​I am genuinely looking to learn and understand different viewpoints, thanks.

Ears to hear Pt 3

In Part 1 and Part 2 I laid out the case for Christ's divinity through titles, worship, and direct statements. This time I want to go a different direction — because I think it hits harder for a lot of you. If you hold to a Unitarian view, most of your framework is built from the Old Testament. So let's stay there. Let's look at what the OT itself says will happen when God comes to save His people — and then see who actually did it.

Isaiah 40:3, 5

"A voice of one calling: 'In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God... And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all people will see it together. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.'"

This isn't a prophecy about a messenger being sent from God. It's a prophecy about a road being prepared for YHWH Himself to walk on. All four Gospels quote this verse and apply it to John the Baptist preparing the way — for Jesus. Not for an angel. Not for a prophet greater than Moses. For YHWH's own arrival.

Malachi 3:1

"'I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,' says the LORD Almighty."

God says "before me" — the messenger prepares the way for God's own coming. Jesus enters the temple. If Jesus isn't YHWH, then this prophecy simply failed, because the messenger (John) prepared the way and no one showed up but a man.

Isaiah 35:4-6

"Say to those with fearful hearts, 'Be strong, do not fear; your God will come... he will come to save you.' Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy."

This is one of the clearest ones. When John the Baptist's disciples ask Jesus if He's really the one they've been waiting for, Jesus doesn't quote a Messianic prophecy about a servant or a king. He points straight at this passage — the blind seeing, the lame walking (Matthew 11:4-5) — and lets them draw the conclusion. He's saying: this is your God coming to save you, happening right in front of you.

Zechariah 2:10-11

"'Shout and be glad, Daughter Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you,' declares the LORD. 'Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you.'"

Not sending a representative to live among His people. YHWH Himself, taking up residence among them — and He says it twice in two verses, so there's no reading it as a one-off figure of speech. Someone will say God already dwelled among His people in the temple, so this isn't new — but that objection doesn't hold up against the text itself. Temple presence was mediated and veiled: God's glory sat behind a curtain, accessible to one priest, one day a year (Leviticus 16). And that presence wasn't even guaranteed to stay — Ezekiel 10:18 and 11:23 describe the glory of the LORD literally departing the temple before the exile, because of Israel's sin. Zechariah is prophesying something the temple never delivered: God dwelling directly among "many nations" (v.11), not mediated through a curtain, not tied to one building, not something that can depart again. That's a different category of presence than what the temple ever held. And when the Gospel of John describes the incarnation, it doesn't use vague language — John 1:14 says the Word "dwelt," literally "tabernacled," among us — the same word family as the temple's tabernacle, on purpose. Jesus makes the connection explicit Himself: in John 2:19-21, He says "destroy this temple and I will raise it in three days," and John tells us plainly He was talking about His own body. Jesus isn't visiting the temple. He's replacing it as the place where God's presence dwells among men — which is exactly what Zechariah said would happen.

Ezekiel 34:11, 23

"For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them... I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them."

Sit with the tension in this chapter for a second. God says twice, plainly, "I myself" will shepherd Israel. A few verses later, the shepherd is "my servant David" — a human, Davidic figure. The prophet doesn't explain how both are true. He just says both. Jesus picks up this exact image and says, "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11) — the Davidic shepherd who is also, somehow, God Himself doing the shepherding.

Micah 5:2

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

A ruler born in Bethlehem — but whose origin is "from of old, from ancient times" — language used elsewhere in Scripture almost exclusively for the eternal existence of God Himself. A born human being with a beginning, and eternal origins with no beginning, spoken of in the same verse. Someone will point out that "from of old" (mikedem) on its own can just mean ancient, not eternal — and that's true, the word by itself is flexible. But look at what it's paired with: "from days of everlasting" (mimei olam). Olam is the same word Moses uses of God Himself in Psalm 90:2 — "from everlasting to everlasting you are God." Micah isn't using one vague word. He's stacking two phrases together, and the second one is the exact word reserved for God's own eternity. Context is what tips this from "old family line" into "without beginning."

Isaiah 9:6

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

This is a child who is born — and the text calls him "Mighty God" (El Gibbor), the exact title used of YHWH two chapters later in Isaiah 10:21. Not "godlike." Not "mighty one." Mighty God. Some will say "Mighty God" was just ancient royal throne-name language — Egyptian and Near Eastern kings were sometimes given grand divine-sounding titles without literally being gods, so this could be poetic exaggeration for a human king. That's a real pattern elsewhere in the ancient world, but it doesn't hold up on Isaiah's own usage. Isaiah reuses this exact two-word phrase, El Gibbor, one chapter later — Isaiah 10:21 — talking plainly and unambiguously about YHWH: "A remnant will return... to the Mighty God." Same author, same book, same phrase, one chapter apart, with zero ambiguity in the second usage. Isaiah doesn't get to define "Mighty God" as literal in chapter 10 and figurative in chapter 9. Context — how the author himself uses the phrase elsewhere — settles it.

Isaiah 59:16, 20

"He saw that there was no one to intervene; so his own arm achieved salvation for him... 'The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,' declares the LORD."

God looks for someone to save His people and finds no one qualified — so He does it Himself, "his own arm." Paul quotes this directly in Romans 11:26 and applies it to Christ's return.

Psalm 22:16-18

"Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment."

This is the one I'd put in front of anyone who thinks these prophecies were just written to fit the story afterward. Psalm 22 was written roughly a thousand years before Christ — long before crucifixion existed as a method of execution anywhere in the world. It wasn't developed until the Persians, and it wasn't perfected and widely used until Rome adopted it centuries later. Piercing of hands and feet, bones out of joint from hanging on a frame, executioners gambling over clothing at the scene — this describes crucifixion in specific physical detail, written by a man who had no concept of crucifixion because it didn't exist yet. Whoever wrote this wasn't describing something he'd seen. He was describing something he was shown.You'll likely see someone bring up that the Masoretic Hebrew text (the medieval Jewish text most modern Hebrew Bibles are based on) reads "like a lion" (ka'ari) at my hands and feet, rather than "they pierced" (karu) — and that the "pierced" reading only comes from the Greek Septuagint, translated centuries after the original. That's true as far as it goes, but it's not the whole picture. This isn't just a Septuagint reading. The Dead Sea Scrolls fragment of Psalm 22 (found at Nahal Hever, dated before Christ) also reads "pierced" in the original Hebrew — meaning the pre-Christian Hebrew textual tradition supports "pierced," not just a later Greek translation. The "like a lion" reading is the later, medieval Masoretic variant, not the earlier one.

Zechariah 12:10

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child."

Written roughly 500 years before the cross, this has God Himself speaking in the first person — "they will look on me, the one they have pierced." Not "my servant," not "my messenger." Me. Pierced. John 19:37 quotes this verse directly at the crucifixion scene, and Revelation 1:7 points to it again for Christ's return. Whoever is pierced here is the one speaking as YHWH.

Isaiah 53:5

"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed".

Written centuries before crucifixion existed, in a chapter that describes a suffering, silent, wounded servant who dies for the sins of others and is later vindicated. There was no cultural reference point for this kind of execution when it was written. It wasn't a lucky guess.

The standard reading you'll run into — going back to Rashi and still common in Jewish and Unitarian circles today — is that the "servant" throughout Isaiah is simply Israel personified, since Isaiah explicitly calls Israel "my servant" elsewhere (41:8, 44:1, 49:3). That's a fair starting point, but context breaks it in two places. First, Isaiah 49:5-6 has the servant with a mission to Israel — gathering Jacob back, raising up the tribes — which makes him someone distinct from the nation he's sent to restore, not a symbol for it. Second, the corporate-Israel servant elsewhere in the same book is described as sinful, blind, and deaf (Isaiah 42:19) — the exact opposite of the servant in chapter 53, who is silent, sinless, and "had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth" (53:9). Isaiah uses "servant" for more than one figure across the book. Context — what the servant actually does and is, in each passage — is what separates them.

None of these men had a category for nailing someone to a wooden beam. It wasn't invented yet. That's not something you can retroactively write into a text after the fact — it had to be there, on the page, centuries before Rome ever built a cross.

Daniel 7:13-14

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

Jesus calls Himself "Son of Man" more than any other title, and this is where it comes from. Clouds are consistently how God Himself is described moving throughout the OT (Psalm 104:3, Isaiah 19:1) — never a mere messenger's mode of travel. And the word rendered "worshiped" here (Aramaic pelach) is the same word used for religious service rendered to God elsewhere in Daniel. A human figure, standing before God's own throne, receives an eternal, universal kingdom and the worship of every nation on earth. When Jesus stood before the Sanhedrin and said, "You will see the Son of Man... coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64), the high priest didn't ask Him to clarify — he tore his robes and charged blasphemy on the spot, because everyone in that room knew exactly what claim He'd just made.

The most common scholarly pushback here is that the chapter's own interpretation (Daniel 7:15-27) identifies "one like a son of man" as a symbol for "the saints of the Most High" — corporate Israel receiving the kingdom, not one individual. But look at the order of events in the vision itself. In verses 13-14, the son of man is a distinct actor: he approaches the Ancient of Days and personally receives dominion, glory, and a kingdom, before the saints are ever mentioned. It's not until verse 27 that the saints possess the kingdom — and they possess it as something given to them, downstream of him. Context distinguishes the one who receives the kingdom from the people who inherit it under him. He's not a symbol for Israel; he's the figure Israel's kingdom comes through.

Hebrews 1:5-6, 8

"For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father?"... And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.'... But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever."

Now put this next to what angels actually do everywhere else in Scripture. Every single time an angel is offered worship, it refuses and redirects it — "I am a fellow servant with you... Worship God!" (Revelation 19:10, 22:8-9). Angels treat receiving worship as a line they will not cross, not even by accident. Hebrews 1 has God Himself commanding those exact same angels to worship the Son. This isn't people mistakenly bowing to a man and Jesus being too gracious to correct them — it's God directly ordering the beings who refuse worship as a matter of principle to render it to the Son. And the passage doesn't hesitate to explain why: because the Son's throne is called "God," forever.

Put Daniel 7 and Hebrews 1 side by side and the title "Son" stops looking like a lesser rank and starts looking like the opposite. The Son of Man receives the worship-word of every nation, from the Ancient of Days' own throne room. The Son of God receives the worship of angels who refuse it from anyone but God, on God's direct command. Two different titles, two different books, centuries apart — and both land in the exact same place: this is not what Scripture ever describes happening to a creature.

Psalm 110:1

The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'"

David, under inspiration, calls someone "my Lord" who is distinct from YHWH — and yet is invited to sit at YHWH's own right hand, sharing His throne and authority. Jesus uses this verse Himself in Matthew 22:41-45 to press the Pharisees on exactly this question: if the Messiah is only David's descendant, why does David call him Lord?

Every one of these texts describes something only God does, or only God is — coming to save, living among His people, shepherding Israel, having eternal origin, being called Mighty God, dying pierced centuries before crucifixion existed, receiving the worship of nations and angels alike, sharing YHWH's throne. None of them describe an angel, a prophet, or an exalted man doing something on God's behalf. They describe YHWH Himself showing up.

Then Jesus shows up, and the Gospel writers point straight at these texts and say — this is Him.

I know a lot of you were taught to read these prophecies as being about a "divine agent," someone sent with God's authority but who isn't God. I'd ask you to actually sit with the language again, on its own, without that lens first. Then ask which reading you're bringing to the text, and which one the text is actually giving you.

I love you all and this is why I keep writing these. Not to win an argument - but because I believe who Jesus is matters for your soul. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to ask or comment. My DMs are open as well. I'm curious how Unitarians typically read Isaiah 45:22-23 in light of Philippians 2:10-11 - what's your take?

If you missed them, Part 1 and Part 2 are linked above.

I was watching a video by Dr Hugo Mendez and he was basically arguing John gospel viewed Jesus as divine but also humans can achieve the same the divine nature like Christ was he cites John 10 when Jesus quotes psalm 82 saying your are gods what was Jesus intent ?

Title

Preamble

I'm an agnostic atheist and I don't believe in the supernatural or superstitions.

I’ve been making counter-apologetic arguments about the story of the Fall, focusing on Christian interpretations that, to me, just don’t make a lick of sense.

I’ve done about a dozen of these secular deconstructions so far. This time, I want to focus on the snake and ask a pretty simple question: was the snake actually depicted as a liar, or was it telling the truth?

My last argument dealt with God seemingly breaking his deal with Adam and Eve. God tells Adam that if he eats from the tree, he will die on the day he eats it. But Adam doesn’t die that day. The apologetic response was that the Hebrew word translated as “day” can supposedly mean something other than a literal 24-hour day. This is where the meaning of words becomes a huge problem. Biblical words are often vague or flexible, and Genesis 2:17 doesn’t actually define what “day” means in this particular context. So there is room for speculation about what the authors intended.

Because of that, I fully expect some apologists to argue that the serpent was actually lying about Adam and Eve not dying on that day. They may dispute the meaning of “day,” “die,” or even “lie,” and rely heavily on translation possibilities to make the argument work.

They may call the serpent “Satan,” even though Genesis itself never identifies the serpent that way.

They may also say that the death is merely spiritual, not physical, so this is another interpolation that isn't in the actual text.

So I’m curious about what the actual evidence is supposed to be.

What, specifically, does the Genesis text give us for concluding that the serpent was lying, rather than telling the truth, and that it was God who kept his promise to Adam and Eve?

__________________________

Definitions

1. Day: The period referred to in Genesis 2:17, translated from Hebrew yom.
2. Death: The irreversible cessation of an organism’s biological functions.
3. Truth: A statement corresponding to what actually occurred.
4. Snake: The serpent described in Genesis 3, without assuming it was Satan.
5. Eyes opened: A metaphor meaning they gained awareness, understanding, or knowledge previously unavailable to them.
6. Lie: A deliberately false statement.

___________________________

Relevant verses

1. Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
2. Genesis 3:4 “But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die.’”
3. Genesis 3:5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
4. Genesis 3:7 “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.”

__________________________

Argument 

P1: The snake said they would not die, and their eyes would be opened.

P2: They did not die, and their eyes were opened.

C: The snake doesn't lie.

Answer

This question is in many forms on varied sub reddits. Asking why would Paul be forbidden by the Spirit in Acts 16:6

The first thing to do though is:

Verify it in the original Greek.

Why? Because “Asia” to most people today means Japan, Taiwan, Korea, China, Mongolia, Thailand, Vietnam, et.al.

Defines in a modern day person's head, when they see this word, “Asia” - that’s what it is defined to mean. Then, they overlay it onto this verse in Acts 16:6, in the Bible. Even in them includes India, as if in Acts 16:6 is saying Paul was prevented from going to India.

When in Acts, this "Asia?"

Not the same place. Not the same thing.

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

Act 16:6 says (English)

“Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,” but now repeat it, and include Acts 16:6–9

6 “Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,”

7 After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.

8 And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas.

9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.

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

Acts 16:6 in Greek

διελθόντες δὲ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν κωλυθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος λαλῆσαι τὸν λόγον ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ· [Asia]

(Asia). - This Greek word is used six times in the New Testament. Right after Acts 16:6, it’s used again in Acts 19:10 and then in the same chapter in Acts 19:27 - so, I would tell you to read the whole chapter to see it in context.

• But before listed, get the geographical area by read Acts 19:1
  • “And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,”

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

Now, here's some "facts."

• In the time of the Book of Acts, Ephesus was the capital city of the Roman Empire province of Asia.
• Acts 19:10 says:
  • “And this continued by the space of two years [Paul at Ephesus]; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.”
• Acts 19:27 says: Introduces the incident at Ephesus with Demetrius, the Silversmith. The uproar over the whole city. Why?
  • Ephesus was the key central Roman Empire city of the Eastern Roman Empire. As such, was also the central hub city to pilgrimage for Greeks, for the worship of the Greek Goddess, Artemis. Apollos' older sister. Romans just continued it.
    • Who the Romans, after they conquered the Greeks, called Artemis, their God, Diana. Same wonderous temple. Same Ephesus. Same sister to Apollos. The temple to Artemis (Diana) was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World at Ephesus.
  • Acts 19:27 - but again, I’d read the whole chapter to see it, and even I'd recommend anyone studying the scriptures with this question to just go back, and start at Acts 16:1 and read to see how it unfolds, from "prevented" or forbidden in Acts 16, to end up Paul is in the very heart of the Roman province of Asia, by three chapters later.

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

Acts 19:27

• “…So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.” - Demetrius, the Silversmith.
• No links on Reddit. See the Biblical times, Roman province of Asia on a map.

See or just do a google search on “Biblestudy(dot)org” - The Roman Province of Asia for an accurate depiction of the region of Asia of the Roman Empire.

Roman Empire era, it’s the “Eastern” Empire, with Ephesus as the seat of it. Today, comprises all of Western Turkey.

A few centuries later, after this of the Book of Acts, Rome’s Caesar Constantine (Emperor Constantine) will move his Capital city from Rome, Italy over 2000 kilometers away to what is today, Istanbul, Turkey.

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

Hope this helps. Question left to answer then is, “Why is that?” It would only be a guess, because, the scriptures do not say “why” God prevented it. Just that he did.

But I could see, it would be something like over here in Japan. Rich in Ephesus. The second city after Rome. That's Ephesus in Roman province of Asia.

Where the people today, of this nation (Japan) have wholly given themselves over to their idols.

Just like Ephesus. Then also, it's just like in the Old Testament with the Northern Kingdom after Israel fractured into two nations at the death of King Solomon. Not one King of the Northern Kingdom ever worshipped or followed God from inception to 722BCE, when they were vomited off the Promised Land. Why? For Idolatry.

What's going on in Ephesus? Idolatry. What's going on in Japan? Idolatry. All the same thing.

That in the tribe of Ephraim’s lands, (Northern Kingdom) a similar-like “hill” likened unto Jerusalem - with the Temple Mount (Mount Zion) - The King of the Northern Kingdom of Israel purchased and named after the owner of it, and called it “Samaria” - it was a "counterfeit Jerusalem."

Samaria: It was the capitol city of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, where they set up golden calf worship, like they had in Egypt. So, instead of the men of the Northern Kingdom, to fulfill the requirement in Leviticus or the Law with or for 3 “High Sabbaths” to journey to Jerusalem to celebrate it.

• The Northern Kingdom had Samaria. It was very rich, and they sacrificed to their idols at Samaria. Even being destroyed, would not leave off from it. That this same God said in Hosea 4:17 - is the same God speaking to Paul in Acts 16:6.
• Where scripture in Acts 16 is sending them to Macedonia, they are asking to hear the Word of God, and open to receive it - and being sent there instead.
  • It is only an assumption - only a presumption on my part, so I hesitate to do it; but, only an observation that:
    • In Acts 16:6, it's against this very same idolatry - being done in an epicentre of worship of it - - in Ephesus. Which was the SAME idolatry going on in the epicentre capital city of Samaria for the Northern Kingdom. Like idolatry is an epicentre crown of worship to the world to come to Japan, too, as it was in Ephesus.
• And to this:

God said:

“Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.” - God. Bible. Hosea 4:17

Same God that said this of Samaria and Ephraim, is the same God prevented Paul in Acts 16:6.

To just let these people of the Roman province of Asia; filthy rich - won’t listen to the gospel anyway, for the same reasons Demetrius the Silversmith lays out - fully and wholly joined to their idols and looked up to.

I see it same here in Japan. They are joined to their idols. Same thing. Leave them alone. That's it.

KEY NOTE:

 Look at Acts 16:7. Verse right after it. They (Paul and his companions) had "assayed" 1. tested the quality; purity; determine is it valid to do it or not

In Greek, this English "assayed" - - - it's this Greek word, {ἐπείραζον (epeirazon) } - means more to 1) purpose; then, 2) attempt to; then, in the process of attempting to go to this next town listed in Acts 16:7 - Bithynia:

That Bithynia was, like Ephesus, a Roman Empire's source of over the top, opulent level - of riches and wealth, in providing a hub of, and also a strategic supply of, like a COSTCO warehouse store in distribution of timber, marble, and agriculture; like Nicaea will later become to a later Emperor Constantine.

Rich in wine and grapes for any Hellenistic Greek, for almost 200 years up to the time of Paul, and then, in Paul's day, to a Roman Empire that worships this rich abundance.

Attributes all of it to their own worship of these gods in Asia. So, they are joined to their idols. It's a certain kind of person like this. VIrtually inpenetrable. It's hard to explain it. No matter what you say or do, they smile, and just shine you off. As if what they have is BETTER than what God offers; so makes it of no effect; by treat it as nothing.

Scripture says in Acts 16:7 - "the Spirit did not allow them to go." (καὶ οὐκ εἴασεν αὐτοὺς τὸ πνεῦμα) to Bithynia. But again, by Acts 19, after going to Macedonia in Acts 16, by Acts 19:10, after dwelling in Ephesus for 2 years, scripture says - the whole of Asia that INCLUDES Bithynia, heard the gospel.

So, Paul, like any believer in Jesus Christ, is being led. Just like any believer in Christ, follows Jesus instead of themselves anymore. Because, what God in Christ, did was done unto the whole world. Just like it has been in our today as well. There are times I'm just forbidden to tell the Japanese anything of the gospel. In fact, some quote "churches" are paid for by Buddhist temples. Why? Japanese believe them being friendly to other gods, shows how good they are, so Buddhist temples provide churches for foreigners and smile and sing, but don't know him at all. It has a form of godliness but denies him, to worship their own gods instead.

But thee ARE actual believers in Christ Jesus, that are Japanese that have escaped out of their nation. Mixed amongst many that never have, nor will. Joined to their idols.

Looking for books that are considered to be the best on this topic. Whether it is the best argument for fundamentalism/biblical inerrancy or on the other end of the spectrum.