Is Jesus God?

[Ben_Masada]

Biblical Interpretation Acts CH11;

[19-26] The Jewish Christian antipathy to the mixed community was reflected by the early missionaries generally. The few among them who entertained a different view succeeded in introducing Gentiles into the community at Antioch (in Syria). When the disconcerted Jerusalem community sent Barnabas to investigate, he was so favorably impressed by what he observed that he persuaded his friend Saul to participate in the Antioch mission.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Why would anyone trust the faith of a man who misrepresented who he was?

I am not asking you to trust my faith; I am asking you to trust the only Scriptures that Jesus used to handle and to refer to it as the Word of God.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Isaiah 9:6 (New American Standard Bible)

6For a (A)child will be born to us, a (B)son will be given to us;
     And the (C)government will rest (D)on His shoulders;
     And His name will be called (E)Wonderful Counselor, (F)Mighty God,
     Eternal (G)Father, Prince of (H)Peace.

Cross references:

I would recommend you to read my thread about “The Christian Greek Horse of Isaiah 9:6.” You would understand the passage above of Isaiah. This is a prophecy of Isaiah about the Gentiles in the Galilee of the nations welcoming the Jewish People in return from the exile in Babylon.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Just because the term Christian may have been used first at Antioch doesn’t mean that’s when Christianity began.

Did evoloution (if one believes) begin only with Darwin’s theory and thus there was no thing evolving until that time - of course not, that would be most silly

Long before Paul Christ said…

You are Rock (Peter) and on this rock I will build my Church…
Go teach all nations, baptising them in the name (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Nice try about the term Evolution, because what Darwin did was only to confirm the theory of Evolution. And about being Peter the Roch on which Jesus would build a Church, who said that, a Hellenistic Gentile who wrote the gospel? Not too convincing to a Jew. We have a hard time accepting the word of Greeks for granted.

 

[Canto]

RESPONSE:

Yes. This was the Jewish king about eight centuries before Jesus’ time.

So there was a Jewish king called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” ???

 

[fhansen]

I am not asking you to trust my faith; I am asking you to trust the only Scriptures that Jesus used to handle and to refer to it as the Word of God.

I was speaking of the faith of Jesus.

 

[fhansen]

RESPONSE:

As I pointed out the “creator god” was himself a created non-eternal deity, the “first born of all creation” according to Paul.

The CC has never believed this-why would you?

 

[Canto]

Nice try about the term Evolution, because what Darwin did was only to confirm the theory of Evolution. And about being Peter the Roch on which Jesus would build a Church, who said that, a Hellenistic Gentile who wrote the gospel? Not too convincing to a Jew. We have a hard time accepting the word of Greeks for granted.

What Darwin did confirmed the theory
What Paul did confirmed the Church

What do you have against Hellenistic Gentiles?
Why do you have a hard time accepting the word of Greeks?

Jesus said he’d build his Church on Peter and he did

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

Matthew and Luke used Mark as their source document. Look up the story in Mark. The first part of the passages are identical but there is nothing about founding a church or Peter’s authority. Apparently, this passage was written in later

Evidence ???

My understanding is that is it generally agreed that Matthew was the first Gospel to be written, complete with Mt 16:18 where Jesus founds the Church on Peter.

**And if you read John 1, you will find that Simon was originally told that Jesus was the messiah by his brother Andrew long before Simon became an apostle. And Simon had his name changed to Peter then too. Do you know what an interpolation to scripture is?
**

JOHN Andrew said Jesus was the Messiah and the next verse Jesus renames Simon as Rock (Peter)

MARK Jesus gave them power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils but he specifically renames Simon, Rock.

LUKE Simon acknowledges Jesus as Lord, the Christ of God, and Jesus renames him Rock.

MATT Peter said Jesus was not just the Messiah, but the Son of God, and Jesus renames him Rock

Now why would you rename somone with a perfectly nice name like Simon as Rock?

John 6:68 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.

Out of intrest Ex and Deut both have the 10 commandmants (words) and the Book of Numbers (33:38) tells us that Aaron died on Mt. Hor yet the Book of Deuteronomy (10:6) tells us that Aaron died in Mosera.

 

[twb1621]

RESPONSE:
I’m not sure where your 'like a god" is coming from. The koine Greek reads:
“kai theos En ho logos” “and a god was the saying word”

In Greek cosmology, the logos was a lesser created god who was responsible for the rest of creation. Not to be confused with the eternal God who was called Monad or in Christian cosmology, …

I mean you no offense but there are millions of people out there all of whom think they have the edge and can interpret scripture and Greek and Hebrew deciding on what they believe it IS against the majority of Scholars over centuries. I promise you regardless of what your background may be or education may be, it will not compare to the multitude of Fellows in their respective fields many holding doctorates and not solely of one faith or of any faith for that matter who have joined in committees throughout history to determine the most accurate scripture translations and interpretations. We see with consistency throughout history of all those who have for the most part concluded these fundamental interpretations. There are so many characteristics requiring joint study to accurately determine scriptural interpretations in Greek and Hebrew and many variables in the usage of remote characters that one person without comparable degrees in each field of study is incomparable. If you doubt this, look into the credentials of those who have been involved in Biblical interpretation and what backgrounds some of these committees members held before you make a decision on your own opinions. It is good to have knowledge to research but that does not qualify anyone to promote an opinion that has gone against centuries of those qualified as they are and were.

1Ἐν ἀρ.χῇ ἦν ὁ λό.γος, καὶ ὁ λό.γος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θε.όν, καὶ θε.ὸς ἦν ὁ λό.γος.

Latin Vulgate 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NAB 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

KJV 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NASB 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

ESV 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

AND SO ON……….
λό.γος.
λόγος (logos, 3056), -ου, ὁ, *(λέγω), *[fr. Hom. down], Sept. esp. for דָּבָר, also for אֹמֶר and מִלָּה; prop. a *collecting, collection, (see λέγω), *— and that, as well of those things which are put together in thought, as of those which, having been thought i. e. gathered together in the mind, are expressed in words. Accordingly, a twofold use of the term is to be distinguished: one which relates to speaking, and one which relates to thinking.
I. As respects speech:

1. a word, yet not in the grammatical sense (i. q. vocabulum, the mere name of an object), but language, vox, i. e. a word which, uttered by the living voice, embodies a conception or idea; (hence it differs from ῥῆμα and ἔπος [q. v.; cf. also λαλέω, ad init.]): Heb. xii. 19; ἀποκριθῆναιλόγον, Mt. xxii. 46; εἰπεῖνλόγῳ, Mt. viii. 8 [Rec. λόγον (cf. εἶπον, 3 a. fin.)]; Lk. vii. 7; λαλῆσαι πέντε, μυρίους, λόγους, 1 Co. xiv. 19; διδόναιλόγονεὔσημον, to utter a distinct word, intelligible speech, 1 Co. xiv. 9; εἰπεῖνλόγονκατὰτινος, to speak a word against, to the injury of, one, Mt. xii. 32; also εἴςτινα, Lk. xii. 10; to drive out demons λόγῳ, Mt. viii. 16; ἐπερωτᾶν τινα ἐν λόγοις ἱκανοῖς, Lk. xxiii. 9; of the words of a conversation, ἀντιβάλλειν λόγους, Lk. xxiv. 17.
2.* what some one has said; a saying;

continued*

 

[twb1621]

a*. univ.: Mt. xix. 22 [T om.]; Mk. v. 36 [cf. B. 302 (259) note]; vii. 29; Lk. i. 29; xx. 20; xxii. 61 [Tr mrg. WH* ῥήματος*];* Jn. ii. 22; iv. 39, 50; vi. 60; vii. 36; xv. 20; xviii. 9; xix. 8; Acts vii. 29; ὁ λόγοςοὗτος*, this (twofold) saying (of the people), Lk. vii. 17, cf. 16;* τὸναὐτὸωλόγονεἰπών*, Mt. xxvi. 44; [Mk. xiv. 39];* παγιδεύειν τινὰ ἐν λόγῳ, in a word or saying which they might elicit from him and turn into an accusation, Mt. xxii. 15; ἀγρεύειντινὰλόγῳ*, i. e. by propounding a question, Mk. xii. 13; plur., Lk. i. 20; Acts v. 5, 24; with gen. of the contents: ὁ λ. ἐπαγγελίας, Ro. ix. 9; ὁ λ. τῆς ὁρκομωσίας, Heb. vii. 28; λ. παρακλήσεως, Acts xiii. 15;* ὁ λ. τῆς μαρτυρίας, Rev. xii. 11; οἱ λ. τῆς προφητείας, Rev. i. 3 [Tdf. τὸνλ.]; xxii. 6 sq. 10, 18; ὁ προφητικὸςλόγος*, the prophetic promise, collectively of the sum of the Ο. Τ. prophecies, particularly the Messianic, 2 Pet. i. 19; of the sayings and statements of teachers:* οἱλόγοιοὗτοι, the sayings previously related, Mt. vii. 24 [here L Tr WH br. τούτ*.], 26; Lk. ix. 28;** οἱλόγοιτινός, the words, commands, counsels, promises, etc., of any teacher, Mt. x. 14; xxiv. 35; Mk. viii. 38; Lk. ix. 44; Jn. xiv. 24; Acts xx. 35; λόγοιἀληθινοί, Rev. xix. 9; xxi. 5; πιστοί, Rev. xxii. 6; κενοί, Eph. v. 6: πλαστοί, 2 Pet. ii. 3 [cf. W. 217 (204)];
b*.* of the sayings of God;
α*. i. q.* decree, mandate, order: Ro. ix. 28; with τοῦθεοῦ added, 2 Pet. iii. 5, 7 [Rst G Tr txt.]; ὁ λ. τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγένετο πρός τινα (a phrase freq. in the Ο. Τ.), Jn. x. 35.
β. of the moral precepts given by God in the O. T.: Mk. vii. 13; [Mt. xv. 6 L Tr WH txt.]; Ro. xiii. 9; Gal. v. 14, (cf. οἱδέκαλόγοι, [Ex. xxxiv. 28; Deut. x. 4 (cf. ῥήματα, iv. 13); Philo, quis rer. div. her. § 35; de decalog. § 9]; Joseph, antt. 3, 6, 5 [cf. 5, 5]).*
γ*. i. q.* promise: ὁ λ. τῆς ἀκοῆς (equiv. to ὁ ἀκουσθείς*), Heb. iv. 2;* ὁ λ. τοῦ θεοῦ, Ro. ix. *
6; plur. Ro. iii. 4; univ. a divine declaration recorded in the Ο. T., Jn. xii. 38; xv. 25; 1 Co. xv. 54.
δ. διὰλόγουθεοῦ etc. through prayer in which the language of the Ο. Τ. is employed: 1 Tim. iv. 5; cf. De Wette and Huther ad loc.*
ε. ὁ λόγοςτοῦθεοῦ, as often in the Ο. Τ. prophets , an oracle or utterance by which God discloses, to the prophets or through the prophets, future events: used collectively of the sum of such utterances, Rev. i. 2, 9; cf. Düsterdieck and Bleek ad ll. cc.
c. what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism*, (Lat.* sententia*):* τὸνλόγοντοῦτον

continued…*

 

[twb1621]

*(reference is made to what follows, so that *γάρ in vs. 12 is explicative), Mt. xix. 11; a dictum, maxim or weighty saying: 1 Tim. i. 15; iii. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 11; Tit. iii. 8; i. q. proverb, Jn. iv. 37 (as sometimes in class. Grk., e. g. [Aeschyl. Sept. adv. Theb. 218]; ὁ παλαιὸςλόγος, Plat. Phaedr. p. 240 c; conviv. p. 195 b.; legg. 6 p. 757 a.; Gorg. p. 499 c.; verum est verbum quod memoratur, ubi amici, ibi opes, Plaut. Truc. 4, 4, 32; add, Ter. Andr. 2, 5, 15; al.).
3. discourse (Lat. oratio);

(Lat. oratio*);*
a. the act of speaking, speech*: Acts xiv. 12; 2 Co. x. 10; Jas. iii. 2;* διὰλόγου*, by word of mouth, Acts xv. 27; opp. to δι᾿ἐπιστολῶν, 2 Th. ii. 15; διὰλόγουπολλοῦ, Acts xv. 32;* λόγῳπολλῷ, Acts xx. 2; περὶοὗπολὺςἡμῖνὁλόγος*, of whom we have many things to say, Heb. v. 11;* ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν, Mt. v. 3 7; Col. iv. 6; λ. κολακείας, 1 Th. ii. 5. λόγος is distinguished from σοφία in 1 Co. ii. 1; fr. ἀναστροφή, 1 Tim. iv. 12; fr. δύναμις, 1 Co. *
iv. 19 sq.; 1 Th. i. 5; fr. ἔργον, Ro. xv. 18; 2 Co. x. 11; Col. iii. 17; fr. ἔργον κ. ἀλήθεια, 1 Jn. iii. 18 (see ἔργον, 3 p.**** 248a bot.); οδὐενὸς λόγου τίμιον, not worth mentioning (λόγουἄξιον, Hdt. 4, 28; cf. Germ, der Rede werth), i. e. a thing of no value, Acts xx. 24 Τ Tr WH (see II. 2 below).
b. i. q. the faculty of speech: Eph. vi. 19; skill and practice in speaking: ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τῇ γνώσει, 2 Co. xi. 6; δυνατὸςἐνἔργῳκ. λόγῳ, Lk. xxiv. 19* (ἄνδραςλόγῳ δυνατούς, Diod. 13, 101); λόγοςσοφίας or γνώσεως, the art of speaking to the purpose about things pertaining to wisdom or knowledge, 1 Co. xii. 8.
c*. a kind (or style)* of speaking: ἐν παντὶλόγῳ, 1 Co. i. 5 [A. V. utterance].

Many available that correspond but this definition is far from ended and continued at …

greekbiblestudy.org/gnt/main.do

bible-researcher.com/vaticanus7.jpg

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE:

As I pointed out the “creator god” was himself a created non-eternal deity, the “first born of all creation” according to Paul.

This is not what Paul is indicating. First born does not mean created. First born here is used as preeminent not to indicate creation.

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE:

Actuallly, he didn’t. Matthew and Luke used Mark as their source document. Look up the story in Mark. The first part of the passages are identical but there is nothing about founding a church or Peter’s authority. Apparently, this passage was written in later. And if you read John 1, you will find that Simon was originally told that Jesus was the messiah by his brother Andrew long before Simon became an apostle. And Simon had his name changed to Peter then too. Do you know what an interpolation to scripture is?

It is only one unsubstantiated theory you present. It is not a fact as you would like to think.
The following is from the late Father Most a scripture expert

Some Protestants even today try to claim verses 17-19 – with the promise of primacy - were just a late interpolation, and not part of the original text. There is simply no manuscript evidence at all to support this notion. Rather, it shows how clearly these Protestants perceive the real meaning of the words, so that they feel driven to such an extreme as to propose, without any foundation, a claim of interpolation.

 

[crowcounty]

RESPONSE:

Yes. This was the Jewish king about eight centuries before Jesus’ time.

8th century bce ahaz teams up ith the assyrians to defeat the israelites the assyrians take eveything but jerusalem because hezekiah pays them tribute (around 701 by now)

2nd century bce the book of isaiah is completed.

not much of a prophecy.

 

[twb1621]

.

[19-26] The Jewish Christian antipathy to the mixed community was reflected by the early missionaries generally. The few among them who entertained a different view succeeded in introducing Gentiles into the community at Antioch (in Syria). When the disconcerted Jerusalem community sent Barnabas to investigate, he was so favorably impressed by what he observed that he persuaded his friend Saul to participate in the Antioch mission.

BEN; Sorry, but you are totally mistaken about the background to Acts 11:26. There had been a wave of persecutions against the Jews in Rome, whose fire spread to the provinces of the Asia Minor, especially Syria and Alexandria. (Acts 18:1-5) Since the coverts of the Nazarenes would become as Jewish as any other Jew, they were somehow the most affected. They fled from several places into Antioch for seeming to be a more safer haven. And the Synagogue of Anitioch was crowded, and the Cause was growing all the more. For this reason, James and the Elders from the headquarters in Jerusalem decided to send Barnabas, an authority among the Nazarenes to take care of the work in Antioch. Barnabas and Paul had always been old friends from youth. For this reason, Barnabas decided to go to Tarsus, and to look for Paul, and to invite him to come over to help Barnabas with the work in Antioch. That’s all that Paul wanted. He accepted the call and within a whole year he had overturned the Nazarene Synagogue of Antioch into a Christian church. That’s why, when and where the disciples of the Nazarenes started being called Christians for the first time. Because Paul was preaching that Jesus was Christ. That’s the context of the whole chpater 11 of Acts. Therefore, Christianity started with Paul and there is nothing you can do to deny Paul the credit that is due him.

****TWB: Well then by George, we’ll have to talk to the scholars who included this interpretation and explanation into the NAB because that is where it came from… Sorry, but the interpretations you offered are not remotely anywhere near as qualified s those I presented. ****

Christians: “Christians” is first applied to the members of the community at Antioch because the Gentile members of the community enable it to stand out clearly from Judaism.

BEN: Sorry, but that’s not true at all. The community of disciples in the Synagogue of Antioch was made out of about 75 percent of converts from the Gentiles. And they were no longer Gentiles but Jews for all effect, staunch defenders of the Law. (Acts 21:20) They never stood out from Judaism until Paul showed up with his peculiar Christian gospel.

**Again, we’ll have to talk to the scholars who included this interpretation and explanation into the NAB because that is where it came from… Sorry, but the interpretations you offered are not remotely anywhere near as qualified s those I presented. **

What about Christ’s establishing His Church in Scripture and assigning the Apostles to spread the word and preach His gospel? What about the scripture verses I previously presented to you?

I am all ears. Show me the quotations. You can’t. But I can show you Jesus forbidding his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles. Read Matthew 10;5,6.

I can accept your describing yourself as being “all ears” considering I presented you several scripture verses showing this in previous posts and you obviously didn’t SEE them.

What about all the Christians who had previously been taught and went to Antioch after Stephen’s martyrdom and preached? That was before Barnabas and Paul ever went there to preach. Were they not the founders? They were the disciples of the apostles after all.

There was never a single Christian before Paul. Stephen was never a Christian, but a Nazarene. Otherwise, Luke would not say that Christians started with Paul in Antioch according to Acts 11:26. If you insist, you are digging contradictions in the NT.

You are totally Wrong with a capital ‘W’. That’s an escape route to uphold your bias of Paul. Where did you ever get the information that no Christians were there before Paul? Wow…

continued…

 

[twb1621]

.

What about the Apostles themselves who elected officially to send Barnabas to learn what was going on in Antioch based on the rumors of the conversions taking place both of Jew and Gentile.

I have told you above that the disciples were crowding Antioch not because of conversion but because of disciples running for a safer haven in Antioch. Read the context of Acts 11:26.

So in your mind they didn’t say a word about the Gospel. Tell me something with credibility, that’s the problem, you haven’t.

What about Barnabas himself who was sent there by the Apostles to learn of the interest and conversions as a result of the preaching of the Gospel by those first followers of Christ.

You prefer to type what comes to your mind without checking the context of the facts. Those were Nazarenes. The Nazarenes did not know anything about Jesus being the Christ. Apollos is a good example. He came to know that Jesus was Christ through Aquila and Prisilla, a couple converted by Paul. (Acts 18:24-28)

**Did Barnabas go to Antioch first before Paul? Yes. **
**Why? Because he was sent there by the apostles. **
Why? Because the apostles wanted to verify what they were hearing regarding the growth in Christ’s followers.
Where there Christians (or converted Jews to Christ) there before Barnabas?
There must have been under the circumstances or Barnabas would not have been sent to find out about the GROWTH in Christ’s disciples.

**If you think your sources are all accurate facts you’d do better without them. I didn’t specifically say where they came from. That is your biased interpretation of what I said. **

**In fact, go to Jews for Jesus and you will get another version that you wont agree with. **

It was Barnabas who went to get Paul and bring him to Jerusalem to the others convincing Paul to accompany him (Barnabas) and assist in the preaching of the Gospel. So how is it you single out Paul if there is no underlying reason? You’re falling to an narrow-mindedness that prevents you from learning the truth.

Paul had been expelled back to Tarsus since that havoc he wreaked in Jerusalem, preaching that Jesus was Christ, son of God, and that he had resurrected. When Barnabas was nominated to head the Synagogue of Antioch, instead of doing what he had been told, he went to Tarsus to invite Paul to work with him, without reporting a word about this to James in the Jerusalem headquarters. As a result of his imprudence, the Nazarenes lost that synagogue to Paul.

**Oh, I never heard it quite like that before. Please, what is your source. **

So you want to adopt Paul aside from all others as the founder of Christianity because someone first referred to followers of Christ as Christians in Antioch? You have been misguided without doubt.

**The misguided here is you who want to document your church with someone superior to Paul. It won’t help you though; not with someone as selective in his research as I am. **

Unfortunately your sources are prejudice. Here is a helpful site for you.

The gospel plainly attests to who founded Christ’s faith and whom He chose to establish His Church and His primary teachers of His word as well as the initial establishment of a hierarchy.

|Jesus never had absolutely anything to do with Christianity, which started about 30 years after he had been gone. Wake up my friend and smell the coffee! People are reading your book.

Your sources are twisted.
**Another source for you… **
**“The major centers of orthodox Christianity were Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria.**Paul did not found any of churches in those locations that became the major centers of the faith. The first person to proselytize gentiles was Peter as recorded in Acts 10. A survey of the writings of the church fathers from the early 2nd century reveals a wide range of influence, and a lack of appreciation for Paul’s theology. J. Gersham Machen points out:

Continued…

 

[twb1621]

.

**“The use of Pauline Epistles as normative for Christian thought and practice can be traced back to very early times, and has been continuously ever since. Yet certain considerations have been urged on the other side as indicating that the influence of Paul has not been so great as might have been expected. For example, the Christianity of the Old Catholic Church at the close of the second century displays a strange lack of understanding for the deeper elements in the Pauline doctrine of salvation, and something of the same state of affairs may be detected in the scanty remains of the so-called ‘Apostolic Fathers’ of the beginning of the century. The divergence from Paul was not conscious; the writers of the close of the second century all quote the Pauline epistles with the utmost reverence. But the fact of the divergence cannot altogether be denied.” **[1]
Numerous early church writings emphasize ideas that were not characteristic of Paul. One example is from the most popular of the 2nd century non-canonical works, the Shepherd of Hermas, which exhorts us as follows, “Whosoever therefore shall walk in these commandments, shall live and be happy in his life; but whosoever shall neglect them, shall not live, and shall be unhappy in his life (Hermas 124:3-4).” This popular work emphasized works in a way that does not sound a lot like Paul. This is not to say that these early church works contradict Paul complete, or that the authors were not orthodox. But, if Paul really was the founder of Christianity, we would expect to see a far greater prevalence of Pauline vocabulary and teaching. Instead we see a wide range of influences including the influence of John and Peter. This is consistent with the understanding that Paul was a follower of Jesus – even a very influential follower of Jesus – but it is not consistent with the idea that Paul founded Christianity.
**Christianity spread in many directions through the work of many apostles during the first and second centuries. Paul’s work is better known due to Paul’s writings that form such a large part of our New Testament. But the church was growing in other areas as well – for example in North Africa by John Mark, to Ethiopia (Acts 8:26ff), and to places like Edessa in Syria (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05282a.htm). In fact, as is evident from the book of Acts, the Christian faith had already spread well beyond Palestine even before Paul was converted. As Matthew makes clear well before Paul’s conversion, evangelizing the world was always part of the church mission. Jesus says, “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. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age (Matthew 28:19,20).” **

http://answers.org/paul.html** **

 

[Ben_Masada]

I was speaking of the faith of Jesus.

**The Faith of Jesus was Judaism. Oh! Perhaps you have some reservation about his being Catholic or Protestant? That will be the day! **

 

[Ben_Masada]

What Darwin did confirmed the theory
What Paul did confirmed the Church

 

[Ben_Masada]

****TWB:

Well then by George, we’ll have to talk to the scholars who included this interpretation and explanation into the NAB because that is where it came from… Sorry, but the interpretations you offered are not remotely anywhere near as qualified s those I presented