I remembered another verse from the Bible, which says, "God so loved the world that he gave his son." And here several questions immediately arise, actually so complex that I don't know where to start.
If the trinity is one God (one mind, one consciousness, one thinking), then why does God the father decide to sacrifice his son, guided by his own opinion? This already defines God the father as a separate personality who has his own decisions, beliefs, and goals. If it were written there that God decided to sacrifice himself because of the sins of humanity, it would sound much more logical than the analogy with the trinity, but here the Father appears as a separate person and acts independently.
And why did God the father decide to give Jesus to death? And how did this happen? Like three personalities of one God talked to each other to agree that Jesus would go to the cross and die????
So it turns out that God sacrificed himself to forgive people's sins? Why make a spectacle of it?
You said: “I remembered another verse from the Bible, which says, "God so loved the world that he gave his son." And here several questions immediately arise, actually so complex that I don't know where to start.”
Let’s dig into them.
You said: “If the trinity is one God (one mind, one consciousness, one thinking)”
Whoever said the Trinity is one mind?
The Trinity in one God expressed in three Persons. The “Person” distinction requires a bit of uniqueness in terms of mind. Otherwise how could you distinguish personhood?
You said: “then why does God the father decide to sacrifice his son, guided by his own opinion?”
The verse you quoted, John 3:16, does not mention the Father.
It says “God so loved…”
This refers to the whole Trinity, all of God. Not just the Father.
Which means the Son agreed. It wasn’t the Father imposing His opinion over the others.
The Bible is clear that the Son was in agreement, saying many things like:
“And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us” (Ephesians 5:2).
For Jesus so loved us that He gave Himself up for us.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son.
These are all in agreement.
You said: “This already defines God the father as a separate personality who has his own decisions, beliefs, and goals. If it were written there that God decided to sacrifice himself because of the sins of humanity, it would sound much more logical than the analogy with the trinity, but here the Father appears as a separate person and acts independently.”
Again, they’re all in agreement. The Father and Son were both fully on board with this plan.
God DID decide to sacrifice Himself. That’s what it means for Jesus to be God and giving Himself up for us.
You said: “And why did God the father decide to give Jesus to death?”
Because of us.
Our sins send us to hell. Our sins create our agony in the afterlife.
Isaiah experienced this in Isaiah 6. He was brought into the presence of God and suffered severe agony.
How? Not at the hand of God. God didn’t touch him. Angels didn’t touch him. Isaiah’s agony came about only from his own sin.
God RESCUES Isaiah from the agony his sins are causing by forgiving his sins.
God does this by taking a coal from the altar — a life sacrificed to pay for the sins that demand death, atoning for our sins by His death.
Jesus gave Himself up for us as the once-and-for-all sacrifice — His life for ours, atoning for our sins by His death.
God did this to RESCUE us from the agony our sins would have caused us as soon as we entered eternity.
You said: “And how did this happen? Like three personalities of one God talked to each other to agree that Jesus would go to the cross and die????”
God is one God.
You are one human. When you see good-looking food, how quickly do all the parts of you agree? Your eyes perceive the food. Your stomach craves it. Your mind assesses it and determines it’s good to eat. Your arms reach out to take it.
That’s about how quickly God agreed to this plan.
Now of course, you can also disagree with yourself. Your eyes can see food and your stomach can crave it. But your mind assesses it as bad for you. Now your stomach and mind disagree, clashing over whether to eat it or not. Sometimes your stomach wins and you eat it. Sometimes your mind wins and you resist.
When you see Jesus and the Father talking, like the prayer in Gethsemane, it’s like that.
You’re still one human, even as the parts of you can disagree.
Same with God.
You said: “So it turns out that God sacrificed himself to forgive people's sins? Why make a spectacle of it?”
To let people know, so they can take advantage of it.
Imagine a billionaire was willing to pay off every debt of everyone in the country — all credit card debt, all medical debt, all mortgages, all school loans. But to access it, you had to ask. If you ask, you’ll certainly receive a “yes” — but you have to ask.
Would it be a good thing if this billionaire made a spectacle of it, so everyone would know? Certainly.
This isn’t forced on you. You can keep your debts if you want. But if you want your debts paid off, you can ask, and it’s done.
God is eager to forgive every sin. Jesus’ sacrifice made it possible.
But you have to ask.
This isn’t forced on you. You can keep your sins if you want.
But if you want your sins forgiven, you can ask, and it’s done.
1 If each of them has a different mind, consciousness and things related to their independent activity - it is obvious that it cannot be one person. Do you want to say that the trinity is such a substance as in the movie Venom? Where the main character wears his shell, but the monster Venom also lives in him.
2 Does it not mention the father? It says that he gave his son, obviously if he gave his son, then who is this person who gave him to the cross? That's right - the father. And if the whole trinity is mentioned there, then it sounds even less logical. That is, Jesus gave himself to the court?
3 That is, all three agreed with the sacrifice of Jesus? That is, everyone makes their own decision... So you confirm that the trinity cannot be the only God.
By the way, it is interesting that you say that Jesus died on the cross to save us from sin. And otherwise, what would have happened? And by the way, why now, when humanity is now with its many sins, so many bad things that Christianity does not support, why won't Jesus save anyone now? Why did Jesus do this 2000 years ago, when people were much more religious?
As for the Bible verses, we talked about another verse where Jesus sat on the right side of the father.
I still don't understand, if they are one being, how can one and the same being sit on its right side? You said that this is a figure of speech, and gave an example that the prince sits on the right side of his father on the royal throne. But the king and his son are two separate individuals, and Jesus and his father are one entity, and it divided and sat on the right side? And where is the holy spirit and will he sit on the left side?
You said: "1 If each of them has a different mind, consciousness and things related to their independent activity - it is obvious that it cannot be one person."
My friend, this is where it begins to feel like you're not reading what I'm writing before you begin objecting to it. This has happened before.
I said clearly they are three Persons, not one. Yet you object by saying it cannot be one.
You said: "Do you want to say that the trinity is such a substance as in the movie Venom? Where the main character wears his shell, but the monster Venom also lives in him."
Not quite.
God is one God. Venom is two distinct creatures, each of which began existence apart from the other.
The Father, Son, and Spirit are united in perfection. Even with distinct Personhood, they are united in one being, one essence, one substance.
This is why I make the analogy of your stomach and your mind. Both are part of you. You are one human. Yet even as you are one human, your various parts can disagree with each other. Despite this disagreement, they are no less fully you.
You said: "2 Does it not mention the father?"
No. It says "God," which refers to all of God.
You said: "It says that he gave his son, obviously if he gave his son, then who is this person who gave him to the cross? That's right - the father."
Again, the whole Trinity gave Jesus.
Seriously, it feels like you aren't bothering to read what I write!
I quoted Ephesians 5:2, where Jesus gave Himself.
The Bible directly states that the Father gave Jesus and Jesus gave Himself. Both are fully true.
That's why John 3:16 doesn't specify the Father, but simply says "God." All of God was in agreement as to this. Jesus gave Himself even as the Father gave Jesus.
You said: "And if the whole trinity is mentioned there, then it sounds even less logical. That is, Jesus gave himself to the court?"
Yes. The Bible says so in clear, direct language, which I quoted to you above.
You said: "3 That is, all three agreed with the sacrifice of Jesus? That is, everyone makes their own decision... So you confirm that the trinity cannot be the only God."
There's no logic connecting these two statements.
If all three Persons of the Trinity decide in agreement, that means nothing about them not being the only God.
You said: "By the way, it is interesting that you say that Jesus died on the cross to save us from sin. And otherwise, what would have happened?"
We would all experience what Isaiah experienced.
We would enter eternity and be instantly agonized by our sins -- torn apart from the inside out, tortured by the evil we each chose to do.
We call it hell.
Read Isaiah 6 to see it for yourself.
You said: "And by the way, why now, when humanity is now with its many sins, so many bad things that Christianity does not support, why won't Jesus save anyone now? Why did Jesus do this 2000 years ago, when people were much more religious?"
Again, as I said above, Jesus' sacrifice was once and for all. It covers everyone, past, present, and future.
Hebrews 7:27 states it directly: "Jesus has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself."
You said: "As for the Bible verses, we talked about another verse where Jesus sat on the right side of the father. I still don't understand, if they are one being, how can one and the same being sit on its right side?"
Read Revelation 22:1: "the throne of God and of the Lamb."
Do you see it?
One Throne -- not two. One singular Throne, belonging both to God and to the Lamb, Jesus.
One Throne, because they're one and the same God.
You said: "You said that this is a figure of speech, and gave an example that the prince sits on the right side of his father on the royal throne. But the king and his son are two separate individuals, and Jesus and his father are one entity, and it divided and sat on the right side? And where is the holy spirit and will he sit on the left side?"
In the Ancient Near East, everyone understood that the King's son sat on the right side of the king. They knew that the son had every qualification to be the king, just as his father did. To sit on the right side of the king is to be the king.
This was called "co-regency." Each could be referred to as the king. The son didn't have to wait until his father died to be the king. He could be called king even while his father was alive, because sitting at the king's right hand is the same as being the king. You can see this play out in the Bible, especially with David and his sons.
Therefore, when they heard Jesus say that He sits on the right hand of the Father in Heaven, everyone understood Jesus as claiming to be equal with the Father -- to be God. That's why it enraged His opponents so greatly to hear it.
Well, I tried to put the trinity in a better situation, but if you say that these are three personalities, then how can they be one?
You give the example of my body, but my body and I are two different things. My organs are not an entity, they do not have common characteristics, for example, as members of the trinity.
The eyes, stomach and mind are parts of one being, not separate individuals. They do not have consciousness separately from each other. And also, the desire to eat is a natural process, not the agreement of three personalities. It is an instinct.
And no, I completely read what you write, taking into account other publications, which I also have questions about, but not about that now.
And regarding your analogy with the businessman and sin: If God knows that many people will never hear or understand the Gospel, is it fair to demand that they "ask for forgiveness"?
Why is the process of forgiveness itself connected with the violent death of Jesus, if God is omnipotent and able to forgive "just like that", out of love?
And by the way, is it fair that God punished Adam and Eve? They didn't know what they were doing. As you said, when Adam and Eve were with God - they didn't know evil, but as soon as they took the forbidden fruit - they were punished. But does that look fair🤔? They had no experience with evil before, and there was only good in their lives. That is, the point is that they had no previous experience to distinguish good from evil.
And as for the latter, that is, Jesus simply used a metaphor 🤔 So you claim that Jesus did not mean that he would sit on the right hand of the father as a separate person? But still, why is there a second throne here, on the right hand? Who will sit on it, if not Jesus?
In the parable of the king and his son, on the right side sat the son who was equal to him, okay, but in the verse where Jesus said he would sit on the right side, is there also a throne? Which one is on the right side? Who will sit on it?
Hello Lilithun, you ask good questions, but this will be my last response today.
You said: “Well, I tried to put the trinity in a better situation, but if you say that these are three personalities, then how can they be one?”
Again, my friend, you aren’t reading what I’m writing.
I never said they were three personalities. That makes it sound like multiple personality disorder.
I said three Persons who share one being, one essence, one substance. There is some measure of distinction between the Persons, yet they are essentially one — not essentially three. This is why Jesus could say, “I and the Father are one.”
You said: “You give the example of my body, but my body and I are two different things.”
No, your body is you. You might not regard it as the whole of you, but it is certainly you.
If someone points to your body, they’re pointing at you. They aren’t pointing to anyone else.
If you show someone a picture of your body, you’re showing them a picture of you.
Your body is you.
You said: “My organs are not an entity, they do not have common characteristics, for example, as members of the trinity.”
They do share a few common characteristics.
For one thing, they’re all part of the same body.
They all work together to sustain your life.
If they ceased working, your physical life would cease.
All of these are common characteristics they share.
You said, “The eyes, stomach and mind are parts of one being, not separate individuals. They do not have consciousness separately from each other. And also, the desire to eat is a natural process, not the agreement of three personalities. It is an instinct.”
The desire to eat is certainly a natural process, yet your body can certainly disagree about it.
Again, your stomach can crave junk food. Your mind can resist, knowing it’s not good for you.
These two can battle it out for hours before you see which one is stronger, whether you eat or resist.
A similar struggle ensues when working out. Your body might ache, demanding that you quit. Yet your mind disagrees and forces you to continue on. But eventually your body complains so strenuously that you give in and stop for the day.
If there was no struggle between your mind and your body, you wouldn’t experience the need to force yourself to keep working out. There would be no resistance of any kind if your mind and body were in perfect agreement. The reason you have to force yourself to workout, or force yourself to keep working out even when it hurts, is that your body is staying stop while your mind is saying no.
You are one human, yet you have parts that disagree with each other. These parts are still fully you. You are one being, yet your mind and body can disagree.
It’s much the same with God. He is one Being. All His parts are still fully God.
You said: “And no, I completely read what you write. taking into account other publications, which I also have questions about, but not about that now.”
My friend, I really hope this is true.
You said: “And regarding your analogy with the businessman and sin: If God knows that many people will never hear or understand the Gospel, is it fair to demand that they "ask for forgiveness"?”
The Bible is clear that God takes each life’s situation into account. Acts 17:30: “God overlooked people’s ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him.”
Another verse says: “He is the Rock, His work is perfect; all His ways are just. A God of faithfulness without injustice, righteous and upright is He.” (Deuteronomy 32:4).
You can trust that God will do what is right.
The question for you is not what God will do with those who haven’t yet heard. God will take care of them rightly and fairly.
The question for you is what you will do, now that you have heard. Will you ask for your debts to be paid? Or will you keep your debts? Will you ask for your sins to be forgiven? Or will you keep them?
The choice is yours.
You said: “Why is the process of forgiveness itself connected with the violent death of Jesus, if God is omnipotent and able to forgive "just like that", out of love?”
God is loving.
God is also just.
Justice requires that crime be punished. A judge is not just if they let every criminal go free, with no penalty for their crimes. A society like that would have no rule of law. It would be horrific to live in. People could be as wicked and destructive as they wanted without fear of punishment.
Justice requires that crime is paid for.
If you want to use the financial debt illustration again, think of the bank. The billionaire stands ready to pay back all the debts.
Why not just have the bank forgive all the debts? Because then the bank is destroyed. Forgiving the loans doesn’t pay back the money.
To truly balance the books, the debts have to be paid back, not merely forgiven.
Jesus’ blood is the payment for your sins, the payment that satisfies justice.
The wages of sin is death. As far back as Genesis 3, God warned that death follows sin. Sin is atoned for by life — a life for a life.
Jesus gave His life in place of yours. He paid the life debt you owed.
You said. “And by the way, is it fair that God punished Adam and Eve? They didn't know what they were doing. As you said, when Adam and Eve were with God - they didn't know evil, but as soon as they took the forbidden fruit - they were punished. But does that look fair🤔? They had no experience with evil before, and there was only good in their lives. That is, the point is that they had no previous experience to distinguish good from evil.”
You don’t need previous experience to be warned away from something.
I don’t have to touch a high-voltage wire to be warned away from touching it. I don’t have to experience a body-frying shock to know that it’s something to stay away from.
God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed for success. He demonstrated Himself to be entirely good to them, giving them all they needed. He gave them clear warning. He set a clear boundary. He even warned them there would be elements of creation they would need to bring into submission — that would resist them at first, but they would need to kabash.
They had everything they needed.
Yet even after they sinned, God didn’t abandon them. God stayed with them. He’s still having regular conversations with them and their children in the following chapters.
Yes, their sins had consequences, as all sins do. But God didn’t give up on them.
You said: “And as for the latter, that is, Jesus simply used a metaphor 🤔 So you claim that Jesus did not mean that he would sit on the right hand of the father as a separate person? But still, why is there a second throne here, on the right hand? Who will sit on it, if not Jesus?”
Again, the depictions in Revelation of the actual Throne is one Throne, the singular throne of God and the Lamb, Jesus. It’s not two thrones.
Jesus wasn’t using a metaphor, so much as He was using the language of the people to communicate an idea in the way that they would best receive. They understood what it meant to sit at the right hand of the king.
A good translation should account for this, supplying the cultural knowledge the original audience possessed that we lack.
You said: “In the parable of the king and his son, on the right side sat the son who was equal to him, okay, but in the verse where Jesus said he would sit on the right side, is there also a throne? Which one is on the right side? Who will sit on it?”
It wasn’t a parable.
That was literally how kingship worked.
The point wasn’t the location, but rather that Jesus is equal to the Father. The point is that only someone equal to the king could sit at the king’s right hand. Therefore, for Jesus to claim to sit at the Father’s right hand, Jesus is claiming to be equal to the Father.
And I hope my comments don't annoy you, because I'm just asking a question.
So, regarding the trinity, an incomprehensible situation has now arisen, in which I seem to understand how it works, and at the same time I don't understand.
That is, taking into account all your examples (with my body) and your desire to explain the trinity, I have the impression that God and the persons of the trinity are different things, but they are one.
It looks as if there is one single God who uses three other persons - father, son, holy spirit, for his own plans. This coincides with the comparison that I am one person, but I have different organs that are responsible for certain things. That is, in the case of the trinity, God is some kind of one single entity that combines 3 more different persons? This is something that already looks a little like polytheism, for a person unfamiliar with Christianity.
That is, I am one person (the center of creation) and my organs are a smaller part of me that performs various functions.
Well, in the case of Adam and Eve, it is inappropriate to compare modern technology. Then in this case you can take children. Children will not know that you cannot touch high-voltage wires... Although no! Even if we take people from tribes that have no connection with modern technology - they will also not know that it is dangerous. Similarly, Adam and Eve did not have previous experience to understand that it is dangerous.
And as for Jesus, who will sit on the right side. How did the Jews understand this? Because it seems to me that if it says that someone should sit on the right side - then there must be a certain person there. How did the Jews understand this? Did they expect Jesus to sit on the right side, or did they simply understand that Jesus was equal to the father (although considering that they did not consider him the messiah, it is unlikely that they understood him correctly 🤨)
“Holy sport” means God’s consciousness in your heart— the indwelling Ruach HaKodesh (רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ), the divine breath that moves, guides, and transforms. It is not an entity, not separate from God, but His very presence actively working within you.
Ezekiel 36:26-27 declares:
“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you… And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My ways.”
This is the fire that fuels wisdom (Isaiah 11:2), the force that shapes destiny, the pulse of eternity within your soul (Kohelet 3:11). Ruach HaKodesh is not a being of its own—it is the breath of the Almighty within you, awakening, leading, and calling you to something greater.
Agreed it’s fun but I do worry about people putting too much stock in the answers without understanding the bias and limitations. Definitely not saying you’re advocating that.
Asking AI these questions is fun! But ultimately AI can only do what its instructions tell it to do. Those instructions contain bias. I say this as a conservative Evangelical who believes in the Trinity. But I have seen that if you ask different AI models to do the same thing you will get very different answers due to their programming.
You are absolutely correct. Grok likely relied on widely accepted Christian interpretations rather than strictly isolating scriptural statements without external doctrinal influence. If someone unfamiliar with AI does not specify these restrictions, the AI will typically produce an analysis that reflects common theological interpretations rather than a neutral, context-driven exegesis.
In contrast, a more neutral and precise way to prompt an AI for pure scriptural analysis would be:
“Analyze the 66 books of the Bible to determine what kind of being God is. Do not rely on theological traditions or doctrinal conclusions. Present only what the text explicitly states, examining key passages. If a passage is ambiguous, note it without assuming a particular doctrine. Your conclusion should strictly adhere to the scriptural evidence alone.”
This approach forces the AI to stay within the text without external bias.
Yet the trouble with the prompt you proposed (as well as several others I tried) is that unless you specify exploring singularity, plurality and tri-unity, AI won’t go there. It will stay in the safe, easily understood qualities like being Creator and Spirit.
But when you do direct it to analyze singularity, plurality, or tri-unity, it lands at Trinity.
Interesting question! I wrote a prompt to test this:
"Analyze the Apocrypha, and compare its books to the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. Identify similarities and differences in subject matter, writing style, and theology. Use this data to arrive at one answer to the question: do these books of the Apocrypha belong in the Bible?"
Grok said this:
Analysis of the Apocrypha and Comparison with the 66 Books of the Old and New Testaments: Do These Books Belong in the Bible?
The Apocrypha refers to a collection of Jewish writings, primarily from the intertestamental period (circa 200 BC to 100 AD), not included in the Hebrew canon (Tanakh) but present in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) and accepted as canonical or deuterocanonical by some Christian traditions (e.g., Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy). The most recognized Apocryphal books are 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, Additions to Esther, Additions to Daniel (including Bel and the Dragon, Susanna, and the Prayer of Azariah), and 1 and 2 Esdras. This analysis compares these books to the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments (39 Old Testament, 27 New Testament) in terms of subject matter, writing style, and theology, then determines whether they belong in the Bible, based on the evidence.
Subject Matter
Similarities: The Apocrypha shares significant overlap with the Old Testament in subject matter, focusing on Jewish history, piety, wisdom, and divine providence during the Second Temple period. For instance, 1 and 2 Maccabees recount the Maccabean Revolt (167–160 BC) against the Seleucid Empire, paralleling Old Testament historical narratives like 1 and 2 Kings, which document Israel’s history and God’s interactions with His people. Tobit and Judith present stories of faithfulness and divine deliverance, akin to Old Testament narratives such as Esther or Daniel. Wisdom literature, like Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach, mirrors Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job, offering ethical teachings and reflections on God’s justice. Baruch and the Additions to Daniel emphasize prayer, repentance, and God’s sovereignty, resonating with Old Testament prophetic and poetic books (e.g., Isaiah, Psalms).
The Apocrypha does not directly overlap with New Testament subject matter, which centers on Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and the early church. However, some themes, such as divine intervention and moral instruction, appear in both, though the New Testament’s focus is Christological and ecclesial, not historical or wisdom-oriented like much of the Apocrypha.
Differences: The Apocrypha lacks the messianic prophecies central to the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah 7:14, 9:6-7, 53:3-12, Micah 5:2) or their fulfillment in the New Testament. It also includes unique historical events (e.g., the Maccabean Revolt) not covered in the canonical Old Testament, which ends with Malachi (circa 400 BC). Some Apocryphal books, like Tobit and Judith, contain legendary or fictional elements (e.g., Tobit’s angelic guidance, Judith’s beheading of Holofernes), contrasting with the Old Testament’s historical focus, though some Old Testament narratives (e.g., Jonah) are also debated for historicity. The Apocrypha does not address the New Covenant or Jesus, focusing instead on Second Temple Judaism’s struggles, unlike the New Testament’s gospel-centric narrative.
Writing Style
Similarities: The Apocrypha often mirrors the Old Testament’s writing styles, particularly its historical, prophetic, and wisdom genres. 1 and 2 Maccabees employ a narrative style similar to 1 and 2 Kings or Chronicles, with detailed accounts and occasional divine commentary. Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach use poetic and didactic prose akin to Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, with aphorisms and ethical teachings. Baruch and the Additions to Daniel adopt a prayerful, lyrical style reminiscent of Psalms or Lamentations. Like the Old Testament, the Apocrypha is written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, reflecting Second Temple Jewish literary conventions.
The New Testament, written primarily in Greek, uses a different style—narrative (Gospels), epistolary (Pauline and general letters), and apocalyptic (Revelation)—focused on eyewitness accounts, theological exposition, and future prophecy, not evident in the Apocrypha.
Differences: The Apocrypha’s style lacks the direct prophetic voice of Old Testament prophets like Isaiah or Jeremiah, who claim divine inspiration with phrases like “Thus says the Lord.” Instead, it often presents wisdom or history without explicit divine authorship claims, except in prayers or hymns (e.g., Baruch 1:15-3:8). The Apocrypha’s Greek-influenced texts (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees) show Hellenistic stylistic elements, such as philosophical rhetoric, absent from the predominantly Hebrew Old Testament. Compared to the New Testament’s concise, eyewitness-driven narratives (e.g., Mark) or doctrinal letters (e.g., Romans), the Apocrypha’s style is more expansive, literary, and less focused on a singular redemptive event.
Theology
Similarities: The Apocrypha aligns with Old Testament theology in its monotheism, emphasizing Yahweh as the one God (e.g., Wisdom 13:1-9, Sirach 1:1-10). It upholds God’s providence, justice, and covenant with Israel (e.g., 2 Maccabees 7:9, Tobit 13:1-18). Like the Old Testament, it values prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and obedience to the Law (e.g., Tobit 12:8-9, Sirach 35:1-5). The Apocrypha also shares the Old Testament’s expectation of resurrection and judgment, as seen in 2 Maccabees 7:9, “The King of the world will raise us up to live again forever,” paralleling Daniel 12:2.
The Apocrypha’s theology does not conflict with the New Testament’s monotheism or moral teachings, but it lacks the New Testament’s focus on Jesus as the Messiah, atonement through his death, or the Holy Spirit’s role, focusing instead on pre-Christian Jewish piety.
Differences: The Apocrypha introduces theological elements absent from or divergent in the Old Testament. For example, 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 suggests prayers and sacrifices for the dead to atone for sins, a concept not found in the Old Testament but later developed in some Christian traditions. Tobit 12:12 identifies the angel Raphael, implying a developed angelology not central to the Old Testament. Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20 mentions a preexistent soul, hinting at Platonic influence, unlike the Old Testament’s focus on bodily resurrection. The Apocrypha does not articulate a triune God or Christology, contrasting with the New Testament’s central claims (e.g., John 1:1, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). It also lacks the Old Testament’s explicit messianic prophecies fulfilled in Jesus, focusing on historical events rather than eschatological fulfillment.
Conclusion: Do These Books of the Apocrypha Belong in the Bible?
Based on the evidence, the books of the Apocrypha do not belong in the Bible as defined by the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. While they share similarities in subject matter (Jewish history, piety, wisdom), writing style (narrative, poetic, didactic), and theology (monotheism, providence, resurrection), they diverge significantly in their lack of messianic fulfillment, unique theological developments (e.g., prayers for the dead), and absence of direct prophetic or Christological connection to the canonical narrative.
The Old Testament’s canon, as finalized by the Jewish council at Jamnia (circa 90 AD), excluded these books, focusing on texts written in Hebrew and tied to Israel’s covenant history before the intertestamental period. The New Testament, written after the Apocrypha, builds on the Old Testament’s prophetic framework, fulfilled in Jesus, without referencing or quoting the Apocrypha as scripture (unlike frequent Old Testament citations, e.g., Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14). The Apocrypha’s historical and wisdom value is evident, but its theological and canonical distinctiveness—lacking the redemptive focus of the Testaments—indicates it does not fit as an integral part of the biblical canon. Thus, the most defensible conclusion, based on subject matter, style, and theology, is that these books do not belong in the Bible.
On an unrelated note, how should I understand the biblical teaching on divorce in relation to my own case? Without it, I would have never happened, as both of my parents have had at least one previous marriage.
Anything meant for evil, God can turn around and use for good.
Even if the divorce was bad, God can bring good about through it. God is not a cruel judge who lashes us with pain when we do bad stuff.
Even when we do bad, God still loves us. God still brings good about, like the birth of children. Often, it's good gifts like children that bring us back to Him.
It's His kindness that leads us to repentance.
You are a kindness to your parents, a gift to them, a sign to them that God loves them, even in the midst of all they've done that's bad.
If you're here, God always knew you wanted be here because He isn't subject to time and He created and accounted for you in a way that is impossible to understand since He is all-knowing. God uses evil (that satan and his helpers influenced) to bring about good. My mother was divorced as well. Satan doesn't want either of us to exist (heck, I don't think he wants any humans to exist, but especially believers) - but God is ultimately the one who wants us here; so, we're here!
I remembered another verse from the Bible, which says, "God so loved the world that he gave his son." And here several questions immediately arise, actually so complex that I don't know where to start.
If the trinity is one God (one mind, one consciousness, one thinking), then why does God the father decide to sacrifice his son, guided by his own opinion? This already defines God the father as a separate personality who has his own decisions, beliefs, and goals. If it were written there that God decided to sacrifice himself because of the sins of humanity, it would sound much more logical than the analogy with the trinity, but here the Father appears as a separate person and acts independently.
And why did God the father decide to give Jesus to death? And how did this happen? Like three personalities of one God talked to each other to agree that Jesus would go to the cross and die????
So it turns out that God sacrificed himself to forgive people's sins? Why make a spectacle of it?
Hi Lilithun,
These are great questions.
You said: “I remembered another verse from the Bible, which says, "God so loved the world that he gave his son." And here several questions immediately arise, actually so complex that I don't know where to start.”
Let’s dig into them.
You said: “If the trinity is one God (one mind, one consciousness, one thinking)”
Whoever said the Trinity is one mind?
The Trinity in one God expressed in three Persons. The “Person” distinction requires a bit of uniqueness in terms of mind. Otherwise how could you distinguish personhood?
You said: “then why does God the father decide to sacrifice his son, guided by his own opinion?”
The verse you quoted, John 3:16, does not mention the Father.
It says “God so loved…”
This refers to the whole Trinity, all of God. Not just the Father.
Which means the Son agreed. It wasn’t the Father imposing His opinion over the others.
The Bible is clear that the Son was in agreement, saying many things like:
“And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us” (Ephesians 5:2).
For Jesus so loved us that He gave Himself up for us.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son.
These are all in agreement.
You said: “This already defines God the father as a separate personality who has his own decisions, beliefs, and goals. If it were written there that God decided to sacrifice himself because of the sins of humanity, it would sound much more logical than the analogy with the trinity, but here the Father appears as a separate person and acts independently.”
Again, they’re all in agreement. The Father and Son were both fully on board with this plan.
God DID decide to sacrifice Himself. That’s what it means for Jesus to be God and giving Himself up for us.
You said: “And why did God the father decide to give Jesus to death?”
Because of us.
Our sins send us to hell. Our sins create our agony in the afterlife.
Isaiah experienced this in Isaiah 6. He was brought into the presence of God and suffered severe agony.
How? Not at the hand of God. God didn’t touch him. Angels didn’t touch him. Isaiah’s agony came about only from his own sin.
God RESCUES Isaiah from the agony his sins are causing by forgiving his sins.
God does this by taking a coal from the altar — a life sacrificed to pay for the sins that demand death, atoning for our sins by His death.
Jesus gave Himself up for us as the once-and-for-all sacrifice — His life for ours, atoning for our sins by His death.
God did this to RESCUE us from the agony our sins would have caused us as soon as we entered eternity.
You said: “And how did this happen? Like three personalities of one God talked to each other to agree that Jesus would go to the cross and die????”
God is one God.
You are one human. When you see good-looking food, how quickly do all the parts of you agree? Your eyes perceive the food. Your stomach craves it. Your mind assesses it and determines it’s good to eat. Your arms reach out to take it.
That’s about how quickly God agreed to this plan.
Now of course, you can also disagree with yourself. Your eyes can see food and your stomach can crave it. But your mind assesses it as bad for you. Now your stomach and mind disagree, clashing over whether to eat it or not. Sometimes your stomach wins and you eat it. Sometimes your mind wins and you resist.
When you see Jesus and the Father talking, like the prayer in Gethsemane, it’s like that.
You’re still one human, even as the parts of you can disagree.
Same with God.
You said: “So it turns out that God sacrificed himself to forgive people's sins? Why make a spectacle of it?”
To let people know, so they can take advantage of it.
Imagine a billionaire was willing to pay off every debt of everyone in the country — all credit card debt, all medical debt, all mortgages, all school loans. But to access it, you had to ask. If you ask, you’ll certainly receive a “yes” — but you have to ask.
Would it be a good thing if this billionaire made a spectacle of it, so everyone would know? Certainly.
This isn’t forced on you. You can keep your debts if you want. But if you want your debts paid off, you can ask, and it’s done.
God is eager to forgive every sin. Jesus’ sacrifice made it possible.
But you have to ask.
This isn’t forced on you. You can keep your sins if you want.
But if you want your sins forgiven, you can ask, and it’s done.
1 If each of them has a different mind, consciousness and things related to their independent activity - it is obvious that it cannot be one person. Do you want to say that the trinity is such a substance as in the movie Venom? Where the main character wears his shell, but the monster Venom also lives in him.
2 Does it not mention the father? It says that he gave his son, obviously if he gave his son, then who is this person who gave him to the cross? That's right - the father. And if the whole trinity is mentioned there, then it sounds even less logical. That is, Jesus gave himself to the court?
3 That is, all three agreed with the sacrifice of Jesus? That is, everyone makes their own decision... So you confirm that the trinity cannot be the only God.
By the way, it is interesting that you say that Jesus died on the cross to save us from sin. And otherwise, what would have happened? And by the way, why now, when humanity is now with its many sins, so many bad things that Christianity does not support, why won't Jesus save anyone now? Why did Jesus do this 2000 years ago, when people were much more religious?
As for the Bible verses, we talked about another verse where Jesus sat on the right side of the father.
I still don't understand, if they are one being, how can one and the same being sit on its right side? You said that this is a figure of speech, and gave an example that the prince sits on the right side of his father on the royal throne. But the king and his son are two separate individuals, and Jesus and his father are one entity, and it divided and sat on the right side? And where is the holy spirit and will he sit on the left side?
Hi Lilithun, good questions.
You said: "1 If each of them has a different mind, consciousness and things related to their independent activity - it is obvious that it cannot be one person."
My friend, this is where it begins to feel like you're not reading what I'm writing before you begin objecting to it. This has happened before.
I said clearly they are three Persons, not one. Yet you object by saying it cannot be one.
You said: "Do you want to say that the trinity is such a substance as in the movie Venom? Where the main character wears his shell, but the monster Venom also lives in him."
Not quite.
God is one God. Venom is two distinct creatures, each of which began existence apart from the other.
The Father, Son, and Spirit are united in perfection. Even with distinct Personhood, they are united in one being, one essence, one substance.
This is why I make the analogy of your stomach and your mind. Both are part of you. You are one human. Yet even as you are one human, your various parts can disagree with each other. Despite this disagreement, they are no less fully you.
You said: "2 Does it not mention the father?"
No. It says "God," which refers to all of God.
You said: "It says that he gave his son, obviously if he gave his son, then who is this person who gave him to the cross? That's right - the father."
Again, the whole Trinity gave Jesus.
Seriously, it feels like you aren't bothering to read what I write!
I quoted Ephesians 5:2, where Jesus gave Himself.
The Bible directly states that the Father gave Jesus and Jesus gave Himself. Both are fully true.
That's why John 3:16 doesn't specify the Father, but simply says "God." All of God was in agreement as to this. Jesus gave Himself even as the Father gave Jesus.
You said: "And if the whole trinity is mentioned there, then it sounds even less logical. That is, Jesus gave himself to the court?"
Yes. The Bible says so in clear, direct language, which I quoted to you above.
You said: "3 That is, all three agreed with the sacrifice of Jesus? That is, everyone makes their own decision... So you confirm that the trinity cannot be the only God."
There's no logic connecting these two statements.
If all three Persons of the Trinity decide in agreement, that means nothing about them not being the only God.
You said: "By the way, it is interesting that you say that Jesus died on the cross to save us from sin. And otherwise, what would have happened?"
We would all experience what Isaiah experienced.
We would enter eternity and be instantly agonized by our sins -- torn apart from the inside out, tortured by the evil we each chose to do.
We call it hell.
Read Isaiah 6 to see it for yourself.
You said: "And by the way, why now, when humanity is now with its many sins, so many bad things that Christianity does not support, why won't Jesus save anyone now? Why did Jesus do this 2000 years ago, when people were much more religious?"
Again, as I said above, Jesus' sacrifice was once and for all. It covers everyone, past, present, and future.
Hebrews 7:27 states it directly: "Jesus has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself."
You said: "As for the Bible verses, we talked about another verse where Jesus sat on the right side of the father. I still don't understand, if they are one being, how can one and the same being sit on its right side?"
Read Revelation 22:1: "the throne of God and of the Lamb."
Do you see it?
One Throne -- not two. One singular Throne, belonging both to God and to the Lamb, Jesus.
One Throne, because they're one and the same God.
You said: "You said that this is a figure of speech, and gave an example that the prince sits on the right side of his father on the royal throne. But the king and his son are two separate individuals, and Jesus and his father are one entity, and it divided and sat on the right side? And where is the holy spirit and will he sit on the left side?"
In the Ancient Near East, everyone understood that the King's son sat on the right side of the king. They knew that the son had every qualification to be the king, just as his father did. To sit on the right side of the king is to be the king.
This was called "co-regency." Each could be referred to as the king. The son didn't have to wait until his father died to be the king. He could be called king even while his father was alive, because sitting at the king's right hand is the same as being the king. You can see this play out in the Bible, especially with David and his sons.
Therefore, when they heard Jesus say that He sits on the right hand of the Father in Heaven, everyone understood Jesus as claiming to be equal with the Father -- to be God. That's why it enraged His opponents so greatly to hear it.
Well, I tried to put the trinity in a better situation, but if you say that these are three personalities, then how can they be one?
You give the example of my body, but my body and I are two different things. My organs are not an entity, they do not have common characteristics, for example, as members of the trinity.
The eyes, stomach and mind are parts of one being, not separate individuals. They do not have consciousness separately from each other. And also, the desire to eat is a natural process, not the agreement of three personalities. It is an instinct.
And no, I completely read what you write, taking into account other publications, which I also have questions about, but not about that now.
And regarding your analogy with the businessman and sin: If God knows that many people will never hear or understand the Gospel, is it fair to demand that they "ask for forgiveness"?
Why is the process of forgiveness itself connected with the violent death of Jesus, if God is omnipotent and able to forgive "just like that", out of love?
And by the way, is it fair that God punished Adam and Eve? They didn't know what they were doing. As you said, when Adam and Eve were with God - they didn't know evil, but as soon as they took the forbidden fruit - they were punished. But does that look fair🤔? They had no experience with evil before, and there was only good in their lives. That is, the point is that they had no previous experience to distinguish good from evil.
And as for the latter, that is, Jesus simply used a metaphor 🤔 So you claim that Jesus did not mean that he would sit on the right hand of the father as a separate person? But still, why is there a second throne here, on the right hand? Who will sit on it, if not Jesus?
In the parable of the king and his son, on the right side sat the son who was equal to him, okay, but in the verse where Jesus said he would sit on the right side, is there also a throne? Which one is on the right side? Who will sit on it?
Hello Lilithun, you ask good questions, but this will be my last response today.
You said: “Well, I tried to put the trinity in a better situation, but if you say that these are three personalities, then how can they be one?”
Again, my friend, you aren’t reading what I’m writing.
I never said they were three personalities. That makes it sound like multiple personality disorder.
I said three Persons who share one being, one essence, one substance. There is some measure of distinction between the Persons, yet they are essentially one — not essentially three. This is why Jesus could say, “I and the Father are one.”
You said: “You give the example of my body, but my body and I are two different things.”
No, your body is you. You might not regard it as the whole of you, but it is certainly you.
If someone points to your body, they’re pointing at you. They aren’t pointing to anyone else.
If you show someone a picture of your body, you’re showing them a picture of you.
Your body is you.
You said: “My organs are not an entity, they do not have common characteristics, for example, as members of the trinity.”
They do share a few common characteristics.
For one thing, they’re all part of the same body.
They all work together to sustain your life.
If they ceased working, your physical life would cease.
All of these are common characteristics they share.
You said, “The eyes, stomach and mind are parts of one being, not separate individuals. They do not have consciousness separately from each other. And also, the desire to eat is a natural process, not the agreement of three personalities. It is an instinct.”
The desire to eat is certainly a natural process, yet your body can certainly disagree about it.
Again, your stomach can crave junk food. Your mind can resist, knowing it’s not good for you.
These two can battle it out for hours before you see which one is stronger, whether you eat or resist.
A similar struggle ensues when working out. Your body might ache, demanding that you quit. Yet your mind disagrees and forces you to continue on. But eventually your body complains so strenuously that you give in and stop for the day.
If there was no struggle between your mind and your body, you wouldn’t experience the need to force yourself to keep working out. There would be no resistance of any kind if your mind and body were in perfect agreement. The reason you have to force yourself to workout, or force yourself to keep working out even when it hurts, is that your body is staying stop while your mind is saying no.
You are one human, yet you have parts that disagree with each other. These parts are still fully you. You are one being, yet your mind and body can disagree.
It’s much the same with God. He is one Being. All His parts are still fully God.
You said: “And no, I completely read what you write. taking into account other publications, which I also have questions about, but not about that now.”
My friend, I really hope this is true.
You said: “And regarding your analogy with the businessman and sin: If God knows that many people will never hear or understand the Gospel, is it fair to demand that they "ask for forgiveness"?”
The Bible is clear that God takes each life’s situation into account. Acts 17:30: “God overlooked people’s ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him.”
Another verse says: “He is the Rock, His work is perfect; all His ways are just. A God of faithfulness without injustice, righteous and upright is He.” (Deuteronomy 32:4).
You can trust that God will do what is right.
The question for you is not what God will do with those who haven’t yet heard. God will take care of them rightly and fairly.
The question for you is what you will do, now that you have heard. Will you ask for your debts to be paid? Or will you keep your debts? Will you ask for your sins to be forgiven? Or will you keep them?
The choice is yours.
You said: “Why is the process of forgiveness itself connected with the violent death of Jesus, if God is omnipotent and able to forgive "just like that", out of love?”
God is loving.
God is also just.
Justice requires that crime be punished. A judge is not just if they let every criminal go free, with no penalty for their crimes. A society like that would have no rule of law. It would be horrific to live in. People could be as wicked and destructive as they wanted without fear of punishment.
Justice requires that crime is paid for.
If you want to use the financial debt illustration again, think of the bank. The billionaire stands ready to pay back all the debts.
Why not just have the bank forgive all the debts? Because then the bank is destroyed. Forgiving the loans doesn’t pay back the money.
To truly balance the books, the debts have to be paid back, not merely forgiven.
Jesus’ blood is the payment for your sins, the payment that satisfies justice.
The wages of sin is death. As far back as Genesis 3, God warned that death follows sin. Sin is atoned for by life — a life for a life.
Jesus gave His life in place of yours. He paid the life debt you owed.
You said. “And by the way, is it fair that God punished Adam and Eve? They didn't know what they were doing. As you said, when Adam and Eve were with God - they didn't know evil, but as soon as they took the forbidden fruit - they were punished. But does that look fair🤔? They had no experience with evil before, and there was only good in their lives. That is, the point is that they had no previous experience to distinguish good from evil.”
You don’t need previous experience to be warned away from something.
I don’t have to touch a high-voltage wire to be warned away from touching it. I don’t have to experience a body-frying shock to know that it’s something to stay away from.
God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed for success. He demonstrated Himself to be entirely good to them, giving them all they needed. He gave them clear warning. He set a clear boundary. He even warned them there would be elements of creation they would need to bring into submission — that would resist them at first, but they would need to kabash.
They had everything they needed.
Yet even after they sinned, God didn’t abandon them. God stayed with them. He’s still having regular conversations with them and their children in the following chapters.
Yes, their sins had consequences, as all sins do. But God didn’t give up on them.
You said: “And as for the latter, that is, Jesus simply used a metaphor 🤔 So you claim that Jesus did not mean that he would sit on the right hand of the father as a separate person? But still, why is there a second throne here, on the right hand? Who will sit on it, if not Jesus?”
Again, the depictions in Revelation of the actual Throne is one Throne, the singular throne of God and the Lamb, Jesus. It’s not two thrones.
Jesus wasn’t using a metaphor, so much as He was using the language of the people to communicate an idea in the way that they would best receive. They understood what it meant to sit at the right hand of the king.
A good translation should account for this, supplying the cultural knowledge the original audience possessed that we lack.
You said: “In the parable of the king and his son, on the right side sat the son who was equal to him, okay, but in the verse where Jesus said he would sit on the right side, is there also a throne? Which one is on the right side? Who will sit on it?”
It wasn’t a parable.
That was literally how kingship worked.
The point wasn’t the location, but rather that Jesus is equal to the Father. The point is that only someone equal to the king could sit at the king’s right hand. Therefore, for Jesus to claim to sit at the Father’s right hand, Jesus is claiming to be equal to the Father.
Well, I was going to go on chillanyway, so okay.😁
And I hope my comments don't annoy you, because I'm just asking a question.
So, regarding the trinity, an incomprehensible situation has now arisen, in which I seem to understand how it works, and at the same time I don't understand.
That is, taking into account all your examples (with my body) and your desire to explain the trinity, I have the impression that God and the persons of the trinity are different things, but they are one.
It looks as if there is one single God who uses three other persons - father, son, holy spirit, for his own plans. This coincides with the comparison that I am one person, but I have different organs that are responsible for certain things. That is, in the case of the trinity, God is some kind of one single entity that combines 3 more different persons? This is something that already looks a little like polytheism, for a person unfamiliar with Christianity.
That is, I am one person (the center of creation) and my organs are a smaller part of me that performs various functions.
Well, in the case of Adam and Eve, it is inappropriate to compare modern technology. Then in this case you can take children. Children will not know that you cannot touch high-voltage wires... Although no! Even if we take people from tribes that have no connection with modern technology - they will also not know that it is dangerous. Similarly, Adam and Eve did not have previous experience to understand that it is dangerous.
And as for Jesus, who will sit on the right side. How did the Jews understand this? Because it seems to me that if it says that someone should sit on the right side - then there must be a certain person there. How did the Jews understand this? Did they expect Jesus to sit on the right side, or did they simply understand that Jesus was equal to the father (although considering that they did not consider him the messiah, it is unlikely that they understood him correctly 🤨)
Just my opinion-
“Holy sport” means God’s consciousness in your heart— the indwelling Ruach HaKodesh (רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ), the divine breath that moves, guides, and transforms. It is not an entity, not separate from God, but His very presence actively working within you.
Ezekiel 36:26-27 declares:
“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you… And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My ways.”
This is the fire that fuels wisdom (Isaiah 11:2), the force that shapes destiny, the pulse of eternity within your soul (Kohelet 3:11). Ruach HaKodesh is not a being of its own—it is the breath of the Almighty within you, awakening, leading, and calling you to something greater.
Agreed it’s fun but I do worry about people putting too much stock in the answers without understanding the bias and limitations. Definitely not saying you’re advocating that.
Asking AI these questions is fun! But ultimately AI can only do what its instructions tell it to do. Those instructions contain bias. I say this as a conservative Evangelical who believes in the Trinity. But I have seen that if you ask different AI models to do the same thing you will get very different answers due to their programming.
Hello Justin,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I used Grok because it (supposedly) contains the least amount of baked-in bias.
The prompt above contains as little bias as possible while ensuring that it analyzes singularity, plurality, or Trinity.
If you don’t specify it to look in that direction, it will stay in the nice, easily understood categories, like being creator or being spirit.
You are absolutely correct. Grok likely relied on widely accepted Christian interpretations rather than strictly isolating scriptural statements without external doctrinal influence. If someone unfamiliar with AI does not specify these restrictions, the AI will typically produce an analysis that reflects common theological interpretations rather than a neutral, context-driven exegesis.
In contrast, a more neutral and precise way to prompt an AI for pure scriptural analysis would be:
“Analyze the 66 books of the Bible to determine what kind of being God is. Do not rely on theological traditions or doctrinal conclusions. Present only what the text explicitly states, examining key passages. If a passage is ambiguous, note it without assuming a particular doctrine. Your conclusion should strictly adhere to the scriptural evidence alone.”
This approach forces the AI to stay within the text without external bias.
Hello Adir,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Good points.
Yet the trouble with the prompt you proposed (as well as several others I tried) is that unless you specify exploring singularity, plurality and tri-unity, AI won’t go there. It will stay in the safe, easily understood qualities like being Creator and Spirit.
But when you do direct it to analyze singularity, plurality, or tri-unity, it lands at Trinity.
Maybe you could also ask it to assess the legitimacy of the apocrypha.
Interesting question! I wrote a prompt to test this:
"Analyze the Apocrypha, and compare its books to the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. Identify similarities and differences in subject matter, writing style, and theology. Use this data to arrive at one answer to the question: do these books of the Apocrypha belong in the Bible?"
Grok said this:
Analysis of the Apocrypha and Comparison with the 66 Books of the Old and New Testaments: Do These Books Belong in the Bible?
The Apocrypha refers to a collection of Jewish writings, primarily from the intertestamental period (circa 200 BC to 100 AD), not included in the Hebrew canon (Tanakh) but present in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) and accepted as canonical or deuterocanonical by some Christian traditions (e.g., Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy). The most recognized Apocryphal books are 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, Additions to Esther, Additions to Daniel (including Bel and the Dragon, Susanna, and the Prayer of Azariah), and 1 and 2 Esdras. This analysis compares these books to the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments (39 Old Testament, 27 New Testament) in terms of subject matter, writing style, and theology, then determines whether they belong in the Bible, based on the evidence.
Subject Matter
Similarities: The Apocrypha shares significant overlap with the Old Testament in subject matter, focusing on Jewish history, piety, wisdom, and divine providence during the Second Temple period. For instance, 1 and 2 Maccabees recount the Maccabean Revolt (167–160 BC) against the Seleucid Empire, paralleling Old Testament historical narratives like 1 and 2 Kings, which document Israel’s history and God’s interactions with His people. Tobit and Judith present stories of faithfulness and divine deliverance, akin to Old Testament narratives such as Esther or Daniel. Wisdom literature, like Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach, mirrors Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job, offering ethical teachings and reflections on God’s justice. Baruch and the Additions to Daniel emphasize prayer, repentance, and God’s sovereignty, resonating with Old Testament prophetic and poetic books (e.g., Isaiah, Psalms).
The Apocrypha does not directly overlap with New Testament subject matter, which centers on Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and the early church. However, some themes, such as divine intervention and moral instruction, appear in both, though the New Testament’s focus is Christological and ecclesial, not historical or wisdom-oriented like much of the Apocrypha.
Differences: The Apocrypha lacks the messianic prophecies central to the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah 7:14, 9:6-7, 53:3-12, Micah 5:2) or their fulfillment in the New Testament. It also includes unique historical events (e.g., the Maccabean Revolt) not covered in the canonical Old Testament, which ends with Malachi (circa 400 BC). Some Apocryphal books, like Tobit and Judith, contain legendary or fictional elements (e.g., Tobit’s angelic guidance, Judith’s beheading of Holofernes), contrasting with the Old Testament’s historical focus, though some Old Testament narratives (e.g., Jonah) are also debated for historicity. The Apocrypha does not address the New Covenant or Jesus, focusing instead on Second Temple Judaism’s struggles, unlike the New Testament’s gospel-centric narrative.
Writing Style
Similarities: The Apocrypha often mirrors the Old Testament’s writing styles, particularly its historical, prophetic, and wisdom genres. 1 and 2 Maccabees employ a narrative style similar to 1 and 2 Kings or Chronicles, with detailed accounts and occasional divine commentary. Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach use poetic and didactic prose akin to Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, with aphorisms and ethical teachings. Baruch and the Additions to Daniel adopt a prayerful, lyrical style reminiscent of Psalms or Lamentations. Like the Old Testament, the Apocrypha is written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, reflecting Second Temple Jewish literary conventions.
The New Testament, written primarily in Greek, uses a different style—narrative (Gospels), epistolary (Pauline and general letters), and apocalyptic (Revelation)—focused on eyewitness accounts, theological exposition, and future prophecy, not evident in the Apocrypha.
Differences: The Apocrypha’s style lacks the direct prophetic voice of Old Testament prophets like Isaiah or Jeremiah, who claim divine inspiration with phrases like “Thus says the Lord.” Instead, it often presents wisdom or history without explicit divine authorship claims, except in prayers or hymns (e.g., Baruch 1:15-3:8). The Apocrypha’s Greek-influenced texts (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees) show Hellenistic stylistic elements, such as philosophical rhetoric, absent from the predominantly Hebrew Old Testament. Compared to the New Testament’s concise, eyewitness-driven narratives (e.g., Mark) or doctrinal letters (e.g., Romans), the Apocrypha’s style is more expansive, literary, and less focused on a singular redemptive event.
Theology
Similarities: The Apocrypha aligns with Old Testament theology in its monotheism, emphasizing Yahweh as the one God (e.g., Wisdom 13:1-9, Sirach 1:1-10). It upholds God’s providence, justice, and covenant with Israel (e.g., 2 Maccabees 7:9, Tobit 13:1-18). Like the Old Testament, it values prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and obedience to the Law (e.g., Tobit 12:8-9, Sirach 35:1-5). The Apocrypha also shares the Old Testament’s expectation of resurrection and judgment, as seen in 2 Maccabees 7:9, “The King of the world will raise us up to live again forever,” paralleling Daniel 12:2.
The Apocrypha’s theology does not conflict with the New Testament’s monotheism or moral teachings, but it lacks the New Testament’s focus on Jesus as the Messiah, atonement through his death, or the Holy Spirit’s role, focusing instead on pre-Christian Jewish piety.
Differences: The Apocrypha introduces theological elements absent from or divergent in the Old Testament. For example, 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 suggests prayers and sacrifices for the dead to atone for sins, a concept not found in the Old Testament but later developed in some Christian traditions. Tobit 12:12 identifies the angel Raphael, implying a developed angelology not central to the Old Testament. Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20 mentions a preexistent soul, hinting at Platonic influence, unlike the Old Testament’s focus on bodily resurrection. The Apocrypha does not articulate a triune God or Christology, contrasting with the New Testament’s central claims (e.g., John 1:1, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). It also lacks the Old Testament’s explicit messianic prophecies fulfilled in Jesus, focusing on historical events rather than eschatological fulfillment.
Conclusion: Do These Books of the Apocrypha Belong in the Bible?
Based on the evidence, the books of the Apocrypha do not belong in the Bible as defined by the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. While they share similarities in subject matter (Jewish history, piety, wisdom), writing style (narrative, poetic, didactic), and theology (monotheism, providence, resurrection), they diverge significantly in their lack of messianic fulfillment, unique theological developments (e.g., prayers for the dead), and absence of direct prophetic or Christological connection to the canonical narrative.
The Old Testament’s canon, as finalized by the Jewish council at Jamnia (circa 90 AD), excluded these books, focusing on texts written in Hebrew and tied to Israel’s covenant history before the intertestamental period. The New Testament, written after the Apocrypha, builds on the Old Testament’s prophetic framework, fulfilled in Jesus, without referencing or quoting the Apocrypha as scripture (unlike frequent Old Testament citations, e.g., Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14). The Apocrypha’s historical and wisdom value is evident, but its theological and canonical distinctiveness—lacking the redemptive focus of the Testaments—indicates it does not fit as an integral part of the biblical canon. Thus, the most defensible conclusion, based on subject matter, style, and theology, is that these books do not belong in the Bible.
On an unrelated note, how should I understand the biblical teaching on divorce in relation to my own case? Without it, I would have never happened, as both of my parents have had at least one previous marriage.
I second what Lucas said.
Anything meant for evil, God can turn around and use for good.
Even if the divorce was bad, God can bring good about through it. God is not a cruel judge who lashes us with pain when we do bad stuff.
Even when we do bad, God still loves us. God still brings good about, like the birth of children. Often, it's good gifts like children that bring us back to Him.
It's His kindness that leads us to repentance.
You are a kindness to your parents, a gift to them, a sign to them that God loves them, even in the midst of all they've done that's bad.
If you're here, God always knew you wanted be here because He isn't subject to time and He created and accounted for you in a way that is impossible to understand since He is all-knowing. God uses evil (that satan and his helpers influenced) to bring about good. My mother was divorced as well. Satan doesn't want either of us to exist (heck, I don't think he wants any humans to exist, but especially believers) - but God is ultimately the one who wants us here; so, we're here!