A NON-TEXT-BASED DISCUSSION OF TRINITY DOCTRINE

WHEREAS-

Trinity is not a scriptural word, nor concept, therefore, cannot be a scripture-based doctrine. It can, however, be a scripture based refutation.

Consider:

Jesus said- "Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me [1](monon)alone): and yet [2](monos)I am not alone), because the Father is with me. [John 16:32]

[1]monon = accusative masculine singular form of adjective [UBS] monos (1) adj. only, alone;.

[2]monos = nominative masculine singular form of adjective [UBS]monos = (1) adj. only, alone

We learn from this that when Jesus and God the Father are together, they each are "ouk eimi monos"- "I AM NOT ALONE" . AND, when they are NOT Together, each is "MONOS" alone, away from the other.

So, if Jesus is involved in creating, with God the Father, Each will be "ouk monos" = "NOT ALONE."

Isaiah 37:15 "And Hezekiah prayed unto [3](Jehovah)the LORD), saying, 16 O [3](Jehovah)LORD) of hosts, [4](Elohiym)God) of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the [4(Elohiym)God), even thou [2](monos)alone), of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth."

Isaiah 37:20 "Now therefore, O [3](Jehovah)LORD) our [4](Elohiym)God), save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art [3](JEHOVAH)the LORD), even thou [2](MONOS)only)."[2]monos = nominative masculine singular form of adjective [UBS]monos = (1) adj. only, alone

[3]3068 hw"hoy> Yehovah {yeh-ho-vaw'} Meaning: Jehovah = "the existing One" 1) the proper name of the one true God

[4]0430 ~yhil{a/ 'elohiym {el-o-heem'} Meaning: 1) (plural intensive; singular meaning)(like "sheep" = plural form singular meaning the (true) God [Mat 18:12-13][Luke 15:4-7]

According to John 16:32, if Jehovah God, the Father, is (MONOS), Jesus is NOT with him

Isaiah 37:20 Now therefore, O LORD our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the LORD, even thou MONOS (only).

Let us examine further, to identify this Jehovah who is MONOS in creating;

Isa 63:16 Isaiah 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O[3](JEHOVAH)LORD), art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

Let us see if there is more than one reference that teaches Jehovah, God, the Father of Israel - (ALONE)MONOS) created anything;

Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith [3](JEHOVAH)the LORD), thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am (JEHOVAH)the LORD) that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens MONOS(alone); that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Ezek 17:13 And ye shall know that I am (Jehovah)The LORD), when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14 And shall put

my spirit

in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I (Jehovah)the LORD) have spoken it, and performed it, saith (Jehovah)the LORD).

Consider-

In Gen 17:1 God introduced himself to Abraham, using first-person-singular noun, pronoun,adjective, and definite article: "I Am The God..." [egw eimi 'o Theos]

"egw"  = first-person-singular pronoun = "I"

"eimi" = first-person-singular present active verb = "AM"

"'o"   = singular definite article = "The"

"Theos" = Nominative masculine singular noun = "God"


"Egw" leaves no room for 'We." "Egw" allows no room for "US." "Egw" is a reference to a first-person-singular "I."

"Eimi" leaves no room for "Are," but is a reference to "AM."

"Ho" leaves no room for "some" but is a reference to "The" one and only. It is a singular definite article.

"Theos" leaves no room for "Theoi;" "Plural persons" cannot be stuffed into a singular-person reference.

[b]God introduced Himself to Abraham as a 1st-person-singular God. That takes care of the doctrine that he is a plurality of persons, because "person singular" tells us how many persons are being considered; i.e., one. That is the meaning of "person singular."

Consider;

God introduced himself to Moses as a 1st-person-singular "being;" i.e., there is only one person in the "person-singular" being.

In Exo 3:14 God introduced himself to Moses using singular pronoun, singular verb, singular definite article and singular verb participle. "egw eimi 'o wn" = "I AM THE BEING."

"egw" = first-person-singular pronoun = "I"

"eimi" = first-person-singular present active verb = "am"

"'o" = singular definite article = "the"

"wn" = Singular participle = "Being"

"Egw" leaves no room for 'We." "Egw" allows no room for "US." "Egw" is a reference to a first-person-singular "I."

"Eimi" leaves no room for "Are," but is a reference to "AM."

"Ho" leaves no room for "some" but is a reference to "The" one and only. It is a singular definite article.

"Wn" leaves no room for beings, it is a reference to "The Being." It is singular as to number of persons considered.

"Singular" participle means there is only one person in "The Being."

[b]If in fact, the new testament "reveals" what was hidden in the old testament about a triune God, why then did God repeat his "Misinformation" in the new testament?

Why did God say in Mark 12:26 "And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, [Egw o` Theos] I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?"

"egw" = first-person-singular pronoun = "I"

"'o" = singular definite article = "The"

"Theos" = Nominative masculine singular noun = "God"

Why did God say in Acts 7:32 "[Egw o` Theos] I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold" using first-person-singular Pronoun; first-person-singular Definite Article; first-person-singular Noun" if in fact, he is a multi-personal being?

"egw" = first-person-singular pronoun = "I"

"'o" = singular definite article = "The"

"Theos" = Nominative masculine singular noun = "God"

What say Ye?

Comments

  • Welcome 😋

    Curious about rationale for using Greek Transliteration instead of Greek Letters for Greek words ?

    Keep Smiling 😊

  • LamechLamech Posts: 23

    That's because you do not know the folks I have been debating for over twenty years.🤣

  • @Lamech That's because you do not know the folks I have been debating for over twenty years.🤣

    Are any of them active in Christian Discourse (CD) thread(s) ?

    Keep Smiling 😊

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted

    Curious about rationale for using Greek Transliteration instead of Greek Letters for Greek words ?

    Now, hat difference does that make ????? Even just using plain English text without details of Greek words) would basically already suffice to make points which were made by @Lamech in his post ...

  • @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Curious about rationale for using Greek Transliteration instead of Greek Letters for Greek words ?

    @Wolfgang Now, hat difference does that make ????? Even just using plain English text without details of Greek words) would basically already suffice to make points which were made by @Lamech in his post ...

    Thankful for my digital library in Bible Software by Faithlife Corporation: Logos & Verbum, having many resources that use Greek letters for Greek Words (easier/quicker to read than English transliteration). Thankful for free Basic packages and free Society of Biblical Languages Greek New Testament. Clicking on a Greek Word can highlight corresponding word(s) in Bible translations having Reverse Interlinears. Hover over a Greek Word has pop-up showing transliteration (as does Right Click, which also has options to search for Lemma or Root).

    What does not translate well from Greek to English is nuanced verbal intensity (Greek has a richer verbal system than English).

    Keep Smiling 😊

  • LamechLamech Posts: 23
    edited May 10

    If you depend too much on what is provided by digital software, you will totally miss the life of scripture.

    I do not use Commentaries, nor Early Church Fathers, since I learned of some of their errors.

    And since I rely heavily on the scriptures themselves, I have recently discovered a family of Greek words that are not found in Concordances that usually are very thorough in their accomplishments.

    Strong's strongest exhaustive concordance of the bible, published by Zondervan missed it for the most part.

    I discovered a family of words found in both testaments that destroys some of the most important errors of the Church since the days of the Apostles.

    And the odd thing about the whole thing, is, I went through five sets of concordances and found one that actually covers the information left out by the rest of them. Ever wonder why the SCHOLARS would leave something out on purpose?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737

    @Lamech posted

    And since I rely heavily on the scriptures themselves, I have recently discovered a family of Greek words that are not found in Concordances that usually are very thorough in their accomplishments.

    Strong's strongest exhaustive concordance of the bible, published by Zondervan missed it for the most part.

    I discovered a family of words found in both testaments that destroys some of the most important errors of the Church since the days of the Apostles.

    What family of Greek words would that be?

    And the odd thing about the whole thing, is, I went through five sets of concordances and found one that actually covers the information left out by the rest of them. Ever wonder why the SCHOLARS would leave something out on purpose?

    Which one concordance would that be?

  • LamechLamech Posts: 23
  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,054

    @Wolfgang posted:

    What family of Greek words would that be?

    Which one concordance would that be?

    @Lamech posted:

    Wait for the book.

    Lamech, I don't understand why you didn't respond directly to Wolfgang's sensible questions. He asked simply that you identify the family of Greek words whose existence YOU raised to our attention, as well as the set of concordances YOU told us covers it. We're all competent Bible students here, most if not all of us with quality resources at our disposal. I don't think Wolfgang is asking for an explanation of your views about that family of Greek words; he simply wants to know what it is... as do I. So I second Wolfgang's request: Please identify the family of Greek words that, according to your research, four of five sets of concordances left out, as well as the set of concordances that you found includes it.

  • LamechLamech Posts: 23

    O.K., and My Apology to Wolfgang for a short retort. Looks way too much like showing out.

    The family of words is based upon PETROS / new Name of Peter given him by Jesus.

    It's in Zondervan's Analytical Greek Lexicon; p.323

    It's in Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New testament by Friberg, Friberg, and Miller pp 311 & 312.

    It's hidden by Strong's Strongest Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, by placing the entire family of words under 4074 which is "Petros," on page 897.

    And I thank You and Wolfgang for the correction.

  • @Lamech If you depend too much on what is provided by digital software, you will totally miss the life of scripture.

    Concur. Digital software can be helpful for improving/expanding Bible knowledge while lacking human experience/growth in God's Love. Thankful for God's Presence, which includes Holy Righteous Fruit: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindess, Goodness, Faithfulness, Humility, Self-Control, which can be listed from Galatians 5:22-23 while personally lack words to adequately express Holy Presence of One God's commUnity of Love.

    @Lamech And the odd thing about the whole thing, is, I went through five sets of concordances and found one that actually covers the information left out by the rest of them. Ever wonder why the SCHOLARS would leave something out on purpose?

    Printed materials and digital software have opportunities for being incomplete, which could be intentional or accidental. Many cross reference resources do not have Isaiah 43:10-13 for John 10:27-33 (while Breath The Holy helped me see Isaiah 43:10-13 for John 10:27-33 discussion, which helped me understand why Jewish listeners picked up stones to kill Jesus for blasphemy as they heard & understood Jesus = God in human body).

    Years ago had Strong's (Concise & Exhaustive), Young's Analytical, and Cruden's Complete concordances. Digital software by Faithlife Corporation provided reason to give those printed concordances away since Logos Bible Software can quickly search Bible(s) for any word (so was not using a printed concordance to look up a word). Bible Search can quickly find verses having two or more words, which takes more time using a printed concordance. Also gave away a N.T. Analytical Greek Lexicon (looked up parsing for every Greek word in Jude). Lexham Analytical Lexicons for Greek: New Testament and Septuagint have more content than printed N.T. Analytical Greek Lexicon (e.g. LXX lexicon for πέτρα has סֶ֫לַע—a rock; cliffs; צוּר 1—rock; rocky ground, rock face; סֶ֫לַע רִמּוֹן—Sela-rimmon; Rock of Rimmon; כֵּף—rock). Another digital enhancement is grouping of Lemma's by Root: e.g. πιστευω includes ἀπιστέω , ἀπιστία , ἄπιστος , ὀλιγοπιστία , ὀλιγόπιστος , πιστεύω , πιστικός , πίστις , πιστός , & πιστόω.

    My favorite digital software feature in Logos & Verbum is visual filter highlighting of Greek Morphology so can "see" range of Greek verbal expression in Greek and any Bible translation that has Reverse Interlinear tagging. For example, Matthew 6:9-13 has seven imperative verbs:

    Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς· Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου, ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς· τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον· καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν· καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. 

    (LEB) Therefore you pray in this way: “Our Father who is in heaven, may your name be treated as holy. May your kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. 

    Visual Filters can combine hundreds of highlighted search results for simultaneous display: e.g. Red Bold text with Yellow shadow for imperative verbs can be combined with other search results: e.g. verb tense (Matthew 6:9 has one present tense imperative while the other six are aorist). Free Logos 8 Basic => https://www.logos.com/product/168880 and/or Verbum 8 Basic => https://www.logos.com/product/168882 can show Logos Greek Morphology visual filter highlighting in the free Society of Biblical Languages Greek New Testament (SBLGNT) => https://www.logos.com/product/8486, Lexham English Bible (LEB), and King James Version (KJV) by freely copying Visual Filter documents => https://wiki.logos.com/Extended_Tips_for_Highlighting_and_Visual_Filters#Examples_of_visual_filters

    Keep Smiling 😊

  • LamechLamech Posts: 23


    LXE Psalm 104:12 {0103:12} By them shall the birds of the sky lodge: they shall utter a voice out of the midst of then (petrwn) = rocks.

    [petrw/n noun genitive masculine plural common form of noun [UBS] Petros = Peter  

    ========================================= ================

    LXE Job 30:6 whose houses were the caves of the (petrwn) rocks,

     petrwn noun genitive masculine plural common form of noun [UBS] Petros = Peter  

    ========================================= ================

    LXE Isaiah 7:19 And they all shall enter into the clefts of the land, and into the holes of the (petrwn)rocks, and into the caves, and into every ravine.

    ========================================= =================

    LXE Jeremiah 16:16 Behold, I will send many fishers, saith the Lord, and they shall fish them; and afterward I will send many hunters, and they shall hunt them upon every mountain, and upon every hill, and out of the holes of the (petrwn)rocks.

    ========================================= ================

    (Petrw) IN NEW TESTAMENT

    ========================================= ================

    [52]Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto (Petrw)Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.[Petrw = dat masc sing form of noun [UBS] Petros = Peter  

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

    [52]Mat 26:40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto (Petrw)Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?

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

    [52]Mat 26:73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to(Petrw)Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

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

    [96]John 18:17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto (Petrw)Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.

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

    [96]John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon (Petrw)Peter, Simon, son of Jonas,[1](agapas)lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I [2](filw)love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.


    16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, [1](agapas) lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I [2](filw)love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.


    17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, [3](fileis) lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, [3](Fileis)Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I [2](filw)love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.


    [1]agapas verb ind pres act 2nd per sing [UBS] agapaw love to the point of devotion towards one]


    [2]filw verb ind pres act 1st per sing[UBS] filew = have affection towards one


    [3]fileis verb ind pres act 2nd per sing [UBS] filew = have affection towards one


    [48]Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;8 For he that wrought effectually in (Petrw)Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.


    11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.


    17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

     18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

    ========================================= ================

    LITHOS USED IN BOTH TESTAMENTS

    ========================================= ================

    LXE Genesis 28:20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If the Lord God will be with me, and guard me throughout on this journey, on which I am going, and give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, 21 and bring me back in safety to the house of my father, then shall the Lord be for a God to me. 22 And this (lithos) stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be to me a house of God; and of all whatsoever thou shalt give me, I will tithe a tenth for thee.

    lithos noun nominative masculine singular form of noun [UBS] lithos = stone; precious stone; stone image (Ac 17.29)  

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

    LXE Joshua 24:27 And Joshua said to the people, Behold, this(lithos) stone shall be among you for a witness, for it has heard all the words that have been spoken to it by the Lord; for he has spoken to you this day; and this stone shall be among you for a witness in the last days, whenever ye shall deal falsely with the Lord my God.

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

    LXE 1 Samuel 7:12 And Samuel took a (li,qon)stone, and set it up between Massephath and

    the old city; and he called the name of it Abenezer, (li,qoj)stone of the helper; and he said,

    Hitherto has the Lord helped us.[li,qon = accusative masculine singular form of noun [UBS] li,qoj,

    ou m stone; precious stone; stone image (Ac 17.29)  

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

    LXE 1 Samuel 17:49 And David stretched out his hand to his scrip, and took thence a (lithon)stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine on his forehead, and the (lithos)stone penetrated through the helmet into his forehead, and he fell upon his face to the ground.

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

    LXE 1 Chronicles 20:2 And David took the crown of Molchom their king off his head, and the

    weight of it was found to be a talent of gold, and on it was a precious (li,qoj)stone; and it was

    placed on the head of David: and he brought out the spoils of the city which were very great.

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

    LXE 1 Chronicles 29:8 And they who had precious (li,qoj)stone, gave it into the treasuries of

    the house of the Lord by the hand of Jeiel the Gedsonite.

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

    LXE Ezekiel 10:1 Then I looked, and, behold, over the firmament that was above the head of

    the cherubs there was a likeness of a throne over them, as a sapphire (li,qoj)stone.

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

    LXE Daniel 2:34 Thou sawest until a (li,qoj)stone was cut out of a mountain without hands,

    and it smote the image upon its feet of iron and earthenware, and utterly reduced them to

    powder.

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

    LXE Daniel 2:35 Then once for all the earthenware, the iron, the brass, the silver, the gold, were ground to powder, and became as <1> chaff from the summer threshingfloor; and the violence of the wind carried them away, and no place was found for them: and the (lithos)stone which had smitten the image became a great mountain, and filled all the earth.

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

    LXE Daniel 6:17 And they brought a (li,qoj)stone, and put it on the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his ring, and with the ring of his nobles; that the case might not be altered with regard to Daniel.

    ========================================= ======================

    PRIESTHOOD

    [70]Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

    ========================================= ======================

    LITHOS IN NEW TESTAMENT

    ========================================= =======================

    [61]Acts 4:11 This is the (Lithos) stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.[lithos noun nom masc sing form of noun [UBS] lithos = stone; precious stone; stone image (statue)

    PETRW/NT - 15

    [52]Matt. 16:23 But he turned, and said unto (Petrw) Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.[Petrw| noun dat masc sing form of noun [UBS] Petros = Peter] [70][Mk 8:33]

    [52]Matt. 26:40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto (Petrw)Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?[Petrw| noun dat masc sing form of noun [UBS] Petros = Peter] [[70]Mk 14:37]

    [52]Matt. 26:69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. 70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. 71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. 72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man 73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to (Petrw) Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee. 74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. 75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. [Petrw = noun dat masc sing form of noun [UBS] Petros = Peter ] [[70]Mk 14:70][[58]Lk 22:61][[96]Jn 18:17,27]

    [96] John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon (Petrw)Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, (agapas)lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I (filw/)love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.16

    He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, (agapas) lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I (filw)love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

    17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, (fileis)lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, (fileis)Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I (fileis)love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

    Now follow the thought process of the previous exchange;

    Jesus said to Petrw, are you devoted to me? He responded "Yea Lordl thou knowest that I have brotherly affection for thee. He saith to him, Feed my lambs.

    He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, (agapas) lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I (filw) have brotherly affection for thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

    17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, (fileis) Do you have brotherly affection for me? Peter was grieved because the third time, Jesus questioned his (fileis) brotherly affection. And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I (fileis) have brotherly affection for thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

    If Petrw had attained that level of devotion required of an Apostle, Jesus said "feed my lambs;" But if he had only brotherly affection, Jesus demoted him to "Feed my sheep; i.,e., Petrw was fit only to teach the adult Jews, not the littler ones of the Gentile world.


    The result was, Jesus took away the mission to the Gentiles previously given to Petrw, and gave it to Saul of Tarsus, i.,e., Paul the Apostle.

    [48]Gal 2:8 For he that wrought effectually in (Petrw) Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,054

    @Lamech posted:

    If Petrw had attained that level of devotion required of an Apostle, Jesus said "feed my lambs;" But if he had only brotherly affection, Jesus demoted him to "Feed my sheep; i.,e., Petrw was fit only to teach the adult Jews, not the littler ones of the Gentile world.

    The result was, Jesus took away the mission to the Gentiles previously given to Petrw, and gave it to Saul of Tarsus, i.,e., Paul the Apostle.

    I don't understand how you conclude the ministry to the Gentiles was taken away from Peter (Petrw). In Acts 15.7-11, Peter tells the Jerusalem Council that God had chosen him for that post-resurrection ministry, "to preach to the Gentiles so that they could hear the Good News and believe." Later in the chapter (Acts 15.13-18) James in effect confirms Peter's initial calling.

    Then there's Peter's profound experience reported in Acts 10, the vision of a sheet laden with food Peter believed could not be eaten that leads Peter to Cornelius and a stirring confession of the Gospel's mission among the Gentiles.

    Yes, in Galatians Paul reports that his ministry is to the Gentiles, while Peter's is to the Jews, but note two important things: 1) In John 21, Jesus takes nothing away from Peter, and does not criticize his word choice to describe his love for Jesus; 2) I'm open to correction, of course, but I know of no verse or passage in which any ministry is taken from Peter. Responsibility for sharing the Gospel DOES divide among the Apostles, yes, but my point is that to my knowledge nowhere is a ministry taken from Peter for the reason you assert.

    So my question: If Jesus took away Peter's mission to the Gentiles, why did Peter tell the Jerusalem Council that God had called him specifically to that ministry, and why is there no verse or passage that says Jesus made such a removal?

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737

    @Lamech ... thank you for the info regarding my earlier question ... I simply asked because I had not experienced any such thing as you described or mentioned during my now more than 40 years of rather detailed study of the Scriptures and involvement with other Christians in discourse and common studies.

    Looking over your reply and listing of verses with related words to "stone", "rock" etc. I still do not know what you are actually trying to say, for example regarding the apostle Kephas, whom Jesus called "a stone" (Gr. petros) in comparison to describing himself as "this rock" (Gr. petra).

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737

    @Lamech posted

    If Petrw had attained that level of devotion required of an Apostle, Jesus said "feed my lambs;" But if he had only brotherly affection, Jesus demoted him to "Feed my sheep; i.,e., Petrw was fit only to teach the adult Jews, not the littler ones of the Gentile world.

    Careful ... when was Peter (Simon, Kephas) demoted from his calling as an apostle because he -- according to you reasoning - had not attained that level of devotion required of an Apostle?

    Furthermore, if you want to make the distinction between teaching "adult" and "littler ones", why all of a sudden switch from "Jews" to "Gentile"?? On what is such idea based, since one would normally stick with the same category (adult vs littler Jews / adult vs littler Gentiles)?

    The result was, Jesus took away the mission to the Gentiles previously given to Petrw, and gave it to Saul of Tarsus, i.,e., Paul the Apostle.

    I am not aware of such an action being taken by Jesus being mentioned in Scripture.

    [48]Gal 2:8 For he that wrought effectually in (Petrw) Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.

    These words of Paul do not indicate any "taking away from one and giving to another"; rather, Paul mentions that at the time spoken of in Gal 2:8, Peter's apostleship was directed to those from the circumcision (Jews) whereas Paul's was directed to those from the Gentiles.

  • LamechLamech Posts: 23

    O.K. Folks

    I will begin a new thread developing only the issues raised by the scholars hiding important information from the church.

    I will label it "A CAVE is a hollow rock." See you over there in a couple of hours.

  • LamechLamech Posts: 23

    lOOKS LIKE PROBABLY A COUPLE OF DAYS

  • LamechLamech Posts: 23

    O.K., I just found another book in my study library; Baker's greek new testament library

    Analytical Concordance Of The Greek New Testament; Lexical Focus; volume I - 2619 8x11 pages and uses Font size smaller than 8.

    Begins on page 2104 with Petra;

    works through;

    Petrai

    petrais

    Petran

    Petras

    Petre

    Petron

    Petros

    Petrou

    Ending with Petrw on page 2107 and uses a font probably size 7.

    Analytical Concordance of the Greek New Testament; Grammatical focus; volume II - 2115 PAGES

    BEGINS with Petros on page 1549; ending on page 1551 using only Petros as the Petros family of words.


    Then there will be the four LXX sets which I will not go into until I post the material I have developed over the past seventy years.

    I may be able to post it this week.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,054

    @Lamech posted:

    Then there will be the four LXX sets which I will not go into until I post the material I have developed over the past seventy years.

    I may be able to post it this week.

    I appreciate the work you did to compile this list of examples from other resources, but the response that will most satisfy my curiosity is simply a citation of the verse(s) which in your view support your claim that Jesus took away from Peter a ministry to the Gentiles, or for that matter, that said ministry was taken away from Peter by anyone.

    If you have time for a response in addition to the verse(s) citation, I'd welcome your response to the question I asked in my previous post: If Jesus took away Peter's mission to the Gentiles, why in Acts 15 does Peter tell the Jerusalem Council that God had called him specifically to that ministry? I don't believe a response to that question requires much reliance on resources. I think it only asks you to explain Peter's intentions when he told the Council that God had called him to the Gentiles and gave no suggestion that the ministry had been taken from him.

  • LamechLamech Posts: 23

    [QUOTE=Bill_Coley] If Jesus took away Peter's mission to the Gentiles, why in Acts 15 does Peter tell the Jerusalem Council that God had called him specifically to that ministry? I don't believe a response to that question requires much reliance on resources. I think it only asks you to explain Peter's intentions when he told the Council that God had called him to the Gentiles and gave no suggestion that the ministry had been taken from him.[/QUOTE]

    LAMECH; 6_PETERS_FAILURE

    [48 A.D.]Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. 20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.  21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; 22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:  23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. 24 And they glorified God in me.

    Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.  3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:  4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:  5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

    PETER'S FAILURE and the change of ministry to the Jews:

     7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the (GENTILES) uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the (JEWS) circumcision was unto Peter;

     8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision,

    the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

    9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

    Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

     15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,054

    @Lamech posted:

    LAMECH; 6_PETERS_FAILURE

    In the passages you quote, the Apostle Paul...

    • ...summarizes of one of his missionary journeys, one on which he spent fifteen days with Peter (Galatians 1.17-24).
    • ...reports on a trip to Jerusalem several years later with Barnabas and Titus during which he received affirmation of his ministry to the Gentiles from Peter, among others, and rebuffed efforts of "false" believers who sought to convince Paul and company to follow Jewish regulations (Galatians 2.1-10). It is in this passage that Paul declares the distinction between his ministry to the Gentiles and Peter's ministry to the Jews.
    • ...and tells the story of his confrontation with Peter over what Paul saw as Peter's hypocrisy - his befriending Gentiles, but not when in the company of fellow Jews (Galatians 2.11-18). In this scene Paul reminds Peter that it is by faith in Christ, not adherence to law, that we are made right with God.

    None of those passages supports your claim that Jesus removed from Peter his ministry to the Gentiles, nor does any of them explain why Peter told the Jerusalem Council God had called him to the Gentiles. Yes, one of them makes clear that Paul must have taken over the ministry to the Gentiles, while Peters focused on the Jews, but even that one doesn't support your claim that Peter was removed. And there's still the matter of Peter's encounter with Cornelius (Acts 10-11) prior to his witness to the Council, an encounter that awakened Peter's heart to the Gentile community's need for the Gospel.

    So I'll rephrase my question: Do you claim there are NT texts which support your claim that Jesus removed Peter from his ministry to the Gentiles? If you do, I repeat my request that you cite them.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737

    @Lamech posted

    PETER'S FAILURE and the change of ministry to the Jews:

    Where in the passage cited from Gal 2 is there such a change of Peter's ministry mentioned or indicated in the text?

    Already in Gal 2:7 it is mentioned that both Paul and Peter had been entrusted with the gospel, with Paul's main focus being the preaching to Gentiles and Peter's focus being the preaching to Jews (Gal 2:7 - "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;") When did what is mentioned here about Paul's visit to Jerusalem and this acknowledgement about Paul and Peter happen ... was it before or was it after the incident at Antioch about which we then read in Gal 2:11-14 ("Gal 2,11-14 -- 11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ?")

    In other words, if Gal 2:11ff records "Peter's failure", how come the distinction of Peter's preaching of the gospel to the Jews had been committed to him before that time?

  • LamechLamech Posts: 23

    You are asking me to write my book online instead of publishing it as a book.

    @Bill_Coley the Apostle Paul...

    • ...summarizes of one of his missionary journeys, one on which he spent fifteen days with Peter (Galatians 1.17-24).
    • ...reports on a trip to Jerusalem several years later with Barnabas and Titus during which he received affirmation of his ministry to the Gentiles from Peter, among others, and rebuffed efforts of "false" believers who sought to convince Paul and company to follow Jewish regulations (Galatians 2.1-10). It is in this passage that Paul declares the distinction between his ministry to the Gentiles and Peter's ministry to the Jews.
    • ...and tells the story of his confrontation with Peter over what Paul saw as Peter's hypocrisy - his befriending Gentiles, but not when in the company of fellow Jews (Galatians 2.11-18). In this scene Paul reminds Peter that it is by faith in Christ, not adherence to law, that we are made right with God.[/quote]

    If you understand Jesus assigned not just a Nominative form of the name Peter, to Simon Barjonah, but actually FAMILY of word-forms, and if you follow the timeline tied events, you will discover, The Genitive form of the noun is not found in the New Testament, but is only found in the Septuagint Old Testament, and references a Hollow-Cave-Rock; and when Jesus applies the Dative form to Peter, in the New Testament, it is ALWAYS when Peter has messed up and is being corrected, or even castigated by Jesus for his lack of depth in faith and devotion.

    Then, if you read the New Testament in the order in which it was written, you will get a completely different story-line than if you read it in its corrupted form of Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, etc. , which was designed by Satan Himself.


     Lamech.......PHILLIP.SCHAFF...Cath.Encyclopedia

    45................James.......45..........44-62

    48...............Gal...........48...........57

    50..............I Thess.....50...........52-53

    51..............II THESS...51...........52-53

    52.............MAT..........52..........60-70

    54.............I COR........54..........57

    55.............II COR......55...........57

    56.............ROM.......56............58

    58.............LUKE.......58...........60-70

    60.............COL........60............61-63

    60.............EPH........60............61-63

    60.............PHLMN..60............61-63

    61..........PHLPPNS..61...........61-63

    61.......... ACTS.........61..........60-70

    64/65.......I TIM.......64..........64-67

    64/65.......TITUS......64..........64-67

    64/65.......I PET.......65..........64-67

    66/67.......II PET......66..........64-67

    67/68.......II TIM......67..........64-67

    69.............REV........69..........68-69

    70.............HEB.......70..........70

    70.............MARK....70..........60-70

    75.............JUDE......75..........64-67

    85/90.......I JOHN..................80-90

    85/90.......II JOHN.................80-90

    85/90.......III JOHN...............80-90

    96............JOHN'S GOSPEL.80-90

    When the early teachers were convinced by Satan to mix and match the order of the testament, the church began to imagine all manner of false doctrines, and to not only teach them, but began to kill those with whom they disagreed; so that by the time Trinity doctrine was being declared "Orthodoxy,"(451 a.d.) they had also turned church discipline over to the civil authority for execution of "Heretics" who denied their newly ordained "Orthodox" doctrine. It became a simple innovation to recruiting practices of the Church.

    WHAT CHANGED?

    Mathew was moved to a position that negated Galation's information about Paul's confrontation with Peter, and Peter was made into a POPE, the very thing Jesus warned against. "1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." [1 Cor 4:6 "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."


    Peter, with James and John, agreed Paul was given the mission of preaching to Gentiles, and Peter was limited to preaching to Jews.

    Then there's this (again);  Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the (GENTILES) uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the (JEWS) circumcision was unto Peter;  8 For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: 9 And when James, Cephas (PETER), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the (Gentiles) heathen, and they unto the (Jews)circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

    So the church understood the limitations of Peter's mission, until the change was made where the teachers began to teach new conerts beginning with the life of Christ, (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John) followed by the early church history (Acts) and by then the damage was done, and any order would not matter.Jesus became relegated to existence in eternity, equal with God, and Peter became the first Pope; all because Mathew and John were moved to the front of the testament.

    If it had remained in proper order, the saints would already have learned in Galatians, about Peter's disgrace, and the "LOGOS OF GOD" was never Jesus, but was a name given to him 36 years after His ascension, so that the early Christians never made a connection to Jesus as the LOGOS OF GOD.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,054

    @Lamech posted:

    You are asking me to write my book online instead of publishing it as a book.

    In my view, I'm asking whether you believe there are NT texts that support your claim that Jesus removed from Peter his ministry to the Gentiles. With all due respect to the content you have thus far provided, I still don't know the answer to that question.


    A couple of comments about your response:

    1. I'm not familiar with the significance, if any, of the different ways in which Jesus referred to Peter. To my reading of them, however, none conveyed the message that Jesus had removed Peter from the ministry to the Gentiles to which Peter told the Jerusalem Council God had called him.
    2. I've not previously encountered the claim that Satan designed the current order of books in the New Testament. From my studies over the years, I've concluded that the Gospels were placed first because they presented the story of Jesus' life, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection - i.e. the story from which all other activities reported in the NT emanated. The NT letters were placed essentially in order of decreasing length, akin to the sequence of the OT prophetic books, whose longest - the so-called "major prophets" - are at the front of the collection. And Revelation closes the Canon because of its depiction of Christ's return and the ultimate defeat of evil it guarantees. I don't find anything satanic about such a sequence. ANY sequence of the books will delay critically important assertions til later in the collection, but NO sequence of the books removes them.
    3. I'm struck that you describe Paul as one to whom a preaching ministry (to the Gentiles) had been "given," but Peter as one whose preaching ministry had been "limited" (to the Jews). To my reading of your posts in this thread, you have yet to provide Scriptural support for your claim about Peter's ministry. On which text(s) do you base your claim that Peter's ministry was "limited" to the Jews? Do you ALSO claim that Paul's ministry was "limited" to the Gentiles? More broadly and perhaps more importantly, isn't EVERYONE'S ministry in the NT (and ever since!) "limited"? None of us is called to minister to all people, in all circumstances, in order to meet every need. So why wouldn't Peter's (and Paul's) ministry have been "limited"?
    4. From a broader reading of your most recent post I sense that the root of your objections here is not actually about the order of books in the NT, or whether readers adequately discern what you understand to be the limitations of Peter's ministry. Instead, I sense that the root of your objections has at least something to do with the papacy and/or other things Roman Catholic. What role does your response to Peter's having been identified as the first pope play in the genesis of your thinking on display in this thread?
    5. One final time I ask: Do you claim there are NT texts which support your claim that Jesus removed Peter from his ministry to the Gentiles? If you do, please cite them.


  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737

    @Lamech posted

    If you understand Jesus assigned not just a Nominative form of the name Peter, to Simon Barjonah, but actually FAMILY of word-forms, and if you follow the timeline tied events, you will discover, The Genitive form of the noun is not found in the New Testament, but is only found in the Septuagint Old Testament, and references a Hollow-Cave-Rock; and when Jesus applies the Dative form to Peter, in the New Testament, it is ALWAYS when Peter has messed up and is being corrected, or even castigated by Jesus for his lack of depth in faith and devotion.

    As for this passage in your recent post, I am wondering if you perhaps have a scholarly background in linguistics, or perhaps have had some training in other than English languages or acquired similar linguistic expertise? Your statements seem to indicate that you believe that certain grammatical forms of a word give particular even different meaning to the word?

    Words do not change their meaning, depending on the grammatical case they have in a sentence. Example: The baker (nominative) goes to his work. The bakers (genitive) shop is near the market place. I was standing next to the baker (dative). I saw the baker (accusative) last week in town. In all cases, the word "baker" carries the same meaning and refers to a "baker".

    Decisive for the meaning of a word is always the context in which the term is used, not just the grammatical case, tense, or form, as it is also the context which defines / requires a certain grammatical form of a word. Example: I spoke to a baker (dative) in town. I spoke to a baker (dative) burn his bread. I spoke to a baker (dative) baking top quality bread.

    Also, normally one would not speak of a "word family" or "family of word-forms" if one is just referring to different grammatical forms of the very same word (as with your example above). A "word family" is a group of words relating to the same word root, but indeed different meanings. For example "baker" - refers to a person, "to bake" - refers to an action, ...

    Furthermore, in the case of the word "rock/stone", "Peter" etc in the context of your topic of study, I would think that it would be necessary to carefully distinguish between the uses in the different contexts in order to correctly learn if - for example - the word "petros" in that particular context is a reference with the general meaning "stone, small rock" or if it is a reference as a proper name "Peter". One should consider that the actual name of that apostle commonly known as "Peter" was actually "Cephas / Kephas" and "Simon son of Jonah", So then, when Jesus made the statement to him "Thou art petros, but on this petra I will build my church", what was Jesus actually saying with that emphatic contrast of "you & stone [petros]" versus "this rock [petra]"? Was Jesus renaming Cephas / Simon? I don't think so. Seems clear to me that Jesus was pointing out a difference between Simon and himself, comparing Simon to a stone and himself to a rock, adding that Jesus would build the church on that rock, and not on the stone.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,737

    @Bill_Coley posted:

    I'm not familiar with the significance, if any, of the different ways in which Jesus referred to Peter. To my reading of them, however, none conveyed the message that Jesus had removed Peter from the ministry to the Gentiles to which Peter told the Jerusalem Council God had called him.

    I would add that I have not read anywhere about Peter or Paul having A MINISTRY to the Gentiles ... The closest to such an idea might be what Paul is recorded in Gal 2 to have declared when he spoke of "gospel to the circumcision" and "gospel to the uncircumcision" and that such simply described that the preaching to the respective groups (Jews and/or Gentiles) was simply what was taking place at the time.

    One should note before Paul's missionary journeys, the gospel had apparently been preached mostly (perhaps exclusively for the most part) to those of the circumcision and that Peter's visit and preaching to Cornelius' household is recorded as the first preaching to Gentiles. On the other hand, while Paul is said to have mainly preached to Gentiles, even on his journeys his manner was to first go to the synagogues of the Jews where he obviously intended to preach to Jews (and not Gentiles).

    So much for trying to "clear cut" things into "ministry to Gentiles" and/or "ministry to Jews" ....

Sign In or Register to comment.