The Genesis Conspiracy: A Religion of Rome

By Wayne Talbot

Did the early Church of Rome conspire with the pagan Emperor Constantine to create a new religion for the West, superseding Judaism and displacing the Children of Israel as God’s First Born Son (Exodus 4:22)?
Catholic scholar, Bernard Lee observed:
“Most Christological interpretation has been ‘supersessionist’, that is, it has interpreted Jesus as initiating a new Covenant that supersedes Judaism. Historically, it is quite improbable that Jesus had any such thing in mind.” Similarly, “There is little likelihood that Jesus had any conscious intention of founding a new religious institution, either superseding Judaism or alongside it.”
The obvious question is: If that was not in the mind of Jesus, on whose life and teachings Christianity is said to be based, in whose mind was it?
This study examines the wealth of evidence that has convinced the author that in truth, Christianity is a centuries-old conspiracy with significant anti-Jewish undercurrents.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris AU
• Release date: Jan 24, 2022
• ISBN: 9781669886105

Wayne Talbot

The author, Wayne Talbot, was once a Christian, but continually struggled with what it was that he should believe. Not quite sure, he went back to a beginning, questioning whether in truth, the existence of God was believable. He concluded for God, publishing his reasoning in his first book, “If Not God What?”. Raised in the Catholic faith, but finding some doctrines having no basis in the bible, his studies directed him away from Catholicism to non-denomination Protestantism; from there to Evangelical Christianity; from there to Messianic Judaism; and from there to where he is today - a theist believing in the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, but aligned with no identified religion. His quest for an understanding of God has him studying the ancient texts of Scripture, guided by the published works of numerous Old and New Testament scholars – Jewish, Christian, and secular. Focusing on specific issues has allowed him to see through the fog of doctrine, dogma, and theology, and reach conclusions which he has published in numerous studies, this analysis of prophecy fulfillment being his thirteenth. His journey continues, one that he believes he will never finish, for on many issues, he has only managed to uncover untruth. Though a late starter in the literary field, Wayne Talbot has published a novel, Finding the Shepherd, a pseudo-biographical account which alludes to his own theological wanderings against a background of places he has been, but entirely fictional people and events. He has published a refutation of Richard Dawkins’ Greatest Show on Earth, entitled The Dawkins Deficiency, and an entirely original treatise, Information, Knowledge, Evolution, and Self, which contends that the posited mechanisms of evolution are insufficient to account for the cognitive information and knowledge in humans.

Book preview

PROLOGUE

~ Surprised: the feeling following an

unexpected or astonishing event ~

W AS GOD SURPRISED?

By what? You might reasonably ask.

The doctrine of Christianity can be expressed by three concepts: Creation, Fall, and Redemption. When secularists suggest that the tragedy of human existence can often be found in the environment, it is common for Christian commentators to respond, They overlook the fact that it was in Paradise that man fell. Christian theology, and to a lesser extent, that of Judaism, is based on the concept of The Fall – the sin of Adam in succumbing to the temptation of Eve as she had been fooled by the serpent to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Christianity takes this further to assert that because of Adam’s sin, the Creation was cursed, mankind was destined to sin, and it was necessary for God to send his son to die in substitutionary atonement. Without such atonement, none could go to heaven. Judaism, faithful to the Hebrew Scriptures, denies such necessity and asserts that God forgives those who repent: substitutionary atonement is not necessary, let alone even possible: each person is responsible for their own salvation.

The significance of what I believe to be the paramount question in this context, can be found in the answers: yes or no? If one answers, Yes, that God was surprised, then implied is that God is not the infinite, omnipresent, infinitely omniscient being that both religions claim him to be; i.e., he must be an incompetent God. If one answers, No, then implicit in that answer is that God foreknew the consequences of granting Adam and Eve freewill, and allowed the serpent to tempt them. If we wind the story back a tad, although we really don’t know the sequence, God must have granted the angels a degree of free will such that some could rebel. A reasonable deduction from this is that the sin / rebellion of both the angels and the first humans was not just foreseen by God, but must have been in his plan all along. One cannot claim both that God is in control, but also that his creation is out of control, without him having the foreknowledge and thus allowing it from the outset.

An edition of the Jewish Journal contained this statement in the commentary ¹, G-d knew that we were destined to leave the Garden of Eden and to go into exile. This was my first encounter with an author agreeing with my perspective.

The significance of human disobedience, if it was always foreseen and allowed by God, even before creation as Christian texts assert (1 Peter 1:20, Revelation 13:8), is that the Christian claim of Jesus as saviour must be false. It is incomprehensible to me that mindful of the sanctity of life, God would devise a plan for his creation such that having deliberately granted free will to mankind, the exercise of that faculty would cause the necessity for a human sacrifice: and not just any sacrifice but that of his own Divine Son made flesh. How could one reconcile that plot with God being loving, just, and merciful? I acknowledge the apologetics claiming that redemption was necessary because of the sinfulness of mankind, but that is to lay culpability at the door of mankind alone. It was God’s decision to create mankind as he did: thus, logically, it is God who is complicit from the outset. It is illogical to argue from the perspective of human fallibility, for that is affirming the consequent – it need not have been so. If we start with this consideration, and examine both the Jewish and Christian Scriptures from that perspective, a different story emerges. In this study, I re-examine from Genesis to Revelation to determine the authenticity of those narratives.

Thus, I seek to expose what I believe to be, "The Genesis Conspiracy", prompted by the mistaken understandings of Paul, the evangelists, and possibly Jesus himself, and set in motion worldwide by the early Roman Catholic Church. Why they conceived such a plot can only be the subject of speculation, but it would not surprise me if a desire for power was amongst the imperatives. The collaboration with the Roman emperor Constantine, the sword-wearing Popes of the Holy Roman Empire, and the subsequent Divine Right of Kings, are evidence of that.

It is a longish story, so settle back with your favourite tipple and hopefully, you will find something of interest. I will offer my opening arguments, and then proceed through a series of Christian propositions that form the substance of what I perceive to be a conspiracy, albeit one that in many respects, was probably well intended. However, as the old proverb warns, the path to hell is pathed with good intentions, not that I am in any way suggesting that this conspiracy leads to that destination.

References:

1.https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/339381/the-stuff-were-made-from/

PART 1

Conspiracy & Conspirators

"Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way."

~ The Sacred Writings of Eusebius Pamphilus, Chapter XVIII ~

W HEN I READ Church Father, Eusebius, relating the words of Constantine in relation to Easter: And first of all, it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews ... Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way ¹, I thought to myself: when did Jesus ever direct his followers to a different way, especially in relation to Passover and the Sabbath? Jesus religiously followed the practices of Judaism, and did not consider the multitudes that followed him detestable. Why did Eusebius consider this worth repeating without refuting Constantine? What happened in the years between Jerusalem and Rome?

There are three elements to be considered in terms of this conspiracy:

1. The substance of the conspiracy itself.

2. Strategies of the conspiracy; and

3. The identity of the conspirators.

There is some substantive evidence from the writings of the Church Fathers, but most of the evidence that I shall present is circumstantial, reflecting conclusions based on my own reading of the available history, and the commentaries from acknowledged scholars. Whilst I consider my conclusion to be an inference to best explanation, I acknowledge that such abductive reasoning can also be perceived as a logical fallacy – it depends on how the evidence is evaluated.

However, I contend that the facts of evidence themselves are beyond dispute.

Development

The conspiracy did not begin as some do: Let us overthrow the emperor or let us stage a coup. It was more subtle than that, and initially likely innocently and well-intentioned, based on beliefs, mostly unsubstantiated, and likely some degree of disappointment that Jesus, as mashiach, entirely failed to achieve the long-held Jewish expectations: But we were hoping that it was he who was going to redeem Israel (Luke 24:21). I cannot know, but I suspect that redemption from sin was read back into the narrative, possibly started by Paul as he expressed: Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3). There is hardly even a hint in the Hebrew Scriptures of such a prophecy, as evidenced by the editors of the New King James Version unable to find an entry to which they could refer. As best as I can discern, there was no such belief in contemporary Second Temple Judaism. If the Jewish Sages, experts in their own Scriptures, did not know about such a prophecy, what is the likelihood of it being true? Over time, Catholic theologians attempted to find justification in the Scriptures, but I have found their apologetics to be entirely unconvincing.

Paul’s revelation on the road to Damascus is uncorroborated, and his gospel is, in part, at odds with the Great Commission recorded in Matthew 28:19-20, which incidentally, is not recorded in the other Gospels. The life and times of Jesus was an entirely Jewish story, with Jesus reportedly believing his mission to be: I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24), the same message that we find from the Prophets of Israel of earlier ages. Paul turned that on its head with his claimed mission as Apostle to the Gentiles, the trajectory of the movement taking on a distinctive Hellenic flavour in the transition from Jerusalem to Rome. Once established there, the anti-Jewishness flourished, achieving political status as nascent Roman Catholicism compromised with the sun-worshipping, pagan emperor, Constantine. As with all political movements, it gathered apace with further rationalisation of its ideology.

In recent times, apologists, both academic and amateur, have claimed that Jesus fulfilled anywhere from 30 to 400 Old Testament prophecies. In my own comprehensive analysis, I found that he fulfilled not a single one of substance, just a few circumstantial such as coming from Nazareth. My analysis has been documented in an earlier published study, "Prophecy Unfilled" ².

References:

1.Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3, 18-19, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 1979, second series, Vol. 1, pp. 524-525

2.Talbot, Wayne, Prophecy Unfulfilled: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2018

CHAPTER 1-1

The Theological Battleground

Islam passed the night face to face with unbelief, monotheism at war with trinitarianism, the way of righteousness looking down upon error, faith opposing polytheism.

~ John Dickson, Bullies and Saints ¹ ~

P ERHAPS UNBEKNOWN TO many, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all claim the ultimate authority over the Hebrew Scriptures. These Scriptures were developed by the Children of Israel, later to become known as the Jews. Along comes Christianity claiming that the Jews misunderstood their own writings, being blinded from the truth, as Paul wrote in his misquoting and misrepresentation Isaiah 6:9-10:

But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless, when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. (2 Corinthians 3:14-16)

Some six hundred years later, along comes Mohammed who is claimed to be the last Prophet of Allah (God), sent to correct the errors of both Judaism and Christianity. Of note is a significant disagreement over the nature of God. Judaism and Islam agree that God is One, that there is no plurality in him. Christianity disagrees with its concept of the Trinity. Islam is adamant that trinitarianism is equivalent to polytheism, and in a sense, I agree, but not entirely; that is for another time. It is worth our while to spend a few minutes reviewing some essentials of Islam, for from my perspective, the proponents have themselves concocted their own conspiracy. The Christian conspiracy is the primary subject of this study, so here we will take time out to review just Islam. The suras, abbreviated as Q, are quoted from this translation ² of the Arabic.

Islam’s place in history

Islam claims to be the one true religion, preceding both Judaism and Christianity, these religions being later branches much as Protestant denominations could be considered later branches from Catholicism. The significant difference being, however, that whereas Protestantism clings to the basic narrative of the Bible, and in fact insisted on a return to the primacy of Scripture, Islam claims that Judaism and Christianity totally distorted and corrupted the original word of God, rewriting it in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and New Testaments respectively. Islam claims that the Quran is the last revealed word of God (Allah), needed to bring people back to him, and correct the heresies of Judaism and Christianity.

Muslims claim a common ancestry with Jews and Christians, and lay claim to the significant figures in the Bible as actually Muslims. The Quran makes reference to Ibrahim (Abraham), Ishaq (Isaac), Nuh (Noah), Sulayman (Solomon), Musa (Moses), Yunus (Jonah), Isa (Jesus), and many others. The following verses illustrate this:

Desire ye then that for your sakes the Jews should believe? Yet a part of them heard the word of God, and then, after they had understood it, perverted it, and knew that they did so. (Q2:70)

Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian, but he was sound in the faith, a Muslim; and not one of those who add gods to God. (Q3:60) [Ed. Reference to the Christian Trinity]

To you hath He prescribed the faith which He commanded unto Noah, and which we have revealed to thee, and which we commanded unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying, ‘Observe this faith, and be not divided into sects therein’. Intolerable to those who worship idols jointly with God. (Q42:10)

Quran correcting the Bible

Jews and Christians are collectively termed, ‘People of the Book’, because Islam claims that God gave his books to these people; to the Jews, the Book of Tawrah (Torah) through Moses, and the book of Zabur (Psalms) through David; to the Christians, the Book of Injil (Gospels) through Jesus. Jesus is also said to have confirmed the truth of the Tawrah. Each of these books, as originally given, confirmed the one true religion as Islam, and the one true God as Allah. However, the Quran states that the Jews and Christians corrupted (perverted) the books as given by God, concealing the truth as originally handed down, and knew that they did so. In the case of Christianity, we have reason to agree, as will be argued in a later chapter on bible inerrancy. Moses, David, Jesus, and his original disciples were all Muslims, it was only later that the followers rewrote "the books" and called themselves Jews and Christians. This understanding is conveyed in the following verses, and many others.

Remember when the angel said, ‘O Mary! Verily God announced to thee the Word from Him: His name shall be Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, illustrious in this world, and in the next, and one of those who have near access to God ... And he will teach him the Book, and the Wisdom, and the Law, and the Evangel, and he shall be an apostle to the children of Israel ... And I have come to attest the law which was before me; and to allow you part of that which had been forgiven you; and I come to you with a sign from the Lord: Fear God, then, and obey me; of a truth God is my Lord, and your Lord: therefore, worship Him. This is the right way. And when the Lord perceived unbelief on their part, He said, ‘Who will be my helpers with God?’ The apostles said, ‘We will be God’s helpers! We believe in God, and bear thou witness that we are Muslims.’ (Q3:40-49 excerpts)

The phrase "we are Muslims is actually an interpretation; other texts render this as witness thou our submission", but understanding that as a basic meaning of ‘Muslim’ is one who submits to God, this interpretation is acceptably accurate.

And some truly are there among them who torture the Scriptures with their tongues, in order that ye may suppose it to be from the Scripture, yet it is not from Scripture. And they say, ‘This is from God’; yet it is not from God: and they utter a lie against God, and they know they do so ... When God entered into covenant with the prophets, he said, ‘This is the Book and the Wisdom which I give you. Hereafter shall a prophet come unto you to confirm the Scriptures already with you. Ye shall surely believe on him, and ye shall surely aid him’ ... Whoso desireth any other religion than Islam, that religion shall never be accepted from him. (Q3:70-79 excerpts)

[God speaking] And when I revealed unto the Apostles, ‘Believe on me and on my Sent One [Jesus],’ they said, ‘We believe; and bear thou witness that we are Muslims.’ (Q5:110)

And we gave him Isaac and Jacob, and guided both aright; and we had before guided Noah; and among the descendants of Abraham, David and Solomon, and Job and Joseph, and Moses and Aaron: thus do we recompense the righteous ....... These are they to whom we gave the Scripture and Wisdom and Prophecy: but if these their posterity believe not therein, we will entrust these gifts to a people who will not disbelieve therein. (Q6:80-89 excerpts)

Verily, I [Jesus] am the servant of God; He hath given me the Book, and He hath made me a prophet ...... But the Sects have fallen to variance among themselves about Jesus: but woe, because of the assembly of a great day, to those who believe not! (Q19:30-39 excerpts)

Concerning the Jews and Christians corrupting the original word of God:

The true religion with God is Islam: and they to whom the Scriptures had been given, differed not till after ‘the knowledge’ had come to them, and through mutual jealousy. (Q3:15-19)

They [Jews] shift the words of Scripture from their places, and have forgotten part of what they were taught. Thou wilt not cease to discover deceit on their part, except in few of them ... And those who say, ‘We are Christians’, have we accepted the covenant. But they too have forgotten a part of what they were taught.... O people of the Scriptures! Now is our Apostle come to you to clear up to you much that ye concealed of those Scriptures. (Q5:15-19 excerpts)

There are many other such verses which clearly teach that God had given His Word to the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures, and to Jesus, all of whom were actually Muslims. This was the same word as was given to Mohammed, but the Jews and Christians had corrupted these words and had created their own heretical sects.

Isa the Muslim Jesus

Jesus (Isa) has a special place in Islamic history and eschatology, there being ninety-three verses which mention him, half of them in relation to his birth. Mohammed accepted Jesus as the last prophet before himself. Islam agrees with the New Testament narration of Jesus (Isa) in some respects, but not in the most important. Islam agrees that he was born of a virgin, Mary, but not that he died on the cross, although he was taken bodily to heaven (similar to the Ascension).

She [Mary] said, ‘How, O my Lord! Shall I have a son, when man hath not touched me?’ He said, ‘Thus: God will create what He will; When He decreeth a thing, He only saith, ‘Be’, and it is.’ (Q3:40-42)

And for their saying, ‘Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God’. Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness ... No sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion, and they did not really slay him, but God took him up to Himself. (Q4:155-159 excerpts)

Scholars have debated, without resolution, why Islam refuses to accept that Jesus died, particularly given that Islam accepts that many earlier prophets were killed, so why not the prophet Jesus? What was so special about Jesus that Allah would not allow him to be killed, instead substituting someone who looked like Jesus? The Quran provides no explanation on that point, and a sceptic could rightly question whether this theology was introduced as a deliberate foil against Christian teachings. The first century Jewish historian, Josephus, and the second century Roman historian, Tacitus, both affirmed the crucifixion of Jesus, and Jewish history and doctrine throughout the past 2000 years confirm that Jesus died. We only have Mohammed’s word six hundred years after Jesus that such history is inaccurate.

Curiously, the Quran itself confirms that Jesus was to die:

And the peace of God was on me the day I was born, and will be the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised to life. This is Jesus, the son of Mary; this is a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. (Q19:33)

This passage reads more like an extract from the New Testament, forecasting the death and resurrection of Jesus, and is affirmed by the Quran as truth. The Quran teaches that Jesus will return with the Mahdi, destroy all the crosses, convert Jews and Christians to Islam, and then he will die a natural death. But the sequence of being taken bodily to heaven and then coming back to die is the opposite of what may be understood from Q19:33. There is nothing conclusive here, but curious nonetheless.

In recent years, claims have been made that Jesus was a Palestinian, and according to author Samith Ghanadreh in his book, Christianity and its Connection to Islam, President Yasser Arafat used to say that Jesus was the first Palestinian Shahid (martyr). This rewriting of history has extended even to the Mary, the mother of Jesus. On the official website of the Education Authority of the ruling Palestinian Fatah faction can be found the statement, "If we are proud of the holiness of our land, then we are proud and pride ourselves that the first and most important holy woman among the nations and peoples is from the Holy Land: the Virgin Mary – the woman of love and peace – is of the nation of Palestine" (Israel Today, February 2011, p. 20). Many see this rewriting of history as part of the strategy of trying to claim that the Arab Palestinians have a prior claim to the Holy Land, invalidating any claims that the Jews may have.

Conclusion

It is obvious from the above that there are political objectives on this battleground, as well as spiritual - in truth, sometimes it is difficult to separate the two. Books on the life of Mohammed, other key figures, and the goals of Islam, are worthy of study. Following are just some of the books in my library on those subjects. I cannot help but conclude that Islam has its own conspiracy aimed at delegitimising the Christian conspiracy which preceded it. This raises the obvious question: Is Judaism itself a conspiracy, but that is for another time.

References:

1.Dickson, John, Bullies and Saints: An Honest Look at the Good and Evil of Christian History, Zondervan Reflective, Grand Rapids, MI, 2021, p. 12, quoting Imad Ad-Din on the Battle of Hattin, in Allen, The Crusades: A Reader, 134-38

2.Koran (Quran), translated from the Arabic by J.M. Rodwell, Phoenix press, Orion Publishing Group, London, 1994

3. Gabriel, Mark, Jesus and Muhammad, Charisma House, Lake Mary, Florida, 2004

4. Jackson, Roy, Fifty Key Figures in Islam, Routledge, Milton Park, Abingdon, 2006

5. Spencer, Robert, The Truth about Muhammad, Regnery Publishing, Washington, DC, 2006

6. Ye’or, Bat, Europe, Globalization, and the Coming Universal Caliphate, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Lanham, MD, 2011

CHAPTER 1-2

The Conspiracy

"Because the nation of Israel did not accept Jesus as

Messiah, she has been cast off. She has forfeited her pre-

eminent position in the purposes of God. The Church

has become the rightful heir to the blessings once

promised to Israel. From God’s perspective, the Jewish

people today are no more significant than any other

racial group. Unless the Jews repent, come to faith in

Jesus and join the Church, they have no future."

~ Traditional Christian Teaching ~

T HE CONSPIRACY , IN a word, is Supersessionism, otherwise known as Replacement Theology, the Christian doctrine which asserts that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ supersedes the Old Covenant, which was made exclusively with and for the Jewish people. In his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi , Pope Pius XII stated:

By the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. ... [O]n the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees and fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. ¹

There are five assertions in this encyclical which I shall especially challenge:

1. Jesus was our Redeemer. There is no prophecy of redemption from sin, no necessity for it, and Jesus did not fulfill any of the significant prophecies.

2. Jesus delivered a new replacement covenant / testament at the Last Supper.

3. The so-called Old Law (Torah) has been abolished. Jesus could not void the Law of God. Very clearly in the Gospels, he showed his support for the Law

4. There is an identified Law of Christ. Despite considerable research, I cannot find such a law plausibly described anywhere; and

5. The handwriting of the Old Testament was fastened to the Cross. On the contrary, as was the Roman custom, it was the crime for which Jesus was executed that was fastened to the Cross (in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek).

Further, from this encyclical: From the outset it should be noted that the society established by the Redeemer of the human race resembles its divine Founder, who was persecuted, calumniated and tortured by those very men whom He had undertaken to save. There are numerous fallacies in these statements which I will seek to refute, both from the failure of logic in the theology, and from the narratives in the New Testament itself. The most obvious logical and theological contradiction is that if it was pre-planned by God that His Son should die on the cross in substitutionary atonement, why blame the Jews for his death? If this was the plan, should not the Jews be lauded as the instruments of God’s Will?

I shall open my case by quoting Catholic scholar, Bernard Lee:

There is little likelihood that Jesus had any conscious intention of founding a new religious institution, either superseding Judaism or alongside it. If for reasons of historical probability, we refrain from an active voice verb saying that Jesus founded the church, Christian faith never hesitates for a moment to say that our church is founded in Jesus the Christ, and in God’s gift of Covenant with us in and through Jesus. Here we are again with the ghosts of continuity and discontinuity, the same ones that haunt Christianity’s own sacred texts: the continuity is clearer in Mark’s Gospel than in John’s; in the genuine Pauline epistles than in the pseudo-Pauline pastoral letters. Christian continuity with Jewishness is my concern in these pages. If Jesus did not step outside Judaism to be who he was in life, can he still be that for Christians today? ²

Note the distinction that Bernard Lee makes here: even though Christians may acknowledge that this new religion was not founded BY Jesus, it was nevertheless founded IN Jesus. But then the conundrum: If Jesus did not step outside Judaism, how can a religion that not only steps outside Judaism, but repudiates it entirely, claim to be founded in Jesus? It is this utter rejection of so much of who Jesus was, and what he taught, practised, and believed in, that had me rejecting Christianity ³, for in a very real sense, the Church of Rome rejected the Jewish Jesus as I understand him to have been as revealed in the Gospels. As for Jesus’ intentions regarding a new religious institution, we do have: … you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My church (Matthew 16:18), but we will come back to that in a discussion on Church authority.

Of the issues noted above, perhaps the most significant question to be answered is whether or not Jesus announced a new replacement covenant as Christianity claims. Consider these versions of Matthew 26:28,

a. This is my blood of the covenant (NIV).

b. This is my blood of the new covenant (ISV).

c. This is my blood of the new testament (KJB).

d. This is my blood, the blood of the promise (God’s Word Translation).

There is a substantive difference between covenant, testament, and promise, and whether new or not new. In later chapters, I will go into a detailed argument as to why from my analysis of both earlier prophecies ⁴ and the events recorded in the Gospels ⁵, I find insufficient substantiation for the Christian claim of a replacement covenant.

Belittling God

One of my objections to Christian doctrine is that in a sense, it has elevated the Son above the Father. Now before you start quoting Jesus to me, yes, I know - he acknowledged the Father as his authority, but the conundrum is how the Father would authorize the Son to contradict the Father. Christianity has marginalised the Father, and belittled his omniscience. In reference to Torah (Mosaic Law), many claim that it is prescriptive for the Jew, but descriptive for the Christian. Others assert that following Jesus, Torah is just good advice, guidance, teachings, etc., as if following it is optional. Jesus said: Man … lives by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4). Christians should understand that when spoken by an omniscient, infinitely wise, Sovereign God, it is illogical to differentiate between advice, guidance, teachings, and commandments, for who can know better than God? If God were to ask you: Why did you not follow My advice?, how would you answer, especially if you were to anticipate God’s objection: What! You know better than I do? Those with a military background know only too well, that suggestions by senior officers carry the same force as commands. It is the same with God, only more so. EVERY word of God, no matter how one may choose to perceive it, carries the same authoritative force. Torah is God’s guidance on how to live this life: ALL his words express how we are to live in harmony with him, and with one another. Whilst quite obviously, not all words in Torah apply to every person, just as not every civil law applies to every person, that is not to suggest that none do, or that those that do apply to us are optional. It cannot be so. If we are to believe it to be true that: For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak (John 12:49), then it is illogical to believe that Jesus did truly contradict the Father, regarding Torah, especially as concerns the Sabbath which is mentioned no less than 164 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament. Rather, it can only be the way that Gentile Christianity in Rome, primarily through its anti-Jewishness, chose to interpret Paul. It is this false interpretation of Jesus, via Paul, that has led Christianity to demean the Word of God, and belittle his omniscience.

How can this not be a conspiracy of man?

References:

1.https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html

2.Lee, Bernard J., S.M., The Galilean Jewishness of Jesus, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 1988, pp. 17-18

3.Talbot, Wayne, Once a Christian: How the Bible Convinced Me to Walk Away, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2017

4.Talbot, Wayne, Prophecy Unfulfilled: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2018

5.Talbot, Wayne, The New Covenant on Trial: Examining the Evidence for a Replacement Covenant, Xlibris, Bloomington, IN, 2016

CHAPTER 1-3

Understanding the Covenant

For this is my blood of the new covenant

(Matthew 26:28)

I N THE CONTEXT of this covenant, the word new is disingenuous, for in truth what is meant in Christian theology is replacement. This should give every Christian pause for thought: Why would an omniscient and faithful God need to entirely replace his earlier covenants with his chosen people, those whom he identified to Pharaoh as My first-born son (Exodus 4:22)? If he would disown his first-born son due to disobedience, will he not also disown his later children for similar, if not greater disobedience? Can any Christian claim to be any more obedient to this replacement covenant than the Children of Israel were to their covenant? The faithfulness of God is not on trial: his faithfulness has never been dependent upon the faithfulness of his children.

Next consider that in many places, e.g., Matthew 26:28, the word new does not appear in the Greek: it has been added by the translator, no doubt with good intentions, but in truth, it is a theological annotation intended to convey a particular understanding. I will argue that based on the biblical evidence, that such an annotation is in error.

In the New Testament, the Greek word transliterated as diatheke can be translated as will, covenant or testament, but which is right? Comparing over 20 English translations of the Matthew 26:28, I find that the older versions like the King James and Douay-Rheims render the word as testament not covenant. In other contexts, an even higher percentage of translations favour testament. In a biblical context, what would testament mean? For this we can turn to Hebrews 9:16-18 which I have discussed in detail in other works, but for now I will simply suggest that testament as used here is of the form: Last Will and Testament.

You may never have considered this before, but this meaning does fit perfectly with the conversations at the Last Supper. The Messiah had announced that he was about to die, and thus announced his testament. As with the word new, in other places the word covenant has been added by the translator when it does not appear in the Greek, e.g., in Hebrews 8:13 and 9:1. I would ask the reader to keep these thoughts in mind as we examine the evidence from Scripture. Firstly, that the true meaning of new covenant as taught in Christianity is a replacement covenant; and secondly, that how the word diatheke is translated is very much dependent on the presuppositions of the translators: will, covenant or testament?

When we study any version of the Bible, remember that strictly speaking, we are not studying THE Bible: in truth, I doubt that there is any such book. All bible translations are interpretations, with commentary added in the form of theological annotations. Thus, what we are reading is not so much Scripture, but doctrine and theology. Let me give an example of how Christianity, in attempting to substantiate their rendering of new covenant, rather than a renewed covenant (Jeremiah 31:31), they have misrepresented the covenant agreed by the Children of Israel at Sinai:

"The Old Covenant that God had established with His people required strict obedience to the Mosaic Law. Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), the Law required that Israel perform daily sacrifices in order to atone for sin. But Moses, through whom God established the Old Covenant, also anticipated the New Covenant. In one of his final addresses to the nation of Israel, Moses looks forward to a time when Israel would be given a heart to understand (Deuteronomy 29:4, ESV). Moses predicts that Israel would fail in keeping the Old Covenant (verses 22–28), but he then sees a time of restoration (30:1–5). At that time, Moses says, The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live (verse 6). The New Covenant involves a total change of heart so that God’s people are naturally pleasing to Him." ¹

The assertion: the Law required that Israel perform daily sacrifices in order to atone for sin is utterly false. The author of this lie is either unwitting through ignorance, or a willing accomplice to the conspiracy, but either way, this assertion is to be rejected. Referring to God’s promise: But despite all this, while they will be in the land of their enemies, I will not have been revolted by them, nor will I have rejected them to obliterate them, to annul My covenant with them – for I am Hashem, their God. I will remember for them the covenant of the ancients, those whom I have taken out of the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a God unto them – I am Hashem (Leviticus 26:44-45, TJB). This should be a warning to all those holding to Replacement Theology: that God had cancelled His covenant with the Israelites, or rejected them because of their sins. Either that, or God is a liar.

In a later chapter, I will provide a proper understanding of the meaning and purpose of sacrifices as commanded in the Book of Leviticus, and they are not at all as the above quotation states. In studying all of the relevant prophecies, there is not one that even hints at the necessity of substitutionary atonement as the means of giving people a new heart to understand and obey. Such is the fallacy perpetrated by Christianity in the development of their conspiracy, although to be fair, passages such as found in Matthew 26:27-28, John 1:29, Luke 24:46-47, 1 John 2:2, 2 Corinthians 5:21, and others can be considered as evidence that Jesus himself believed that to be his mission. However, whilst Jesus believing this to be the case is evidence of a kind, it is not substantive evidence of truth without corroborating evidence that Jesus knew what he was on about. On the preponderance of evidence, if what is reported in the Gospels of what Jesus said about himself is true, then my conclusion is that he was deluded as were other Jewish people, before and after him, who also thought that they were the promised mashiach.

Evaluation of evidence is a complex and at times, a frustratingly difficult task, requiring more objectivity than is usually evidenced by people writing on this subject. Whilst all of us suffer from subjectivity to one degree or another, I will leave it to readers to evaluate for themselves, the degree of objectivity that I have managed to achieve and display.

References:

1.https://www.gotquestions.org/new-covenant.html

CHAPTER 1-4

The Christian New Covenant

I will keep you and give you as a covenant to the people

(Isaiah 42:6)

T HE FIRST QUESTION to ask is: What was the source of Christianity’s belief in a new (replacement) covenant? Accepting that Jesus announced a new covenant at the Last Supper, why was there no questioning by his Apostles? Were they already expecting such an announcement? If they believed that Jesus was the mashiach heralding the End of Days , then they might have associated this covenant with that prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31. I can think of no other reason for their not questioning the nature of this new covenant. That history shows the End of Days was still at least two millennia into the future argues that whoever believed that at the time, including Jesus, was mistaken. It is illogical to attempt to disassociate Jeremiah 31:31 from the eschaton , and for Christianity to continue to do so supports my contention of a conspiracy .

The following extract from Wikipedia omits the references which I have confirmed as authoritative:

Generally, Christians believe that the promised New Covenant was instituted at the Last Supper as part of the Eucharist, which in the Gospel of John includes the New Commandment. Based on the Bible teaching that, For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise, it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth, Protestants tend to believe that the New Covenant only came into force with the death of Jesus Christ. The commentary to the Roman Catholic New American Bible also affirms that Christ is the testator whose death puts his will into effect. Christians thus believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, and that the blood of Christ shed at his crucifixion is the required blood of the covenant. ¹

I have read commentaries where it is asserted: Jesus Christ is that covenant, quoting Isaiah 42:6 as above. Although some have cause to disagree to support their theology, in the main both Jewish and Christian scholars agree that My servant (v. 1) is the Jewish mashiach (Messiah), but the question is: Are there any prophecies of two comings of a Messiah? If you read through to the end of verse 9, the prophecy can only relate to the End of Days – no interim event for the redemption of sin. Verse 4 reads: He will not slacken nor tire until he sets justice in the land and islands will long for his teachings. The last phrase could apply to Jesus, but not in his so-called First Coming, for not only did Jesus clearly tire before achieving justice for all, he actually expired. There is a warning in verse 8: I am HASHEM; that is My name; I shall not give My glory to another.

The proper method of Scripture interpretation has been defined this way: "That which is clearest and is treated with the greatest significance in Scripture interprets those passages that are more difficult and less central to the biblical message" ² [emphasis mine]. So here are my questions:

1. Where is this supposed new covenant expressed clearly?

2. What is treated with the greatest significance in Scripture? and

3. What is least central in the message of Jesus?

In brief, I will later show that this replacement covenant is barely mentioned at all, is thus of very little significance, and is the least central to the message of Jesus which, in common with that of the prophets of old, was to repent and obey God’s commandments. A difficulty that I have is that every work that I have begun studying is loaded with doctrinal presuppositions: these have me questioning the objectivity and impartiality of the author. Take for example these texts from Horton’s "Introducing Covenant Theology" ³:

a. It is important, however, to distinguish between the law’s strictness in relation to individual salvation (demanding an absolute perfection which we cannot fulfill since the fall).

b. Remember, the purpose of Jewish theocracy (i.e., the old covenant) was to point forward through types to the coming Messiah.

To start, despite the common Christian perception of God’s Law, salvation through perfect obedience could never have been a requirement of God, and was never understood as such in Judaism. The belief that was held by the Jews, and one with which I have reason to agree, is that God is neither capricious nor unfair, and he would never have imposed conditions upon his creation which he knew could not be met. The recipients of the Law at Sinai, the Israelites, and their descendants now called the Jews, did not perceive perfect obedience through the Law as the prerequisite to salvation: that is a Christian myth. Similarly, I do not accept this traditional Christian understanding of the so-called Fall, later presenting my arguments that absolute perfection was never a condition of any of God’s covenants, before or after Adam’s transgression. Likewise, spiritual perfection could not have been an attribute of Adam because had it been so, he could not have sinned, as I will so argue in later chapters.

As to the second part, the purpose of Jewish theocracy, this is a misrepresentation of expectations of the mashiach, as we also later discuss in detail.

Jesus stated the two greatest commandments to be: (1) love God; and (2), love one another. He further told his followers where to find the how: On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 22:40). The Cappadocian fathers in the late 4th century had this understanding, and:

"… were passionate defenders of the poor and sick. Gregory of Nazianzus’s Oration 14, On Love for the Poor, is arguably the most systematic explanation of the centrality of charity ever composed … A thousand or so words into the oration, he reaches his point: We must regard charity as the first and greatest commandment since it is the very sum of the Law and the Prophets … From this paragraph he launches into a wealth of argumentation designed to leave the apathetic rich with nowhere to hide." ⁴

My point is that Jesus did not fulfil the Law in the sense of abolishing it, but rather, represented fulfilling all that God commanded. The law was given as guidance for harmonious living with God and one another (see "Christians Too, Must Obey" ⁵), and the same law pertains today. Having misunderstood, or likely misrepresented, the purpose of the Law, Christianity has also misunderstood (misrepresent) the early covenants, no doubt influenced by the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (Galatian 3:24-25). Again, I sense that doctrinal presupposition has driven the interpretation of this passage, through the failure to understand the role of paedogogus in ancient societies. We will come back to that also in a review of the meaning and intentions of Torah. Further on the Cappadocian fathers, I find it interesting that they maintained the Jewish heritage of Christianity far more than the Church in Rome. For example: Basil was one of those Christians, drawing on the ancient Jewish tradition, who believed that if you had resources and withheld them from those in need, you were actually stealing from them. ⁶ Of note also is The Basileias was the first public hospital in history.

New Covenant Theology is partially based on the idea of two types of covenants: a covenant of law, and a covenant of promise. One author wrote: If we can find a covenant of promise and a covenant of law even in the part of the Bible known simply as ‘the Law’, then the differences between these two covenants should become even clearer in the prophets. ⁷ In attempting to link the fall of Israel with the fall of Adam, he continues: However, in both Adam’s and Israel’s cases after their fall, another word is spoken, a word of promise rather than command - an oath taken by God to fulfill his purposes despite human sinfulness. Let me offer that such statements are an insult to the faithfulness of God; God went ahead with Creation despite his foreknowledge of human sinfulness, and it was long understood that his children could count on his faithfulness without any subsequent oaths. The problem I have with the author’s logic is his use of the word despite, as if God did not foresee humanity’s imperfection even before Creation. Our sinfulness is not an obstacle to God’s plan, nor was Adam’s or Israel’s: these were always accepted in God’s Plan from the outset. The notion that we have somehow failed God and he had to take corrective action is antithetical to an omniscient, omnipotent, and immutable Creator: God foreknew our sin but created us anyway.

As an aside, I suspect that the author missed these words in Genesis:

And HASHEM said to Cain, why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do not improve yourself, sin rests at the door. Its desire is toward you, yet you can conquer it. (vv. 4:6-7)

Is there not a promise here, of forgiveness if one improves? Is there any sense of perfection being required? The full context must be examined if the truth is to be revealed.

The other fallacy in the author’s assertion is: a word of promise rather than command. Has anyone counted the number of commands issued by Christ in a single rendering of the Gospel? My estimate is not precise, but a summary count of the words in Matthew 5-7 is around two thousand – that is a lot of commandments! What is meant by the references in John 14:15, 21, 23, 15:10, and 1 John 2:3? To my mind, there is far more emphasis on repentance and obedience as prerequisites to the promise than on the promise itself. The author’s statement reads more like political spin than an honest assessment of the message of the Jesus.

Regarding the idea of two types of covenants: works and promise, there are attempts to reinforce it by the misrepresentation that the prophecy in Jeremiah 31 had been implemented in the coming of Jesus, a notion that I wholeheartedly reject. We will come to that later. Before doing so, read Joshua chapter 23 for an overview of promises and punishments from the perspective of the Hebrew Scriptures. Author Michael Horton typifies the traditional understanding:

Thus the contrast between law and gospel, an external command and an internal willingness, conditions and promises, the letter and the Spirit, does not originate with Paul but with the Old Testament Scriptures, and the book of Jeremiah is among the most obvious in this respect. In fact, God firmly says through Jeremiah that this new covenant ‘will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them’ (31:32 NIV). The point could not be clearer: the new covenant is not a renewal of the old covenant at Sinai, but an entirely different covenant with an entirely different basis. ⁸

Because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them: there is significance in these words which can only be found in Jewish literature. Thomas Lancaster attempts an explanation:

The old covenant had been broken for a long time. And that wasn’t the only time it happened. In fact, every sin committed by the nation breaches the terms of the covenant. The Levitical priesthood had the job of performing continual, daily, covenant maintenance to repair the relationship. The LORD compared that relationship to a marriage. He said ‘I was their husband’. The prophets depicted the nation of Israel as the bride of God. When the nation indulges in idolatry, the prophets compare it to adultery. ⁹

There is truth in this narrative, but also numerous fallacies, but for now, I will deal with just a couple of issues. It is false to claim that The Levitical priesthood had the job of performing continual, daily, covenant maintenance to repair the relationship – in a later chapter, I will explain the true meaning and purposes of what is commonly, but mistakenly, referred to as the sacrificial system. The analogy with bride and adultery is true, but any suggestion of divorce is untrue: adultery, yes, but divorce, no. Next, let us take a brief look at the prophecy in Jeremiah 31 which Christianity claims was fulfilled in Jesus. From the Hebrew Scriptures:

Behold, days are coming – the word of HASHEM – when I will seal a renewed covenant with the House of Israel [Ed. ten tribes in the Diaspora] and the House of Judah [Ed. two tribes in Judah and Galilee]: not like the covenant that I sealed with their forefathers … for they abrogated My covenant (Jeremiah 31:30-31)

The covenant is to be renewed: not a new covenant, and not a replacement covenant. It is to be sealed with the twelve tribes of Israel, not with the Gentiles, despite Christianity assuming for itself, the title of the New Israel. The Children of Israel abrogated the covenant, and here again we need to choose the appropriate meaning of this polysemantic term. Christianity chooses: to repeal or do away with, whereas from what I can glean from Jewish literature, and the meaning most consonant with Jeremiah’s prophecy and other texts, it should be understood as evade (a responsibility or duty). If you study the Prophets in detail, I suspect that you will end up agreeing with me. Here is another text which ought not be ignored:

But despite all this, while they will be in the land of their enemies, I will not have been revolted by them, nor will I have rejected them to obliterate them, to annul My covenant with them – for I am Hashem, their God. I will remember for them the covenant of the ancients, those whom I have taken out of the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a God unto them – I am HASHEM (Leviticus 26:44-45, TJB).

Oops! Another text which Christianity chooses to conveniently ignore.

Can it be any clearer that despite the failure of the Children of Israel to live up to their commitments to God, he will NOT annul his covenant made at Sinai. This should be a warning to all those holding to Replacement Theology, asserting that God had cancelled his covenant with the Israelites, revolted by them and rejecting them because of their sins. Either that, or God is a liar. I know which option I choose.

The primary contention is this: New Covenant Theology is based, amongst other texts, on the mention of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8. In this, Christian theologians have it entirely wrong, misunderstanding, and perhaps deliberately doing so, whilst ignoring contrary passages in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Announcing the Covenant

Here are the NKJV versions of the relevant Gospel passages where Jesus is said to have announced this covenant at the Last Supper:

a. Matthew 26:28 - For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sin.

b. Mark 14:24 - This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

c. Luke 22:20 - This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

d. John - no mention at all!

Putting aside for the moment, the debate concerning the actual words that Jesus used, and what he intended to convey, how did his Apostles react? Well, from the text, they hardly noticed: When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives (Matthew 26:30). Mark’s account tallies with that of Matthew, but Luke has the Apostles questioning amongst themselves (vv. 22:23-37). Luke’s account is disputed, partly because of variations in textual versions, and most importantly I would think, Luke’s account can only be hearsay. Six forms of the text have been identified; for example, the Western text-type such as Codex Bezae omit verses 19b–20. John’s account of the Last Supper is even more questionable, apart from the fact that his narrative contains no mention of the new covenant, which is very strange because according to Christian apologetics, the Gospel attributed to John is considered the most Christological. This account, chapters 13-17, is of a longish discourse by Jesus covering subjects not found in any of the Synoptics, and given that it was written decades after them, there is reason to doubt its authenticity. That apart, the most significant issue is the omission of any mention of a new covenant.

Defining the New Covenant

It is quite an interesting challenge to find a definition of this covenant, one that matches the way earlier covenants were announced. One author wrote: The New Covenant where G-d circumcises our hearts with the new law of His Holy Spirit through the death and resurrection of Yeshua; both the Son and the Immanuel of G-d ¹⁰. I always get suspicious when I encounter flowery language: What is it hiding, and is it a substitute for clear understanding? The author fails to identify this new law and in what respects it differs from the old law, but links this covenant with that prophesied in Jeremiah 31 even though we get no hint of that from the Gospels. Consider the phrase: G-d circumcises our hearts with the new law and compare that with what is written in Jeremiah: I will seal a renewed covenant … I will place My Torah within them (31:30-32). It is entirely illogical to interpret the word Torah in Jeremiah as meaning some new, unspecified law in Christ – there can be no warrant for doing so. To repeat, the Hebrew Scriptures from which the Christian Old Testament has been derived, prophesy of only one coming of a messiah, and that only in the End of Days. The prophecies of Isaiah and Micah concerning the End of Days reveals the error of Christianity in misrepresenting Torah:

It will happen in the end of days: The mountain of the Temple of HASHEM will be firmly established as the head of the mountains, and it will be exalted above the hills, and all the nations will stream to it. Many peoples will go and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the Mountain of HASHEM, to the Temple of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways and we will walk in His paths’. For from Zion will the Torah come forth, and the word of HASHEM from Jerusalem. (Isaiah 2:2-3)

"It will be in the end of days that the mountain of the Temple of Hashem will be firmly established as the most prominent of the mountains, and it will be exalted up above the hills, and the peoples will stream to it. Many nations will go and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the Mountain of Hashem and to the Temple of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways and we will walk in His paths’. For from Zion shall go forth the Torah, and the word of Hashem from Jerusalem." (Micah 4:1-2) [emphasis mine]

With that in mind, then according to the Gospel attributed to John, did Jesus refute the Prophets, or was he warning of the errors of Christianity:

Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for the salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:21-24)

But back to the claimed New Covenant. Another author approaches it this way:

As the Spirit of Promise, the Third Person of the Trinity brings to fruition Christ’s ‘new creation.’ The Father speaks, the Son is spoken, and the Spirit brings about in history the effect and perfection of that speech. But how does the Spirit accomplish this? According to Scripture, it is by the gift of faith. But where does this faith come from? It is created by the preaching of the gospel and confirmed by the sacraments as signs and seals of God’s covenant promises. ¹¹

The first thing that strikes me is the language: again, more poetic than informative; it is also very different to how God announced His covenants in the Old Testament. The second is that in no sense do I recognise any human over the past two millennia as new creations - they look very much the same as the old and in some ways worse (and I have a theory on why that is so). The third is the degree of inference based on some debatable passages in Scripture, even if I were to accept the Epistles as Scripture in the same sense as used the term in 2 Timothy 3:16 (you can probably guess that I do not). I am assuming that when the author wrote that faith is a gift, he was referencing his understanding of Ephesians 2:8, but I have a very different understanding which I expound on more fully here ¹². In brief, it should be translated as: For by grace you have been saved through [God’s] faithfulness, and that not of yourselves - is anyone ever truly faithful other than God?

Searching