Religious Prejudice

[Ebionite]

The idea I'm putting forward is we can't assume that Christianity appears before the temple is destroyed by Titus.

The problem with that is that James the Just was in the temple at the time that Paul was teaching Christian doctrine.

In Psalm 35 David does not wish to be violent, but he struggles. He is a fighter. He has to put away his violent tendencies; but this is a common struggle for men.

How would David put away any violent tendencies by asking his deity to fight against his enemies?

Psalm 69 is not only about David but is for all. He is ashamed for any of a number of reasons, but people are scorning him when he is trying to do right. Instead of raging he is crying.

No, Psalm 51 is about David's sin. The gall and vinegar is a clear reference to the crucifixion, and according to Peter, Psalm 69 relates to Judas. Verse 4 is a match for Judas returning the silver.

They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away.
Psalms 69:4

 

[Brickjectivity]

The problem with that is that James the Just was in the temple at the time that Paul was teaching Christian doctrine.

We cannot assume this, and the preeminent event is the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem. This is the event so emotional and stressful.

How would David put away any violent tendencies by asking his deity to fight against his enemies?

Its the same concept as waiting upon the LORD. The LORD fights differently. Physical warfare is inept leading to more fighting.

No, Psalm 51 is about David's sin. The gall and vinegar is a clear reference to the crucifixion, and according to Peter, Psalm 69 relates to Judas. Verse 4 is a match for Judas returning the silver.

They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away.
Psalms 69:4

Isn't it simpler to think that Jesus crucifixion is patterned to match the Psalm which comes long before rather than claiming the Psalm is a reference to something which comes later?

 

[Ebionite]

We cannot assume this, and the preeminent event is the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem. This is the event so emotional and stressful.

The death of James the Just was arguably the defining event leading up to the destruction of the second temple. Paul was James' ideological adversary, so for context the appropriate place to look is at the development of the religious influence of James and Paul. The Council of Jerusalem is a reasonable starting point for this, since circumcision restricted for the development of Herodian political influence. The Herodian dynasty was nominally Jewish, so avoiding the requirement of circumcision made it easier for the dynasty to extend its influence through marriage.

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Acts 15:19-21

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also.
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed [to be somewhat] in conference added nothing to me:
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Only [they would] that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
Galatians 2:1-10

And I will feed the flock of slaughter, [even] you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock.
Zechariah 11:7

Physical warfare is inept leading to more fighting.

Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This [is] the word of YHWH unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith YHWH of armies.
Zechariah 4:6

Isn't it simpler to think that Jesus crucifixion is patterned to match the Psalm which comes long before rather than claiming the Psalm is a reference to something which comes later?

The Psalms were written at a time when the gospel accounts of the crucifixion did not yet exist, so interpretation should begin without them. The relevant semantic connections between the Psalms and the later writings are witness and fulfilment.

But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
John 15:25-27

Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, [even] the sure mercies of David.
Behold, I have given him [for] a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
Isaiah 55:3-4

But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
Matthew 26:54-56

 

[Brickjectivity]

The death of James the Just was arguably the defining event leading up to the destruction of the second temple. Paul was James' ideological adversary, so for context the appropriate place to look is at the development of the religious influence of James and Paul.

James never mentions Paul or Jesus. There could be some differences between James and Paul, yes. We don't have the letters Paul received and don't know if he is one man or several, and there are multiple letters but only the ones he mailed out. The context has to be interpolated. James is only one letter so has self consistency, but like Paul he presumes we are already familiar with many, many things that are unspecified. It is not as if they wrote knowing that we would be snooping just on their replies. They aren't writing treatises, textbooks, manuals. They are writing to people that already know them and already know their particular team lingo. We can test the idea that they might be adversaries in ideology, however both have said that its not good to argue. They therefore must accept some variances with one another and choose to overlook these. Paul tries to make arguments for the atonement of the uncircumcised. James argues not to exclude them (the poor) when they appear.

The Council of Jerusalem is a reasonable starting point for this, since circumcision restricted for the development of Herodian political influence. The Herodian dynasty was nominally Jewish, so avoiding the requirement of circumcision made it easier for the dynasty to extend its influence through marriage.

That council appears in a book called Acts, not in the letters of Paul (maybe Paul alludes to it) or in James. We cannot assume that Christianity precedes the destruction of the temple, because remember that Romans in this time period are fond of creating new histories for themselves and because of the horror of Titus destructions (plural). Perhaps someone is creating history in writing about the Jerusalem Council in Acts. I could excuse them for it under the circumstances. My mom taught me never to lie, however if my culture of love and hope had been vanquished by a bunch of haters, my mom enslaved or killed and my dad crucified, I might not think a little lie was so bad in order to save that culture, its essence. This is why I bring up the horror and stress of the destruction of the temple. We can't assume everybody is operating normally around this time or that they don't want to create a new history. This is a horrible thing, and every person who lives in this culture is going to wonder how it could happen what with everyone following the torah. They must be wondering if peace is a failure or if Abraham's blessing could fail. Everything is up in the air, like a historical bomb. You can't trust anything around this event.

It is back to basics. I think we have to rediscover whatever principles are put forward in the canon and not just accept what any writer says. I think it cannot be presumed that the given time table is accurate.

 

[Ebionite]

James never mentions Paul or Jesus.

Not by name, but it's clear that James refers to Paul here, arguing against Paul's doctrine of faith:

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
James 2:20-26

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:1-5

He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Galatians 3:5-11

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Romans 1:17

Behold, his soul [which] is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, [he is] a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and [is] as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people:
Habakkuk 2:4-5

We can test the idea that they might be adversaries in ideology, however both have said that its not good to argue.

Do you have a reference for that?

We cannot assume that Christianity precedes the destruction of the temple, because remember that Romans in this time period are fond of creating new histories for themselves and because of the horror of Titus destructions (plural).

Michael Molnar's astrological solution for the star of Bethlehem puts the birth of the Messiah at around 6BCE, and I'm sure you won't find a better explanation for the facts than what he presents.

This is a horrible thing, and every person who lives in this culture is going to wonder how it could happen what with everyone following the torah. They must be wondering if peace is a failure or if Abraham's blessing could fail. Everything is up in the air, like a historical bomb. You can't trust anything around this event.

If everyone was following the Torah, then why was James the Just killed by the priesthood?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not by name, but it's clear that James refers to Paul here, arguing against Paul's doctrine of faith:

Its clear many people think this is Paul's doctrine. I think Paul and James are not at odds. Its just that James is easier to understand.
Paul writes Koine: a language which renders both belief and faithfulness with a single word. That, plus other problems, causes confusion.

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:1-5

Abraham is not justified by accomplishments, no; but he also can't merely believe. Its clear in Genesis 15 (the cited text) Abraham has to show he is committed. For example he is tested. Even in the cited passage of Genesis 15 Abraham keeps asking "But how can I know this will happen?" so he doesn't completely believe. It is not his belief but his willingness to do what is asked and to make the covenant. He isn't convinced, but he's still going to go through with it. Do you see the difference in what I am talking about? If I see someone digging that is evidence that they intend to get a canal made; and this is better than words even though it isn't a completed canal. This is the faithfulness Paul is talking about, not mere words. In this he and James seem to be in harmony.

So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Galatians 3:5-11

Sometimes we are deceived by the translation process, and I think you will appreciate this. Galatians 3:5 is quoting Habakkuk where the context is clearly talking about faithfulness and also can be seen using a lexicon. Habakkuk is not talking about belief at all, and so neither is Galations 3:5. Therefore Galatians is also talking about the same thing: not belief but faithfulness. Although I dislike this book: Galatians. I just don't like the arguments in it; this bit is in concert with James but not easily understood.

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Romans 1:17

Quotes the same passage in Habakkuk, mistranslates faithfulness to belief. Same problem.

Do you have a reference for that?

• [2Co 10:4-5 NIV] 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
• [1Co 8:11 NIV] 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.
• [1Co 2:3-5 NIV] 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God's power.
• [Jas 4:2 NIV] 2 You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God.
• [Jas 3:2 NIV] 2 We all stumble in many ways. Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check.
• [Jas 1:19 NIV] 19 My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,

Michael Molnar's astrological solution for the star of Bethlehem puts the birth of the Messiah at around 6BCE, and I'm sure you won't find a better explanation for the facts than what he presents.

Faithfulness is the evidence of things not seen. When you find that you have found a star worth following, but I thank you for sharing this excitement you have. I wish that I were a greater reader, but I am not a great reader.

If everyone was following the Torah, then why was James the Just killed by the priesthood?

I think the priests around that time are controversial, and not everyone trusts them. They are politically corrupt at that time. I think its unclear to me what is wrong with the priests other than their contamination by Roman politicians; however what I am talking about is the unhistorical assumption that Christianity arises before the fall of the temple. I think we have to look at it both ways. We must look at the story but also look at the foundations. Were James arguments correct? Were Paul's? Did Jesus have a valid argument? Things like that; because the stories and the miracles are not a means of establishing anything. We cannot truly prove things.

 

[Ebionite]

I think Paul and James are not at odds.

Paul ended up before the Sanhedrin and then before Agrippa to answer for the riot that occurred as a result of James putting him to the test over his observance of the law. Honestly, it's unrealistic to think that Paul's doctrine relating to the law isn't going to be a point of contention between them.

Even in the cited passage of Genesis 15 Abraham keeps asking "But how can I know this will happen?" so he doesn't completely believe.

And he believed in YHWH; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
And he said unto him, I [am] YHWH that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
And he said, Lord YHWH, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?
And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.
And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.
And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
Genesis 15:6-12

The lesson that Christianity missed here is the misfortune that befalls Abram after he kills the animals. It's similar to the misfortune that befalls Job after he makes burned offerings for the potential sin of his children.

Do you see the difference in what I am talking about?

I see that Abram believed in YHWH, but regarding the land he was looking for confirmation.

Galatians 3:5 is quoting Habakkuk where the context is clearly talking about faithfulness and also can be seen using a lexicon. Habakkuk is not talking about belief at all, and so neither is Galations 3:5.

In Habakkuk the context is about the faithfulness of the proud man. The vain man that James refers to is obviously quite similar.

For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
2 Corinthians 11:5

We cannot truly prove things.

Yes, knowledge and belief are different things. In Isaiah 53 justification by knowledge is mentioned, which would be the same as justification by faith in the truth, i.e. true religion. Belief can become knowledge after validation, this is part of the fulfilment of the law.

 

[AnthonyGiarrusso]

Religious prejudice is really a "Double-edge sword", it can be beneficial, but it can ruin yourself too.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Looking at religious prejudice in the context of the betrayal by Judas Iscariot leads to insight about the crucifixion and fulfilment.

I'm not following you. What does the betrayal by Judas have to do with religious prejudice?

 

[Ebionite]

I'm not following you. What does the betrayal by Judas have to do with religious prejudice?

The connection is the fulfilment of the law. In this context law is Torah, which means teaching/instruction, so fulfilment implies that the student has acquired knowledge. Acts 1:16 leads to Psalm 69 and 109, John 15:25 leads to Psalm 69 and 109, and to Psalm 35.

Men [and] brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Acts 1:16

But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
John 15:25

 

[Ebionite]

Religious prejudice is really a "Double-edge sword", it can be beneficial, but it can ruin yourself too.

Can you describe a case where it would be beneficial?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The connection is the fulfilment of the law. In this context law is Torah, which means teaching/instruction, so fulfilment implies that the student has acquired knowledge. Acts 1:16 leads to Psalm 69 and 109, John 15:25 leads to Psalm 69 and 109, and to Psalm 35.

Men [and] brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
Acts 1:16

But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
John 15:25

You totally didn't answer my question. None of the above shows any relationship between Judas' betrayal and religious prejudice. Indeed your comments don't even mention religious prejudice.

 

[Ebionite]

You totally didn't answer my question. None of the above shows any relationship between Judas' betrayal and religious prejudice. Indeed your comments don't even mention religious prejudice.

What does "hated me without a cause" mean?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What does "hated me without a cause" mean?

It means you hate someone on instinct, rather than having a reason that you are conscious of.

Religious prejudice means that you have a reason for your hatred -- their religious beliefs.

 

[Ebionite]

It means you hate someone on instinct, rather than having a reason that you are conscious of.

Instinct is a cause, especially when it's about survival.

Religious prejudice means that you have a reason for your hatred -- their religious beliefs.

No, prejudice means that you don't look at a situation objectively.

prejudice​

noun
1. preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience

 

[Brickjectivity]

Paul ended up before the Sanhedrin and then before Agrippa to answer for the riot that occurred as a result of James putting him to the test over his observance of the law. Honestly, it's unrealistic to think that Paul's doctrine relating to the law isn't going to be a point of contention between them.

By what reasoning do you come to this scenario or by what resources?

And he believed in YHWH; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
And he said unto him, I [am] YHWH that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
And he said, Lord YHWH, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?
And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.
And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.
And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
Genesis 15:6-12

The lesson that Christianity missed here is the misfortune that befalls Abram after he kills the animals. It's similar to the misfortune that befalls Job after he makes burned offerings for the potential sin of his children.

It seems that I don't know what you are talking about when you talk about misfortune coming to Abraham due from killing animals. It may be story outside of my hearing.

I see that Abram believed in YHWH, but regarding the land he was looking for confirmation.

I think we do not agree on this.

In Habakkuk the context is about the faithfulness of the proud man. The vain man that James refers to is obviously quite similar.

For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.
2 Corinthians 11:5

It seems that Habakkuk talked about how merciless the Babylonians were. They were puffed up, but they were only going to destroy the unfaithful. Habakkuk claimed that the Babylonians had invaded Israel because of some unfaithful people there. Habakkuk 2:4 "See, the enemy is puffed up; his desires are not upright--but the righteous person will live by his faithfulness--" (NIV) It seems to contrast the Babylonian pillager who was temporary with the faithful who was a survivor.

Yes, knowledge and belief are different things. In Isaiah 53 justification by knowledge is mentioned, which would be the same as justification by faith in the truth, i.e. true religion. Belief can become knowledge after validation, this is part of the fulfilment of the law.

I'm talking about faithfulness as something like evidence versus belief which is none, and this is the entire reason for this digression. So the dichotomy is not belief vs works, and Paul and James may not be opposed.

 

[Ebionite]

By what reasoning do you come to this scenario or by what resources?

Acts 21, 22, 26.

It seems that I don't know what you are talking about when you talk about misfortune coming to Abraham due from killing animals. It may be story outside of my hearing.

Genesis 15, "a horror of great darkness"

 

[Ebionite]

I'm talking about faithfulness as something like evidence versus belief which is none, and this is the entire reason for this digression. So the dichotomy is not belief vs works, and Paul and James may not be opposed.

Paul vs David

As well as James' opposing view of Abraham's belief[אמן] of Genesis 15:6, which connects the vain man of James 2:20 with the proud man of Habakkuk 2:5, there's a problem with Paul using David to support his argument that all men are liars. The parable of 2 Samuel 12 describes David's sin as greed or lack of pity, not honesty as is implied by Paul in Romans 3. Also, David's role was as a witness, which would make no sense if he was dishonest.


God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Romans 3:4

Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done [this] evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, [and] be clear when thou judgest.
Psalms 51:4

Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, [even] the sure mercies of David.
Behold, I have given him [for] a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
Isaiah 55:3-4

 

[Brickjectivity]

As well as James' opposing view of Abraham's belief[אמן] of Genesis 15:6, which connects the vain man of James 2:20 with the proud man of Habakkuk 2:5,

I still think the proud man in Habakkuk refers to the babylonian invaders, because that info comes from previous chapters of the short book. James is free to oppose Abraham's views as long as James does not contradict the law. To say it connects the proud man seems tenuous or perhaps presumptuous. I will keep it in mind though, for it takes me time to consider new ideas.

there's a problem with Paul using David to support his argument that all men are liars.

I think he isn't arguing that all men are liars. He is saying not to boast about being more correct than another person. This is his interpretation of the psalmist I think. Its similar to what James says about walking in the light and being given birth by the father of heavenly lights who does not change like shifting shadows. Those shifting shadows come from us or some source of error such as general confusion.

The parable of 2 Samuel 12 describes David's sin as greed or lack of pity, not honesty as is implied by Paul in Romans 3. Also, David's role was as a witness, which would make no sense if he was dishonest.

In the law they are told not to lie to one another. I am unsure in what situations this is applied but definitely in matters pertaining to justice, in finance, contracts and interpretation of the law. For me this is why midrash is explicitly called midrash to keep each other from accidentally being deceived in matters of import. Its loosely similar to the modern global practice of stating whether a book is fictional or prose.

In David's case it would be a sin for a witness to lie, but this is not what you are suggesting or me either.

 

[Ebionite]

I think he isn't arguing that all men are liars.

It's the starting point for his doctrine of original sin, which he expresses in Romans 5.

Even if that wasn't his argument it remains that he is associating dishonesty with David.

The Lying Spouter and enemy epithets of the community at Qumran were most probably directed at Paul, he apparently responds to with:

Gal 4:16 - Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?