he was twenty years old, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and his mother's name was Gotholia, the daughter of Ambri

• Let us now turn to I Kings 16:23, 28-29 in the King James:

• "In the thirty and first year of Asa, King of Judah, began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years ... So Omri slept with his fathers ... and Ahab his son reigned in his stead. And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the son of Omri to reign over Israel.“ Omri began to reign in the 31st year of Asa and reigned 12 years.
• Omri died and his son Ahab began to reign in the 38th year of Asa.

• This means Omri only reigned 7 years and not 12 as we are told at first.

• This is not simply a mistake as to which year of Asa's reign Ahab began to reign in, but in fact the Masoretic text omits several verses between verse 28 and 29 which tell us that Josaphat, son of Asa began to reign. Thus, the Septuagint reads (note that Ambri = Omri, and Achaab = Ahab):

• In the thirty-first year of king Asa, Ambri (Omri) begins to reign over Israel twelve years ... And Ambri (Omri) slept with his fathers ... and Achaab (Ahab) his son reigns in his stead. (And in the eleventh year of Ambri Josaphat the son of Asa reigns...). In the second year of Josaphat king of Juda, Achaab (Ahab) son of Ambri (Omri) reigned over Israel..”

• This means that instead of Ahab reigning at the same time Asa was, he actually reigned while Asa’s son Josaphat reigned. Thus, the Septuagint reads (note that Ambri = Omri, and Achaab = Ahab):

LXX

In the thirty-first year of king Asa, Ambri (Omri) begins to reign over Israel twelve years ... And Ambri (Omri) slept with his fathers ... and Achaab (Ahab) his son reigns in his stead. (And in the eleventh year of Ambri Josaphat the son of Asa reigns...). In the second year of Josaphat king of Juda, Achaab (Ahab) son of Ambri (Omri) reigned over Israel..”


This means that instead of Ahab reigning at the same time Asa was, he actually reigned while Asa’s son Josaphat reigned.


Having fun yet?
Paul

In the Masoretic Text (and some of our modern Bibles today) Exodus 12:40 reads: 
MST: (40) “Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.”

Note: In other areas of the Masoretic text itself it shows that it was much less (half the time). Footnotes: Josephus, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint read "Egypt and Canaan" for 430 years which appears to be correct.

The Jewish historian Josephus who lived at the time of Christ, wrote the Antiquity of the Jews, The Jewish War, and Against Apion. In his book, the Antiquity of the Jews, Josephus interprets the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 as starting with Abraham’s entrance into Canaan and ending at the Exodus. Josephus states:
“They left Egypt in the month of Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month, four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt” (1830,59; Book 2.15.2).

This follows the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Exodus 12:40 which says, “And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan was four hundred and thirty years”

The Masoretic leaves out “Canaan.”

Galatians 3:15 My brethren, I speak as among men; a man's covenant which is confirmed, no one setteth aside, or changeth any thing in it.  16 Now to Abraham was the promise made, and to his seed. And it said to him, not, to thy seeds, as being many; but to thy seed, as being one, which is the Messiah. 17 And this I say: That the covenant which was previously confirmed by God in the Messiah, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot set it aside, and nullify the promise.




Paul

Galatians 3:15 My brethren, I speak as among men; a man's covenant which is confirmed, no one setteth aside, or changeth any thing in it. 16 Now to Abraham was the promise made, and to his seed. And it said to him, not, to thy seeds, as being many; but to thy seed, as being one, which is the Messiah. 17 And this I say: That the covenant which was previously confirmed by God in the Messiah, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot set it aside, and nullify the promise...


FOOLS COULD SAY>>>: Jeconiah was cursed and called “childless” Jer 22:30 Thus saith Jehovah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah.

Yet He is an ancestor of Jesus in the new Testament. (Matthew 1:11-12)


YET!!!: The oldest text (The Septuagint) does not say “childless” but reads “outcast.” This is not a contradiction. He can be called an outcast and still have children that continue the lineage but not sit upon the throne of David as a royal “prince”. (LXX version) Jeremiah 22: 29 Land, land, hear the word of the Lord. 30 Write ye this man an outcast: for there shall none of his seed at all grow up to sit on the throne of David, or as a prince yet in Juda.


Genesis 2: 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (this makes it unclear whether God worked on the Sabbath or not) LXX reads: Genesis 2: 2 And God finished on the sixth day his works which he made, (this text would clearly mean that God rested on the Sabbath).

Let's read...

Genesis 2: 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made( this makes it unclear whether God worked on the Sabbath or not )

LXX reads: Genesis 2: 2 And God finished on the sixth day his works which he made, ( this text would clearly mean that God rested on the Sabbath).


/>
Paul

Masoretic text: Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (this makes it unclear whether God worked on the Sabbath or not)


LXX reads: Genesis 2: 2 And God finished on the sixth day his works which he made, (this text would clearly mean that God rested on the Sabbath)

Paul

That Paul relied upon the Septuagint is made strikingly clear from Romans 3.12-18.  This entire passage is contained in one psalm in the Septuagint.

NASB Bible... Rom 3:12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." 13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; 14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; 15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, 16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." 18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."

LXX... Psalm 14:3 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become good for nothing, there is none that does good, no not one.Their throat is an open sepulchre;with their tongues they have used deceit;the poison of asps is under their lips:whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known:there is no fear of God before their eyes.

If Paul were relying upon the Hebrew (Masoretic Text) , he had to string together phrases from six separate locations in this passage: Psalm 14.1-3 (or 53.1-3), 5.9, 140.3, 10.7, Isaiah 59.7-9, and Psalm 36.1.  It would be a remarkable coincidence if Paul - using the Hebrew alone - were to collect just these fragments in just the same order as they appear in the Septuagint.

Did Job’s Children Really Die?

In the book of Job, his children are killed in chapter 1 vs. 18-19, yet later in the book, it appears his children are still alive in Job 19:17 (KJV) “My breath is strange to my wife, though I intreated for the children's sake of mine own body. 18 Yea, young children despised me; I arose, and they spake against me.”

Many modern English translations falsely try to re-translate this into “the brothers or my mother” but that is not in the Hebrew Text. It is simply changed to make sense for modern readers. (See Strong’s Definitions).

The LXX makes it clearer because it specifies that the children were actually his concubine’s sons and not his children from his wife. LXX: 17 “And I besought my wife, and earnestly intreated the sons of my concubines. 18 But they rejected me for ever; whenever I rise up, they speak against me. 19 They that saw me abhorred me: the very persons whom I had loved, rose up against me.”



Paul

HOW TALL WAS GOLIATH?

The Masoretic 1 Samuel 17:4 says Goliath was 6 cubits and a span, or roughly 9 feet 9 inches.

However, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls say 4 cubits and a span, or about 6 feet, 9 inches.

Interestingly, Flavius Josephus (who once was a Jewish Pharisee and a scholar on Jewish History) agrees with the Septuagint as well when he writes “4 cubits and a span”.


Paul

Thank you for the offer Paul, but at the moment I think people are currently engaged with other issues right now so you may not receive any replies in this thread for a while.

Most of us here are confident that we know how to address the usual Trinitarian proof texts. If anyone has a problem, I'm sure they'll raise it.

I like your explanation of I Corinthians 10:1-3.

/>/>

My apologies if I came across as only a giver of data or created proof texts... I assure you... I seek it also! Evangelion we are in a age where nothing is new... I seek to share data as much as I seek to receive it! That explanation of I Corinthians 10:1-3 is probably from 12 different sources put together in a single post! I got it from my friend in Canada.... I cut out the fat but I know he did not create it... just like you and I... we collect and build from the works of others... that's why were here on forums... To seek data and pick the spiritual meat off of spiritual bones... The problem is when we do not agree on what's meat! So I read the data... and take what the spirit tells me to take just like you!

Evangelion... my Masoretic text… vs… the Septuagint thread was a gift to you... I found the data long ago with no source or author to even give credit too... Whom ever wrote it did not want to be known!

You appeared to like the subject... so I shared the data I found...

No one knows what God is doing... Were all seekers...

Ecc 3:11 He has made everything fitting in its season; However, He has put obscurity in their heart So that the man may not find out His work, That which the One, Elohim, does from the beginning to the terminus."

Read the verse in Hebrew Evangelion and you will find the word "obscurity" most fitting!!!


Paul

Let's pick another verse Trinitarians try to use to support their view...and spank it down!!!

Psalms 110:1

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

Psalms 110:1 is a unusual verse. It is referred to in the New Testament 23 times and is thus quoted much more often than any other verse from the Old Testament. It’s importance must not be overlooked. It is a psalm that tells us the relationship between God and Jesus.
Psalms 110:1 is a divine utterance although poorly translated if your version leaves out the original word "oracle". It is “the oracle of Yahweh” (the One God of the Hebrew Bible, of Judaism and New Testament Christianity) to David's lord who is the Messiah, spoken of here 1000 years before he came into existence in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

I want to bring attention to the fact that David's lord is not David's Lord. There should be no capital on the word "lord." The Revised Version of the Bible (1881) corrected the misleading error of other translations which put (and still wrongly put) a capitol L on lord in that verse.
He is not Lord God, because the word in the inspired text is not the word for Deity, but the word for human superior- a human lord, not a Lord who is himself God, but a lord who is the supremely exalted, unique agent of the one God.

The Hebrew word for the status of the son of God and Psalms 110:1 is adoni. This word occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible and never refers to God. When God is described as "the Lord" (capital L) a different word, Adonai, appears. Thus the Bible makes a careful distinction between God and man. God is the Lord God (Adonai), or when his personal name is used, Yahweh, and Jesus is his unique, sinless, virginally conceived human son (adoni, my lord, Luke 1:43; 2:11). Adonai is found 449 times in the Old Testament and distinguishes the One God from all others. Adonai is not the word describing the son of God, Jesus, and Psalms 110:1. adoni appears 195 times and refers only to a human (or occasionally an angelic) lord, that is, someone who is not God. This should cut through a lot of complicated post Biblical argumentation and create a making which in subtle ways that secures the simple and most basic Biblical truth, that God is a single person and that the Messiah is the second Adam, "the Man Messiah" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Let's have a look at a few Old Testament verses that show us the clear distinction alluded to here. In Genesis 15:2, Abraham prays to God and says, "O LORD, God [Adonai Yahweh], what will you give me, since I am childless?" In another prayer Abraham's servant addresses God: "O LORD, God of my lord Abraham, please grant me success today" (Gen. 24:12). The second word for "my lord" here is adoni which according to any standard Hebrew lexicon means "Lord," "Master," or "owner." Another example is found in David's speech to his men after he had cut off the hem of King Saul's robe and his conscience bothered him: "So he said to his men, far be it from me because of the Lord [here the word is Yahweh, Lord God] that I should do this thing to my lord [adoni].”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 157. states… "The form Adoni (‘my lord’), a royal title (Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title Adonai (‘Lord’) used of Yahweh. Adonai the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adoni [with short vowel] = ‘my lords.’” Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, page 137. States… “lord in the Old Testament is used to translate Adonai when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word… has a suffix [with a special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction... between divine and human appellative.” Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, p. 22. states…
“The form ‘to my lord,’ I’adoni, is never used in the Old Testament as a divine reference… the general excepted fact is that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine reference (adonai) from human references (adoni).”

“The Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the Old Testament…Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen 44:7; Num 32:25; 2 Kings 2:19, etc.). We have to assume that the word Adonai received it’s special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e. [i]adoni[/i]]. The reason why [God is addressed] as Adonai [with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from other human Lord's.” from Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, p. 531.

If David the Psalmist had expected the Messiah to be the Lord God he would not have used "my lord" (adoni), but the term used exclusively for the one God, Jehovah- Adonai. Unfortunately, though, many English translations which faithfully preserved this distinction elsewhere capitalize the second "lord" only in Psalms 110:1. This gives a misleading impression that the word is a divine title.

Occasionally, it will be objected that this distinction between Adonai and adoni was a late addition to the Hebrew text by the Mesorites around 600 to 700 AD and therefore is not reliable. This objection needs to be considered in the light of the fact that the Hebrew translators of the Septuagint (the LXX) around 250 B.C. recognize and carefully maintained this Hebrew distinction in their work. They never translated the second “lord” of Psalm 110:1 (“my lord,” kyrios mou) to mean the Deity. The first LORD of Psalm 110:1 (the LORD, Ho Kyrios) they always reserve for the one God, Jehovah.

Both the Pharisees and Jesus knew that this inspired verse was crucial in the understanding of the identity of the promised Messiah. Jesus quoted it to show the Messiah would be both the son (descendent) of King David and David's “lord” (see Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). This key verse, then, quoted more than any other in the New Testament, authorizes the title "lord" for Jesus.

Failure to understand this distinction has led to the erroneous idea that whenever the New Testament calls Jesus "Lord" it means he is the Lord God of the Old Testament.

Paul

Since I was brought here due to my Trinitarian studies... I guess it would be appropriate to share! Being a Non-Trinitarian on mostly Trinitarian sites... I assure you I have faced opposition that you would not believe!!! ...

I have perfected the art of anti-Trinitarian post... meaning cramming in the most damaging evidence into any single post against me. Let me be more clear.... If it takes you more than 1 posting to make your point on any given verse... you have already lost the debate due to the simple minded followers of men... A single fact filled post in context on any verse is a slap in the face to the traditions of men!

I'm here to help... If you have a verse Trinitarian's use against you that your having difficulty with... I'm willing to share my studies and experience...

Allow me to offer and example...

1Co 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.


So in a single post explain this Trinitarian usage of scripture that Trinitarians' claim Jesus was alive and active as God in the O.T.!!!

My point is... I'm willing to share my studies... If you have a question on any given verse.... I believe I can help!

Try explaining 1Co 10:1 in a single post... It's not easy! Yet I have done it! Infact, maybe you have done it too... if so what did you say in reply... I can only offer more data to help you!

Ask and ye shall recieve... but hurry... I'm almost done with posting on forums.. you may indeed be the last discussion forum I post in... as I grow old and weary in my years.

ASK and ye shall recieve...
Paul

So some one pick a Trinity verse or topic that you presently struggle with...

I'm here to keep you on tract and fight the false trinitarian doctrine you face everyday.... Of course... True trinitarians are encouraged to ask questions too... I can easily show you to the truth in any given trinitarian support verses you choose to use!




Paul

Since I was brought here due to my Trinitarian studies... I guess it would be appropriate to share! Being a Non-Trinitarian on mostly Trinitarian sites... I assure you I have faced opposition that you would not believe!!! ...

I have perfected the art of anti-Trinitarian post... meaning cramming in the most damaging evidence into any single post against me. Let me be more clear.... If it takes you more than 1 posting to make your point on any given verse... you have already lost the debate due to the simple minded followers of men... A single fact filled post in context on any verse is a slap in the face to the traditions of men!

I'm here to help... If you have a verse Trinitarian's use against you that your having difficulty with... I'm willing to share my studies and experience...

Allow me to offer and example...

1Co 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.


So in a single post explain this Trinitarian usage of scripture that Trinitarians' claim Jesus was alive and active as God in the O.T.!!!

My point is... I'm willing to share my studies... If you have a question on any given verse.... I believe I can help!

Try explaining 1Co 10:1 in a single post... It's not easy! Yet I have done it! Infact, maybe you have done it too... if so what did you say in reply... I can only offer more data to help you!

Ask and ye shall recieve... but hurry... I'm almost done with posting on forums.. you may indeed be the last discussion forum I post in... as I grow old and weary in my years.

ASK and ye shall recieve...
Paul

What? no bites?

Can anyone explain... 1Co 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

Yea, this was a tough one for me for a long time as I was focused on "the rock was Christ" It's OK to get stumped! We all build on the shoulders of others... as there is nothing new under the Sun! My answer came from a very good friend in Canada... He opened my eyes to the meaning and silly notion that 1Co 10:1 could even be considered a trinitarian support verse!

As I have pointed out... Believers in the personal preexistence of Christ often appeal to the words of the apostle Paul in I Cor 10:4 where he says of the Israelites in the wilderness, that they all drank "the same spiritual drink for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them; and that rock was Christ." It is argued from this that Christ Himself personally accompanied the people of Israel as they journeyed through the wilderness to the promised land. The verse is often tied in with several Old Testament texts which describe Yahweh as a Rock (Deut 32:4; Ps 18:2,31).

Since Yahweh is the rock, and Christ is also the rock who accompanied Israel, Christ must therefore be Yahweh, it is believed. This interpretation, common though it is, suffers from a number of serious defects. The first of these concerns the meaning of the term "Christ". Too often we use it simply as a proper name for Jesus as if it were His surname. "Christos" is the Greek form of the Hebrew word "Messiah", meaning "the anointed one". It was a title given to the Kings of Israel. David was a "messiah" and was a type, or forerunner, of the one who would deliver the people of Israel and establish the Kingdom of God. the coming of the Messiah is a common theme of OT prophecy. He was to be the "seed of Abraham" Gen 3:15; Gal 3:8,16, "the seed of Judah" Gen49:10; I Chron. 5:2, and the "seed of David" II Sam &:12~14; Isa 11:1,10;Rom.1:3;II Tim2:8. "Seed" in all these scriptures means "descendant" This points to the fact that the Messiah was prophesied to arise from the human race.

Nothing in the OT suggests that the promised seed was already in existence in another form. For Paul to have taught that the Messiah was personally present with Israel would have been a staggering contradiction of the words of the prophets. The second major objection to this theory is the fact that God used angels to minister to Israel.

The NT declares in three places that the law was given by angels, Acts7:38,53, Gal 3:9 & Heb2:2. In each of these passages the angelic giving of the Law forms an important part of the debate.Study each in its context with care and you will see that the common theme is the superiority of the Gospel to the Law. The Law was given only by angels but the Gospel was brought by the Son of God and is therefore vastly superior to it. Christ could not have had any part, therefore, either in giving the Law to Israel, or in ministering to the Israelites in the wilderness. Since the Messiah could not have been present personally in the wilderness, Paul's statement must mean that the Rock represented or typified Christ in some way. It is not uncommon for Scripture to use the verb "to be" in a representational sense. Jesus said "I am the Door" Jn 10:7, "I am the true Vine" Jn 15:1. In the instution of the Lord's supper he said that the bread "is my body" and the cup "is my blood" I Cor11:24,25, clearly meant that they symbolized his broken body and shed blood.


This interpretation is strengthened by a close study of the whole passage from verse 1 to verse 11 of 1 Corinthians 10. Twice Paul states that the experiences of Israel were examples for us (vv.6,11). the Greek word used here actually means "types".. The passing of the Israelites through the cloud and through the Red Sea was a type of Christian baptism. They were baptized "into Moses" (v. 2, NASB) as we are baptized "into Christ" (Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27). Verses 3 and 4 continue the typological parallel by referring to the incidents of the giving of the manna in Exodus 16, and the incidents at Rephidim and Kadesh when God miraculously supplied water out of a rock (Ex. 17:1-7; Num. 20: 1-13). The "spiritual" food mentioned in verse 3 is clearly the manna miraculously given daily to Israel over a period of 40 years. The giving of the manna is recorded in Exodus 16 and forms the background to John 6.

There are two incidents involving a rock recorded during the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites and it is important to notice the difference between them. The first incident occurred just after the miraculous giving of the manna. Israel arrived at Rephidim (Ex. 17:1) and immediately began to complain about lack of water, whereupon God commanded Moses to strike the rock. Water gushed out and the people's thirst was satisfied. The striking of the rock typifies the fact that Christ our Rock was smitten for us. The miraculous giving of the water typifies the giving of the Holy Spirit, the water of Life (John 7:37-39).

The second incident occurred toward the end of the wandering in the wilderness. Again, Israel complained for lack of water and again God provided for their needs. This time, however, he clearly instructed Moses to speak to the rock, but in his anger Moses disobeyed and struck the rock twice (Num. 20: 1-12). In smiting the rock instead of speaking to it Moses was guilty of destroying the type. The rock in Exodus 17 typified Christ in the flesh, smitten to give to us the water of life while the rock in Numbers 20 typified Christ our High Priest, not to be smitten twice (cp. Heb. 6:6), but only to be spoken to to supply the water of life.

The first incident occurred at the beginning of the wanderings, the second at the end; both incidents thus form a parable of Christ's continuous presence with his people during their "wilderness wanderings." The two incidents we have looked at took place in entirely different locations and there is a different Hebrew word for "rock" used in each place. In Exodus 17 the word is tsur and in Numbers 20 it is sela.

So what does Paul mean when he states that "they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them"? Obviously, a literal rock did not accompany Israel through the wilderness and many feel that this is proof that Christ himself went with them. The answer is that Paul is using the language of Christian experience and reading it back into the Old Testament type. This is shown clearly by his reference to baptism in verses 1 and 2. The Israelites were not literally "baptized". In fact, we are told that the water did not come near them; they walked dryshod through the Red Sea. But their experience is a close enough parallel for Paul to say they were baptized "into Moses". Likewise the rock did not literally follow them. It was simply a type of Christ accompanying us through life.

Well, this is about the best I can do to help you understand this paticular verse. John Young first showed it to me about 5 years ago... Shuts down Trinitarians on this verse topic in a single post!!

Perhaps someone could add to it... from studies and data they have collected???
Paul

Worship

If we may let our Lord and King have the final word. Jesus plainly states, "the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be his worshipers. God is spirit; and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). Who does Jesus declare are the "true worshipers"? He insists, "the true worshipers shall worship the Father…" If we would be amongst the true worshipers we must be with Jesus worshiping this Father. Evidently, those who worship "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, three persons in one God," Are not said by Jesus to be the true worshippers. Those who worship the Father as the "only true God" are. The worshipper of the One God, the Father, as Jesus’ own affirmation that he is the true worshipper.

This is the biblical pattern throughout. The so-called Lord's prayer, the model prayer, teaches us to "pray in this way: our Father who art in heaven…"(Matt. 6:9). This pattern of prayer and worship prescribed by our Lord Jesus is followed and sanctioned by every example given in Scripture. See the following:

“Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus; that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom.15:5-6).

" For this reason I bow my knees before the Father," (Eph 3:14)

" giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, " (Eph 5:20)

" We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, " ( Col 1:3 )

"giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light." (Col 1:12)

"And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus,giving thanks to God the Father "through" him." (Col 3:17)

This list is by no means exhaustive. But it is sufficient to show that we are, with our Lord Jesus,to worship and pray to the Father. This is the usual pattern of prayer and worship in the New Testament. They prayed to the one God through the name or authority of Jesus Christ. They evidently were not aware that the Holy Spirit was God (a third person), for wherein all the pages of the Bible to the Saints pray to the Holy Spirit? And where in all the pages of Scripture do the worshipers of God sing to the Holy Spirit as is the general custom within Christendom today? What about those passages where the Lord Jesus is worship? Or where the Lord Jesus is pray to? Surely this is proof positive that Jesus is God because only God is to be worshiped? (The words of Jesus are often used to substantiate this belief: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him only" (Matt. 4:10), as though Jesus meant: "I am the Lord your God, worship only me." But this meaning is totally incongruous and has no parallel in the New Testament record.) Then,of course, there is God the Father's own directive to the Angels concerning Jesus the son of God: "and let all the Angels of God worship him" (Heb. 1:6). The fact that Jesus is worship by Thomas as he falls at his feet and honors him with the confession, "My Lord and my God!" Too many presents the final proof that Jesus is God (John 20:28).

To all of this there is a very simple solution. Once again it comes back to a failure to understand biblical culture; a failure to read the Bible through Hebrew eyes. In the Old Testament in main Hebrew word for worship is shachah. It occurs about 170 times but the surprising thing is that only about half of this number relate to the worship of God as God. This fact is hidden in our English translations. The translators prefer to say "bow down to" or "revere" when shachah refers to homage paid to noble persons, whether Angels or men, but say "worship" when God is the object. This is a false distinction the original texts does not support. Here are just a view examples:

Lot "worshiped" the two strangers who looked like normal travelers as they entered Sodom (Gen. 19:1).

Abraham "worshipped" the Gentile leaders of the land where he lived (Gen. 23:7).

Jacob "worshipped" his older brother Esau (Gen. 33:3).

Joseph's brothers "worshipped" him (Gen. 43:26).

Ruth "worshipped" Boaz (Ruth 2:10).

David "worshipped" Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:41).

David "worshipped" King Saul (1 Sam. 24:8).

Mephibosheth fell on his face and "worshipped" David (2 Sam. 9:6).

Abigail "worshipped" David the outlaw (1 Sam 25:23, 41).

The whole congregation "worshipped" the King (1 Chron. 9:20).

These are just a few instances of the many that could be cited to show the reluctance of the translators to consistently translate shachah as "worship" when worship of important persons was obviously a common feature of Hebrew culture. In Scripture worship is offered to God and to men. There is no special word and the Old Testament for "worship" reserved exclusively for God. But there is a reluctance to translate this one-word consistently. If you looked up your English translations of the above verses you will find that you do not use the "w" word. They prefer to say "bowed down" or "revered" or "pay homage to" instead of "worshiped." This inconsistency of translation has created the false impression that only God can be worshiped.

So then, how do we explain this in light of the clear command that we are to worship God the Father alone as both the first commandment and Jesus himself command? Is this a contradiction after all? No way. The answer is that whenever men "worshiped" other men it was a relative worship. In most of the examples above it is clear that the ones worshiped were God's representatives. Once again we are back to the principle of Jewish agency. The Israelites had no difficulty in offering this proportional or relative worship to the ones who came in Gods Name, with God's message. It is obvious that the first commandment "You must not bow yourself down [shachah] to them nor serve them" is not a prohibition against a relative worship of those worthy of it. If this was the case then obviously all these Old Testament godly men and women sinned greatly. God even promises a coming day when He will make our enemies "to come and worship at your feet, and to know that I have loved you" (Rev. 3:9). Such worship of the Saints at God's degree is clearly a relative and proportional worship. It is perfectly legitimate to give honor to whom honor is due. This is why many Jews felt no impropriety in "worshiping" Jesus in the Gospels because they recognized him as a prophet of God, or the Messiah sent from God. But it is preposterous to think these good people believe Jesus was Jehovah God just because they worshiped him. When they saw and heard the mighty works of Jesus they glorified God through him (Matt. 9:8; 11:27; 28:18; Luke 7:16; 9:11; 10:22). This fits the whole will of the New Testament teaching that it is God the Father who is to receive glory through His son Jesus (Eph. 1:3, 6, 12; 1 Pet. 1:3; Heb. 13:15, etc.). Christ’s exaltation is the means to a higher end. For through him all worship is ultimately directed to God and Father.

To worship him (Jesus) as Lord Messiah is thus a divinely pleasing but subordinate or relative worship. It is instructive to read that in the coming Kingdom the Lord Jesus will orchestrate the worship of his brethren in the ultimate praise of his Father. He will "proclaim" the Name of God to his "brothers" and he will "in the mist of the congregation singing your praise" (Heb. 2:12). There, in that glorious Kingdom, Jesus Christ will continue to be a joyful worshiper of God his Father. Thus, the one God and Father he is alone worshiped absolutely. All other divinely
appointed worship is homage to persons who are not God himself. Jesus is among those worthy of such worship for he is worshiped as the one Messiah, God's supreme son and agent.

Jesus knew the prophecy: "Worship the Lord with reverence, and… do homage to the Son" (Ps.2: 11-12). Jesus knew God his Father had decreed "Let all the Angels of God worship him"(Psalms 97:7). Jesus knew that the angelic messengers of Jehovah had in the past received relative worship from God-pleasing men and women. Jesus knew that of the one true God could be addressed as though they were God. And Jesus knew he was the Son and ultimately agent of God, so how much greater his destiny! As the "only begotten Son" whom the father had "sealed" and commissioned he knew that whoever honored him honored the Father also. This was his Father's decree (Psalms 2:11-12; 97:7).


Psalms 2:11-12 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take
refuge in him.

Psalms 97:7 All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods!

2Co 4:4 …the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Now back to Thomas’ worship of the risen Jesus as "My Lord and my God"

This is why Jesus did not rebuke Thomas when he fell at his feet and worshiped the risen Lord. Not because Jesus knew himself to be Jehovah God and this fact had finally dawned on Thomas. Rather, it was homage offered to Jesus as God's ordained Messiah. Jesus can be worshiped as the Lord Messiah. In fact, this is clearly what the writer John means by reporting this incident, for the very next two verses say that these things "have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). To say that Thomas was worshiping Jesus as Almighty God is to directly contradict John's own stated purpose for writing his whole Gospel. When Thomas fell at Jesus’ feet and worshiped him, Thomas was at last recognizing that the resurrected Jesus was the long promised Lord Messiah. Thomas’ language it was steeped in Old Testament concepts.

Remember when David stepped out of the cave and call to King Saul, "My Lord and my King" (1 Sam. 24:9)? In the same way King Messiah is to be worshiped and adored by his bride: "Then the King will desire your beauty; because he is your Lord, bow down to him" (Ps.45:11). Thomas’ language is in the same Hebrew tradition. He means the same thing. Thomas is addressing the rightful king of Israel, the now risen and victorious Lord. We just have to think like first century Jews steeped in their Old Testament prophets! "A Savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord" (Luke 2:11). The wise men believe the infant Jesus was the King of Israel they brought their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh to worship him: "Where is the one who has been born King of the Jews? We saw his star in the East and have come to worship him… They bowed down and worshiped him" (Matt. 2:2, 11). "God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36). Worship is offered to Jesus because he is the Messiah, the Son of God, the King of Israel. We have already seen that in Jewish understanding, the word "God" can refer to one who represents the Almighty God (Exodus 7:1, etc.). The King of Israel could be called "god" because he represented God to the people.

Thomas knew the Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah was to be called "god" for he was to represent Jehovah perfectly. Thomas’ worship was that of a Jew deeply grounded in the Old Testament faith that God is one Jehovah and that the Messiah is also called “god” in a relative and royal rather than an absolute sense. Psalm 45:7 says of the Messiah, "You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy above your fellows."

Evidently this anointed one has a God above him: Jehovah is his God. Come to think of it, isn't this what Jesus himself said just a few verses before he received Thomas’ worship? "Stop clinging to me: for I have not yet ascended to the father; but go to my brethren, and say to them, ‘I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God’" (John 20:17).

Exalted in heaven right now Jesus still calls the Lord God Almighty "my God" and "my Father" (Rev. 3:2, 5, 12). The Lord God is still called "his God and Father" (Rev. 1:6). In the Revelation there is always "our God" and "His Christ" (Rev. 12:10; 20:6) or "the Lord God, the Almighty, and the lamb" (Rev. 6:16; 21:22; 21:1, 3). Yes, in good Hebrew understanding, Thomas’ worship preserves this Biblical distinction:

Lord and Messiah = Lord and king= Lord and god

Jesus’ creed is that his Father is "the only true God" and that he himself is the Messiah whom that one God has commissioned. He defines this knowledge as "eternal life." In all matters because on that great and unique day in the age to come, "Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus the Messiah is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:10-11). The worship we give to our glorious Lord Jesus Christ is worship that is ultimately given to his God and our God, to his Father and our Father.



Paul

I can not even begin to say how many times the Hebrew word Elohim has been used against me in the Trinitarian debate.... Yes, I'm aware of your understanding and agreement... but this post is tight and on spot with such limited space!!!

Elohim has been a very confusing word for many people. The word elohim is used various ways in Scripture. It is not only used to describe the Almighty, but also individual pagan gods and even mighty human beings. Elohim may be translated as God, god, angels, judges, or even a human being who stands as God's representative or agent. For example, the sons of Heth address Abraham as "a mighty prince," the word for "mighty" being elohim (Genesis 23:6). Some translations have Abraham here being called "Prince of God." Take another instance. In Exodus 4, the Lord tells Moses that he "shall be as God" (elohim) to his brother Aaron. Moses will have God's words in his mouth, and will stand as God's representative before Aaron. Here is a case where an individual human is called elohim. Again in Exodus 7:1, the Lord says to Moses, "See, I make you God [elohim] to Pharaoh." No one dares to suggest that there is a plurality of persons within Moses because he is called elohim, that is, God's representative. The pagan god Dagon is also called elohim in the Hebrew Bible. The Philistines lamented that the God of Israel was harshly treating "Dagon our God [elohim]" (1 Sam. 5:7). Dagon was a single pagan deity. The same holds true for the single pagan god called Chemosh: “Do you not possess what Chemosh your god [elohim] gives you to possess?" (Jud. 11:24). The same for the single deity called Baal.

The Hebrew language has many examples of words which are plural but whose meaning is singular. In Genesis 23, Abraham's wife Sarah dies. The Hebrew text says, "the lives [plural] of Sarah were 127 years" (v. 1). Even the plural verb that accompanies the pronoun does not mean Sarah lived multiple lives. The Hebrews never taught reincarnation or plurality of personhood. Another example of this kind of anomaly in the Hebrew language is found in Genesis 43. After Joseph wept to see his brothers, we read that Joseph "washed his faces" (plural). This is another instance where in the Hebrew language the plural noun functions as a singular noun with a singular meaning, unless, of course, Joseph was a multi-faced human being! The same occurs in Genesis 16:8 where Hagar flees from "the faces" (plural) of her mistress Sarah. These are "anomalies" of the Hebrew language that are clearly understood by Hebrew scholars who rightly translate to a singular form in English.

The better explanation is that the Hebrews used a form of speech called "the plural of majesty." Put simply this means that someone whose position was warrant of dignity was spoken in this way as giving a sign of honor. The plural acted as a means of intensification: Elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty.

Whenever the word elohim refers to the God of Israel the Septuagint uses the singular and not the plural. From Genesis 1:1 consistently right through, this holds true. The Hebrews who translated their own scriptures into Greek simply had no idea that their God could be more than one individual, or a multiple personal Being! This is true too when we come to the New Testament. The New Testament nowhere hints at a plurality in the meaning of elohim when it reproduces references to the One God as ho theos, the One God.

/>
Paul

Given that we are all mostly anti-trinitarians here... I thought I would share some of... my best post from the different forums that I have posted... to spank the traditions of men! Feel free to use the data as your own!

Hebrew understanding of the Spirit.

One of the biggest problem for those holding that Holy Spirit is the third member of the Godhead is the Old Testament itself. The Old Testament is the foundation of our Bibles, the first 75% of the book. And an incontrovertible fact is that the Hebrew Bible does not support the idea that the Spirit of God is a distinct member of the Godhead at all. Even committed Trinitarians like George Ladd admit in his book, A Theology of the New Testament “The ruach Yahweh (Spirit of the Lord) in the Old Testament is not a separate, distinct entity; it is God's power-the personal activity in God's will achieving a moral and religious objective. God's ruach is the source of all that is alive, of all physical life. The Spirit of God is the active principle that proceeds from God and gives life to the physical world (Genesis 2:7). It is also the source of religious concerns, raising up charismatic leaders, whether judges, prophets, or kings. The ruach Yahweh (Spirit of God) is a term for the historic creative action of the one God which, though it defies logical analysis, is always God's action.

Dunn, in his book Christology in the Making adds, “The continuity of thought between Hebraic and Christian understanding of the Spirit is generally recognized…There can be little doubt that from the earliest stages of pre-Christian Judaism "spirit” (ruach) denoted power - the awful, mysterious force of the wind (ruach), of the breath (ruach) of life, of ecstatic inspiration (induced by divine ruach)… in particular, "Spirit of God" denotes effective divine power… In other words, on this understanding, Spirit of God is in no sense distinct from God, but is simply the power of God, God himself acting powerfully in nature and upon men.”

It makes a big difference to our Western minds at least - right at the start of the Bible, whether we translate "this Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters or "a wind [breath] from God swept over the face of the waters" (Gen 1:2). The first possibility conveys to our modern minds the impression that the Spirit is an individual in “his” own right. Many Trinitarians read it that way. The second possibility suggest that God's energetic and creative presence was active.

Psalms 139 expresses this Hebrew parallelism beautifully: "where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?" (v.7). Thus, the Spirit of God is a synonym for God's personal presence with us. N.H. Snaith in his book The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament explains, “The ruach-adonai [Spirit of the Lord] is the manifestation in human experience of the life-giving, energy-creating power of God. And, The Spirit of the Lord is the medium through which God exerts his controlling power."

A brief look at a few more Old Testament verses will show this Hebrew parallelism, where the Spirit of God (Heb. ruach) can mean the breath, life, Spirit, presence, and most particularly - a word of Yahweh: (Job 26:4) (Job 27:3-4) (Job 32-8) (2Sam.23:2) (Prov.1:23) and, Isa 40:7 The grass withers, the flower fades when the breath of the LORD blows on it; surely the people are grass. 8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

It is vital not to rush over this. Many other Old Testament examples could be cited to show that spirit and breath are interchangeable. The fact that the ‘spirit’ and ‘breath’ are translations of the same Hebrew and Greek words points to the root meaning of spirit as God's creative power, the energy behind his utterance.

Another world-renowned known Anglican, J.I. Packer in his book Keep in Step with the Spirit (also a committed believer in the Trinity) acknowledges that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit's “distinct personhood is not expressed by the Old Testament writers.” So then, by what reason then do these learned commentators come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead? They admit that they stepped outside the boundaries of the Old Testament. They would have us believe that it is a doctrine newly revealed only in the New Testament. The New Testament does not alter the Hebrew concept of “spirit” as we will now see. The distinguished Bible scholar N. H. Snaith states that: “The New Testament pneuma (spirit) is used in all the ways in which the Hebrew ruach ( breath, wind, spirit) is used. It is used of the wind (John 3:8), of human breath, both ordinarily (2 Thessalonians 2:8) and of the breath which means life (Rev. 11:11). It is used of the vital principle in man (Luke 8:55, etc.), as opposed to ‘flesh.’”

Luke writes concerning the Ministry of John the Baptist that: "It is he who will go as a forerunner before him and the Spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for Lord" (Luke 1:17). The Virgin Mary is told that "[the] Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadowed you" (Luke 1:35). And concerning the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit the risen Jesus predicts that the disciples are to wait in Jerusalem where they "shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (Acts 1:18). In these three Lukan passages we observe the interplay of the concepts of "power" and "spirit" precisely as found in the Old Testament.

This Hebrew concept is further seen in the famous passage where the apostle Paul burst out in praise to God. He does this by quoting from Elijah 40:13: “Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and unfathomable His ways! [Now his Old Testament quotation] For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became his counselor?” (Rom.11:33-34)

But when we compare his source in Isaiah we note that Paul has changed it slightly. Isaiah actually wrote, "Who has directed the spirit of the Lord, or as His counselor has informed him?"

What we see here is a typical Hebrew understanding: To have the mind of the Lord is to be directed by the Spirit. There are many New Testament examples of this interplay between “mind” and “spirit.” In Philippians 2, Paul wants the Christian to be "of the same mind," which is to be "united in spirit, intent on one purpose"(v.2). On a personal level, how may I know that I am filled with the Holy Spirit? The answer is when I have the mind of God, the attitude that He has, the values that his word and espouses and above all the truth which it teaches!
Another passage of interest in this vein is 1 Corinthians 2:10-12.

1Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who [Greek neuter “which”] is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.

Here "the spirit of the man which is in him" is paralleled with "the Spirit of God" which is from God. It is quite clear that a person's spirit is not a separate person from himself, but is rather
his/her own mind and inner thoughts. Just so, "the Spirit of God" refers to God's inner and personal centre, His mind and word, even His self-consciousness.

Spirit = Power = Mind = Presence = Breath = Wind = Word

It is quite evident that in the apostle's mind to be filled with the spirit is precisely the same thing as letting the word (teaching, message) of Christ direct our lives. This is simply to say that in John chapters 14 to 16, "the Spirit" that will come to help the apostles will be the post-resurrection revelation of Christ's message directed by the risen Christ to the world through the apostles.

The acid test as to whether I have "Jesus in my heart" is whether I have his words informing and empowering my life. If his Gospel-word is the motivating principle in my life, then I have the Spirit of God dwelling in me. Indeed, I have the Father and the Son. Hence Paul’s vigorous warning that if anyone fails to demonstrate the presence of the words of Christ in his life, he is devoid of understanding (1 Tim 6:3).

I am firmly convinced that the Scriptures are harmonious concerning the Spirit of God as being a power and word and mind of God in action. The Trinitarian assertion that the Holy Spirit is God himself is surely impossible to maintain when we note that nowhere in the Scripture is the Holy Spirit prayed to or worshiped.

At the end of the last book of the Bible when the redeemed saints are in the presence of God and of Jesus Christ in glory it is not a strange omission that the third member of the Godhead has no seat of authority on the final throne?

When reading in Exodus awhile back, I came upon the phrase "the finger of God." I was aware that the same phrase was used in the book of Luke regarding the method Jesus uses to cast out demons. I decided to do a phrase study using e-Sword. The following information is from my latest research.

Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.


Luk 11:14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons," 16 while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven…
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

I had also come upon Scriptures that says Jesus cast out demons by the Spirit of God. This would strongly lead to the conclusion that the finger of God is the Spirit of God the Father.


Mat 12:22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons."
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


When you connect Luke 11:20 with Matthew 12:28 then you get the understanding of what the finger of God is.
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


Now the same is true with the Holy Spirit. We also have in the Bible two parallel teachings of the same subject one Matthew and one in Luke.

Luk 12:11 And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

Mat 10:19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.


Likewise, when you connect to Matthew 10:20 with Luke 12:12 you get an understanding of what the Holy Spirit is. It is the Spirit of the Father. There is no separate being called the Holy Spirit. Again that's why the Holy Spirit is never worshiped, prayed to, or has a seat on a throne.


Paul

Think of it this way, If we only had the writings of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus we would only know about John the Baptist, Jesus the Christ, and James the brother, but we would not know that, for example, Peter or Paul ever existed. And if we calculated comparative importance by amount of space, the ranking would be, first, James with 27 lines of Greek in the Jewish Antiquities 20.199-203, then John with 24 lines in 18.116-19, and finally Jesus with 13 lines in 18.63-64. James, in other words, gets twice the space of his brother Jesus.

Around the end of the first century C.E., Luke records in the second volume, Acts, that the Roman appointed ruler of Palestine Herod Agrippa I, executed "James, the brother of John" (Acts 12:2). Both James and John had been identified as "sons of Zebedee" in his gospel (Luke 5:10). Agrippa also imprisoned Peter at that time in 41 C.E., and when he escaped, Peter said, and Acts 12:17, to "tell this to James," clearly not the just-executed James but another with the same name. Luke never identifies this second James any further but his authority is indicated as recipient of that message and I conclude that he is the same James who later acts the most authoritatively in Acts 15:13 and 21:18. Furthermore, the earliest gospel, Mark, identifies a James in the first place among the four brothers of Jesus (Mark 6:3), and Matthew 13:55 followed Mark in that listing, but Luke omitted it entirely.

In summary, then you would know from Luke that there was a second and very important James but you would never know from either of Luke's volumes that James was in fact the brother of Jesus.

On the other hand, none of Paul's letters in the New Testament dating to the 40s and 50s ever mentioned James, son of Zebedee, brother of John.

Note, too! James had lived in Jerusalem for at least 30 years without incurring anti-Christian persecution and his execution toppled a high priests. James was clearly important not just to the Christian Jews but also to non-Christian Jews and presumably to Pharisaic Jews in Jerusalem, who called for the removel of the high priests Ananite for the crime of executing James “the Just”.


James made it clear to Paul in Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,

Just what point was James trying to make to Paul?

The most significant point about James, however, is not his authority within early Christianity. Nor is it is martyrdom, which like his brothers, was due to his opposition of the high priest. The most significant point about James is his opposition to Paul. This is already evident and Paul's letters to Galatians. It is, on the one hand, programmatically absent from Luke's Acts and represents one of those basic locations where one should not collate and combined Paul and Luke, not collapse the distinct layers into one single layer, but separate and distinguish the earlier Paul over Luke, not collapse these distinct layers into one single layer, but separate and distinguish earlier Paul over the later Luke. It is, on the other hand, fictionally expanded and fantastically heightened in a still later layer, the second century source within the Christian novel known as the Clementine Recongnitions. This raises a very important question for excavating Jesus textually. What happens if you look at Jesus through his brother James rather than, or at least as well as, through his apostle Paul?

Paul and Luke. there was, Luke and Paul agree, a crucially important debate in Jerusalem around the year 50 C.E. on whether male pagan converts to Christianity would have to be circumcised before they could be excepted into full and equal membership alongside male Jewish converts who were, of course, already circumcised. They also agreed that the source of the affirmation, or restrictive, position (yes to male pagan circumcision) came from "certain individuals," as Luke puts it an Act 15:1, or from "false believers," as Paul puts it in Galatians 2:4. That difference is a good indication come by the way, of their divergent narrative tones: for Luke, all is irenic consensus; for Paul, all is polemical tension. They further agreed that the final decision was in the negative (no to male pagan circumcision). Finally, they agree that James was quite important in the entire proceedings. Luke records that Peter, Barnabas, and Paul spoke first, and James last. But it is James who concludes that "I have reach the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God" by demanding that their males be circumcised (Acts 15:19). Paul again concurs "That when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised" (Galatians 2:9). But granted those general and important agreements, everything else is specific and is in equally important disagreement.

Acts 15 vs. Galatians 2. In the later Act 15, Luke speaks of one single debate, at one time in Jerusalem, with one result, complete harmony on both that first original subject (no to circumcision traditions for pagan male converts). In the earlier Galatians 2, Paul, on the other hand, speaks of two debates come at two times in Jerusalem (2:1-10) and Antioch (2:11-16), and with harmonious consensus on the first subject but severe discord on the second one.

On the former subject, there was, as just mentioned, agreement by all (save, presumably, Luke's "certain individuals" and Paul's "false believers"?). That position would have been accepted to somebody like James because one strand of Jewish tradition held that God would bring the Gentiles into full committee with Jews at that ideal utopian or eschato-logical moment in the future when God finally made the earth divinely just. Gentiles would then be converted not to Judaism, with male circumcision, for example, but to the God of the entire world. Jews and Gentiles would then feast together with God on a pure, just, peaceful, and fruitful earth. It was a vision of God's eventual justification and pacification of a violent earth not by the great final war at Mount Megiddo (Armageddon) in which evildoers would be finally slaughtered but by the great final banquet on Mount Zion in which the evildoers would be finally converted. Recall, for instant, the rhapsodic images of Micah 4:1-4 and Isaiah 2:2-4 on cosmic peace:

Isa 25:6 On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. 8 He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken.

Against that background and within precisely that irenic tradition of eschatological apocalypticism, James and all the others (save for some dissident holdouts?) agree that circumcision was not mandatory for male pagan converts to Christian Judaism.

Galatians 2: 11-17. It was, however, on that second subject that Luke and Paul disagree both profoundly and directly. Paul sets this second debate not at Jerusalem but at later Antioch. What was at stake was no more and no less than the present and future unity of the new community. Would there be two separate, unequal, and maybe even inimical wings to that new Christian community, a Christian Jewish one observing kosher regulations and a Christian pagan one not doing so? And that question was especially acute because a united community of Jews and Gentiles eating together would have to go one way or the other. Either altogether would observe kosher, with Christian pagans conceding to Christian Jews, or altogether would avoid kosher, with Christian Jews conceding to Christian pagans. The whole problem, of course, arose only where such joint assemblies were already taking place or might eventually do so.

That second subject was not about circumcision. That was already conceded by James at Jerusalem and has not been retracted by James at Antioch. And neither was it about Christian pagans observing kosher all by themselves in, say, Ephesus, Corinth, or Rome. It was precisely and accurately about and only about common meals when Jewish and pagan converts ate together in religious assembly. Here is Paul's account of the debate, dispute, or row, at Antioch in Galatians 2:11-16:

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" 15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Centuries of Christian commentary have presume that Paul was obviously right in that debate. What if he was “possibly” not?

I pulled this from a book I have read... Excavating Jesus Beneath the Stones, Behind the Text The Key Discoveries for Understanding Jesus in His World By John Crossan and Jonathan Reed

Paul


First, non-circumcision for male pagan converts was worth an absolute non-negotiable position and James had agreed to that position at Jerusalem. Without that agreement Christian paganism would have died at birth if not conception. Second, and only as second, could a further question arise, namely, in joint (Eucharistic?) meals between Christian Jews and Christian pagans, will unity be maintained by common kosher or common nonkosher custom? Third, read again Paul's accusation against Peter. We interpret that says to mean that Peter, a Christian Jew, had been observing the common nonkosher solution when eating with Christian pagans. And so, apparently, were (several, many, all?) Other Christian Jews at Antioch. But now that they have agreed to James demand for the common kosher solution. Such a change from nonkosher for all to kosher for all, Paul twice condemns as hypocrisy. The assembly’s response to Paul is not given but, no doubt, they would have said that, no Paul, it is not hypocrisy but simply courtesy. Fourth, this is a pragmatic question against which Paul mounts an in this case irrelevant argument. Had Peter and the others ever believed that kosher was still mandatory for their salvation, they could not so easily omitted it.

The question at Antioch was not fundamentally different from modern, believing Christians observing all Jewish customs while eating in a Jewish home or praying in a Jewish temple. It would not be a question of communal hypocrisy but of ecumenical courtesy now, and it would also have been a question of communal unity then. Finally, to this pragmatic question Paul introduces "works of the law" three times and opposes to them "faith in Christ" three times. Paul's antithesis of base and works might be theologically justifiable in the abstract but for that pragmatic question at Antioch it was irrelevant in the concrete. Does anyone believe that James, Peter, Barnabas, and all the others (save Paul) had opted for justification by "works of the Law" rather than "faith in Christ"? Paul's position (at least as recorded to the Galatians) was akin to machine gunning butterflies. James, Peter, Barnabas, and all the others who agree with him, were right at Antioch. Paul was wrong at Antioch.

Romans 15 and Acts 21. There is one final New Testament indication of James authority in Jerusalem and here, once again, Paul and Luke differ profoundly but now indirectly. Before, but especially after, the Jerusalem decision on circumcision, the groups unity was an obvious and fundamental problem. And Paul was very aware of it. That was why he agree enthusiastically and followed up conscientiously on the common decision to take up a collection from Christian pagans for those Christian Jews known as "the poor" in Jerusalem (a common-life community like at Qumran?). After James and the Jerusalem "pillars" excepted the non-circumcision of male pagan converts, "they asked," he said in Galatians 2:10, "only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do." But, while Paul discussed that collection repeatedly in his letters, Luke's Acts never mentions it all. There are, however, sections and that book that makes sense only if Luke (or at least his sources) new about it and presumed its existence and operation.

Paul discusses his plans for delivering the collection to Jerusalem in Romans 15:25-27, 30-31 and he acknowledges two dangers that may well destroyed its function as a unifying process between Christian Jews and Christian pagans:

At present, however, you want to Jerusalem and Ministry to the Saints; for Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to share the resources with the poor among the Saints at Jerusalem. They were pleased to do this, and indeed they owed it to them; for if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material things… I appealed to you, brothers and sisters, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the spirit, to join me in earnest prayer to God on my behalf, that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea, and that my ministry to Jerusalem may be acceptable to the Saints.

The external danger was opposition from non-Christian Jews and the internal danger was rejection by the Christian Jews. Both happened. And knowing they both might happen, Paul still accompanied the collection instead of sending it with community representatives. For Paul, the unity of community’s twin wings was important enough to except the task of martyrdom. But in Acts 21:17-25, although he never mentions any collection, Luke tells, in effect, how both of Paul the fears were realized at Jerusalem. James and the Christian Jewish community place a condition on the collection’s acceptance and, when Paul follow that, he was attacked by non-Christians use in the Temple. Here is their condition:

When we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us warmly. The next they all went with us to visit James; and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his Ministry. When they heard it, they praise God. Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers were among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law. They had been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcised their childrenor observe the customs. What will be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. So do what we tell you. We have four man who were under a vow. Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law. But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and blood and from what is strangled and from fortification.”

That text is cited as one further indication of James authority in Jerusalem and of the continuing tension, carefully muted by Luke in Acts 21 as earlier in Acts 15, between James and Paul. The latter was now in a terrible double bind. One alternative was to refuse James’s condition, except the collection’s rejection, and acknowledge Christianity’s split condition. The other was to follow James condition, deliver the collection and thereby emphasize unity, but risk the charge of hypocrisy that he himself had leveled at Peter.

Epistle of James. The “James” of this New Testament epistle is not identified any further but he is almost certainly James the righteous or Just One, James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus. That “Epistle of” could mean anything from personal authorship through developed teachings to fictional attribution. Each position is defensible but none is absolutely provable. For here and now, we emphasized only one point. If you try to imagine the theology of James from a careful examination of the layers imposed of Luke’s Acts, Paul’s Galatians, and Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, you could easily come up with something like the content of the epistle attributed to him.

Paul insisted in Galatians 2:11-17, as just seen, on justification through faith in Christ rather than in the works of the law, an argument simply irreverent to the pragmatic problem at Antioch, which was about maintaining unity rather than obtaining justification. James does not respond, in his 2:14-19, that justification comes from works rather than from faith or from either alone (would any Jew have ever argued those positions?), but he argues that it comes from faith and works together, from faith operating through works, from faith manifested by works, from faith’s inability to be separated from works.

Jam 2:14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no
works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of
daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet
you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if
it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, "You have faith and I
have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my
works." You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.


Faith and works are like twin sides of the one coin, distinguishable but not separable, a dialectic, not a dichotomy. It’s quite possible to argue that James and Paul meant different things by their common terms, faith and works, by their common use of Abraham as a model, and by their common citation of Genesis 16:5 (“Abraham believed God, and it was reckon to him as righteousness”), James 2:23, Galatians 3:6, and Romans 4:3.

James 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.

Gal 3:6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."

It is also quite possible, therefore, to claim that James 2:14-19 is arguing past Paul’s position but, then, so was Paul arguing pass that obtains and everyone else in Galatians 2: 11-17. We have, once again, to imagine how differently we would see the situation Antioch if we imagine that, not Paul, but James (and everyone else) had the better case.

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas( Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!

We have, once again, to imagine how differently we would see the situation Antioch if we imagine that, not Paul, but James (and everyone else) had the better case.



In the realm of textual criticism, there is developing a consensus that the words and deeds attributed to Jesus in our New Testament gospels fall into major layers built successively one upon (that is, over, under, around, and through) another. Think of them as, first, the original layer, coming from Jesus’ own words and deeds in the 20s; next as the traditional layer coming from the tradition’s adoptions, adaptation, and creation of those materials in the 30s, 40s, or even later; and, finally, as the evangelical layer in the gospels we now possess from the 70s through the 90s. Note that, it is not just a question of being later and earlier text, but of being directly dependent upon it. Obviously, all depend text are later, but not all later text are dependent.


The First layer: Layer I contains material that go back to the historical Jesus in the late 20s. It is always, of course, a scholarly reconstruction, a decision through explicit theory, discipline method, and public debate on what in the Jesus tradition goes back to Jesus himself. In this book will concentrate not just on isolated units from that proposed first layer but on the major earliest "chunks" to see if and how they fit with the situation of the late 20s in Antipas’s territories. We emphasize that such layering presumes prior conclusions about the nature and relationship of the Gospels as good news for a community’s life.

The Second layer: Layer II contains material either adopted from that earlier layer or else created by and within the ongoing tradition. It too involves scholarly reconstruction and include such items as the following: Paul, writing in the 50s, identify something explicitly or implicitly as pre-Pauline tradition, that pushes such material back towards the 40s or even 30s. Also, tradition found in two independent sources, such as the Q gospel, also from the 50s, and any other independent gospel, be it inside the New Testament as with Mark, or outside the New Testament as with the Gospel of Thomas or the Didache, points back to earlier layers. Such a double and independent vectors point back to oral or written material from the 30s or 40s and possibly from the historical Jesus himself.

The Third layer: Layer III is crucial because it contains three internal sub-layers or levels. (In an archaeological mound these could be designated as Stratum IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc.) The first level of layer III contains the Q gospel and Mark, spanning the late 50s to the early 70s. The second level, most probably dependent on those two preceding gospels, contains Matthew and Luke, from the 80s. The third level, quite possibly depended on Mark, Matthew, and Luke, is the gospel of John. That canonical process is, by the way, our most secure evidence for layering as a gospel phenomenon.

Let's look at some examples of layering; Paul wrote to the Corinthians from Ephesus in the early 50s C.E. but he says in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received." The most likely source in time for his reception of that tradition would have been Jerusalem in the early 30s when, according to Galatians 1:18, he went "up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him 15 days." That received tradition, therefore, is an example of the second layer on the resurrection of Jesus.

As we have discussed in the middle of the first century there were debates at Jerusalem over whether pagan converts to Christian Judaism needed to be circumcised (no) and at Antioch over whether meals involving Jewish and pagan converts should observe kosher (yes).

But neither in Paul's rather polemical account in Galatians 2 nor in Luke's more irenic version in Acts 15 does anyone cite the historical Jesus on either subject. In Galatians 2:11-14, for example, the combined Antioch community shifted from nonkosher to kosher meals at James insistence. Paul disagreed with everyone else about that move, but he never cited any command or custom of Jesus in his own defense.

In the last quarter of the same century the gospel of Mark offers guidance on this subject.

Mar 7:15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.

But to explain it he adds three contextual comments. It needs to be privately explained to the disciples in 7:17-23. It received the explicit Markan gloss asserting, "(Thus he declared all foods clean)." It immediately precedes a sojourn by Jesus in pagan territory, a sort of proleptic Gentile mission. That is all clear enough, but is it the first or the third layer of gospel tradition, is it from Jesus or from Mark?

Mark 7:17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. And He *said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."

That Markan phrase about Jesus declaring "all foods clean" is omitted at the parallel place in Matthew 15:17-18. That is only to be expected after Jesus said earlier in Matthew 5:7-18, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Mark and Matthew, and other words, pull the historical Jesus in opposite directions on the subject of food purity and impurity, and that could still be done as late as the 70s and 80s.

The obvious conclusion from those three items is that the earliest layer furnished no clear attitude for or against food purity rules from historical Jesus. He, in other words observe exactly the same rules about food purity as did other Galilean peasants of his time and place.

Clementine Recognitions: This is a second century source contained in the first book of a fourth century Christian novel called the Clementine Recognitions. It is another version of that story from Hegesippus but there are two major expansions. First, individual members of the 12 speak about Jesus before the people and Caiaphas in the Temple at Passover and James "ascends" the steps as the climactic last to bear witness. He speaks for a week and persuaded "all the people and the high priest that they should hasten to receive baptism" (1.69.8). Second, a murderous intervention prevents that general conversion. "A certain hostile man" entered the Temple and "began to murder.... Much blood flowed. There was a confused flight, during which the hostile man attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps. As he believed him to be dead, he was not concerned to beat him further" (1.70.1, 6, 8).

That "hostile man" is never identified directly by name but he is definitely Paul himself since "the hostile man had receive authority from Caiaphas the high priest to pursue all who believed in Jesus and travel to Damascus with his letters, so that there are also by using the help of unbelievers he might bring ruin on the faithful" (1.71.4). That, of course, is intended to recall the description of Paul from Luke's Acts 9:1-2.

You'll notice of the second century ‘novel’ text makes three very serious accusations against Paul. One is that, but for his intervention, all the people and all the priests were about to convert to Christianity. Another is that he himself murdered and incised others to murder Christians in the Temple. A final one concerns James. This extremely tendentious, utterly libelous, and completely fictional account knows about James’s "thrown-down" martyrdom but manages both to say and not to say that Paul killed him. The novel does not tell anything about James after that point so one could easily presume that what Paul believed was correct and that James was dead, murdered by Paul. And that is what the ‘novel’ text intended us to think.

Three major themes, then, appear and develop concerning James the Just of Jerusalem, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. They move into the layers both inside and outside the New Testament. And in both places they move from fact to fiction and from history to theology along tracks of ideological acceptance or rejection. The first theme, James authoritative importance, appears in 1 Corinthians 15:7, the Gospel of Thomas 12, and the Gospel of be Hebrews 7. The second theme, James martyrdom, develops from Josephus to Hegesippus. The third theme, the opposition between James and Paul, is absent from Luke's Acts, where everyone agrees with James, but is present in Paul's Galatians, where everyone agrees with James except Paul. Opposition continues, concerning faith and works, Abraham and Genesis, in the Epistle of James, and its climaxes as libelous fiction in the Clementine Recognitions.

Once those textual layers are carefully distinguished and their literary purpose clearly emphasize, we can see them as disputes within Christian Judaism, debates growing ever more bitter between proponents of James and of Paul, but never as Christianity against Judaism. That is exactly the same context in which we see Jesus.


NOW.... Do not attach to me the conclusion of this very exquisite historical documentation!
However, there is a lot of factual historical information here.... as wrong as his conclusions maybe... it still needs to fit our worldview!

Sorry, I know it's a long post that you need to read several times...
Paul

Have to love TO'N. />/>/>/>

I know your name... Fortigurn ... We have worked together in the past...

LOL



Paul

Paul,

Can you stop with the irrelevant questions and just answer me plainly so I don't have to guess what you mean?

Please state for me who or what you think satan is. That should require no more than 5-10 words.

My friend... I already have... Satan is the antithesis of God... Created for this very purpose... by God!

Satan is always where He is needed!

Perhaps I could provide more data by responding to your understanding? So... now to you... "Please state for me who or what you think satan is?"

Irrelevant questions? I'm surprised at your response? Explain what Rom 8:20 is teaching and how it is irrelevant to our discussion? What does "not willingly" mean to you?

/>
Paul

I'm sorry... since I do not belong to any religious group or Church, I do not actually require of my self to be concrete... and many times vague just has to suit me for the moment if not much longer! So I feel your frustration with my post.

Even the other Paul had to deal with this limit placed upon us by God.... 1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, However, I believe he knew so much more than us... and the truth he shared has been lost to both time and men's traditions.

So share your particular Christadelphian view... like many religions I find not all agree when you leave the vague. I have studied Christadelphian views on Satan in the past and have been stuck in the middle of their own views on forum in which they failed to agree beyond the vague themselves.

Paul,

I've read through this last response of yours several times now, and all I can do is scratch my head.

Why did you bother responding to me at all about satan, if you can't be concrete or specific on who or what you believe satan to be? You could've saved a lot of bandwidth by just saying "satan is a bad guy," rather than offering a canned response that focuses on the meaning of "evil" and "God," rather than on the meaning of SATAN. In other words, being as vague as you are, there is nothing to learn.

Using the apostle Paul as proof for being vague is just silly. Had a neophyte asked HIM who satan was, I'm sure he would've had a specific scriptural answer. We can know satan's identity, and I believe scripture and history are the way to find it.

As for Christadelphians disagreeing on the identity of satan when leaving the vague, please cite some examples. I'm not yet a Christadelphian, but as a Protestant, I have seen similar accusations leveled against historicists when discussing that Apocalyptic scheme of interpretation with futurists.

Well... because you asked...

We can know satan's identity, and I believe scripture and history are the way to find it.

Then... show me how scripture and history are the way to find it... Perhaps you can be more... concrete or specific ?


God Speed Bro...

Paul

I'm sorry... since I do not belong to any religious group or Church, I do not actually require of my self to be concrete... and many times vague just has to suit me for the moment if not much longer! So I feel your frustration with my post.

Even the other Paul had to deal with this limit placed upon us by God.... 1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, However, I believe he knew so much more than us... and the truth he shared has been lost to both time and men's traditions.

So share your particular Christadelphian view... like many religions I find not all agree when you leave the vague. I have studied Christadelphian views on Satan in the past and have been stuck in the middle of their own views on forum in which they failed to agree beyond the vague themselves.

Paul,

I've read through this last response of yours several times now, and all I can do is scratch my head.

Why did you bother responding to me at all about satan, if you can't be concrete or specific on who or what you believe satan to be? You could've saved a lot of bandwidth by just saying "satan is a bad guy," rather than offering a canned response that focuses on the meaning of "evil" and "God," rather than on the meaning of SATAN. In other words, being as vague as you are, there is nothing to learn.

Using the apostle Paul as proof for being vague is just silly. Had a neophyte asked HIM who satan was, I'm sure he would've had a specific scriptural answer. We can know satan's identity, and I believe scripture and history are the way to find it.

As for Christadelphians disagreeing on the identity of satan when leaving the vague, please cite some examples. I'm not yet a Christadelphian, but as a Protestant, I have seen similar accusations leveled against historicists when discussing that Apocalyptic scheme of interpretation with futurists.

Well... because you asked...

We can know satan's identity, and I believe scripture and history are the way to find it.

Then... show me how scripture and history are the way to find it... Perhaps you can be more... concrete or specific ?


God Speed Bro...

Paul

Yes, I asked. But all you replied with is "satan is the opposite of God." What if I had asked you who the antichrist is/was/will be? What would your reply have been? "He's the opposite of Christ?" When I asked about your view on satan, I had assumed you had his/its identity all figured out and settled in your head, and had made good use of your knowledge when engaging "orthodox" Christianity's view of satan.

I am not in a position to "teach" anybody concerning satan's identity, but right now I am in full agreement with the position laid out in fortigurn's reply to Anthony Buzzard (found in the satan and demons category).

When I refer to scripture and history, I mean scripture's use of the Hebrew and Greek for satan show something different than reading it as a proper name, and history bares out when and where the belief in a supernatural god of evil and demons originated.

Could you give some examples of how Christadelphians don't agree when departing from the vague concerning satan? Thanks.

Your babbling,

I have no idea nor even care about that you are... in full agreement with the position laid out in fortigurn's reply to Anthony Buzzard

What does Anthony Buzzard have to do with your question to me? Really... His writings are so dry... it takes me hours to read his stuff... what a bore!

I know you Unbound68.... You ask... no 'beg' God almost daily to show you the truth... (Just like me) But ... You will not find it in the hollywood style crap being preached on todays forums

You have much to learn... You see what God wants you to see... not a damn thing more!!! ...

Correct translation of Ecc 3:11... He has made everything fitting in its season; However, He has put obscurity in their heart So that the man may not find out His work, That which the One, Elohim, does from the beginning to the terminus."

We see what God wants us to see... Thus no need to get upset about the others who can't see what you do... We don't have the ability to remove the obscurity in our own hearts!

None of us do! So seek and let the others preach...
Paul