What is the biggest bible contradiction?

"When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, "As you know, the Passover is two days away”and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified."

​

Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him. "But not during the Feast," they said, "or there may be a riot among the people." -Matthew 26:1-5Does this clarify the alleged time discrepancy?

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

I haven't been following this thread. I stumbled upon it and have read that there is some objection to the way John has worded it...? Is that accurate? I've gathered that the thrust of the argument is that John's synopsis on when Jesus and the disciples had "the Last Supper" runs into time problems for getting Jesus on the cross during the Passover... Is that accurate?If so, what verse are we talking about here so that I can juxtapose between the rest of the gospels?Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Agreed. That was supplied after-the-fact by the early church. John's actual words begin at, "In the beginning was the Word." We know that Mark is likely a secondhand account and possibly Luke, but I doubt that John or Matthew were anything but eyewitness accounts. Personally, my favorite gospel is Matthew for a variety of reasons, but most noteworthy is that he captures the essence of Jewishness in his gospel. He ties Yeshua to the Tanakh better than the others. Aside from which, his gospel supplies the most detail. I think what others might be arguing against is a lack of detail in the other scriptures, not that somethings conflict. I don't think there is any ulterior motive to supply that information. Its for clarification as to who wrote it. Some books we still don't know who the author is. We don't know who wrote Job, for instance. But the early church did know who wrote Mark, Luke, John, and Matthew and added that for clarification to the reader. If we were to nitpick on Scripture, we could easily say that since there was no punctuation in the original manuscripts that its somehow heretical that it was supplied later.Brian asks:John did. He even writes it in chapter 21, when he says,"Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” (JOHN)Jesus answered, “If I want him (JOHN) to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple (JOHN) would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."But even if he didn't, it wouldn't much matter. The focus isn't on John, its on Jesus and always should be. These are superfluous elements at best for some clarification and a proper accounting. But it isn't critical information. We're doing just fine not knowing the authorship of Job, fir instance. And furthermore, we know that Paul authored most of the epistles, but that doesn't seem to make anyone believe in his testimony at all. This is a dubious plea by adding irrelevant circumstances to try and bring the gospels into disrepute.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add italics and quotes

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

A "well-known later addition?" I've never heard of that and I try to keep up to date on such conspiracies. I've never heard this postulate before now. Besides, unless you can demonstrate how it was inserted later, it has no credibility, in which case, it should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. How have you deduced this? Can you expound on this argument? I'm not understanding your objection. The gospel of John places its greatest focus on the spiritual attributes of Jesus, to include Him as the Messiah. One only has to read the first chapter to surmise this. Why must he mention the Transfiguration in order to make him a credible witness? Matthew did not mention the Transfiguration but gives an account of it based on the testimony of those present-- namely, John, James, Peter, and Jesus. The motives for not mentioning is spurious and superfluous element to add out of pure conjecture. We don't know why he didn't mention it. It simply doesn't matter. Aside from which, the Gospel of John isn't about John, its about Jesus. Trying to come up with reasons for why he didn't write it, both pro and con, are pointless semantics. He didn't mention it and that's all that needs to known.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Yes. What does this textual analysis consist of that you could definitively assert that of the texts were copied? First of all, I do believe that Mark very well could have been an eyewitness of Jesus, simply for the fact that he was the son of Mary and the cousin of Barnabas. I don't think that he witnessed many of the events, however, I want to make it clear that its possible he knew Jesus. He was a direct disciple of Peter, which is, no doubt, where most of his knowledge concerning Jesus came from. What? Why is clear that he was quoting from the Septuagint? Matthew was indeed a Jew, but I'm not sure why you think his gospel was originally penned in Greek. It is entirely plausible that he spoke Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramaic, based on his employment as a tax collector in Roman occupied Palestine. Nonetheless, all early christians assert that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Eusebius might be able to shed some light on it because he posited that Matthew was written in both Hebrew and Greek, the first copy in Hebrew. Even in the event it was only written in Greek shouldn't present a problem because that was the most widely spoken language in the world at that time. That was the commercial language, similar to what English is today. Its entirely possible that if he only wrote in Greek it was to expand his audience, similar to why Paul, a Jew and a Roman citizen, wrote his epistles in Greek.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

The biggest contradiction that I've seen, and one that I've been unable to reconcile, is the disparity between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9.Acts is reputed to have been written by Luke. And this portion of the book is dedicated to the description of the supernatural event that Paul witnessed while on the road to Damascus. In the ninth chapter, Luke is giving a discourse on what had happened to Paul."the men who journeyed with him (Paul) stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one."The voice is supposed to be Jesus when He asked Paul why he was persecuting Him. But in the twenty second chapter, it is directly quoting Paul, and Paul gives a conflicting account by saying,"And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me."Naturally, the question that logically follows, is, "well, which is it? Did they see the light but didn't hear the voice, or did they hear the voice but not see the light?"I've heard a plethora of piss-poor, ad hoc answers in order to reconcile this, but so far, I haven't heard of one that is worthy. Now, this may seem like a minor detail, but, this presents a problem for those claiming biblical inerrancy.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

For starters, your explanation is ad hoc, nonetheless, it is appreciated. However, your explanation makes sense only in relation to other alleged supernatural events in human history-- none of which can be corroborated. But this really isn't the central issue. The central issue is that there is contradiction in the text itself. Sure, we're all fallible, but for an inerrantist, this presents a problem because God is supposed to preserve the text in His perfection.I believe the Bible comes from God, and I believe what is contained therein, however, perhaps it is not completely inerrant. Perhaps only the message is inerrant but that it can, and does, contain textual errors.I don't know. This one stumps me.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Possible, but I would expect Paul's version to be most accurate because he was the one who lived through it. Maybe it was Luke who mixed up the details after Paul gave his testimony to Luke. I don't know.In either case, its a noticeable discrepancy that I still don't know how to resolve logically.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

I thought about that too, but it still wouldn't explain the discrepancy of what they heard through Luke's testimony, but didn't hear through Paul's.I've also considered it to be an allegory, as in like Jesus saying, "though seeing they do not see, though hearing, they do not hear or understand." But it would still seem out of place without giving a discourse on that. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

The word "Trinity" is found nowhere in the Scriptures, only the allusion of the concept. Belief in the Trinity is one of many aversions that Judaism has with Christianity. They view this as idolatry, seemingly incapable of distinguishing the characteristics of God, and thus, equating them to polytheism.Interestingly enough, the pseudo-spiritual belief, Kabbalah, which is widely venerated by many Jews and no-Jews alike, describes God as having 12 characteristics composing of one God. Many Christian scholars have attempted to point this out, as well as using the Old Testament and New Testament as a reference, but to no avail. The majority of Jews to this day reject Jesus as the Messiah and are still waiting the One who would place Yisrael above all nations.When Jesus stated that He and God are One (Echad, in Hebrew), He was not merely stating that He was in the perfect will of God. Jesus is actually saying that He is God, and God is, Him. Jesus is God incarnate-- something that is considered a heresy to all of the Abrahamic faiths, except Christianity.But what you want to know is how Christians have even come up with the Trinitarian theory. Well, its supported by Scripture.“In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” -John 1:1-5“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the Name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” -Philippians 2:5-11The Apostle Paul explains in this verse that understanding the Trinity is not something that can be fully grasped, humanly speaking. Even so, I give you an illustration in nature to help us understand what God means, by God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. What is water? What is ice? What is vapor? They are forms of liquid, solid, and gas. What is their chemical compound? Do they biochemically differ from each? No. They are all forms of H²O. While its true that they each have separate characteristics, they are still the exact same thing. So truly, though they are separate, they are still, but one.Perhaps, even when the prophet Yeshayahu (Isaiah) declared, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Name of the Lord,” he was not being redundant for effect. He was conveying the principle of the Trinity. The intimation given by Isaiah is implicit, but this isn;t the only verse.I'm currently scouring the Bible for more. Its just a matter of me remembering where they are.Anyway, hope that helps you.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add italics

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

Adonai, just means, the Lord. I don't think its meant descriptively about His nature. Shekina glory is supposed to be the feminine attributes of God. Whether you believe in the Trinity or not, would you agree that it is unreasonable for early Christians to have surmised such a thing based off of the scriptures I presented? I think its reasonable to assume that Jesus not only spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, but Greek and Latin, being that He was able to converse with centurians and procurators of Rome. Aside from which, Greek at that time was the commercial language, much as English is in our time. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that He spoke those languages. Only odd in human relation, which is why I quoted Paul. Of course, we have hundreds of verses of Jesus speaking with the Father. So, from a human perspective, it appears that He is speaking to someone sles. I understand that and it isn't crazy for anyone to make that argument for face value. However, let me dig up more verses to solidify the notion of the Trinity and what it means.We have a few verses from the New Testament. I won't even get into the Pentateuch or the the Tanakh just yet:"As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." -Matthew 3:16-17"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." -Matthew 28:19-20"For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." -1^st Corinthians 8:5-6"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

​

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

​

"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

​

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came”and the Scripture cannot be broken” what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." -John 10:29-38"Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

​

How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves." -John 14:8-11"Then Jesus cried out, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." -John 12:44-46"You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." -Romans 8:9-11"But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

​

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"”which means, "God with us." -Matthew 1:20-23"Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory." -1^st Timothy 3:16"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope”the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." -Titus 2:11-13"To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord." -2^nd Peter 1:1-2"They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them." -Acts 2:3-4Anyway, there are quite a bit more verses speaking about the Trinity than what I posted. Then why did Matthew, Paul, Peter, etc corroborate the same claim that God equals the Father, Son, and Spirit, if this is uniquely a trait of John? No, what it does in that poetic style is make an affirmation, then it is followed up by example. The Psalms are riddled with this poetic style. Being redundant for effect doesn't seem to fit the style, especially for a prophet, not a poet. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos and italics fixedEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

Yes, I know exactly who L. Ray Smith. He is, lets just say, a very controversial figure. His beliefs on the Trinity are not his only sources of contention. He rejects almost all of the central doctrines in Christianity. To add to it, he harbors a spirit of condemnation, as can be reviewed in some of his email replies.This was really long, so I only made a cursory glance. When I'm ready to devote that much time to it, I will peruse it in detail. From what I did see, he seems to have the same misunderstanding as pagans do.In the end, I believe the Trinity is really a non-issue to salvation. If he doesn't believe in it, he is certainly entitled to that. But from what I could tell, he misuses certain verses that one really has to try and interpret differently. I have supplied ample verses that refute his claims, and those that I have supplied are only found in the New Testament. I haven't even started in the OT yet. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

quote:

---

Whether you believe in the Trinity or not, would you agree that it is unreasonable for early Christians to have surmised such a thing based off of the scriptures I presented?

---

Yes, I meant not unreasonable. So let me reword it. Would you agree or disagree that based on the Scriptures, that it is either reasonable or unreasonable for Christians to have come to believe in the Trinitarian concept? Fair enough. Then what about Elohim, which is not singular, but used plurally? Are you limiting God's power? Is incapable of providing for Himself the acceptable sacrifice by becoming both man and God and Spirit simultaneously? See, there are several verses, some of which I already presented, that unambiguously describe the trinity. It does make sense. Especially when you look at in context with scripture. As David said, "there are none that are good, no, not even one." And God telling Abraham that He will provide for Himself the acceptable sacrifice. Or in Revelation where John the Revelator was in despair because no one was worthy to open the scoll. But then, there was One worthy.Now, can we fully understand God with or without the Trinity? No, of course not. So, why should this be any different?All men have been building up Adam, as ben, in Hebrew, means, ”builder.’ In Biblical times, the father’s seed counted towards lineage, not the mother. Even today, tradition maintains that a son or daughter from a marriage typically takes the surname of the father. This is precisely why intermarriage was forbidden in Biblical times. Hypothetically, an invading foreign army with aspirations of establishing a new regime could impregnate Israelite women, and so, lose their heritage by way of attrition. This was not done out of issues of race, as so many have presupposed. Even today, a Jewish person is considered either a ”Cohen’ (Priest), or a ”Levy,’ (Levite), according to who is father is. Many Davidic kings on the throne of Israel had Gentile mothers. Did this make them Gentiles from the Tribe of Judah and the family line of David?“But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting.” -Micah 5:2“For unto us, a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His Name will be called, ”Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’ Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His Kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.” -Isaiah 9:6-7The prophets, Micah and Isaiah, wrote these prophecies some 700 years prior to Jesus’ birth. In these messianic prophecies they describe the Messiah as being eternal. We know that only God is eternal, and so, Messiah cannot be merely a mortal man, but rather, something greater than that. Aside from this glaring point, since when is a man, any man, referred to as ”Mighty God’ and ”Everlasting Father?’ So, what else are we to deduce, other than, that the Messiah is God incarnate?I mean, really, is belief in the Trinity so unfounded to you? I have looked at them. And if you don't address your points, how am I supposed to know what your objections are? Each gospel adds to it its own special element. Matthew presents Jesus as the Mashiac and appeals to the Jewishness of it all. Mark appeals to the Power of Christ, appealing to Him as the "the Lion from the Tribe of Judah." Luke focuses on the humanity of Jesus and how He has borne our afflictions. John presents Jesus as the eternal Lord and Saviour. All of them, divinely inspired, present the same Jesus in all His forms. There is nothing gnostic about it. Read the gnostic gospels and vastly different they are textually than any of the actual gospels. There is no comparison. Well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I have thus far backed up my claims with Scripture. I have many, many more on the subject that I'd be happy to go over with you if you'd like. If you want to undermine the concept of the trinity, you are going to have to do it using the Scriptures, otherwise you are just supplying your personal opinion. The Bible can be broken down into 7 basic elements. Law, History, Psalms, Poetry, Prophecy, Gospel, and Epistles. Of those of more poetic prose, we have The 150 Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Songs of Solomon. But what exactly are you referring to about a parallel verse?

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

I see God doing as He pleases, and if becoming the propitiation of sin fancies, I think He is well within reason to do so. Muslims make a similar claim as you do, that God wouldn't dirty Himself by becoming a man. But did they ever think that speaks disparagingly of His creation? I would say that Elohim is a cryptic word to use because it can be used both ways. I would even dare say that the more proper enunciation for Elohim in plurality would be, Eloah. Of course, this etymology is not seen in the texts of any of the books of the Bible, except while being used in poetic fashion. If I'm not mistaken, the rendering of Allahu to Allah is a similar translation as Eloah is to Elohim in Hebrew.If this is the case, then I certainly would concede that Elohim is used singularly and only causes a misunderstanding when it is transliterated into English on the basis of face value, rather than how Hebrews would have used it. What about the Trinity would make God foolish? Isn't that the ultimate way of proving His love for humanity? Think about it. Its genius, not foolishness. So, which is it? Would God never become as a man or would He? And how can you explain prophecies concerning the Mashiac in terms of Him being equal to God by doing things that only God can do? You're going to have to describe your objections in detail because I don't know what it is you are trying to point out. I've read these over numerous times. Is it? Then what mortal can overcome the curse of Jehoiachin and still be apart of the line of David without inhereting the curse?any man who might claim to be the Messiah has heavy burden to overcome. In all actuality, it is physically impossible to overcome. We know that Mashiac will come from the line of David.Nevertheless, as we will see, the line was essentially cursed from the time of the prophet Jeremiah. Just as Israel was going into exile, God made two declarations that first appeared contradictory about the last Davidic king over Judah, Jehoiachin (or other translations, ”Coniah’). The first declaration was that of his physical descendants, no one would ever sit upon the throne of David, in spite of the fact that they would continue to inherit the rights to the throne. How can this be?“Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know? O’ land, land, land, hear the Word of the Lord! This is what the Lord says: ”Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.” -Jeremiah 22:28-30This really presents a problem for everyone in Davidic lineage to inherit the throne, doesn’t it? How can the Messiah overcome this?Well, the second declaration makes it clear, if we have ears to hear and eyes to see. Also a promised ”Branch’ would raise up the throne and sit upon it.“In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from the line of David; He will do what is just and right in the land. In those days, Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the Name by which he will be called: ”The Lord Our Righteousness.’ For this is what the lord says, ”David will never fail to have a man sit on the throne of the house of David." -Jeremiah 33:14-17Thus, we see that the Messiah is not a son of Adam, but rather, a Son of God. Because Jesus was conceived by the Spirit, rather than, by the will of a husband through natural procreation, He did not inherit the curse of Jehoiachin.However, because Joseph was His legal guardian, and Joseph and Mary were both from the line of David means that ONLY Jesus could still sit on the throne and avoid the curse. Jesus elucidates this point to the Pharisees by showing that David himself has considered the Mashaic to be God in the flesh.“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, ”What do you think about the Christ (Messiah)? Who’s Son is He?’ They said to Him, ”The son of David.’ He said to them, ”How then does David in the Spirit call Him ”Lord,’ saying: ”The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool?’ If David then calls Him ”Lord,’ how is He his son?’ And no on one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to question Him anymore.” -Matthew 22:41-46Jesus is exactly right, (not that this should come as a surprise). How can David say, “Then the LORD said my Lord,” if he was not talking about God? Who is the Lord? The Lord is God, right? David himself is pointing out the deification of the Christ, and very plainly, that the Lord, the Messiah, is God the Son and that the LORD God, is God the Father.To me these are very clear teachings, and yet, the vast preponderance perhaps does not want to believe this truth because of its implications. But, Jesus was very clear. He essentially stated to the religious elite, if you know God, as you claim to do, then you would know who I AM; as it is very evident by your lack of fruitfulness, that you do not know who I AM.

quote:

---

As David said, "there are none that are good, no, not even one."

---

Even supposing that David was speaking of ONLY his countrymen, this still presents a problem because Scripture was clear on what line, what nationality, and what faith the Mashiach must come from. The Mashiac is Jewish, through and through. So, if no Jew is good, no, not even ONE, then who will the Messiah be? Where does it say that David is perfect? David knows he was far from perfect. Why? No man can fully understand God without Himself being God. That seems fairly obvious to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Bar" means son, "bat" means daughter-- as in, Simon bar Jonah, (Simon the son of Jonah). My concordance says that ben literally means, builder, while it is making allusions to sons. Meaning, we are building off of Adam. If a Jewish man marries a Gentile woman, their children are not Jewish. And even if a Jewish woman marries a Gentile man, that means that they can not possibly be raised as complete Jews, or Goy's, as you alluded. The point being, Jews are supposed to marry other Jews according to the faith.

quote:

---

This is precisely why intermarriage was forbidden in Biblical times.

---

Heh... Yeah, I agree. Holy crap! I didn't know that. That answers so many more questions I have. Specific Ethopians, right? I can't remember their tribal name off hand.

quote:

---

Many Davidic kings on the throne of Israel had Gentile mothers. Did this make them Gentiles from the Tribe of Judah and the family line of David?

---

Ruth was a Moabite who was married to Boaz, who begat Obed, who begat Jesse, who begat David, etc, etc. What is debatable about the timeline? As well, this isn't about messianic prophecy, this about how messianic prophecies help corroborate the Trinitarian belief.

quote:

---

Aside from this glaring point, since when is a man, any man, referred to as ”Mighty God’ and ”Everlasting Father?’

---

Yes, I know all of these names and their meanings. But I would contend that the prophecies are used descriptively, meaning, this is what the Mashiac will perform, rather than simply His name."Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high... Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground.

​

He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and rejected by men, a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted.

​

But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes, we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep is silent before it’s shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth.

​

He was taken from prison and from judgment, and who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of My people He was stricken. And they made His grave with the wicked, but with the rich at His death, because He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth.

​

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When you make His soul as an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.

​

By His knowledge, My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore, I shall divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, and HE BORE THE SIN OF MANY, and made intercession for the transgressors.” -Isaiah 52:12 and 53:13So, even if use the argument that those are just names, you can see in this passage that it is speaking very clearly about everything that Jesus did. What mere man can do only what God can do, which is taking away sin? No one can do this but God, right? So, Mashiac must either be God, or have so special a relationship with God that He can delineate His authority.And again,“When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish His kingdom forever. I will be His FATHER and He will be My SON. When He does wrong, I will punish Him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But My love will never be taken away from Him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before Me; your throne will be established forever.” -2nd Samuel 7:12-13Here we see that the Messiah has a father/son bond that cannot be broken. You may have noticed that it says, when He does wrong, I will punish Him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. Jesus was completely sinless, which is a prerequisite. He never did wrong, but for our sake, He became sin. Sin must be atoned for by blood. Halacha makes this very clear.God cannot overlook sin for the sake of justice. However, because of His mercy, God Himself became the propitiation of sin as the only acceptable sacrifice. Because Jesus did this, it is as if Father momentarily looked away from the Son. The weight of humanities sin was placed upon Jesus, which is why He cried out, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani!Therefore, we know from the gospels that Jesus was inflicted with some of the most horrific beatings ever endured by anyone. Romans were champions at torture. They employed some of the most painful tactics ever devised by man’s reprehensible mind.The carnage against Him was so awful that Isaiah prophesied, that, “His body would be marred more than any other man.” His beating was so profound that He literally was a lump of flesh and blood. To reiterate, while on the cross He would prophetically cry out, “Eloi, eloi, lama sabachtani?”This is where we start to see parallels. When Abraham was asked to sacrifice his only son, God did not allow him to complete the task, because He had no intention of having Abraham complete this. God stopped Abraham and told him that He would provide for Himself an acceptable sacrifice. This story was a prophetic foreshadow of what God was going to do for mankind out of His abundant love in the distant future. Jesus was the acceptable sacrifice, provided by God, Himself.Therefore, once again, the Messiah is God, and God the Messiah. This is the very gift of salvation spoken throughout the New Testament that God had in mind from the beginning. Despite all of this amazing prophecy, most Rabbinical scholars seem confused about this prophecy.They know this is a messianic prophecy, but seem unable to understand the breadth of what God has had in mind for His chosen one’s since the beginning. Probably the main reason why most do not believe Jesus was the Messiah is that He did not establish peace on earth. What they fail to realize is that His return is imminent, and though it tarries, God is not slack on His promises.Jesus is Mashiac ben Yosef, and so died on that account that it might be counted as righteousness on our behalf, if we accept this gift. He poured out His life unto death to us all, and yet, not a single one of us is deserving of it. And when the last individual comes to Christ, He will return for His bride. And we will see the glory of His kingdom and the fulfillment of His promise when Jesus comes as Mashiac ben David. The belief that Jesus died, resurrected, and will come again for His bride, is not merely a Christian extrapolation.“And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, who shall stand as a banner to the people; for the Gentiles shall seek Him, and His resting place shall be glorious. It shall come to pass in that Day that the Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left.” -Isaiah 11:10-11It seems to be that there is no greater a candidate for Messiahship than that of Jesus. Even if you maintain that view, which, even from a Rabbinical point of view would be absurd, just the one's I provided juxtaposed by the New Testament is enough to make an excellent claim for Yeshua.Its all in the details. For instance, alot of people ask why Jesus' life was not recorded before the age of thirty. Well, He lived among us like a regular man would and had no form of comliness about Him. He was following the Law. He did not start His ministry until thirty, because that's what the law prescribes.And Jesus was a Priest in the order of Melchizadek. You cannot perform priestly duties before thirty, according to Halacha. It all makes so much sense once you get passed the meat and the potato's, so to speak-- once you get passed the Sunday school teachings and into the real stuff, it comes alive and makes it unassailable. The son of David ----> the son of Adam----> the son of God/the son of man. Nobody is saying that anyone is too stupid to understand the Trinity. Humanly speaking, I would be the first to point out how the logic fails. But the belief is supported by Scripture. God is One. We all know this. We're not saying there is three, we are saying there is 3 charachteristics, three manifestations, equaling One God. Think of it in another term: Ice, liquid, and vapor are three distinct characteristics of water-- but its all water and nothing is going to change that whether its in different forms. Its all H². Does that makes sense?Its the same as Kabbalah in that, Kabbalah says, One God-- many characteristics. If the gospel of John was the inspiration for some or all of the gnostic texts, then, whatever, I guess. I am comparing text by text. I'm not using the gospel of John to corroborate the gospel of John. I'm using Zechariah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc, etc, to corroborate the claims. If you worship Satan, you worship Satan, and not God. If you worship Moses, then you are worshipping Moses, not God. If you worship Jesus, you worship God. That's the point. God, coming in the form of man, whose goings forth are from old would highly suggest that's what God had in mind from the beginning. Cripes, even line up the names in Genesis 5 and its spelled out for us.

“Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring the despairing rest.” That's a specious plea. Why is it that when someone backs up their points of view, by using Scripture, that it becomes Bible-thumping? That's absurd. I gave you the Scriptures. Does "speaking" creation into existence seem like a good explanation-- something that we can fully grasp? No, but that doesn't negate its possibility. Look, if you don't want to believe in the Trinity, or Jesus, or Judaism, or anything else, that's entirely up to you. But if we're having a discussion on the subject, its worth while to examine the very Scriptures for how belief in the Trinity came about. I have no idea what you are referring to. Call me dense, if you will, but can you expound on this? What does a,b,c,d,e,f,h,i, and g represent? Lines of order?

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

Why can't you be God and man at the same time, by definition? What is God by definition? That's like saying God can't be in more than one place at the same time because its contradictory. I don't follow your logic. It seems like you are limiting God. I was agreeing with you. I don't think Elohim is a good candidate for the Trinity. "Do not know that I could, at once, call upon more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" -Matthew 26:53-54Its not foolish, its genius. God could decimate the wicked right now, especially if he has the foreknowledge of the spiritual demise. He could forgo all of it if He wanted. Is that foolish too? The fact that God would come to us lowly, born in a manger, only to be brutally executed for a peoples who don't deserve it speaks volumes to us His love for humanity. Aside from which, I've already shown you in the Tanakh that Mashiach is God, and God is Mashiach. Don't you know that God has never been interested in animal sacrifice? The sacrifice was only a foreshadowing and only was a temporal covering, a temporary absolution.For the Torah, having a shadow of the good matters to come, and not the image itself of the matters, was never able to make perfect those who draw near with the same slaughter offerings which they offer continually year by year.

​

Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered? Because those who served, once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those offerings is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

​

Therefore, coming into the world, He says, “Slaughtering and meal offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. “In burnt offerings and offerings for sin You did not delight. “Then I said, ”See, I come - in the roll of the book it has been written concerning Me - to do Your desire, O Elohim.’, saying above, “Slaughter and meal offering, and burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor delighted in,” which are offered according to the Torah, then He said, “See, I come to do Your desire, O Elohim.”

​

He takes away the first to establish the second. By that desire we have been set apart through the offering of the body of Yeshua Messiah once for all. And indeed every priest stands day by day doing service, and repeatedly offering the same slaughter offerings which are never able to take away sins. But He, having offered one slaughter offering for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of Elohim, waiting from that time onward until His enemies are made a footstool for His feet.

​

For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being set apart. And the Ruach HaKodesh also witnesses to us, for after having said before, “This is the covenant that I shall make with them after those days, says Yahweh, giving My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I shall write them,” and, “Their sins and their lawlessnesses I shall remember no more.”

​

Now, where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer a slaughter offering for sin. So, brothers, having boldness to enter into the Ruach HaKodesh by the blood of Yeshua, by a new and living way which He instituted for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the House of Elohim." -Hebrews 10:1-21The acceptable sacrifice must be free from blemish and no broken bones."Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

​

Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken," and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced." -John 19:31-37 Because being impregnated by the Holy Spirit in Mary ensures that the Davidic lineage is preserved while avoiding the curse of Jehoiachin. So, what probelm do you have that Jesus was granted this as well, and even more so than all other people? Like Jesus said, (paraphrasing) "If you don't want to believe in My testimony, fine, but at least believe the miracles." I mean, even the Sanhedrin records His death as being attributed as "Sorcery," meaning, He was doing some crazy things. They simply thought that He must be doing witchcraft. Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin is two different people. But avoiding the curse is not the only reason to be born of a virgin. Messiah had to be born of a virgin is because He had to be without sin-- in other words, symbolically "spotless" like the perfect and acceptable sacrifice. The Messiah was to be a priest, according to the Psalms"The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.'"Since He is from the family of David, the Messiah cannot be a Levite, but must be a Cohen (priest). The Israelites of His time, were all looking for the Glorious Messiah as a Roman butt-kicking warrior in the order of David. They were looking for a valiant warrior who dethrone the Caesar and set Israel above all other nations.And who did they get instead? They got a meek man from Nazareth. They were all ready for Mashiac ben David, but got Mashiac ben Yosef instead, but they didn't understand at the time.One of my favorite messianic prophecies comes from Luke’s gospel. It was only until recently that, I stumbled across this passage. I probably overlooked numerous times, simply because I did not cross-reference the book of Isaiah. When I understood the true meaning of the passage that I had glanced over before, I was awestruck at its messianic significance.“So Jesus came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

Then He closed the book and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” -Luke 4:16-21What in the world does that mean? Why did He pick that particular verse and not finish reading what was written? And what did it mean that ”today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.’ How was it fulfilled? In order to answer that, we should find the place where He was reading in Isaiah.“And the day of vengeance of our God . You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory you will boast . And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion. Therefore, in their land they shall possess double; everlasting joy will be theirs. For I, the Lord, love justice; I hate robbery for burnt offering; I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them . So the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before ALL the nations.” -Isaiah 61What does that mean? What is the significance? God, speaking through Isaiah is telling His people, 760 years before Jesus would walk the earth, that the Gentiles would follow Him and that they would prosper, but His own people would be in derision. This is exactly what we have seen for the last 2,000 years.Isaiah is describing the church-age and how God would prosper in the hearts of true Christians who obeyed His voice. So, when Jesus stood up to read the first portion of Isaiah, it describes Mashiac ben Yosef, the suffering servant. Jesus, we know from the gospels, would fulfill this time in that generation. Jesus read this portion because His ministry had begun as the suffering servant. He sat down at the exact moment that Isaiah then describes Mashiac ben David, because His time as the Glorious Messiah would come later. So truly, there are not two separate messiahs, but rather, two separate times that He would appear in history in order to fulfill what was written by the prophets. I already explained it. Mary is the bloodline of David and Joseph is Jesus' adopted father, still making eligible for the throne. So, He gets to be physically connected to the line of David through Mary's blood, but gets to inherit the entitlements of the throne while avoiding the curse. Only God could engineer that. So, you're saying that God said to the angel? How can that be? It says, "Then the LORD, said to MY Lord..." meaning that the "my" is David. He would clearly be talking about God and the Messiah in relation to himself. I don't about all that, but I've heard that too. I do know they have the last known remaining translation of the Book of Enoch in Ethiopian. The Book of Rut has always been a book that has alot of controversy surrounding it. I have not conducted a study on it, so I'm going to have to defer to a website. I found an interesting one. I would quote from it, but its in a PDF format. I don't have a "special" relationship with God, at least not in the sense that I am privy to some esoteric knowledge. I would say that all of our relationships to God are unique in the sense that our stories are not all the same. Then why would David ask why God had abandoned him if you say that he is perfect also in the sight of God? Burnt offerings, grain offerings, and animal sacrifice are temporary sacrifices. And consider today how Jews are supposed to atone for their sins when there is no Temple remaining.

quote:

---

:Luk 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

​

Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

---

Yes, that's true. God forgave before even the Law was introduced. However, the point is, sins need to be atoned for. God dies not desire sacrifice and concluded that in the New Covenant by making a final covering, which is why Jesus said, "It is finished.""The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, declares the LORD.

​

This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." -Jeremiah 31:31-34 "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." -Genesis 2:16-17It doesn't say that He will kill them on the spot. It means they were initially created to live with God forever. Now, they would have to work hard for their food and He would increase pain during child bearing, and now they would die when they were supposed to live. Yes, prolonged pain was the desired effect, but He was also flogged mercilessly and whip with a flagrum, which is that torture device that looks like a cat of nine tails with metal hooks on the tips. Anyway, if you remember from the story, Pilate was shocked that Jesus died rather quickly."Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph." -Mark 15:43-45 Because He is quoting David, or should I say, David is quoting Jesus before the fact."My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent. Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the praise of Israel. In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them.

​

They cried to you and were saved; in you they trusted and were not disappointed. But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

​

"He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him." Psalm 22:1-8"Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped Him and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit You?"... Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him. They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and knelt in front of him and mocked him. "Hail, king of the Jews!" they said. They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again... Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads... the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.' " In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him." -(various verses from Matthew 26 and 27) You're right, which is why God sacrificed Himself."Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey. The LORD looked and was displeased that there was no justice. He saw that there was no one, He was appalled that there was no one to intervene; so His own arm worked salvation for Him, and His own righteousness sustained Him." -Isaiah The only thing Jesus has yet to do is bring peace complete peace during His second coming. Everything else was fulfilled.

quote:

---

And when the last individual comes to Christ, He will return for His bride.

---

I didn't say everyone. I said His bride-- His elect. Most are going to be judged. And I certainly don't think that includes everyone who claims to be a Christian. Who is "we." Was that on EvC or somewhere else? As for the messianic prophecies, they are very obvious and easy to spot. As for Isaiah 7:14 , I won't mention it, though guessing by your answer we probably disagree. Yes, that's the one. Its a really long discourse. I'm gonna just cut to the chase and post some information on it rather than writing it up. This post is really long as it is. I won't blame you if you don't want to read it, though. MelchizedekAdam's name means "man." Angels are not demigods, because there is only one God. Which one was Jesus, what? I don;t know what that that means. What is contradictory about the Scriptures? Its very clear. Why not? We are speaking about Almighty God here. If God can't do that, then He couldn't hear everyone's prayers simultaneously or be ubiquitous either by the same human logic. I think that is really limiting God. I would agree. My only reason for mentioning it is that many Jews seem to be a-okay with Kabbalah, but not the Trinity. They seem to grasp the concept that God can manifest Himself in 12 characteristics and still be one God, but for some reason equate the Trinity to polytheism. I don't understand that.

quote:

---

If the gospel of John was the inspiration for some or all of the gnostic texts, then, whatever, I guess.

---

The Ryland Papyrus is the earliest manuscript of John, placed in the first century. The gnostic texts emerged well after the 1^st century. He isn't mortal. "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." -John 10:18 His name means, "Appointed." Enosh means mortal, Adam means man. Mahalalel means, "the blessed God." And Lucifer isnt even Hebrew, so its irrelevant. Satan means, "The Adversary" or "the Accuser."And Methuselah means, "His death shall bring," which, interestingly, right after he died, the Flood began. Well, yes, I know the poetic style you are referring to, but I've never heard of a rhyme scheme.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-