Blogging Theology

How misused: Repeatedly argued that the absence of a definite article before 'theos' implies a non-divine or lesser divine nature for the Logos, thereby denying Yeshua's full divinity. Also, used to imply early Christian ambiguity on Yeshua's divine nature.

Scripture's answer: The absence of the definite article ('ho') before 'theos' in John 1:1c ('kai theos en ho logos') does not diminish the divinity of the Logos. Standard Koine Greek grammar dictates that when a predicate nominative precedes the verb and is anarthrous, it is qualitative, meaning 'the Word was divine' or 'the Word had the nature of God.' It prevents the reading 'the Word was *the* God' (which would imply modalism or that the Word is the entire Godhead), but fully affirms the shared divine essence of the Word with God the Father. It is a precise theological statement affirming Yeshua's divinity within the Trinitarian framework, not denying it. (Daniel B. Wallace, 'Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics', Zondervan, 1996, pp. 266-269; Murray J. Harris, 'Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus', Baker Academic, 1992, pp. 60-70).

How misused: Used the textual critical removal of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8) from modern Bibles as 'proof' that the doctrine of the Trinity is dependent on a 'forged' verse and therefore unbiblical or invalid. (Video 9, 197)

Scripture's answer: The 'Comma Johanneum' (1 John 5:7b-8a, 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth') is a known late textual insertion not found in the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Its absence does not invalidate the doctrine of the Trinity, which is established throughout the rest of Scripture (e.g., Matthew 28:19; John 1:1, 14; 8:58; 10:30; Romans 1:3-4; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:8). The doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent on a single verse but is a systematic theological conclusion drawn from the cumulative witness of the entire biblical canon. (Bruce M. Metzger, 'A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament', United Bible Societies, 1994, pp. 647-649).

How misused: Argued that Isaiah 53 does not refer to a future Messiah or his atoning suffering, but exclusively to the nation of Israel as a collective, or to a contemporary figure in the prophet's time. Denies it refers to Yeshua's substitutionary atonement. (Video 173)

Scripture's answer: While Isaiah 53 has a corporate dimension referring to Israel, its most profound fulfillment is in the individual suffering servant, Yeshua HaMashiach. The language of substitutionary atonement ('he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed,' Isaiah 53:5) and his death for the sins of others ('he bore the sin of many,' Isaiah 53:12) points directly to Yeshua's crucifixion and resurrection. The New Testament consistently applies this chapter to Yeshua (e.g., Acts 8:32-35; Romans 15:21; 1 Peter 2:21-25). Many Jewish commentators throughout history have also recognized the possibility of an individual Messiah in this passage. (Alfred Edersheim, 'The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah', Hendrickson Publishers, 1993, vol. 2, pp. 747-752; N.T. Wright, 'The Resurrection of the Son of God', Fortress Press, 2003, pp. 581-584).

How misused: Applied Isaiah 42 to Prophet Muhammad, suggesting it predicts his coming and ministry, despite the New Testament's explicit application of this prophecy to Yeshua. (Video 233)

Scripture's answer: Isaiah 42, particularly verses 1-4, describes the Servant of the Lord who brings justice to the nations. The New Testament explicitly identifies this Servant as Yeshua HaMashiach. Matthew 12:15-21 quotes Isaiah 42:1-4 and applies it directly to Yeshua, fulfilling the prophecy through his compassionate and gentle ministry. There is no scriptural basis in the Tanakh or the New Testament to apply this prophecy to Muhammad. (Matthew 12:15-21; Leon Morris, 'The Gospel According to Matthew', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992, pp. 317-319).

How misused: Used Yeshua's statement 'I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it' to argue that Christians should meticulously observe all 613 Mitzvot, including judicial laws, and that Paul contradicted Yeshua on the Law. (Video 110)

Scripture's answer: Yeshua came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it (Matthew 5:17-19). This fulfillment involves bringing the Law to its intended purpose and demonstrating its true meaning, including its moral demands (Matthew 22:37-40), its sacrificial types (pointing to His atoning death), and its ceremonial aspects (fulfilled in Him, Colossians 2:16-17). The New Covenant explains how believers are freed from the Mosaic Law's condemnatory power and ritual requirements, living instead by the Spirit under the Law of Messiah (Romans 7:4-6; Galatians 3:23-25; 1 Corinthians 9:21; Hebrews 8:6-13). The Torah's moral principles remain valid and good for believers, but not the legal obligations of the Old Covenant system. The teaching that Yeshua's followers are bound to all 613 Mitzvot, including judicial aspects like executing those who curse parents, misinterprets the nature of Yeshua's fulfillment and the New Covenant. (Dallas Theological Seminary, 'The Ryrie Study Bible', Moody Publishers, 1986, notes on Matthew 5:17; N.T. Wright, 'Paul and the Faithfulness of God', Fortress Press, 2013, pp. 690-705).

How misused: Argued that Yeshua's prophecies regarding the timing of the end times, particularly in Matthew 24, are 'failed prophecies,' indicating he was mistaken, not divine, or not the true Messiah. (Video 49, 66)

Scripture's answer: Yeshua's prophecies in Matthew 24 (and parallels) often have both an immediate fulfillment (destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD) and a future eschatological fulfillment (His second coming). He explicitly states that 'this generation will not pass away until all these things take place' (Matthew 24:34), referring to the destruction of the Temple and signs leading up to it. His statement about not knowing the day or hour (Matthew 24:36) emphasizes the Father's sovereignty, not a 'failed prophecy.' His words call for vigilance, not precise date-setting. These passages do not indicate Yeshua was mistaken, but rather demonstrate his authority and prophetic insight, while maintaining the divine prerogative of timing. (Craig L. Blomberg, 'Matthew', The New American Commentary, Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992, pp. 360-363; D.A. Carson, 'Matthew', The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Zondervan, 1995, vol. 8, pp. 504-505).

How misused: Claimed Yeshua literally commanded his disciples to hate their parents and wives, presenting it as a harsh or contradictory teaching. (Video 179)

Scripture's answer: Yeshua's statement in Luke 14:26, 'If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple,' is an example of hyperbole or comparative Semitic idiom. In ancient Semitic languages, 'to hate' in this context means 'to love less by comparison' or 'to give subordinate allegiance to.' It does not mean literal animosity but rather prioritizing allegiance to Yeshua above all earthly relationships. This aligns with Yeshua's teaching to love God with all one's heart (Matthew 22:37) and honor parents (Exodus 20:12; Matthew 15:3-6). (Kenneth E. Bailey, 'Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels', IVP Academic, 2008, pp. 286-289; Craig L. Blomberg, 'Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey', Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997, pp. 222-223).

How misused: Claimed Yeshua implicitly taught that cursing parents should result in execution by upholding the Mosaic Law. (Video 110, 179)

Scripture's answer: In Matthew 15:3-6, Yeshua criticizes the Pharisees for using their tradition (Corban) to nullify the clear Torah commandment to honor one's father and mother. While Exodus 21:17 prescribes the death penalty for cursing parents under the Mosaic covenant, Yeshua's point here is not to re-establish the judicial aspect of that specific law for his followers under the New Covenant, but to emphasize the moral obligation to honor and care for parents, and to expose the hypocrisy of those who circumvented it. He affirms the enduring moral weight of the Torah, not the continuation of its civil penal code. (R.T. France, 'The Gospel of Matthew', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007, pp. 574-577).