The Fifth Gospel of Jesus Christ the Messiah

A collation of the four gospels into one large all-inclusive gospel, technically translated from the Majority Greek Text, using the optimal equivalence method, with inspired, expanded, grammatically enhanced sayings of Jesus Christ, in order to reveal what the Messiah actually said.

Edited, Translated and Published by Orin L. Moses III

"Every scribe who has been discipled into the kingdom of the heavens, is like unto a man that is a householder, who sets forth out of his treasure new and old." Matthew 13:52


Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 |Part 17 | Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C | Appendix D | Appendix E | Appendix F | Appendix G | Appendix H | Home

Preface

This work presents a significant paradigm shift in New Testament Christian thinking. It broaches territory unvisited by the believing masses since Tatian‘s Syriac Diatessaron in 172 A.D. @misc{ wiki:xxx, author = "Wikipedia", title = "Diatessaron --- Wikipedia{,} The Free Encyclopedia", year = "2007", url = "\url{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diatessaron&oldid=131493054}", note = "[Online; accessed 21-May-2007]" }. It is the same thing the disciple Luke did in producing his version of the Gospel. It is the collation and compression of the four existing Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, into a single historical narrative for the busy intellectual reader, with the added benefit of inspired, technically translated, expanded and grammatically enhanced sayings of Jesus. Thus, it has been author-ized, as I have applied myself to this task of five year's duration. This collation and compression of the four gospels into a modern, single, clear, understandable, applicable, all-inclusive presentation for the busy intelligent reader, minimizes the redundancies and discrepancies that make the reading and comparing of the four gospels separately, confusing, troubling, time consuming, and often frustrating - all factors which can eventually paralyze the reader with bewilderment and indecision engendered by perplexity and exasperation over their similarities, differences, and sometimes ostensible contradictions. Any honest, open-minded, thinking reader will admit to this problem. These qualities, though presenting difficulty, validate them as credible witnesses. If they were too similar to one another, they could become suspect with regard to collusion for their message. Every effort has been made to include everything presented in the four, and to leave nothing out. Since the Word of God is inspired and infallible (in the original manuscripts), what they present is true, and therefore they should compliment, and not contradict one another with what they present.

It is also authorized by the fact that it has been freshly translated out of the same Greek Text from which our Authorized Version, and the New King James has been translated. It is also translated utilizing the optimal equivalence method of rendering the Greek text into our receptor language. Formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence separately by themselves are each inadequate, outdated methods of translating. Optimal equivalence utilizes the best of both worlds, and some, to places where demanded by the New Testament Greek text. This work is to fill a need - a need to intelligently present the Gospel in one read to critically thinking individuals - a need to make plain the Gospel for those individuals who enter the Bible book store and encounter a bewildering array of inadequately translated modern renderings, seeking to know for sure what the Bible really means or says - a need for a work of this scope and caliber for the Authorized Version lover seeking to better understand his or her Bible, which is long overdue. There has until now been a dearth of scholarly work on the Received Text, not only because it has been supplanted by modern textual criticism, but also because KJV teachers erroneously teach that we already have perfection in the 1611 edition. This work will show the opposite to be true.

This book is for college-level readers. An accurate rendering cannot be had with a junior-high level of academic attainment. You may need a dictionary. This work is akin to the 1962 work of Kenneth Wuest. In reading his preface, what he has sought to bring to the lover of the Nestle-Aland Text tradition of translating for the modern reader (NA27 or UBS4), I have sought to bring to those who prefer the Received Text tradition (Textus Receptus). The supporting premise is that the oldest and best attested text is that one which has had sufficient time to reproduce the most offspring resembling itself. The Received Text behind the KJV Bible and New King James Bible has over four-thousand manuscript descendants, while the Nestle-Aland Text behind all other translations only has over a thousand or so. This is explained in more detail below. This work may seem a bit pedantic in its read, but it is not as much so as that of Kenneth Wuest, who sought to draw the reader into his work’s stark differences of meaning and presentation while preserving word order. I seek to bring to the reader both what it literally says and what it literally means, as best as can be accommodated by the English Language, and still make sense and be understood, and be right. Though formal equivalency was long the tradition of translating English bibles, the more recent dynamic equivalency approach has ruined English Bibles for the modern reader. One only needs to shop for a Bible to meet up with perplexity. Though I only present the Gospel and Romans in this volume, I intend to produce a volume to follow on the epistles of Paul if I live long enough. Now to the gospels.

The four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are repositories of the words of Jesus Christ. They are also four independent witnesses to the main events of his first advent, each testifying from a different perspective. They do not all sequentially agree in fact and detail, nor do they all have identical content, but in the essential main points they are all in agreement. These differences, though difficult, make them credible as witnesses.

Those acquainted with the principles of evidence understand the force given to testimony by the collection and mutual support of separate witnesses. The greater the number of witnesses, the greater the improbability of collusion becomes. We know that established facts find their accepted certainty from the coincidence of independent evidences or proofs. We therefore find a greater degree of moral probability imparted to the result. So, understanding these things, the argument for the truth contained in the four witnesses we call gospels is greatly augmented by the convergence of their several independent testimonies concerning the same person and events. It would be morally impossible for four separate witnesses to all lie the same way, about the same things, in the same case. We therefore can believe what the gospels present. The taking together of the several testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John concerning Jesus Christ greatly enhances their credibility to the point that it becomes a moral impossibility that they would have all independently decided to tell lies. The fact that Luke's Gospel was compiled of the several he had as resources, and the existence of the "many" he mentions in his preamble, even further increases the number of independent witnesses. Thus taken together, we can have the most ultimate confidence in the Virgin Birth, Miracles, Life, Death, Burial, Resurrection, Vicarious Atonement, and even Jesus' claims to being the Son of God, Savior, and Christ, the Messiah - the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

These gospels taken together lead us to the same conclusions concerning the truth, and thus provide to us the unwavering confidence necessary to fully appropriate their provision. We can now trust in the result that they present to each and every one of us. That result is Jesus and all that he is in his person, and all that he has done for each and every one of us. God was in essence "paying it forward" for the whole world through his Son, Jesus Christ. He is thus presented herein.

Our faith is another indicator that the Gospels are trustworthy as witnesses. It can be testified to by every current believer that their faith has wrought changes in their life for the better. These changes indicate that faith works, and the object of our faith is real. But though our faith is predicated upon credible facts and evidences, some are always challenging the validity of our faith. Detractors are always ridiculing our adherence to the Bible - our rule book for faith and practice - as an immature, delusional, foolish, narrow-minded, insecure reliance upon a corrupt book full of stories, myths and fairy-tales. But these charges are without merit. There are only 122 extant tenth-century manuscripts total of Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus, Tacitus, Thucydides, Caesar and Livy combined. In our educational institutions the works of these authors are regarded as well founded and genuine without question. Homer's Iliad of the ninth-century B.C., the oldest manuscript of 643 extant copies being from the fifth century B.C., is also accepted as genuine without question. We have infinitely better manuscript evidence regarding both number and accuracy for the New Testament of our Bible than we have of these aforementioned authors. There are well over 5,000 New Testament manuscripts, the oldest being only one century removed from the last original included document; and there are just over a thousand Old Testament manuscripts with the oldest also being only one century removed from the last original entered document. These are each 80 - 95 percent in agreement amongst themselves, with most of the discrepancies being that of spelling errors and omissions during transcription. There is very little - way less than one half of a percent - that would in any way materially affect orthodox Church doctrine that is drawn from the Bible itself. There are also over 18,000 fragmentary copies of the New Testament, and over 85,000 Early Church father quotations from such first and second century manuscripts, testifying to their wide and early acceptance and use - very close to the times that these documents were originally produced. All taken together it looks to me like we have exceeded and beat all detractors hands down regarding attestation; for Christians have 95 percent more literary witnesses than the formerly mentioned secular authors, and 73 percent more than Homer, so why all the ridicule? Persecution with prejudice! People do not like the idea of being held accountable for their sin to a Supreme Being, and, as they do to us with the Theory of Evolution, they therefore seek to discredit and suppress all evidence indicating His existence. It is similar to being an ostrich with its head down in a hole in the ground. For them, they love their sin, and they hope God will just go away.

The saved man with a bona-fide experience is never at a disadvantage to the man with merely an argument. Some deny the existence of God, and many times ply, utilize, and present lucid and ostensibly valid arguments to bolster their position. But we, as the normal majority, ascertain God through the natural function of our human consciousness, therefore the burden of proof lies with the atheists and agnostics. Teleologically, does not an automobile - exhibiting design, purpose, utility, function and definition - by its very existence demonstrate the existence of the will, consciousness, purpose, implied labor, designing intelligence, technology and bodies of the people who created it? Likewise with the creation. Through the perspicacity of our human consciousness - our faculty for perception - does not the existence of the observed complex interdependencies, intricate and varied constructs, resultant relationships, purposes, functions, social interactions, moral faculties and religious affinities in this world demonstrate the existence of a designing intelligence, originating will, and consciousness of mind outside of, above and beyond these things in which we recognize the necessary attribute of divine prowess and omnipotence? Do these together not reasonably show the existence of what we designate "God"?

Evolution is not a theory, but a hypothesis. A theory has demonstrated facts to back it up. Those who espouse this position seem to think that when the element of time is added, then the impossible suddenly becomes possible. But, in an existence of cause and effect, no matter how far back in time men may go, they would find a need for the intervention of a first uncaused cause to cause the first effect, else what we call the universe would have continued to remain eternally static and unborn. This decisive intervening action implies will, and will implies a Person. To date man has not been able to create life under ideal conditions. Man can only manipulate the life that is already there. The remoteness of the chance development of just one living product of chemical consequence attributable to evolution prohibits the thought of the multitudinous chance developments required to explain all that we see today in its intricacy of construct and interdependence in nature, especially when upon examination all living things demonstrate the same designing mind behind them all. They all ingest food, excrete waste, consume oxygen, proliferate according to genus and species, and then pass into extinction as a result of the second law of thermodynamics. Then there are plants, and the cyclical planetary dependency of all that lives on this ball of dirt. Even the eventuality of the acceptance that aliens have been observing us can be fit into the concept of God being over all, since they are reportedly humanoid in appearance, but with unimaginable abilities, machines and logos we do not yet understand. These fearfully demonstrate intelligence beyond our own. Why can't there be other worlds that may have never fallen away from the purposes and will of God? A Creator creates. Who would believe that He stopped creating in Genesis? To all of these presented witnessing elements we can also apply the above principles of evidence to demonstrate the existence of God - let alone aliens. It is very hard for man, bound by the experience of limitations in every area, and on all sides, and to whom everything has a beginning and an end, to wrap his finite mind around the thought of an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal Creator unbound by limitations. Wrapping our mind around the infinity of space would be a start. But the Infinite became an infant so that we could comprehend him, and in order that he might deliver man from the human condition man has brought upon himself.

We are then brought face to face with the accountability factor. God, by both creative right and redemptive right, expects us to come to him and have a relationship with him on his terms - not our own. He initially reveals himself to man by way of his creation. This is called the General Revelation of God. If at this point man is negative upon God-awareness, God is in no way obligated to go any further than he already has in revealing himself via this General Revelation. If man is positive when this point of God-awareness is reached, then God is obligated to provide Specific Revelation concerning himself and his designs and purposes. He sends a believing witness, missionary or preacher with the facts. And so we are then directed back to the faith of the Gospel. The Gospel is the Specific Revelation of God, and half of the vehicle for our salvation - the Holy Spirit being the other half. Faith is the experiment that brings about predicted results every time. You are not in control, but are the guinea pig. You merely exercise free volition in choice. Jesus, the manifestation of almighty God in flesh (Isaiah 9:6-7), has already been empirically examined (I John 1:1-3), and the results have been reported to us in the New Testament writings. The essence of the scientific method is its ability to be repeated. Coming to God is the experiment that guarantees results consistent with theory concerning the same! If you sincerely call upon God in faith, he will reveal himself to you one hundred percent of the time without exception. So a further intent of this work is to conveniently initiate, or even reinvigorate, depending on the status of its readers, the faith of the Gospel concerning Jesus Christ as Messiah.

Also intended is clarification of what Jesus meant for us to understand through a more thorough, expanded, grammatically enhanced, technical translation of his words. This should at the very least encourage people to take Jesus more seriously than they have heretofore. Excising the dominant right eye, or amputating one's greatly valued dominant right hand in an effort to avert sin is not a work having redeeming value. It serves to indicate that we should take sin seriously, and that we are to employ extreme measures in avoiding it. Another example: "Love your enemies." It has nothing to do with emotion. We are not to emote or feel our way through the Christian experience. We are not even commanded to like our enemies. A more complete and proper rendering of this text is: "Be continually seeking the highest good of, and selflessly caring for, your enemies - valuing, esteeming and manifesting genuine concern for, and being faithful towards them." This means that we are to do for them to the extent that Jesus did for us when we were his enemies - to seek their highest good - motivated by a will to obey God, and Jesus, in gratitude. When we were his ungrateful enemies by nature, he sought our highest good. He self-sacrificially went to the cross, paying the price, to enable us ingrates to be reconciled to God. A grammar example is: "And wisdom is justified by her children." Grammatically adjusted, this verse now says, "But wisdom has received vindication derived from her children." See Greek Diagram. Moreover, the passage in Matthew which says, "Be ye perfect, for your Father in heaven is perfect," this requirement is impossible to fulfill as translated. No man can be perfect - we all sin to some extent every day, thus the necessity of 1st John 1:9. Correctly rendered it says, "Be mature and without shortfall, even as your Father in heaven is mature and without shortfall." This is more attainable for man.

In some instances the translation ends up being a major correction. Some translate dishonestly because of bias. Alcohol, for example: at the wedding feast Jesus attended in Cana of Galilee, he turned water into wine - not grape juice. They usually render the passage: "and when they have drunk..." meaning consumption; but the Greek word means to become drunk, inebriated or intoxicated. The steward of the feast knew what he was drinking. This echoes back to Deuteronomy 14:26, where God directs his people to buy wine or strong drink and be merry before the Lord. God would not say so if drinking were really a sin. Drunkenness should be avoided, though, for that is sin; and conversely, servants of God must not be under the influence when ministering, Leviticus 10:9. Jesus wasn't ministering at the feast, but partied with those drinkers and made abundant provision for them after they were already wasted. Jesus was allowed to drink, but John the Baptist was not (Mt 11:18-19; 26:29; Mk 14:25; Lk 7:33-34). In other passages the Bible does admonish us to moderation, so that we do not sin in a weakened, vulnerable state. Hopefully, someday the remains of prohibition will die off, and we will once again be able to have real wine at the Lord's table as do the Catholics.

Another clarification: the Greek word translated "Gospel" means Good News, or Glad Tidings. Truly, what Jesus wrought on behalf of the world is indeed Good News - deliverance from the human condition. Therein lies our ever elusive utopia. We are to humbly and seriously appropriate this costly free and liberal provision for our deliverance as revealed in the Gospel, and then master the monster within by the exercise of free will choice, or else it only remains potential (See: The Delineation of Sins http://orin.net/sins_sin.html). Thus this work is moreover intended to initiate the curious and the unfamiliar into the witnessing evidences herein presented concerning Jesus unto their salvation.

Spiritual maturity will easily add fifteen years to the believer's life when one considers the stress that is relieved by a more accurate, intimate knowledge, and application to one's life of the words of Christ. Therefore, we must avail ourselves of the best repository of the words of Christ in order to attain to proper spiritual maturity. The Byzantine Textus Receptus, also known as The Received Text, or later, The Majority Greek Text (the term "Received Text" is also sometimes applied to the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament), was carefully followed for all significant sayings, teachings, dialogues, discourses, parables, and sermons of Jesus, and also for the important quotations of others. Aside from this work's controversial nature due to its structural presentation, this should promote this work's current worthiness for application to life situations, and for personal study leading unto proper spiritual maturity for those who prefer the 1611 King James Version tradition.

Dr. Zane C. Hodges, Greek professor from Dallas Theological seminary, in "Defending the Majority Greek Text," explains regarding textual transmission that "copies of a text nearest the (original) autograph normally have the largest number of descendants. This means that the "further removed in the history of transmission a text becomes from its source, the less time it has to leave behind a large family of offspring. Hence, in a large tradition where a pronounced unity is observed between, let us say, eighty percent of the evidence, a very strong presumption is raised that this numerical preponderance is due to direct derivation from the very oldest sources. In the absence of any convincing contrary explanation, this presumption is raised to a very high level of probability indeed. Thus, the Majority (Greek) Text upon which the King James Version is based (1611 King James Version, New King James Version, King James Version II, and the "Literal Translation of the Bible" ISBN: 0913-573-42-6 by Jay P. Green Sr.) has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text." (op. cit., p. 21)" [Excerpted from the BFT Monthly News Report V:2 - 2/14/1975 - Rev. D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.] We have over four thousand two hundred manuscripts extant representing and supporting this type of text that are 95% in agreement amongst themselves, differences being those of spelling and grammar. Today's Greek version is called "The New Testament - the Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611" by the Trinitarian Bible Society, 217 Kingston Road, London SW19 3NN, England. This is the text that I utilized for this work.

When compared with each other, the apparent historical differences between the several Gospel narratives that we do have, lends credence to the idea that critical accuracy of the historical backdrop for the sayings of Jesus is not particularly paramount. For this reason, perfect accuracy of the connective narrative was deemed to be of secondary importance. Thus, the connective narrative was creatively rendered with a little bit of literary liberty for our backdrop of sequential historical context to bring a smoother flow of continuance to the reading experience. Care was exercised to avoid doctrinal discrepancy. Dating, where possible, was included. Since the most important thrust of this work is to better present the sayings of Jesus in a single narrative, to expedite and facilitate the collation process, the plan of the 1904 analytical synopsis called, "A Harmony of the Gospels for Historical Study," by Professors Wm. Arnold Stevens and Ernest DeWitt Burton, was generally followed; but they utilized the text of the Revised Version of 1881.

There are those who hold to the conviction that the oldest text is the most fundamentally abbreviated and simple text, and that the longer more polished text of the Textus Receptus contains glosses, emendations and accretions that can be attributed to well meaning scribes seeking to smooth out the Koine Greek and to clarify obscurities. These differences amount to no more than a mere fifty verses. Most all modern translations are based upon an updated text which had its beginnings in the Aleph [Sinaiticus], B [Vaticanus], A [Alexandrinus] and other early uncial Manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-base. We have about two hundred uncials, and around a thousand cursive or minuscule manuscripts, that resemble this text-base. The adherents to these have the point of view that the "oldest" extant texts best represent the originals. This view conflicts with the above view of Dr. Zane C. Hodges. Scholars also compare the Boharic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Syriac, and Hebrew texts because they were translated from much earlier Greek texts than we have extant at this time. Today this type of text can be found as either the "Greek New Testament" from the United Bible Societies (This one presents extensive MSS indications that are provided in its introduction, apparatus, and throughout its textual presentation.), or the alternative: the Nestle-Aland "Novum Testamentum Graece." There is much merit to the brevity argument given the propensity of man to enlarge upon texts, even by my own experience. But to those who may appreciate the inclusive compression of the four Gospel narratives into one, this may not really be a hill to die on, as long as the words of Jesus and their context have not been compromised. Though following the above mentioned work's historical plan, all translating was of the Textus Receptus, because I agree with Dr. Zane C. Hodges, though I feel that the claims of both camps have validity. Thus the main difference between the modern translations of today, and the King James Versions is not only in the translating presented by each (Formal Equivalence vs. Dynamic Equivalence), but in the preferential choice of the underlying Greek text. It is the longer polished Byzantine text-type of Erasmus and the Elzevirs (Received Text) underlying the King James Versions, versus the shorter Alexandrian text-type underlying all other modern versions. We should not condemn or censure those who simply have a preference for the modern shorter text versions over the classic longer text versions. A defect in the Nestle-Aland variety is clear in John 16:16 where what Jesus said, “…because I go away to the Father” is missing, yet the disciples repeat what Jesus said in verse 17, and it is obvious that Jesus said it because they repeat it, yet it is missing in verse 16. So, textual criticism is still a growing science, though they have come a long way.

Do not allow religious, self-righteous, judgmental, narrow-minded, censorious bigots to persuade you that this present work is evil in any way. It may be the first work of its type ever produced by a born-again, saved, believing man who trusts alone in the merits of Christ Jesus as Savior for salvation, and yet is liberal and open-minded enough to realize that the Bible is not a mysterious untouchable book after understanding the history of its development and transmission; for if one ignorantly and fearfully takes the "inerrant position," as many conservatives do today, ignoring history, development, and the processes of translation and transmission, one moves away from credibility. In Matthew 10:25, the Alexandrian Text has: epekalesan "they called" 3rd person plural 1st aorist active indicative; the Byzantine Received Text has: ekalesan "I called" 1st person singular 1st aorist active indicative. The first choice is more correct in its context, and this also indicates that the Received Text is not inerrant as claimed by many (See: Bible Infallibility and Inerrancy http://orin.net/inerrancy.html). This inerrancy piffle is what keeps liberals, agnostics and atheists at bay. We cannot gain them for Christ by expecting them to accept our party-spirited religious baggage, or our particular brand of ecclesiastical package, as part of the exchange. The most important issue is not whether or not we conform to people's preconceived notions based upon brain-washing, personal prejudice, subjective bias, or dogmatic prepossessions; it is: "What think ye of Christ?" The propagation of the Gospel message is paramount above all else. John said, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your Name and we forbade him because he does not follow with us." And Jesus responded, "Forbid him not; for whoever is not against us is for us." We are on the same team.

Most all translations do not get Matthew 5:17-20 right, and my knowledge of Greek and grammar is quite elementary. If they can't or won't do this simple text right, what about all of the others? This is what has compelled me to do this work. People need to know what the original language really says. The resolved text says: "Do not think that I came to abrogate the Law or the Prophets. I came not to abrogate, but to consummate; for truly I say unto you, if until even the heavens and the earth pass away, in no way shall one point or one iota disappear from the Law until all its things can be satisfied. [Jesus is our fulfillment of the Law and our sacrifice for sin.] Whoever, then, may infringe the smallest one of these FOLLOWING injunctions… [“Following” is demanded by the context, because Christ consummates and presently supersedes the Old Testament Law and Prophets as a higher standard, as so stated and as indicated by the subsequent phrases, "You have heard it said, but I say unto you."], and may teach men so, he shall be regarded as least in the kingdom of the heavens… [This is no loss of salvation - only status - and yet the least is greater than John the Baptist according to Matthew 11:11]; but whoever executes and may teach them… [Whoever teaches these following precepts - not the Law or Torah.], this one shall be designated great in the kingdom of the heavens… [Where the King is in the heart, there is the kingdom, whether in heaven or on earth]. Also I say unto you, that if your virtuous rectitude is not more excellent than that of the METICULOUS scribes and Pharisees, you can in no way enter into the kingdom of the heavens… [The word “meticulous” brings out the intended contrast. This also means one cannot be saved by works; but when one trusts into Jesus for justification, then Christ's virtuous rectitude, which is already more excellent than that of the “meticulous” scribes and Pharisees, is divinely imputed to the believer by God, though in practice, the precepts of Jesus when followed, do indeed exceed the pseudo-righteousness of the scribes and Parisees.].”

Most all other translations in this place have believers obligated to do the Law of Moses, and going to hell for infractions; also they have believers competing with scribes and Pharisees to earn righteousness. Jesus is our righteousness, and according to Acts 13:38-39, and all the epistles in the New Testament, we are not obligated to observe the Law of Moses for salvation, for the purpose of the Law (Torah) is to indicate sin. The apostle Paul was always battling the Jews over this matter. In Galatians, the apostle Paul said to those believers, that if they allowed themselves to be circumcised, Christ would then be of no use to them at all. They would then be obligated to observe the whole of the Law of Moses, which, of course, no one is able to do. When one first trusts into Christ, then that believer is positionally sanctified - saved - and progressive sanctification then follows over time with growth unto maturity if the believer applies himself to betterment, eventually creating practical day to day righteous living, which honors God, and declares to the world the good work that God by his Spirit has wrought in him or her as a believer. That believer then properly glorifies God before others in his or her maturity. The only things we can take out of this world are our maturity, good deeds, and others who have been caused believe.

Since the art of translating requires careful judgment calls for each rendition, translators must first of all be saved to have the leading of the Holy Spirit, second of all, experientially know sound doctrine, and thirdly, make sure their finished work is not contradicted by their other translated passages. This is to be taken seriously. People base their very lives, choices, peace, and salvation on this stuff, since the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is so deeply entrenched now, and people look to the Bible themselves for answers. The Holman Christian Standard Bible is a step in the right direction. It is literal when called for, and dynamic when literal would render the Greek unintelligible, and takes advantage of the latest in textual research. If you want a faithful literal rendering, the best is the English Standard Version. If you prefer Dynamic Equivalence, the Today’s New International Version would be my pick. As a result of my work, I expect not only controversy, but also that an awful lot of self examination and doctrinal revision should ensue or take place, if translators, Bible scholars, teachers and preachers have one whit of honesty and integrity. I also expect that more fully qualified Bible translators should follow suit and replace their work on the New Testament with even better work in this same revealed manner or demonstrated style of translating - only better and more accurately - grammatically utilizing as many English words as are necessary to adequately convey the original Greek. If I, being a mere high school graduate from Columbus New Jersey, ignorant, unpaid, but expending good effort with the use of a few language tools, can discover truth, and produce such a liberating text as this work may prove to be, why can't paid, educated scholars with degrees and letters ad-infinitum after their name do the same or better?

Historical context must be taken into account in interpretation. It is true that Jesus said "Keep the commandments" to those who approached him in Jerusalem, asking, "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" We need to comprehend that Jesus honored the dispensation of the Mosaic Law until his crucifixion. The dispensation of Grace did not start until after then, signified in Matthew by the curtain of the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple being torn asunder. Jesus told others whom he healed to go and offer the required sacrifices of Moses in thanksgiving, and as a sign to the religious Pharisees. All those he spoke to were still obligated to keep the Law until the age of Grace began. So we are not to misconstrue what Jesus said to them as meaning that we today have to legalistically observe the ten commandments to be saved and have eternal life. The most persistent battle the apostle Paul had to wage was the insistence of Judaizers, following up after him, wanting to put new Christian believers under the slavery of the observations and dictates of the Torah. In Galatians he wished they would go all the way and emasculate themselves. Indeed, residence in Christ, and obedience to the law of love for God and others, would cause us to automatically fulfill all that the spirit of the Law requires, since Christ is a higher Law than the Law of Moses, and the indwelling Spirit is a Higher Power. The scribes and Pharisees made a burden of thousands of man-made laws to ensure that Moses was properly followed, but Jesus simply made of the Law two: love God and care for your fellow man. Christ has not only fulfilled for us all of the requirements of the Law of Moses to cover our shortcomings, but he also fulfilled all of the sacrificial requirements that no longer have to be done to be justified. It is not coincidence that the practicing Jew has had no sacrifice for sin over the last two millennia. They are all dying in their sins. Law is now only for indicating sin to the unsaved.

If we continue on beyond the Gospel to interpret Romans 8, the most misunderstood chapter in the Bible, we see reflected the proper interpretation. God's indwelling Spirit enables us to live the loftier principles Jesus gave to us in Matthew 5, 6 , 7, and in other places, which are impossible to fulfill in the energy of the carnal nature - the flesh. His Spirit enables. The carnal nature disables. In essence the first half of Romans 8 does not teach: obey - live; sin - die (verses 12-13). We all live and die anyway; but we don't get lost - saved, lost - saved (vis. live-die, live-die), day by day, moment by moment, depending upon what we chose to do in the flesh or chose not do in the Spirit. According to the original Greek it teaches that you constantly must choose at all times whether or not you will be controlled by your carnal nature or the indwelling Holy Spirit, and continuing fellowship and Spirit control is the issue. Willingly allowing the Spirit constant control brings continuing peace, fellowship with God, the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), rapid advancement to spiritual maturity and capacity for life (dzoe). Choosing to allow your carnal nature control, breaks fellowship with God, creates enmity against God, and this results in the temporal separation from God of the believer (thanatos), leading to spiritual stagnation and divine discipline. 1st John 1:9 is thus called for to get fellowship restored and be back in the saddle. "For as many as are constantly or habitually led by the Spirit of God, these are (huios as opposed to teknon) "mature" sons of God (verse14)." The mature spend more time in fellowship and under Spirit control. When the believer is controlled by the Spirit, all nine fruits of the Spirit are evident concurrently. That is why "fruit" is in the singular (Galatians 5:22-23). They do not need to be learned or practiced. The absence of these fruits indicates either no salvation ever occurred as in the case of the lost, or that the believer is being controlled by the carnal nature (See: The Delineation of Sins http://orin.net/sins_sin.html). If I live long enough, I intend to prepare a sequel volume to this, translating in this same venue the apostolic epistles. These things will be then made clear.

This work is also intended to go several steps beyond the "literal" element demonstrated in the work of Jay P. Green Sr.. After George Ricker Berry (1897) who provides us with the text used for the Authorized King James Version used prior to the Textus Receptus, Jay P. Green Sr. is the only one at this time producing textual work based upon that Textus Receptus. Thank God for him. His work’s short-coming is not intentional. In the introduction to his Interlinear New Testament he laments the proliferation of modern versions and their faithless, prejudicial conveyance of "the Word of God" out of the Alexandrian text-types - all different, yet all claiming to be the Word of God. But the blame for confusion should mostly fall on the mass of dynamic equivalent translations, where the flood-gates have been opened, and anything goes. He translates the 1976 edition of the Textus Receptus into modern English in an interlinear, claiming to present a "literal" word for word rendering out of its Greek. Unfortunately, he does not adequately present the true meaning of the Greek because of his inordinate fear of "adding to the word of God," and this negates the "literal" claim. "Literal" should include all shades of voice, case, tense, mood and all nuances of applicable meaning, which cannot all be adequately conveyed by the so-called "formal equivalence" method, where minimal English words are rendered for each Greek word given during the translating process. Doing that actually “takes away from the Word of God,” and robs people of the truth intended to be conveyed. If God expects us to properly do Jesus' word, then care should be given to insure that there would not be left remaining any ambiguities.

In my work, for all of the quotations of Jesus and others, (apart from Romans chapter eight which is of necessity interpretive, functional or dynamic equivalent rendered, since a literal rendering of it inevitably brings the wrong interpretation, I translated optimally. Lewis Sperry Chafer “He that is Spiritual,” and Richard R. Frampton “Exposition of Romans,” have come the closest to getting it right among those who have tried), I let the Greek text say what it says, with minimal so-called "conceptual thought" translating; but I have also allowed for some implied meaning to be translated within the text, and some thinking was involved in that decision-making process. The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are one and the same thing - wherever the Lord rules in our hearts, whether here or in heaven - there is the kingdom. The prayer of Jesus in John chapter seventeen is just packed with perfect indicative verbs which should consistently convey the emphasis of present results coming from completed action in past time. Parentheses were utilized for a few of the indications implied or demanded by the context that would be redundant or alien to the Greek text, but most indications were not since the implications were automatically a part of the translation "package." Brackets were used for exegetical commentary foreign to the text in important, obscure, or hard to understand passages which needed some clarification for understanding. These can be relegated to footnotes.

All of the sayings of Jesus and others should be viewed as inspired in the ordinary understanding of the word, and the bracketed commentary should be viewed as not inspired, but supplied as an aid to understanding. Many times articles and particles in the Greek are, and were, left out as unsuitable for English transmission. This is a common practice among all translators of Greek to prevent awkward renderings in English. Conjunctions such as "and" and "or" were superadded along with commas to include the various additional applicable flavors of some of the Greek words used that have wider relevant applications which needed to be revealed. As with the above mentioned implied or demanded indications, supplied pronouns such as: "you," "he," “she,” "it," "we," "them," “they,” "all," "one," "him," etc., and verbs of being such as: "is," "are," "am," "were," etc., and conditional words like: "that," "had," "will," "shall," "should," "may," "might," "can," "to," "would," "could," etc., were not always in the original Greek text as words by themselves, but were indicated, implied or demanded by grammar, the context, by proper English rendition, or by the person, number, voice, case, tense or mood of an associative infinitive, participle or verb. These were necessary to properly convey the sense indicated. Passive, active and middle voices sometimes required a word or an additional phrase to be made evident in English. Indicative, subjunctive, optative and imperative moods also sometimes required a supplied word to be made evident. The nominative, genitive, ablative, locative, vocative, instrumental, accusative and dative cases were usually able to be conveyed without too much loquaciousness. Conveying aorist, perfect, pluperfect, future perfect, imperfect, regular and present tenses sometimes did require loquaciousness to bring them out for the reader. Special references to deity were capitalized, such as: "He," "Him," "One," "Bread," "I AM," "Word," etc.. In the Gospel of John, John many times oddly uses the present indicative as follows: "He is saying unto them..." "They then are saying unto him... ." These I started rendering in the past tense: "He said unto them..." "They then said unto him...," in order that his segments would match the historicity of the other three narratives; but then Matthew, Luke and even Mark on occasions did the same, so I decided to start viewing it as an anomalous tendency inherent within N.T. scripture, though unpalatable in English. Sections I through IV, special passage treatments like section V, the application of the shuffled manuscript theory to Jesus’ farewell address in John chapters 14 thru 17 ( The Shuffled Manuscript Theory http://www.orin.net/rom17a.html), Luke's "Sermon on the Mount," John's prologue, editing, adjustments, and emendations where deemed necessary, are the above mentioned literary liberties. I inserted Old Testament prophecy from the Septuagint wherever it was deemed supportive to the Faith of the Gospel, since the LXX was that most quoted by early Christians in the New Testament. In circumstances of parallel texts, since the Gospels are presumed to compliment one another, and not to contradict one another, I combined all pertinent details so as to provide a type of hybrid rendering which includes all of the details presented. In sections like XCVI, where Jesus Foretells of his Crucifixion (Mt 20:17-19; Mk 10:32-34; Lk 18:31-34), when one author used infinitives, another participles, and the third future tense, I chose the best presentation out of the three.

I am a biblicist who has appropriated all that is supported, good, true and soundly scriptural, while rejecting those things which are contradictory, false or unsubstantiated. Therefore I translated accordingly, with no leaning to any one denominational position or outside influence. The translation of Matthew 16:13-20, for example, does indeed support a Papacy, even though I consider myself to be a liberal sort of Independent Baptist, and my pastor won't allow me to teach in the church due to my leanings. But when one reads in the book of Acts, Peter begins to take a back seat to James in authority at Jerusalem, and in Galatians the apostle Paul even rebukes Peter to his face for erroneously siding with the Circumcision against the Gentile Christians. Whatever Peter did in Rome is only supported by tradition, and not by scripture. Every attempt was made to be true to the sayings of Jesus. As the apostle Paul admonished, I tend to "prove all things and hold fast to that which is good." It usually keeps me out of trouble. I have received much of my doctrinal inculcation over eight years of my thirty years as a Christian at the feet of the very able and conservative pastor and adjunct college professor of New Testament Greek, Dr. Richard R. Frampton, of Faith Baptist Church, in Fincastle, Virginia. His qualifications are as follows: Houghton College; Th.B., Piedmont Bible College; Th.M., Summa Cum Laude, Trinity Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Northwestern College. But do not make the assumption that I am therefore in any way deserving of any type of degree. I only attended Church. I tend to be a more eclectic, independent, non-traditional type of individual, conservative in thrust, yet liberal in approach, so the involved areas of textual criticism are not his; and he may very well not want to be connected or associated by indication to this work at all; but the method of grammatical study of the Greek text for the purpose of drawing doctrine out of it, however imperfectly, I did learn from him; so I owe him, at the very least, mention. I also over the years have enjoyed the radio preaching of Chuck Swindoll, David Jeremiah, James Kennedy, the late Jerry Falwell, Charles Stanley, John McArthur, James Dobson, Marlin Maddoux, Michael Yousef, Adrian Rogers, Max Lucado, Spiros Zodhiates and the teaching of pastors John Reynolds, Charles Fuller, Gene Sorensen, Tim Kirchoff, and some others I cannot remember. These men of God, including Philip W. Comfort and the late Bownlow Maitland, helped to round out my edification complex, but I did not allow myself to be brainwashed. I am an independent thinker utilizing the Berean approach in my edification.

I continually consulted the 1984 second and revised edition of "The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament" by Jay P. Green Sr., the fourteenth printing of 1991, ISBN: 0913-573-29-9, for comparative reference and as a structural guide. The Zondervan Analytical Greek Lexicon, thirteenth printing 1976, catalogue number 6257, has also been my constant companion, keeping me in line with its modern (1970) linguistic scholarship. It is now unfortunately out of print. The scholars responsible for its expertise are unnamed therein. I have also utilized the Compaq 5400 US, and the HP vs19e computers as glorified word processors for all of my writing, corrections, and editing. I have thus been saving trees by not wabbing up reams of paper for the round file, for I am an infinitely fallible individual. The only drawback to this is losing all of my Greek characters when copying files. My wife, GiGi, must also be recognized, for she has tirelessly and literally supported me in this endeavor, though she doesn‘t understand it much. I am thankful for the labors of all those teachers who prepared me for this moment throughout my life. I am indebted to all, whether it be scholarship, service or technology. All we of today stand on the shoulders of those who have preceded us, and rely upon the resources of others, and are as such, greatly indebted to them all, many unseen and most unknown; but God knows who they are. My function is as an available, open vessel, allowing myself to be so used by God.

It must be remembered that the spirit of this work is positive in nature. It is the presentation of, and the uplifting of, Christ, for the salvation of the uninitiated, and the edification of the believer. That is what is primarily sought. It is also the presentation of the Gospel for the curious, the intelligent, the ignorant, and for the seeker. It should be considered a pressing need met, with the benefit of painstakingly rendered sayings of Jesus. This should result in more abundant personal Christian fruit and internal peace in those who avail themselves of its utility. Ideally, if this publication is small enough, I would like to see it handed out as a paperback Gospel tract in personal evangelism.

It is my hope that this expanded, grammatically enhanced, technical translation of that which Jesus has spoken, since he admonishes and requires us to do his word, will help put an end to some of the denominational divisions, perplexing confusion and doctrinal errors that abound as a result of uninformed private and public interpretations derived from our contradictory word for word traditional, and eclectic modern translations. They unfortunately leave much to be desired when it comes to clarity. “Formal equivalence” is a misnomer; and though word order and sentence structure are seemingly preserved in the receptor language, we are robbed of the benefit that Greek-speaking people had in the first Christian millennium. Not every believer can be a linguistic professor or Bible scholar, and I myself do not presumptuously claim to be either. But the common believer needs a resource that will explain things and answer questions of interpretation with a normal reading effort, and someone needed to step up to the plate. Though I am ignorant and not really qualified to do so, this work is my step up to the plate, if you will. If I do nothing, I am guilty before God as an unprofitable servant burying his one talent under the sand, and deserving of outer darkness.

If peradventure any KJV thumper would be inclined to demonize this work, I posit, Is there any single translation out there giving a half-way complete and accurate rendering of the sayings of Jesus from the Greek Textus Receptus, conveying all grammatical influence and all applicable nuances of meaning for these sayings of Jesus? When I begin to doubt my fitness for this task because of my rudimentary understanding of Greek and grammar, when I compare my work to the translating of the seasoned professionals, I can see that my work, though differing in approach, has far outstripped their translations in accuracy as far as rendering the Greek into intelligible English, and so I am encouraged. At one time I possessed a 26-translation New Testament; and I have perused most main modernist versions: NIV, NASV, RSV, ERV, LIV, etc.. All translations varied, all claimed to be the word of God, but none was alone adequate. I enjoyed my 1903 20th Century New Testament the most, but it was solely based upon the work of Westcott and Hort. I also have possessed two King James Type Versions, the Amplified Bible, and also the translation of James Moffatt which was based upon the Von Soden Text, that of Richmond Lattimore which was also based upon the Westcott and Hort Text, and that of Kenneth Wuest, which was based on the Eberhard Nestle Text. I have looked at several of the newer versions for this millennium and am disappointed. They are just more of the same. The plethora of choices must be bewildering to the uninitiated. Which one is adequate, accurate or right since they are all different? They all claim to be the Word of God. Is God an author of confusion? I think not! I recommend reading Alexander McClure's "Translators Revived," 1998, from Berean Publications, 4459 Highway 17 South, Orange Park, Florida. Its forward and update by R. E. Rhoads will bring anyone up to speed in a hurry. I also recommend reading “Essential Guide to Bible Versions” by Philip W. Comfort Ph. D., Tyndale Pub. 2000, ISBN 0-8423-3484-X. This will dispel a lot of erroneous assumptions any may have about the Bible. Read also “The Word of God in English” by Leland Ryken, Crossway Books 2002, ISBN 1-58134-464-3. This compares translations and demonstrates the mess dynamic equivalence has created this last half century.

For those adhering to the Textus Receptus tradition, I recommend the New King James Version for being based upon that Greek text. I again recommend for those adhering to modern textual criticism the Holman Christian Standard Bible for those who want an optimal equivalent translation from the UBS4 or 27th Nestle-Aland Greek text. For those who want a literally formal equivalent translation from theUBS4 or 27th Nestle-Aland Greek text, I recommend the English Standard Version. I only recommend the new TNIV for those who want dynamic equivalence.

Blatant contradictions amongst modernist versions lend credence and support to the claims of the lost that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions, therefore they reject our faith out of hand. Educated atheists take an all-or-nothing approach to the Bible. They take no distinctions into account. If a Bible theoretically has one mistake, they discount the whole book and feel justified in doing so. They lump all bibles together when they make this claim. But this, though true, by itself, is a cop-out. They need to get beyond errors and semantics and discover the over-all, consistent, healthy kernel of truth that is threaded throughout most every version of the Bible as a whole. God in Christ has provided the means of salvation for sinners of every stripe. If agnostics have any honesty, they will leave no stone unturned to find out the part of God they have no knowledge of in order to come to a settled determination. Salvation is a Christmas gift for all. Would you not be insulted if you gave a gift on Christmas to someone you deeply loved, and they turned it down with prejudice? This is what many do when they reject Christ out of hand.

Contradiction is not so much a problem with the Greek, as it is with the rendering of that Greek into English. But which version is right? Which one is adequate? If the King James is touted as inerrant and infallible and all-sufficient, why do expositors find it necessary to make reference to the underlying Greek words and modify the translation during expository preaching? As already pointed out, Matthew 10:25 demonstrates the fallacy of the inerrancy and infallibility position. We no longer have extant the original autographs, so infallibility and inerrancy are dead issues we should not be troubling others with. To those who insist, I ask, "Which Version?" Why not translate accordingly in the first place. There are some differences between the manuscript evidences we have, and some errors, and if the doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility were true, they would not vary a whit amongst themselves. That is why it can only be believed and applied to the original manuscripts which nobody has. There are also a plethora of study volumes out there having their basis rooted in these wooden, mechanical, pedantic translations we all have come to love and rely upon, many times without question, and also, many educators do spectacular gymnastics attempting to clarify for us what should be clear with a regular attentive read of the New Testament. In the first millennium of the Church, all spoke Greek, much like all speak English today. There was nobody standing there in the streets of Jerusalem parsing verbs and participles as Jesus spoke. What he said was profoundly clear. There were no obscurities other than the parables. That is what should at least be considered "normal."

I, as a King James reader, wanted better than what we presently have, and none, apart from the Amplified Bible and Kenneth Wuest, which I also recommend, have attempted to step up and provide it, and even these were found wanting in several ways. These works were for the modernists. Nobody has attempted to provide a work of this type or caliber for the 1611 King James Version camp - probably because they all claim the KJV as it currently stands is infallible and inerrant and see no need for improvement - and they may very well be the ones to demonize this work, when they could be benefiting from it. I have used as many appropriate English words as deemed necessary to convey the thrust and flavor of what Jesus has said. Adequate rendering cannot be had at the junior high level of language attainment. Expand your mind and use a dictionary. They that formally translate word for word, fearing they may add to the Word, are inadvertently taking away from the Word, by not fully conveying the grammar and nuances of meaning inherent within the very precise, yet dead, Koine Greek language. There is no such thing as word for word equivalence, therefore we all stand guilty before God in this thing of adding to and taking away from the Word. We today do not speak Koine Greek. We cannot all be Bible expositors. Somehow I cannot help but feel that God must bear some of the responsibility for many believers being in the dark over the past millennium. It seems to me that we have been left to our own devices. It is either that, or he does not go where he is not wanted, nor supply what we do not want. God is in the business of recovery, so even as he is recovering humanity from the fall, he is also through humanity recovering the original text that has been lost millennia ago through our modern research. Those that thump the 1611 King James Version as God's answer to modern man fail to see that it is a 400 year-old, obsolete, wooden translation, and those promoting the Received Text have admitted to making some corrections to it also. They therefore have no basis from which to critically judge modernists and their motivations in making modern translations. Indeed, even more corrections are in order. They should stop crying over the fifty missing verses, because in judging others, they do not even do all of the ones that they do have. Now they have even more to cry about, given how I "added to" by expansion, and given how much shorter this work is by "taking away" the redundancies. I apologize in advance for its "wordy," "technical," "legal" flavor, though, but it was necessary for proper conveyance.

Now only the sayings of Jesus that Matthew wrote were originally in Aramaic. Later, the apostle Matthew's sayings of Jesus were translated into Koine Greek; and now, in American English, it is a translation of a translation that we have to deal with. Words morph in translation, as any bilingual person will tell you, and the thing to strive for is an intelligently accurate presentation of what is intended for the hearer by Jesus. Again, nothing has been done in any way different than what was done by the disciple Luke. You and I are likewise, disciples. One other idea of this work is to clearly make Jesus Christ the center and object of our faith, rather than a subjective, questionable, and tentative confidence in any particular brand of Bible as the center and object of our faith - which would amount to idolatry. But supplanting a good Bible is not really the aim of this work. Supplementation is the desired effect.

Apart from the Torah, every document in the New and Old Testaments stood at one time as an independent entity. They have only been collected into a single volume for our convenience since they all deal with the same subject matter and the same God. The Bible was not tossed down to us in totality from heaven. God did not write the Bible with his own hand, but only the Decalogue; but he inspired his people to write, extolling the virtues and glories of our God. He dictated to Moses what he wanted his people to understand. People should learn the history of the Bible's making, rather than being afraid of it. An informed "liberal" view of the Book can dissipate undue fear and anxiety, and promote peace, along with liberation from the oppressing demons of false doctrine and erroneous understanding. Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6 and Psalm 12:6-7 apply only to the Old Testament, which has been diligently preserved, first by the Talmudists, and then by the Masoretes (though the Masoretes sought to remove references to Christ in their version in the twelfth century), and there is a thousand years between our oldest existing text of Isaiah and that discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls, and they vary not much at all. New Testament references to the Word of God or scripture, by context, refer only to the Old Testament - whether Hebraic or Septuagint. There was no New Testament when they were written and used. We are not dealing with that here.

Some may charge that I have taken away from the Word of God. The "adding to" and "taking from the words of this book," as stated in Revelation 22:18-19, only refers to the Apocalypse itself because it originally stood by itself. (I am not going to hell just because I do not stylistically accept the Revelation as of genuine apostolic authorship as it is promoted by some, can prove that its Greek is crude, also that it is theologically ignorant, can demonstrate that it is Gnostic in origin by its gematria and numerology, and that its theology is works-based. So much religious stupidity has emanated from man because of it - like the Branch Davidian Cult of Waco Texas for example, or the Heaven’s Gate cult - that it needs to be exposed for what it is and removed from the canon. See http://orin.net/revelation.html) Again, formal equivalence is a misnomer, for there is no real word for word equality. The mechanical pedantic rendering of one English word for each original Greek word, is obscure, is boring to read, and actually takes away from the Word of God, as we miss an awful lot of what was really intended for our ears by the authors. Dynamic equivalence can be a literary improvement over that, but it is not better when it comes to accuracy. Be not afraid to fully convey all that is implied and indicated in the original language.

Again, many translators are afraid of adding to the word of God in their translating; but the Greek language is precise, and translators must utilize as many relevant English words as necessary for communication of what is intended for the modern reader if they are to be courageous and truly honest. Nuances of meaning, and grammatical influence all need to be conveyed to properly present what was said by Jesus if we are legitimately required to accurately hear, and then correctly do, his word. Otherwise, we should not be held legally responsible. We cannot all be expected to bear the burden of trying to figure out Jesus' sayings for ourselves. It would be unfair for us to be willing, yet abysmally ignorant and in the dark, and still be accountable for acts done in our ignorance and darkness. We are to work out our faith in fear and trembling, and this work is a part of my workout. It is my desire to share the fruit of my labor.

Even as the disciple Luke, who traveled as companion with the apostle Paul, states in his preamble: that forasmuch as "many" have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things believed among them, it seemed good to me also to write to you in order those things known to us, the "many" are no longer extant to us but for the preserved results that are embodied in what we now have at our disposal. If Luke had not Matthew, and John had not yet been written, then there had to be many more besides the gospel of Mark. I am merely doing the same thing that Luke has done. What Luke did had to pass the muster of apostolic examination, and apparently, they had no problem with it. The appropriation of the works of others for inclusion in gospels or other works in the first century was a very common practice. Even attaching the name of an apostle to a work so that it would be accepted was a very common practice in the first and second centuries. Second Peter is a second-century example of such.(The world is without end. Amen. Compare II Peter 3:10; Daniel 7:14).

Tradition says that the Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark as the representation of the preaching of the apostle Peter in Rome, though its presentation is admittedly not in order. They were not appeased with a mere hearing of the Gospel, but enjoined John Mark to give them the preaching of Peter in writing. Common use of Mark as a basis for both the gospels of Matthew and Luke has been suspected by many Bible scholars in the field of textual criticism (the lost ending of Mark after 16:8 might be ascertained from both Matthew and Luke); but after study, I think that each of the gospels is too unique to be copies of one another in totality. What we are tackling here is known as the synoptic problem. Taitian attempted to address this with his Syrian Diatesseron in the second century. The Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic by Matthew as a collection of discourses given by Jesus as he recalled them. Then an unknown redactor took these sayings and collated them together with a narrative created using the Gospel of Mark, and other related historical facts and traditions into Koine Greek. He tended to embellish the narrative with extra things which were not in the Gospel of Mark - two Gadarene demoniacs instead of the one, and two blind men outside of Jericho instead of one, for example. He included a narrative of Jesus' birth and lineage, and so forth. The last chapters of Matthew may give us a clue as to what was originally contained in the missing last part of the Gospel of Mark - the cover leaves of which were ruined with much use and subsequent wear, and which had crumbled away and were lost from the original over a short period of time. Every New Testament production was an ony copy at one time.

Luke used some parts of the Gospel of Mark in his gospel. He included a more comprehensive lineage of Jesus and a completely different Christmas tradition than that found in Matthew. There were other Gospel narratives used by Luke for the rest of his Gospel which are no longer extant. These are where he got the sayings of Jesus which are not in Matthew, Mark and John; and it is obvious that he did not have the sayings Matthew wrote at his disposal, otherwise, they could have been included in his Gospel as well. His work stood as an independent entity before inclusion into our New Testament, so the redundancies from our current point of view, would not even have occurred in his time. It is also thought that his sayings of Jesus on the mount in Luke 6 are not the same event as that of Matthew 5-7, but that Jesus gave many such discourses at different times and places; but it is telling that the twelve were selected prior to both accounts. This supports my theory of a tentative historical backdrop. The apostle John says that Jesus did and said so many things that the whole world could not contain all the books that could be written about him. We only have a smattering today. Jesus wrote nothing himself apart from writing in the sand, so it was propagation of the Glad Tidings by word of mouth, through human means, with the agency of the Holy Spirit in attendance. That was the order of the day - even now as Paul says in Romans chapter one - "from faith to faith" - ek pisteuo eis pistin - out of my faith, into your faith. Believe it or not, many of the sayings of Jesus were first recorded on shards of broken pottery by some of the poor who took to heart his message. These, along with many other applicable manuscripts, have not been preserved into our canon. The Gospel was mostly propagated by word of mouth in its infancy. Preserving first century documents did not have weight until the second generation of believers realized that Christ would not come again in their lifetime. Most common people could not read nor write anyway, and only the well to do could afford to buy papyrus scrolls to write upon. Being underground for the most part, the fledgling church could not enjoin the services of scribes to mass-produce their writings. They depended solely upon those among their own number who could write, and provide for the purchase of scroll materials. However, the arrival of Constantine in 312 A.D. turned this situation around. This also is the turning point which could also serve as the alternative reason for the numerical proliferation and preponderance of the Textus Receptus.

Another intent of this work is liberation - liberation from the bondages of worry, fear, anxiety, misunderstanding, and false doctrine. Liberation can be found in the Gospel. Jesus said that if you continue in his word, then you are truly his disciples, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. This work is intended to liberate unto freedom by means of giving a more comprehensive understanding of the words of Christ. It is written: If the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed. This freedom comes through his Word - in other words, a correct knowledge of truth, properly applied, is liberating power. But we are not free to do anything that we want; we are set free to do what is right.

The Bible, along with being a textbook on approaching God, is also a witness to historical events: Man failed his test case for fidelity; sin entered the world, death and disorder came as a result, thus the need for salvation and deliverance. We were condemned, not because of what we did, but because of what we had become. God was manifested in flesh that we could comprehend him, virgin born and infinitely sinless, without spot or blemish, that he may cause an effective salvation none other in the world was qualified to provide. To know what God is like, we are to look to Jesus. He fulfilled prophecy and taught liberating truth to all, and wrought evidently undeniable miracles, which were the credentials providing validation, support, force and veracity to his claim and teaching that he was the Messiah that all were looking for - the Christ - the Son of the living God, and that mankind can find eternal life through faith in his Name - that which represents all that the Man is in his person. He was allowed to be crucified in our stead to fairly pay in full the just demands of God's infinitely offended holiness and violated righteousness, since God cannot compromise his essence in saving us any other way apart from the satisfaction of his justice. Satisfied justice is now our initial point of contact with God. We are to adjust to the justice of God through faith in Christ, before the justice of God adjusts to us in judgment. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, indicating that he was the Messiah, and that his sacrifice on our behalf and in our stead was accepted by God the Father. This resurrection was witnessed by above five hundred witnesses in that time. Thus Jesus is the only religious leader in history who needed only a borrowed tomb. The faith of Jesus (Romans 3:21-26) was in God's promise to raise him up from the dead, and make his Name above all names, and give him all faithers as a possession, and this promise was made before the foundation of the world, as a fail-safe plan to intercept the fall of man into sin. Therefore, Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The faith of Jesus overcoming the world, the flesh, and the devil, is a model for us to emulate as we faith into him for our salvation and deliverance.

"God so loved the world..." the love of God was the motivating factor, "that he gave his only begotten Son..." that is satisfied justice, "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life..." that is adjustment to the justice of God in faith with reward, before the justice of God adjusts to us in retribution and judgment. There was not anything inherent within us that was attractive or meritorious. He sought our highest good while we were yet his enemies by nature. In repudiating, then, all of our selfishly motivated good works, and all of our so-called human righteousness - the things of disparity among us all which we so tenaciously cling to for self-justification, we, by trust in the finished work of Jesus the Messiah alone, are to be qualified, and thus saved by our confidence in this finished work of Christ on our behalf and in our stead. The work of Christ alone is acceptable to God, and it is freely given and imputed to whosoever will desire salvation and receive it in good faith. This is the spirit of Christmas; and no person in his right mind spurns and refuses a freely given Christmas gift. It is incumbent that each of us individually appropriate God's free provision of mercy and grace by faith in order to reap its many benefits. It is our responsibility to respond and comply. We cannot change our past, but today and tomorrow we can change. Our God is a God of the second chance. All of our sins were yet future when Christ paid sin's full price on the cross. We cannot make up any deficiency. If the sayings of Jesus seem impossible to fulfill, and that upon discovery we have already hopelessly affronted his teachings with our rebellion, disobedience and infraction, then even as with our concluded violation of the Old Testament Law, we are to throw ourselves at his feet for his infinitely deep mercy, grace and forgiveness, and freely accept his supplied integrity as our own. We cannot work to earn it; for when would we have worked enough? What about the disparities among men? The ground at the foot of the cross is level, and the grace of God is unearned and fair to all. Christ has been freely given to us all. Believing trust is not a work, but is qualification. We are to clothe ourselves with Christ. Even as the wings of the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant interrupted the gaze of God upon the Law for his people, so also the blood of Christ interrupts the gaze of God upon the sins of the believer.

Faith is so simple, yet so many complicate it with so much garbage. If you believe that a given chair will support your weight, action based upon belief will result in sitting down in, and resting in, the chair. All that we do in life is by faith. Dr Gene Scott said that in everything we act, based upon belief, sustained by confidence. And so like children, we trust and rest in Christ. Trust is action based upon belief. A child will jump without reservation into his father's waiting arms. It is simple, yet so profound; but it was not always so easy to believe. If you said with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believed in your heart that he was raised from the dead, you would be saved - true - but it was not merely a technical verbalization. It was a courageous expression of conviction. In the first century Caesar was considered by most lord and deity, therefore one had to be really sure that Jesus Christ was really and truly Lord, and Deity, and raised from the dead, and able to raise us also on the last day; for in publicly saying so one was repudiating Caesar, thus bringing the wrath of Rome upon one's own head. This was evidenced in history by the many martyrs in the Coliseum of Rome. Belief in the dead rising again to life eternal was, until Jesus, only a future hope held to by the Jews. Now it is a present experiential reality. Jesus went to the cross to prepare a place for us. He rose from the dead and gave us the Holy Spirit as a helper and a guarantee that we are to follow in resurrection on the last day, John 6:54 (not seven years before the last day - See Second Thessalonians 1.6-10: The words "when" and "when" are key. Also read the excellent book, "First the Antichrist" by Bob Gundry, Baker Book House Co. ISBN: 0-8010-5764-7. See also The Fallacy of the Pre-Trib Position http://orin.net/rapture.html). When we die as believers, our soul goes immediately upon death into the presence of God, enjoying his sweet fellowship until that day comes. The Gospel provides essential facts and evidences to sustain the confident expectation of the believer (1st Corinthians 15). The better translation of the word "hope," is: "a confident expectation;" for we are not wishing in the dark, but relying upon those essential facts and evidences. Without the resurrection of Christ, and the hope of resurrection for each and every one of us who trust in him for our salvation (1st Thessalonians 4:13-18), all denominational practice of Christianity would be irrelevant - an exercise in futility - social club at best. We might as well take our ball and go home.

Again, the man with a legitimate experience is never at a disadvantage to the man with merely an argument. Obedience by faith bears this out in the accumulation of applicable experiential knowledge. Until acted upon by faith on positive volition, gleaned knowledge remains in the staging area of the soul as intellectual assent, but truth will make you free when positively applied by faith in everyday experiential living. This is called experiential knowledge, and the resulting structure in the soul is called the edification complex. Many take the broad path to destruction by refusing to make the intellectual comprehension of doctrine presented in the New Covenant experiential reality. It is an act of the will, and we all have the freedom and opportunity to choose in our souls. The narrow path is Jesus. Trust in him and not in yourselves or what you can accomplish (Matthew 7:21-23). Your faith can only be as secure as the object of your faith, and Jesus, the Object of our faith, is secure.

This separates those who truly belong to Christ from those who only appear to follow Christ as pseudo-disciples utilizing Christianity as a means to an end - wheat and tares are discernable at fruition - sheep and goats are not the same animal. Christianity is the end in itself, and salvation in Jesus Christ for each individual is the objective; and then we selflessly give of ourselves to God and by extension to others in gratitude for what God has done for each and every one of us, undeserving as we are. We selflessly do good works not to be saved, but because we are saved. Our faith is not in sacraments such as baptism, or in the Church, or in Mary, but in Jesus Christ alone. Motivation is an integral part of our actions. The question is not: What do we do? It is rather: Why do we do what we do? This is the criteria by which all of our good works will be judged. We seek the highest good of others without any expectation of return, and this is the love motivation of God towards us, which is called a self-sacrificial loving care. We as disciples are to exhibit the same. It is the proper fruit from the proper root. Jesus never utilized his powers for his own needs, but only in meeting the needs of others. This drew crowds; but he was always thinning out the crowds that followed him for the wrong reasons with hard sayings. Eat my body and drink my blood? Believe in the resurrection of the dead? Believe in the virgin birth? If the seed of man transmits the sin nature of man, Christ must needs be virgin-born to become the infinitely sinless substitutionary sacrifice acceptable for satisfying the just demands of God's infinitely violated attributes of holiness and righteousness. Resurrection from the dead is the believer's proven confident expectation. Swallowing is the ultimate in commitment. If Christianity were manufactured by man, it would never have gotten off the ground with all of these seemingly impossible facts to believe, yet they are key and essential to its coherency and effectiveness. It's relevance for today is evident in the fact that there is always a need for people to find salvation from the human condition in every generation, and to learn how to practice integrity, in every age.

The epistle to the Hebrews states that God, who has in various times and in diverse ways spoken in times past unto our fathers by the Old Testament prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son. This declares that the Church age is the last age of days, and that Jesus is not one of many prophets, but is the Son of God, and the last Spokesman for God; and his miracles and resurrection - the credentials demonstrating his uniqueness and purpose - settle the issue. Therefore Mohammad is not a legitimate prophet, and moreover Mohammad died ignobly of a disease, not for our sins as did Jesus Christ the Messiah as depicted in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Further, if YHWH (Jehovah) is God, then Allah is not. Both cannot be God. Though the word "God" is a generic term, they are not one and the same. YHWH (Jehovah) was here thousands of years before Allah, even unto eternity past, and has far greater evidence and documentation than Allah, - the Arabic moon god of war. The gospels indicate that Jesus is the fulfillment of one hundred fifty of the most popular Old Testament prophecies. Mohammad is not. If we take just thirty of those specifically fulfilled prophecies into consideration, that fulfillment, statistically, is one in ten to the 340th power, that Jesus is the One Jews and Gentiles were to look for - astronomical odds that make refutation impossible. Fulfilled prophecy is the prime indicator of Christianity's legitimacy and validity in the world today. Motivation was there for the Jews to discredit the resurrection of Jesus by producing a body, but there was no body left behind, and there were too many witnesses of the resurrection living at that time that could refute their denial. There are some today troubling the Church claiming to have found the ostuary that held the bones of Jesus. Like the DaVinci code, this is tabloid television. In the absence of a body the Jews were reduced to persecution - what any regime resorts to when they cannot any longer prove their legitimacy or validity. So it is for Islam. The curtain between the holy of holies and the outer court in the Jewish Temple was torn asunder at the crucifixion, followed by forty years of testing. Judaism under the Law of Moses had become "Old Guard". Christianity was the natural outcome for centuries of prophecy fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

All religions of the world, including incorrect renderings of Christianity, have this one thing in common: they are man attempting to appease God and gain his approbation through man's own works, efforts and merits. God sees these works of man as filthy menstrual cloths. Correct Christianity stands alone in this: it is God doing for man what man cannot do for God or even for himself. Eliminated are the disparities among men, for the ground at the foot of the cross is level. True Christianity honors volitional choice of salvation by grace through faith. Isam converts at gunpoint. Jesus is the Messiah predicted by the Old Testament - the One the Jews today claim to be looking for. They deliberately passed him over the first time he came according to Jesus' own parables against them. The Koran has no Old Testament, and cannot falsely claim that of the Jews. Jerusalem refused her Messiah when he did come, as they are so taught to reject the Christian Savior today; therefore the kingdom was taken away from them and given to others who were grafted in (Romans 11) - that's us - the Church of Jesus Christ. Though they are still his people, God's program for the Jews has been set aside until the end of this current dispensation. It is written in their Torah that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. No temple, no sacrifices. If one part of the Law of Moses is broken, the one claiming to practice Judaism is guilty of transgressing the whole Law. Therefore, since the temple and sacrifices were removed over1900 years ago, all practicing Jews have died in their sins since then. Is their God YHWH (Jehovah) powerless to recover from the attack and dispersion of those Jews in Jerusalem by Titus the Roman almost two millennia ago? No. With God nothing is impossible. Then what? Is the timing a coincidence? No! Could it be that God has changed the way he deals with men and their sin? Yes! Messiah has already come in the person of God's son Jesus Christ (Isaiah 9:6-7; Zechariah 12:10; Isaiah 52:13-53:12; Psalm 22) with miracles for proof. He was the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of all mankind, One for all men, once for all time. Is it merely coincidence that Christianity took hold when all sacrifices were going to be removed? No. The former has been intentionally supplanted by the latter. Today Christianity alone settles the issue of sin. Today Judaism is to be taken off like an old, worn out garment. Judaism is no longer the way to approach God for gaining his approbation, approval and forgiveness. Judaism was temporary - a shadow and type of the true way to approach God. God is now only impressed with his Son; and he wants us to be impressed with him too. The true temple of God is the body of believers who trust in the head-stone of the corner, Jesus the Messiah. If you want to be greatly used of God, then make much of his Son.

Orin LeRoy Moses III, Editor, Translator and Publisher, Easter 2007, Redacter@aol.com

Orin L. Moses III

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C | Appendix D | Appendix E | Appendix F | Appendix G | Appendix H | Home