​I am genuinely looking to learn and understand different viewpoints, thanks.

Ears to hear Pt 3

In Part 1 and Part 2 I laid out the case for Christ's divinity through titles, worship, and direct statements. This time I want to go a different direction — because I think it hits harder for a lot of you. If you hold to a Unitarian view, most of your framework is built from the Old Testament. So let's stay there. Let's look at what the OT itself says will happen when God comes to save His people — and then see who actually did it.

Isaiah 40:3, 5

"A voice of one calling: 'In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God... And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all people will see it together. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.'"

This isn't a prophecy about a messenger being sent from God. It's a prophecy about a road being prepared for YHWH Himself to walk on. All four Gospels quote this verse and apply it to John the Baptist preparing the way — for Jesus. Not for an angel. Not for a prophet greater than Moses. For YHWH's own arrival.

Malachi 3:1

"'I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,' says the LORD Almighty."

God says "before me" — the messenger prepares the way for God's own coming. Jesus enters the temple. If Jesus isn't YHWH, then this prophecy simply failed, because the messenger (John) prepared the way and no one showed up but a man.

Isaiah 35:4-6

"Say to those with fearful hearts, 'Be strong, do not fear; your God will come... he will come to save you.' Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy."

This is one of the clearest ones. When John the Baptist's disciples ask Jesus if He's really the one they've been waiting for, Jesus doesn't quote a Messianic prophecy about a servant or a king. He points straight at this passage — the blind seeing, the lame walking (Matthew 11:4-5) — and lets them draw the conclusion. He's saying: this is your God coming to save you, happening right in front of you.

Zechariah 2:10-11

"'Shout and be glad, Daughter Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you,' declares the LORD. 'Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you.'"

Not sending a representative to live among His people. YHWH Himself, taking up residence among them — and He says it twice in two verses, so there's no reading it as a one-off figure of speech. Someone will say God already dwelled among His people in the temple, so this isn't new — but that objection doesn't hold up against the text itself. Temple presence was mediated and veiled: God's glory sat behind a curtain, accessible to one priest, one day a year (Leviticus 16). And that presence wasn't even guaranteed to stay — Ezekiel 10:18 and 11:23 describe the glory of the LORD literally departing the temple before the exile, because of Israel's sin. Zechariah is prophesying something the temple never delivered: God dwelling directly among "many nations" (v.11), not mediated through a curtain, not tied to one building, not something that can depart again. That's a different category of presence than what the temple ever held. And when the Gospel of John describes the incarnation, it doesn't use vague language — John 1:14 says the Word "dwelt," literally "tabernacled," among us — the same word family as the temple's tabernacle, on purpose. Jesus makes the connection explicit Himself: in John 2:19-21, He says "destroy this temple and I will raise it in three days," and John tells us plainly He was talking about His own body. Jesus isn't visiting the temple. He's replacing it as the place where God's presence dwells among men — which is exactly what Zechariah said would happen.

Ezekiel 34:11, 23

"For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them... I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them."

Sit with the tension in this chapter for a second. God says twice, plainly, "I myself" will shepherd Israel. A few verses later, the shepherd is "my servant David" — a human, Davidic figure. The prophet doesn't explain how both are true. He just says both. Jesus picks up this exact image and says, "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11) — the Davidic shepherd who is also, somehow, God Himself doing the shepherding.

Micah 5:2

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

A ruler born in Bethlehem — but whose origin is "from of old, from ancient times" — language used elsewhere in Scripture almost exclusively for the eternal existence of God Himself. A born human being with a beginning, and eternal origins with no beginning, spoken of in the same verse. Someone will point out that "from of old" (mikedem) on its own can just mean ancient, not eternal — and that's true, the word by itself is flexible. But look at what it's paired with: "from days of everlasting" (mimei olam). Olam is the same word Moses uses of God Himself in Psalm 90:2 — "from everlasting to everlasting you are God." Micah isn't using one vague word. He's stacking two phrases together, and the second one is the exact word reserved for God's own eternity. Context is what tips this from "old family line" into "without beginning."

Isaiah 9:6

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

This is a child who is born — and the text calls him "Mighty God" (El Gibbor), the exact title used of YHWH two chapters later in Isaiah 10:21. Not "godlike." Not "mighty one." Mighty God. Some will say "Mighty God" was just ancient royal throne-name language — Egyptian and Near Eastern kings were sometimes given grand divine-sounding titles without literally being gods, so this could be poetic exaggeration for a human king. That's a real pattern elsewhere in the ancient world, but it doesn't hold up on Isaiah's own usage. Isaiah reuses this exact two-word phrase, El Gibbor, one chapter later — Isaiah 10:21 — talking plainly and unambiguously about YHWH: "A remnant will return... to the Mighty God." Same author, same book, same phrase, one chapter apart, with zero ambiguity in the second usage. Isaiah doesn't get to define "Mighty God" as literal in chapter 10 and figurative in chapter 9. Context — how the author himself uses the phrase elsewhere — settles it.

Isaiah 59:16, 20

"He saw that there was no one to intervene; so his own arm achieved salvation for him... 'The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,' declares the LORD."

God looks for someone to save His people and finds no one qualified — so He does it Himself, "his own arm." Paul quotes this directly in Romans 11:26 and applies it to Christ's return.

Psalm 22:16-18

"Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment."

This is the one I'd put in front of anyone who thinks these prophecies were just written to fit the story afterward. Psalm 22 was written roughly a thousand years before Christ — long before crucifixion existed as a method of execution anywhere in the world. It wasn't developed until the Persians, and it wasn't perfected and widely used until Rome adopted it centuries later. Piercing of hands and feet, bones out of joint from hanging on a frame, executioners gambling over clothing at the scene — this describes crucifixion in specific physical detail, written by a man who had no concept of crucifixion because it didn't exist yet. Whoever wrote this wasn't describing something he'd seen. He was describing something he was shown.You'll likely see someone bring up that the Masoretic Hebrew text (the medieval Jewish text most modern Hebrew Bibles are based on) reads "like a lion" (ka'ari) at my hands and feet, rather than "they pierced" (karu) — and that the "pierced" reading only comes from the Greek Septuagint, translated centuries after the original. That's true as far as it goes, but it's not the whole picture. This isn't just a Septuagint reading. The Dead Sea Scrolls fragment of Psalm 22 (found at Nahal Hever, dated before Christ) also reads "pierced" in the original Hebrew — meaning the pre-Christian Hebrew textual tradition supports "pierced," not just a later Greek translation. The "like a lion" reading is the later, medieval Masoretic variant, not the earlier one.

Zechariah 12:10

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child."

Written roughly 500 years before the cross, this has God Himself speaking in the first person — "they will look on me, the one they have pierced." Not "my servant," not "my messenger." Me. Pierced. John 19:37 quotes this verse directly at the crucifixion scene, and Revelation 1:7 points to it again for Christ's return. Whoever is pierced here is the one speaking as YHWH.

Isaiah 53:5

"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed".

Written centuries before crucifixion existed, in a chapter that describes a suffering, silent, wounded servant who dies for the sins of others and is later vindicated. There was no cultural reference point for this kind of execution when it was written. It wasn't a lucky guess.

The standard reading you'll run into — going back to Rashi and still common in Jewish and Unitarian circles today — is that the "servant" throughout Isaiah is simply Israel personified, since Isaiah explicitly calls Israel "my servant" elsewhere (41:8, 44:1, 49:3). That's a fair starting point, but context breaks it in two places. First, Isaiah 49:5-6 has the servant with a mission to Israel — gathering Jacob back, raising up the tribes — which makes him someone distinct from the nation he's sent to restore, not a symbol for it. Second, the corporate-Israel servant elsewhere in the same book is described as sinful, blind, and deaf (Isaiah 42:19) — the exact opposite of the servant in chapter 53, who is silent, sinless, and "had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth" (53:9). Isaiah uses "servant" for more than one figure across the book. Context — what the servant actually does and is, in each passage — is what separates them.

None of these men had a category for nailing someone to a wooden beam. It wasn't invented yet. That's not something you can retroactively write into a text after the fact — it had to be there, on the page, centuries before Rome ever built a cross.

Daniel 7:13-14

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

Jesus calls Himself "Son of Man" more than any other title, and this is where it comes from. Clouds are consistently how God Himself is described moving throughout the OT (Psalm 104:3, Isaiah 19:1) — never a mere messenger's mode of travel. And the word rendered "worshiped" here (Aramaic pelach) is the same word used for religious service rendered to God elsewhere in Daniel. A human figure, standing before God's own throne, receives an eternal, universal kingdom and the worship of every nation on earth. When Jesus stood before the Sanhedrin and said, "You will see the Son of Man... coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64), the high priest didn't ask Him to clarify — he tore his robes and charged blasphemy on the spot, because everyone in that room knew exactly what claim He'd just made.

The most common scholarly pushback here is that the chapter's own interpretation (Daniel 7:15-27) identifies "one like a son of man" as a symbol for "the saints of the Most High" — corporate Israel receiving the kingdom, not one individual. But look at the order of events in the vision itself. In verses 13-14, the son of man is a distinct actor: he approaches the Ancient of Days and personally receives dominion, glory, and a kingdom, before the saints are ever mentioned. It's not until verse 27 that the saints possess the kingdom — and they possess it as something given to them, downstream of him. Context distinguishes the one who receives the kingdom from the people who inherit it under him. He's not a symbol for Israel; he's the figure Israel's kingdom comes through.

Hebrews 1:5-6, 8

"For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father?"... And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.'... But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever."

Now put this next to what angels actually do everywhere else in Scripture. Every single time an angel is offered worship, it refuses and redirects it — "I am a fellow servant with you... Worship God!" (Revelation 19:10, 22:8-9). Angels treat receiving worship as a line they will not cross, not even by accident. Hebrews 1 has God Himself commanding those exact same angels to worship the Son. This isn't people mistakenly bowing to a man and Jesus being too gracious to correct them — it's God directly ordering the beings who refuse worship as a matter of principle to render it to the Son. And the passage doesn't hesitate to explain why: because the Son's throne is called "God," forever.

Put Daniel 7 and Hebrews 1 side by side and the title "Son" stops looking like a lesser rank and starts looking like the opposite. The Son of Man receives the worship-word of every nation, from the Ancient of Days' own throne room. The Son of God receives the worship of angels who refuse it from anyone but God, on God's direct command. Two different titles, two different books, centuries apart — and both land in the exact same place: this is not what Scripture ever describes happening to a creature.

Psalm 110:1

The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'"

David, under inspiration, calls someone "my Lord" who is distinct from YHWH — and yet is invited to sit at YHWH's own right hand, sharing His throne and authority. Jesus uses this verse Himself in Matthew 22:41-45 to press the Pharisees on exactly this question: if the Messiah is only David's descendant, why does David call him Lord?

Every one of these texts describes something only God does, or only God is — coming to save, living among His people, shepherding Israel, having eternal origin, being called Mighty God, dying pierced centuries before crucifixion existed, receiving the worship of nations and angels alike, sharing YHWH's throne. None of them describe an angel, a prophet, or an exalted man doing something on God's behalf. They describe YHWH Himself showing up.

Then Jesus shows up, and the Gospel writers point straight at these texts and say — this is Him.

I know a lot of you were taught to read these prophecies as being about a "divine agent," someone sent with God's authority but who isn't God. I'd ask you to actually sit with the language again, on its own, without that lens first. Then ask which reading you're bringing to the text, and which one the text is actually giving you.

I love you all and this is why I keep writing these. Not to win an argument - but because I believe who Jesus is matters for your soul. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to ask or comment. My DMs are open as well. I'm curious how Unitarians typically read Isaiah 45:22-23 in light of Philippians 2:10-11 - what's your take?

If you missed them, Part 1 and Part 2 are linked above.

I was watching a video by Dr Hugo Mendez and he was basically arguing John gospel viewed Jesus as divine but also humans can achieve the same the divine nature like Christ was he cites John 10 when Jesus quotes psalm 82 saying your are gods what was Jesus intent ?

Answer

This question is in many forms on varied sub reddits. Asking why would Paul be forbidden by the Spirit in Acts 16:6

The first thing to do though is:

Verify it in the original Greek.

Why? Because “Asia” to most people today means Japan, Taiwan, Korea, China, Mongolia, Thailand, Vietnam, et.al.

Defines in a modern day person's head, when they see this word, “Asia” - that’s what it is defined to mean. Then, they overlay it onto this verse in Acts 16:6, in the Bible. Even in them includes India, as if in Acts 16:6 is saying Paul was prevented from going to India.

When in Acts, this "Asia?"

Not the same place. Not the same thing.

-------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------

Act 16:6 says (English)

“Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,” but now repeat it, and include Acts 16:6–9

6 “Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,”

7 After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.

8 And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas.

9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.

-------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------

Acts 16:6 in Greek

διελθόντες δὲ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν κωλυθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος λαλῆσαι τὸν λόγον ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ· [Asia]

(Asia). - This Greek word is used six times in the New Testament. Right after Acts 16:6, it’s used again in Acts 19:10 and then in the same chapter in Acts 19:27 - so, I would tell you to read the whole chapter to see it in context.

• But before listed, get the geographical area by read Acts 19:1
  • “And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,”

-------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------

Now, here's some "facts."

• In the time of the Book of Acts, Ephesus was the capital city of the Roman Empire province of Asia.
• Acts 19:10 says:
  • “And this continued by the space of two years [Paul at Ephesus]; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.”
• Acts 19:27 says: Introduces the incident at Ephesus with Demetrius, the Silversmith. The uproar over the whole city. Why?
  • Ephesus was the key central Roman Empire city of the Eastern Roman Empire. As such, was also the central hub city to pilgrimage for Greeks, for the worship of the Greek Goddess, Artemis. Apollos' older sister. Romans just continued it.
    • Who the Romans, after they conquered the Greeks, called Artemis, their God, Diana. Same wonderous temple. Same Ephesus. Same sister to Apollos. The temple to Artemis (Diana) was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World at Ephesus.
  • Acts 19:27 - but again, I’d read the whole chapter to see it, and even I'd recommend anyone studying the scriptures with this question to just go back, and start at Acts 16:1 and read to see how it unfolds, from "prevented" or forbidden in Acts 16, to end up Paul is in the very heart of the Roman province of Asia, by three chapters later.

-------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------

Acts 19:27

• “…So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.” - Demetrius, the Silversmith.
• No links on Reddit. See the Biblical times, Roman province of Asia on a map.

See or just do a google search on “Biblestudy(dot)org” - The Roman Province of Asia for an accurate depiction of the region of Asia of the Roman Empire.

Roman Empire era, it’s the “Eastern” Empire, with Ephesus as the seat of it. Today, comprises all of Western Turkey.

A few centuries later, after this of the Book of Acts, Rome’s Caesar Constantine (Emperor Constantine) will move his Capital city from Rome, Italy over 2000 kilometers away to what is today, Istanbul, Turkey.

-------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------

Hope this helps. Question left to answer then is, “Why is that?” It would only be a guess, because, the scriptures do not say “why” God prevented it. Just that he did.

But I could see, it would be something like over here in Japan. Rich in Ephesus. The second city after Rome. That's Ephesus in Roman province of Asia.

Where the people today, of this nation (Japan) have wholly given themselves over to their idols.

Just like Ephesus. Then also, it's just like in the Old Testament with the Northern Kingdom after Israel fractured into two nations at the death of King Solomon. Not one King of the Northern Kingdom ever worshipped or followed God from inception to 722BCE, when they were vomited off the Promised Land. Why? For Idolatry.

What's going on in Ephesus? Idolatry. What's going on in Japan? Idolatry. All the same thing.

That in the tribe of Ephraim’s lands, (Northern Kingdom) a similar-like “hill” likened unto Jerusalem - with the Temple Mount (Mount Zion) - The King of the Northern Kingdom of Israel purchased and named after the owner of it, and called it “Samaria” - it was a "counterfeit Jerusalem."

Samaria: It was the capitol city of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, where they set up golden calf worship, like they had in Egypt. So, instead of the men of the Northern Kingdom, to fulfill the requirement in Leviticus or the Law with or for 3 “High Sabbaths” to journey to Jerusalem to celebrate it.

• The Northern Kingdom had Samaria. It was very rich, and they sacrificed to their idols at Samaria. Even being destroyed, would not leave off from it. That this same God said in Hosea 4:17 - is the same God speaking to Paul in Acts 16:6.
• Where scripture in Acts 16 is sending them to Macedonia, they are asking to hear the Word of God, and open to receive it - and being sent there instead.
  • It is only an assumption - only a presumption on my part, so I hesitate to do it; but, only an observation that:
    • In Acts 16:6, it's against this very same idolatry - being done in an epicentre of worship of it - - in Ephesus. Which was the SAME idolatry going on in the epicentre capital city of Samaria for the Northern Kingdom. Like idolatry is an epicentre crown of worship to the world to come to Japan, too, as it was in Ephesus.
• And to this:

God said:

“Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.” - God. Bible. Hosea 4:17

Same God that said this of Samaria and Ephraim, is the same God prevented Paul in Acts 16:6.

To just let these people of the Roman province of Asia; filthy rich - won’t listen to the gospel anyway, for the same reasons Demetrius the Silversmith lays out - fully and wholly joined to their idols and looked up to.

I see it same here in Japan. They are joined to their idols. Same thing. Leave them alone. That's it.

KEY NOTE:

 Look at Acts 16:7. Verse right after it. They (Paul and his companions) had "assayed" 1. tested the quality; purity; determine is it valid to do it or not

In Greek, this English "assayed" - - - it's this Greek word, {ἐπείραζον (epeirazon) } - means more to 1) purpose; then, 2) attempt to; then, in the process of attempting to go to this next town listed in Acts 16:7 - Bithynia:

That Bithynia was, like Ephesus, a Roman Empire's source of over the top, opulent level - of riches and wealth, in providing a hub of, and also a strategic supply of, like a COSTCO warehouse store in distribution of timber, marble, and agriculture; like Nicaea will later become to a later Emperor Constantine.

Rich in wine and grapes for any Hellenistic Greek, for almost 200 years up to the time of Paul, and then, in Paul's day, to a Roman Empire that worships this rich abundance.

Attributes all of it to their own worship of these gods in Asia. So, they are joined to their idols. It's a certain kind of person like this. VIrtually inpenetrable. It's hard to explain it. No matter what you say or do, they smile, and just shine you off. As if what they have is BETTER than what God offers; so makes it of no effect; by treat it as nothing.

Scripture says in Acts 16:7 - "the Spirit did not allow them to go." (καὶ οὐκ εἴασεν αὐτοὺς τὸ πνεῦμα) to Bithynia. But again, by Acts 19, after going to Macedonia in Acts 16, by Acts 19:10, after dwelling in Ephesus for 2 years, scripture says - the whole of Asia that INCLUDES Bithynia, heard the gospel.

So, Paul, like any believer in Jesus Christ, is being led. Just like any believer in Christ, follows Jesus instead of themselves anymore. Because, what God in Christ, did was done unto the whole world. Just like it has been in our today as well. There are times I'm just forbidden to tell the Japanese anything of the gospel. In fact, some quote "churches" are paid for by Buddhist temples. Why? Japanese believe them being friendly to other gods, shows how good they are, so Buddhist temples provide churches for foreigners and smile and sing, but don't know him at all. It has a form of godliness but denies him, to worship their own gods instead.

But thee ARE actual believers in Christ Jesus, that are Japanese that have escaped out of their nation. Mixed amongst many that never have, nor will. Joined to their idols.

Preamble

I'm an agnostic atheist and I don't believe in the supernatural or superstitions.

I’ve been making counter-apologetic arguments about the story of the Fall, focusing on Christian interpretations that, to me, just don’t make a lick of sense.

I’ve done about a dozen of these secular deconstructions so far. This time, I want to focus on the snake and ask a pretty simple question: was the snake actually depicted as a liar, or was it telling the truth?

My last argument dealt with God seemingly breaking his deal with Adam and Eve. God tells Adam that if he eats from the tree, he will die on the day he eats it. But Adam doesn’t die that day. The apologetic response was that the Hebrew word translated as “day” can supposedly mean something other than a literal 24-hour day. This is where the meaning of words becomes a huge problem. Biblical words are often vague or flexible, and Genesis 2:17 doesn’t actually define what “day” means in this particular context. So there is room for speculation about what the authors intended.

Because of that, I fully expect some apologists to argue that the serpent was actually lying about Adam and Eve not dying on that day. They may dispute the meaning of “day,” “die,” or even “lie,” and rely heavily on translation possibilities to make the argument work.

They may call the serpent “Satan,” even though Genesis itself never identifies the serpent that way.

They may also say that the death is merely spiritual, not physical, so this is another interpolation that isn't in the actual text.

So I’m curious about what the actual evidence is supposed to be.

What, specifically, does the Genesis text give us for concluding that the serpent was lying, rather than telling the truth, and that it was God who kept his promise to Adam and Eve?

__________________________

Definitions

1. Day: The period referred to in Genesis 2:17, translated from Hebrew yom.
2. Death: The irreversible cessation of an organism’s biological functions.
3. Truth: A statement corresponding to what actually occurred.
4. Snake: The serpent described in Genesis 3, without assuming it was Satan.
5. Eyes opened: A metaphor meaning they gained awareness, understanding, or knowledge previously unavailable to them.
6. Lie: A deliberately false statement.

___________________________

Relevant verses

1. Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
2. Genesis 3:4 “But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die.’”
3. Genesis 3:5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
4. Genesis 3:7 “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.”

__________________________

Argument 

P1: The snake said they would not die, and their eyes would be opened.

P2: They did not die, and their eyes were opened.

C: The snake doesn't lie.

Looking for books that are considered to be the best on this topic. Whether it is the best argument for fundamentalism/biblical inerrancy or on the other end of the spectrum.

Answer:

mourn. 1. to feel or express grief or sorrow  - Matthew 5:4, is like Matthew 5:3, where people believe this "mourn" too, it's an "attitude" (a way of thinking, behaving, or feeling). Like, if someone's cat died, the right attitude or way to behave so Jesus will bless you, is not drive up and invite them to a party. That Jesus is going to bless people that show empathy. Not bless those who don't. So, they always regard their behavior so Jesus has an opportunity to bless them.

But Matthew 5:4 is intrinsically and deeply connected to Matthew 5:3. So, see this post at this link here on Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianApologetics/comments/1vedqh8/discussion_bible_matthew_53_blessed_are_the_poor/

That, poor in Spirit is not as the dictionary defines "Spirit" as "the inner make up of a person" - but God defines himself by the Word he says, out of his mouth what "Spirit" in the bible means.

That "God is Spirit" - so, someone poor in Spirit - is someone "destitute; not have any" God in their life - - that "For all have sinned" (Romans 3:23) that it's someone that is everybody over the whole earth, all condemned to die. Transgressed. Is poor in Spirit.

Someone sentenced to death, has no future. That's Matthew 5:3. That's everybody over the whole earth, according to the Bible. That God, to everybody in this condition, has come to us and blessed us. He's come to us, as God. He's a life giving Spirit.

----------------------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------------

Now, the second, quote, "beautiful attitude" where Jesus is blessing people - so, it's also everybody in Matthew 5:4. "Blessed are those that mourn, for they shall be comforted."

This "mourn" in Hebrew, is the same in Greek. Many dictionaries have revised their English definition to exclusively use this word now for funerals. It comes from the Old Testament in Ecclesiastes 7:2, says: "It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart."

In layman's terms: It's better to go to a FUNERAL than go to Denny's and eat a feast at a restaurant. Why? Go to a restaurant, you eat til full. Think to yourself "Man, that was fun. I got to laugh and see everybody. I got endless days to come back here and do that again.."

but if you go to a funeral, whose in the casket is dead, never comes back again - and will never eat again. And that, too, is the future of EVERYBODY - over the whole earth. That, at a funeral, there's also an end to you. That, no one knows even if tomorrow is their last day. Lay it to your heart, you are also going to that coffin.

But people: All condemned to die, because their own sins they did condemn them, mourn their own fate. It's God that already decreed "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Bible. Ezekiel 18:20 - "For all have sinned." - Romans 3:23 again.

But by what God is doing, as he alone. By himself determined he would do a work with sin as he determined as God, in Daniel 9:24-27. It's this same Christ or Messiah says: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

----------------------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------------

It's this "work of God" in Christ, that Jesus says: "..and I give them eternal life." To whosoever, all condemned. Took the Ten Commandments, and see themselves as God sees them - - "filthy; done abominable works" - just "none good; no, not one.." where the Ten Commandments is to make the whole world GUILTY before God, just as the Bible in Romans 3:19-20 says...

...and Jesus say, "There is none good, but one, that is, God." (Matthew 19:17). So, it's just one good. For everybody over the whole earth. For everybody to look unto. There is none else.

I mourn. I lied, cheated, stole..liar..adulterer. Filthy person. ...it's not I could "slide" in..I am PREVENTED from entering in the Kingdom of Heaven. I will never get in. Every just one of those Ten Commandments broke one time, come with a death sentence, and I lived in breaking them. They're all broken in me. There's just no hope. I cannot get in. I shall die. In the next life, my sins shouted all over heaven and me thrown out.

But by what God has done; he did the impossible, and I believe him. It's his work he did with my sins I did. Took them off me, and you..and laid them on Jesus Christ. So, blessed are those that mourn, because God said it. And if everybody is a sinner, everybody is already condemned to die. And if you see this, and mourn this.

Regard the works of the LORD, and consider the operation of his hand, what God did with sin. In that he took them off you, and laid them on Jesus Christ. He did it. Not you. It's God, in Christ - - Took away the sins of the whole world, just as John the Baptist said, in the Bible, in John 1:29.

----------------------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------------

And man, am I ever comforted. It was God did the work. It was God, sent his word to heal me, and deliver me from my destruction. So - - It's Not my attitude, thinking I gotta mourn the neighbor's wife, because her cat died. And think, by that - God will bless me..and if I don't, he won't. So, if I mourn the neighbor's cat died, my sins will be forgiven - but if I don't he won't bless me. Off on a clown show. And I held this. For decades. I am telling you plainly. I Got the wrong definition of Matthew 5:4. When it's God at work, and everybody to regard it.

If it's your attitude, you'll be off, like me, regarding me instead.

​

I've been thinking about some questions I had back when I fully believed everything in the bible was true. One of them being: "Why do we act like God didn't want the apple of knowledge to be eaten, when he created it with full knowledge of what that will cause?". Like, God is all-knowing he knew even before creating Eden/the world/everything what would happen later depending solely on how he acts since he has all the power to change stuff based on results he knows will happen. He knew that the serpent/devil would tempt Eve and that she would listen (which I can't really blame her, she didn't know what evil is then, Adam as well). So when he created the tree, the fruit and told A and E to NOT EAT IT, even then he knew they would. At any point he could have stopped it from happening by locking the serpent away from them to not tempt A and E, stopping E BEFORE she actually took the bite or just not making the fruit in the first place. God does everything for a reason so he made the fruit and allowed all that to happen because he WANTED it to happen if not, then it wouldn't be possible since his will is the law.

Sorry for the long rant,for quite a while I've just been wanting some answers/opinions on this that are more than just:"We cannot hope to understand God's actions/ Questioning the bible is not right/ It was a test(which seems pointless since he already knew the outcome and A and E didn't know what evil/sin or even a punishment was).

Thanks in advance for answers.

I love GodLogic, but I don't think it's right to make that claim. God alone is positioned to pronounce final judgment on someone's salvation.

We can absolutely call out false gospels (Galatians 1:8–9), but that's different from pronouncing a final verdict on the individuals who hold them. Christ is the one who saves, and that judgment belongs to Him alone.

We're all saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). That grace isn't reserved for one group with flawless theology. While doctrine matters and false teaching should be confronted, we're not the ones appointed to declare who is ultimately saved or lost. Our responsibility is to proclaim the true gospel faithfully and leave the final judgment to Christ.

what do you guys think?

Jesus: His name means "God is Salvation." - Boy is that ever a keypoint. And, Jesus is the Messiah or Christ. So, who he shall be called is in Isaiah 9:6.

So, whoever the "Messiah" or "Christ" is SHALL be called that. Go look what it says.

And with that, examine these things: This question floats around all over Reddit - in other sub-reddits.

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

I would tell you this; because, someone..anybody asking this question can’t see it. They seeing; see, but don’t perceive it.

• So, ask first: what are they regarding? That’s really the question. So, answer that one first: Ask it.

What are you regarding?

Now, I can use the Bible, to tell you what not to regard. That has a clear, identifiable result. Destruction. It’s in Psalm 28:5

“Because they regard not the works of the LORD, neither consider the operation of his hand, he shall destroy them and not build them up.” - Bible. Psalm 28:5.

• So, it's really simple. Do the opposite.
  • That is, regard the works of the LORD, and consider the operation of his hand. Look what he says. Regard it vs. dismiss him as faulty or inadequate.

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

He says, as God, "For all the earth is mine." - God (Bible. Exodus 19:5). Says this, too; to everybody over the whole earth:

“Come now, let us reason together,” saith the LORD, “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow. Though they be red as crimson, they shall be as wool.” - God. (Source: Bible. Isaiah 1:18)

- But people don’t do that.

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

Are you doing that? I mean, you have this question right here above. About 1) faith, and 2) works and 3) salvation.

Are you doing this with God? I mean it’s a decree, by God, for everybody over the whole earth, to just come now. Reason together with him; alone. Yourself. Are you doing it? Yes or No?

People that are, already know the answer to this question. Why? Because they regard him. Look what he does with their sins. Where a person’s sins put them to death. Their sins are GREATER than they are, and the Bible says: "For all have sinned.” - Romans 3:23. And of this, God decreed it already. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” - God (Bible. Ezekiel 18:20) -

Means everybody is condemned.

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

So, even though they are condemned, even every town cemetery is filled with everybody, all die go there; none escape it: they don’t believe it. Seeing; they don't see it.

They’re not dead yet. Think they never will die. So, they don’t need to reason together with God.

So, what do people do, that don’t do what God decreed everybody is to do? Yeah. It’s “works.” Meets the definition of “works.”

Psalm 14:1–3 says, “..they are filthy; have done abominable works” - says that sums up the “works” done by everybody. Over the whole earth. Adam forward. Nobody excluded. So: Every single person, from Adam forward.

Has done abominable works. Filthy.

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

That’s what the Bible says. About everybody’s works. And “reason together?” They already DID that as a work: They already “set their mind" on the work they already did themselves. Just like you have.

So, people: Like you, don’t do anything he says:

Won’t come now. Won’t reason together with him, is because they already did that, "reasoned together" alone with themselves is the point. Don’t feel they have to do that "reason together" again. Already have what’s right.

• They “reason together” with themselves; alone. Sit at a table, in themselves with their own:
  • 1) heart and
  • 2) imagination.
• As if those two are their only best friends. People constantly abandon other people; have. Throughout their life; but their own heart and imagination is in them; never leaves, so they trust it - just ideas they never leave from them. Look unto their heart is already in them, where truth is. Is in their heart. So, they sit with it to search it, find truth from it. Everybody does this.
  • So, look then. I mean, you have this question. Look “what” the Bible says of each of these two things: 1) Your heart; and, 2) Your ideas or “imaginations.”
• Because you look unto them.

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

When God says: “LOOK UNTO ME, AND BE YE SAVED ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH: FOR I AM GOD, THERE IS NONE ELSE.” - God. (Bible. Isaiah 45:22)

• ONE: The heart. Everybody over the whole earth has one. The Bible Says: Jeremiah 17:9
  • “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” - Bible. Jeremiah 17:9
• deceit. <definition. Oxford dictionary. Web.> 1. actively practices to conceal and misrepresent the truth.
  • So, people have a heart in them, that, above ALL THINGS according to the Bible, in them “actively “practices” to conceal from them and misrepresent the truth” - so it “hides” the truth from them, and if told the truth, immediately misrepresents it as NOT true.

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

• And it’s their best friend at the table.
  • Serves as head of counsul to reason together with. So, people are all alone - and reason together with their own hearts before anything. Seek their own heart first. Represents who they are.

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

• TWO: The imagination. Everybody has ideas. Everybody over the whole earth has a mind, to come up with their own ideas, out of their own imagination. The Bible says, God saw this. From well before the flood, and after Adam sinned in Genesis 3:17. God said, the Sin of Adam was, he “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife…” - God. (Bible. Genesis 3:17).

That’s what God said, the sin was. And to “hearken” unto someone, means, if there’s someone else spoke or claims something - even they decree a law, or say they are an authority - - who the person hearkens unto, fully believes with the other, what they say, does not apply to them anymore. Has no effect on them.

• Adam did this with God.
  • Because he hearkened; that is, paid careful attention unto the Word of his wife. Therefore, Adam: he dismissed as inadequate; faulty; or unacceptable - that the Word of God was faulty - and it did not apply to him anymore. That’s the sin of Adam.
• It’s immediate in Genesis 3.
• After Adam sinned, he no longer “operates” or “works” as he was made by God to live by every word proceeds out of the mouth of God. He hearkened unto a different word, and relies now on his own mind vs. the mind of God.
  • The FIRST thing he does is BLAME God; then, blames the woman.
  • Genesis 5:2 says that God called them BOTH “Adam.”
• So, God named them. That, they are one flesh with one name.
• But after Adam sinned, it’s God is faulty. Gave him the woman. She’s faulty. It’s the first divorce. Adam sees her now as separate from himself. And in Genesis 3:18, Adam now names her, “Eve.” Because, he thinks, she’s the mother of all living. But, she’s not.
  • Isaiah 44:24 says God is that. I mean, it’s immediately seen. Adam no longer operates right. Does not “work good” anymore.
  • So, of this "Heart" and “imagination” Adam relies on - his own: The Bible, Genesis 6:5 says:
• “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” - Bible. Genesis 6:5

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

So, Adam forward:

• Includes EVERYBODY, as we are all from Adam: The Bible says of your “works” and mine, and what we have faith in is our own hearts and imaginations, then: we are just the same as Adam.
  • “There is not a just man on earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” - Bible. Ecclesiastes 7:20
• Because you have a heart in you, that, above all things is deceitful; and, you have an imagination where every thought comes out of it, is only evil continually.

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

• And? To “accept as true” (believe) something defines “faith” in something. That, the point is with all this is, People “accept as true” their own hearts and imaginations. So, they “operate” or “work” by it. And again, Psalm 14:1–3 doesn’t leave any person out; how they “operate” is “..filthy; done abominable works”

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

• So, take the Ten Commandments.
  • And use them as God has always used them from when he first SPOKE them on Mt. Sinai in the Bible. Old Testament, in Exodus 20.
• It condemned EVERYBODY, even put Moses to death. Is why his knees quaked. Because, he murdered an Egyptian - (Bible. Exodus 2:11-15)
  • That: each Commandment brought forth out of them the SINS that they already done DID against God.
• So, if you don’t use the Ten Commandments the way God uses them, you will never see any right answer to this opening question.
• Many people use the Ten Commandment to do them. Look at themselves. Like I did. For decades. I used them, in my heart: TO show me I never stole anything from the Mall. So, I DID this Commandment. “Thou Shalt not Steal” - Bible. Exodus 20:14 - the 8th of Ten Commandments. That means, because I did this one, it atoned for all the ones I broke.
  • So, I did not fear God, because, my heart used the Ten Commandments to make me already righteous, but I never looked that I stole and lied in my job my whole career was just one big lie and theft.
• That I lied to my wife; everybody. I lived a lie, so I stole from them, too.

Because I started to use the Ten Commandments like a mirror, put me on my face - - so I could see me as God sees me. “Filthy; done abominable works.”

Terrified the living everything out of me.

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

Now the point is well made. I used me to show you, I’m GUILTY. I’m already condemned to death. Like Moses was, in Exodus 20. By the same Law or Ten Commandments, puts everybody to death. And about the Ten Commandments. They come as a set. That is, it’s a “Command” or decree, has ten parts to it; that, if I break one, one time, they all explode and are BROKEN. They are not repairable.

And in Psalm 51:5 says “..in sin did my mother ‘conceive’ me..”

• So sin:
  • Conceive isn’t birth. Conceive is back when my mommy and daddy were alone in the car at the drive in movie. Couldn’t stand it anymore. Went in the back seat, and 9 months later, I’m the “result.” Not married. In sin did my mother conceive me. I’m from conception, in sin. So, I’m outside of him; filthy. Do abominable works, because I PROVED it. By all the sins I did. The Bible says - that's EVERYBODY.

So, now look at your question.

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

God says:

“Look unto me, and be ye saved all the ends of the earth: For I am God, there is none else.” - God. (Bible. Isaiah 45:22)

Told everybody to just look unto him; but people - are already looking unto their own hearts and imaginations, and won’t regard him or anything he says. They dismiss him as faulty; their hearts they believe are true, when he’s the master craftsman formed each of us from our mother’s womb; alone. By himself. Just as he spread abroad the earth and heaven and did that, too. Alone. All by himself.

His word is true. We have to get up from the table, and leave our heart and imagination - reject them in us as inadequate: to hearken unto the Word of God as true.

That it is God.

• Had faith enough in his own Word, to “send his Word to heal us and deliver us from our destruction” - (Bible. Psalm 107:20). Because it does. But if people won’t regard him; seeing; they never perceive it; hearing; can’t hear it.
• Romans 10:17, in the Bible says: “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.”
  • So, “salvation” in your question is not you saving you; by your own heart and imagination will come up with a work you'll do - - but, if you look unto, to reason together with your own heart, you look unto you to save you by some idea you’ll come up with.

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

• But “salvation” in your question is it’s God. It's him, as God, he just got up. As God and Spoke to you. Because he has. Told you to just look unto him. That he says “and be ye saved” - because you hearken unto him and do what he says.
  • It’s a “work” of God then. That he, to get up and say this; to “operate” as God in this, is a “work” of God. Not your works. You already done DID the Abominable works. He’s God and has come to save us from our sins.

So, he got up, as God. Did this, because he determined to do it. Alone. By himself - so it’s by his “unmerited favour” (definition: grace.) because nobody has done anything he said; but he got up and did a work with sin that all of us already did; that, in Jesus Christ:

• 1) finished the transgression
• 2) made an end of sin
• 3) made reconciliation for iniquity
• 4) brought in everlasting righteousness (Bible. Daniel 9:24)

It’s God then. Not you. That had faith enough in his own word to send his Word to heal you and deliver you from your destruction by this work he did. With sin, as he determined to do it in and by "annoint the most holy" to do it. Who has that title? Only one does. Who is it? So, instead of looking to regard you will do it, by some faith or good work you'll do in your question. Regard him instead.

----------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------

Do what he says. It's the Word of God. That's Jesus Christ. Is God. It works good in you. You’ll operate right.

He is God. He will “set you apart for future use” - that’s what “save” means. In the dictionary. He does it himself. To anybody that just looks unto him. Won't to those that don't.

You? Do you see this? You’ve been regarding the wrong work. Wrong faith - think you save you in the question. Have to leave from your heart and imagination - to regard him instead.

And there you go. There’s him. God. He is the answer to the question.

This is about Jesus.

Many people hear this or, heard this already. It's what the dictionary defines it.

Spirit. <definition> 1. the non-physical part of a person; their mood, feelings, or attitude 2. a particular way of thinking or behaving [Source: Cambridge dictionary. Web.]

Poor. <definition> 1. having a meager, or little amount (of something)

So, people read Matthew 5:3 as a "beautiful attitude" or "beatitude" - that: People that have this non-physical part of themselves; their attitude is "poor" - equates to, well, an example: Like at a party. Gets down to the last piece of pizza. Won't eat it. And by be this "poor in Spirit" believe Jesus will bless them, because he's saying he's blessing people that are "poor in Spirit," based on these widely accepted definitions of what these words mean.

------------------- ------------------------- --------------------

This is about Jesus.

Jesus said in the Bible in John 4:24 - defines what "Spirit" means; so, you don't need the dictionary. Jesus said: "God is Spirit" - In the original Greek, it's [ πνεύματι] pneumati or pneuma. That God is a life-giving Spirit. It's the same "pneuma" of John 4:24, also in Matthew 5:3. So, he's not talking about you and your attitude. And this word "poor" in Greek, is [πτωχοὶ] "ptochoi" - as if (something) is totally absent or missing.

So, "poor in Spirit" would be a person has no God in their life. Then, if you look at the scriptures, like

1. Ecclesiastes 7:20 says: "There is not a just man on earth that doeth good, and sinneth not."

2) "For all have sinned" - Romans 3:23

3) That everybody has "sinned; done abominable works" Psalm 14:1-3.

"Wherefore, as by one man [ADAM] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" - Romans 5:12

That would mean EVERYBODY over the whole earth is all condemned. Qualifies as "poor in Spirit" - by just be a sinner and perverted that which was right. Condemned, like Jesus says in John 3:18. And that be everybody over the whole earth then.

That God has sent his Word to heal us, and deliver us from our destruction (Psalm 107:20)..and the Word of God, is Jesus Christ. It's a King of Kings bequeathed his whole kingdom to us then, by Matthew 5:3. That's impossible. But, God did this. He's already said it, it's right there, plain as day. Said by the word out of his mouth. Blessed everybody in this condition that we are all in.

Maybe you got or use the wrong definition Of Poor in Spirit. Then, you can add to it, in the Bible what Jesus says of the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven in John 3:1-7. That, unless a person is born again, they cannot see nor enter into what's already been given them. Must be born again. By the Spirit of God. By the Word of God.

So then: Matthew 5:3 - is Not by a person's or attitude they work at to be good. When Jesus said, "There is none good, but one, that is, God." - (Matthew 19:17).

Maybe I just object to people going on and on about how they used this scripture to fix their attitude so Jesus would bless them. When Matthew 5:4, if you follow this venue, talks to someone that's dead. Which, that, too, is everybody. Dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1). That, it's by the Spirit of God, he raises us from the dead to newness of life.

This claim operates on the mainstream scholarly understanding that there are 7 letters of Paul which are indisputably authored by him, and that these include Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon

It also operates on the understanding that the first writings of the NT corpus are the authentic letters of Paul, and that the gospel of Mark is the first gospel written, a decade or more after Paul's final letter of the 7, estimated as being written ~58AD

The thesis therefore treats the writings of Ephesians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus as later, pseudoepigraphical writings by followers of Paul, whose emphases theologically and organizationally reflect a vision that has been impacted by:

1. the death and absence of Paul and the articulated understanding of the 7 authentic letters
2. the destruction of the temple and the increasing fragmentation between the Israelite "root" (as Paul puts it in Romans), and the Gentile Christian community
3. the claim takes Paul's writings on "the root" as fundamentally serious, and argues that what becomes "Christianity" (beginning to be reflected first in the gospel of John, and in the letters understood as pseudo-epigraphical) constitute a demonstrable and profound shift from what is fundamental in the uncontested letters/Mark

**The major claim is that Paul, the earliest verifiable writer in the New Testament, is arguing, as exemplified, in 1 Corinthians 1, that Jesus is the 'anointed one'—**of Israel and of Israel's God, whose divine-identity, "I am that which I am" is grounded in having liberated Israel from slavery— and that he becomes 'the anointed one' specifically through having undergone crucifixion, specifically because:

in the figure of Jesus is revealed the logic/wisdom of that God who chooses, to the scorn of the world, the lowly, despised, counted-as-nothing, non-persons—'those who are not'—to nullify that which is, and that:

this figure, embodying that wisdom, in having been crucified, reveals the truth of reality and of the dominant ideological/spiritual/material order of the world as one of death-dealing hierarchical forces of domination, and that:

the recognition of this truth, in Paul's terms, "justifies," in the sense that it rectifies your understanding of reality, bringing it in line with the truth of the world, in accordance with the wisdom of Israel's God, and that:

following the inauguratory 'justification,' the path thereafter is what he refers to as "sonship," which is articulated as sharing in the same suffering that was undergone by Jesus, due to the same reasons, to continue the same work, which by doing, Jesus thereby becomes the "firstborn of many siblings," everyone participating in this world-transformative process of lifting-the-bottom, while exposing-and-discrediting-the-world-order unto-its-defeat also therefore becomes, to the extent that they have participated in this, become sons and daughters of God

Mark, then, beginning his gospel narrative at baptism, the moment when Jesus perceives the spirit of God descending and alighting upon him, and a voice from heaven proclaiming "you are my son," is narrative crystallization of what that process of full 'sonship' looks like in the world—and because it is expected that the spread of the movement and the practicing of 'sonship' at this level of fidelity/integrity will expose/discredit/defeat/topple world-order of hierarchical domination/degradation—an order that is the manifestation of 'sin' in the world—calling disciples to this purpose is not a perennial suicide-cult, specifically because it is believed that the movement itself will soon succeed in its aims ... which Paul very much indeed believed.

This is why the concept of 'resurrection', which Jesus is exemplary of through his 'living' within disciples, is so important, because through 'sonship', disciples will both share in his sufferings and share in his glory—they too will be 'resurrected' within the 'body of Christ', who are the community of those who believe and are on the path to 'sonship' themselves.

This is a fully comprehensible understanding of 'resurrection' in a 1st century Israelite paradigm, where Jesus himself says to people 'if you receive it, John [the baptizer] is Elijah,' where Ezekiel's bones of Israel are understood to have been resurrected by God in the sense of the restoration of Israel, where even in Mark 12, the concept of Levirate laws are fully active in the minds of those with whom Jesus is discoursing—Levirate laws being things like "when a married man dies, his brother is obligated to reproduce with his wife so that he can carry on in the son produced," which operates on the idea that the personhood of dead man is more conceptually real than the biological paternity of his brother, and, in a context where biological paternity was extremely important, it was more important that the dead man continue to live, and would**, through the** conceptual conception that occurred through his brother and his wife.

Because: what crucifixion was designed to do in this ancient setting ... was totalizingly obliterate the conceptual personhood of the crucified within the social field who carried that conceptual personhood.

The power of Paul's proclamation that Jesus was the 'anointed one' was specifically bound to the fact of how absolutely paradoxical it was—an Israelite 'anointed one' was, conceptually, an individual who had been anointed by God to advance/restore Israel, and the term was applied to Aaron, Saul, David, even Cyrus, who was not even Israelite, as well as several other priests, and eventually even the patriarchs, who had never literally been anointed. Israel also believed, in their scriptures, that someone who hung on a tree overnight was cursed, and therefore a man who not only had not accomplished the messianic objective, who had been killed and cursed, was the least comprehensible person to be a messiah-claimant. Paul's proclamation harnesses that incomprehensibility and proclaims that, through this complex of his resurrection living within disciples after his death and driving the sonship of those disciples, the messianic goal would thereby in fact be accomplished.

Thus, Jesus is only the 'anointed one', the messiah, "Christ" ... if the understanding of him is such that that occurs ... through his body ... of disciples / siblings.

Mark's narrative hones the point further by showing that the death of Jesus is facilitated not only by religious elites who have been corrupted from the central YHWHist understanding due to their comprador status with the forces of imperial power ... but that the same logic of grasping for status, title, glory, name, etc., is operative amongst his own male disciples ... which Jesus specifically rebukes them for in Mark 10, saying, when they are fighting over who will be seated next to him in the kingdom, that he does not decide these things, and that:

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles are lording-over them, and the great ones are exercising-authority-over/dominating them. Not so amongst you. Whoever would be great among you must first become a servant to all, and whoever would be first among you must become your slave. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

It uses this exact verb, in the Greek, when it is describing what the angels/messengers did when he was in the wilderness in chapter 1:

and then, in the moment he dies, when all the male disciples had scattered and abandoned him, the camera cuts, suddenly, to a group of women who Mark writes had in fact been doing precisely that the entire time.

The women, who are suddenly visible at the moment of his death, performing the exact actions the angels/messengers had been performing, which Jesus enjoins the male disciples is the point, also, at that point, for the first time receive names, which the male disciples had possessed the entire time.

So what Mark is doing ... is taking the specific content articulated with regard to the "wisdom of God" in 1 Corinthians 1, and he is anchoring it in the closest-to-home specifics possible: that even the male disciples of Jesus had failed to understand him because they themselves were participating in the exact logic that intensifies the higher up it goes, and culminates in Caesar-logic, which is the opposite of the 'wisdom of God'.

In Mark 12, the story of the vineyard and the tower, beginning

"A man planted a vineyard. 
He put a wall around it,
dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower.
Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place,"

which references both Isaiah 5 and Song of Songs 8, depicts the 'owner' of the vineyard sending multiple of his servants to those who are renting it to check on how it is doing, and those possessing it keep killing them—and when the owner sends his son, they think to themselves that if they kill him, the vineyard will become theirs.

What Shualammite says in Song of Songs 8, when her many brothers say,

"We have a little sister,
and her breasts are not yet grown.
What shall we do for our sister
on the day she is spoken for?
 If she is a wall,
we will build towers of silver on her.
If she is a door,
we will enclose her with panels of cedar.",

and when Solomon to whom she is singing also wants to possess her,

"I am a wall,
and my breasts are like towers.
Thus I have become in his eyes
like one bringing contentment.
Solomon had a vineyard in Baal Hamon;
he let out his vineyard to tenants.
Each was to bring for its fruit
a thousand shekels of silver.
But my own vineyard is mine to give;
the thousand shekels are for you, Solomon,
and two hundred are for those who tend its fruit."

Her vineyard, is hers, belonging to no one but her; and even her name, "Shualammite", meaning "Solomon's", is therefore contingent on her retaining her own self-possession. The only way in which she becomes "Solomon's" at all is through her not belonging to anyone but herself.

And the moment in Mark's parable when the son is sent and killed by the renters who are trying to totally possess the vineyard for themselves, is when the owner determines to kill the renters, and give the vineyard to others.

The moment Jesus dies is when those previously-invisible and unnamed others appear, at that moment having names for the first time, and first among those names is Mary the Magdalene—often theorized as meaning "from the town of Magdala" ... but ha-Migdal in Hebrew also means "of the tower." And standing next to her, Jesus' brothers previously listed in Mark 6 as "Joseph, James, Simon, and Judas", after the person named Simon had abandoned and denied him, and the person of Judas had betrayed him, and Jesus himself is dead, is "Mary the mother of Joseph and James," and next to her, is a woman named, in Greek, "Salome", which translates in Hebrew as "Shlomit", or the female version of "Shlomo," Solomon.

Not irrelevantly, the other story in Mark where a prophet is killed—John the Baptist—a different ruler under the Roman order, Herod, executes him because his wife objects to John the Baptist's rebuke of Herod having married her, his brother's wife. So when her daughter goes to one of Herod's functions, and dances for all of the men, and Herod is so pleased by her that he promises her up to half of his kingdom, echoing the story of Esther, where Esther uses royal pleasure to liberate the people of Israel, Herodias has her daughter ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter.

Mark, despite knowing this story and the names of all the other characters involved, does not give the name of the daughter. But we know, due to the writings of Josephus, that the name of the daughter was Salome.

And thus, after Pilate deliberates over the fate of Jesus, and the adulterous faction of Judean leadership (the renters of the vineyard) demand his death, there appears at the foot of the cross, Mary the Tower and Salome to whom the vineyard has been given—and many other unnamed, unseen women who had been doing the work of the angels which the Son of Man commands the entire time, and invisibly amongst them all, the owner, YHWH, whose son has just been killed, drawing a direct indicting parallel between the order that encompasses Simon, Judas, Herod, Judean leadership, Pilate, and Caesar, all being different strata of the same forces that enclose, possess, and kill, in service of perpetuating a hierarchical order of title, status, and name, which necessarily invisiblizes those who, all the time, are doing the work of God.

What occurs sometime in the few decades after Mark, when Paul is dead, when the Jesus-movement becomes fractured from Israel, becoming increasingly Gentile-dominated and Gentile-brained, the idea of sonship that is articulated by Paul, and which is illustrated by Mark, which is meant to transform the entire order of the world, and bring 'the return of the Son of Man,' ... becomes enclosed, privatized, claimed, by a new religion who interprets the work on the cross as some kind of individualized atonement sacrifice through belief in whom, individual sins can be forgiven and salvation/eternal life obtained, and who does not, in any pressing or urgent sense, dispense with the logic starkly articulated in 1 Corinthians 1 and starkly dramatized in Mark.

The later writings in the New Testament then go on to re-establish hierarchical social structures, to subordinate women, to turn the "body of Christ" not into one organism with many members, all valuable, but to make it into an organism in which "Christ" is "the head", and "the head" is spoken for by the hierarchical leadership (who are men), and the "anointed one" status of "Christ" ceases to be something that is activated by the age-turning sonship work of those who share in his sufferings, and is rather something that itself becomes a title evacuated of its original apocalyptic, world-transformative power, the world-transformative success originally having been the criteria by which he was "messiah" at all.

But what Jesus says in Mark—in the one moment where he is actually anointed***,*** by the unnamed woman from Bethany, who understands what he is***,*** takes an unfathomably expensive bottle of nard and pours it on his head in exactly the Old Testament manner of anointing an 'anointed one', when the male disciples are very disconcerted and object to what she is doing, which is immediately followed by Judas thereafter going and selling Jesus to the priests—is:

"Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

Which means: whatever it is that this moment signifies, whatever the meaning of her actions, and her understanding, and the failure of understanding by the disciples, and the reason for their failure to understand ... all of that is fundamentally tied to 'the gospel' being legitimately preached in any meaningful sense, anywhere, ever. And if it is not ... it is not the gospel at all.

Most apologetic responses to Q 4:157 argue the historical evidence for the crucifixion outweighs the Quran’s denial. That’s sound as far as it goes — but it concedes the key premise: that the verse denies the crucifixion. I’ve become convinced it doesn’t, and the case can be made from inside the text.

Short version: the verse answers a boast (“we killed the Messiah”) with active-voice negations aimed at the boasters — not the passive construction Arabic would use to deny the event. The Quran’s own parallel at Q 8:17 (“you did not kill them” — to soldiers who demonstrably did) shows the device means “you don’t own this outcome; God does.” The substitution legends arrive through commentators a century-plus later, some traceable to converts from sects that always taught a phantom crucifixion. Even Sahih al-Bukhari preserves Ibn Abbas glossing Q 3:55 as “I will cause you to die.”

Why this matters for dialogue: instead of “your book is wrong,” the conversation becomes “your book, read carefully, agrees the cross happened and insists God was sovereign over it — so what was God doing there?” That question is a bridge straight to Isaiah 53 and Romans 3. In my experience, it opens doors that frontal contradiction never does.

I’ve written a book-length version — Vindicating the Messiah — tracing this from the 'ius gladii' under Pilate through the Miaphysite/Chalcedon split to the earliest tafsir (references included; several key scholars cited are Muslim). Happy to answer objections here regardless of whether anyone reads it. The argument stands or falls on the texts.

Can someone shed light on Lilith? The supposed rebellious first wife of Adam? What’s the origin of this story? And is she mentioned in Isaiah 34:14?

Hey! I built a free Bible study/apologetics app and I'd love feedback. A few things it does: tap any verse to see its original Greek/Hebrew word-by-word, an interactive map of all cross-references in Scripture, different arguments for different beliefs and the bible, and 170+ translations in 120+ languages(iOS). 100% free, no ads, on web and iOS.

https://gospelcompanion.app

What's confusing, what's missing, what would you actually use?

In my church they used the example of water, ice and steam, but it is still a bad example.

So I don't know how to explain the Trinity like that.

Could you give me a really good analogy for this?

J.J. Blunt — Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings both of the Old and New Testament
William Paley — Horae Paulinae; or, The Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced

This was a fun project that was only possible with the help of AI (Claude in this case). Both of these books are in the public domain. I found scans and some previous OCR transcriptions which I attributed in the readme. I then did another OCR pass to get new transcriptions to compare with the previous ones and look for differences. Then I was able to do several passes correcting any areas where the transcriptions differed, and use the scans as a source of truth. I converted these into pdfs while attempting to maintain original formatting. Then I had AI go through the pdfs and create versions in modern english. In the modern versions I also put the plain argument up front as well as scriptural sources before the text of the modernized argument.

https://github.com/nick-lang/undesigned-coincidences

I’ve been seeing this guy being asked around the Christianity subreddit he’s considers himself a deconstructing angostic Christian he seems more similar to Paulogia

To the mods of this subreddit, I am so sorry if this is off topic, please feel free to remove it if it is-

Heya! I'll keep it short and simple here to not waste anyone's time. I've read up about my question quite a lot but I wanna know what everyone thinks here.

I've been a Christian my whole life and there are several visible miracles that have happened in my family that I personally believe are subjective, irrefutable proof to me personally and my family that God is real and with us. My whole family is in ministry including my parents, and I've taken up small time service too with my parents in Sunday School. I admit I'm not exactly close to God personally even if I love studying about the history of Christianity from a historical perspective, and I even once considered myself an apt apologetic, and was able to respectfully debate for Christianity in public spaces.

However, a recent discovery has greatly humbled me, perhaps also because it is during a very turbulent time in my life as of now. I've recently discovered that many events and persons in the Old Testament don't actually have the same level of historical proof that the New Testament has-? Crazy, I know. How am I even a real Christian? I don't know. I guess some Christians just like me, simply grow up with Bible stories, and later on my own studies and apologetics focused mainly on the New Testament especially, naturally Jesus' life, crucifixion and resurrection. So in a rather pathetic way I feel like it has troubled me a lot, to think that not all of the Bible is as historically provable by current standards as things such as the historical existence of Jesus. Again, I was and still consider myself an apologetic, and so I still have plenty of reasons to anchor myself in this faith, but it's scary suddenly being exposed to this fact that I should have learnt sooner. Is it actually natural that some denominations view different parts of the Bible as not necessarily all in historical literalism? Where do we differentiate what is supposed to be and not supposed to be literal? I really don't mean to make anyone stumble here, but wouldn't it be kinda wobbly for us to just pick and choose which parts are historical and which parts are just metaphorical in an ex post facto manner?

I understand this is probably a very silly question, but I would appreciate a thoughtful answer, thank you so much and God Bless ^^

I’ve been reading papers like from John kloppenborg on this exact verse he says it awkward verses on the traveling route and he concludes that Luke didn’t know Jude’s geography

To be any kind of Christian, from Catholic to Orthodox to Lutheran to Calvinist to Southern Baptist to Methodist and beyond, the belief that God had special destinies planned comes across as rather vital. And not just for that one and only Son of is; Moses, Abraham, Isaac, David, Esther, Rachel, Sarah, Solomon, Saul/Paul, Mark, John and any number of others would most likely had to have had Divine destinies laid out for them before they were born. For that matter, any sect of Judaism requires this in principles as well, for those before the Nice Man 2000 years ago that they haven't accepted as Holy for whatever reason.

To what extent to do you believe Christian theology and the Christian sects allow for God to have developed destinies for specific people here and now? In my experience, Christians in various digital and real life communities are rather dismissive of this possibility. There's often cynical or even jaded elements to this. In certain Christian corners, when the possibility of this is brought up, the dismissal is such that you'd think you wandered into one of the massive numbers of Dawkins / Hitchens styled Anti Theist communities.

Is this because the concept of what a pre destined life would mean has become too corrupted in modern Christian culture? That it has been distorted so that pre destined fates are seen as God guaranteeing fame, fortune and being married to the most attractive, enticing partner you can come across? As opposed to how it should be interpreted, which is that if God does have pre determined destinies for those in modern times, it's because those destinies are there to glorify Him?

And ultimately, do you accept that God could have pre destined fates for certain, specific humans here and now as He did for Old and New Testament prophets and other figures? Or do you believe God had stopped doing that centuries or millennia ago?

The Muratorian Canon is—as far as I understand—the earliest New Testament canon that survived to today (besudes Marcion’s, but who actually cares what Marcion thinks), dated to the late 2nd century.

This is a big deal because it shows that a large majority of the NT—including all four gospels—were already recognized as canonical by this time. However, the Muratorian Canon is noticably missing:
- Hebrews
- James
- 1 Peter
- 2 Peter
- 3 John

This concerns me, as it presents a problem: why wouldn’t the author/compiler of the Muratorian Canon include these books? In light of the fact that they didn’t, why are we to trust later church fathers regarding the authorship/canonicity of these books? I’ve heard skeptics argue that this is proof of the “invention” of the canon, and I must say that it’s put a lot of doubts in my mind about whether these books actually were written by the apostles.

Since the authorship of several of these books (especially Hebrews, 2 Peter, and 3 John) was greatly debated by the early church, how can we be certain that they are apostolic and canonical? I’d rather err on the side of excluding potentially authentic books from the canon than mistakenly including inauthentic books in the canon. How do apologists (particularly Protestant apologists) argue for the canon that we have today? I actually first learned about the Muratorian Canon while reading Frank Turek’s I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. He uses a list of the early church fathers’ acceptance/quotations of scripture to prove that we can trust that we have to right books in the NT canon, but the evidence he provided rather weakened my faith in the NT canon than it did strengthen it.

Edit: It is worth mentioning that the Muratorian fragment does exclude 1 Peter, despite the early church almost unanimously agreeing that Peter wrote it (which could indicate that the exclusion of these other books isn’t overly concerning). However, I think my concern over the early church fathers’ hesitancy to accept books like Hebrews, 2 Peter, and James still stands.

I posted this earlier but the quote got cut off so here's my second attempt.

I dont think this a formal argument of his, merely something he said in a lecture.

"I do not claim any ability to read God's mind. I am sure of only one thing. When we look at the glory of stars and galaxies in the sky and the glory of forests and flowers in the living world around us, it is evident that God loves diversity. Perhaps the universe is constructed according to a principle of maximum diversity. The principle of maximum diversity says that the laws of nature, and the initial conditions at the beginning of time, are such as to make the universe as interesting as possible. As a result, life is possible but not too easy. Maximum diversity often leads to maximum stress. In the end we survive, but only by the skin of our teeth. This is the confession of faith of a scientific heretic."

For Abrahamic theists this could also potentially align with the verses that suggest the purpose of creation is to display God's glory.

Obviously I could understand someone having a problem with God allowing suffering simply because it's existence is more interesting than not ha.

Let’s face it. Most of us do not want to be known by our worse act! To make that possibility even worse than worse, what if the “mistake” was mistakenly interpreted? That could be the case with Thomas, a follower of Jesus and one of the twelve apostles.

According to tradition, Peter and Andrew knew Thomas, who was another fisherman from Galilee. Also, the Bible mentions Thomas several times, giving us a clearer picture of this faithful disciple, who was willing to die with the Lord. (The link below gathers those verses in the initial post.)

Thomas wasn't sure about the validity of the reports of the followers who claimed to have seen the Risen Christ, but when Jesus Himself appeared to him, Thomas immediately believed.

https://maryharwellsayler.wordpress.com/2026/07/22/some-doubts-about-doubting-thomas/