This is the finale of a three-part series; look at the previous articles for context.

However, you do not need to read them to understand the arguments made in this article, i.e., the explanation of how Galatians 1 and 1 Corinthians 15 do not contradict.

Now, here is the problem with Breaker.

So, the “received” in this chapter isn't talking about Romans 5:11 (see the previous), but even if it was.

Romans 5:11

“And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.”

How does this prove anything for Breaker?

His entire argument that it is connected is dependent on the Greek, and the Greek uses different words.

See the previous article.

The English Text is clear that those verses aren't related.

If the chapter is talking about this verse, which it isn't, again how does that prove anything?

Does Romans 5:11 say we have now received the atonement by trusting in the blood of Jesus Christ with all of our heart?

Paul isn't telling you how to receive it beyond the fact they did receive it.

You could point to Romans 3:25, and say well that verse says it.

That's not a half bad argument, but 1 Corinthians 15 specifically says what they and Paul received saved them, so logically we can understand if the blood of Jesus Christ is our object of faith by going down the pipeline and seeing what they and Paul received.

Paul says he received this, and the Corinthians received this and were saved by it.

Let's look at Paul's conversion in Acts 9.

And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Christ never once told him about the gospel? As we know Breaker loves quoting Acts 20:27

“For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.”

How did Paul hear the gospel?

We first see Paul as Saul in Acts 7.

Stephen is preaching his famous sermon, but he never mentions the gospel as the gospel was told to Paul.

12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

20Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

21Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;

22And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

23But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

24And they glorified God in me.

Galatians 2:1 to 6

This is actually a scholar academic issue—whether 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 was pre-Paul... The academics think for whatever reason it was a creed before him.

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.

So, Paul received the gospel by the revelation of Jesus Christ. And he taught others it, but he himself was revealed it, i.e., the encounter, not specific words being said.

What happened in Acts 9?

might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Paul says at this moment, he received it.

Jesus never told him anything about the gospel, but he received the death including the blood atonement, the burial and resurrection.

What did he do? Acts 9:6

“And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.”

He believed in Jesus's death, burial and resurrection and called Jesus Lord, receiving the gospel which saves sinners.

But let's go to the other testimony of what Christ said to Paul.

Acts 26.

At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

14And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

15And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

16But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

17Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

18To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Nowhere Christ talks of the death, burial and resurrection, so what Paul received can't be specifically the text from 14 to 18, and it couldn't be that anyway, because why would God make an unsaved man a minister? Ananias calls him Brother in Verse 17, he received the gospel in his conversion, however there is no gospel in any recounting of Paul's conversion.

Let's re-look at Acts 9:6.

The whole counsel of God.

“And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.”

What Christ said in Acts 26 obviously is after the first Lord and in verse 6,

so Paul was saved in verse 6 and not 5, why does that matter?

Because in verse 6 he recognizes the deity of Christ specifically.

Logically, he received the gospel by believing the gospel and calling Jesus Lord.

Let's look at another testimony, Acts 22. It still doesn't talk about the gospel he received.

7 to 10 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

8And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

9And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

10And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

Paul even says in Galatians 2:1-2 that Christ gave him the gospel here.

1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2And 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.

Here lies the problem, Paul and the Corinthians are saved by the gospel and Paul received his in his conversion, but nowhere in his conversion is the gospel gone over by Christ.

This is the answer.

Let's look at what Romans 10:9 says.

Romans 10:9

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

Have you ever noticed the resurrection is singled out? Why is that? Paul says Romans 2:16

“In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”

Because Romans 10:9 is describing how he himself was saved.

He saw the light who said he was Jesus, which Paul counts as proof for the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:8, believed that he resurrected (and so died, and was buried including those two parts) he then called him Lord.

Romans 10:9

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

If Jesus Christ appeared to the Apostle Paul, he was obviously resurrection, and so if he resurrected, then he was dead, and buried.

So, Romans 10:9 resurrection clause includes the entire gospel.

Martin Luther himself taught this in his Romans 10 commentary:

"In this connection it is surprising that no mention is made of faith in Christ's death. But all this belongs to faith in Christ's resurrection, which is not possible without a belief in His death, for he must have died who is raised from the dead."

That is the same reason, Romans 3:25 singles out the blood. If Jesus died, which he had to for his blood to be shed, then he was buried and resurrected.

Romans 3:25

“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;”

This is specifically about the death and I can prove that to you.

Colossians 1:20

“And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.”

Philippians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The blood is linked to the cross, which is Christ's death.

So, Paul saying through faith in his blood means faith in his death, and if Christ died, he had to be buried and resurrected, Christ can't save anyone being dead. Watch According to the Scriptures video.

So, Romans 3:25 is just saying you have to believe in the gospel like Romans 10:9's resurrection is the gospel.

For, if Christ died, he had to be buried and resurrected. And if he rose again from the dead, he had to die and be buried.

Let's say the verse once more. Acts 20:27 “For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.”

You gotta declare the whole counsel, Robert Breaker is right.

It's not enough to single out a verse like Romans 3:25, Romans 3 or any verse in particular because to quote scripture

Isaiah 28:10 “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:”

Here is the problem, and this is the problem.

Paul specifically says this in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 1 that Paul preached this, and they received it

the second he says that they were saved by this and they stood in it

Verse 3 Paul says he also received it

In Galatians, Paul does a direct reference to how he received this which is on the road to Damascus, the problem is the road to Damascus has nothing containing an actual gospel but that's where Paul according to himself in Galatians received it

So, Paul had to receive something that saved the Corinthians there and that he himself specifically received right there in Damascus and precept upon precept

"What about Romans 10:14? How does that fit Jesus?"

Romans 10:14 to 17

14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Paul heard the word of God, the reply "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

He then believed in the gospel, the death, burial and resurrection then called Jesus Lord.

Christ was a literal preacher, and a Rabbi, The Rabbi.

That solves another problem. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 says "paralambano". paralambano is the Greek translation for the Hebrew root קבל (Kibal / Kabal, which means to receive or accept tradition.

So, some scholars have said 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and Galatians 1 contradict each other because Paul in Galatians said he received it by no other man, but 1 Corinthians word paralambano literally means to receive by a man.

How do we harmonize this?

Jesus Christ is 100% God, and 100% man, and he was The Master, He was the Rabbi.

Christ was called regularly in the gospels, a rabbi/master.

Paul did receive and accept tradition as he was taught it by the Master.

Galatians 1:12

“For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Paul purposely contrasts being taught by a man (who in the Jewish context is a rabbi), versus the Rabbi.

Paul's gospel is our gospel, the way you receive Paul's gospel is the same way the Apostle Paul received it.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Acts 9, Acts 7, Romans 10, 2 Timothy 2:22 viewed in conjunction with Matthew 12:34 and every verse in the synoptic gospels describing Christ speaking on the heart in that sequence, they're all the whole counsel of God and they all point to two things.

Two conditions

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus

and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead

thou shalt be saved.

Let's recap:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 says that the Corinthians

1. received the gospel

2. stand in the gospel

3. saved by the gospel

4. Paul received the gospel

5. The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection

Galatians 1:13 to 16 talks about how Paul Received that gospel which he says was at the Road to Damascus

The problem there lies if you look at every single Acts testimony of the Road of Damascus

So, how did he receive the gospel “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” When Christ never told him specifically about the death, burial and resurrection?

No man taught him the gospel.

The answer is that he received the gospel when he by revelation saw and believed Jesus Christ resurrected (and so, died and was buried), as he saw him by revelation and he then called Jesus Lord, which fits the two conditions of Romans 10:9

Romans 10:9 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

Let me answer pre-emptive objections

"There is no explicit Romans 10:9 two conditions stated in any testimony of Paul or any Acts recounting of Damascus"

Correct, there also isn't any gospel stated in what Christ said to Paul, and it is hammered time and time again in scripture that what Paul received in the road to Damascus was unique to Paul.

Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

2 Timothy 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Jesus never told him in the gospel in any recounting of the conversion.

What makes Paul any different than any other witness to the glorified resurrected Jesus?

If we are to assume "the revelation of Jesus Christ" is Paul just seeing Jesus resurrected (if he saw a light and heard a voice saying he was Jesus) and figuring out he was dead, and buried, and rose again, then there is absolutely no reason for Paul's gospel to be Paul's gospel versus any direct witness of the resurrection.

There was no specific "I died buried and rose again to save souls" Paul wasn't told anything.

Which again leads us to this problem. Paul received the gospel despite not being told the gospel, and if you discount Romans 10:9 being very much own Paul's experience, Paul's new gospel falls apart. Paul didn't receive anything, and him receiving a new gospel by revelation of Jesus Christ is nonsensical because what makes him any different than oh I don't know And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

They all see a resurrected Christ, Paul says he's a part of the witnesses, 1 Corinthians 15:8. Neither of them was told of the gospel by Christ. Which leads us to three answers.

1. Either Acts contradicts Paul's epistles, which scholars absolutely agree on.

If you want to reject the Bible, you can look at Bart Ehrman's "Did Acts Lie About Paul? Bart Ehrman Exposes the Problem"

I'll put in the description for any God rejecters.

If you want Acts 9 vs 22 not actually contradicting, I'll put a Dr. Ruckman video explaining why it doesn't.

2. Ignoring the problem and putting your head in the sand.

3. How Paul received fits exactly Romans 10:9.

Romans 10:9

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

He believed that God raised him from dead, and he so was dead, and buried, which fits all three parts of the gospel and he then called Jesus Lord.

Meaning, how Paul received the gospel is by believing in the gospel, and calling the Lord Jesus

He has to receive the gospel, but nowhere in Acts does he receive it.

And, this actually harmonizes the "Biblical contradiction" of paralambano being used to receive tradition.

Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, and the Master. Paul did receive it from the Master.

"Acts is a contradictory story."

Again, if you do not believe the Bible is inerrant, my argument falls apart but that is reliant on you believing the Bible isn't inerrant.

"You're denying the blood"

The blood is linked to the cross

Colossians 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Philippians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

You cannot have faith in the blood, without having faith in his death, and burial and resurrection and the way to receive that is by saying the Lord Jesus.

“For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.”

I went to Brother Ed for feedback on this, and he gave me two things.

First, I'd like to thank my Brother, “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.”

After watching this video, please watch his studies.

Dr. Ruckman said he was missing for a while, he could've been taught it there

And my brother Ed personally thought that Ananias told him the gospel.

I was praying on this, and the Lord gave me Galatians 1:15.

Paul reveals when he received his gospel.

11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Verse 15 directly tells us when he received his gospel, and this maps over to Acts 26

14And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

15And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

16But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

17Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

18To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

For the Lord to have him preach among the heathen, he first must not be a heathen, so we know when and how Paul received his gospel.

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

So, Galatians “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,” proves that Paul was only called after he was saved, and that the revelation by Jesus Christ happened specifically right there in Acts 9:6, Acts 22:10.

There is a second witness also, that the Lord showed me.

Galatians 2:1 to 2

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.

That by revelation is a direct reference to Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

So, we know specifically that Paul revealed to them the gospel, including it being revealed on the road to Damascus. But, here's the specific thing that is very important.

"which I preach among the Gentiles" is a direct reference to Christ calling him to preach to Gentiles

Acts 26

But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

Meaning we have a second witness that Christ did not directly tell him the gospel on the road to Damascus, as Paul directly references what Christ did tell him and what he didn't.

"But doesn't Acts 26 remove him calling Jesus Lord?"

It does, but never interpret an obscure verse in light of a clear one.

Acts 9 and Acts 22 definitively clarify that he confessed to Christ's deity and then Christ answered him.

Anyway, Paul couldn't have been purely saved by Christ Jesus originally saying "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me" Paul didn't know he was outside of calling him Lord. Paul only knows he's Jesus after he answers.

Romans 10:17 “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

Now, finally the scholarly pre-emptive argument.

I want to go more in-depth for this, as I believe it's needed.

"The word received used in 1 Corinthians 15 is actually the direct translated Greek word for oral Jewish transmission from a teacher"

First, that's correcting the KJB.

Secondly, the gospel was revealed to him by the greatest Jew to ever be born and to ever exist (I do not say that as a Jew hater) the Lord Jesus Christ as he appeared to him and that is when Paul received the gospel. Christ is called Rabbi in Matthew. Matthew 23:8 “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.”

That's an indirect oral transmission, i.e., the King James Bible is right and perfect to say he received it as he sure he did.

That would be an oral Jewish transmission."

"Paul heard the preaching by a Christian he killed, and just believed and was saved."

This can't be true. Paul specifically said Galatians 1:12 “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

As previously stated, we know specifically that is linked to when Christ appeared.

Peter in Acts 2, if you go through Acts 7 with Stephen, the Eunuch conversion, neither of them preaches the death, burial and resurrection

Acts 7:52

“Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:”

Acts 8:32 to 33

The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

We don't even know the specifics of Philip's preaching, but we do know is whatever he preached wasn't Paul's gospel, as only Paul received and Galatians 1:12

“For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Even if you say other men were told that, which would be unbiblical as Paul's gospel is literally his gospel.

Paul already said 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.

Jerusalem was the capital of Christianity back then and he by revelation, i.e., it was revealed only to Paul...

And, the Corinthians in the church age 1 Corinthians 15:2 are saved by this.

Sure the folks in Acts got saved, but Acts is a transitional book, none of them knew about 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

Dr. Ruckman himself talks about this in Dr Ruckman, Hebrew History, Audio 6 on Brother Don's YouTube, who I call the Lord's bloodhound. Didn't come up with that term, but it's fitting for the brother.

Scholars say that the aforementioned chapter is Christian creedal statements that Paul was taught in Jerusalem, if you want to know the scholarly view.

Look at the citations below for that.

"Doesn't the faith of Jesus verses prove definitely that the object of faith is the blood?"

Robert Breaker made this novel idea that every 8 verses (howbeit he says there's only 6 verses and 7 is perfection in the Bible) that say the faith of Jesus means Jesus has faith in his own blood.

His logic for this is that

Philippians 3:9

“And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.”

Galatians 2:16 “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

Galatians 3:22

“But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”

Romans 3:22

“Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.”

Revelation 14:12

“Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”

Galatians 2:20

“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”

all mean that Jesus has a specific faith, and that specific faith and pay attention to this, Breaker does a logical leap that if Christ would have faith anything, it would be faith in his blood.

So, Jesus has faith in his blood.

This of course is illogical as first, he forgot James 2:1

“My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.”

So much for his perfect seven

Also why would Galatians 2:16 be two separate verses?

Second, we can tell that when the Bible says faith of Christ, it does mean Christ's faith but rather the faith in Christ, and that's not correcting the King James Bible... Like how we answered how that, precept upon precept....

Ephesians 3:12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

Philippians 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

The operation of God is not an actual person, and a part of the Godhead.

The gospel can't be an actual person.

Ephesians 3:12 means your faith in him.

He says modern Bibles change that, well the modern Bibles are garbage, but it isn't corrupting the word of God to compare scripture with scripture to understand faith of means faith in..

If you think the King James Bible is perfect, and it is. Then treat it like it's perfect and compare scripture with scripture, not just misunderstanding scripture by inserting your own tradition in... What did Christ say? Mark 7:13

“Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”

Look at kjvcompare.com by Brandon Peterson, it goes over how the Modern Bibles corrupt....

"Aren't you a hypocrite to say that when modern Bibles change all believe on to mean believe in?"

We must compare scripture with scripture, and see if our supposed meaning for a verse using a phrase holds with other verses.

Believe on and believe in have actual two different purposes, if you sort through all of the verses...

Again, watch my believe on vs believe in study, it goes over it... The Lord really gave me something...

Believe on is defined to be vocal. Not getting into it at this part.

and every believe in is connected to the death, burial and resurrection in some way

If Believe on actually meant believe in, then there wouldn't be an actual categorical differences in the King James Bible text, think how that or the faith of doesn't mean what Breaker says it does, if you look at the verses.

Of course, if you do not believe the King James Bible is perfect, then every single believe on and believe in verse all fitting in two categories was just a coincidence... But that's really dependent on you believing the Bible is perfect.