My Lord and my God - Shema Trinity

[Wootah]

Thomas says, "My Lord and my God."

https://biblehub.com/text/john/20-28.htm

What did he mean to claim about Jesus?

[PinSeeker]

Grace and peace to you and wisdom.

Thank you. To you also.

I believe you misunderstand if you think the bible is without error.

I understand that. You are more than welcome to your opinion. We disagree; my opinion is that the Bible is without error.

I have pointed out that the bible gives two time periods for christ's birth.

Yes, you have. Both accounts are correct because they speak of two different time periods.

Luke's account is the actual event of Christ's birth in the manger and those immediately after. Matthew's, however, is not.

Matthew, in his Gospel, uses all of eight verses to describe events which covered a nine-month period, culminating in Christ's birth (1:18-25), but his narrative doesn't end there. In the next verse (2:1); he skips to the next important event in his narrative, which is not immediate but rather about two years later (I can guess your reaction to that, but read on). Wise men from the East (Magi), who have been following a star (which is still in the sky; we see this in 2:9), arrive in Jerusalem seeking Herod the Great's assistance in finding the child (2:1 - 3). Herod, of course, has no clue where the Messiah is/was to be born, so shortly after the visit of the wise men, he asked the priests and scribes if they knew (2:4). Shortly after that, he called the wise men back in to determine when this star first appeared (2:7). Presumably, they told him about two years ago, and this is how Herod knew to order the deaths of all male children in Jerusalem about two years old; he "sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi" (Matthew 2:16). And this was about the time God sent an angel to urge Joseph to take his family, including the two year old Jesus, to Egypt (Matthew 2:19).

Again, both Matthew's and Luke's accounts are true; the two accounts complement each other very well. You may still choose to refute this. Do what you will. There is no contradiction.

I have shown the added verses to Mark from aproxiamately 140AD. !6:9 to the end.

You have shown that to be your opinion and that of others, yes. The truth is, nobody really knows. But despite the case, whatever it is, it does not contradict anything else in Scripture anywhere else, but rather agrees with it.

Do you think we should tempt the Lord our God by handling poisonous snakes and drinking poison?

LOL! No...

Your rebuttal lacked a rebuttal. Also, man takes Paul's words (as they misunderstand them) over Christ's.

This is opinion and misunderstanding mixed together... No, there was rebuttal there, but I just am choosing not to argue.

The Holy Spirit was actively engaged in the writing of the Bible, and still is today in maintaining its integrity, despite the active efforts of many.

[brianbbs67]

Also, man takes Paul's words(as they misunderstand them) over Christ's.

Are you suggesting we can read something in the writings of Paul that contradicts the teachings of Christ? If so what?

No, but most read Paul incorrectly. Christ taught the law and prophets. Paul claimed to also. Yet, most take Paul to say the law is ended. Christ said the law would not end until heaven and earth ceased to exist AND all the prophets comes to pass. Neither has happened. If Christ taught the law and prophets and paul claimed to also, why aren't we teaching as they taught?

In short, christ never said the law would end when he died. Paul taught the law and prophets. The apostles, including Paul, participated in temple worship, including holy days and , in Pauls case, a Nazarite vow and returning to present himself to the Lord.

If you read Paul to contradict what Christ taught, you are misleading. Would not they have to be in accord? Or if in dissension , Christ would trump Paul?

[tam]

Peace to you all,

Also, man takes Paul's words(as they misunderstand them) over Christ's.

Are you suggesting we can read something in the writings of Paul that contradicts the teachings of Christ? If so what?

We can read something in the writing of Paul that contradicts the writings of Paul.


What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 1 Corinth 5:12


Therefore let us stop judging one another. Romans 14:13



And Christ taught:

Do not judge, or you will be judged. Matthew 7:1



By the time Paul wrote Romans, he had learned what is right from Christ with regard to judging others. We can know that we are not to judge, because that is what Christ taught. Paul's teaching in that letter to the Corinthians contradicts Christ (but it would have been in line with Paul's previous time as a Pharisee, zealous for the law).


Many people seem to assume that Paul would have known all things correctly right from the start. But Paul - like the apostles before him - needed to learn (especially since he would have had some deeply entrenched things from his time as a Pharisee).




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

Also, man takes Paul's words(as they misunderstand them) over Christ's.

Are you suggesting we can read something in the writings of Paul that contradicts the teachings of Christ? If so what?

No, but most read Paul incorrectly.

Ok. Fair enough. I thought incorrectly you were suggesting biblical contradictions.

By bad, carry on.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

How about the spurious verses KNOWN to have been added later in the NT. ....Mark [...] 7:9. And then discover the 40-50 others.

Brian, can you explain why say Mark 7:9 is spurious?

[PinSeeker]

Peace to you all,

Also, man takes Paul's words(as they misunderstand them) over Christ's.

Are you suggesting we can read something in the writings of Paul that contradicts the teachings of Christ? If so what?

We can read something in the writing of Paul that contradicts the writings of Paul.


What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 1 Corinth 5:12


Therefore let us stop judging one another. Romans 14:13



And Christ taught:

Do not judge, or you will be judged. Matthew 7:1



By the time Paul wrote Romans, he had learned what is right from Christ with regard to judging others. We can know that we are not to judge, because that is what Christ taught. Paul's teaching in that letter to the Corinthians contradicts Christ (but it would have been in line with Paul's previous time as a Pharisee, zealous for the law).


Many people seem to assume that Paul would have known all things correctly right from the start. But Paul - like the apostles before him - needed to learn (especially since he would have had some deeply entrenched things from his time as a Pharisee).




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

To judge can mean two very different things. Both, when used in their respective contexts, are good things. It really has more to do with who the judge is -- and also the scope of the judgment itself -- that makes the meanings different:

• 1. God judges. When God judges, He pronounces judgment and possibly even condemns. God is fully qualified and just to do this, but we are not. If we engage in this kind of judgment, we are:
  
  • * putting ourselves in the place that only God rightfully occupies engaging in egregious sin
    
    * pronouncing ourselves better than others (which we are not, so we are fooling ourselves, but is also sin
    
    * condemning others, which is also egregious sin.
  2. We judge, but not in the way God judges. We make judgments for ourselves so that we might keep ourselves from sin. And for fellow Christians, we may make judgments on sins that they may engage in so that we might encourage them to cease sinful behavior and turn away from it. In this way, our judgment is to be redemptive.

Jesus, in Matthew 7, is using both. First, in verses 1 through 5, He's admonishing us not to judge in the way God does; we are not to judge in condemnation or self-righteousness. But in verse 6, we are to be able to distinguish between (make judgments for ourselves regarding) "dogs" and "swine," else we fall into sin ourselves.

As for Paul:

• * in 1 Corinthians 5, in verses 9 and 11, he is referring to the second kind of judgment in the sense that we might keep ourselves from sin by not joining with other "so-called" -- professing, self-proclaimed (possibly falsely) -- Christians in their willful sin. But in verse 10, he is admonishing fellow Christians not to withdraw from unbelievers outside the church who may be sinning so that evangelism is still possible. For these, God, he says in verse 13, will be the judge in the sense that He will at some point pronounce judgment upon them.
  
  * in Romans 14:13, is warning against the first kind of judgment, pronouncing judgment on and condemning another.

Paul was certainly, as a man, imperfect; he admits this in Scripture several times. And I'm sure he said and wrote some things that were quite wrong, but not in the Bible. The Holy Spirit was the ultimate author of the entire Bible. God said what He meant, and He meant what He said. There are no contradictions. None. Because of this, what Paul wrote in his letters to the Romans and the Corinthians and elsewhere in the Bible is absolutely true. It just has to be understood in the proper/correct context(s). Hopefully what I have said here helps, but still, God help us all.

Grace and peace to all.

[brianbbs67]

How about the spurious verses KNOWN to have been added later in the NT. ....Mark [...] 7:9. And then discover the 40-50 others.

Brian, can you explain why say Mark 7:9 is spurious?

19, lol , not 9. Sorry for the typo. Here's one take on it. But, (thus purifying all food), does not appear in the Greek original. The teaching of Jesus here is about the ritual hand washing the pharisee's taught as law but was of man. ritual handwashing is not a law of Moses and this is the message. As to food, all food is clean. All meat is not food.

https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpres ... -mark-719/

[PinSeeker]

The purpose of the Mosaic ceremonial food laws was to instill an awareness of God's holiness and of the reality of sin as a barrier to fellowship with God. But once defilement of the heart is thoroughly removed and full fellowship with God becomes a reality through the atoning death of Jesus...

• Mark 10:45 -- "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." [Jesus]
  
  Romans 14:14 -- "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." [Paul]
  
  Hebrews 8:6-13 -- ''But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises... When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."
  
  Hebrews 9:10 -- "...since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation."
  
  Hebrews 9:14 -- "...how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

...the ceremonial laws have fulfilled their purpose and are no longer required. Thus Paul is able to say, in 1 Timothy 4:4–5:

• "For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer."

Thus, Mark 7:19, whether "added" or "spurious" or anything else, is absolutely true.

[brianbbs67]

verse 14 is often used as license to teach that all animals are now clean and suitable for food. If we examine the context, we discover that in verse 15, Paul is speaking of what God’s Word already defines as food according to Leviticus 11. The word used for “food� is “broma.�

Strongs:
G1033 broma bro'-mah from the base of G977;
food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law.

Unclean animals have never been considered food (“broma�), regardless of what unbelievers outside of God’s Word might consider food.

Paul is not entertaining a debate whether unclean animals, according to Leviticus 11, are now suddenly clean and can be defined as food (“broma�). Paul is settling a debate whether Biblically clean food can be made unclean in ways not mentioned in Scripture. In other word's not washing one's hands does not make your food unclean like Jesus was confronting in Mark 7.

[PinSeeker]

verse 14 is often used as license to teach that all animals are now clean and suitable for food. If we examine the context, we discover that in verse 15, Paul is speaking of what God’s Word already defines as food according to Leviticus 11. The word used for “food� is “broma.�

Strongs:
G1033 broma bro'-mah from the base of G977;
food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law.

Unclean animals have never been considered food (“broma�), regardless of what unbelievers outside of God’s Word might consider food.

Paul is not entertaining a debate whether unclean animals, according to Leviticus 11, are now suddenly clean and can be defined as food (“broma�). Paul is settling a debate whether Biblically clean food can be made unclean in ways not mentioned in Scripture. In other word's not washing one's hands does not make your food unclean like Jesus was confronting in Mark 7.

There have always been groups of Christians who believe that in order to honor God’s authority in the Old Testament we must continue to obey the food laws and other ceremonial laws, lest we be found in disobedience. There is a good impulse in this and a profoundly bad impulse in this. The good impulse is the desire to obey God. There’s nothing wrong with that. That belongs to what it means to be a Christian. The bad impulse is the failure to obey Christ who teaches us how to obey God in regard to the Old Testament. The bad impulse fails to see in Jesus the kind of fulfillment and the kind of accomplishment of the Law and the Prophets that God always intended in the Old Testament as the consummation and the end of the ceremonial laws. So, the effort to hold on to the prohibition of eating pork is, in effect, a refusal to submit to God’s plan for the fulfillment of the Law in Jesus.

The prohibition of certain foods as unclean was a temporary part of God’s way of making Israel distant or distinct from the nations of the world. This is what Jesus is saying in Mark 7:15–19. With the coming of Christ, dramatic changes take place in the way God governs his people, because we are no longer a political-ethnic people like the Jews were, but a global people from every tribe and language and ethnicity and race. If a person chooses not to eat certain foods for various nutritional reasons or preference, that is no big deal. We are free to eat or not to eat. But the moment that abstinence is invested with biblical authority as the path of obedience of maturity or salvation, a line is crossed that contradicts Christ and the gospel. Paul says in Colossians 2:16–17, “Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food or drink. . . . These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.� When you have Christ as your Treasure and your all-satisfying food, you are free to eat any kind of food... or not.

We are not bound to the ceremonial food laws of Leviticus anymore. Pure and simple. If we disagree on that, then I'm fine with that.

Grace and peace to you, Brian.