What does “How That” in 1 Corinthians 15 mean?

Robert Breaker 1 Corinthians 15:3 “How That” Hoti Greek Subordinating Conjunction Refuted
Is Trusting the Blood of Jesus Required for Salvation? Robert Breaker Blood Atonement False Gospel
King James Bible “How That” in 1 Corinthians 15:3 Meaning: Hoti, That, or By What Means?
Robert Breaker vs Joseph Gonzalez 1 Corinthians 15:3 Reina Valera 1602 Purificada Bible Correction
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Gospel Explained: Blood Atonement, Received, Romans 5:11, and Salvation by Faith in Christ

This is a three-part series. Look at the previous article, “What does ‘According to the scriptures’ in 1 Corinthians 15 mean?”

There is an idea, invented by the Father of the youtuber Robert Breaker, Robert Ray Breaker II, that to be saved, one must specifically trust the blood of Jesus Christ as one's distinct object of saving faith. If you do anything less, you aren't saved.

I do not mean that he teaches classic Penal Substitutionary atonement, what I mean is this:

This is Robert Breaker's salvation theology.

"the Bible says You must trust the blood... but you haven't trusted the blood you're not saved yet" - Robert Breaker, The Blood of Jesus: The Mechanics of Salvation or the Object of our Faith? #bloodofchrist, starting at 18:38

Robert Breaker: Breaker: "he's looking at your heart and he's looking to see when does your heart trust the blood alone for salvation you can come to him begging him please don't send me to hell but it's not until from the heart you're trusting in the blood that you're saved" - Robert Breaker, The Message of the Blood, 45:40

"you see the confession isn't what saves you it's the belief in the heart so if you're not saved and you want to be saved and you don't want to go to hell why don't you just bow your head and close your eyes and just go to the Lord and tell him that what you've heard from the scripture today is true because the Bible says it is now why don't you say I accept what you've done for me I'd rely upon that finished work I trust your blood to save my soul see the prayer isn't what saves you it's whether or not your faith is in the shed blood of Jesus Christ if your faith is not in that blood then you're not saved if your faith is in that blood then you're on your way to heaven" - Robert Breaker, How to Be Saved, October 9th, 2010, starting at 10:15

"verse 5 much more than being now justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him verse 11 and not only so but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have now received the atonement salvation is receiving the atonement of Christ by faith it's not oh God now please save me now because I want to be safe sincerity is not what saves us you could be very sincere when you pray that but if you haven't TRUSTED IN THE BLOOD are you receiving salvation are you just begging for it and uh I call that the Beggars gospel I could sit here and say Ray please give me ten thousand dollars does he give it to me because I asked him for it" - Robert Breaker, Livestream With Brandon Bernardi July 2023, starting at 52:34

"Your works don't save you. What you say doesn't save you. What you pray doesn't save you. It's whether or not you're believing IN THE BLOOD." - Robert Breaker, What Faith in the Blood Really Means #faithintheblood #faithinjesus #bloodofjesus #bloodofchrist, 28:19

Robert Breaker (cloud church) - EP 03 A Random Piece of Steak Podcast CONFESSION: "Is to confess with their mouth that the Lord is Jesus or Jesus is Lord. Wouldn't that be Israel? So what I read Romans 10, I see Jews asking Paul, 'Hey, what about Israel?' And he says, 'Well, if a guy is a Jew and he has confessed that Jesus is his Lord, that Jesus is his Messiah, and if he believes that God hath raised him from the dead, well then he can be saved.' So if he believes in who and what, then he'll be saved. I don't think he's telling you you have to do both and that you have to say with the mouth or you're not saved. If he's saying you have to believe from your heart in something and say it with your mouth at the same time, then that would be a faith plus works gospel. And that would nullify what Jesus did because it's not just what he did, it's what you say, which would be a work."

What Robert Ray Breaker III uses to prove this is 1 Corinthians 15 verse 3.

1 Corinthians 15:3: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;"

The idea goes that the death includes the blood, which it does, and "how that" means by what means. This idea has two layers.

This is the first layer.

This isn't true, but this is his full point. If 1 Corinthians 15:3 means "by what means," then we can go and say that "by which also ye are saved" in 1 Corinthians 15:2 is specifically solely in Christ's blood, and that "received" in Romans 5:11, "by whom we have now received the atonement," is then connected to 1 Corinthians 15:3, the blood atonement.

We know the received is specifically the entire gospel, not only the blood atonement, per Paul connecting verses 3 and 4 with the "and" in verse 4. Otherwise, the gospel is purely the death if what he received is only the blood atonement.

This means that for one to be saved, they must mentally trust in the blood of Christ with all their heart and do nothing else for their salvation (a vocal view of Romans 10:9).

Ignoring the logical leap, "how that" does not mean "by what means."

Read this scripture and change how that to "by what means"

Exodus 9:29

“And Moses said unto him, As soon as I am gone out of the city, I will spread abroad my hands unto the LORD; and the thunder shall cease, neither shall there be any more hail; that thou mayest know how that the earth is the LORD'S.”

Acts 10:28

“And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”

Galatians 1:13

“For 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:”

Jude 1:5

“I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.”

You see, "how that" just means "that," and how we know that is through reading the King James Bible. Let the King James Bible define the Bible.

Look at the "Believe On" study. The Bible defines itself with "believing on" and "believing in."

Robert Breaker, however, claims there are people who claim that 1 Corinthians 15:3 are trying to correct the King James Bible and that they want to change "how that" to "that."

If you Google "Is 1 Corinthians 15:3 'how that' improperly translated in the King James Bible?"

you won't find anything. That is because Robert Breaker is actually only responding to his former confidant.

On June 13, 2026, a livestream of Joseph Gonzalez was uploaded by Robert Potthoff, a current friend of Robert Breaker. Gonzalez, a former friend of Breaker, said on stream that, although he read the King James Bible, “how that” in 1 Corinthians 15:3 was just an Old English term and just meant “that.”

On June 14, 2026, Robert Breaker made the video "The "HOW THAT" in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 (The Gospel) #faithintheblood #bloodatonement #gospel #salvation"

Robert in it says "There are people that are run around and say, "When the Bible says how that in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, it doesn't mean how that." And I go, "Wow." I thought you were King James Bible believer. I thought you believed every word of the King James Bible. But, there are people that say, "Well, I believe King James Bible, but I don't believe the how that."

“There are people out there that are trying to correct the King James Bible and take away from you what it says.”

“They’re questioning the King James translators. They’re questioning whether God wanted how that in the Bible.”

“if anyone comes to you and tries to say the King James Bible is wrong..."

Breaker's entire reason to use the Greek has no justification. If there is no one to defend the KJB from, as his former friend Joseph Gonzalez just said, it was an Old English term meaning "that," not that he was trying to correct the English Text, Breaker has no reason to go to the Greek.

Why would Breaker go to the Greek?

This is the second layer.

His argument is that hoti in the Greek means "by what means," and so the King James Bible's "how that" supports it, and that that hoti is a subordinating conjunction, and that as a result means the preceding verse connects to Romans 5:11, and the blood atonement as a result is how to be saved.

I'm just giving this part for context.

"They're reading the scriptures that were faithfully translated King James translators into the Greek language, okay? Now, I want to get to this one here. Um I'll say I'll close this one. I'm trying to get you to a certain page that I can't seem to get to. And it's this one here. All right, let's hope that one comes up now. Because this is imperative that you understand. There are people out there that are trying to correct the King James Bible and take away from you what it says. Uh let's see if this this is the one I want. Is this it? Um I'll It should start out meaning that the Greek word hoti. Let's see if that's the one I want. I think that's it. Uh, did I just share this one here? Bear with me, please, cuz this is important. It says trying to get it to you. Here. In biblical Greek, hoti is a conjunction. Okay? It has um demonstrative meaning, a causative meaning, a temporal meaning, modal meaning. The modal meaning is how, in as in questions or exclamations. So, when the Bible says how that Christ died for our sins according to scriptures, it's not a question. It's an exclamation. It's exclaiming. It's not just that he died and was buried and rose again according to scriptures, it's how that he died. It's stressing the blood atonement, which Paul said that he received, the blood. Okay? So, there's a lot here, and I won't go to this one. I'll go ahead and close this one, and I'll try to get you to the other one that I had opened that I'm trying to show you. And let's see if I can get that one. Cuz it's open here. I can get to it. There it is. That was the first one I want right right over it. Okay. Look at what this says. Do you know what a subordinating conjunction is? A subordinating conjunction is a word or phrase that connects a dependent clause on an independent clause showing that one idea depends upon another. Subordinate conjunction. All right? For example, in the sentence I stayed home because it was raining, the word because is a subordinate conjunction connecting the dependent clause because it was raining to the main clause I stayed home. So, we have a subordinate conjunction. All right? Now, with that stated let me see if I can find here what I'm reading. I have here something that says how that is a subordinating conjunction. And if it's a subordinating conjunction, then guess what? How that is dependent upon what was before it. And let's say it's right there. Now, if I can just pull that up for you to read, it's on right here. So, let me close this and open [clears throat] this. Here we go. Are you ready for this? Once it's seen, it can't be unseen. This is going to This is the death now of the false heresy. They have to stop now what they're saying because of this. Hoti, the Greek word hoti. All right? Hoti is a subordinating conjunction. It's a subordinating conjunction. What does that mean? We just read a coordinating conjunction is something that is before joining it with what comes after. Are you with me? So, hoti is a subordinating conjunction. Okay, then. A subordinating conjunction links a subordinate clause, which cannot stand alone, to a main clause to form a complex sentence. All right? Are you all with me? Now, we have looked at the Greek word hoti. Let's go back to the Bible. Let's Let's get over the Greek. We're done with the Greek, okay? The word in Greek is hoti, and it's translated [clears throat] by the King James translators as what? As how that. And I've showed you that there's nothing wrong with the King James translating of how that. It's actually correct, and it's more correct translated as how than that. But there's nothing wrong with how that. So, how that Christ died according for our sins according to the scriptures. And so, that word how that in English comes from the Greek word hoti, which can be translated as how. Now, and I've lost [clears throat] it. Oh, I've lost it. I had open where it says in classical or biblical Greek hoti means more how than it does in modern Greek, which means more that. So, that's even an interesting more thing that it shows that the King James translators that knew their biblical Greek translated our King James Bible correctly by translating from the Greek language how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. But, there are some people that want to say, "No, it's not how that Christ died, it's only that Christ died." And they want to remove how that Christ died for our sins, and they try to say, "And that means there's no blood in the gospel." All right? They're not looking at the Greek word. They're only going to modern Greek and saying, "Well, modern Greek we translate hoti as that." They're not looking at the context in biblical Greek that it's translated as how. And it's translated as how that, so that's more understandable. So, they also don't see that it's a sub subjo sub I can't even say the word sub ordinating conjunction, which ties in what is said here after what is said before. And what is said before is I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received. What did Paul receive that explains how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures? Romans chapter 5 and verse 11. Paul tells us what he received. He said he received the atonement because he says, "We have received the atonement." So, when you read the Bible according to the scriptures, you cannot help but see that when it says how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, it is the Apostle Paul tying a subordinating conjunction into what he also received that the blood atonement must be received, and that the blood atonement is how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. Drop the mic." - Robert Breaker

Remember, these are his points summarized.

1. 1 Corinthians 15:3 "how that" means "by what manner."

From this point, the argument is fully Greek and not found in the English text.

2. To prove this, 1 Corinthians 15:3 "how that" is the Greek word HOTI.

3. Hoti is a subordinating conjunction.

4. A subordinating conjunction (this is not true) means that the hoti is pointing back to the "received" in the previous verse.

5. The Greek subordinating conjunction points to "receive" (which is not how they work), then cross-references, by nature of using the word "received," to Romans 5:11.

6. Romans 5:11 and 1 Corinthians 15:2 prove that the blood is what you trust in to be saved.

This means that to establish his doctrine, he has to use a meaning not found in the English text to quote unquote defend the English text.

In layman's terms, he's correcting the English text.

Steps 2 to 6 are purely Greek.

"Yeah, the Reina Valera 1602 Purificada, which is the King James version of the Spanish Bible, doesn't have the how in that either." - Joseph's quote.

If Breaker responds by correcting the Bible, we can call him a Bible corrector.

Dr. Ruckman said in The Errors of the King James Bible, "With this in mind, we shall begin to examine the complaints that these 'saviors' have made against the King James Authorized Text. We shall deal with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation, and our references to Greek or Hebrew will only be made to enforce the authority of that text or to demonstrate the superiority of that text to Greek and Hebrew."

As Robert Breaker has attacked the King James Bible, in my opinion, by importing a wrong Greek meaning, for me to defend the King James Bible, I will look at the Greek.

Specifically, Thayer's Greek Lexicon

"ὅτι (properly neuter of ὅστις), a conjunction (from Homer down) (Latinquod (cf. Winers Grammar, § 53, 8 b.; Buttmann, § 139, 51; § 149, 3)), marking:

I. the substance or contents (of a statement), that;

1. joined to verbs of saying and declaring (where the accusative and infinitive is used in Latin): ἀναγγέλλειν, Acts 14:27; διηγεῖσθαι, Acts 9:27; εἰπεῖν, Matthew 16:20; Matthew 28:7, 13; John 7:42; John 16:15; 1 Corinthians 1:15; λέγειν, Matthew 3:9; Matthew 8:11; Mark 3:28; Luke 15:7; John 16:20; Romans 4:9 (T Tr WH omit; L brackets ὅτι); , and very often; προειρηκέναι, 2 Corinthians 7:3; before the ὅτι in Acts 14:22 supply λέγοντες, contained in the preceding παρακαλοῦντες (cf. Buttmann, § 151, 11); ὅτι after γράφειν, 1 Corinthians 9:10; 1 John 2:12-14; μαρτυρεῖν, Matthew 23:31; John 1:34; John 3:28; John 4:44; ὁμολογεῖν, Hebrews 11:13; δεικνύειν, Matthew 16:21; δηλουν, 1 Corinthians 1:11; διδάσκειν, 1 Corinthians 11:14. after ἐμφανίζειν, Hebrews 11:14; δῆλον (ἐστιν), 1 Corinthians 15:27; Galatians 3:11; 1 Timothy 6:7 (where L T Tr WH omit δῆλον (and then ὅτι simply introduces the reason, because (Buttmann, 358 (308) to the contrary))); φανεροῦμαι (for φανερόν γίνεται περί ἐμοῦ), 2 Corinthians 3:3; 1 John 2:19. It is added — to verbs of swearing, and to forms of oath and affirmation: ὄμνυμι, Revelation 10:6; ζῶ ἐγώ (see ζάω, I. 1, p. 270{a}), Romans 14:11; μάρτυρα τόν Θεόν ἐπικαλοῦμαι, 2 Corinthians 1:23; πιστός ὁ Θεός, 2 Corinthians 1:18; ἐστιν ἀλήθεια Χριστοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, 2 Corinthians 11:10; ἰδού ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, Galatians 1:20; cf. Fritzsche, Ep. ad Romans, ii., p. 242f; (Winers Grammar, § 53, 9; Buttmann, 394 (338)); — to verbs of perceiving, knowing, remembering, etc.: ἀκούειν, John 14:28; βλέπειν, 2 Corinthians 7:8; Hebrews 3:19; James 2:22; θέασθαι, John 6:5; γινώσκειν, Matthew 21:45; Luke 10:11; John 4:53; 2 Corinthians 13:6; 1 John 2:5, etc.; after τοῦτο, Romans 6:6; εἰδέναι, Matthew 6:32; Matthew 22:16; Mark 2:10; Luke 2:49; John 4:42; John 9:20, 24; Romans 2:2; Romans 6:9; Philippians 4:15f, and very often γνωστόν ἐστιν, Acts 28:28; ἐπιγινώσκειν, Mark 2:8; Luke 1:22; Acts 4:13; ἐπίστασθαί, Acts 15:7; νόειν, Matthew 15:17; ὁρᾶν, James 2:24; καταλαμβάνειν, Acts 4:13; Acts 10:34; συνιέναι, Matthew 16:12; ἀγνοεῖν, Romans 1:13; Romans 2:4; Romans 6:3, etc.; ἀναγινώσκειν, Matthew 12:5; Matthew 19:4; μνημονεύειν, John 16:5; — to verbs of thinking, believing, judging, hoping: λογίζεσθαι, John 11:50 L T Tr WH; after τοῦτο, Romans 2:3; 2 Corinthians 10:11; νομίζειν, Matthew 5:17; οἶμαι, James 1:7; πέπεισμαι, Romans 8:38; Romans 14:14; Romans 15:14; 2 Timothy 1:5, 12; πεποιθέναι, Luke 18:9; 2 Corinthians 2:3; Philippians 2:24; Galatians 5:10; 2 Thessalonians 3:4; Hebrews 13:18; πιστεύειν, Matthew 9:28; Mark 11:23; Romans 10:9; ὑπολαμβάνειν, Luke 7:43; δοκεῖν, Matthew 6:7; Matthew 26:53; John 20:15; ἐλπίζειν, Luke 24:21; 2 Corinthians 13:6; κρίνειν τοῦτο ὅτι, 2 Corinthians 5:14 (15); — to verbs of emotion (where in Latin now the accusative and infinitive is used, nowquod): θαυμάζειν Luke 11:38; χαίρειν, John 14:28; 2 Corinthians 7:9, 16; Philippians 4:10; 2 John 1:4; ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι, Luke 10:20; συγχαίρειν, Luke 15:6, 9; μέλει μοι (σοι, αὐτῷ), Mark 4:38; Luke 10:40; — to verbs of praising, thanking, blaming (where the Latin usesquod): ἐπαινεῖν, Luke 16:8; 1 Corinthians 11:2, 17; ἐξομολογεῖσθαι, Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21; εὐχαριστεῖν, Luke 18:11; χάρις τῷ Θεῷ, Romans 6:17; χάριν ἔχω τίνι, 1 Timothy 1:12; ἔχω κατά τίνος, ὅτι etc. Revelation 2:4; ἔχω τοῦτο ὅτι, I have this (which is praiseworthy) that, Revelation 2:6; add, John 7:23 (but here ὅτι is causal; cf. Winer's Grammar, § 53, 8 b.); 1 Corinthians 6:7; — to the verb εἶναι, when that precedes with a demons. pronoun, in order to define more exactly what thing is or wherein it may be seen: αὕτη ἐστιν ὅτι (Latinquod), John 3:19; ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι, 1 John 3:16; 1 John 4:9f, 13, etc.; περί τούτου ὅτι, John 16:19; οὐχ οἷον δέ ὅτι (see οἷος), Romans 9:6; — to the verbs γίνεσθαι and εἶναι with an interrogative pronoun, as τί γέγονεν ὅτι etc., what has come to pass that? our how comes it that? John 14:22; τί (L marginal reading τίς) ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος, ὅτι, Hebrews 2:6 from Psalm 8:5. τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος (namely, ἐστιν), ὅτι, Luke 4:36; ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος, ὅτι, Matthew 8:27; τίς ἡ διδαχή αὕτη, ὅτι, Mark 1:27 Rec.; add Mark 4:41.

2. in elliptical formulas (Buttmann, 358 (307); (Winer's Grammar, 585 (544) note)): τί ὅτι etc., equivalent to τί ἐστιν ὅτι (A. V. how is it that), wherefore? Mark 2:16 R G L (others omit τί; cf. 5 below, and see ὅστις, 4); Luke 2:49; Acts 5:4, 9. οὐχ ὅτι for οὐ λέγω ὅτι, our not that, not as though, cf. Buttmann, § 150, 1; (Winer's Grammar, 597 (555)); thus, John 6:46; John 7:22; 2 Corinthians 1:24; 2 Corinthians 3:5; Philippians 3:12; Philippians 4:11. ὅτι is used for εἰς ἐκεῖνο ὅτι (in reference to the fact that (English seeing that, in that")): thus in John 2:18; (Meyer (see his note on 1 Corinthians 1:26) would add many other examples, among them John 9:17 (see below)); for ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι, Romans 5:8; for περί τούτου ὅτι, concerning this, that: so after λαλεῖν, Mark 1:34; Luke 4:41 (others take ὅτι, in these examples and those after διαλογ. which follow in a causal sense; cf. Winer's Grammar, as below (Ellicott on 2 Thessalonians 3:7)); after λέγειν, John 9:17 (see above); after διαλογίζεσθαι, Matthew 16:8; Mark 8:17 (after ἀποστέλλειν σπιστολας, 1 Macc. 12:7). See examples from classic authors in Fritzsche on Matthew, p. 248f; (Meyer, as above; cf. Winer's Grammar, § 53, 8b.).

3. Noteworthy is the attraction, not uncommon, by which the noun that would naturally be the subject of the subjoined clause, is attracted by the verb of the principal clause and becomes its object (cf. Winer's Grammar, § 66, 5; B § 151, 1 a.); as, οἴδατε τήν οἰκίαν Στεφανᾶ, ὅτι ἐστιν ἀπαρχή, for οἴδατε, ὅτι ἡ οἰκία Στεφανᾶ, κτλ., 1 Corinthians 16:15; also after εἰδέναι and ἰδεῖν, Mark 12:34; 1 Thessalonians 2:1; so after other verbs of knowing, declaring, etc.: Matthew 25:24; John 9:8; Acts 3:10; Acts 9:20; 1 Corinthians 3:20; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 17:8, etc.; ὅν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι Θεός ὑμῶν ἐστι, for περί οὐ (cf. Luke 21:5) ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι, John 8:54.

4. As respects construction, ὅτι is joined in the N. T.

a. to the indicative even where the opinion of another is introduced, and therefore according to classical usage the optative should have been used; as, διεστείλατο ... ἵνα μηδενί εἴπωσιν, ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, Matthew 16:20; add, ; , etc.

b. to that subjunctive after ὀυτ μή which differs scarcely at all from the future (see μή, IV. 2, p. 411a; (cf. Winer's Grammar, 508 (473))): Matthew 5:20; Matthew 26:29 (R G; others omit ὅτι); Mark 14:25; Luke 21:32; John 11:56 (where before ὅτι supply δοκεῖτε, borrowed from the preceding δοκεῖ); but in Romans 3:8 ὅτι before ποιήσωμεν (hortatory subjunctive (cf. Winers Grammar, § 41 a. 4 a.; Buttmann, 245 (211))) is recitative (see 5 below), depending on λέγουσι (Winers Grammar, 628 (583); Buttmann, § 141, 3).

c. to the infinitive, by a mingling of two constructions, common even in classic Greek, according to which the writer beginning the construction with ὅτι falls into the construction of the accusative with an infinitive: Acts 27:10; cf. Winers Grammar, 339 (318) N. 2; (sec. 63, 2c.; Buttmann, 383 (328)). On the anacoluthon found in 1 Corinthians 12:2, according to the reading ὅτι ὅτε (which appears in the Sinaiticus manuscript also (and is adopted by L brackets T Tr WH (yet cf. their note))), cf. Buttmann, 383f (328f).

5. ὅτι is placed before direct discourse (`recitative' ὅτι) (Buttmann,sec. 139, 51; Winer's Grammar, § 65, 3 c.; § 60, 9 (and Moulton's note)): Matthew 2:23(?); ; Mark ( T Tr WH (see 2 above); but see ὅστις, 4); (cf. Buttmann, 237 (204)); Luke 1:61; Luke 2:23; Luke 4:43; Luke 15:27; John 1:20; John 4:17; John 15:25; John 16:17; Acts 15:1; Hebrews 11:18; 1 John 4:20; Revelation 3:17, etc.; most frequently after λέγω, which see II. 1 a., p. 373{a} bottom (Noteworthy is 2 Thessalonians 3:10, cf. Buttmann, § 139, 53.)

II. the reason why anything is said to be or to be done, because, since, for that, for (a causal conjunc.; Latinquod,quia,quom,nam); (on the difference between it and γάρ cf. Westcott, Epistles of John, p. 70);

a. it is added to a speaker's words to show what ground he gives for his opinion; as, μακάριος etc. ὅτι, Matthew 5:4-12; Matthew 13:16; Luke 6:20; Luke 14:14; after οὐαί, Matthew 11:21; Matthew 23:13-15, 23, 25, 27, 29; Luke 6:24; Luke 10:13; Luke 11:42-44, 46, 52; Jude 1:11; cf. further, Matthew 7:13; Matthew 17:15; Matthew 25:8; Mark 5:9; Mark 9:38 (G Tr marginal reading omit; Tr text brackets the clause); Luke 7:47; Luke 23:40; John 1:30; John 5:27; John 9:16; John 16:9-11, 14, 16 (T Tr WH omit; L brackets the clause); Acts 1:5, and often; — or is added by the narrator, to give the reason for his own opinion: Matthew 2:18; Matthew 9:36; Mark 3:30; Mark 6:34; John 2:25; Acts 1:17; — or, in general, by a teacher, and often in such a way that it relates to his entire statement or views: Matthew 5:43; 1 John 4:18; 2 John 1:7; Revelation 3:10.

b. ὅτι makes reference to some word or words that precede or immediately follow it (cf. Winers Grammar, § 23, 5; § 53, 8 b.; Buttmann, § 127, 6); as, διά τοῦτο, John 8:47; John 10:17; John 12:39; 1 John 3:1, etc. διά τί; Romans 9:32; 2 Corinthians 11:11. χάριν τίνος; 1 John 3:12. οὕτως, Revelation 3:16. ἐν τούτῳ, 1 John 3:20. ὅτι in the protasis, John 1:50(); . It is followed by διά τοῦτο, John 15:19. οὐχ ὅτι ... ἀλλ' ὅτι, not because ... but because, John 6:26; John 12:6.

III. On the combination ὡς ὅτι see ὡς, I. 3."

Hoti does not mean "by what means."

The other argument is that he goes to Strong's concordance and uses that as proof that, and this is very backwards, the Greek means "by what means," because remember, he's correcting but trying to act like he's defending the Bible.

Does Strong say that?

Let's look at his summary.

"that, because, since, for"

Let's keep reading.

KJV: as concerning that, as though, because (that), for (that), how (that), (in) that, though, why

The argument is that because it says "how (that)," it means "in what manner."

Let's see why Strong used parentheses.

"( ) (parenthesis), in the renderings from the A. V., denotes a word or syllable sometimes given in connection with the principal word to which it is annexed."

He's telling you how the AV translators used the Greek word, not that the Greek word means "by what manner."

What about subordinating conjunction?

Hoti and subordinating conjunction

Watch part 1 if you haven't.

Let's go to the BBC for what a subordinating conjunction is.

"Subordinating conjunctions

A conjunction is a word, or words, used to connect two clauses together. Words such as: 'although', 'because' or 'when'.

A subordinating clause is a part of a sentence that adds additional information to the main clause. A subordinating conjunction is simply the word/words used to join a subordinating clause to another clause or sentence.

'He was annoyed, the train had stopped.'

'He was annoyed because the train had stopped.'

By adding 'because' we are linking the subordinating clause 'the train had stopped' with the main clause 'He was annoyed'."

His argument is that Hoti is a subordinating conjunction, true, and that it ties what comes right before it.

So, verse 2 says, "that which I also received."

"It's a subordinating conjunction. What does that mean? We just read a coordinating conjunction is something that is before joining it with what comes after. Are you with me? So, hoti is a subordinating conjunction. Okay, then. A subordinating conjunction links a subordinate clause, which cannot stand alone, to a main clause to form a complex sentence. All right? Are you all with me? Now, we have looked at the Greek word hoti. Let's go back to the Bible..... And what is said before is I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received. What did Paul receive that explains how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures? Romans chapter 5 and verse 11. Paul tells us what he received. He said he received the atonement because he says, 'We have received the atonement.' So, when you read the Bible according to the scriptures, you cannot help but see that when it says how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, it is the Apostle Paul tying a subordinating conjunction into what he also received that the blood atonement must be received, and that the blood atonement is how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. Drop the mic. Anyone, I don't care who you are, who tries to say that the blood is not found in the gospel, is a liar and a deceiver. They don't know Greek. They're not a King James Bible believer."

Breaker uses HOTI wrongly to tie 1 Corinthians 15:2-3. 1 Corinthians 15:2: "By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;"

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."

Breaker links the received Greek hoti to Romans 5:11. Is this true?

First, it's all dependent on a misunderstanding of what a subordinating conjunction is.

Second, this is illogical if you read the entire 1 Corinthians 15.

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

So, Paul is talking to them about what they received. Let's keep reading.

By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

Paul establishes that what they received is that by which also ye are saved.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received

Okay, Paul is telling the Corinthians what he preached, what they received, what they were saved by, and what he received,

how that (Hoti) Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;"

Paul establishes what he preached, what they received, what they were saved by, and what he received.

"And"

Paul is continuing what they received. Every "that" in this verse is a hoti.

"And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"

Paul's preaching is recounted. Again, "that" is hoti.

Robert Breaker uses the Greek to connect 1 Corinthians 15:3 to Romans 5:11; however, they are completely different words.

1 Corinthians 15:3

STRONGS NT 3880: παραλαμβάνω

παραλαμβάνω; future παραλήψομαι, in L T Tr WH παραλήμψομαι (John 14:3; see Mu); 2 aorist παρέλαβον, 3 person plural παρελάβοσαν (2 Thessalonians 3:6 G T L marginal reading Tr marginal reading WH marginal reading; cf. δολιόω (yet see WH's Appendix, p. 165)); passive, present παραλαμβάνομαι; 1 future παραληφθήσομαι, in L T Tr WH παραλημφθήσομαι (see Mu; Luke 17:34-36); from Herodotus down; the Sept. for לָקַח;

1. to take to (cf. παρά, IV. 1), to take with oneself, to join to oneself: τινα, an associate, a companion, Matthew 17:1; Matthew 26:37; Mark 4:36; Mark 5:40; Mark 9:2; Mark 10:32; Luke 9:10, 28; Luke 11:26; Luke 18:31; Acts 15:39; in the passive, Matthew 24:40, 41; Luke 17:34-36; one to be led off as a prisoner, John 19:16; Acts 23:18; to take with one in order to carry away, Matthew 2:13f, 20f; τινα μεθ' ἑαυτοῦ, Matthew 12:45; Matthew 18:16; Mark 14:33; παραλαμβάνειν γυναῖκα, to take one's betrothed to his home, Matthew 1:20, 24; τινα followed by εἰς with an accusative of place, to take (and bring, cf. Winer's Grammar, § 66, 2 d.) one with one into a place, Matthew 4:5, 8; Matthew 27:27; τινα κατ' ἰδίαν, Matthew 20:17; middle with πρός ἐμαυτόν, to my companionship, where I myself dwell, John 14:3. The participle is prefixed to other active verbs to describe the action more in detail, Acts 16:33; Acts 21:24, 26, 32 (here L WH marginal reading λαβών). Metaphorically, equivalent to "to accept or acknowledge one to be such as he professes to be; not to reject, not to withhold obedience": τινα, John 1:11.

2. to receive something transmitted;

a. properly: παραλαμβάνειν διακονίαν, an office to be discharged, Colossians 4:17; βασιλείαν, Hebrews 12:28 (so for the Chaldean קַבֵּל in Daniel 5:31; Daniel 7:18, Theod.; Herodotus 2, 120; (Josephus, contra Apion 1, 20, 5 (where see Müller)); τήν ἀρχήν, Plato, Polybius, Plutarch).

b. to receive with the mind; by oral transmission: τί followed by ἀπό with a genitive of the author from whom the tradition proceeds, 1 Corinthians 11:23 (on which cf. Paret in the Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol. for 1858, Bd. iii., p. 48ff; (see references in ἀπό, II. 2 d. aa.)); by the narration of others, by the instruction of teachers (used of disciples): (τόν Χριστόν Ἰησοῦν τόν κύριον, Colossians 2:6); τί, 1 CORINTHIANS 15:1, 3; Galatians 1:9; Philippians 4:9; (τί followed by an infinitive, Mark 7:4); τί παρά τίνος (see references under the word παρά, the passage cited), Galatians 1:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; παρά τίνος, καθώς ... τό πῶς δεῖ etc. 1 Thessalonians 4:1, (σοφίαν παρά τίνος, Plato, Lach., p. 197 d.; Euthyd., p. 304 c.). (Compare: συμπαραλαμβάνω.)

Romans 5:11

STRONGS NT 2643: καταλλαγή

καταλλαγή, καταλλαγῆς, ἡ (καταλλάσσω, which see);

1. exchange; of the business of money-changers, exchanging equivalent values ((Aristotle, others)). Hence,

2. adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favor, (from Aeschylus on); in the N. T., of the restoration of the favor of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ: 2 Corinthians 5:18f; with the genitive of the one received into favor, τοῦ κόσμου (opposed to ἀποβολή), Romans 11:15; καταλλαγήν ἐλάβομεν, we received the blessing of the recovered favor of God, ROMANS 5:11; with the genitive of him whose favor is recovered, 2 Macc. 5:20. (Cf. Trench, § lxxvii.)

Sources:

Robert Breaker The "HOW THAT" in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 (The Gospel) #faithintheblood #bloodatonement #gospel #salvation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFU0N92kTPw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFU0N92kTPw&t=764

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFU0N92kTPw&t=172

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFU0N92kTPw&t=784

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFU0N92kTPw&t=1709

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFU0N92kTPw&t=1549

Joseph Gonzalez livestream

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iT6dkOoOfE

Him specifically saying the Reina Argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iT6dkOoOfE&t=384