Another article to write guys. Something I want to clear the air with, I am not going to be responding to every single article necessarily, nor am I going to respond to the articles in any particular order. With that said, let us continue.
First claim is made here:
"We have now learned that Jesus was not the first to be called to undertake the mission. It is from the failure of Solomon that Jesus was called to take up the unfulfilled mission of revealing or showing the Name of God to his people. We will see if Jesus fulfilled the mission."
The name of God was already known to his people, it's YHWH or Yahweh. Solomon wasn't given that sort of task of showing God's name to his people, though this point I may need to look into in the future.
It is established that God chose Jerusalem to be the place that will house his name and even the book of Revelation makes it clear that the Father, Son and Spirit dwell in Jerusalem and Christ, the second person of the Trinity will rule on David's throne forever.
Now here Erano reads into the Bible a criteria not recognised by Jews and Christians at all, despite their numerous disagreements on Jesus:
"Let us first understand the manner in which God’s prophets are identified by their people, how are they easily recognized? Maestro Evangelista says it is in the prophets’ names that their missions are known. From their own names they are sent to fulfill a specific work."
He appeals to Exodus 2:10 and Exodus 3:12 to try an say that Moses was named Moses to fulfill a mission of leading the people across the Red Sea and if he didn't, he would not fulfill his mission.
Moses leading the people out of Egypt is not why he was called Moses, Pharaoh's daughter gave him the name because she had found him in the bulrushes and river, that's why he was called Moses. There is an esoteric meaning being read into the text. The sign and the name of Moses are not connected to each other.
Also, Exodus 3 tells you what the sign is:
"Exodus 3:7 The Lord said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. 8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 9 And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them. 10 So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt.”
11 But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?”
12 And God said, “I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you[b] will worship God on this mountain.”
13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”"
The sign would only be fulfilled IF God had sent Moses and if he hadn't, the sign would not come to pass.
Next of Course Erano quotes the following texts, Deuteronomy 22:21-22 and 22:24:
"20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you."
Mary didn't violate these obviously, Erano goes on to say that Joseph was the one to sleep with Mary IN FORNICATION, obviously he implies that in the article itself.
Once again he makes the argument that the Holy Spirit is God's word and not the third person of the Trinity, which again he cannot substantiate from the text.
His abuse of 2 Samuel 23:1-2 has already been covered here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/how-erano-evangelista-deceived-humanity.html
Furthermore, There is NO EVIDENCE in the Bible, that Ruach or Spirit means word. The Spirit is not the Word and vice versa, even in Acts in the following texts:
"1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with[b] the Holy Spirit.”
6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”"
Are you telling me that we are baptised merely with God's Word which is spoken? This is eisegetical reading of the text. Even Unitarian heretics who deny the Trinity never identify the Holy Spirit as God's Word, but rather the Father's power, force or presence.
"23 On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25 You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
“‘Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26 The kings of the earth rise up
and the rulers band together
against the Lord
and against his anointed one.[b]’[c]
27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. 29 Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30 Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”
31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly."
Again, the word in the context this time is not referring to Christ but to the gospel he preached and it also goes on to show that Erano is again, ignoring the context and putting wool over the eyes of his audience.
Even Psalm 51 and 1 Kings 8:15 don't prove his case
"14 While the whole assembly of Israel was standing there, the king turned around and blessed them. 15 Then he said:
“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, who with his own hand has fulfilled what he promised with his own mouth to my father David. For he said, 16 ‘Since the day I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city in any tribe of Israel to have a temple built so that my Name might be there, but I have chosen David to rule my people Israel.’
17 “My father David had it in his heart to build a temple for the Name of the Lord, the God of Israel. 18 But the Lord said to my father David, ‘You did well to have it in your heart to build a temple for my Name. 19 Nevertheless, you are not the one to build the temple, but your son, your own flesh and blood—he is the one who will build the temple for my Name.’
20 “The Lord has kept the promise he made: I have succeeded David my father and now I sit on the throne of Israel, just as the Lord promised, and I have built the temple for the Name of the Lord, the God of Israel. 21 I have provided a place there for the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord that he made with our ancestors when he brought them out of Egypt.”"
The text speaks for itself, it is referring to the promise that God had given to his people to which Solomon gives thanks to God for doing. There is no reference to the Holy Spirit in the text.
"10 Create in me a pure heart, O God,
and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me from your presence
or take your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation
and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me."
David had the Spirit of God inside him, not a word about the Spirit being the Word. Quite to the contrary David is beseeching God not to remove the Holy Spirit away from him or push David away because of his sin with Bathsheba. It's a confessional Psalm.
It's interesting the claim that Erano makes about the Spirit being the Word has no exegetical support, but then again, He is claiming supposed Revelation and is trying to sell his religion to some unfortunate soul and the only way he can do that is claim to be a prophet, trying to make himself unassailable. Of course even a Unitarian who denies the Trinity would laugh at Erano's exegesis of the text, or eisegesis.
As for Genesis 1:1-3, that again doesn't prove Erano's case and both Unitarians and Trinitarians will agree Erano's point is moot, as is his point about Psalm 33. The Spirit is not the Word. God's word as in a spoken word cannot hover above the waters.
Psalm 29 is already addressed here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/how-erano-evangelista-deceived-humanity.html
Now here are some points I want to cover that he makes, let's look shall we?
Before God creates things, he makes a decree, and when God wants to say something to His people He makes His decrees known through the mouth of His prophets. It's already established that the Word and the Spirit are not the same thing so I need not go over that again.
"That is why when it was said in...
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 1:18 (NIV)
That it was prophesied to happen according to the prophet Isaiah. Let us continue...
Because Joseph her husband-to-be was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
Matthew 1:19 (NIV)
When Joseph knew Mary was pregnant, he knew that if they were found out before marriage, they will be put to death. He had been thinking of running away, to abandon the woman and save his life.
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 1:20 (NIV)
Joseph was reminded of the prophecy that was spoken of by Isaiah - according to the Word of God - the Holy Spirit. Meaning, it is Joseph, not the Holy Spirit who made Mary pregnant.
What is the mission of the son of Joseph and Mary?
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,
because he will save his people from their sins."
Matthew 1:21 (NIV)
Jesus was sent to continue the mission that Solomon failed to fulfill; to save only his people Israel, from their sin, not the Christians and...
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us." When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.
Matthew 1:22-24 (NIV)
This is the sign of Jesus, for his people to identify him as the one sent to continue the task of making his people know the Name of God. Is it really true that Jesus was a descendant of David? Is it also true that his parents were not yet married when he was born?
…to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David.
The virgin's name was Mary.
Luke 1:27 (NIV)
Jesus' true father is Joseph who belongs to the house of David. So if we are to believe the teaching of the religions that Jesus is the “son of God,” then it should be Mary who should belong to the house of David.
You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.
Luke 1:31 (NIV)
And who was Jesus' father?
He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
Luke 1:32 (NIV)
"will be called" - As you have read it, Jesus was only a son or a descendant of David not a real "son of God;" he was just a man.
Is it true that Mary was pregnant before she married Joseph?
So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
Luke 2:4-5 (NIV)
Thus, the story of Jesus as told by the religions is not true. From the time Jesus was prophesied until the time of his birth, it is now very clear that Jesus was only the son of Joseph, a descendant of David; born by a virgin, meaning born out of wedlock."
Jesus again, being the Son of God doesn't refute him being the Son of David and vice versa, Read the whole NT, he is AFFIRMED AS BOTH: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-true-authority-and-true-glory-of.html
Mary was already pregnant, but Joseph WAS NOT responsible for the pregnancy. It was the HOLY SPIRIT who indwelt Mary to allow her to conceive Jesus. In fact Mary's own words REFUTE what Erano says:
"Luke 1:26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her."
Notice she is already pledged for marriage and even ADMITS she has never had a man touch her in an intimate fashion or had sex with anyone. Her question would be make her look dumb is Erano's claim is correct, which it's not. The Holy Spirit allowed Mary to conceive, not through intercourse as some perverted individuals have claimed, Mary was NOT impregnated by Joseph to conceive Jesus, that is damnable heresy and was a heretical teaching of the Ebionite sect, a group of Jewish Christians that flourished in the SECOND CENTURY.
Jesus is the Son of David by virtue of adoption, because since he was in the womb of Mary and Mary was pledged to Joseph in marriage, by virtue of their marriage Jesus would be adopted into the Davidic line, thus enabling him to take the throne.
I have again written on this subject in great length in Rabbinic Dilemma 101 and it's addendum:
Also his misuse of 2 Samuel 7:14 is addressed in this article:
Also, Since Jesus didn't PRETEND to be the Son of God, he made the claim and the Pharisees said he should die for making the claim. If Jesus was correct, then the Pharisees condemned YHWH God to the cross, If Jesus wasn't correct then the Pharisees would have been right and just in killing Jesus. However its established from the very texts Erano quotes that Jesus was innocent.
I speak about this point in particular in my article response to Erano on Isaiah 53:
One point Erano made in his paper is "Jesus' true father is Joseph who belongs to the house of David. So if we are to believe the teaching of the religions that Jesus is the “son of God,” then it should be Mary who should belong to the house of David.". I have no idea what he is on about, again, Jesus being the Son of God doesn't refute him being the Son of David.
"For the last two millennia, the religions have taught us the doctrine that Jesus died for our sins. In the Holy Bible, as it is written, this is not the case. He was punished for pretending to be the son of God, and executed because of it. The Jews in his time knew him better, more than the religions that came after them. Who would you believe?
What were the circumstances that led Jesus to assume that he was the "son of God”? Who made him believe and pretend that he is the "son of God?" Was it Jesus' own intention, or was he influenced by another?"
A major assumption is being made here, he assumes that the Holy Bible doesn't teach that Jesus died for our sins, but rather a later invention. He has no evidence for this and I would like to see the evidence.
I have also written on this subject of whether Jesus himself even taught he would die on the cross for our sins in the following papers, where Yisroel Blumenthal claims that the atonement of Jesus was an invention by Paul:
Once again it is safe to say that Erano has no clue what he is talking about and should get his head out of the sand and pack up his "prophetic" crusade (Or his pathetic crusade).
I hope this article has been a blessing and I thank you for taking the time to read.