Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:05 pm Post subject: Digital E-Book Showing What Many Call A Chief Doctrine of Ch
Digital E-Book Showing What Many Call A Chief Doctrine of Christendom Is Really False:
This e-book has as its purpose to show what the Bible truth is with regard to a doctrine that many consider a chief doctrine of Christendom, but this book exposes it as NOT in agreement with the inspired word of Almighty God (YHWH). This will be done in two parts.
The First will take the appropriate parts of The Westminster Confession of faith was written by one Cornelius Burges, Assessor to the Westminster Assembly, in 1646. It will show that every scripture he referred to was taken out of context.
The Second will give many Bible scriptures that clearly show this doctrine can NOT be true which all can check for themselves in their own Bible.
Table of Contents:
Part One:
INTRODUCTION TO THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH AS NOTHING BUT A HERMENEUTIC METHODOLOGY TO WRONGLY BACK-UP A MYTH/FALSE DOCTRINE:
I FIRST AND SECOND PART OF A CLEVER DECEPTION
III SECTION THREE, THE GREAT DECEPTION
IV APPENDIX TO COMMENTARY ON 1 JOHN 5:7
<<Sub Section 'O' Commentaries on the Scriptures>>
<<Sub Section 'P' Commentaries on the Scriptures>>
<<Sub Section 'Q' Commentaries on the Scriptures>>
<CONCLUSION> (section only)
V REFERENCES:
Part Two:
INTRODUCTION, covering many Bible scriptures that clearly show this doctrine can NOT be true which all can check for themselves in their own Bible.
I FIRST, IT SAYS AT MANY PLACES THE FOLLOWING:
II THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY SAYS:
III THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY SHOWS JESUS (YESHUA) ASKING HIS FATHER, ALMIGHTY GOD (YHWH) TO GLORIFY HIM IN A PRAYER AS FOLLOWS:
IV THE BIBLE CLEARLY SAYS "AND BEING FOUND IN FASHION AS A MAN, HE HUMBLED HIMSELF, AND BECAME OBEDIENT UNTO DEATH, EVEN THE DEATH OF THE CROSS."THIS SCRIPTURE CLEARLY SHOWS JESUS (YESHUA) TO BE AN OBEDIENT SON TO HIS FATHER (YHWH).
V AS WE ALL KNOW THE GIVER AND THE RECEIVER CAN NOT BE THE SAME, THE BIBLE SHOWS THAT JESUS (YESHUA) WAS GIVEN POWER BY HIS FATHER (YHWH).
VI JESUS (YESHUA) CLEARLY SAID HE COULD DO NOTHING OF HIS OWN INITIATIVE, BUT ONLY WHAT HE BEHOLDS THE FATHER (YHWH) DOING:
VII NOW THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY SHOWS THE CHAIN-OF-COMMAND; FROM ALMIGHTY GOD (YHWH) ON DOWN AS FOLLOWS:
Part Three:
THE TRINITY OF THREE SCRIPTURES DESTROYS THE MYTH OF THE TRINITY:
The E-Book
INTRODUCTION TO THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH AS NOTHING BUT A HERMENEUTIC METHODOLOGY TO WRONGLY BACK-UP A MYTH/FALSE DOCTRINE:
The Westminster Confession of faith was written by one Cornelius Burges, Assessor to the Westminster Assembly, in 1646. He was a very skilled individual with respect twisting the scriptures and chose hermeneutic methodology over 'Sola Scriptura' methodology as hermeneutic methodology was well suited for twisting the scripture to eloquently make it appear that the Word of God supported what ever you wanted it to; whereas, this could NOT be done with 'Sola Scripture' methodology unless it was greatly distorted and no longer true 'Sola Scriptura' methodology.
In Section 2 of the Westminister Confession of faith dealing with the Trinity myth which he supported, he did a masterpiece of deception in obfuscating the Word of God to make it appear that it backed his favorite myth/false doctrine of the Trinity which of course it does not. In fact, nowhere does the word Trinity even appear in the Bible, as was noted by the International Encyclopedia of the Bible (*1). He carefully crafted his deception in three parts, the first, 'There is but one only living, and true God:' is true and designed to throw one off guard to the deception to follow in the last part of Section 2, clever as is the deception of any con man. The second part, 'God hath all life,(a) glory,(b) goodness,(c) blessedness,(d) in and of Himself;' is likewise basically true, but with some very subtle deception or twisting in it designed to develop the readers confidence so the reader will gulp down the God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine and myth of the third part as Truth which of course it is anything but.
I FIRST AND SECOND PART OF A CLEVER DECEPTION
I. & II. There is but one only,(a) living, and true God:(b) who is infinite in being and perfection,(c) a most pure spirit,(d) invisible,(e) without body, parts,(f) or passions,(g) immutable,(h) immense,(i) eternal,(k) incomprehensible,(l) almighty,(m) most wise,(n) most holy,(o) most free,(p) most absolute,(q) working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,(r) for His own glory;(s) most loving,(t) gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;(u) the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;(w) and withal, most just and terrible in His judgments,(x) hating all sin,(y) and who will by no means clear the guilty.(z)
(a) Deut. 6:4; I Cor. 8:4, 6.
(b) I Thess. 1:9; Jer. 10:10.
(c) Job 11:7, 8, 9; Job 26:14.
(d) John 4:24.
(e) I Tim. 1:17.
(f) Deut. 4:15, 16; John 4:24, with Luke 24:39.
(g) Acts 14:11, 15.
(h) James 1:17; Mal. 3:6.
(i) I Kings 8:27; Jer. 23:23, 24.
(k) Ps. 90:2; I Tim. 1:17.
(l) Ps. 145:3.
(m) Gen. 17:1; Rev. 4:8.
(n) Rom. 16:27.
(o) Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8.
(p) Ps. 115:3.
(q) Exod. 3:14.
(r) Eph. 1:11.
(s) Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36.
(t) I John 4:8, 16.
(u) Exod. 34:6, 7.
(w) Heb. 11:6.
(x) Neh. 9:32, 33.
(y) Ps. 5:5, 6.
(z) Nah. 1:2, 3; Exod. 34:7.
II. God hath all life,(a) glory,(b) goodness,(c) blessedness,(d) in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made,(e) nor deriving any glory from them,(f) but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them: He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;(g) and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth.(h) In His sight all things are open and manifest;(i) His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,(k) so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.(l) He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.(m) To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.(n)
(a) John 5:26.
(b) Acts 7:2.
(c) Ps. 119:68.
(d) I Tim. 6:15; Rom. 9:5.
(e) Acts 17:24, 25.
(f) Job 22:2, 3.
(g) Rom 11:36.
(h) Rev. 4:11; I Tim. 6:15; Dan. 4:25, 35.
(i) Heb. 4:13.
(k) Rom. 11:33, 34; Ps. 147:5.
(l) Acts 15:18; Ezek. 11:5.
(m) Ps. 145:17; Rom. 7:12.
(n) Rev. 5:12, 13, 14.
Please note his reference to scripture in both part 1 and 2 designed to gain the readers confidence who does not realize the difference between hermeneutic methodology which is usually used to twist and true 'Sola Scriptura' methodology which is designed to bring out Bible Truths or to let the Bible interpret itself per 2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.," (Authorized King James Bible; AV). Also, please bear in mind the following two scriptures from the Old Testament when we next discuss Section 3 and think why they show this whole section is error. These scriptures are:
Psalm 80:17 "Let thy hand be upon the MAN of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself." (AV).
In Colossians 3:1 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." (AV).
Now just thing, If Jesus Christ sits on the right hand of God, then he must be the MAN mentioned in Psalm 80:17. And if Jesus Christ is the MAN that sits on the right hand of God...., obviously Cornelius Burges, Assessor to the Westminster Assembly, is a deceptive twister and all he says is to be rejected as the God (YHWH) dishonoring teaching of mankind warned against at Titus 1:10-11, "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." (AV); remember many false prophets like Cornelius Burgess, per 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (AV).
III SECTION THREE, THE GREAT DECEPTION
Section three shall be covered by first presenting exactly what the deceiver Cornelius Burgess wrote, and the scriptures he used in a hermeneutics methodology way of deceiving to seemingly back up the false doctrine and myth he was presenting. Then, each scripture he used in his deception will be commented on individually to show its true Biblical significance as the Word of God so all will be able to understand how Cornelius Burgess was being deceitful and twisting the Word of God.
In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.(o) The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father:(p) the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.(q)
(o) I John 5:7; Matt. 3:16, 17; Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14.
(p) John 1:14, 18.
(q) John 15:26; Gal. 4:6.
Now we shall deal with each scripture individually by section:
<<Sub Section 'O' Commentaries on the Scriptures>>
The first scripture, the deceiver Cornelius Burgess used was an added to scripture of 1 John 5:7 as contained in the Authorized King James Bible which is the most well known intentional distortion of scripture in the entire Bible, what lack of integrity and honesty:
Commentary on 1 John 5:7:
1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (Authorized King James: AV)
1 John 5:7 "And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible)
1 John 5:7 " For there are three that testify:" (New American Standard Bible: NASB)
1 John 5:7 "There are three that testify:" (New Revised Standard Version; NRSV)
1 John 5:7 "quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant (The Latin Vulgate)
As one can clearly see these three scriptures all of 1 John 5:7, are quite different, now why is this? Let's find out!
Many say 1 John 5:7 is the center masterpiece for the concept of the Trinity, i.e., the center or sustaining gem so to speak of this doctrine. One such follows:
This is the only passage in the whole Bible that gives any color to the trinity or "oneness" doctrines. It is the central crystal of the Christian faith upon which we hold the blessed trinity to be ever eternal self-evident to all. [Catholic pamphlet from 1903]
Now for this to be true, the Authorized King James and the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible versions would of necessity have to be true and the New American Standard Bible rendering false; but then Jerome's original Latin Vulgate had a rendering more in line with the New American Standard Bible (NASB) so there is cast the question of why the earliest Catholic bible was quite different from the present.
Really one or the other would have to be an intentional corruption of scripture in violation of Revelation 22:18, "It testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book;" (NASB)
Clearly someone has added to one of these two renderings of 1 John 5:7 since this is clearly NOT a difference resulting from differs in translation. Now which has been added to in violation of God's (YHWH's) commandment as recorded by his Apostle John?
Well let's see what the Moody Bible Institute has to say on this in one of their publications. "The text of this verse should read, 'Because there are three that bear record.' The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the Trinitarian addition before the fourteenth century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the Trinity in the first 450 years of the church era." [The Wycliffe Bible Commentary," edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer (OT) and Earett F. Harrison (NT), by Moody Press, Chicago, a division of Moody Bible Institute, ISBN: 0-8024-9695-4, Library of Congress Catalogue Card #: 62-20893, page 1477].
Quite an admission from an institute that is pro-Trinitarian; therefore, the New American Standard Bible is correct and the Authorized King James and the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible are in gross error here with respect to this addition made in violation of the command of Revelation 18:22. My what a surprise. In fact this corruption, "and these three are one" was added by a monk, and is so well knows, as previously mentioned, as a corrupt and spurious verse addition that it even has its own name, Comma Johanna (in Greek, Comma Ioanneum), can you imagine that?
In fact this corruption of scripture does not appear in any manuscript in or out of the New Testament earlier than the 13 th. Century. It occurs in NO ancient Gree, manuscript, nor in the writings of any Greek Christian writers. "It is universally discredited by Greek scholars and editors of the Greek text of the New Testament." ["The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament," by Edgar J. Goodspeed - Chicago 1943, page 557].
Strange, all good Bible scholars recognize this as spurious including Catholic scholars, but, "....most Catholic writers of the present day agree the words were not contained in the original test; at the same time, until further action be taken by the Holy See it is not open to Catholic editors to eliminate the words from a version made for use of the faithful." [The Westminister Version of the Sacred Scriptures," Cutbert Lattey, S.J., and Joseph Keating, S.J., general editors, Vol. IV, pages 145 and 146, London 1931]. Now really why is this, obviously they do NOT want the 'faithful' to know they have NOT been told the truth and that their false Trinity doctrine does not 'hold water.'
Most modern Bibles have eliminated this spurious addition done against the command found at Revelations 22:18: see the following:
For there are three that testify: (New American Standard Bible: NASB)
There are three that testify: (New Revised Standard Version: NRSV)
And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. (The Revised Standard Version; RSV)
There are three witnesses: (The Good News Translation)
So there are three witnesses that tell us about Jesus: (New Century Version)
It is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. (World English Version)
For they that bear witness are three. (The Darby Translation)
For there are three that testify: (Holman Standard Christian Translation)
For there are three that give testimony-- the Spirit, the water, and the blood; (Weymouth Translation)
For there are three that testify: (New International Version)
Now really, how can anyone in all honesty believe a false doctrine whose principle support has been text that is spurious or test that can be translated at least nine (9) different ways without violating the grammatical rules of Koine Greek as can John 1:1? Especially so when the common rendering is shown to be out of context by John 1:2 and John 1:14 right after it.
Obviously thinking individuals should recognize the nonsense doctrine of the three-in-one god as spurious God (YHWH) dishonoring doctrine of men and NOT from God (YHWH).
IV APPENDIX TO COMMENTARY ON 1 JOHN 5:7
(1) The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.
"5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement." --NET Bible
Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma, the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ pathvr, oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'" e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ marturou'nte" ejn th'/ gh'/ ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence-both external and internal-is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.1
This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3 Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text,4 as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.
Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings-even in places where the TR/Byzantine manuscripts lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text. Further, it puts these Protestant proponents in the awkward and self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as inspired as the apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings-due either to carelessness or lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek).
In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. To argue that the Comma must be authentic is Bultmannian in its method, for it ignores history at every level. As such, it has very little to do with biblical Christianity, for a biblical faith is one that is rooted in history.
Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.
Unfortunately, for many, the Comma and other similar passages have become such emotional baggage that is dragged around whenever the Bible is read that a knee-jerk reaction and ad hominem argumentation becomes the first and only way that they can process this issue. Sadly, neither empirical evidence nor reason can dissuade them from their views. The irony is that their very clinging to tradition at all costs (namely, of an outmoded translation which, though a literary monument in its day, is now like a Model T on the Autobahn) emulates Roman Catholicism in its regard for tradition.5 If the King James translators knew that this would be the result nearly four hundred years after the completion of their work, they'd be writhing in their graves.
1 For a detailed discussion, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., 647-49.
2 Not only the ancient orthodox writers, but also modern orthodox scholars would of course be delighted if this reading were the original one. But the fact is that the evidence simply does not support the Trinitarian formula here-and these orthodox scholars just happen to hold to the reasonable position that it is essential to affirm what the Bible affirms where it affirms it, rather than create such affirmations ex nihilo. That KJV advocates have charged modern translations with heresy because they lack the Comma is a house of cards, for the same translators who have worked on the NIV, NASB, or NET (as well as many other translations) have written several articles and books affirming the Trinity.
3 This manuscript which contains the entire New Testament is now housed in Dublin. It has been examined so often at this one place that the book now reportedly falls open naturally to 1 John 5.
4 That Erasmus made such a protest or that he had explicitly promised to include the Comma is an overstatement of the evidence, though the converse of this can be said to be true: Erasmus refused to put this in his without Greek manuscript support.
5 Thus, TR-KJV advocates subconsciously embrace two diametrically opposed traditions: when it comes to the first 1500 years of church history, they hold to a Bultmannian kind of Christianity (viz., the basis for their belief in the superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts-and in particular, the half dozen that stand behind the TR-has very little empirical substance of historical worth). Once such readings became a part of tradition, however, by way of the TR, the argument shifts to one of tradition rather than non-empirical fideism. Neither basis, of course, resembles Protestantism
Commentary on Matthew 3:13-17 all 'Sola Scriptura,' covering Matthew 3:16-17 and more.
Matthew 3:13-17 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John would have hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 But Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffereth him. 16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; 17 and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. [American Standard Version; ASV]
Clearly this scripture shows that Jesus' (Yeshua's) Father, Almighty God (YHWH) approved of his Son, and sent his spirit, the Spirit of God. This was also testified to at Acts 10:38, "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." (Authorized King James Bible; AV); And at Luke 9:34-35, "And there came a voice out of the cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud. 35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." (AV); And at Matthew 17:5, "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." (AV). In fact, John the Baptist said as recorded at John 1:32, "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the holy Ghost." (AV). Clearly these scriptures show two separate individuals or beings, a superior one, Almighty God (YHWH), and a subordinate one, his Son, Jesus (Yeshua).
Now what is this Spirit or Holy Spirit that John the Baptist mentioned? The Holy Spirit is only God's (YHWH's) active force and not even a spirit being or person. This is clearly shown at Pentecost where the Holy Spirit was poured out onto all there, Acts 2:1-4, "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (AV). This entire scripture bespeaks of a force and not a being as you do not get filled with a being! And this fact is reaffirmed at Acts 4:31, ""And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spoke the word of God with boldness." (AV); And 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, "Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; 22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (AV), surely a being would not be in our hearts as that is ludicrous, thus this scripture talks of God's (YHWH's) active force; This is clearly shown at Luke 11:13, "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (AV). Once more, why? Why? Do many say they are coequal and coeternal when clearly they are not and the Holy Ghost is just God's (YHWH's) active force? Only to try to give some resemblance of reality to a myth as we shall later see. An interesting note on the Spirit is that the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used, the neuter pronoun "it" is properly employed. This fact is conveniently over looked or hidden by most Trinitarian translators as admitted in the "New American Bible Catholic Bible," regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa•ra'kle•tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine.
Jesus' (Yeshua's) coming and his anointing by his Father (YHWH) was foretold in advance at Isaiah 42:1 where God (YHWH) called his Son his servant, "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." (AV); And Matthew 12:18 foretells the fulfillment, "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles." (AV). Likewise, this is testified to at Isaiah 11:2, "And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord;" (AV). In fact, Jesus (Yeshua) prayed to his Father (YHWH) just before his execution, saying at John 12:28, "Father, glorify thy name, Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." (AV).
Yet there are those misguided ones that accept the false God (YHWH) dishonoring doctrine of the Trinity that claim the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) are coequal which clearly when one prays to the other, this claim can NOT be true. In fact, the doctrine of The Trinity defies the universally accepted and historically always held meaning of the words for father and son. Not only does it defy the meaning of these words, it destroys their meaning! This fact is important to realize for God gave us language. It was not invented by man as the evolutionist tries to say. Thus, we are not destroying man made terms, but God-given terms! One well known document, The Westminister Confession, even goes so far as to state, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity." But we have seen this is impossible if the Bible is true. At John 14:28, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (AV); thus, clearly no coequality as required by the Godhead theory of this document as clearly earlier shown. The Spirit is not even a being, but God's (YHWH's) active force.
Commentary on 2 Corinthians 13:13-14 all 'Sola Scriptura,' covering 2 Corinthians 13:14 and more:
2 Corinthians 13:13-14 All the saints salute you. 14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. (American Standard Version; ASV)
Here the Apostle Paul expresses the hope that the grace of the Lord, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, and of love of his Father, God (YHWH), and the spirit or power of God (YHWH) shall be on all true Christians. And the Apostle John follows through with this thought at John 14:26, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (Authorized King James Bible; AV). Of this Holy Spirit or Ghost, Jesus (Yeshua) spoke of the holy spirit as a "helper," and he said it would teach, guide, and speak as recorded at John 14:16-17, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (AV). And this same thought is carried at John 16:13, ""Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." (AV). The Greek word he used for helper (pa•ra'kle•tos) is in the masculine gender. Thus, when Jesus referred to what the helper would do, he used masculine personal pronouns as shown at John 16:7- 8, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." (AV). On the other hand, when the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used, the neuter pronoun "it" is properly employed. This fact is conveniently over looked or hidden by most Trinitarian translators as admitted in the "New American Bible Catholic Bible," regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa•ra'kle•tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine.
This scripture, 2 Corinthians 13:13-14 previously quoted, brings up the need for unity among all true Christians as do the scriptures immediately prior to it, 2 Corinthians 13:11-12, "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfected; be comforted; be of the same mind; live in peace: and the God of love and peace shall be with you. 12 Salute one another with a holy kiss." (ASV), and this need is further testified to at Ephesians 4:13, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:" (AV). We need to per Ephesians 4:21-22, "If indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, 22 that in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit," (New American Standard Bible, Ref. Ed., by Moody Press; NASB-MP), this scripture clearly showing the need to make over our personality unto the new personality acceptable to Jesus (Yeshua) Christ as testified to at Ephesians 4:23, "And be renewed tn the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." (NASB-MP). This is necessary as there is only one Almighty God (YHWH) as testified to at Ephesians 4:6, "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (AV). For a certainty each of us, if we accept, is, Ephesians 4:7, "But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ." (AV).
Clearly since there is but one Almighty God (YHWH) There can be no Trinity which is a myth requiring a 'Godhead' of three equal beings, coeternal and coequal as affirmed in the Westminister Confession, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity." But as we have seen, no such relationship exist between Almighty God (YHWH), the superior one; his son, the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) of which the Bible testifies at 1 Corinthians 11:3, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." )AV) clearly showing God (YHWH) is the head of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ; thus proving they are not coequal. Likewise Revelations 3:14 clearly shows they are not coeternal, "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" which shows him as the first of God's (YHWH's) creation. In fact, when Jesus (Yeshua) was ascending to be with his Father in heaven, he prayed, as recorded in John 17:5, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (AV). Showing he was returning to where he had been before with his Father (YHWH), see John 6:62, "What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before?" (NASB-MP). Once returned to heaven, God's (YHWH's) Son, Jesus (Yeshua) is, 1 Peter 3:22, "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him" (AV).
<<Sub Section 'P' Commentaries on the Scriptures>>
Commentary on John 1:14 all 'Sola Scriptura.'
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. (American Standard Version; ASV)
This scripture emphasis that Jesus (Yeshua) was sent to the earth to dwell among us as testified to at 1 John 4:9, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." (AV); And 1 John 4:14, "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." (AV), clearly Jesus' (Yeshua's) Father (YHWH) sent him showing he was superior and not coequal with His Son; And Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (AV). In fact, the scriptures clearly show that all true Christians must confess Jesus (Yeshua) has come in the flesh as testified to at 1 John 4:2, "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." (AV); whereas, 2 John 7 states shows many deceiver would come, "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (AV).
Clearly the only way to God (YHWH) is through his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) whom he has appointed as, 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (AV); and this is made even clearer by Jesus (Yeshua) at John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (AV). God (YHWH) has given his Son Jesus (Yeshua) an assignment and given him power over everything except himself to carry it out as testified to at 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (AV), testifies that God (YHWH) had given his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) over all except himself when the scripture says "it is manifest that he is excepted."
Jesus (Yeshua) actually prayed to his Father (YHWH) just before being put to death as a human to give him back the glory he previously had with his Father (YHWH) in heaven as recorded at John 17:5- "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept my word. 7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." (AV). Unmistakably Jesus (Yeshua) acknowledges in his prayer that his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) had given him everything and was his superior when he stated, "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." Therefore, we see that the Trinity is but a myth as the reality is that Jesus (Yeshua) is NOT coequal with his Father (YHWH), but that his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) is the Supreme one.
Commentary on John 1:18 all 'Sola Scriptura.'
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (American Standard Version, ASV)
Now this scripture seem straight forward and it is, but some translations did a poor job of translating it. Let's look at how the New International Version (NIV) translates this, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.' Would appear to show Jesus (Yeshua) as the One and Only, but this is just an error in translation in the NIV as shown by both the Authorized King James (AV) which renders it, ""No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." And the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible renders it, "No one has at any time seen God. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him." Now some may ask, how do you determine for sure which way of translating is correct. You do this quite simply by investigation the scripture from the Old Testament actually being quoted here by the Apostle John for the first part of this scripture which is Exodus 33:20, "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." (Authorized King James Bible; AV); And compare with similar scriptures in the New Testament such as John 6:46, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." (AV). Then you check the Old Testament scripture from which the Apostle John took the second part, Proverbs 8:30, where Jesus (Yeshua) while in heaven was speaking, "Then I was by him, as one brought up with him; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him," (AV). And cross reference this in the New Testament to John 13:23, "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." (AV).
Now of course, people have seen Jesus (Yeshua). The Apostle John, who wrote John 1:18, saw Jesus. He even said four verses earlier that Jesus (God
according to Trinitarians) had become flesh, John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Yet no one has seen God. If John were trying to say in John 1:1 that Jesus (Yeshua) was God (YHWH) and then a few verses later say no one has seen God (YHWH), would he not need to put some type of qualifying statement explaining how this can be? Or are we to assume his readers had a firm grasp of the Duality or Trinity and needed no explanation of this paradox? While some Bibles say "only-begotten son" the oldest manuscripts say "only-begotten god". Most Bible do not want to translate it literally that way since this would imply Jesus (Yeshua) was made a god by God (YHWH). So the New International Version (NIV) reads as I quoted above "God the One and Only". However, the footnote to the NIV reads "or the Only-Begotten". It is proper that the NIV placed that footnote in its Bible translation because we are inclined to ask, "the One and Only what?" In what way is the Son the 'One and Only God' that the Father (YHWH)is not? John said that Jesus (Yeshua) was with God (YHWH) and yet was a god and Jesus (Yeshua) was the only begotten son of God (YHWH), the context supports a literal translation of John 1:18. Jesus (Yeshua) was the "only-begotten god". That is, God Almighty created Jesus and put him in the position of a god or mighty spirit person whom He used to create the rest of the universe.
While it is true that angels and men can be referred to as "gods", they were not begotten directly by Almighty God.
Interestingly the NIV says, John 6:27, "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." (NIV). It is obvious that there are two individuals here: the Son of Man (Yeshua) and God the Father (YHWH). Two separate and distinct persons. Also notice that the Father (YHWH) places his "seal of approval" on the Son. But nowhere in the Bible is there a Scripture where the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) places approval on the Father (YHWH). This shows or indicates that the Father is in the superior position and the Son is in the inferior position, i.e., they are NOT COEQUAL.
The NIV reaffirms this fact, they are NOT COEQUAL at 1 Peter 1:1-2, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance." (NIV). Once more we see two separate and distinct beings here: God the Father (YHWH) and Jesus (Yeshua) Christ.
Now some will say that Jesus (Yeshua) and His Father (YHWH) are one-and-the-same based on the usual out of context rendering of John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Well, try to keep the mental context of who Jesus was to the people who lived and studied about him when the Bible text was written. Apart from this verse, there is no indicator that anyone thought that Jesus (Yeshua)was God (YHWH). This is made clear by John 1:2, which shows, "The same was in the beginning with God." (AV); And John 1:10, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." (AV); Last consider John 1:14, previously quoted, and it is quite clear that they are NOT the same individual. But two distinct individuals. Note, some Bibles correctly render this as either as "the Word was a god," or "the Word was Divine." Both of these are in harmony with the remaining scriptures in John the first chapter.
The fact is that no Apostle nor any other writer of the Bible ever came out and stated that "there is One God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost". No example of the thousands of occurrences of YHWH and God in the original manuscripts can be shown to mean 'God in three Persons' as some falsely claim. In fact neither the word Duality nor Trinity appear nowhere in the scriptures. So be ye not mislead into believing the doctrines of men, but remember John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (AV).
<<Sub Section 'Q' Commentaries on the Scriptures>>
Commentary on John 15:26 all 'Sola Scriptura."
John 15:26 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 bear witness of me: (American Standard Version; ASV)
This scripture clearly shows that the Spirit comes from the Father (YHWH), but we need to ask just what is this spirit, and to look at the scriptures immediately proceeding John 15:26. Let's now look at these scriptures. John 15:18-25, "If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated me before [it hated] you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But [this cometh to pass], that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause." (ASV). Here Jesus (Yeshua) clearly testified that he had been sent, i.e., by a superior one, "they know not him that sent me," and this is reinforced when he said, "He that hateth me hateth my Father also." So Jesus (Yeshua) had been sent by his Father (YHWH) to do his Father's (YHWH's) will, and clearly testified at John 5:19, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (AV); therefore we see that Jesus (Yeshua) was doing the will of his Father (YHWH).
Now let's consider the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, that Jesus (Yeshua) would send to true Christians from his Father (YHWH). What exactly is it? This Spirit or Comforter is God's (YHWH's) active force that goes forth or emanates from Almighty God (YHWH). One of its functions is to act as a Comforter to mankind, see John 14:26, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (AV); And this is reaffirmed at John 14:16-17, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (AV).
In summary, It is the Creator's (YHWH's) force for getting things accomplished, 1 Corinthians 2:10, " And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:" (Ephesians 6:17; AV), " But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." (AV). This is made even clearer as the Bible shows that God (YHWH) pours out his active force onto his followers, Joel 2:28-29, "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit." (AV), and also caused inspired individuals to, 2 Peter 1:21, " For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (AV). Clearly then the Trinity is just a myth as defined as follows in the Westminister Confession, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity;" since Jesus (Yeshua) is NOT COEQUAL with his Father, Almighty God (YHWH), NOR is the Holy Spirit, since this is not an individual, but clearly the power and/or force of God (YHWH). Note, in ancient Koine Greek, the Spirit is always grammatically of the neutral gender, the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used, the neuter pronoun "it" is properly employed. This fact is conveniently over looked or hidden by most Trinitarian translators as admitted in the "New American Bible Catholic Bible," regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa•ra'kle•tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine. It is now clear beyond question that the Trinity is just false doctrine warned against at Titus 2:1, ""But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" (AV); this means we must reject myths being put forth as doctrine.
Commentary on Galatians 4:6 all 'Sola Scriptura."
Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (American Standard Version; ASV)
Let's first look at the scriptures immediately proceeding this to gain an understanding of the contest of this scripture, Galatians 4:1-5, "But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant though he is lord of all; 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the day appointed of the father. 3 So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world: 4 but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (ASV). Here is shown God's (YHWH's) purpose for sending his only begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to the earth and this is clarified at Romans 5:12, "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (The Kingdom Interlinear Lexicon). So he was sent by his Father (YHWH) to redeem mankind of inherited sin, 1 John 4:14, "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." (Authorized King James Bible, AV); Thus clearly showing his Father (YHWH), as the superior one, sent his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to the world clearly showing a superior subordinate relationship and not one of coequality.
Now let's look at the scriptures immediately after this to gain an even better understanding of the contest of Galatians 4:6, see Galatians 4:7-11, "So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. Howbeit at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them that by nature are no gods: 9 but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain." (ASV). So God (YHWH) sent his Spirit, Romans 8:16, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (AV); And this Spirit of God (YHWH), 1 John 3:24, "And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." (AV); And the drelling of his active force or spirit in us is affirmed at 1 John 4:13, "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (AV). And 1 John 3:230-24 shows, "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another as he gave us commandment. 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the spirit which he hath given." (AV).
Now exactly what is the Spirit of God (YHWH) which is also called the Comforter? It is God's (YHWH's)active force or power that he uses to accomplish his will as shown by John 14:26, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (AV); And this is reaffirmed at John 14:16-17, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (AV). And Romans 5:5 shows God (YHWH) gives true Christians a part of his power or holy spirit, "And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." (Authorized King James Bible;" (AV); and this is reaffirmed at Mark 14:33-36, "And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. 35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt." (AV). Here Jesus was praying to his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) and acknowledging him as the superior one contrary to the untruths put forth by man such as in the Westminister Confession which clearly contradicts the Word of God by stating of one substance and power; whereas, God (YHWH) has been shown by the scriptures to be the superior one that even his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) prays to. It is time for all to disgard myths such as the Trinity put forth as supposed truth by misguided documents such as the Westminster Confession which are the product of hermeneutic methodology used by those who seek to hide the truth of the scriptures instead of letting the scriptures speak for themselves as they do in true 'Sola Scripture' comments on the Word of God; This per 2 Peter 1:20, "This, then, you must understand first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation." (The Confraternity Edition of The New Testament by John C. Winston Co. -Catholic).
<CONCLUSION>
Unfortunately, the clever deceiver and twister of the scripture who was one of the best masters with respect using hermeneutic methodology to deceive unwary ones into false doctrine and mythology, Cornelius Burges, Assessor to the Westminster Assembly, was only one of many; but more polished in the art of deception than most.
As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions evoked by the Church's expansion. (*2)
The most famous of these Apologists was Justin Martyr (c.107-166 AD). He was born a pagan, became a pagan philosopher, then a Christian. He believed that Christianity and Greek Philosophy were related. According to McGiffert, "Justin insisted that Christ came from God; he did not identify him with God. . . [He] conceiv[ed] of God as a transcendent being, who could not possibly come into contact with the world of men and things." (*2).
An exhaustive review of Scripture and history reveals the simple fact that the Trinity teaching was unknown to the early New Testament Christians. That the doctrine of the Trinity is a "borrowed doctrine" and foreign to the Scriptures is supported by many authorities. Under the article Trinity we read, "The term 'Trinity' is not a biblical term...In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine...As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason" (*1).
The moral of this discourse is accept the Word of God, reject the clever twisting of the Word of God by deceitful men in keeping with Titus 2:1, ", "But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" (AV); this means we must reject myths being put forth as doctrine as does the Westminister Confession and similar deceptive documents by others.
V REFERENCES:
*1 the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, volume 4, page 3012-3014, "The term 'Trinity' is not a Biblical term and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture.
"...the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated doctrine, but in fragmentary allusions.
"The doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason.
"Triads of divinities, no doubt, occur in nearly all polytheistic religions, formed under very various influences. Sometimes, as in the Egyptian triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus, it is the analogy of the human family with its father, mother and son which lies at their basis. Sometimes they are the effect of mere syncretism, three deities worshipped in different localities being brought together in the common worship of all.
"Sometimes they are the result apparently of nothing more than odd human tendency to think in threes, which has given the number three wide-spread standing as a sacred number.
"It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
"As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His Trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him. Many attempts have, nevertheless, been made to construct a rational proof of the Trinity of the Godhead.
"Certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament. It is a plain matter of fact that none who have depended on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever attained to the doctrine of the Trinity.
"It would seem clear that we must recognize in the Old Testament doctrine of the relation of God to His revelation by the creative Word and the Spirit, at least the germ of the distinctions in the Godhead afterward fully made known in the Christian revelation."
*2 - Pelikan, Jaroslav. "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition" (100-600). Chicago: U of Chicago P. 1971. Vol. 1 of "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine." 5 vols.
APPENDIX:
(1) Jamieson, Fausett and Brown, volume 6, page 643, regarding I John 5:7
"The only Greek manuscripts, in any form which support the words 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth...' are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the 15th century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All old versions omit the words."
(2) Sacred Origins of Profound Things, by Charles Panati, pages 302-306
"Among the three great monotheistic religions, only Christianity embraces the Trinitarian Creed: the coexistence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in a single Godhead, distinctly different, yet one and the same."
"One might ask - as Jews and Muslims repeatedly have - isn't it cheating for a religion to be monotheistic if it recognizes three distinctly different Gods? Three Gods; three different names; three different functions: the Creator, the Redeemer, the Sanctifier. Should, Muslims suggested, this not be called 'tritheism'?
"Significantly, the Christian books of the Bible - the Gospels, Acts, Epistles (or letters), Revelation, and the Apocrypha ('things that are hidden') - make no explicit reference to a three-fold Godhead.
"Nor did Jesus, a Jew, perhaps with rabbinic training, violate the Judaic motto - 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' - in his teachings.
"God the Father does mention God the Son in the New Testament, and the Son in turn mentions the Father and the Holy Spirit. The outline of a trinity is there, but it
The False Doctrine of the Trinity Introduced by an Apostate Church in 325 A.D. Proven Wrong by the Bible:
Many believe in the False Dogma of the Trinity and really have only a superficial knowledge of the Theology. So before I discuss this false doctrine using only the Bible I am going into what this false theology really is from an impeccable source.
The Trinitarian dogma, The Cyclopoedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York 1871, by John M'Clintock and James Strong, Vol. II, page 560-561, states, "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the
persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.....The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal...So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty...So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God...The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding...And in this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal. So that in all things, as is afore said, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity." [this is the Athanasian Creed quoted in the above mentioned Cyclopoedia].
Now lets see what the Bible (King James Bible; KJB):
First, it says at many places the following:
Matthew 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Matthew 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Matthew 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Matthew 27:40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
Matthew 27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
Matthew 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mark 3:11 And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Luke 4:3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
Luke 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
Luke 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.
Luke 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
Luke 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
John 11:27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
John 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Acts 8:37 And 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.
Acts 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
2 Corinthians 1:19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.
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.
Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Hebrews 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
1 John 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
Now we noted in all the above Scriptures it calls Jesus Christ (Yeshua) the Son of God; interesting since for if the Trinity was true, it would read God the Son instead of the Son of God. Since it reads the same in every translation I know of except one "feminists" biased Bible, where it reads Daughter of God which I am sure none of you would agree with. Therefore, it is self evident that Jesus is God's (YHWH) son and not God the Son as would be technically necessary for the trinity to be true.
Second, the Bible explicitly says:
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. [Col. 1:12-18 AV – KJB]
We see here that Jesus is God’s (YHWH) dear son and that Jesus is the firstborn of every creature; whereas, God clearly had no beginning as you all well know. Once again the Trinity is shown as impossible of being true, thus it is false dogma.
Third, The Bible explicitly shows Jesus (Yeshua) asking his father, Almighty God (YHWH) to glorify him in a prayer as follows:
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. [John 17.1-12 AV]
Here Jesus is clearly praying to his Father as a more powerful one and not to another part of himself as would be required by false Trinitarian Theology.
Fourth, the Bible clearly says "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."This scripture clearly shows Jesus (Yeshua) to be an obedient Son to his Father (YHWH).
1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [Phil. 2:1-11 AV]
And verse 11 clearly shows hierarchy of power in Heaven since it says we should confess Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God. Showing that recognizing Jesus as the Son of God brings glory to his Father (YHWH). Clearly, therefore, Trinitarian theology can not be true, hence it is therefore FALSE.
Fifth, as we all know the giver and the receiver can not be the same, the Bible shows that Jesus (Yeshua) was given power by his Father (YHWH).
49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. [John 8:49-59 AV].
Once more Jesus (Yeshua) says, “Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.” Clearly showing his Father (YHWH) was a distinct entity and that Jesus (Yeshua) was doing works to honor his Father (YHWH). Once more it is explicitly shown that the Trinity doctrine is false and a messed up belief.
Sixth, Jesus (Yeshua) clearly said he could do nothing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father (YHWH) doing:
7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.
10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.
11 He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.
12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?
13 And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.
14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. [John 5:19 AV]
Clearly, Jesus (Yeshua) is obedient to his Father (YHWH) a superior one and by being obedient brings honour to his Father (YHWH). Also, in this situation, Jesus (Yeshua) once more is shown to be the receivee and his Father the giver. This would be impossible under Trinitarian Theology as it maintains they are one Godhead so either the Bible is wrong or Trinitarian Theology is wrong. I am as a true follower of Jesus (Yeshau) taking the Bible, God's written word for our guidance, as correct; whereas, many wrongly take the false doctrine of the Trinity as correct. Now stand up and show whether you are for the Bible or for the Trinity.
Seventh, now the Bible explicitly shows the chain-of-command; from Almighty God (YHWH) on down as follows:
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3 AV)
This scripture clearly shows that the 'head of Christ is God' so the Trinity is once more shown to be false and the Bible shown to be true.
As we can now all see we should stand up for the Bible and not the false doctrine of the Trinity.
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION AN EXAMPLE OF TWISTING BY USE OF HERMENEUTIC METHODOLOGY TO BACK UP A MYTH/FALSE DOCTRINE:
<INTRODUCTION>
The Westminster Confession of faith was written by one Cornelius Burges, Assessor to the Westminster Assembly, in 1646. He was a very skilled individual with respect twisting the scriptures and chose hermeneutic methodology over 'Sola Scriptura' methodology as hermeneutic methodology was well suited for twisting the scripture to eloquently make it appear that the Word of God supported what ever you wanted it to; whereas, this could NOT be done with 'Sola Scripture' methodology unless it was greatly distorted and no longer true 'Sola Scriptura' methodology.
In Section 2 of the Westminister Confession of faith dealing with the Trinity myth which he supported, he did a masterpiece of deception in obfuscating the Word of God to make it appear that it backed his favorite myth/false doctrine of the Trinity which of course it does not. In fact, nowhere does the word Trinity even appear in the Bible, as was noted by the International Encyclopedia of the Bible (*1). He carefully crafted his deception in three parts, the first, 'There is but one only living, and true God:' is true and designed to throw one off guard to the deception to follow in the last part of Section 2, clever as is the deception of any con man. The second part, 'God hath all life,(a) glory,(b) goodness,(c) blessedness,(d) in and of Himself;' is likewise basically true, but with some very subtle deception or twisting in it designed to develop the readers confidence so the reader will gulp down the God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine and myth of the third part as Truth which of course it is anything but.
<FIRST AND SECOND PART OF A CLEVER DECEPTION>
I. There is but one only,(a) living, and true God:(b) who is infinite in being and perfection,(c) a most pure spirit,(d) invisible,(e) without body, parts,(f) or passions,(g) immutable,(h) immense,(i) eternal,(k) incomprehensible,(l) almighty,(m) most wise,(n) most holy,(o) most free,(p) most absolute,(q) working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,(r) for His own glory;(s) most loving,(t) gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;(u) the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;(w) and withal, most just and terrible in His judgments,(x) hating all sin,(y) and who will by no means clear the guilty.(z)
(a) Deut. 6:4; I Cor. 8:4, 6.
(b) I Thess. 1:9; Jer. 10:10.
(c) Job 11:7, 8, 9; Job 26:14.
(d) John 4:24.
(e) I Tim. 1:17.
(f) Deut. 4:15, 16; John 4:24, with Luke 24:39.
(g) Acts 14:11, 15.
(h) James 1:17; Mal. 3:6.
(i) I Kings 8:27; Jer. 23:23, 24.
(k) Ps. 90:2; I Tim. 1:17.
(l) Ps. 145:3.
(m) Gen. 17:1; Rev. 4:8.
(n) Rom. 16:27.
(o) Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8.
(p) Ps. 115:3.
(q) Exod. 3:14.
(r) Eph. 1:11.
(s) Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36.
(t) I John 4:8, 16.
(u) Exod. 34:6, 7.
(w) Heb. 11:6.
(x) Neh. 9:32, 33.
(y) Ps. 5:5, 6.
(z) Nah. 1:2, 3; Exod. 34:7.
II. God hath all life,(a) glory,(b) goodness,(c) blessedness,(d) in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made,(e) nor deriving any glory from them,(f) but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them: He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;(g) and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth.(h) In His sight all things are open and manifest;(i) His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,(k) so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.(l) He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.(m) To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.(n)
(a) John 5:26.
(b) Acts 7:2.
(c) Ps. 119:68.
(d) I Tim. 6:15; Rom. 9:5.
(e) Acts 17:24, 25.
(f) Job 22:2, 3.
(g) Rom 11:36.
(h) Rev. 4:11; I Tim. 6:15; Dan. 4:25, 35.
(i) Heb. 4:13.
(k) Rom. 11:33, 34; Ps. 147:5.
(l) Acts 15:18; Ezek. 11:5.
(m) Ps. 145:17; Rom. 7:12.
(n) Rev. 5:12, 13, 14.
Please note his reference to scripture in both part 1 and 2 designed to gain the readers confidence who does not realize the difference between hermeneutic methodology which is usually used to twist and true 'Sola Scriptura' methodology which is designed to bring out Bible Truths or to let the Bible interpret itself per 2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.," (Authorized King James Bible; AV). Also, please bear in mind the following two scriptures from the Old Testament when we next discuss Section 3 and think why they show this whole section is error. These scriptures are:
Psalm 80:17 "Let thy hand be upon the MAN of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself." (AV).
In Colossians 3:1 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." (AV).
Now just thing, If Jesus Christ sits on the right hand of God, then he must be the MAN mentioned in Psalm 80:17. And if Jesus Christ is the MAN that sits on the right hand of God...., obviously Cornelius Burges, Assessor to the Westminster Assembly, is a deceptive twister and all he says is to be rejected as the God (YHWH) dishonoring teaching of mankind warned against at Titus 1:10-11, "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." (AV); remember many false prophets like Cornelius Burgess, per 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (AV).
<SECTION THREE, THE GREAT DECEPTION>
Section three shall be covered by first presenting exactly what the deceiver Cornelius Burgess wrote, and the scriptures he used in a hermeneutics methodology way of deceiving to seemingly back up the false doctrine and myth he was presenting. Then, each scripture he used in his deception will be commented on individually to show its true Biblical significance as the Word of God so all will be able to understand how Cornelius Burgess was being deceitful and twisting the Word of God.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.(o) The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father:(p) the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.(q)
(o) I John 5:7; Matt. 3:16, 17; Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14.
(p) John 1:14, 18.
(q) John 15:26; Gal. 4:6.
Now we shall deal with each scripture individually by section:
<<Sub Section 'O' Commentaries on the Scriptures>>
The first scripture, the deceiver Cornelius Burgess used was an added to scripture of 1 John 5:7 as contained in the Authorized King James Bible which is the most well known intentional distortion of scripture in the entire Bible, what lack of integrity and honesty:
Commentary on 1 John 5:7:
1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (Authorized King James: AV)
1 John 5:7 "And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible)
1 John 5:7 " For there are three that testify:" (New American Standard Bible: NASB)
1 John 5:7 "There are three that testify:" (New Revised Standard Version; NRSV)
1 John 5:7 "quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant (The Latin Vulgate)
As one can clearly see these three scriptures all of 1 John 5:7, are quite different, now why is this? Let's find out!
Many say 1 John 5:7 is the center masterpiece for the concept of the Trinity, i.e., the center or sustaining gem so to speak of this doctrine. One such follows:
This is the only passage in the whole Bible that gives any color to the trinity or "oneness" doctrines. It is the central crystal of the Christian faith upon which we hold the blessed trinity to be ever eternal self-evident to all. [Catholic pamphlet from 1903]
Now for this to be true, the Authorized King James and the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible versions would of necessity have to be true and the New American Standard Bible rendering false; but then Jerome's original Latin Vulgate had a rendering more in line with the New American Standard Bible (NASB) so there is cast the question of why the earliest Catholic bible was quite different from the present.
Really one or the other would have to be an intentional corruption of scripture in violation of Revelation 22:18, "It testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book;" (NASB)
Clearly someone has added to one of these two renderings of 1 John 5:7 since this is clearly NOT a difference resulting from differs in translation. Now which has been added to in violation of God's (YHWH's) commandment as recorded by his Apostle John?
Well let's see what the Moody Bible Institute has to say on this in one of their publications. "The text of this verse should read, 'Because there are three that bear record.' The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the Trinitarian addition before the fourteenth century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the Trinity in the first 450 years of the church era." [The Wycliffe Bible Commentary," edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer (OT) and Earett F. Harrison (NT), by Moody Press, Chicago, a division of Moody Bible Institute, ISBN: 0-8024-9695-4, Library of Congress Catalogue Card #: 62-20893, page 1477].
Quite an admission from an institute that is pro-Trinitarian; therefore, the New American Standard Bible is correct and the Authorized King James and the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible are in gross error here with respect to this addition made in violation of the command of Revelation 18:22. My what a surprise. In fact this corruption, "and these three are one" was added by a monk, and is so well knows, as previously mentioned, as a corrupt and spurious verse addition that it even has its own name, Comma Johanna (in Greek, Comma Ioanneum), can you imagine that?
In fact this corruption of scripture does not appear in any manuscript in or out of the New Testament earlier than the 13 th. Century. It occurs in NO ancient Gree, manuscript, nor in the writings of any Greek Christian writers. "It is universally discredited by Greek scholars and editors of the Greek text of the New Testament." ["The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament," by Edgar J. Goodspeed - Chicago 1943, page 557].
Strange, all good Bible scholars recognize this as spurious including Catholic scholars, but, "....most Catholic writers of the present day agree the words were not contained in the original test; at the same time, until further action be taken by the Holy See it is not open to Catholic editors to eliminate the words from a version made for use of the faithful." [The Westminister Version of the Sacred Scriptures," Cutbert Lattey, S.J., and Joseph Keating, S.J., general editors, Vol. IV, pages 145 and 146, London 1931]. Now really why is this, obviously they do NOT want the 'faithful' to know they have NOT been told the truth and that their false Trinity doctrine does not 'hold water.'
Most modern Bibles have eliminated this spurious addition done against the command found at Revelations 22:18: see the following:
For there are three that testify: (New American Standard Bible: NASB)
There are three that testify: (New Revised Standard Version: NRSV)
And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. (The Revised Standard Version; RSV)
There are three witnesses: (The Good News Translation)
So there are three witnesses that tell us about Jesus: (New Century Version)
It is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. (World English Version)
For they that bear witness are three. (The Darby Translation)
For there are three that testify: (Holman Standard Christian Translation)
For there are three that give testimony-- the Spirit, the water, and the blood; (Weymouth Translation)
For there are three that testify: (New International Version)
Now really, how can anyone in all honesty believe a false doctrine whose principle support has been text that is spurious or test that can be translated at least nine (9) different ways without violating the grammatical rules of Koine Greek as can John 1:1? Especially so when the common rendering is shown to be out of context by John 1:2 and John 1:14 right after it.
Obviously thinking individuals should recognize the nonsense doctrine of the three-in-one god as spurious God (YHWH) dishonoring doctrine of men and NOT from God (YHWH).
<<<APPENDIX TO COMMENTARY ON 1 JOHN 5:7>>>:
(1) The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.
"5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement." --NET Bible
Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma, the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ pathvr, oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'" e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ marturou'nte" ejn th'/ gh'/ ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence-both external and internal-is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.1
This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3 Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text,4 as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.
Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings-even in places where the TR/Byzantine manuscripts lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text. Further, it puts these Protestant proponents in the awkward and self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as inspired as the apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings-due either to carelessness or lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek).
In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. To argue that the Comma must be authentic is Bultmannian in its method, for it ignores history at every level. As such, it has very little to do with biblical Christianity, for a biblical faith is one that is rooted in history.
Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.
Unfortunately, for many, the Comma and other similar passages have become such emotional baggage that is dragged around whenever the Bible is read that a knee-jerk reaction and ad hominem argumentation becomes the first and only way that they can process this issue. Sadly, neither empirical evidence nor reason can dissuade them from their views. The irony is that their very clinging to tradition at all costs (namely, of an outmoded translation which, though a literary monument in its day, is now like a Model T on the Autobahn) emulates Roman Catholicism in its regard for tradition.5 If the King James translators knew that this would be the result nearly four hundred years after the completion of their work, they'd be writhing in their graves.
1 For a detailed discussion, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., 647-49.
2 Not only the ancient orthodox writers, but also modern orthodox scholars would of course be delighted if this reading were the original one. But the fact is that the evidence simply does not support the Trinitarian formula here-and these orthodox scholars just happen to hold to the reasonable position that it is essential to affirm what the Bible affirms where it affirms it, rather than create such affirmations ex nihilo. That KJV advocates have charged modern translations with heresy because they lack the Comma is a house of cards, for the same translators who have worked on the NIV, NASB, or NET (as well as many other translations) have written several articles and books affirming the Trinity.
3 This manuscript which contains the entire New Testament is now housed in Dublin. It has been examined so often at this one place that the book now reportedly falls open naturally to 1 John 5.
4 That Erasmus made such a protest or that he had explicitly promised to include the Comma is an overstatement of the evidence, though the converse of this can be said to be true: Erasmus refused to put this in his without Greek manuscript support.
5 Thus, TR-KJV advocates subconsciously embrace two diametrically opposed traditions: when it comes to the first 1500 years of church history, they hold to a Bultmannian kind of Christianity (viz., the basis for their belief in the superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts-and in particular, the half dozen that stand behind the TR-has very little empirical substance of historical worth). Once such readings became a part of tradition, however, by way of the TR, the argument shifts to one of tradition rather than non-empirical fideism. Neither basis, of course, resembles Protestantism
Commentary on Matthew 3:13-17 all 'Sola Scriptura,' covering Matthew 3:16-17 and more.
Matthew 3:13-17 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John would have hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 But Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffereth him. 16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; 17 and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. [American Standard Version; ASV]
Clearly this scripture shows that Jesus' (Yeshua's) Father, Almighty God (YHWH) approved of his Son, and sent his spirit, the Spirit of God. This was also testified to at Acts 10:38, "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." (Authorized King James Bible; AV); And at Luke 9:34-35, "And there came a voice out of the cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud. 35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." (AV); And at Matthew 17:5, "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." (AV). In fact, John the Baptist said as recorded at John 1:32, "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the holy Ghost." (AV). Clearly these scriptures show two separate individuals or beings, a superior one, Almighty God (YHWH), and a subordinate one, his Son, Jesus (Yeshua).
Now what is this Spirit or Holy Spirit that John the Baptist mentioned? The Holy Spirit is only God's (YHWH's) active force and not even a spirit being or person. This is clearly shown at Pentecost where the Holy Spirit was poured out onto all there, Acts 2:1-4, "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (AV). This entire scripture bespeaks of a force and not a being as you do not get filled with a being! And this fact is reaffirmed at Acts 4:31, ""And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spoke the word of God with boldness." (AV); And 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, "Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; 22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (AV), surely a being would not be in our hearts as that is ludicrous, thus this scripture talks of God's (YHWH's) active force; This is clearly shown at Luke 11:13, "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (AV). Once more, why? Why? Do many say they are coequal and coeternal when clearly they are not and the Holy Ghost is just God's (YHWH's) active force? Only to try to give some resemblance of reality to a myth as we shall later see. An interesting note on the Spirit is that the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used, the neuter pronoun "it" is properly employed. This fact is conveniently over looked or hidden by most Trinitarian translators as admitted in the "New American Bible Catholic Bible," regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa•ra'kle•tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine.
Jesus' (Yeshua's) coming and his anointing by his Father (YHWH) was foretold in advance at Isaiah 42:1 where God (YHWH) called his Son his servant, "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." (AV); And Matthew 12:18 foretells the fulfillment, "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles." (AV). Likewise, this is testified to at Isaiah 11:2, "And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord;" (AV). In fact, Jesus (Yeshua) prayed to his Father (YHWH) just before his execution, saying at John 12:28, "Father, glorify thy name, Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." (AV).
Yet there are those misguided ones that accept the false God (YHWH) dishonoring doctrine of the Trinity that claim the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) are coequal which clearly when one prays to the other, this claim can NOT be true. In fact, the doctrine of The Trinity defies the universally accepted and historically always held meaning of the words for father and son. Not only does it defy the meaning of these words, it destroys their meaning! This fact is important to realize for God gave us language. It was not invented by man as the evolutionist tries to say. Thus, we are not destroying man made terms, but God-given terms! One well known document, The Westminister Confession, even goes so far as to state, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity." But we have seen this is impossible if the Bible is true. At John 14:28, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (AV); thus, clearly no coequality as required by the Godhead theory of this document as clearly earlier shown. The Spirit is not even a being, but God's (YHWH's) active force.
Commentary on 2 Corinthians 13:13-14 all 'Sola Scriptura,' covering 2 Corinthians 13:14 and more:
2 Corinthians 13:13-14 All the saints salute you. 14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. (American Standard Version; ASV)
Here the Apostle Paul expresses the hope that the grace of the Lord, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, and of love of his Father, God (YHWH), and the spirit or power of God (YHWH) shall be on all true Christians. And the Apostle John follows through with this thought at John 14:26, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (Authorized King James Bible; AV). Of this Holy Spirit or Ghost, Jesus (Yeshua) spoke of the holy spirit as a "helper," and he said it would teach, guide, and speak as recorded at John 14:16-17, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (AV). And this same thought is carried at John 16:13, ""Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." (AV). The Greek word he used for helper (pa•ra'kle•tos) is in the masculine gender. Thus, when Jesus referred to what the helper would do, he used masculine personal pronouns as shown at John 16:7- 8, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." (AV). On the other hand, when the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used, the neuter pronoun "it" is properly employed. This fact is conveniently over looked or hidden by most Trinitarian translators as admitted in the "New American Bible Catholic Bible," regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa•ra'kle•tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine.
This scripture, 2 Corinthians 13:13-14 previously quoted, brings up the need for unity among all true Christians as do the scriptures immediately prior to it, 2 Corinthians 13:11-12, "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfected; be comforted; be of the same mind; live in peace: and the God of love and peace shall be with you. 12 Salute one another with a holy kiss." (ASV), and this need is further testified to at Ephesians 4:13, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:" (AV). We need to per Ephesians 4:21-22, "If indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, 22 that in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit," (New American Standard Bible, Ref. Ed., by Moody Press; NASB-MP), this scripture clearly showing the need to make over our personality unto the new personality acceptable to Jesus (Yeshua) Christ as testified to at Ephesians 4:23, "And be renewed tn the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." (NASB-MP). This is necessary as there is only one Almighty God (YHWH) as testified to at Ephesians 4:6, "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (AV). For a certainty each of us, if we accept, is, Ephesians 4:7, "But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ." (AV).
Clearly since there is but one Almighty God (YHWH) There can be no Trinity which is a myth requiring a 'Godhead' of three equal beings, coeternal and coequal as affirmed in the Westminister Confession, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity." But as we have seen, no such relationship exist between Almighty God (YHWH), the superior one; his son, the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) of which the Bible testifies at 1 Corinthians 11:3, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." )AV) clearly showing God (YHWH) is the head of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ; thus proving they are not coequal. Likewise Revelations 3:14 clearly shows they are not coeternal, "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" which shows him as the first of God's (YHWH's) creation. In fact, when Jesus (Yeshua) was ascending to be with his Father in heaven, he prayed, as recorded in John 17:5, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (AV). Showing he was returning to where he had been before with his Father (YHWH), see John 6:62, "What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before?" (NASB-MP). Once returned to heaven, God's (YHWH's) Son, Jesus (Yeshua) is, 1 Peter 3:22, "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him" (AV).
<<Sub Section 'P' Commentaries on the Scriptures>>
Commentary on John 1:14 all 'Sola Scriptura.'
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. (American Standard Version; ASV)
This scripture emphasis that Jesus (Yeshua) was sent to the earth to dwell among us as testified to at 1 John 4:9, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." (AV); And 1 John 4:14, "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." (AV), clearly Jesus' (Yeshua's) Father (YHWH) sent him showing he was superior and not coequal with His Son; And Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (AV). In fact, the scriptures clearly show that all true Christians must confess Jesus (Yeshua) has come in the flesh as testified to at 1 John 4:2, "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." (AV); whereas, 2 John 7 states shows many deceiver would come, "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (AV).
Clearly the only way to God (YHWH) is through his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) whom he has appointed as, 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (AV); and this is made even clearer by Jesus (Yeshua) at John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (AV). God (YHWH) has given his Son Jesus (Yeshua) an assignment and given him power over everything except himself to carry it out as testified to at 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (AV), testifies that God (YHWH) had given his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) over all except himself when the scripture says "it is manifest that he is excepted."
Jesus (Yeshua) actually prayed to his Father (YHWH) just before being put to death as a human to give him back the glory he previously had with his Father (YHWH) in heaven as recorded at John 17:5- "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept my word. 7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." (AV). Unmistakably Jesus (Yeshua) acknowledges in his prayer that his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) had given him everything and was his superior when he stated, "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." Therefore, we see that the Trinity is but a myth as the reality is that Jesus (Yeshua) is NOT coequal with his Father (YHWH), but that his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) is the Supreme one.
Commentary on John 1:18 all 'Sola Scriptura.'
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (American Standard Version, ASV)
Now this scripture seem straight forward and it is, but some translations did a poor job of translating it. Let's look at how the New International Version (NIV) translates this, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.' Would appear to show Jesus (Yeshua) as the One and Only, but this is just an error in translation in the NIV as shown by both the Authorized King James (AV) which renders it, ""No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." And the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible renders it, "No one has at any time seen God. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him." Now some may ask, how do you determine for sure which way of translating is correct. You do this quite simply by investigation the scripture from the Old Testament actually being quoted here by the Apostle John for the first part of this scripture which is Exodus 33:20, "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." (Authorized King James Bible; AV); And compare with similar scriptures in the New Testament such as John 6:46, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." (AV). Then you check the Old Testament scripture from which the Apostle John took the second part, Proverbs 8:30, where Jesus (Yeshua) while in heaven was speaking, "Then I was by him, as one brought up with him; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him," (AV). And cross reference this in the New Testament to John 13:23, "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." (AV).
Now of course, people have seen Jesus (Yeshua). The Apostle John, who wrote John 1:18, saw Jesus. He even said four verses earlier that Jesus (God
according to Trinitarians) had become flesh, John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Yet no one has seen God. If John were trying to say in John 1:1 that Jesus (Yeshua) was God (YHWH) and then a few verses later say no one has seen God (YHWH), would he not need to put some type of qualifying statement explaining how this can be? Or are we to assume his readers had a firm grasp of the Duality or Trinity and needed no explanation of this paradox? While some Bibles say "only-begotten son" the oldest manuscripts say "only-begotten god". Most Bible do not want to translate it literally that way since this would imply Jesus (Yeshua) was made a god by God (YHWH). So the New International Version (NIV) reads as I quoted above "God the One and Only". However, the footnote to the NIV reads "or the Only-Begotten". It is proper that the NIV placed that footnote in its Bible translation because we are inclined to ask, "the One and Only what?" In what way is the Son the 'One and Only God' that the Father (YHWH)is not? John said that Jesus (Yeshua) was with God (YHWH) and yet was a god and Jesus (Yeshua) was the only begotten son of God (YHWH), the context supports a literal translation of John 1:18. Jesus (Yeshua) was the "only-begotten god". That is, God Almighty created Jesus and put him in the position of a god or mighty spirit person whom He used to create the rest of the universe.
While it is true that angels and men can be referred to as "gods", they were not begotten directly by Almighty God.
Interestingly the NIV says, John 6:27, "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." (NIV). It is obvious that there are two individuals here: the Son of Man (Yeshua) and God the Father (YHWH). Two separate and distinct persons. Also notice that the Father (YHWH) places his "seal of approval" on the Son. But nowhere in the Bible is there a Scripture where the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) places approval on the Father (YHWH). This shows or indicates that the Father is in the superior position and the Son is in the inferior position, i.e., they are NOT COEQUAL.
The NIV reaffirms this fact, they are NOT COEQUAL at 1 Peter 1:1-2, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance." (NIV). Once more we see two separate and distinct beings here: God the Father (YHWH) and Jesus (Yeshua) Christ.
Now some will say that Jesus (Yeshua) and His Father (YHWH) are one-and-the-same based on the usual out of context rendering of John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Well, try to keep the mental context of who Jesus was to the people who lived and studied about him when the Bible text was written. Apart from this verse, there is no indicator that anyone thought that Jesus (Yeshua)was God (YHWH). This is made clear by John 1:2, which shows, "The same was in the beginning with God." (AV); And John 1:10, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." (AV); Last consider John 1:14, previously quoted, and it is quite clear that they are NOT the same individual. But two distinct individuals. Note, some Bibles correctly render this as either as "the Word was a god," or "the Word was Divine." Both of these are in harmony with the remaining scriptures in John the first chapter.
The fact is that no Apostle nor any other writer of the Bible ever came out and stated that "there is One God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost". No example of the thousands of occurrences of YHWH and God in the original manuscripts can be shown to mean 'God in three Persons' as some falsely claim. In fact neither the word Duality nor Trinity appear nowhere in the scriptures. So be ye not mislead into believing the doctrines of men, but remember John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (AV).
<<Sub Section 'Q' Commentaries on the Scriptures>>
Commentary on John 15:26 all 'Sola Scriptura."
John 15:26 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 bear witness of me: (American Standard Version; ASV)
This scripture clearly shows that the Spirit comes from the Father (YHWH), but we need to ask just what is this spirit, and to look at the scriptures immediately proceeding John 15:26. Let's now look at these scriptures. John 15:18-25, "If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated me before [it hated] you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But [this cometh to pass], that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause." (ASV). Here Jesus (Yeshua) clearly testified that he had been sent, i.e., by a superior one, "they know not him that sent me," and this is reinforced when he said, "He that hateth me hateth my Father also." So Jesus (Yeshua) had been sent by his Father (YHWH) to do his Father's (YHWH's) will, and clearly testified at John 5:19, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (AV); therefore we see that Jesus (Yeshua) was doing the will of his Father (YHWH).
Now let's consider the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, that Jesus (Yeshua) would send to true Christians from his Father (YHWH). What exactly is it? This Spirit or Comforter is God's (YHWH's) active force that goes forth or emanates from Almighty God (YHWH). One of its functions is to act as a Comforter to mankind, see John 14:26, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (AV); And this is reaffirmed at John 14:16-17, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (AV).
In summary, It is the Creator's (YHWH's) force for getting things accomplished, 1 Corinthians 2:10, " And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:" (Ephesians 6:17; AV), " But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." (AV). This is made even clearer as the Bible shows that God (YHWH) pours out his active force onto his followers, Joel 2:28-29, "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit." (AV), and also caused inspired individuals to, 2 Peter 1:21, " For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (AV). Clearly then the Trinity is just a myth as defined as follows in the Westminister Confession, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity;" since Jesus (Yeshua) is NOT COEQUAL with his Father, Almighty God (YHWH), NOR is the Holy Spirit, since this is not an individual, but clearly the power and/or force of God (YHWH). Note, in ancient Koine Greek, the Spirit is always grammatically of the neutral gender, the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used, the neuter pronoun "it" is properly employed. This fact is conveniently over looked or hidden by most Trinitarian translators as admitted in the "New American Bible Catholic Bible," regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa•ra'kle•tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine. It is now clear beyond question that the Trinity is just false doctrine warned against at Titus 2:1, ""But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" (AV); this means we must reject myths being put forth as doctrine.
Commentary on Galatians 4:6 all 'Sola Scriptura."
Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (American Standard Version; ASV)
Let's first look at the scriptures immediately proceeding this to gain an understanding of the contest of this scripture, Galatians 4:1-5, "But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant though he is lord of all; 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the day appointed of the father. 3 So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world: 4 but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (ASV). Here is shown God's (YHWH's) purpose for sending his only begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to the earth and this is clarified at Romans 5:12, "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (The Kingdom Interlinear Lexicon). So he was sent by his Father (YHWH) to redeem mankind of inherited sin, 1 John 4:14, "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." (Authorized King James Bible, AV); Thus clearly showing his Father (YHWH), as the superior one, sent his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to the world clearly showing a superior subordinate relationship and not one of coequality.
Now let's look at the scriptures immediately after this to gain an even better understanding of the contest of Galatians 4:6, see Galatians 4:7-11, "So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. Howbeit at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them that by nature are no gods: 9 but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain." (ASV). So God (YHWH) sent his Spirit, Romans 8:16, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (AV); And this Spirit of God (YHWH), 1 John 3:24, "And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." (AV); And the drelling of his active force or spirit in us is affirmed at 1 John 4:13, "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (AV). And 1 John 3:230-24 shows, "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another as he gave us commandment. 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the spirit which he hath given." (AV).
Now exactly what is the Spirit of God (YHWH) which is also called the Comforter? It is God's (YHWH's)active force or power that he uses to accomplish his will as shown by John 14:26, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (AV); And this is reaffirmed at John 14:16-17, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (AV). And Romans 5:5 shows God (YHWH) gives true Christians a part of his power or holy spirit, "And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." (Authorized King James Bible;" (AV); and this is reaffirmed at Mark 14:33-36, "And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. 35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt." (AV). Here Jesus was praying to his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) and acknowledging him as the superior one contrary to the untruths put forth by man such as in the Westminister Confession which clearly contradicts the Word of God by stating of one substance and power; whereas, God (YHWH) has been shown by the scriptures to be the superior one that even his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) prays to. It is time for all to disgard myths such as the Trinity put forth as supposed truth by misguided documents such as the Westminster Confession which are the product of hermeneutic methodology used by those who seek to hide the truth of the scriptures instead of letting the scriptures speak for themselves as they do in true 'Sola Scripture' comments on the Word of God; This per 2 Peter 1:20, "This, then, you must understand first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation." (The Confraternity Edition of The New Testament by John C. Winston Co. -Catholic).
<CONCLUSION>
Unfortunately, the clever deceiver and twister of the scripture who was one of the best masters with respect using hermeneutic methodology to deceive unwary ones into false doctrine and mythology, Cornelius Burges, Assessor to the Westminster Assembly, was only one of many; but more polished in the art of deception than most.
As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions evoked by the Church's expansion. (*2)
The most famous of these Apologists was Justin Martyr (c.107-166 AD). He was born a pagan, became a pagan philosopher, then a Christian. He believed that Christianity and Greek Philosophy were related. According to McGiffert, "Justin insisted that Christ came from God; he did not identify him with God. . . [He] conceiv[ed] of God as a transcendent being, who could not possibly come into contact with the world of men and things." (*2).
An exhaustive review of Scripture and history reveals the simple fact that the Trinity teaching was unknown to the early New Testament Christians. That the doctrine of the Trinity is a "borrowed doctrine" and foreign to the Scriptures is supported by many authorities. Under the article Trinity we read, "The term 'Trinity' is not a biblical term...In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine...As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason" (*1).
The moral of this discourse is accept the Word of God, reject the clever twisting of the Word of God by deceitful men in keeping with Titus 2:1, ", "But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" (AV); this means we must reject myths being put forth as doctrine as does the Westminister Confession and similar deceptive documents by others.
See Appendix:
REFERENCES AND APPENDIX TO WESTMINSTER CONFESSION AN EXAMPLE OF TWISTING BY HERMENEUTIC METHODOLOGY:
REFERENCES:
*1 the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, volume 4, page 3012-3014, "The term 'Trinity' is not a Biblical term and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture.
"...the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated doctrine, but in fragmentary allusions.
"The doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason.
"Triads of divinities, no doubt, occur in nearly all polytheistic religions, formed under very various influences. Sometimes, as in the Egyptian triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus, it is the analogy of the human family with its father, mother and son which lies at their basis. Sometimes they are the effect of mere syncretism, three deities worshipped in different localities being brought together in the common worship of all.
"Sometimes they are the result apparently of nothing more than odd human tendency to think in threes, which has given the number three wide-spread standing as a sacred number.
"It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
"As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His Trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him. Many attempts have, nevertheless, been made to construct a rational proof of the Trinity of the Godhead.
"Certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament. It is a plain matter of fact that none who have depended on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever attained to the doctrine of the Trinity.
"It would seem clear that we must recognize in the Old Testament doctrine of the relation of God to His revelation by the creative Word and the Spirit, at least the germ of the distinctions in the Godhead afterward fully made known in the Christian revelation."
*2 - Pelikan, Jaroslav. "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition" (100-600). Chicago: U of Chicago P. 1971. Vol. 1 of "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine." 5 vols.
APPENDIX:
(1) Jamieson, Fausett and Brown, volume 6, page 643, regarding I John 5:7
"The only Greek manuscripts, in any form which support the words 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth...' are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the 15th century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All old versions omit the words."
(2) Sacred Origins of Profound Things, by Charles Panati, pages 302-306
"Among the three great monotheistic religions, only Christianity embraces the Trinitarian Creed: the coexistence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in a single Godhead, distinctly different, yet one and the same."
"One might ask - as Jews and Muslims repeatedly have - isn't it cheating for a religion to be monotheistic if it recognizes three distinctly different Gods? Three Gods; three different names; three different functions: the Creator, the Redeemer, the Sanctifier. Should, Muslims suggested, this not be called 'tritheism'?
"Significantly, the Christian books of the Bible - the Gospels, Acts, Epistles (or letters), Revelation, and the Apocrypha ('things that are hidden') - make no explicit reference to a three-fold Godhead.
"Nor did Jesus, a Jew, perhaps with rabbinic training, violate the Judaic motto - 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' - in his teachings.
"God the Father does mention God the Son in the New Testament, and the Son in turn mentions the Father and the Holy Spirit. The outline of a trinity is there, but it is never clearly delineated
"Early in the fourth century, the Trinitarian controversy heated to the high point of heresy, pitting two theologians, Athanasius and Arius, against each other and drawing concern from the Roman emperor Constantine himself who had warmed up to Christianity and would eventually convert.
"Today, Arius' name is a byword for heresy: the Arian Heresy.
"Back in 320, Arius, who knew Scripture inside and out - and was a skilled propagandist and musician - insisted that Christ, the Word, Logos could only be a creature like ourselves, created by God. When he put his ideas to music and sang songs of Christ's second-rank status to God, thousands of ordinary Christians, once content in their monotheism, became aware of the passionate debate raging among bishops.
"Christian bishops gathered at Nicaea on May 20, 325, convening the Council of Nicaea, which, after much acrimonious contention, decided upon the crucial formula for the Trinitarian doctrine, setting it forth in a credo, the Nicaean Creed. The Son, it declared, is 'of the same essence as the Father.' The creed said troublingly little about the Holy Spirit.
"In fact, the entire lengthy creed, as first written, wrestles with logic and common sense to equate Father and Son, giving nod to the Holy Spirit only in the last passing line: 'And we believe in the Holy Ghost.'
"The controversy raged on for some years. Later the Nicaean Creed was revised under the leadership of Basil, bishop of Caesarea. It was altered to end 'We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father'.
"Thus, the concept of the Trinity did not take its present form until some 400 years after Christ's death."
(3) Peakes Commentary on the Bible, page 1038
"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in the RSV, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the Logos and the Holy Spirit, but it is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek manuscript contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the New Testament of Erasmus."
(4) The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M Metzger and Michael D Coogan, page 782
"Trinity: Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in l
Long before Jesus was born, the Bible foretold the coming of one whom God (Yeshua) would anoint as the Messiah or Christ. The titles 'Messiah" and 'Christ' both mean 'Anointed One.' This promised One would thus be anointed, that is appointed by God (Yeshua) to a special position.
Since the very words, 'Messiah' (from an ancient Hebrew word) and 'Christ' (from a Koine Greek word) both mean 'Anointed One,' it is clear that someone had to anoint this individual to this very special position; the individual himself could NOT anoint himself. Therefore, it would be impossible for Jesus (Yeshua) Christ to be also Almighty God (YHWH) who did the anointing; thus, the Trinity which requires them to be both co-equal can not be true as anointing must be done by someone of superior authority and/or position.
We shall look into the details now.
THE FIRST CENTURY:
All of the disciples of Jesus (Yeshua) in the first century of the Common Era were completely convinced that he was indeed the foretold Messiah as pointed out at John 1:41, "He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ." (Authorized King James Bible; AV). One of his disciples, Simon Peter, openly said to Jesus (Yeshua) at Matthew 16:16, "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (AV). And Jesus (Yeshua) said to Simon Peter at Mattheew 16:17, "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (AV).
Now the prophets of Almighty God (YHWH), the true God (YHWH) of Abraham who lived before Jesus (Yeshua) had given many features and/or details to identify the Messiah when he came. Thus, by means of the Bible prophets, Almighty God (YHWH) gave a very detailed description of the Messiah and what he would do and what he would experience so the faithful servanst of Almighty God (YHWH) would recognize the Messiah when he arrived.
One prophet, Micah, foretold over 700 years in advance that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, a small town in the land of Judah at Micah 5:2, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." (AV). And the Messiah was actually born in that town.
Jesus (Yeshua) clearly proved that he was the Messiah when he went to the place where John the Baptizer was baptizing people in the Jordan River. What then occurred proved beyond doubt that he was the promised Messiah. Let's look at the account of what occurred at John 1:29-36, "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. 35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; 36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!" (AV).
At this occurrence, John the Baptist declared at John 1:34, "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God." (AV); thereby, openly testifying that the Messiah, Jesus (Yeshua), was the Son of God (YHWH), and NOT God the Son as would be required if the Trinity was real and not a heathen myth. And Matthew at Matthew 3:16-17 recorded the fact, "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (AV). This all occurring in direct harmony with Isaiah 55:3-5, "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. 4 Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people. 5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee." (AV).
Therefore, the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and Almighty God's (YHWH's) own testimony clearly show that Jesus (Yeshua) was none other than the foretold promised Messiah.
JESUS (YESHUA) EXISTANCE BEFORE BEING BORN ON EARTH AS THE MESSIAH:
The Bible clearly shows that Jesus (Yeshua) lived in heaven before he came to earth. As the prophet Micah said at Micah 5:2, previously quoted, "...; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."; and Jesus (Yeshua) clearly testified to this fact at John 8:58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (AV); and at John 17:5 where he prayed to his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) to once more have the glory he previously had before coming to earth, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (AV); and John 6:62, "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (AV).
Now why did Almighty God's (YHWH's) only-begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) willingly leave his first home, heaven, after he was created per Revelation 3:14, "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (AV) come down to earth to live as a human? Or you man wonder how it is possible for a spirit creature to be born as a human? First, Jesus (Yeshua) was an obedient Son and let his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) use his power or force to transform his life force to a virgin Hebrew female as recorded at Luke 1:30-35, "And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." This was even copied almost word for word in the Bible knockoff the Quran at Sura 3:47, "She said, "My Lord, how can I have a son, when no man has touched me?" He said, "GOD thus creates whatever He wills. To have anything done, He simply says to it, `Be,' and it is."
Now, Jesus' (Yeshua's) life force was placed in the womb of the virgin Hebrew female, Mary, by Jesus' (Yeshua's) Father, Almighty God (YHWH) clearly showing that his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) was the superior one; therefore no co-equality as would be required for the Trinity to be true as shown by an authoritative definition of the Trinity as follows:
"We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.....The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal...So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty...So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God...The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding...And in this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal. So that in all things, as is afore said, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity." [this is the Athanasian Creed quoted in the above mentioned Cyclopoedia]."[source - "The Trinitarian dogma, The Cyclopoedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York 1871, by John M'Clintock and James Strong, Vol. II, page 560-561]
APPENDIX TO JESUS AS MESSIAH DISPROVES THE TRINITY:
Here is the proof with respect the words 'Messiah' and 'Christ' meaning anointed one thereby showing that there had to be a superior one or one having a superior position doing the anointing:
[1] Messiah:
"o cristsv. An official title of the Lord Jesus, which became used as a name. In #Joh 1:41 4:25 this title is linked with the Messiah of the O.T. The Jews and Samaritans were expecting THE MESSIAH. "which is called Christ." We find the title 'Messiah' in #Da 9:25,26 in the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. The Hebrew word is mashiach and signifies 'anointed.' This term is employed as to the Lord Jesus in #Ps 2:2: the rulers set themselves against Jehovah and His 'Anointed.' The same word is used in reference to the high priest and the king as God's anointed; but the Lord Jesus is emphatically 'the Anointed,' this being the signification of the word 'the Christ' which should be read in many places in the N.T. where the A.V. simply has 'Christ.' In the Gospels it is nearly always 'the Christ,' and often in the Epistles, except where it is Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus which has more the character of a name. It refers to the Lord as Man, being anointed with the Holy Ghost.
In Daniel we read that Messiah the Prince would be out off and have nothing (margin), which was fulfilled when, instead of being hailed as Messiah by the Jews, He was rejected, cut off, and had, at the time, nothing of His Messianic honours, though, in His death, He laid the foundation of His future glory on earth, as well as effecting eternal redemption for the saved. We read in #1Co 12:12 that as the body is one, and hath many members, "so also is the Christ:" the Head and the members in the power and the anointing of the Spirit form but one body.
Being rejected as Messiah on earth, He is made as risen from the dead both Lord and Christ, #Ac 2:36, and thus the counsels of God with regard to Him, and man in Him, are effectuated. Saints now are spoken of as having been chosen in Christ from before the foundation of the world. All things in heaven and on earth are to be headed up in the Christ, #Eph 1:10. As the Christ, He is the Head of the body the church. #Eph 4:15. But the subject can be merely touched on in a short article." [source - Concise Bible Dictionary by George Morrish]
[2] Messiah
"(Heb. mashiah), in all the thirty-nine instances of its occurring in the Old Testament, is rendered by the LXX. "Christos." It means anointed. Thus priests #Ex 28:41 40:15 Nu 3:3 prophets #1Ki 19:16 and kings #1Sa 9:16 16:3 2Sa 12:7 were anointed with oil, and so consecrated to their respective offices. The great Messiah is anointed "above his fellows" #Ps 45:7 i.e., he embraces in himself all the three offices. The Greek form "Messias" is only twice used in the New Testament, in #Joh 1:41 4:25 (R.V., "Messiah"), and in the Old Testament the word Messiah, as the rendering of the Hebrew, occurs only twice #Da 9:25,26 R.V., "the anointed one". The first great promise #Ge 3:15 contains in it the germ of all the prophecies recorded in the Old Testament regarding the coming of the Messiah and the great work he was to accomplish on earth. The prophecies became more definite and fuller as the ages rolled on; the light shone more and more unto the perfect day. Different periods of prophetic revelation have been pointed out,
1. the patriarchal;
2. the Mosaic;
3. the period of David;
4. the period of prophetism, i.e., of those prophets whose works form a part of the Old Testament canon.
The expectations of the Jews were thus kept alive from generation to generation, till the "fulness of the times," when Messiah came, "made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." In him all these ancient prophecies have their fulfilment. Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the great Deliverer who was to come. (Comp.) #Mt 26:54 Mr 9:12 Lu 18:31 22:37 Joh 5:39 Ac 2:1ff. #Ac 16:31 26:22,23" [source - Easton's Revised Bible Dictionary]
[3] Anointed
"5. The promised Deliverer is twice called the "Anointed" or Messiah #Ps 2:2 Da 9:25,26 because he was anointed with the Holy Ghost #Isa 61:1 figuratively styled the "oil of gladness" #Ps 45:7 #Heb 1:9 Jesus of Nazareth is this anointed One #Joh 1:41 #Ac 9:22 17:2,3 18:5,28 the Messiah of the Old Testament." [source - Easton's Revised Bible Dictionary]
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!
Common Sense on the Son of God Not Being God (YHWH):
INTRODUCTION:
Many try and claim that Jesus (Yeshua) is God (YHWH), but a son can NOT be his Father as we all know.
First, they wrongly claim that he, the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua), is part of a Trinity. Yet nowhere does the Bible use the word trinity or triune or words of similar input.
Second, the Bible clearly refers to Jesus (Yeshua) as the Son of God (YHWH)
Matthew 8:29, "And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" (Authorized King James Bible; AV).
Matthew 26:63, "But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." (AV)
Matthew 27:40, "And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross." (AV)
Matthew 27:43, "He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God." (AV)
Matthew 27:54, "Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God." (AV)
Mark 1:1, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;" (AV)
Also there are many more scriptures testifying to the fact that Jesus (Yeshua) is the Son of God (YHWH) clearly showing he is NOT his Father, God (YHWH).
Third, some deceived ones refer to biased or bad translations of John 1:1 to try and justify the., spirit beings, the Son and the Father are mentioned. Hence no trinity of any kind. In addition, John 1:2 clearly shows that no duality is being referred to since it says, "The same was in the beginning with God." (AV), and you can NOT be with someone and be that someone as we all know.
Fourth, some attempt to support this false doctrine by saying it existed before an apostate church adopted it at the Council of Nicea of 325 AD to win the good favor of a pagan Roman Emperor, Constantine, a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun who wanted its adoption so as to have religious unity in his empire since the pagans believed in a trinity.
Now let's consider what the trinity false doctrine is.
STANDARD DEFINITION OF THE TRINITY:
The false doctrine of the trinity is defined as follows:
The Trinitarian dogma, The Cyclopoedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York 1871, by John M'Clintock and James Strong, Vol. II, page 560-561, states, "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.....The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal...So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty...So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God...The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding...And in this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal. So that in all things, as is afore said, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity." [this is the Athanasian Creed quoted in the above mentioned Cyclopoedia].
From this definition, we can see the false doctrine of the Trinity consist of a claimed three persons who are "coeternal together, and coequal." If these conditions do NOT EXIST, there can be NO trinity.
JESUS AS THE SON OF GOD (YHWH):
The Bible clearly states that Jesus (Yeshua) is the Son of God (YHWH). Now let's look at the facts from the Bible:
1 John 4:15, "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." (AV)
1 John 5:5, "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (AV)
1 John 5:10, "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son." (AV)
1 John 5:12, "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." (AV)
1 John 5:13, "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (AV)
1 John 5:20, "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." (AV)
Now we noted in all the above Scriptures it calls Jesus Christ (Yeshua) the Son of God; interesting since if the Trinity was true, it would read God the Son instead of the Son of God. Since it reads the same in every translation I know of except one "feminists" biased Bible, where it reads Daughter of God which I am sure none of you would agree with. Therefore, it is self evident that Jesus is God's (YHWH) son and not God the Son as would be technically necessary for the trinity to be true.
Also, The Bible clearly shows that Jesus (Yeshua), the Son of God (YHWH), could not be co-eternal with his Father, God (YHWH) since God (YHWH) had to give him life as clearly shown by John 5:26, "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;" (AV).
In addition, Jesus (Yeshua), himself, testified to the fact that he lives because of his Father, God (Yeshua) at John 6:57, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (AV). And Jesus (Yeshua), himself, testified that he is NOT co-equal with his Father, God (YHWH) at John 14:28, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (AV) and we well know that Jesus (Yeshua) does not lie.
In fact, just before his execution, Jesus (Yeshua), the Son of God (YHWH) even prayed to his Father, God (YHWH) to have the glory he had along side his Father, God (YHWH) before he was born on earth at John 17:5, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (AV); and this is in harmony with John 6:62, "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (AV); and why he could say that he existed before Abraham at John 8:58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (AV) as he had existed for untold eons in heaven along side his Father, God (YHWH), after his Father, God (YHWH) had created him as the first or beginning of creation per Revelations 3:14, "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:" (AV).
So, it is clear from the Bible that Jesus (Yeshua) is neither co-eternal with his Father, God (YHWH) who always existed and had no beginning; nor co-equal as testified to by Jesus (Yeshua) himself.
JOHN 1:1 IS NO SUPPORT FOR THE TRINITY:
Many try and support the trinity based on the standard biased/bad translational construct of same, but on close examination even the bad translation of this scripture does NOT support the trinity. Now let's look at the scripture in context in the Authorized King James Bible at John 1:1-4, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[Now note it says the Word was with God, then it says the Word was God. Of course both can NOT be true as one can NOT be with someone and be that someone so it is quite obvious we have a mistake in grammar/translation here, so let's look at the next scripture, John 1:2 for clarification.], 2 The same was in the beginning with God. [This scripture helps clarify what John intended when he wrote the scripture in that it clearly shows that the Word, Jesus (Yeshua) was with God (YHWH), and was NOT God (YHWH). The next scripture clearly shows that God (YHWH) used Jesus (Yeshua) as his Master Worker with respect to creation after he, God (YHWH) created him which is brought out at Proverbs 8:30-31, "Then I was by him, as a master workman; And I was daily his delight, Rejoicing always before him, 31 Rejoicing in his habitable earth; And my delight was with the sons of men." (American Standard Version; ASV)], 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
THE TRINITYDID NOT ORIGINATE WITH THE COUNCIL OF NICEA OF 325 AD:
The doctrine of the trinity existed for eons before the Council of Nicea of 325 AD. It was a standard false doctrine of the pagans (heathens). Let's look at the facts:
"To understand how the Trinity wormed its way into so called Christianity we need to know the political and social climate of the first three centuries after the passing of Jesus (Yeshua) and his apostles, and why true faith deteriorated into compromise; and then total acceptance by the mainstream so called Christian groups, not withstanding its violation of the Word of God, the Holy Bible. Now let's look at that period and try an insert ourselves mentally into it.
In the early church the apostles needed to refute another rising belief system gnosticism. It considered matter to be evil and sought salvation through knowledge. Gnosticism also focused on the "mysteries" meant only for the intellectuals to understand. Christ, the gnostics said, entered Jesus at baptism and left just before he died on the cross. The Apostle John particularly addressed this budding heresy: "Many false prophets, have gone forth into the world, You gain knowledge of the inspired expression from God by this: Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the anti-christ's [inspired expression] which you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world." (*25). Jesus' humanity was repulsive to gnostics. After the Apostles died, Christians responded to gnosticism by claiming not only did Jesus Christ come in the flesh as the Son of God.
By the third and fourth centuries, Christians were weary of Pagan persecution. The temptation was to compromise. Besides, the Pagan emperor Constantine needed Christians to salvage his shaky empire. Constantine embraced; howbeit only on his deathbed. However, he saw Christianity as a tool he could use to firm up his shaky empire. To this opportunity for political intrigue, and happy blend of politics and people was the chief triumvirate of Roman gods Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Jupiter was the principal deity of Roman mythology and Juno was the next highest divinity. Minerva, the "offspring of the brain of Jupiter" was regarded as the "personification of divine thought, the plan of the material universe of which Jupiter was the creator and Juno the representative" (26). Many Pagan ideas, in fact, were incorporated into Christianity. "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it" (*26).
Roman Emperor Constantine needed to make his subjects feel secure if he were to maintain control of the empire; he wanted to rule a unified empire, be it pagan and/or Christian. But first he would have to find a way to end the dispute over the divinity of Jesus-was he a man or God? So he ordered his Christian bishops to meet at Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle the matter once and for all. To do this, "he made himself the head of the church, and thus the problems of the church became his responsibilities. As a whole the Western Empire with its Roman influence, with some exceptions, had accepted Tertullian and his new theory of the Trinity in the early part of the previous century, but in the East the church adhered more closely to the older formula of baptism in the name of Jesus, or Jesus the Christ. Especially was this true with the Armenians, who specified that baptism "into the death of Christ" was that which alone was essential (*28) .
Now let's see how Constantine got the Trinity. As previously shown, The Roman Empire at this time was being torn apart by religious differences between pagans, mostly Sun God worshippers, and Christianity. Constantine the Emporer was a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, but he was a very pragmatic individual and saw the need to bring religious unity to his empire. The central doctrine of the pagans was the dogma of a Trinity that they had received from earlier pagans in Babylon (Chaldea). In this, the pagan Emperor, Constantine, saw a possibility for unifying his empire if he could only lead the majority of the Christians to accept a Trinity or a Duality. He knew however that he had to make them think it was their own idea. To this end, he, the Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea, about 300, but even though it was the emperor's direction, only a fraction actually attended.
This council went on for a very long time and the emperor worked behind the scene to get support for a Trinity or a Duality. This effort was not completely successful, but finally he got a majority and declared under imperial degree
that this hence forth would be the central doctrinal pillar of the Christian church, which by this time was apostate. Even with this declaration by the emperor himself not all bishops signed the creed. (*29).
So is was the political product of an apostate church, an apostate church that allowed a pagan Roman Emporer, Constantine, to tell it which dogma to accept at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., and then have it rammed down their throats as blessed dogma by another Roman Emporer, Theodosius, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. This in direct violation of God's (YHWH's) word found in the Bible " Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4 AV), " If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19 AV).
Their solution was to create a creed making it illegal for anyone to believe Jesus was not the same as God by inventing the notion of a Trinity. This intellectual tower remained in full force for well over a thousand years, until the Reformation. (*29).
Contrary to popular belief, it was not Constantine's fourth century Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 that formalized the "Doctrine of the Trinity." The Athanasian Creed in the fifth century finally included the three, "the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost...the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal So likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God." Furthermore, this creed added that belief in the trinity "is necessary to everlasting salvation." Strong belief led to action. "Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years ([A.D.]342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome." (*30).
The fact is Christianity never conquered paganism--paganism conquered Christianity. (*31).
References:
*25 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 revision, (pages 1517 and 1519, 1 John 7; also 1 John 4:1-3).
*26 - McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 6
*27 - Lamson, Newton & Durant, Will, "Caesar and Christ," cited from Charles Redeker Caesar and Christ, W. Duran (page 595).
*29 - Payne, Robert, "The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957); BETHUNE-BAKER, J,F. "An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine". Methuen; 5th Ed., 1933 and ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366); David, Francis and Blandrata, Georgio, "De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti cognitone" [Latin](The False and True Knowledge of the Unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy spirit), 1566 A.D.; Eklof, Todd F., "David's Francis Tower, Strength through Peace," (06-16-02); The New Encyclopedia Britannica: " Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976); Parkes, James, "The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity," 1960; Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.
*30 - Durant, Will, "Age of Faith,"
*31 - Jonas, Hans, "The Gnostic religion: the message of the alien God and the beginnings of Christianity," 2nd ed., 1963."
[source - Discourse on Mainstream Religion by Iris the Preacher 2003]
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!
A discourse on understanding John 1:1. [by the theologian husband of Iris]
This discourse will not go down into an in depth explanation of the translating challenges provided by the rather unusual construction of the Apostle John's original writing in Koine (ancient) Greek. Sufficient to say the ancient Greek language had a certain amount of ambiguity as does modern English. Most English translations including the Authorized King James Version (AV), The New American Bible (Catholic) (TNAB), New world Translation (NWT), Goodspeed, Torrey, New English of 1961, Moffatt of 1972, International English Bible (IEB), International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 (IBT), Philip Harner of 1974, Translator's NT of 1973 (TNT), Scholar's Version of 1993, etc. have all made an effort to make the scriptures easier to read and have tried to remove ambiguity of the original text. For example, if the literal text were to say: "The love of God". The translator may decide to translate the text: "God's love for you", or he might translate it: "Your love for God". The reader can interpret the original text either way. when the translator chooses one of the ways to translate a text and eliminates the ambiguity, you miss the opportunity to view the text in other ways. The reader must (if objectivity is to be maintained) keep in mind that the translators of any Bible version were believers in one of the doctrine or beliefs with regard how God Almighty (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves), and the spirit or Holy Ghost relate to each other of which there are five principle beliefs, Oneness Theology, Trinitarian Theology, Arian Theology, Unitarian Theology, and Sabellianism Theology. Therefore, bias will and does exist in translation depending on the translator's theology. This is especially true with respect John 1:1 because of its unique and ambiguous grammatical structure it allows for translators to translate it at least nine different ways that all have equal validity from the language structure point of view, in that none of these can either A discourse on understanding John 1:1.
This discourse will not go down into an in depth explanation of the translating challenges provided by the rather unusual construction of the Apostle John's original writing in Koine (ancient) Greek. Sufficient to say the ancient Greek language had a certain amount of ambiguity as does modern English. Most English translations including the Authorized King James Version (AV), The New American Bible (Catholic) (TNAB), New world Translation (NWT), Goodspeed, Torrey, New English of 1961, Moffatt of 1972, International English Bible (IEB), International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 (IBT), Philip Harner of 1974, Translator's NT of 1973 (TNT), Scholar's Version of 1993, etc. have all made an effort to make the scriptures easier to read and have tried to remove ambiguity of the original text. For example, if the literal text were to say: "The love of God". The translator may decide to translate the text: "God's love for you", or he might translate it: "Your love for God". The reader can interpret the original text either way. when the translator chooses one of the ways to translate a text and eliminates the ambiguity, you miss the opportunity to view the text in other ways. The reader must (if objectivity is to be maintained) keep in mind that the translators of any Bible version were believers in one of the doctrine or beliefs with regard how God Almighty (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves), and the spirit or Holy Ghost relate to each other of which there are five principle beliefs, Oneness Theology, Trinitarian Theology, Arian Theology, Unitarian Theology, and Sabellianism Theology. Therefore, bias will and does exist in translation depending on the translator's theology. This is especially true with respect John 1:1 because of its unique and ambiguous grammatical structure it allows for translators to translate it at least nine different ways that all have equal validity from the language structure point of view, in that none of these can either be proven totally correct or incorrect, i.e., a translator's nightmare. In an unusual case like this the translator can only fall back on related text with similar structure and his own belief system, BIAS.
Now, let's look at the original Koine Greek writing as shown in the work of Westcott & Hort Interlinear (John 1:1-3):
[[The Bulletin Board can not handle Koine Greek, if you want to see it send me an email, iris89@uymainl.com]]
Now let's look at the three most common renderings of John 1:1 into modern English with a brief mention of some of the Bibles that follow each:
1. " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1 AV)
This style rendering is found in most of the Bibles translations made by believers in the Trinitarian Theology and include the Authorized King James Version (AV), The New American Bible (Catholic) (TNAB), etc.
2. "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (John 1:1 NWT)
This style rendering is found in most of the Bible translations made by believers in the Arian theology
And many translators of no particular theology and include The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin 1883, NWT, Belsham N.T. 1809, Leicester Ambrose, 1879, Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary), Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983,etc.
3. "In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity." (John 1:1 International Bible Translators N.T. 1981).
This style rendering is found in most of the Bible translations made by believers in the Unitarian Theology and by some of Arian Theology And many translators of no particular theology and include the International Bible Translators N.T. (IBT), Translator's NT of 1973, Goodspeed of 1939, Moffatt of 1972, Simple English Bible, etc.
Now a short summary of the various beliefs of the varies theological views with respect the nature of God Almighty (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) and the spirit or Holy Ghost and how each views the relationships between each:
five principle beliefs, Oneness Theology, Trinitarian Theology, Arian Theology, Unitarian Theology, and Sabellianism Theology.
ARIAN THEOLOGY
They believe that there is one God, and that God is one. That God is called the Heavenly Father (YHWH). That we have one Lord who is not God, Jesus Christ (Yeshua or YHWH saves), who is the son of God (son of YHWH). And they believe the holy Spirit is the influence of God's power. The Father (YHWH) and Son (Yeshua or YHWH saves), are separate beings and the Father (YHWH) is superior in power, wisdom and authority. Jesus is God's express image and was given all power on heaven and earth.
Uniqueness - They believe that there is but one God (YHWH) who is one person who is the Father.. That His son, Jesus Christ (Yeshua or YHWH saves), was his first creation and through His son created all of creation.
ONENESS THEOLOGY
They believe that the Father (YHWH), the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) and the Holy Spirit are the same God with no distinction in person or being. That only one God simply manifests himself in these three ways at different times.
Uniqueness - They believe that they are unique in that they conform strictly to the objective of having only one God where as others have more than one God.
SABELLIANISM THEOLOGY
God is three only in relation to the world, in so many "manifestations" or "modes." The unity and identity of God are such that the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) did not exist before the incarnation; because the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) are thus one, the Father (YHWH) suffered with the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) in his passion and death.
Uniqueness - They believe that God is one in earthly manifestations, but not heavenly. [Branham's Bible Believers, Inc.][ to Branham's 1189 page book "Conduct, Order, Doctrine of the Church," the "First thing is to straighten out you on your 'trinity' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. "God is like a three-foot rule... The first twelve inches was God, the Father; the second twelve inches, God, the Son, the same God; the third twelve inches was God, the Holy Ghost, the same God," (pp.182 & 184). Branham clarifies his position in a speech given October 2, 1957 when he exclaims, "See, there cannot be an Eternal son, because a son had to have a beginning. And so Jesus had a beginning, God had no beginning," (Ibid, p.273).]
[[Note, this has much in common with Oneness Theology]]
TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY
They believe that there is one but God made up of three separate and distinct persons of but one indivisible essence. That these three persons existed from eternity, and are co-equal in power and substance. These individuals are known as Father (YHWH), Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) and the Holy Spirit. The undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. The Church (Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestants) confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man.
Uniqueness - They see a distinction in the persons of God, but hold that there is but one God. It is a mystery, i.e., they are not able to explain it.
UNITARIAN THEOLOGY
They believe that there is one God, the Father (YHWH), and one Lord, Jesus Christ (Yeshua or YHWH saves). Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) became God's son at his birth on earth but had not exist previously. The holy Spirit is God's power.
Uniqueness - They do not believe that their beliefs are similar to Arian, but believe that Jesus's existence began with his earthly birth.
Now that we have considered who believes what, let's consider the meaning of John 1:1. The believers in the Trinity Theology of course translate it to make it appear that the Almighty God Father (YHWH) and his, Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) are one and the same, but is this reasonable when considered with other Bible text? No it is not as Almighty God's (YHWH's) son ,Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is clearly shown to be a lesser one than his father, consider, " Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28 AV) where the same writer of John 1:1 clearly shows the Father (YHWH) as being greater as he does again at " Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19 AV) where the Apostle John quotes Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) as saying, "The Son can do nothing of himself." These two verses both in the same book as John 1:1 make it clear that whereas grammatically speaking John 1:1 could be rendered as in the Authorized King James Version it can not be correctly rendered this way due to the contents of the remainder of the Book of John. The writings of Paul even make this clearer, " And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:28 AV), " But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:3 AV), "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:5-8 AV). All these scriptures show Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) was obedient to his father (YHWH) and subordinate to his father (YHWH). Clearly this shows the error of Oneness Theology, Trinitarian Theology, and Sabellianism Theology.
But let's for argument sake say that the Father and the Son are one God as these three groups claim, we are left with a gap that can not be closed in their theories and the way their biased Bible translators translate John 1:1. Even if we are to accept the way these biased translators translated John 1:1, this verse can in no way be interpreted to justify a "triune" God. Let's do a little analysis, it is immediately obvious from reading this verse translated with a Trinitarian/Oneness/Sabellianism bias that at most we are speaking of a "duality" and not a "triune" God. Even the most resolute Trinitarian/Oneness/Sabellianism believer will never be able to be able to find any mention in this verse of any "merging" of a Holy Ghost with God and with "the word." So even if we accept at face value the rendering in the Authorized King James Version, and have faith, even then, we find ourselves commanded/directed to believe in a "duality" and not a "trinity." In the original ancient (Koine) Greek, manufscript, "the word" is described as "ton theos" (divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (the Divine/the God). In my opinion, the writer of this discourse, this verse should be translated something like the following, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was divine." You will note Word was NOT capitalized in this as no indication or grammatical structure in the original would indicates it should be capitalized; of course this is NOT in accordance with any of the common Bibles such as the Authorized King James (AV), The New American Bible (Catholic) TNAB, the New World Translation (NWT), The New Testament, An American Translation, Goodspeed's Translation, Moffatt's Translation (which uses Logas instead of Word), etc.
Another point to consider, is other verses using "ho theos" in the Bible in the original Koine Greek; such as " In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (2 Corinthians 4:4 AV) We find the same word ("ho theos") being used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty (YHWH) is now used to describe the Devil, then why should it be changed from simply translating it as "the god" when referring to the Devil while "divine" is translated as "God" when referring to "the Word"? Also, as previously dealt with, why is Word capitalized? The term god can be applied to anyone with an elevated position as shown by " I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (Psalms 82:6 AV). In fact, The Catholic New World Dictionary to the New American Bible, 1970 candidly admits, "In the New Testament, the Greek Theos with the article (The God) means the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (see Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; etc.). Thus God is almost the name of the first person of the blessed Trinity. Without the article, God designates the divinity, and so is applicable to the pre-existing Word (Jn. 1:3). The term God is applied to Jesus in only a few texts, and even their interpretation is under dispute (Jn. 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1)." This clearly proves the point that the translators with a Trinitarian Theology bias have little or no support for their way of translating John 1:1.
Yet another point to consider is the meaning of Father and of Son, "The Doctrine of The Trinity defies the universally accepted and historically always held meaning of the words for father and son. Not only does it defy the meaning of these words, it destroys their meaning! This fact is important to realize for God gave us language. It was not invented by man as the evolutionist tries to say. Thus, we are not destroying man made terms, but God-given terms! These terms, as given to us by God, require that the father exists before the son, and for the son to be brought into existence by the father. This universally accepted and recognized definition is what these terms have meant from the beginning of this creation. Therefore, who has given anyone the authority to change these God-given terms now? In fact, The Lord Jesus Christ verifies the meaning of these terms when he says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." John 13:16 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." John 14:28. Here, he establishes that God is his lord, that he was sent by his lord, that God is his Father, and that his Father is greater than he himself. How could any of these declarations be true if the Doctrine of The Trinity is true? It is clearly impossible for these declarations of The Lord Jesus Christ to be true and the Doctrine of The Trinity to be True! It is easy to see that these words of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Doctrine of the Trinity are mutually exclusive and opposing views!
Now notice that " And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him." (Luke 2:40 AV) and " And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." (Luke 2:52 AV) require that this special son has to learn the difference between good and evil. If he was God, then how could such a statement apply? Isn't God omniscient? Isn't this passage teaching us that this special son would have to go through a learning process like every other normal natural human being? Isn't it telling us that he at one time did not know the difference between good and evil? Isn't it teaching us that he would have to learn to refuse the evil and choose the good? The answer to these questions is obviously yes! It doesn't take someone with a doctorate degree to answer them. In fact, the only too obvious answer to all of these questions destroys The Trinitarian concept of this special son. Furthermore, this conclusion from this passage is verified by what is said about The Lord Jesus Christ in The New Testament. Consider the following passages:
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. Luke 2:40.
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. Luke 2:52.
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. Matt. 24:36.
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Mark 13:32.
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. John 5:20.
And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. Acts 1:7
The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John. Rev. 1:1.
At this point, let us briefly look at the implications of the above listed passages. We will take them in the order in which we quoted them." ( an excerpt from a letter of Bro. Scaramastro).
Now as can be readily seen from the foregoing, John 1:1 can definitely be translated at least nine different ways that all have equal validity from the language structure point of view, in that none of these can either be proven totally correct or incorrect; however, by reasoning and looking at other text using the same word, we can see even if we accept translations having a "triune" God bias there is only a "duality" shown, but the same word used elsewhere indicates this is not the way it should be translated. Since this discourse is meant for ordinary readers and not translators no in-depth details of translation are dealt with; however, for those wanting more detail with respect translation see:
See Appendix on John 1:1:
hector3000.future.easyspa...ermans.htm [probably the best in-depth translation detail anywhere on the subject]; www.riverpower.org/John/C01v01-3.htm ; users.eggconnect.net/nodd...n%2011.htm ; www.seekgod.org/bible/cha...john1.html ; wings.buffalo.edu/sa/musl...2.2.6.html ; web.fares.net/w/.ee7f254 ; bibles.datasegment.com/we...1%20John/1 ; assemblyoftrueisrael.com/...ected.html ; reslight.addr.com/john1.html [excellent background source]; www.vocationsvancouver.co...1_1_4.htm;www.christianeducational..../v1i3.pdf; www.christianeducational....kpromo.htm [source for interesting book with more information on Trinity] ; reslight.addr.com/john20-28.html (source for books and facts on Trinity); www.tellway-publishing.com ("Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt - one of the best)
Special Translation Appendix on John 1:1:
This is a short introduction on the translation of the word 'god' in its various forms, for a much more detailed explanation go to hector3000.future.easyspa...rmans.htm.
Item 1) Let's consider what the Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn from the Northern Arizona University has to say: "The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word." Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefeinite article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."
Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to say "The God": ho theos. Even a monotheistic Christian, who beleives there is only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of God," which is theou, you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to have the article.) So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John wants to tell his readers that the Word(which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek. The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the definite article, they are telling us that the subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a Volkswagen." In English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism. No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly differentiates between God from the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How does God create in Genesis? He speaks words that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan and activity. It is not God himself, but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a polytheist. This divine thing does not act on its own, however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans.
Item 2) The fact is that THEOS (=God) is a count noun, not a mass noun or an adjective. As a count noun it MUST BE countable, i.e. either definite or indefinite (i.e. either "a god" or "the God"). The trinitarian argument hinges on stripping THEOS of its count-ability, so that it is purely qualitative. However, if a noun is PURELY qualitative, it is not a count noun. An adjective or a mass noun may fit their requirement for emphasizing qualitativness only, but a count noun MUST BE countable, for that is what count means when describing a count noun. If he accepts this rather elementary rule of English grammar, you can demonstrate that, as a count noun, THEOS may be translated either "the Word was God" (="the Word was The God", which is Sabellianism), or "the Word was a god". Since orthodox trinitarians reject "the Word was The God" (=Sabellianism), they are left with "the Word was a god" -- that is, if they remain true to English syntax (and English syntax is what ENGLISH translations are supposed to follow!). If one argues the point, let them provide an example of a non-countable count noun that is not used in a contrary-to-fact situation, such as a metaphor. I have yet to find anyone, trinitarian or otherwise, who is able to meet this challenge. Rolf Furuli discusses this in his book, THE ROLE OF THEOLOGY AND BIAS IN BIBLE TRANSLATION, as does Greg Stafford, in his, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES DEFENDED: AN ANSWER TO SCHOLARS AND CRITICS. There are also some very good posts by Wes Williams on greektheology that discuss this issue. I suppose if you search the greektheology archives using the word "count" or the name "Wes" you will find much helpful information. [source Kats]
Item 3) How some Bible translators who did not have bias translated:
1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. 1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
1979: "and a god was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker Harwood,
1768, "and was himself a divine person" Thompson,
1829, "the Logos was a god Torrey,
1961, "what God was,the Word was" Moffatt,
1972, "the Logos was divine Translator's NT,
1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature Barclay,
1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" Schonfield,
1985, "the Word was divine Revised English,
1989, "what God was, the Word was Scholar's Version,
1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was Madsen,
1994, "the Word was <EM>a divine Being" Becker,
1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos] Stage,
1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being]. Bhmer,
1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being] Thimme,
1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word] Baumgarten et al,
1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] Holzmann,
1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought] Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word] Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology),
1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind] Pffflin,
1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind] Albrecht,
1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word] Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being] Menge,
1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word) Haenchen,
1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch,
1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God] Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk),
1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos" Schultz,
1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word]
Item 4) Amplification on How Some Bible Translators Translated John 1:1 And Why:
"And the word was a god" - The New Testament in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Achbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
"and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson.
"and the Word was divine" - The Bible: An American Translation, by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed.
"the Logos was divine" - The New Testament: A New Translation, by James Moffat.
"what God was, the Word was" - The New English Bible.
"He was the same as God" - Today's English Version.
"And the Word was a god" - New World Translation
We notice that these Bibles do not translate John 1:1 with the simple expression "The Word was God" like most Bibles do. Why is that? The footnote to John 1:1 in The New American Bible states the following reason:
"Was God: lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."
What the footnote is saying is that first time "God" appears in the verse, "was with God", there is a definite article before God so it literally reads "was with THE God". The second time God appears, "was God," there is no definite article (the). This signifies "God" may be used as a predicate and not as an identification.
Regarding this fact, the Anchor Bible states:
"To preserve in English the different nuance of theos [god] with and without the article, some (Moffat) would translate 'The Word was divine.'"
Notice a literal translation of John 1:1,2:
"In the beginning was the world and the word was toward the god and god was the word. This (one) was in beginning toward the god."
In these two verses we see six nouns, three referring to the Greek word logos (word, which most recognize to be Jesus) and three referring to the Greek word theos (god). We notic each reference to logos (word) is preceded by the definite article "the", while two of the three times the word theos (god) occurs, it too is preceded by the definite article "the". For some reason, John does not provide the definite article with theos when it is associated with "The Word". We thus see two definite individuals mentioned in this verse. "The Word", Jesus Christ, and "The God", who is Almighty God Jehovah. John does not say "The Word" is "The God". (In fact, most Trinitarian scholars would argue that if John had said the word was "ho theos" (The God), it would amount to sabellianism (the belief that Jesus is both the Father and the Son). As such, it is commonly agreed upon that John was not identifying Jesus as God but rather, was describing him as deity.) But if John did not say "The Word" is "The God", then what did he mean by saying, "the word was god"?
In Greek, it is possible for a noun to act as an adjective when it is not accompanied by the definite article. Consider a Biblical example of this in John 6:70. "Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (NIV)
Here the noun (devil) is not proceeded by the efinite article (the). To reflect this most Bibles place the indefinite article (a) in front of it. Thus, Jesus was not identifying Judas as "THE Devil", he was saying Judas had the qualities of the devil. He was acting like the devil so he was A devil though not THE devil. This example helps us to see how the lack of the definite article can cause a noun to act as a predication rather than an identification.
Regarding this point, noted Bible scholar William Barclay writes:
"When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it become more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class of the sphere to which the other belongs...
"John has no definte article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs...
"This passage then [John 1:1] does not identify the Logos and God; it does not say that Jesus was God, nor doesit call him God; but it does say that in his nature and being he belongs to the same class as God."
Mr. Barclay's observations are duly noted in the example we considered with Judas Iscariot being "a devil".
Item 4) The words at Genesis 1:26 have often been used as proof of plurality
in the Godhead:
"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" RSV
But are there other examples of the same type of idiom in the OT? The following examples are from the RSV:
Ezr 4:17 The king sent an answer: "To Rehum the commander and Shim'shai the scribe and the rest of their associates who live in Sama'ria and in the rest of the province Beyond the River, greeting. And now Ezr 4:18 the letter which you sent to us has been plainly read before me.
[[note: the use of the Apocrypha as a Historic source only and not as an approved part of the Bible]]
1Maccabees 10:18 "King Alexander to his brother Jonathan, greeting.
1Ma 10:19 We have heard about you, that you are a mighty warrior and worthy to be our friend.
1Ma 10:20 And so we have appointed you today to be the high priest of your nation; you are to be called the king's friend" (and he sent him a purple robe and a golden crown) "and you are to take our side and keep friendship with us."
1Ma 10:21 So Jonathan put on the holy garments in the seventh month of the one hundred and sixtieth year, at the feast of tabernacles, and he recruited troops and equipped them with arms in abundance.
1Ma 10:22 When Demetrius heard of these things he was grieved and said,
1Ma 10:23 "What is this that we have done? Alexander has gotten ahead of us in forming a friendship with the Jews to strengthen himself.
1Ma 10:24 I also will write them words of encouragement and promise them honor and gifts, that I may have their help."
1Ma 10:25 So he sent a message to them in the following words: "King Demetrius to the nation of the Jews, greeting.
1Ma 10:26 Since you have kept your agreement with us and have continued your friendship with us, and have not sided with our enemies, we have heard of it and rejoiced.
1Ma 10:27 And now continue still to keep faith with us, and we will repay you with good for what you do for us.
1Ma 10:28 We will grant you many immunities and give you gifts.
1Ma 11:30 "King Demetrius to Jonathan his brother and to the nation of the Jews, greeting.
1Ma 11:31 This copy of the letter which we wrote concerning you to Lasthenes our kinsman we have written to you also, so that you may know what it says.
1Ma 11:32 'King Demetrius to Lasthenes his father, greeting.
1Ma 11:33 To the nation of the Jews, who are our friends and fulfil their obligations to us, we have determined to do good, because of the good will they show toward us.
1Ma 15:9 When we gain control of our kingdom, we will bestow great honor upon you and your nation and the temple, so that your glory will become manifest in all the earth."
2Sa 24:14 Then David said to Gad, "I am in great distress; let us fall into the hand of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but let me not fall into the hand of man."
Song of Solomon 1:11 We will make you ornaments of gold, studded with silver.
Item 5) Thomas Jefferson on the false doctrine:
"No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of
one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of
Christianity. . . .Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted
from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of
civil government, wielded at the will of the Athanasius. The hocus-
pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and
three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands of
martyrs. . . .In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and
three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no
candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe
what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives
himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason,
has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and
like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such
persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the
hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."
From: Jefferson, Thomas (b.1743-d.1826). "The Writings of Thomas
Jefferson: Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports,
Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private:
Published by the Order of the Joint Committee of Congress on the
Library, From the Original Manuscripts, Deposited in the Department
of State, with explanatory notes, by the editor, H.A. Washington."
9 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Maury, 1853-1854), part of
letter to theologian James Smith - December 8, 1822, vol 7, pp. 269-
70. E302 .J464 / 06-007150. Appearing also at the following
internet web site: Thomas Jefferson's Letters >
www.barefootsworld.net/tj...html#unity <.
Also, it may interest some to know that, a vast amount of the pre-
1800's non-Trinitarian (anti-Trinitarian) literature which exists at
the Library of Congress (Washington, D.C.), the largest library in
the world, is there because they once belonged to Thomas Jefferson.
A great quote by Thos. Jefferson on the trinity can be found in
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, edited By H.A. Washington vol.
7, p. 210 :
"When we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon
of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is
three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared
to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when, in short,
we shall have unlearned everything which has been taught since his
day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we
shall then be truly and worthily his disciples; and my opinion is
that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his
lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian."
I challenge anyone to show that my facts are in error.
TRYING TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM LEARNING THE TRUTH IS JUST PLAIN WICKED AND EVIL, may Almighty God (YHWH) punish him.
If you wish more information and/or wish to ask a question or what ever, contact me by leaving a PM (personal message) at http://religioustruths.yuku.com/
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:09 pm Post subject: Documentary on the Book of John Being Anti-Trinitarian:
Documentary on the Book of John Being Anti-Trinitarian:
JOHN 1:1-2 - LEARN THE FACTS:
Many emotionally diehard Trinitarians point to how John 1:1 is erroneously worded in many Bibles as, "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God." (American Standard Version; ASV), and neglect to look at John 1:2 in those same Bibles which says, "The same was in the beginning with God." (ASV); Clearly showing two distinct individuals. Moreover the overlook John 1:14 in those same Bibles which says, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth." (ASV) which clearly shows his as the only begotten of his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) in harmony with 1 John 4:9, "Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him." (ASV) once more clearly showing them as two distinct individuals, one superior to the other and sending the subordinate, his Son, to be among mankind.
The next problem for Trinitarians is the salient fact that no matter how you analyze or translate John 1:1 you only get two individuals or as they falsely claim manifestations of one individual, which makes NO Trinity or group of three, neither of individuals and/or manifestations; my, my, so much for John 1:1 proving a trinity. It does not do this even with the biased translations of Trinitarians; moreover, there are more accurate ways of translating John 1:1 such as the way the New English Bible whose translators had access to older manuscripts that did the translators of the King James Bible, the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, and the American Standard Bible. In the New English Bible, John 1:1 reads, "When all things began, the Word already was. The word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was." (The New English Bible; NEB). In fact, the NEB renders John 1:2, "The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be;" (NEB), and the fact that his Father (YHWH) after creating him used Jesus (Yeshua) as his master worker is revealed at Proverbs 8:22-30 about Jesus (Yeshua) being brought forth and being his Father's (YHWH's) master workman, "Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth; 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. 27 When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep, 28 When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong, 29 When he gave to the sea its bounds, That the waters should not transgress his commandments, When he marked out the foundations of the earth; 30 Then I was by him, as a master workman; And I was daily his delight, Rejoicing always before him." (ASV); And Jesus' (Yeshua's)existence before the earth was is affirmed at John 8:58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am." (ASV); Thus as Colossians 1:17 says, ""and he is before all things, and in him all things consist." (ASV); And at Revelation 3:14, "And to the angel of the church is Laodicea write: 'These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:" (ASV), Jesus (Yeshua) is once more shown as the first of creation. Clearly, then, he, Jesus (Yeshua) is neither the same individual and/or manifestation of the same individual; Nor co-eternal, nor co-equal with his Father (YHWH).
All this in strict compliance with the Jewish Law of Agencies which is basically as follows, "Jesus (Yeshua) was God's (YHWH's) appointed agent in accordance with the 'Biblical law of agency' described as, "Scripture mentions something being done by Person A, whilst another mentions it being done by Person B. This is best understood when we grasp the Schaliach Principle, or the Jewish Law of Agency, which is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." (The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder). And 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus," (ASV). This is why Jesus (Yeshua) could say, John 16:23, "And in that day ye shall ask me no question. Verily, verily, I say unto you, if ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name."(ASV).
This fact is further affirmed at Ephesians 1:20-23 which shows that his Father (YHWH) raised him from the dead and put him at his right hand to administer all for him, "Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all." (ASV); This fact, that his Father (YHWH) placed him over all things except himself, a superior one, is highlighted at 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, "But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. 21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." (ASV). This will bring the fulfillment foretold at Isaiah 45:23, "By myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." (ASV). This scripture shows that God (YHWH) will bring the earth back to perfection, i.e., a place where everyone will love their creator, Almighty God (YHWH), and his chief agent or mediator of life, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, and their neighbor, and he, God (YHWH) will once more be using his Son, the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) as his master worker to accomplish this as shown by 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, previously quoted.
Now when we look at other constructs or translations of John 1:1 the fact that John 1:1 can NOT even support a Duality let alone a Trinity becomes even more readily apparent.
Let's look at the 10 possible constructs of John 1:1 that do NOT violate any rule of Koine Greek grammar with the exception of the fact is that THEOS (=God) is a count noun, not a mass noun or an adjective. As a count noun it MUST BE countable, i.e. either definite or indefinite (i.e. either "a god" or "the God") for two of the constructs:
<1> "and a god was the Logos." [example of Bible using, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker Harwood, 1979]
<2> "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" [example of Bible using, Schonfield, 1976]
<3> "The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the word was." [example of Bible using, The New English Bible, NEB, 1961-present standard Bible agreed to by most denominations in the United Kingdom]
<4> "And the word was a god" [example of Bible using, The New Testament in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Achbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.]
<5> "and the Word was divine" [example of Bible using, The Bible: An American Translation, by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed. }
<6> "and the Word was God" [example of Bible using, American Standard Version, ASV] [note, this construct violates the count noun rule of Koine Greek and is the common biased rendering of this scripture]
<7> "He was the same as God" example of Bible using, Today's English Version.]
<8> "the Logos was divine" [example of Bible using, The New Testament: A New Translation, by James Moffat]
<9> "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God] [example of Bible using, Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1982]
<10> "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] [example of Bible using, Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1980]
As we can see, here are ten different constructs possible without violating any rule of Koine Greek grammar except the count Noun rule. So, now, let's look at what follows in context in general format at John 1:2:
"The Word, then, was with God at the beginning," (The New English Bible, NEB)
"The same was in the beginning with God." (American Standard Version, ASB)
"The same was in the beginning with God." (Authorized King James Bible; AV)
"He was in the beginning with God." (Revised Standard Version; RSV)
"He was in the beginning with God." (The Confraternity Edition of the New Testament - Catholic)
As is easily seen, John 1:2 is substantially the same in all translations. However, in context it does not harmonize with some of the constructs used which do not violate any rule of Koine Greek grammar with the exception of the count Noun rule to be explained later.
However clearly some of the ten (10) or more basic constructs agree in context with John 1:2 and some do NOT. Let's look at the point where some do not agree or harmonize with the context of John 1:2:
John 1:2 plainly says that the Word, or Logos, who is Jesus (Yeshua) was with God in the beginning which would be impossible if Jesus (Yeshua) was Almighty God (YHWH) himself. This rules out constructs 6, 7, and 10, represented below, as impossible as they do NOT harmonize with context.
<6> "and the Word was God" [example of Bible using, American Standard Version, ASV] [note, this construct violates the count noun rule of Koine Greek]
<7> "He was the same as God" example of Bible using, Today's English Version.]
<10> "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] [example of Bible using, Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1980]
And two of these constructs do violate the count Noun rule of Koine Greek; to wit, constructs 6 and 7.
Now exactly what is the count Noun rule of Koine Greek? It is as follows:
The fact is that THEOS (=God) is a count noun, not a mass noun or an adjective. As a count noun it MUST BE countable, i.e. either definite or indefinite (i.e. either "a god" or "the God"). The trinitarian argument hinges on stripping THEOS of its count-ability, so that it is purely qualitative. However, if a noun is PURELY qualitative, it is not a count noun. An adjective or a mass noun may fit their requirement for emphasizing qualitativness only, but a count noun MUST BE countable, for that is what *count* means when describing a count noun. If he accepts this rather elementary rule of English grammar, you can demonstrate that, as a count noun, THEOS may be translated either "the Word was God" (="the Word was The God", which is Sabellianism), or "the Word was a god". Since orthodox trinitarians reject "the Word was The God" (=Sabellianism), they are left with "the Word was a god" -- that is, if they remain true to English syntax (and English syntax is what ENGLISH translations are supposed to follow!). If one argues the point, let them provide an example of a non-countable *count noun* that is not used in a contrary-to-fact situation, such as a metaphor. I have yet to find anyone, trinitarian or otherwise, who is able to meet this challenge. Rolf Furuli, one of the two best living Koine Greek scholars, discusses this in his book, THE ROLE OF THEOLOGY AND BIAS IN BIBLE TRANSLATION, as does Greg Stafford, in his, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES DEFENDED: AN ANSWER TO SCHOLARS AND CRITICS. There are also some very good posts by Wes Williams on greektheology that discuss this issue.
"To preserve in English the different nuance of theos [god] with and without the article, some (Moffat) would translate 'The Word was divine.'"
Notice a literal translation of John 1:1,2:
"In the beginning was the world and the word was toward the god and god was the word. This (one) was in beginning toward the god."
In these two verses we see six nouns, three referring to the Greek word logos (word, which most recognize to be Jesus - Yeshua) and three referring to the Greek word theos (god). We notice each reference to logos (word) is preceded by the definite article "the", while two of the three times the word theos (god) occurs, it too is preceded by the definite article "the". For some reason, John does not provide the definite article with theos when it is associated with "The Word". We thus see two definite individuals mentioned in this verse. "The Word", Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, and "The God", who is Almighty God Jehovah (YHWH). John does not say "The Word" is "The God". (In fact, most Trinitarian scholars would argue that if John had said the word was "ho theos" (The God), it would amount to sabellianism (the belief that Jesus is both the Father and the Son). As such, it is commonly agreed upon that John was not identifying Jesus (Yeshua) as God (YHWH) but rather, was describing him as deity.) But if John did not say "The Word" is "The God", then what did he mean by saying, "the word was god"?
In Greek, it is possible for a noun to act as an adjective when it is not accompanied by the definite article. Consider a Biblical example of this in John 6:70. "Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (NIV)
Here the noun (devil) is not proceeded by the definite article (the). To reflect this most Bibles place the indefinite article (a) in front of it. Thus, Jesus was not identifying Judas as "THE Devil", he was saying Judas had the qualities of the devil. He was acting like the devil so he was A devil though not THE devil. This example helps us to see how the lack of the definite article can cause a noun to act as a predication rather than an identification.
Regarding this point, noted Bible scholar William Barclay writes:
"When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it become more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class of the sphere to which the other belongs...
"John has no definte article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs...
"This passage then [John 1:1] does not identify the Logos and God; it does not say that Jesus (Yeshua) was God (YHWH), nor does it call him God; but it does say that in his nature and being he belongs to the same class as God." Or as the New English Bible states, "and what God was, the Word was."
Mr. Barclay's observations are duly noted in the example we considered with Judas Iscariot being "a devil".
Now let's consider what the Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn from the Northern Arizona University has to say: "The Greek phrase is 'theos en ho logos', which translated word for word is "a god was the word." Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefinite article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has the definite article 'ho'. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, 'ho logos' is "the word." If it was written simply logos, without the definite article 'ho', we would have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."
Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to say "The God": 'ho theos'. Even a monotheistic Christian, who believes there is only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of God," which is 'theou', you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to have the article.) So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John wants to tell his readers that the Word (which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek. The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the definite article, they are telling us that the subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a Volkswagen." In English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism. No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly differentiates between God from the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How does God create in Genesis? He speaks words that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan and activity. It is not God himself, but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a polytheist. This divine thing does not act on its own, however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans.
All this is in keeping with what John the Baptist is recorded by the Apostle John at John 1:15, "John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is before me: for hi was before me." (ASV).
A MORE POWERFUL BAPTISM BY MEANS OF JESUS (YESHUA):
John the Baptist was grilled by some priests, Levites, and Pharisees at John 1:20-34, "'I am not the Messiah.' 'What then? Are you Elijah?' 'No', he replied. 'Are you the prophet we await?' He answered 'No.' 'Then who are you?' they asked. 'We must give an answer to those who sent us. What account do you give of yourself?' He answered in the words of the prophet Isaiah: 'I am a voice cryinhg aloud in the wilderness, 'Make the Lord's highway straight.' Some Pharisees who were in deputation asked him, 'If you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the prophet, why then are you baptizing?' 'I baptize in water,' John replied, 'but among you though you do not know him, stands the one who is to come after me. I am not good enough to unfasten his shoes.' This took place at Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day he saw Jesus coming towards him. 'Look," he said 'there is the Lamb of God; it is he who takes away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I spoke when I said, 'After me a man is coming who takes rank before me'; for before I was born, he already was. I myself did not know who he was; but the very reason why I came, baptizing in water, was that he might be revealed to Israel.' John testified further: 'I saw the Spirit coming down from heaven like a dove and resting upon him. I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize in water had told me, 'When you see the Spirit coming down upon someone and resting upon him you will know that this is he who is to baptize in Holy Spirit.' I saw it myself, and I have borne witness. This is God's Chosen One." (NEB). If he had been a part of a Trinity consisting of Father (YHWH), Son (Yeshua), and the Holy Spirit or Spirit the above could NOT have occurred since one individual could NOT come down on himself, and the above record would be utter linguistic foolishness; however, it is NOT as this God (YHWH) dishonoring doctrine is the fable or myth of mankind per the warning at 2 Timothy 4:3-4, "For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables." (ASV); why so? It is due to the activities of Satan the Devil as shown at Corinthians 4:4, ""In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (AV); due to their not seeking sound doctrine per Titus 2:1, "But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" (Authorized King James Bible; AV).
Interestingly right after this in John the first chapter, the Apostle John wrote with respect Simon Peter the following, at John 1:42, "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone." (AV).
GOD LOVES HIS SON, JESUS (YESHUA) AND SENT HIM TO EARTH WITH AUTHORITY:
John the Baptist testified to the fact that Jesus (Yeshua) did NOT come of his own volition, but had been sent by his Father (YHWH) with full authority as shown at 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, previously quoted. At John 3:31 to 36, we see the absolute truth of this testified to, "He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh: he that cometh from heaven is above all. 32 What he hath seen and heard, of that be beareth witness; and no man receiveth his witness. 33 He that hath received his witness hath set his seal to this that God is true. 34 For his whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for he giveth not the Spirit by measure. 35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. 36 He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." (ASV). This scripture reveals two important facts, First, that God (YHWH) loves his son; Second, Almighty God (YHWH) has sent his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to earth to carry out an assignment and given him the concomitant authority to be able to do so as shown at 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, previously quoted.
And at John 4:24-26, "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.' The woman answered, "I know that Messiah' (that is Christ) 'is coming. When he comes he will tell us everything.' Jesus said, 'I am he, I who am speaking to you now." (NEB). Now note, at this time the Son of God (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua) was on earth as a perfect fleshly man; whereas the scripture clearly shows, "God is spirit," thus invisible. But Jesus (Yeshua) was flesh and blood and clearly visible at this time; therefore, there is NO way that they could be one and the same individual unless God (YHWH) is a liar and the Bible clearly shows this is NOT the case at Titus 1:2, "In hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal." (ASV).
And at John 5:25-26, "In truth, in very truth I tell you, a time is coming, indeed it is already here, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and all who hear shall come to life. For as the Father has life-giving power in himself, so has the Son, by the Father's gift." (NEB) clearly once more showing all the power and authority Jesus (Yeshua) Christ has were given to him by a superior one, his Father, Almighty God (YHWH); And at John 5:36, "But I rely on a testimony higher than John's. There is enough to testify that the Father has sent me, in the works my Father gave me to do and to finish-the very works I have in hand." (NEB) once more clearly showing that his Father, a superior one, had given him works to do in full compliance with the principles of the Jewish Law of Agencies previously explained as his master worker as shown at Proverbs 8:22-30, previously quoted. And this is affirmed at John 5:37, "This testimony to me was given by the Father who sent me, although you never heard his voice, or saw his form." (NEB); however, unfortunately the Father's (HYWH's) word through his Son per John 5:38, "But his word has found no home in you for you do not believe the one whom he sent." (NEB). Likewise, Jesus (Yeshua) stated at John 5:43-44, "I have come accredited by my Father, and you have no welcome for me; if another comes self-accredited you will welcome him. How can you have faith so long as you receive honour from one another, and care nothing for the honour that comes from him who alone is God?" (NEB), once more testifying to two facts, First, Jesus (Yeshua) was both sent by and accredited by his Father (YHWH), and Second, he, Jesus (Yeshua) is a distinct individual separate and apart from his Father (YHWH) who had sent him and accredited him. Just as Jesus (Yeshua) said, John 5:45-47, "Do not imagine that I shall be your accuser at God's tribunal. Your accuser is Moses, the very Moses on whom you have set your hope. If you believed Moses you would believe what I tell you, for it was about me that he wrote. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how are you to believe what I say?" (NEB).
TRUE CHRISTIANS MUST DO THE WORKS OF GOD AS SHOWN BY HIS SON:
Many read Jesus' (Yeshua's) assignment to his true followers at Matthew 24:14, "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (New International Version; NIV). Now let's see what John 6:28-29, "They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (ASV); And Jesus (Yeshua) went on to show that his Father (YHWH) was the superior one at John 6:31-33, "Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, He gave them bread out of heaven to eat. 32 Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, It was not Moses that gave you the bread out of heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread out of heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the world." (ASV); And at John 6:37, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and the man who comes to me I will never turn away. I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me." (NEB). Now how much explicit can Jesus (Yeshua) get with respect who sent him and whose will he is doing; thereby, clearly showing neither a Duality or a Trinity exist except as a fable of mankind who are being deceived by none other than Satan the Devil as shown at 2 Corinthians 4:4, previously quoted. Jesus (Yeshua) specifically said at John 6:40, "For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (ASV), as clearly noted, he was once more showing what the will of his Father (YHWH) is and not his own will; thereby, showing that his Father (YHWH) was the superior one and that he, Jesus (Yeshua), was an obedient Son. This same fact is testified to at John 6:45-47, "It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he that is from God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth hath eternal life." (ASV); And at John 6:57, "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me." (ASV) once more, here we find Jesus (Yeshua) testifying with respect whom had sent him and showing he was subject to him.
THE WORLD HATES JESUS (YESHUA) AND THOSE ACCURATELY TEACHING HIM:
The fact that the world hates Jesus (Yeshua) was testified to by none other that Jesus (Yeshua) at John 7:7, "The world cannot hate you; but it hates me for exposing the wickedness of its ways." (NEB), with this being spoken to his fleshly brothers [actually half brothers as his father was NOT Joseph, but Almighty God (YHWH) himself] who had not yet become believers in him at John 7:5, "For even his brothers were not believers in him." (NEB). And at John 7:16-18, Jesus (Yeshua) said, "Jesus therefore answered them, and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me. 17 If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether is is of God, or whether I speak from myself. 18 He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is ture, and no unrighteousness is in him." (ASV); once more, here Jesus (Yeshua) is showing he was sent by a superior one and that it was the will and teachings of this superior one that he was making known, and that he was NOT doing his own will. We should all believe Jesus (Yeshua) that he was sent by Almighty God (YHWh), his father, to do his Father's (YHWH's) will and not his own since Jesus (Yeshua) is not a liar anymore than is his Father (YHWH).
The fact that he had NOT come of his own accord is testified to by Jesus (Yeshua) at John 7:28-29, "Jesus therefore cried in the temple, teaching and saying, Ye both know me, and know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. 29 I know him; because I am from him, and he sent me." (ASV); Now how much clearer can it be that Jesus (Yeshua) was sent by a superior one, his Father, Almighty God (YHWH). But what did the Jews under control of the God of this System per 2 Corinthians 4:4, previously quoted, want to do? Let's look at John 7:30, "They sought therefore to take him: and no man laid his hand on him, because his hour was not yet come." (ASV). It is to be noted that at this time the Spirit had not yet been given as shown at John 7:39, "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified." (ASV).
JESUS (YESHUA) IS THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD AS HIS FATHER (YHWH) HAS GIVEN HIM FULL AUTHORITY ON EARTH AND IN HEAVEN:
Now Jesus (Yeshua) is shown to be the 'Light of the World' at John 8:12, "Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life. 13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest witness of theyself; they witness is not true. 14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true; for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye know not whence I come, or whither I go. 15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. 16 Yea and if I judge, my judgment is true for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me." (ASV); To this these individuals seeking to do him harm because they were being misguided by Satan the Devil, he said at John 8:19, "They said therefore unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye know neither me, nor my Father: if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also." (ASV). And that he was doing his Father's (YHWH's) will and was from his Father (YHWH) they understood not as recorded in John 8:26, "Jesus answered, 'Why should I speak to you at all? I have much to say about you-and in judgment. But he who sent me speaks the truth, and what I heard from him I report to the world.'" (NEB); herewith clearly showing NOT only that he was NOT his Father (YHWH), but had also been taught all he knew by his Father (YHWH). Thus once more showing that he, Jesus (Yeshua) is neither co-eternal NOR co-equal with his Father (YHWH).
In fact, Jesus (Yeshua) as testified to by himself always, per John 8:28, "So Jesus said to them, 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man you will know that I am what I am. I do nothing on my own authority, but in all that I say, I have been taught by my Father." (NEB). He said to those seeking to kill him, per John 8:37-38, "'I know that you are descended from Abraham, but you are bent on killing me because my teaching makes no headway with you. I am revealing in words what I saw in my Father's presence; and you are revealing in action what you learned from your father." (NEB); And at John 8:41, "Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." (ASV); And Jesus (Yeshua) answered them at John 8:42, "Jesus said unto them, If god were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me." (ASV) clearly he was showing that he had been sent by his Father and was doing his Father's (YHWH's) works as his Father's (YHWH's) master worker per Proverbs 8:22-30, as previously quoted, and was definitely a distinct being separate and apart from his Father (YHWH). Jesus (Yeshua) clearly showed that these individuals that were persecuting and harassing him were of the Devil at John 8:44-47, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But because I say the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God." (ASV). These Devil guided individuals answered saying, John 8:48-50, "'Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan, and that you are possessed?' "I am not possessed,' said Jesus; 'the truth is that I am honouring my Father, but you dishonour me. I do not care about my own glory; there is one who does care, and he is judge." (NEB); And at, John 8:54-55, "Jesus replied, 'If I glorify myself, that glory is of mine is worthless. It is the Father who glorifies me, he of whom you say, 'He is our God', though you do not know him. But I know him; if I said that I did not know him I should be a liar like you. But in truth I know him and obey his word." (NEB); Clearly, once more showing that he, Jesus (Yeshua) was not his Father (YHWH) by saying that, "If I glorify myself, that glory is of mine is worthless. It is the Father who glorifies me," so we can plainly see he is a distinct being apart from his Father (YHWH) and taking directions from his Father (YHWH). This fact is clearly shown by 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God: and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus:" (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).
GREATER LOVE HATH NO MAN THAN TO GIVE HIS LIFE IN BEHALF OF OTHERS:
Jesus (Yeshua) being the 'good shepherd' was willing to and did give his life for others as recorded at John 10:14- "I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me, 15 even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. 18 No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father." (ASV); Once more clearly showing that he was distinct from his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) and much loved by him since he was willing to lay his life down on behalf of the 'sheep' [the followers of his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) that he had given to his Son, Jeusu (Yeshua)].
As Jesus (Yeshua) himself said at John 10:25-29, "My deeds done in my Father's name are my credentials, but because you are not my sheep of my flock you do not believe. I give them eternal life and they shall never perish; no one shall snatch them from my care. My Father who has given them to me is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of the Father's car." (NEB), clearly here showing that his Father (YHWH) is greater than himself; And at John 10:30, showing that both he and his Father (YHWH) are one in purpose, "I and my Father are one." (ASV); And at John 10:32-36, "At this Jesus said to them, 'I have set before you many good deeds, done by my Father's power; for which of these would you stone me? The Jews replied, 'We are not going to stone you for any good deed, but for your blasphemy. You a mere man claim to be a god.' Jesus answered, 'Is it not written in your own Law, 'I said: You are Gods'? Those are called gods to whom the word of God was delivered-and Scripture cannot be set aside. Then why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, 'I am God's son'?" (NEB). Once more showing that he was doing NOT his own will, but that of his Father (YHWH) whom sent him; likewise, we to be acceptable to God (YHWH) must do his will and reject doctrines and fables of mankind originating with Satan the Devil and accept the truthful doctrines originating from God (YHWH). This fact is made clear at John 10:37-38, "If I am not acting as my Father would, do not believe me. But if I am, accept the evidence of my deeds, even if you do not believe me, so that you recognize and know that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (NEB); That he should be doing the will of his Father is made clear at Colossians 1:15-16, "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him." (ASV). Hence we can see he would be like his Father (YHWH) as his Father (YHWH) created him in his own image and used his as his master worker, for details of the Jewish Law of Agencies and Proverbs 8:22-30 expounding on this, go back to the first part of this Documentary.
PART 2 OF Documentary on the Book of John Being Anti-Trinitarian:
GOD LISTENS TO HIS SON, JESUS (YESHUA) AND GRANTS WHAT HE ASKS:
John the eleventh chapter clearly shows that Almighty God (YHWH) listens to his Son, the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) and grants him what he asks at John 11:21-25, "Martha said to Jesus, 'If you had been here, sir, my brother would not have died. Even now I know that whatever you ask of God, God will grant you.' Jesus said, 'Your brother will rise again.' " I know that he will rise again', said Martha, 'at the resurrection on the last day.' Jesus said, 'I am the resurrection and I am life." (NEB); And at John 11:27, "She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I have believed that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, even he that cometh into the world." (ASV); Clearly once more testifying to the fact that he is a distinct being apart from his Father (YHWH) and that his Father (YHWH) hears him and grants his wishes.
Then Jesus (Yeshua) prayed to his Father (YHWH) at John 11:41, "So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou heardest me. 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always; but because of the multitude that standeth around I said it, that they may believe that thou didst send me." (ASV).
JESUS' (YESHUA'S) FATHER (YHWH) WILL HONOR WHOEVER SERVES HIM:
Jesus (Yeshua) clearly stated at John 12:26-28, that anyone serving him would be honored by his Father (YHWY), "If anyone serves me, he must follow me; where I am, my servant will be. Whoever serves me will be honoured by my Father. Now my soul is in turmoil, and what am I to say? Father, save me from this hour. No, it was for this that I came to this hour. Father, glorify they name.' A voice sounded from heaven: 'I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." (NEB); Now many accepted his as the Messiah, the Son of God, which he truly was, but others did not as recorded at John 12:39-42, ""For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, 40 He hath blinded their eyes and he hardened their hearts; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, And I should heal them. 41 These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spake of him. 42 Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, least they should be put out of the synagogue:" (ASV). Their having ears and not hearing was also confirmed at Matthew 13:14, "And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive:" (ASV). Though many believed on him, Jesus (Yeshua) they said nothing due to fear as testified to at John 7:12-17, "And there was much murmuring among the multitudes concerning him; some said, He is a good man; others said, Not so, but he leadeth the multitude astray. 13 Yet no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews. 14 But when it was now the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught, 15 The Jews therefore marveiled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? 16 Jesus therefore answered them, and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me. 17 If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself." (ASV); Clearly here Jesus (Yeshua) showed what he taught was NOT from himself, but from his Father (YHWH) a superior one who had sent him. But the multitude was in fear and spoke not in his defense.
JESUS' (YESHUA'S) FAREWELL DISCOURSE:
John 13:1 clearly shows that Jesus (Yeshua) knew the time had come for him to lay his life down in behalf of the 'sheep', "It was before the Passover festival. Jesus knew that his hour had come and he must leave this world and go to the Father. He had always loved his own who were in the world, and now he was to show the full extent of his love." (NEB); Clearly he knew his time had arrived and he said, at John 13:20, "In very truth I tell you, he who receives any messanger of mine receives me; receiving me, he receives the One who sent me." (NEB), clearly showing his followers were one in purpose with him and his Father (YHWH). His giving his life as a human up both as a ransom for his 'sheep', the obedient from among mankind who were one in purpose with him and his Father (YHWH), and to glorify his father as stated at John 13:31-35, "When he had gone out Jesus said, 'Now the Son of Man is glorified, and in him God is glorified. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself; and he will glorify him now. My children, for a little longer I am with you; then you will look for me, and, as I told the Jews, I tell you now, where I am going you cannot come. I give you a new commandment: love one another; as I have loved you, so you are to love one another. If there is this love among you, then all will know that you are my disciples.'" (NEB). This act of permitting himself as a perfect human to be a sacrifice for all of obedient mankind clearly shows that Jesus (Yeshua) not only was an obedient Son, but clearly had perfect love for his creator and Father, Almighty God (YHWH); Likewise, Jesus (Yeshua) showed that he had been created in the image of his Father (YHWH) as stated at Colossians 1:15, previously quoted. Therefore, as he, Jesus (Yeshua) stated, we should if we are his true followers have love among ourselves.
In his farewell to his followers, Jesus (Yeshua) stated at John 14:1-2, "'Set your troubled hearts at rest. Trust in God always; trust also in me. There are many dwelling-places in my Father's house; if it were not so I should have told you; for I am going there on purpose to prepare a place for you." (NEB); And at John 14:6-16, Jesus (Yeshua) states, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also: from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord show us the Father, and it sufficieth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abidinhg in me doeth his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than those shall he do; because I go unto the Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask anything in my name, that will I do, 15 If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever," (ASV); clearly showing that he was the very image of his Father (YHWH) per Colossians 1:15, previously quoted, and as John 5:19-21 states, "To this charge Jesus replied, 'In truth, in very truth I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he does only what he sees the Father doing: what the Father does, the Son does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all his works, and will show greater yet to fill you with wonder." (NEB); And at John 14:19 Jesus (Yeshua) states, "Yet a little while, and the world beholdeth me no more; but ye behold me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20 In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him." (ASV); Clearly showing that all obedient men/women would be in Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father (YHWH) just as they are in each other, that is in purpose and love.
This fact is further testified to at john 14:23-24, "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my words: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me." (ASV); Once more showing two very important facts, First, that all who keep his word and love one another are in union or a part of him as he is apart of us per John 14:20, "In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." Previously quoted above; and Second, Jesus (Yeshua) shows the words that he speaks are not his but those he heard from his Father (YHWH) clearly once more showing he is a being separate and distinct from his Father (YHWH). At John 14:25, he states, "I have told you all this while I am still with you; but your Advocate, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will call to mind all that I have told you." (NEB); once more clearly showing his Father (YHWH) as the superior and stating that his Father (YHWH), not himself, would sent an Advocate, the Holy Spirit. And at John 14:28, he clearly states that his Father (YHWH) is greater than himself, "Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I." (ASV); And at John 14:31, "but that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence." (ASV); clearly it can now be seen it is entirely indefensible to argue for a Duality or a Trinity as clearly none exist, but only a Father (YHWH) and a Son, the Son of God, relationship exist as testified above by none other than Jesus (Yeshua) himself-hence the Duality and the Trinity have clearly been shown to be God (YHWH) dishonoring doctrine.
JESUS IS THE VINE AND HIS FATHER IS THE GARDENER:
Clearly Jesus (Yeshua) can be likened to a vine and his Father (YHWH) to a gardener and this fact is shown in scripture at John 15:1-10, "I am the real vine, and my Father is the gardener. Every barren branch of mine he cuts away; and every fruiting branch he cleans, to make it more fruitful still. You have already been cleansed by the word that I spoke to you. Dwell in me, as I in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself, but only if it remains united with the vine; no more can you bear fruit, unless you remain united with me. 'I am the vine, and you the branches. He who dwells in me, as Idwell in him bears much fruit; for apart from me you can do nothing. He who does not dwell in me is thrown away like a withered branch. The withered branches are heaped together, thrown on the fire, and burnt. 'If you dwell in me, and my words dwell in you, ask what you will, and you shall have it. This is my Father's glory, that you may bear fruit in plenty and so be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you. Dwell in my love. If you heed my commands, you will dwell in my love, as I have heeded my Father's commands and dwell in his love." (NEB); clearly once more showing that his Father (YHWH) and himself, Jesus (Yeshua) are separate and distinct beings; however, working with the same purpose in mind, and also one with their followers in this activity.
Now what is really important and must exist among Jesus' (Yeshua's) followers? John 15:11-14, shows that love is the all important ingredient, "'I have spoken thus to you, so that my joy may be in you, and your joy complete. This is my commandment; love one another, as I have loved you. There is no greater love than this, that a man should lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends, if you do what I command you." (NEB).
He, Jesus (Yeshua) calls us friends because he has disclosed to us everything he heard of his Father (YHWH) as testified to at John 15:15-21, "I call you servants no longer; a servant does not know what his master is about. I have called you friends, because I have disclosed to you everything that I heard from my Father. You did not choose me: I chose you. I appointed you to go on and bear fruit, fruit that shall last: so that the Father may give you all that you ask in my name. This is my commandment to you: love one another." (NEB); Likewise he reveals at John 15:18, that the world would hate his followers, "If the world hates you, it hated me first, as you know well. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, because I have chosen you out of the world, for that reason the world hates you. Remember what I said: 'A servant is not greater that his master.' As they persecuted me, they will persecute you; they will follow your teachings as little as they have followed mine. It is on my account that they will treat you thus, because they do not know the One who sent me." (NEB). And at John 15:24-25, shows they hate without reason, "If I had not worked among them and accomplished what no other man has done, they wiould not be guilty of sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father. However, this test in their Law had to come true. 'They hated me without reason." (NEB); thus clearly showing the world would despise his true followers without reason. And at John 15:26-27, Jesus (Yeshua) showed he would send the Spirit to comfort his true followers, "But when your Advocate has come, whom I will send you from the Father-the Spirit of truth that issues from the Father-he will bear witness to me. And you also are my witnesses, because you have been with me from the first." (NEB). Clearly he was doing the work of his Father, but his enemies knew not this Father (YHWH) who had sent his as clearly stated as follows, "they will treat you thus, because they do not know the One who sent me."
HIS TRUE FOLLOWERS WILL BE PERSECUTED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT RUN WITH THE WORLDLY SYSTEM:
Since his followers are to be persecuted per John 16:1-4, "I have told you all this to guard you against the breakdown of your faith. They will ban you from the synagogue; indeed, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will suppose that he is performing a religious duty. They will do these things because they do not know either the Father or me. I have told you all this so that when the time comes for it to happen you may remember amy warning. I did not tell you this first, because then I was with you; but now I am going away to him who sent me." (NEB); Now much clearer could Jesus (Yeshua) be than he had NOT come on his own volition but had been sent by another, a superior, his Father (YHWH), and that in the end times his followers would undergo sever persecution?
AT John 16:17-18, he reveals to his disciples, "Some of his disciples said to one another, 'What does he mean by this: 'A little while, and you will not see me, and again a little while, and you will see me', and by this: 'Because I am going to my Father'? So they asked, 'What is theis 'little while' that he speaks of We do now know what he means.'" (NEB); And at John 16:24, "In very truth I tell you, if you ask the Father for anything in my name, he will give it you. So far you have asked nothing in my name. Ask and you will receive, that your joy may be complete." NEB). He further emphasis this at John 16:25-28, "'Till now I have been using figures of speech; a time is coming when I shall no longer use figures, but tell you of the Father in plain words. When that day comes you will make your request in my name, and I do not say that I shall pray to the Father for you, for the Father loves you himself, because you have loved me and believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and have come into the world. Now I am leaving the world again and going to the Father." (NEB). Here once more he shows that the Father (YHWH) is distinct from him, and that he is doing his Father's (YHWH's) work, and that his Father (YHWH) loves his followers. And at John 16:31-33, "Jesus answered, 'Do you now believe? Look, the hour is coming, has indeed already come, when you are all to be scattered, each to his home, leaving me alone. Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. I have told you this so that in me you may find peace. In the world you will have trouble. But courage! The victory is mine: I have conquered the world." (NEB); Here he shows that his Father is one in purpose with him, clearly distinguishing the Father (YHWH) and his Son, the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) as two distinct and separate individuals.
THE LONGEST PRAYER BY JESUS (YESHUA) CLEARLY IS ANTI-TRINITARIAN:
As will be shown the entire prayer found at John 17:1-26 is anti-Trinitarian, this will be done by a 'Sola Scripture,' critical analysis of this entire chapter, "These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:<[ These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes--"John very seldom depicts the gestures or looks of our Lord, as here. But this was an occasion of which the impression was indelible, and the upward look could not be passed over" [ALFORD]. Father, the hour is glorify thy Son--Put honor upon Thy Son, by countenancing, sustaining, and carrying Him through that "hour." (a) At John 17:5, Jesus asks for, "And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee." (The Douay-Rheims Bible), "Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM." ." (John 8:58 The Douay-Rheims Bible), "If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (John 6:62 The Douay-Rheims Bible). As can clearly be seen, Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) had been in heaven with his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) before he came down to earth to prove himself faithful under temptation, and here he was asking his Father (YHWH) for what he had had before in heaven. This clearly shows two individuals, one a superior being prayed to and a subordinate asking the superior for what he had had before in heaven. (b) ]>
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. <[ given--gavest him power over all give eternal life to as many as, &c.--literally, "to all that which thou hast given him." (a) "27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:28 AV) Here we clearly see God has given his Son, Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) jurisdiction over all things except himself, Almighty God (YHWH) and after he, the Son, has accomplished all the work his Father has given him, he will, "then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." This once more clearly shows they are two separate entities in heaven with one the superior, Almighty God (YHWH) and the other the subordinate, Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) (b) ]>
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. <[this is--that. life eternal, that they might--may. know, &c.--This life eternal, then, is not mere conscious and unending existence,.but a life of acquaintance with God in Christ (Job 22:21). (a) Notice here that Almighty God (YHWH) sent his Son, Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) to earth to do his, the Father's will. Clearly the sender is the superior one. (b) ]>
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. <[I have glorified thee on the earth--rather, "I glorified" (for the thing is conceived as now past). I have finished--I finished. the work which thou gavest me to do--It is very important to preserve in the translation the past tense, used in the original, otherwise it might be thought that the work already "finished" was only what He had done before uttering that prayer; whereas it will be observed that our Lord speaks throughout as already beyond this present scene (John 17:12, &c.), and so must be supposed to include in His "finished work" the "decease which He was to accomplish at Jerusalem." (a) Here the Son, Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves), clearly tells his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) that he has accomplished all the work that he had assigned to him to do while on earth in flesh and blood. He, the Son, states, "I have glorified thee on the earth:" {glory - from Strong's Concordance and Hebrew-Chaldean Dictionary is 'AV-glory 145, glorious 10, honour 6, praise 4, dignity 2, worship 1; 168'}. This clearly shows that the Son was doing the work assigned to him by his Father once more; therefore they would have to be two distinct entities, one the superior and the other the subordinate. (b) ]>
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. <[And now--in return. glorify thou me--The "I Thee" and "Thou Me" are so placed in the original, each beside its fellow, as to show that A PERFECT RECIPROCITY OF SERVICES of the Son to the Father first, and then of the Father to the Son in return, is what our Lord means here to express. with the glory which I had with thee before the world was--when "in the beginning the Word was with God" (John 1:1), "the only-begotten Son in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:1. With this pre-existent glory, which He veiled on earth, He asks to be reinvested, the design of the veiling being accomplished--not, however, simply as before, but now in our nature. (a) As can clearly be seen, Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) had been in heaven with his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) before he came down to earth to prove himself faithful under temptation, and here he was asking his Father (YHWH) for what he had had before in heaven. This clearly shows two individuals, one a superior being prayed to and a subordinate asking the superior for what he had had before in heaven. (b) ]>
6 ¶ I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. <[ From praying for Himself He now comes to pray for His disciples. I have manifested--I manifested. thy name--His whole character towards mankind. to the men thou gavest me out of the (a) Here the Son, Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves)
Belief In The Trinity A Distinguishing Feature Between Apostate And Genuine Christians
INTRODUCTION:
At present there are over 2 billion individuals that call them selves Christian, but are they all really true foot step followers of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ? He said his true followers would be few in number, First let's consider both Luke 13:24 and Matthew 7:13-14, it is in both of these that the road followed by true believers would be narrow and cramped, Luke 13:24, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." (Authorized King James Bible: AV); And Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, abroad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (AV); thereby, clearly showing few would be entering the narrow gate "which leadeth unto life." In reality, it will be difficult for even true Christians to enter as testified to at 1 Peter 4:18, "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear." (AV). In order to enter, we must have the right sort of guide, Luke 1:79, "To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." (AV). Now, if one picks the wrong group, just because it is popular or the so called 'one to belong to in a community' and not because of Bible Truths, there is an important warning given at Matthew 15:14, "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." (AV). In fact, being with the wrong group can mean you are NOT having fellowship with the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) as testified to at 1 John 1:6, "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not [have] the truth." (AV). This danger is made abundantly clear at Luke 12:32 when Jesus (Yeshua) spoke of his true followers as a little flock and not a large one, "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." (AV). Simply stated, his true followers will be relatively few in number which should cause all sincere individuals to question whether mainstream religion with its vast membership is heading for the narrow gate!
THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENCES, BUT LET'S UNDERSTAND THE TWO PATHS OF CHRISTIANITY:
Most religions of the world take a two part single path as they have some good and some bad. However, so called Christianity did NOT follow in the mold of other religions such as the Hindus, Islam, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, etc. Instead, so called Christianity took two different paths. These two paths are as follows:
[1] In 325 AD the greater part of the so called Christian faith went apostate to when the good favor of a pagan emperor, a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun. And this branch of apostate Christians went on to commit many atrocities such as the rape of Goa, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the burning of individuals at the stake for disagreeing with them including one Bruno for simply saying that the earth revolved around the sun; whereas, they said the sun revolved around the earth.
[2] A second and much smaller group of Christians that remained genuine Christians and did NOT go apostate, but followed in the footsteps of Christ their leader and savior. These did NOT commit any atrocities.
Thus, as can be readily seen, Christianity did not take the same path as most other religions that of having some good and some bad, but instead had a bad large group, and a much smaller good group. The colonial powers, however, brought the bad group to India, Pakistan, the New World [most of South America and North America], and many of the islands of the sea; and they went on committing atrocities in all of these places. This was because the apostate Christians were actually doing Satan the Devils' work per 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (Authorized King James Bible; AV); and John 5:19, "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." (AV).
MAJOR DIFFERENCE - THE TRINITY:
There are many distinguishing features between apostate (counterfeit) Christians and genuine (true) Christians, but let's concentrate of the feature that made the vast majority of so called Christians apostate. What does apostate mean? It is defined by the dictionary as,
Quote:
Apostate-NOUN: One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause.[source - The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.]
Now accepting a pagan doctrine as a creedal Christian doctrine would of course be going apostate per 2 Corinthians 4:4, " In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (AV). A Bible dictionary gives this explanation,
Quote:
It may properly be said that God's Adversary was the first apostate, as is indicated by the name Satan. He caused the first human pair to apostatize. (Ge 3:1-15; Joh 8:44) Following the Flood, there was a rebellion against the words of the God of Noah. (Ge 11:1-9) Job later found it necessary to defend himself against the charge of apostasy on the part of his three supposed comforters. (Job 8:13; 15:34; 20:5) In his defense Job showed that God grants no audience to the apostate (Job 13:16), and he also showed the hopeless state of one cut off in apostasy. (Job 27:8; compare also Elihu's statement at ?Job ?34:30; 36:13.) In these cases the Hebrew noun cha•neph' is used, meaning "[one] alienated from God," that is, an apostate. The related verb cha•neph' means "be inclined away from the right relation to God," or "pollute, lead to apostasy."-Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Leiden, 1958, p. 317.(*1)
Now let's look at how one path of Christianity became apostate by accepting a pagan belief to gain favor with a pagan Roman Emperor, Constantine, a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, 'Sol Invictus,' with respect to his goal of uniting his empire religiously to strengthen it.
COMMONALITY OF PAGAN BELIEFS:
Now do most mainstream religions through the ages have anything in common be they so called Christian or pagan? Absolutely, history shows that one mainstream religion evolved into another one while maintaining many of the beliefs of the one before it, but simply changing the name of the God(s). No where is this more self evident than with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity. In has been with us since at least the time of ancient Sumeria as shown by The historian H. W. F. Saggs explains that the Babylonian triad consisted of three gods of roughly equal rank. Their "inter-relationship is of the essence of their natures." Is this positive proof that the Christian trinity descended from the ancient Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian triads? (*1). No. However, Hislop furthers the comparison: "In the unity of that One, Only God of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize that doctrine of the trinity they employed...the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day." (*2).
Yes, the concept of a trinity has been a prevailing belief for a very, very long time perhaps longer than most Christians would imagine. While worshipping innumerable minor deities, triads of gods appeared in all the ancient cultures of Sumer, Babylonia, Egypt, India, Greece and finally Rome. The "mysteries" of the first universal civilization, Babylonia, were transported down in time. The names of the gods changed. The details of ancient incomprehensible religions changed, but the essential ideas were the same. The Sumerians worshipped Anu (the Father), Enlil (the god of earth) and Enki (the lord of wisdom). The Egyptians worshipped Amun who was really three gods in one: Re was his face; Ptah his body and Amun his hidden identity "combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." (*4 - page 201).
Now with respect the next evolution of mainstream religion, the Egyptian, Egypt's history is nearly as old as Sumeria's. In his Egyptian Myths, George Hart shows how Egypt also believed in a "transcendental, above creation, and preexisting" one, the god Amun. Amun was really three gods in one. Re was his face; Ptah his body; and Amun his hidden identity (*3). The well-known historian Will Durant concurs: "In later days Ra [sic], Amon [sic], and Ptah were combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." (*4). A hymn to Amun written in the 14th century BC distinguishes the Egyptian trinity: "All Gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah: they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re before [men], and his body is Ptah." (*5). Certainly is not this positive indicator that the Christian trinity descended from the ancient Egyptian triads? However, Durant submits that "from Egypt came the idea of a divine trinity..." (*6). Laing agrees when he says that "it is probable that the worship of the Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus helped to familiarize the ancients with the idea of a triune God and was not without influence in the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity as set forth in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds." (*7). And The Encyclopedia of Religions goes even farther when it states that as Christianity "came in contact with the triune gods of Egypt and the Near East, it developed a trinity of its own." (* .
The next evolution or more correctly one concurrent with the Egyptian but originating also from the early Sumeria was the Babylonian. A very important evolution of spread originated from the Babylonian trinity that ultimately spread to Rome by way of the Etrusans. The Etruscans were a group that all indicators indicate as having originated in Babylon. As they slowly passed through Greece and went on to Rome, they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva (*9). This trinity was a "new idea to the Romans," and yet it became so "typical of Rome [that] it was imitated in the capitolia of Italy. . . (*7 - page 26)" Even the names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry. Is this positive proof that the Christian trinity descended from the Etruscan and Roman triads? No, but an extremely significant indicator of this fact. However, Dr. Gordon Laing convincingly devotes his entire book Survivals of the Roman Gods to the comparison of Roman Paganism and the Roman Catholic Church. (*7). Pelikan adds to Laing's work when he states that the early church fathers used and cited the Roman Sibylline Oracles so much that these were called "Sibyllists" by the 2nd century critic Celsus. (*10). There was even a medieval hymn, "Dies irae" which prophesied the coming of the day of wrath on the "dual authority of David and the Sibyl." (*10 - page 64-65).
Now let's consider the ancient Grecian world; And in order to fully understand it, we need to digress to gaining an understanding of the origins of the word Trinity and the two types that existed in the ancient world and evolved into the Trinity of mainstream so called Christian religions. First, the word trinity comes from the kemetic language. It consist actually of two words: hemt (three) and neter (which carries the concepts of gods). Therefore, Trinity defines a concept of three gods.
Ths pantheon of Gods is composed of two categories of Gods. We have the creator and self-created Gods on one side and the creator gods that are non autogenic on the other. The creator Gods that are self-created are those who form the first group of trinities. The gods that are not self-created then form the second group of trinities. The Gods of the second trinity exist only in the context of a group of Gods composed of a God-father, a Goddess-mother, and a God-son. They are somehow considered very close to the human nature. The original second group of trinities came from a story known as the holy drama, and is composed by a God-father called Wsr (Osiris) and a goddess-mother Aishat (Isthar or Isis) and the God-son Heru (Horus). It is the second group of trinities that taught humanity the concept of a family, giving a man and woman the idea of a spiritual union with the goal of procreation. We should observe that the importance of the trinities is such that they became a serious problem for the monotheistic religions that are stubbornly talking about the creation of the world by one single god while they are still maintaining the concept of a trinity.
The ancient Trinities of the Greek's were composed of the God-son Perseus, born from Zeus and Danae; Hercules born from Zeus and Alcmene; Apollo born from Zeus and Leto; Dionysos born from Zeus and Semele; Minos born from Zeus and Europe; Aesculapius born from Apollo and Coronis. (*11).
It if from an evolutionary merging of ancient Greek trinities and Roman trinities that in themselves partially evolved from the Greek, but with a precedence being taken by the Etruscans' of their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva. (*9). This trinity as previously mentioned, became the ancient Roman Trinity of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, which was campaigned by the mainstream religions of the empire of that era. Even the names of the gods in this Trinity reflect from whence it came. (*7). This one is of extreme importance to us of the modern era as it evolved into the Trinity of the mainstream so called Christian religions of today. This Trinity consisted of Jesus born from Yahweh and Mary. However, this new concept of trinities that is presented by the new Christian authorities only comes to add on the contradictions that were undermining the psychological stability of the human of the modern society. The Trinity of the modern time that the religions want us to accept is composed of a God-father, a God-son and a mother that is purely human and considered virgin. (*11).
However since the mother, the Virgin Mary, she is a human, she cannot be classified as a Goddess, and that will not complete the concept of trinity. In this evolution, the religious authorities had to use a little creativity to overcome this; the concept of personalizing the power or force of the supreme God (YHWH), Yahweh. To do this, something new had to enter the equation. What was this?
Whereas, the Gods of the first trinities stayed really far away from the philosophical and political arguments of the society, but the leaders used that fact to kind of drown them in the collective memory of the society. The world has been created in stages. The Gods of the first trinity are recognized by the fact that the first two of them have created the four elements (fire, air, water and matter) and the third God has used them to fashion and create everything that exists. The gods of the first trinity do not intervene in our daily lives, but they guarantee the harmony of the universe. They some-how occupy a very important place in the spiritual essence of anything that exists. By recognizing their exist-ence, we are illuminating the universal conscious on the makers of this world that we are trying to redefine. (*11).
At this point, we need to pause and regress a little. One may ask, How do we know these trinities are not just misrepresentations of the real threeness of God? (After all there were "flood stories" in every culture too reminiscent of the Genesis account.) Assyrian clay tablets now available have most strikingly confirmed the narrative of Scripture which give us revealing insight into our questions (*12). Where did the idea of a three-in-one God originate? After the flood, Nimrod a descendent of Noah's son Ham settled in Asia: "And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel out of that land went forth Asshur [mar., "he went out into Assyria"] and builded Nineveh" (Genesis 10:8-11). "Mighty hunter" was the title given to the great conquering warrior-monarchs of the time. In rebellion of God's command to disburse and people the earth, Nimrod built the Tower of Babel, became very powerful and was even worshipped. We now know the ancient Babylonians worshipped the first person in the Godhead, the Great Invisible, also the Spirit of God incarnate in the human mother and also the Divine Son. Nimrod was this "Son," the first king of Babel, Babylon. And so in this the first notion of a triune God was born. (*7).
In the immediate centuries before the advent of Jesus Christ, we see Plato even in his deeply philosophical mode proposing a trinity of sorts. ("The Supreme Reality appears in the trinitarian form of the Good, the Intelligence, and the World-Soul"). Through all cultures, this perversion of the truth about God was handed down. (*7).
One God (YHWH), One culture, however, escaped this corruption of truth. From the line of Shem, Noah's other son, Abraham was called out of "Ur of the Chaldees" (Genesis 11:31; 12:1,2), the ancient Babylonian empire. His descendants were given the revelation of God by Moses from Mount Sinai. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" (Deuteronomy 6:4). No Hebrew scripture supports the idea of a trinity god. Some verses have been pressed into use by Trinitarians, but without success. For example, in the creation account, Genesis says, "God [elohim, plural.] created the heavens and the earth" (1:1). However, the plural does not have to do with number; it is "plentitude of might" (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, The Soncino Press). In any case, the verb "created" is singular, and would not indicate two gods, let alone three. Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament (Vol. XIV, 306). And the world renown "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" says, under the article on the Trinity in it, "The term 'Trinity' is NOT a biblical term....In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine...As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason." (*14).
While he walked the earth, Jesus clearly acknowledged, "My Father is greater than I" (*15) and that it was his Father who sent him, "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me" (*16). He consistently acknowledged God as the source of power for his miracles and finally implored his Father, "yet not my will but thine be done." (*17) he be the one sent and also the Sender and why would he pray to himself that not his will but His other will be done? It seems the Trinitarians only answer, "It's a mystery"?
If the trinity is supposed to be an unexplainable "mystery," why do the apostles always talk about revealing mysteries to Christians? "I would not have you ignorant of this mystery [about Jewish blindness] (*1 the revelation of the mystery (*19) the mystery hidden God hath revealed (*20 1 Corinthians 2:7) Behold I show you a mystery (*21) "having made known the mystery of his will" (*22) "to make known the mystery of Christ" (*23) "make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (*24), etc. So how did the Christian Church accept a mystery of a trinity? This will be shown in the next part.
HISTORY OF POLITICAL INTRIGUE AND DECEIT THAT EVOLVED THE TRINITY INTO SO CALLED CHRISTIANITY:
To understand how the Trinity wormed its way into so called Christianity we need to know the political and social climate of the first three centuries after the passing of Jesus (Yeshua) and his apostles, and why true faith deteriorated into compromise; and then total acceptance by the mainstream so called Christian groups, not withstanding its violation of the Word of God, the Holy Bible. Now let's look at that period and try an insert ourselves mentally into it.
In the early church the apostles needed to refute another rising belief system gnosticism. It considered matter to be evil and sought salvation through knowledge. Gnosticism also focused on the "mysteries" meant only for the intellectuals to understand. Christ, the gnostics said, entered Jesus at baptism and left just before he died on the cross. The Apostle John particularly addressed this budding heresy: "Many false prophets, have gone forth into the world, You gain knowledge of the inspired expression from God by this: Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the anti-christ's [inspired expression] which you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world." (*25). Jesus' humanity was repulsive to gnostics. After the Apostles died, Christians responded to gnosticism by claiming not only did Jesus Christ come in the flesh as the Son of God.
By the third and fourth centuries, Christians were weary of Pagan persecution. The temptation was to compromise. Besides, the Pagan emperor Constantine needed Christians to salvage his shaky empire. Constantine embraced; howbeit only on his deathbed. However, he saw Christianity as a tool he could use to firm up his shaky empire. To this opportunity for political intrigue, and happy blend of politics and people was the chief triumvirate of Roman gods Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Jupiter was the principal deity of Roman mythology and Juno was the next highest divinity. Minerva, the "offspring of the brain of Jupiter" was regarded as the "personification of divine thought, the plan of the material universe of which Jupiter was the creator and Juno the representative" (26). Many Pagan ideas, in fact, were incorporated into Christianity. "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it" (*26).
Roman Emperor Constantine needed to make his subjects feel secure if he were to maintain control of the empire; he wanted to rule a unified empire, be it pagan and/or Christian. But first he would have to find a way to end the dispute over the divinity of Jesus-was he a man or God? So he ordered his Christian bishops to meet at Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle the matter once and for all. To do this, "he made himself the head of the church, and thus the problems of the church became his responsibilities. As a whole the Western Empire with its Roman influence, with some exceptions, had accepted Tertullian and his new theory of the Trinity in the early part of the previous century, but in the East the church adhered more closely to the older formula of baptism in the name of Jesus, or Jesus the Christ. Especially was this true with the Armenians, who specified that baptism "into the death of Christ" was that which alone was essential (*2 .
Now let's see how Constantine got the Trinity. As previously shown, The Roman Empire at this time was being torn apart by religious differences between pagans, mostly Sun God worshippers, and Christianity. Constantine the Emporer was a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, but he was a very pragmatic individual and saw the need to bring religious unity to his empire. The central doctrine of the pagans was the dogma of a Trinity that they had received from earlier pagans in Babylon (Chaldea). In this, the pagan Emperor, Constantine, saw a possibility for unifying his empire if he could only lead the majority of the Christians to accept a Trinity or a Duality. He knew however that he had to make them think it was their own idea. To this end, he, the Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea, about 300, but even though it was the emperor's direction, only a fraction actually attended.
This council went on for a very long time and the emperor worked behind the scene to get support for a Trinity or a Duality. This effort was not completely successful, but finally he got a majority and declared under imperial degree
that this hence forth would be the central doctrinal pillar of the Christian church, which by this time was apostate. Even with this declaration by the emperor himself not all bishops signed the creed. (*29).
So is was the political product of an apostate church, an apostate church that allowed a pagan Roman Emporer, Constantine, to tell it which dogma to accept at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., and then have it rammed down their throats as blessed dogma by another Roman Emporer, Theodosius, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. This in direct violation of God's (YHWH's) word found in the Bible " Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4 AV), " If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19 AV).
Their solution was to create a creed making it illegal for anyone to believe Jesus was not the same as God by inventing the notion of a Trinity. This intellectual tower remained in full force for well over a thousand years, until the Reformation. (*29).
Contrary to popular belief, it was not Constantine's fourth century Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 that formalized the "Doctrine of the Trinity." The Athanasian Creed in the fifth century finally included the three, "the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost...the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal So likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God." Furthermore, this creed added that belief in the trinity "is necessary to everlasting salvation." Strong belief led to action. "Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years ([A.D.]342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome." (*30).
The fact is Christianity never conquered paganism--paganism conquered Christianity. (*31).
CONCLUSION:
The fact is there can be no doubt that in the pagan world a multitude of gods was the norm. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad. (*32).
But in writing on this, one must be very careful to have is facts very correct. Why? Let's consider the fact that those who are not careful may be in violation of Matthew 18:6, " But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (AV); and Mark 9:32, "And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." (AV); and Luke 17:2, "It were well for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, rather than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble." (AV).
Therefore, I was very careful in writing this article to careful to post only facts, whether you like them or not is not the question, and or should not be. The question should be only accuracy which of course is proven by good backing which I provide. I have cited renown works and reliable sources as should any honest and diligent writer on important topics. However, of course some will take objections due to their false God (YHWH) dishonoring false beliefs, but that is their problem and NOT mine as I only put forth the facts.
Now here is a list of the reference works and their number key used in producing this research product or article:
*1 - Insight on the Bible, Volume 1.
*2 - Hislop, Alexander. "The Two Babylons: Or, the Papal Worship." 1853. 2nd American ed. Neptune: Loizeaux. 1959.
*3 - Hart, George. "Egyptian Myths." Austin: U of Texas. 1990.
*4 - Durant, Will. "Our Oriental Heritage". New York: Simon. 1935. Vol. 1 of The Story of Civilization.11 vols. 1935-75. (page 201)
*5 - Hornung, Erik. "Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many." Trans. John Baines. Ithaca: Cornell UP. 1982.
*6 - Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75. (page 595)
*7 - Laing, Gordon Jennings. "Survivals of Roman Religion.". New York: Cooper Square Publishers. 1963.
*8 - The Encyclopedia of Religions.
*9 - Carter, Jesse Benedict. "The Religious Life of Ancient Rome: A Study in the Development of Religious Consciousness, from the Foundation of the City Until the Death of Gregory the Great." New York: Cooper Square Publishers. 1972. (page 16-19).
*10 - Pelikan, Jaroslav. "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition" (100-600). Chicago: U of Chicago P. 1971. Vol. 1 of "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine." 5 vols.
*11 -
*11 - Morodenibig, Naba Lamoussa. "Light From the Trinities."
*12 - Edersheim Bible History (page 59-62).
*13 - New Catholic Encyclopedia, (Vol. XIV, 306).
*14 - International Encyclopedia of the Bible," Vol. 5, (page 3012).
*15 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 116 in NT, John 14:29)
*16 - The Holy Bible (King James Bible), American Bible Society, NY (page 10 in NT, Matthew 10:40).
*17 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 109 in NT, St. Luke 22:42).
*18 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 205 in NT, Romans 11:25).
*19 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 210 in NT, Romans 16:25)
*20 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 213 in NT, 1 Corinthians 2:7).
*21 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 227 in NT,1 Corinthians 15:51).
*22 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 202 in NT, Ephesians 1:9).
*23 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 206 in NT, Ephesians 6:19).
*24 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 210 in NT, Colossians 1:27).
*25 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 revision, (pages 1517 and 1519, 1 John 7; also 1 John 4:1-3).
*26 - McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 6
*27 - Lamson, Newton & Durant, Will, "Caesar and Christ," cited from Charles Redeker Caesar and Christ, W. Duran (page 595).
*28 - ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366).
*29 - Payne, Robert, "The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957); BETHUNE-BAKER, J,F. "An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine". Methuen; 5th Ed., 1933 and ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366); David, Francis and Blandrata, Georgio, "De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti cognitone" [Latin](The False and True Knowledge of the Unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy spirit), 1566 A.D.; Eklof, Todd F., "David's Francis Tower, Strength through Peace," (06-16-02); The New Encyclopedia Britannica: " Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976); Parkes, James, "The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity," 1960; Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.
*30 - Durant, Will, "Age of Faith,"
*31 - Jonas, Hans, "The Gnostic religion: the message of the alien God and the beginnings of Christianity," 2nd ed., 1963.
Let's look at the 10 possible constructs of John 1:1 that do NOT violate any rule of Koine Greek grammar with the exception of the fact is that THEOS (=God) is a count noun, not a mass noun or an adjective. As a count noun it MUST BE countable, i.e. either definite or indefinite (i.e. either "a god" or "the God") for two of the constructs:
<1> "and a god was the Logos." [example of Bible using, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker Harwood, 1979]
<2> "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" [example of Bible using, Schonfield, 1976]
<3> "The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the word was." [example of Bible using, The New English Bible, NEB, 1961-present standard Bible agreed to by most denominations in the United Kingdom]
<4> "And the word was a god" [example of Bible using, The New Testament in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Achbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.]
<5> "and the Word was divine" [example of Bible using, The Bible: An American Translation, by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed. }
<6> "and the Word was God" [example of Bible using, American Standard Version, ASV] [note, this construct violates the count noun rule of Koine Greek]
<7> "He was the same as God" example of Bible using, Today's English Version.]
<8> "the Logos was divine" [example of Bible using, The New Testament: A New Translation, by James Moffat]
<9> "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God] [example of Bible using, Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1982]
<10> "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] [example of Bible using, Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1980]
As we can see, here are ten different constructs possible without violating any rule of Koine Greek grammar except the count Noun rule. So, now, let's look at what follows in context in general format at John 1:2:
"The Word, then, was with God at the beginning," (The New English Bible, NEB)
"The same was in the beginning with God." (American Standard Version, ASB)
"The same was in the beginning with God." (Authorized King James Bible; AV)
"He was in the beginning with God." (Revised Standard Version; RSV)
"He was in the beginning with God." (The Confraternity Edition of the New Testament - Catholic)
As is easily seen, John 1:2 is substantially the same in all translations. However, in context it does not harmonize with some of the constructs used which do not violate any rule of Koine Greek grammar with the exception of the count Noun rule to be explained later.
However clearly some of the ten (10) or more basic constructs agree in context with John 1:2 and some do NOT. Let's look at the point where some do not agree or harmonize with the context of John 1:2:
John 1:2 plainly says that the Word, or Logos, who is Jesus (Yeshua) was with God in the beginning which would be impossible if Jesus (Yeshua) was Almighty God (YHWH) himself. This rules out constructs 6, 7, and 10, represented below, as impossible as they do NOT harmonize with context.
<6> "and the Word was God" [example of Bible using, American Standard Version, ASV] [note, this construct violates the count noun rule of Koine Greek]
<7> "He was the same as God" example of Bible using, Today's English Version.]
<10> "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] [example of Bible using, Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1980]
And two of these constructs do violate the count Noun rule of Koine Greek; to wit, constructs 6 and 7.
Now exactly what is the count Noun rule of Koine Greek? It is as follows:
The fact is that THEOS (=God) is a count noun, not a mass noun or an adjective. As a count noun it MUST BE countable, i.e. either definite or indefinite (i.e. either "a god" or "the God"). The trinitarian argument hinges on stripping THEOS of its count-ability, so that it is purely qualitative. However, if a noun is PURELY qualitative, it is not a count noun. An adjective or a mass noun may fit their requirement for emphasizing qualitativness only, but a count noun MUST BE countable, for that is what *count* means when describing a count noun. If he accepts this rather elementary rule of English grammar, you can demonstrate that, as a count noun, THEOS may be translated either "the Word was God" (="the Word was The God", which is Sabellianism), or "the Word was a god". Since orthodox trinitarians reject "the Word was The God" (=Sabellianism), they are left with "the Word was a god" -- that is, if they remain true to English syntax (and English syntax is what ENGLISH translations are supposed to follow!). If one argues the point, let them provide an example of a non-countable *count noun* that is not used in a contrary-to-fact situation, such as a metaphor. I have yet to find anyone, trinitarian or otherwise, who is able to meet this challenge. Rolf Furuli, one of the two best living Koine Greek scholars, discusses this in his book, THE ROLE OF THEOLOGY AND BIAS IN BIBLE TRANSLATION, as does Greg Stafford, in his, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES DEFENDED: AN ANSWER TO SCHOLARS AND CRITICS. There are also some very good posts by Wes Williams on greektheology that discuss this issue. I suppose if you search the greektheology archives using the word "count" or the name "Wes" you will find much helpful information. [source Kats]
"To preserve in English the different nuance of theos [god] with and without the article, some (Moffat) would translate 'The Word was divine.'"
Notice a literal translation of John 1:1,2:
"In the beginning was the world and the word was toward the god and god was the word. This (one) was in beginning toward the god."
In these two verses we see six nouns, three referring to the Greek word logos (word, which most recognize to be Jesus) and three referring to the Greek word theos (god). We notic each reference to logos (word) is preceded by the definite article "the", while two of the three times the word theos (god) occurs, it too is preceded by the definite article "the". For some reason, John does not provide the definite article with theos when it is associated with "The Word". We thus see two definite individuals mentioned in this verse. "The Word", Jesus Christ, and "The God", who is Almighty God Jehovah. John does not say "The Word" is "The God". (In fact, most Trinitarian scholars would argue that if John had said the word was "ho theos" (The God), it would amount to sabellianism (the belief that Jesus is both the Father and the Son). As such, it is commonly agreed upon that John was not identifying Jesus as God but rather, was describing him as deity.) But if John did not say "The Word" is "The God", then what did he mean by saying, "the word was god"?
In Greek, it is possible for a noun to act as an adjective when it is not accompanied by the definite article. Consider a Biblical example of this in John 6:70. "Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (NIV)
Here the noun (devil) is not proceeded by the efinite article (the). To reflect this most Bibles place the indefinite article (a) in front of it. Thus, Jesus was not identifying Judas as "THE Devil", he was saying Judas had the qualities of the devil. He was acting like the devil so he was A devil though not THE devil. This example helps us to see how the lack of the definite article can cause a noun to act as a predication rather than an identification.
Regarding this point, noted Bible scholar William Barclay writes:
"When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it become more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class of the sphere to which the other belongs...
"John has no definte article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs...
"This passage then [John 1:1] does not identify the Logos and God; it does not say that Jesus was God, nor doesit call him God; but it does say that in his nature and being he belongs to the same class as God."
Mr. Barclay's observations are duly noted in the example we considered with Judas Iscariot being "a devil".
Now let's consider what the Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn from the Northern Arizona University has to say: "The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word." Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefeinite article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."
Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to say "The God": ho theos. Even a monotheistic Christian, who beleives there is only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of God," which is theou, you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to have the article.) So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John wants to tell his readers that the Word(which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek. The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the definite article, they are telling us that the subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a Volkswagen." In English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism. No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly differentiates between God from the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How does God create in Genesis? He speaks words that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan and activity. It is not God himself, but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a polytheist. This divine thing does not act on its own, however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans.
APPENDIX:
(1) How some Bible translators who did not have bias translated, i.e., were striving for translation fidelity and NOT to support this or that perception:
1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. 1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
1979: "and a god was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker Harwood,
1768, "and was himself a divine person" Thompson,
1829, "the Logos was a god Torrey,
1961, "what God was,the Word was" Moffatt,
1972, "the Logos was divine Translator's NT,
1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature Barclay,
1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" Schonfield,
1985, "the Word was divine Revised English,
1989, "what God was, the Word was Scholar's Version,
1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was" Madsen,
1994, "the Word was <EM>a divine Being" Becker,
1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos] Stage,
1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being]. Bhmer,
1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being] Thimme,
1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word] Baumgarten et al,
1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] Holzmann,
1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought] Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word] Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology),
1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind] Pffflin,
1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind] Albrecht,
1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word] Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being] Menge,
1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word) Haenchen,
1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch,
1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God] Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk),
1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos" Schultz,
1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word]
(2) Amplification on How Some Bible Translators Translated John 1:1 And Why:
"And the word was a god" - The New Testament in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Achbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
"and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson.
"and the Word was divine" - The Bible: An American Translation, by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed.
"the Logos was divine" - The New Testament: A New Translation, by James Moffat.
"what God was, the Word was" - The New English Bible.
"He was the same as God" - Today's English Version.
Discourse on Confusion by Trivial Minute by Trinitarians
COMMENTS BY TRINITARIANS ON TRIVIAL AND MINUTE AND ANSWERS WITH 'BIG PICTURE' IN MIND TO THEM.
Trinitarians confuse themselves and others by striving to pay attention to the trivial and minute instead of the 'Big Picture'. They argue trivial and minute points to try and prove their myth has Biblical backing that it does not. In fact they get so wrapped up in this pursuit of trivial they start believing the product of their own confusion. As an example, one believer in the Trinity actually said the following in response to something I said, the Trinitarian's response was:
"Go back and read my response to your quote of Barclay. Barclay tried to show a relationship to translating an anarthruous (no article) DIABOLOS in John 6:70 as "you are a devil" to implying the same thing should be done in John 1:1c, "the Word was a God/god." One problem... John 6:70 has EIS - one/a. John 1:1c does not.
I have pointed out that if John had wanted to say that Jesus (the Word) was "a god" all he needed to do was add an EIS as in John 6:70. And since you have been unable to show how John could have more strongly proclaimed that the Word was fully God than he did in the Greek in John 1:1c, what can be said?
I have shown how John COULD have expressed John 1:1c as "and the Word was a god." (By adding EIS.) You have not shown how John could have added an article before THEOS. You have not shown how John could have arranged the predicate nominative structure in John 1:1c so as to make it more clear that the Word was fully God.
Forget all this other stuff. If you cannot do what I did - demonstrate how John could have expressed as translated by the NWT, then you have admitted that John could not have expressed the Word as fully God more strongly than he did. If you think he could have made it more clear, then just HOW, in Greek, could he have done that?
If you care to, give an example somewhere else in John where a parallel structure to the predicate nominative structure of John 1:1c was used and which resulted in an indefinite sort of translation."
The answer to this absurdity of the trivial and minute is as follows, clearly showing the 'Big Picture':
"I have long learned in translating that one must take in consideration the entire context, not one small point which in an overall translation becomes meaningless and this with modern languages. Now with respect ancient languages this fact becomes of the utmost importance since no one today can say with absolute certainty exactly what is so. But if one does not do so, he must surely be in error as later John wrote in many places to the contrary in rather clear language. So are you trying to say John contradicts himself or what. I have already brought out this fact elsewhere as follows:
John 17 proves the Trinity is nothing but God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine, a myth or legend, see the following.
John 17:1-19, "These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: 2 even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. 3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, [even] Jesus Christ. 4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. nd now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. [Note, here he partitions his Father (YHWH) to give him back the glory he previously had; whereas, if he were one in a Trinity as some falsely claim this would of course be senseless]. 6 I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word.[Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that his followers were given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity] 7 Now they know that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are from thee:[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that all he has was given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity] 8 for the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them; and they received [them], and knew of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me. :[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that the words he spake were given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity] 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine: :[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that his followers were given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity] 10 and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them.
11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we [are]. :[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that his followers were given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity, and also they, the followers, were one in the same sense that he was one with his father; that of unity in purpose] 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. :[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that his followers were given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity, and also they, the followers, were one in the same sense that he was one with his father; that of unity in purpose] 13 But now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. :[ ][Note, here Jesus (Yeshua) openly acknowledges that his followers were given to him by his Father (YHWH) clearly showing, once more, two distince spirit beings; thus no Trinity] 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil [one]. 16 They are not of the world even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth." (ASV). Clearly these scriptures show that the false God (YHWH) dishonoring doctrine of the trinity is nothing but a myth, a legend of the words of men as foretold by 2 Corinthians 4:4, "in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn [upon them].
But as I have previously stated:
"I have answered your question and you have failed to acknowledge same, to wit:
IN translating from one language to another and especially with respect to one that handles articles quite different, you use an article if that aids the meaning that the original writer intended whether strict language 'rules of thumb' call or do not call for it. The Bible is harmonious throughout and if a translated item does not agree with the remainder, a good translator who is not biased will take that into consideration.
Now let's look at the context in brief and the translational constructs used. First consider a biased translation of John 1:1-4, "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men." (Authorized King James Bible; AV). The first translational construct clearly shows the Word, Jesus (Yeshua), "was with God." The next translational construct clearly says "and the Word was God"; now we have a mutual contradiction and/or impossibility as one can NOT BE WITH SOMEONE AND BE THAT SOMEONE, this does NOT jive with English usage as all should clearly know. The next translational construct for John 1:2 says, "The same was in the beginning with God." Clearly here again the same impossibility. Clearly this translational construct, the 2 part of John 1:1 can NOT BE CORRECT AS IT IS OUT OF HARMONY WITH CONTEXT. Why anyone would have a problem seeing this obvious impossible situation is beyond me. But some keep asking the same none sensible question over and over on an obvious case where an item does NOT agree with context.
And the great German Bible Scholar and translator Dr. J. J. Griesbach in his The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209 definitely did not see it as you falsely claim and not being a Koine Greek expert myself I will go with his way which is as follows:
John 1:1-5 & 14, "1 In a beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and a god was the Word 2 This was in a beginning with the God. 3 All through it was done; and without it was done not even one, that has been done. 4 In it life was, and the life was the light of the men, 5 and the light in the darkness shines, and the darkness it not apprehended." And "14And the Word flesh became, and tabernacied among us, (and we beheld the glory of him, a glory as of an only-begotten from a father,) full of favor and truth,"
And neither did other excellent scholars who did NOT let any bias they may have had as an individual effect their honesty in translating such as the following:
The Complete Bible: An American Translation. Contributors: Edgar J. Goodspeed - translator, J. M. Powis Smith - transltr. Publisher: University of Chicago Press. Place of Publication: Chicago. Publication Year: 1939.:
John 1:1-5 & 14, "1 IN THE beginning the Word exist- ed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine. 2 It was he that was with God in 3 the beginning. Everything came into ex- istence through him, and apart from him 4 nothing came to be. It was by him that life came into existence, and that life 5 was the light of mankind. The light is still shining in the darkness, for the darkness has never put it out." And "14 So the Word became flesh and blood and lived for a while among us, abounding in blessing and truth, and we saw the honor God had given him, such honor as an only son receives from his father."
A New Translation of The Bible by James Moffatt, D.D., D.Litt.:
Johnn 1:1-5 & 14, "The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine. 2 He was with God in the very beginning: 3 through him all existence came into being, no existence came into being apart from him. 4 In him life lay, and this life was the Light for men; 5 amid the darkness the Light shone, and the darkness did not master it." And "14 So the Logos became flesh and tarried among us; we have seen his glory-glory such as an only sone enjoys from his father-seen it to be full of grace and reality."
Which clearly shows that the translation of John 1:1 is definitely in question with respect what it should be. That is until you consider the context so I do NOT plan to get into silly differences about small points, but point to the obvious fact that your desired rendering does not fit to context. All the silly coloring in your post change nothing.
This Trinitarian clearly missed the point as shown my his following comment:
"(Concerning John 1:1c) This does not address the very significant question... how could John have expressed it in the Greek so as to make it more clear that the Son is God in essence? I have demonstrated that the NWT rendering of "a god" (in John 1:1c) is not valid. The arguments regarding the lack of an article are completely irrelevant. And these rules concerning the usage of the article are NOT "rules of thumb."'
The answer to the Trinitarian, you obviously missed what John was trying to express as clearly shown in the Book of John as follows:
John 1:34 - :
And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God."
John 1:49 - :
Natan'el said, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Isra'el!"
John 1:51 - :
Then he said to him, "Yes indeed! I tell you that you will see heaven opened and the angels of God going up and coming down on the Son of Man!"
John 3:16 - :
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only and unique Son, so that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life, instead of being utterly destroyed.
John 5:25 - :
Yes, indeed! I tell you that there is coming a time -- in fact, it's already here -- when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who listen will come to life.
John 6:27 - :
Don't work for the food which passes away but for the food that stays on into eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For this is the one on whom God the Father has put his seal."
John 11:4 - :
On hearing it, he said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory, so that the Son of God may receive glory through it."
John 11:27 - :
She said to him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world."
John 13:31 - :
After Y'hudah had left, Yeshua said, "Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him.
John 19:7 - :
The Judeans answered him, "We have a law; according to that law, he ought to be put to death, because he made himself out to be the Son of God."
John 20:31 - :
But these which have been recorded are here so that you may trust that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by this trust you may have life because of who he is.
[source -(The Complete Jewish Bible - Copyright 1998 by David H. Stern. Published by Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc.)]
As can clearly be seen from these scriptures, John was clearly making the case that Jesus (Yeshua) was NOT God (YHWH), but the Son of God (YHWH).
Also, you have NOT demonstrated what you claim and to what Bible you are referring to? Perhaps the Interlineary Word for Word English Translation of Dr. J. J. Griesbach of the Vatican Manuscript #1209? Or Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, "and the Word was a God.", or the work of , Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]?
And:
you are making an assumption with respect the use of an article and we all know what assumptions are. Second, Only two of Jesus" (Yeshua's) Apostles were 'lettered' men, Luke and Paul, John was not, and I very strongly doubt that when he wrote John 1:1 he was even thinking of modalism. I believe if you will but look at 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, "for "He put everything in subjection under his feet."m But when it says that "everything" has been subjected, obviously the word does not include God, who is himself the one subjecting everything to the Messiah. 28 Now when everything has been subjected to the Son, then he will subject himself to God, who subjected everything to him; so that God may be everything in everyone. " (The Complete Jewish Bible - Copyright 1998 by David H. Stern. Published by Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc.) which clearly shows the relationship, otherwise the statement, ", obviously the word does not include God, who is himself the one subjecting everything to the Messiah", so now I hope you see the error in your reasoning. And Third, as I have said many times in the past, the first rule of translation is NOT the wasting time with minute trivials such as an article, but in rendering the exact thoughts of the original article; to wit, his/her thoughts and this can best be done by having a translational construct in agreement with context., as I previously said:
translating from one language to another and especially with respect to one that handles articles quite different, you use an article if that aids the meaning that the original writer intended whether strict language 'rules of thumb' call or do not call for it. The Bible is harmonous throughout and if a translated item does not agree with the remainder, a good translator who is not biased will take that into consideration.
Now let's look at the context in brief and the translational constructs used. First consider a biased translation of John 1:1-4, "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men." (Authorized King James Bible; AV). The first translational construct clearly shows the Word, Jesus (Yeshua), "was with God." The next translational construct clearly says "and the Word was God"; now we have a mutual contradiction and/or impossibility as one can NOT BE WITH SOMEONE AND BE THAT SOMEONE, this does NOT jive with English usage as all should clearly know. The next translational construct for John 1:2 says, "The same was in the beginning with God." Clearly here again the same impossibility. Clearly this translational construct, the 2 part of John 1:1 can NOT BE CORRECT AS IT IS OUT OF HARMONY WITH CONTEXT. Why anyone would have a problem seeing this obvious impossible situation is beyond me. But some keep asking the same none sensible question over and over on an obvious case where an item does NOT agree with context
And:
The Trinitarian's statement:
"that Jesus is God?"
Is ridicules prima fascia since it is likewise a well known fact that a son is NOT his father as you are trying to convince me of. This is utterly ridicules contention and one without redeeming features. Just why do you think God (YHWH) gave us the terms father and son, and had divinely inspired writers use these terms in explaining his relationship to his Son, Jesus (Yeshua)? Obviously to explain heavenly things in things mankind can understand, not so man could twist them and come up with what is impossible, prima fascia.
In stating this, this Trinitarian, also clearly overlooked the following by, Uriyah the Messiahite:
"John 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself
John 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.
By the words of Jesus, Jesus was not eternal; he was given to have life in himself and lives because of the Father. A eternal being cannot be given to have life in themselves, and they do not depend on others to live. " [source - writing of Uriyah the Messiahite]
HOW BELIEVERS IN THE TRINITY HAVE REACTED TO OTHER ISSUES IN THE PAST, A STUDY IN ABSURDITY;
It is a well known fact that in the middle ages that the Catholic church and many of the so called reformed groups taught and believed in the Ptolemaic System. This is the theory that the sun and the other planets revolved around the earth as opposed to the Copernican System that the planets including the earth revolved around the sun.
In fact one of the trivial minute these Trinitarians used to "prove" the Ptolemaic System theory was that when a blade of straw fell to the ground it reflected sun light in such a manner as to prove and/or show the sun was revolving around the earth. Many arguments and discussions over this silly trivial minute were carried on instead of looking at the 'Big Picture' just as the nonsense over the trivial with regard to John 1:1 previously shown. This is a repeat of the same narrow viewing which is when looked at in perspective and objectively absurd. All should seek to gain an understanding of the 'Big Picture' and not get drawn into argument over narrow trivial that is definitely not profitable. This type of narrow thinking reflects back to my response to a Trinitarian on a similar narrow thinking on translation which was:
""I have long learned in translating that one must take in consideration the entire context, not one small point which in an overall translation becomes meaningless and this with modern languages. Now with respect ancient languages this fact becomes of the utmost importance since no one today can say with absolute certainty exactly what is so. But if one does not do so, he must surely be in error as later John wrote in many places to the contrary in rather clear language. So are you trying to say John contradicts himself or what"
But let's look with respect to what absurdities the Trinitarians in the past took this Ptolemaic System. They even burnt a very learned Italian, Giordani Bruno, to death at the stake for not indulging in their absurd narrow arguments attempting to prove the un-provable, the Ptolemaic System, at the stake. Why?
He took the 'Big Picture" approach and showed that the Ptolemaic System was wrong. Now of course this is absolutely absurd, but it shows to what extremes groups go to when they get wrapped up in trivial minute instead of elevating discussions to the general or 'Big Picture.' See:
"Giordano Bruno[jOrdA´nO brOO´nO] Pronunciation Key, 1548-1600, Italian philosopher, b. Nola. He entered the Dominican order early in his youth but was accused of heresy and fled (c.1576) to take up a career of study and travel. He taught briefly at Toulouse, Paris, Oxford, and Wittenberg, but, personally restless and in constant opposition to the traditional schools, he found no permanent post. His major metaphysical works, De la causa, principio, et uno (1584, tr. The Infinite in Giordano Bruno, 1950) and De l'infinito, universo et mondi (1584), were published in France. Further works appeared in England and Germany. Bruno also wrote satire and poetry. In 1591 he returned to Venice, where he was tried for heresy by the Inquisition. After imprisonment at Rome, he was burned to death. Bruno challenged all dogmatism, including that of the Copernican cosmology, the main tenets of which, however, he upheld. He believed that our perception of the world is relative to the position in space and time from which we view it and that there are as many possible modes of viewing the world as there are possible positions. Therefore we cannot postulate absolute truth or any limit to the progress of knowledge. He pictured the world as composed of individual elements of being, governed by fixed laws of relationship. These elements, called monads, were ultimate and irreducible and were based on a pantheistic infinite principle, or cause, or Deity, manifest in us and in all the world. Bruno's influence on later philosophy, especially that of Spinoza and Leibniz, was profound.
See P. H. Michel, The Cosmology of Giordano Bruno (tr. 1973); S. Drake, Copernicus : Philosophy and Science: Bruno : Kepler : Galileo (1973); F. A. Yates, Lull and Bruno (1982)."[source - The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright (c) 2003, Columbia University Press.]
Now Let's look at the facts, 'Big Picture', with respect this theory of the Ptolemaic System, by considering the Copernican System model or theory and how it differed from the Ptolemaic System model by looking at some facts.
The Copernican Model: A Sun-Centered Solar System"
The Earth-centered Universe of Aristotle and Ptolemy held sway on Western thinking for almost 2000 years. Then, in the 16th century a new idea was proposed by the Polish astronomer Nicolai Copernicus (1473-1543).
The Heliocentric System.
In a book called On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies (that was published as Copernicus lay on his deathbed), Copernicus proposed that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the Solar System. Such a model is called a heliocentric system. The ordering of the planets known to Copernicus in this new system is illustrated in the following figure, which we recognize as the modern ordering of those planets.
The Copernican Universe
In this new ordering the Earth is just another planet (the third outward from the Sun), and the Moon is in orbit around the Earth, not the Sun. The stars are distant objects that do not revolve around the Sun. Instead, the Earth is assumed to rotate once in 24 hours, causing the stars to appear to revolve around the Earth in the opposite direction.
Retrograde Motion and Varying Brightness of the Planets
The Copernican system by banishing the idea that the Earth was the center of the Solar System, immediately led to a simple explanation of both the varying brightness of the planets and retrograde motion:
1. The planets in such a system naturally vary in brightness because they are not always the same distance from the Earth.
2. The retrograde motion could be explained in terms of geometry and a faster motion for planets with smaller orbits, as illustrated in the following animation.
"Brahe, Tycho , 1546-1601, Danish astronomer. The most prominent astronomer of the late 16th cent., he paved the way for future discoveries by improving instruments and by his precision in fixing the positions of planets and stars. From Brahe's exact observations of the planets, Kepler devised his laws of planetary motions (see Kepler's laws). Brahe's achievements included the study of a supernova (first observed in 1572 and now known as Tycho's supernova) in the constellation Cassiopeia and the discoveries of a variation in the inclination of the lunar orbit and of the fourth inequality of the moon's motion. He never fully accepted the Copernican system but made a compromise between it and the Ptolemaic system. In the Tychonic system, the earth was the immobile body around which the sun revolved, and the five planets then known revolved around the sun. Given funds by the Danish king Frederick II, Brahe built on the island of Ven a castle, Uranienborg, and an observatory, Stjarneborg. He was deprived of his revenues by Christian IV in 1596 and left Ven (1597); in 1599 he settled near Prague under the patronage of the German emperor Rudolf II. He published (1588) De mundi aetherii recentioribus phaenomenis, the second volume of a projected three-volume work on his astronomical observations; from an incomplete manuscript and notes Kepler edited Volume I, Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata (1602). Brahe's Astronomiae instauratae mechanica (1598) contained his autobiography and a description of his instruments.
The preface of Osiander, pretending that the book of Copernicus suggested a hypothesis instead of announcing a truth, served its purpose well. During nearly seventy years the Church authorities evidently thought it best not to stir the matter, and in some cases professors like Calganini were allowed to present the new view purely as a hypothesis. There were, indeed, mutterings from time to time on the theological side, but there was no great demonstration against the system until 1616. Then, when the Copernican doctrine was upheld by Galileo as a truth, and proved to be a truth by his telescope, the book was taken in hand by the Roman curia. The statements of Copernicus were condemnned, ``until they should be corrected''; and the corrections required were simply such as would substitute for his conclusions the old Ptolemaic theory.
That this was their purpose was seen in that year when Galileo was forbidden to teach or discuss the Copernican theory, and when were forbidden ``all books which affirm the motion of the earth.'' Henceforth to read the work of Copernicus was to risk damnation, and the world accepted the decree. The strongest minds were thus held fast. If they could not believe the old system, they must pretend that they believed it; - and this, even after the great circumnavigation of the globe had done so much to open the eyes of the world! Very striking is the case of the eminent Jesuit missionary Joseph Acosta, whose great work on the Natural and Moral History of the Indies, published in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, exploded so many astronomical and geographical errors. Though at times curiously credulous, he told the truth as far as he dared; but as to the movement of the heavenly bodies he remained orthodox - declaring, ``I have seen the two poles, whereon the heavens turn as upon their axletrees.'' [source - Warfare of Science with Theology Chapter III: Astronomy]
As can clearly be seen, Trinitarians get wrapped up in their own pursuit of trivial and are not capable of opening up to the more general or 'Big Picture' at a higher level or plain. That is why this myth or legend created by ancient Greek philosophers just like the Ptolemaic System theory. The only reason they are not still backing the Ptolemaic System theory today is that it was so badly shown by true science to be in error that even these diehard lovers of trivial and minute could no longer argue against the Copernican System model as modern science has made this completely impossible. Now they content themselves with trying to defend the absurdity of the Trinity another myth or legend created by ancient Greek philosophers originally introduced into so called Christianity, actually apostate or counterfeit Christianity by a pagan Roman Emperor as an attempt to gain religious unity to beef up his slowly crumbling empire. When so called Christian Bishops permit a pagan to call a so called Christian Church Council, Council of Nicea of 325 AD you know they have departed from the true ways of Christ. This Council of Nicea of 325 AD even usurped God's (YHWH's) exclusive legitimate right to declare which day was the Sabbath day by declaring that it was Sunday; whereas, God (YHWH) had declared it was Saturday which is quite clear if you look at the Spanish word for Saturday, 'Sabado.'
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!
Discourse on Jeremiah 23:5-6 and the Confusion on YHWH Tsidqenu and Its Equivalents:
INTRODUCTION:
Jeremiah 23:5-6 is a most interesting scripture that has confused many with respect its meaning due to their preconceived beliefs. Even the well known preacher John Wesley was stumbled by it due to his preconceived beliefs with respect how the Father (YHWH); the Son, Jesus (Yeshua); and the Holy Spirit, God's (YHWH's) active force interrelate. However, other renown Bible scholars such as the Reverend R.A. Torrey writer of the,"The New Topical Text Book," A. R Fausset, A.M. in his "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible," Theodore Beza in his "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible," and many others had a correct understanding of it. Much of the confusion was caused by the many different ways translators translated the scripture into English as we will later see that YHWH Tsidqenu and its equivalents expressions have confused many. Now let's look at the scripture in the Noah Webster Bible translation:
Jeremiah 23:5-6:
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice upon the earth. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell in safety: and this is his name by which he shall be called, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Noah Webster Bible; NWB)
Now note, the last part of verse 6 which is in capital letters as this is the phrase that is the principle part of this discussion with YHWH Tsidqenu being one of the constructs used for this title that contains as one of its parts the name of Almighty God (YHWH). We will now delve into who this title applies to; remember, "that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice upon the earth," this part of the fifth verse as it is the key to a proper understanding of this scripture.
UNDERSTANDING OF JESUS (YESHUA) AS THE ONLY MEDIATOR AND THE JEWISH LAW OF AGENCIES:
The Only Mediator, the Son of God (YHWH):
To be able to fully grasp the meaning of this scripture, one must comprehend that there is only one mediator between God (YHWH) and mankind and not many; And also understand that there is only one ultimate savior, YHWH, which is made clear at Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (American Standard Version; ASV). This scripture affirms the fact that God (YHWH) required exclusive worship and required Abraham's descendents his chosen people at the time to be strict monotheist. Idolatry was one of ancient Israel's most heinous sins, according to the inspired men who wrote the Bible. However, the prophets railed against Israel's tendency to backslide into worship of other deities as testified to at Jeremiah 2:28-29, "But where are thy gods that thou hast made for thyself? let them arise, if they can save thee in the time of thy trouble: for according to the number of thy cities are thy gods, O Judah. 29 Why will ye plead with me? ye all have transgressed against me, saith the LORD." (NWB); And at Jeremiah 11:13, "For according to the number of thy cities were thy gods, O Judah; and according to the number of the streets of Jerusalem have ye set up altars to that shameful thing, even altars to burn incense to Baal." (NWB).
The fact that there is only one mediator between God (YHWH) and man is clearly shown in the New or Greek Testament by 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus, " (ASV); And at Galations 3:19, "What purpose then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." (NWB); And at Hebrews 8:6, "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." (NWB).
The Jewish Law of Agencies and Why Jesus Could be Called a Savior:
However, since his Father (YHWH) has appointed his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) as his only mediator, for us he could rightly be called a savior, Why? This is pointed out in Hebrews 9:11-15, " But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, 12 nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh: 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (ASV) . To gain a full understand this scripture fully we must have a working understanding of the Jewish Law of Agencies which is basically as follows, "Jesus (Yeshua) was God's (YHWH's) appointed agent in accordance with the 'Biblical law of agency' described as, 'Scripture mentions something being done by Person A, whilst another mentions it being done by Person B. This is best understood when we grasp the Schaliach Principle, or the Jewish Law of Agency, which is expressed in the dictum,' "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." (The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder).
We, therefore, must understand this law of agencies concept, whether we know it by its theological name or not, since this will enhance our understanding of many key texts, such as why the Judges and angels were called "god" (Ex. 21:6; 22:8; Ps. 8:5; 82:1). Many more instances could be provided, but brevity is in order here. John 8:54 drives this law of agency home, "Jesus answered, 'If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God." (Confraternity Edition of The New Testament; CENTN), showing that Jesus (Yeshua) was his Father's (YHWH's) agent, and he sought not his own glory, but glory from his Father (YHWH). Therefore, Jesus (Yeshua) could say as he did at John 11:40, "Jesus said to her, 'Have I not told thee that if thou believe thou shalt behold the glory of God?'" (CETNT). Even Satan the Devil recognized this, Jesus (Yeshua), as God's (YHWH's) agent, 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In their case, the god of this world has blinded their unbelieving minds, that they should not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (CETNT); thus he is trying to blind the minds of the unbelieving to prevent them from recognizing this truth. [source = "Commentary on Genesis 1:1," by Iris the Preacher 2001]
This fact, that he, Jesus (Yeshua) was clearly serving as his Father's (YHWH's) agent, is clearly affirmed by Proverbs 8:22-31, "Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth; 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. 27 When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep, 28 When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong, 29 When he gave to the sea its bound, That the waters should not transgress his commandment, When he marked out the foundations of the earth; 30 Then I was by him, [as] a master workman; And I was daily [his] delight, Rejoicing always before him, 31 Rejoicing in his habitable earth; And my delight was with the sons of men." (ASV) which shows several important Bible truths, (1) Jesus (Yeshua) was the first being YHWH created, long before YHWH's creation of "his works of old." (2) That Jesus (Yeshua) existed eons before the universe and the earth was and of course before Abraham, (3) That Jesus (Yeshua) was his Father's (YHWH's) "master workman," whom his Father (YHWH) delighted in. (4) Jesus (Yeshua) cared a lot for mankind, and (5) that they were two separate beings not co-eternal or co-equal.
YHWH TSIDQENU AND ITS EQUIVALENTS EXPRESSIONS AND THE TRUE MEANING OF JEREMIAH 23:5-6:
YHWH Tsidqenu And Its Equivalents in Select Translations:
We shall first consider the meaning of YHWH Tsidqenu and its equivalents, but let's first look at several different Bible translation of these scriptures with notes:
World English Bible,
" Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: Yahweh our righteousness. [or equivalent of the term you mentioned, 'YHWH Tsidqenu']."" [note, it says Yahweh will raise to David a righteous branch, clearly showing God (YHWH) or Yahweh would raise up a branch which was Jesus (Yeshua) and not that Jesus (Yeshua) was (YHWH)]
Youngs Literal Translation,
"Lo, days are coming -- an affirmation of Jehovah, And I have raised to David a righteous shoot, And a king hath reigned and acted wisely, And done judgment and righteousness in the earth. 6 In his days is Judah saved, and Israel dwelleth confidently, And this his name that Jehovah proclaimeth him, `Our Righteousness[or equivalent of the term you mentioned, 'YHWH Tsidqenu'].".'" ." [note, it says Jehovah will raise to David a righteous branch, clearly showing God (YHWH) or Jehovah would raise up a branch which was Jesus (Yeshua) and not that Jesus (Yeshua) was (YHWH)]
JPS Jewish Bible, (in English)
"Behold, the days come, saith HaShem, that I will raise unto David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, HaShem is our righteousness [or equivalent of the term you mentioned, 'YHWH Tsidqenu']." ." [note, it says HaShem will raise to David a righteous branch, clearly showing God (YHWH) or HaShem would raise up a branch which was Jesus (Yeshua) and not that Jesus (Yeshua) was (YHWH) or HaShem]
Translational Constructs of Jeremiah 23:5-6:
First, let's consider who the word Branch or righteous shoot refers to, and to get an understanding of that we will go to "Torrey's Topical Textbook," under "Titles and names of chris," it states, '* Branch,' Jeremiah 23:5; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12 [Torrey's Topical Textbook," by Reverand R.A. Torrey,1897] here clearly referring to Jeremiah 23:5 showing this reference referrs to Jesus (Yeshua) Christ. Now for purposes of clarity while examining these two scriptures, let's refer to Almighty God (YHWH) as the party of the first part, and his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ as the party of the second part who acts as a master worker and agent of the party of the first part.
We shall now proceed to break down Jeremiah 23:5-6 into its constituting translation constructs using the Authorized King James Bible:
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD[[end of construct 1]], that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth[[end of construct 2]]. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS[[end of construct 3]]" (Authorized King James Bible; ASV).
Construct 1:
The first construct above, construct 1, clearly refers to Almighty God (YHWH), the party of the first part, and shows him for-telling in advance an event that would transpire in the future.
Construct 2:
The second construct above, construct 2, clearly refers to Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, the party of the second part who is the agent and master worker of the party of the first part. In this construct, the party of the first part states that he, "will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth." This was fulfilled when Jesus's (Yeshua's) life force was transferred to the womb of a virgin on earth per Matthew 1:18-22, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this manner: When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, purposed to put her away privately. 20 But while he thought on these things, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take to thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is by the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (NWB). This was further testified to at Luke 3:21-23, "Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. 23 And Jesus himself, when he began `to teach', was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the `son' of Heli," (ASV); And at Luke 1:32, "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David." (NWB); And at Romans 3:23-25, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ: 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; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he may be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." (NWB); this scripture showing also that he would be the mediator and savior of mankind.
Construct 3:
The third construct above, construct 3, clearly shows that Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is being referred to by the party of the first part. This is made plain by, "In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely" which is exactly what Jesus (Yeshua) is tasked with as shown by 1 Corinthians 15:21-28, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (AV); This scripture testifies that God (YHWH) had given his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) over all except himself when the scripture says "it is manifest that he is excepted." We note that at Jesus (Yeshua) here is foretold as carrying out God's (Yeshua's) assignment to him in relation to judgment and the end of the world or system, and has given Him power over all as his agent, except over Himself as recorded at 1 Corinthians 15:27 recorded above. Therefore, it is also obvious that the last part of this construct, construct 3, "and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" refers to Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, and that "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS," is but one of his many titles.
YHWH Tsidqenu:
Therefore, YHWH Tsidqenu is just another way of translating the original Hebrew. But let's re-look at Jeremiah 23:5-6 in the JPS Jewish Bible, (in English) once more:
"Behold, the days come, saith HaShem, that I will raise unto David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, HaShem is our righteousness [or equivalent of the term you mentioned, 'YHWH Tsidqenu']." ." [note, it says HaShem will raise to David a righteous branch, clearly showing God (YHWH) or HaShem would raise up a branch which was Jesus (Yeshua) and not that Jesus (Yeshua) was (YHWH) or HaShem].
COMMENTS AND COMMENTARIES ON JEREMIAH 23:5-6 BY RENOWN EXPERTS:
Theodore Beza:
Theodore Beza in his, "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible," said, the following:
"23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise to David a righteous e Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice upon the earth.
(e) This prophecy is of the restitution of the Church in the time of Jesus Christ, who is the true branch, read (Isaiah 11:1,45:8; Jeremiah 35:15; Daniel 9:24)."
[Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Jeremiah 23". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible," 1600-1645]
Commentaries by Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Jeremiah Chapter 23:
"Jeremiah 23:1-40. THE WICKED RULERS TO BE SUPERSEDED BY THE KING, WHO SHOULD REIGN OVER THE AGAIN UNITED PEOPLES, ISRAEL AND JUDAH.
...5. As Messianic prophecy extended over many years in which many political changes took place in harmony with these, it displayed its riches by a variety more effective than if it had been manifested all at once. As the moral condition of the Jews required in each instance, so Messiah was exhibited in a corresponding phase, thus becoming more and more the soul of the nation's life: so that He is represented as the antitypical Israel (Isaiah 49:3).
unto David--HENGSTENBERG observes that Isaiah dwells more on His prophetical and priestly office, which had already been partly set forth (Deuteronomy 18:18, Psalms 110:4). Other prophets dwell more on His kingly office. Therefore here He is associated with "David" the king: but in Isaiah 11:1 with the then poor and unknown "Jesse."
righteous Branch--"the Branch of righteousness" (Jeremiah 33:15); "The Branch" simply (Zechariah 3:8, 6:12); "The Branch of the Lord" (Isaiah 4:2).
prosper--the very term applied to Messiah's undertaking (Isaiah 52:13, Margin; Isaiah 53:10). Righteousness or justice is the characteristic of Messiah elsewhere, too, in connection with our salvation or justification (Isaiah 53:11, Daniel 9:24, Zechariah 9:9). So in the New Testament He is not merely "righteous" Himself, but "righteousness to us" (1 Corinthians 1:30), so that we become "the righteousness of God in Him" (Romans 10:3,4'2 Corinthians 5:19-21'Philippians 3:9').
execute judgment and justice in the earth--(Psalms 72:2, Isaiah 9:7, 32:1,1. Not merely a spiritual reign in the sense in which He is "our righteousness," but a righteous reign "in the earth" (Jeremiah 3:17,1. In some passages He is said to come to judge, in others to reign. In Matthew 25:34, He is called "the King." Psalms 9:7 unites them. Compare Daniel 7:22,26,27.
6. Judah . . . Israel . . . dwell safely--Compare Jeremiah 33:16, where "Jerusalem" is substituted for "Israel" here. Only Judah, and that only in part, has as yet returned. So far are the Jews from having enjoyed, as yet, the temporal blessings here foretold as the result of Messiah's reign, that their lot has been, for eighteen centuries, worse than ever before. The accomplishment must, therefore, be still future, when both Judah and Israel in their own land shall dwell safely under a Christocracy, far more privileged than even the old theocracy (Jeremiah 32:37, Deuteronomy 33:28, Isaiah 54:1-17, 60:1-22, 65:17-25, Zechariah 14:11).
shall be called, the Lord--that is, shall be (Isaiah 9:6) "Jehovah," God's incommunicable name. Though when applied to created things, it expresses only some peculiar connection they have with Jehovah (Genesis 22:14, Exodus 17:15), yet when applied to Messiah it must express His Godhead manifested in justifying power towards us (1 Timothy 3:16).
our--marks His manhood, which is also implied in His being a Branch raised unto David, whence His human title, "Son of David" (compare Matthew 22:42-45).
Righteousness--marks His Godhead, for God alone can justify the ungodly (compare Romans 4:5, Isaiah 45:17,24,25)."
[Fausset, A. R., A.M. "Commentary on Jeremiah 23". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible," 1871.]
Matthew Henry:
", v. 5, 6. The house of David seemed to be quite sunk and ruined by that threatening against Jeconiah (ch. 22:30), that none of his seed should ever sit upon the throne of David. But here is a promise which effectually secures the honour of the covenant made with David notwithstanding; for by it the house will be raised out of its ruins to a greater lustre than ever, and shine brighter far than it did in Solomon himself. We have not so many prophecies of Christ in this book as we had in that of the prophet Isaiah; but here we have one, and a very illustrious one; of him doubtless the prophet here speaks, of him, and of no other man. The first words intimate that it would be long ere this promise should have its accomplishment: The days come, but they are not yet. I shall see him, but not now. But all the rest intimate that the accomplishment of it will be glorious. (1.) Christ is here spoken of as a branch from David, the man the branch (Zec. 3:, his appearance mean, his beginnings small, like those of a bud or sprout, and his rise seemingly out of the earth, but growing to be green, to be great, to be loaded with fruits. A branch from David's family, when it seemed to be a root in a dry ground, buried, and not likely to revive. Christ is the root and offspring of David, Rev. 22:16. In him doth the horn of David bud, Ps. 132:17, 18. He is a branch of God's raising up; he sanctified him, and sent him into the world, gave him his commission and qualifications. He is a righteous branch, for he is righteous himself, and through him many, even all that are his, are made righteous. As an advocate, he is Jesus Christ the righteous. (2.) He is here spoken of as his church's King. This branch shall be raised as high as the throne of his father David, and there he shall reign and prosper, not as the kings that now were of the house of David, who went backward in all their affairs. No; he shall set up a kingdom in the world that shall be victorious over all opposition. In the chariot of the everlasting gospel he shall go forth, he shall go on conquering and to conquer. If God raise him up, he will prosper him, for he will own the work of his own hands; what is the good pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in the hands of those to whom it is committed. He shall prosper; for he shall execute judgment and justice in the earth, all the world over, Ps. 96:13. The present kings of the house of David were unjust and oppressive, and therefore it is no wonder that they did not prosper. But Christ shall, by his gospel, break the usurped power of Satan, institute a perfect rule of holy living, and, as far as it prevails, make all the world righteous. The effect of this shall be a holy security and serenity of mind in all his faithful loyal subjects. In his days, under his dominion, Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely; that is, all the spiritual seed of believing Abraham and praying Jacob shall be protected from the curse of heaven and the malice of hell, shall be privileged from the arrests of God's law and delivered from the attempts of Satan's power, shall be saved from sin, the guilt and dominion of it, and then shall dwell safely, and be quiet from the fear of all evil. See Lu. 1:74, 75. Those that shall be saved hereafter from the wrath to come may dwell safely now; for, if God be for us, who can be against us? In the days of Christ's government in the soul, when he is uppermost there, the soul dwells at ease. (3.) He is here spoken of as The Lord our righteousness. Observe, [1.] Who and what he is. As God, he is Jehovah, the incommunicable name of God, denoting his eternity and self-existence. As Mediator, he is our righteousness. By making satisfaction to the justice of God for the sin of man, he has brought in an everlasting righteousness, and so made it over to us in the covenant of grace that, upon our believing consent to that covenant, it becomes ours. His being Jehovah our righteousness implies that he is so our righteousness as no creature could be. He is a sovereign, all-sufficient, eternal righteousness. All our righteousness has its being from him, and by him it subsists, and we are made the righteousness of God in him. [2.] The profession and declaration of this: This is the name whereby he shall be called, not only he shall be so, but he shall be known to be so. God shall call him by this name, for he shall appoint him to be our righteousness. By this name Israel shall call him, every true believer shall call him, and call upon him. That is our righteousness by which, as an allowed plea, we are justified before God, acquitted from guilt, and accepted into favour; and nothing else have we to plead but this, "Christ has died, yea, rather has risen again;'' and we have taken him for our Lord. 3. This great salvation, which will come to the Jews in the latter days of their state, after their return out of Babylon, shall be so illustrious as far to outshine the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt"
[Henry, Matthew. "Commentary on Jeremiah 23". "Matthew Henry Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible," byMatthew Henry, 1706.]
Easton's Bible Dictionary Kingly office of Christ:
"One of the three special relations in which Christ stands to his people. Christ's office as mediator comprehends three different functions, viz., those of a prophet, priest, and king. These are not three distinct offices, but three functions of the one office of mediator.
Christ is King and sovereign Head over his Church and over all things to his Church (Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; Colossians 1:18; 2:19). He executes this mediatorial kingship in his Church, and over his Church, and over all things in behalf of his Church. This royalty differs from that which essentially belongs to him as God, for it is given to him by the Father as the reward of his obedience and sufferings (Phil 2:6-11), and has as its especial object the upbuilding and the glory of his redeemed Church. It attaches, moreover, not to his divine nature as such, but to his person as God-man.
Christ's mediatorial kingdom may be regarded as comprehending, (1) his kingdom of power, or his providential government of the universe; (2) his kingdom of grace, which is wholly spiritual in its subjects and administration; and (3) his kingdom of glory, which is the consummation of all his providential and gracious administration.
Christ sustained and exercised the function of mediatorial King as well as of Prophet and Priest, from the time of the fall of man, when he entered on his mediatorial work; yet it may be said that he was publicly and formally enthroned when he ascended up on high and sat down at the Father's right hand (Psalms 2:6; Jeremiah 23:5; Isaiah 9:6), after his work of humiliation and suffering on earth was "finished." ["Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition," by M.G. Easton M.A., D.D.,published by Thomas Nelson, 1897].
YHWH THE THE SUPREME GOD OF EXODUS 20:3:
No God's Before Me:
As Exodus 20:3 states, "Thou hast no other Gods before Me." (Youngs Literal Translation) says, true Christians shall have no gods before Almighty God (YHWH). This scripture shows that we must worship him as the supreme deity and have no other divine beings we consider as equal to or greater than he is. As Isaiah 44:6 testifies, "Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God." (ASV), and reaffirms the Biblical command of given at Exodus 20:3.
However some in error and/or because they have been blinded to the truth per 2 Corinthians 4:4, ""In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (AV), may believe that he is just a different manifestation of Almighty God (YHWH); but this would be impossible as shown by Philippians 2:1-8, "If there is therefore any exhortation in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions, 2 make full my joy, that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind; 3 `doing' nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself; 4 not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others. 5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient `even' unto death, yea, the death of the cross." (ASV); Thus, clearly showing him as an obedient Son; And clearly showing whose son he was at John 5:17-19, "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work. 18 For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and greater works than these will he show him, that ye may marvel. 21 For as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom he will. (ASV). And at John 14:28, ""Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father; for the Father is greater than I." (ASV). In fact, in heaven He will be at His Father's (YHWH's) right hand as testified to at Hebrews 10:12, "but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sat down on the right hand of God:" (ASV). The foregoing clearly showing him as second in the hierarchy in heaven, with his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) being the supreme one at whose right hand he sits; therefore, his Father (YHWH) is clearly greater than he is thus no violation of Exodus 20:3 has occurred since he is at a lower 'station' and not as great as his Father (YHWH). Yet he has divinity the same as his Father (YHWH) because his Father (YHWH) made him of the same 'stuff' that he is as previously shown in Philippians 2:6 above. This fact is reaffirmed at Philippians 2:9-11, ", "Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; 10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven and [things] on earth and [things] under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (ASV)
In fact, the teaching that Jesus is just a different manifestation of God (YHWH) is part of three false doctrines with the first being Modulism which many religious dictionaries state is, "The belief that God is a single entity who has appeared in different modes at different times. This is the same as "SABELLIANISM THEOLOGY-- God is three only in relation to the world, in so many "manifestations" or "modes." The unity and identity of God are such that the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) did not exist before the incarnation; because the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) are thus one, the Father (YHWH) suffered with the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) in his passion and death.
Uniqueness - They believe that God is one in earthly manifestations, but not heavenly. [Branham's Bible Believers, Inc.][ to Branham's 1189 page book "Conduct, Order, Doctrine of the Church," the "First thing is to straighten out you on your 'trinity' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. "God is like a three-foot rule... The first twelve inches was God, the Father; the second twelve inches, God, the Son, the same God; the third twelve inches was God, the Holy Ghost, the same God," (pp.182 & 184). Branham clarifies his position in a speech given October 2, 1957 when he exclaims, "See, there cannot be an Eternal son, because a son had to have a beginning. And so Jesus had a beginning, God had no beginning," (Ibid, p.273).]" [sourse, Discourse by a Theologian who wishes to remain anonymous].
He appeared as the Father in the Old Testament, as Jesus during the first century CE, and has since taken the form of the Holy Spirit." This same concept is also found in the false doctrines of the Duality and the Trinity in a slightly different form. But all these false doctrines in one way or another attempt to claim that the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua), are one and the same individual.
Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is Free of Sin, Why?:
Now some may say how can Jesus (Yeshua) Christ that since the Apostle Paul stated at Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God:" (AV), how can Jesus (Yeshua) be free from sin; however, they fail to recognize that he is without sin as his Father (YHWH) is God Almighty (YHWH) and not an earthly man, thus he did not inherit sin as did all others of mankind. This is made clear at Romans 5:12-15, "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned 13 for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the trespass, so also `is' the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many." (ASV); And at John 17:3-5 it is made clear where he came from, "And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, `even' Jesus Christ. 4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (ASV).
Simply put Jesus (Yeshua) is the Son of God (YHWH) as stated over 40 times in the Bible. How so is he the only begotten Son of God (YHWH), simply put he was the first created being, created erons before the universe was.
In fact, Jesus (Yeshua) called God (YHWH) "the only true God..." at John 17:3. Never did he refer to God (YHWH) as a diety of plural persons. So nowhere in the Bible is anyone but God (YHWH) called the Almighty. Otherwise, it voids the meaning of the word 'almighty.' No not Jesus (Yeshua) nor the Holy Spirit is ever called that, for God (YHWH) alone is supreme and above all else. At Genesis 17:1, he declares, "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect." (American Standard Version; ASV), and this is affirmed at Exodus 18:11, "Now I know that Jehovah is greater than all gods; yea, in the thing wherein they dealt proudly against them." (ASV).
Meaning of The Name Jesus (Yeshua):
The basic root name of Jesus comes from the Hebrew name HO-SH-U-A (Joshua) meaning "Salvation." But "salvation" was only half the essence of his name. The full essence of the name Jesus comes from the story of Twelve Scouts when Moses gave Hoshea his new name "Yeho-shua," meaning "Yahweh-is-Salvation"
The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation." Though the name in one form or another occurs frequently in the Old Testament, it was not borne by a person of prominence between the time of Josue, the son of Nun and Josue, the high priest in the days of Zorobabel. It was also the name of the author of Ecclesiaticus of one of Christ's ancestors mentioned in the genealogy, found in the Third Gospel (Luke 3:29), and one of the St. Paul's companions (Colossians 4:11). During the Hellenizing period, Jason, a purely Greek analogon of Jesus, appears to have been adopted by many (I Machabees 8:17; 12:16; 14:22; II Machabees 1:7; 2:24; 4:7-26; 5:5-10; Acts 17:5-9; Romans 16:21). The Greek name is connected with verb iasthai, to heal; it is therefore, not surprising that some of the Greek Fathers allied the word Jesus with same root (Eusebius, "Dem. Ev.", IV; cf. Acts 9:34; 10:3 . Though about the time of Christ the name Jesus appears to have been fairly common (Josephus, "Ant.", XV, ix, 2; XVII, xiii, 1; XX, ix, 1; "Bel. Jud.", III, ix, 7; IV, iii, 9; VI, v, 5; "Vit.", 22) it was imposed on our Lord by God's express order (Luke 1:31; Matthew 1:21), to foreshow that the Child was destined to "save his people from their sins." Philo ("De Mutt. Nom.", 21) is therefore, right when he explains Iesous as meaning soteria kyrion; Eusebius (Dem., Ev., IV, ad fin.; P.G., XXII, 333) gives the meaning Theou soterion; while St. Cyril of Jerusalem interprets the word as equivalent to soter (Cat., x, 13; P.G., XXXIII, 677). This last writer, however, appears to agree with Clement of Alexandria in considering the word Iesous as of Greek origin (Paedag., III, xii; P.G., VIII, 677); St. Chrysostom emphasizes again the Hebrew derivation of the word and its meaning soter (Hom., ii, 2), thus agreeing with the exegesis of the angel speaking to St. Joseph (Matthew 1:21). [The New Catholic Encyclopedia].
YHWH is The Supreme One and Jesus (Yeshua) is His Son, There is No Trinity:
In the Hebrew scriptures (NT) 'eloh'ah' [god] has two plural forms, namely, 'elo-him' [gods] and 'elo-heh' [god of]. These to forms usually refer to God (YHWH), in which case they are translated in the singular as 'God'. However these forms do in no way indicate a Trinity as shown in "A dictionary of the Bible", "The fanciful idea that ['elo-him'] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God." ['A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith].
Also, The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature says of 'elo-him', "It is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribnute.' [The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature]. This, title, 'elo-him' occurs over 34 times alone in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what God (YHWH) said is singular. Thus the previously mentioned publication concludes with, 'elo-him' must rather be elplained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty." [The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature].
Therefore since the word 'elo-him' means, not 'persons,' but 'gods,' those who argue that this word implies a trinity make themselves polytheists, worshippers of more than one god. This is so since it would mean that there were three gods in the trinity. In fact, the word trinity means three.
Also, the Bible uses the words 'elo-him' and 'elo-heh' when referring to a number of false gods, good examples are found at Exodus 12:12, "For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am Jehovah." (ASV), And at Exodu8s 20:23, "Ye shall not make [other gods] with me; gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you." (ASV). But it is also used to refer sometimes to a single false god such as at Judges 16:23-24, "And the lords of the Philistines gathered them together to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their god, and to rejoice; for they said, Our god hath delivered Samson our enemy into our hand. 24 And when the people saw him, they praised their god; for they said, Our god hath delivered into our hand our enemy, and the destroyer of our country, who hath slain many of us." (ASV). The term was also applied to a human, Moses at Exodus 4:16, "And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him as God." (ASV).
Therefore it should be evident that the Hebrew titles of 'elo-him' and 'elo-heh' for false gods, and some humans, did not imply a plurality of gods. Likewise applying these terms to God (YHWH) in no way implies more than one person; this being especially so when one considers the testimony of the rest of the Bible on this subject.
APPENDIX:
(1) Various Bible renderings of Jeremiah 23:5-6:
Youngs Literal Translation,
"Lo, days are coming -- an affirmation of Jehovah, And I have raised to David a righteous shoot, And a king hath reigned and acted wisely, And done judgment and righteousness in the earth. 6 In his days is Judah saved, and Israel dwelleth confidently, And this his name that Jehovah proclaimeth him, `Our Righteousness.'" ." [note, it says Jehovah will raise to David a righteous branch, clearly showing God (YHWH) or Jehovah would raise up a branch which was Jesus (Yeshua) and not that Jesus (Yeshua) was (YHWH)]
The Darby Translation,
"Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, when I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, who shall reign as king, and act wisely, and shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell in safety; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our Righteousness." [note, it says Jehovah will raise to David a righteous branch, clearly showing God (YHWH) or Jehovah would raise up a branch which was Jesus (Yeshua) and not that Jesus (Yeshua) was (YHWH)]
New American Standard Version,
"Behold, {the} days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land. 6 "In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, 'The LORD our righteousness."
American Standard Version,
" Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness."
New King James Bible,
"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. 6 In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."
Authorized King James Bible,
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS"
New Living Translation,
"For the time is coming," says the LORD, "when I will place a righteous Branch on King David's throne. He will be a King who rules with wisdom. He will do what is just and right throughout the land. 6 And this is his name: 'The LORD Is Our Righteousness.' In that day Judah will be saved, and Israel will live in safety"
New Revised Standard Version,
"The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. And this is the name by which he will be called: "The Lord is our righteousness."
Revised Standard Version,
""Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.'
Good News Translation,
"The Lord says, "The time is coming when I will choose as king a righteous descendant of David. That king will rule wisely and do what is right and just throughout the land. 6 When he is king, the people of Judah will be safe, and the people of Israel will live in peace. He will be called "The Lord Our Salvation.'"
Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible (original),
"Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I will raise up to David a just branch: and a king shall reign, and shall be wise: and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 6 In those days shall Juda be saved, and Israel shall dwell confidently: and this is the name that they shall call him: The Lord our just one."
Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible,
"Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Yehudah shall be saved, and Yisra'el shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: the LORD our righteousness."
New Century Version,
""The days are coming," says the Lord, "when I will raise up a good branch in David's family. He will be a king who will rule in a wise way; he will do what is fair and right in the land. 6 In his time Judah will be saved, and Israel will live in safety. This will be his name: The Lord Does What Is Right."
The Latin Vulgate,
"ecce dies veniunt ait Dominus et suscitabo David germen iustum et regnabit rex et sapiens erit et faciet iudicium et iustitiam in terra 6 in diebus illius salvabitur Iuda et Israhel habitabit confidenter et hoc est nomen quod vocabunt eum Dominus iustus noster"
(2) Special comments by Mark Larson on God's (YHWH) Name:
"When I first came across this amazing assertion that 'adoni' is
never used in ref. to Almighty GOD, I was stunned.
I used 'Bibleworks' bible software, which allows you to search
actual Hebrew & Greek words, in order to see if these things be so.
I took the Hebrew adoni as shown in Psalms 110:1 and searched 'on
that actual Hebrew word' and sure enough ... 195 verses appeared.
I check each occurrence, and sure enough, adoni is never used in
ref. to Almighty GOD. (I attached the list below)
Just remember, 'LORD' - all caps = YAHWEH, GOD's name
[Strong's 3068, 3069]
'Lord' - cap. L - Adonai = GOD's title as SUPREME LORD - solely used
in regards to Almighty GOD [Strong's 136] Except for about 30 times
when 'Lord' is used for 'adon' in ref. to GOD
'lord' - lowercase = adon (or adoni) = lord, master or owner
[Strong's 113]
Although Strong assigns the number 113 to this Hebrew word, he does
NOT number its derivatives; i.e. Strong's does NOT show/number the
distinction between adon & adoni.
The word 'adon' IS USED in regards to GOD about 30 times, in the
sense that He is Lord/Owner of the earth e.g. Josh 3:13, Psa 97:5,
Micah 4:13, Zec 4:14, etc. - even as shown in your list below
Here is a list of the 195 occurrences of adoni ... a total of 163
verses ... where the word 'adon' occurs more than once, I repeat the
verse again e.g. Gen 24:12
Hope this is of help ...
1. Gen. 18:12
2. Gen. 23:6
3. Gen. 23:11
4. Gen. 23:15
5. Gen. 24:12
6. Gen. 24:12
7. Gen. 24:14
8. Gen. 24:18
9. Gen. 24:27
10. Gen. 24:27
11. Gen. 24:27
12. Gen. 24:35
13. Gen. 24:36
14. Gen. 24:36
15. Gen. 24:37
16. Gen. 24:39
17. Gen. 24:42
18. Gen. 24:44
19. Gen. 24:48
20. Gen. 24:48
21. Gen. 24:49
22. Gen. 24:54
23. Gen. 24:56
24. Gen. 24:65
25. Gen. 31:35
26. Gen. 32:4
27. Gen. 32:5
28. Gen. 32:18
29. Gen. 33:8
30. Gen. 33:13
31. Gen. 33:14
32. Gen. 33:14
33. Gen. 33:15
34. Gen. 39:8
35. Gen. 42:10
36. Gen. 43:20
37. Gen. 44:5
38. Gen. 44:7
39. Gen. 44:9
40. Gen. 44:16
41. Gen. 44:16
42. Gen. 44:18
43. Gen. 44:18
44. Gen. 44:19
45. Gen. 44:20
46. Gen. 44:22
47. Gen. 44:24
48. Gen. 44:33
49. Gen. 47:18
50. Gen. 47:18
51. Gen. 47:18
52. Gen. 47:25
53. Exod. 21:5
54. Exod. 32:22
55. Num. 11:28
56. Num. 12:11
57. Num. 32:25
58. Num. 32:27
59. Num. 36:2
60. Num. 36:2
61. Jos. 5:14
62. Jdg. 4:18
63. Jdg. 6:13
64. Ruth 2:13
65. 1 Sam. 1:15
66. 1 Sam. 1:26
67. 1 Sam. 1:26
68. 1 Sam. 22:12
69. 1 Sam. 24:6
70. 1 Sam. 24:8
71. 1 Sam. 24:10
72. 1 Sam. 25:24
73. 1 Sam. 25:25
74. 1 Sam. 25:25
75. 1 Sam. 25:26
76. 1 Sam. 25:26
77. 1 Sam. 25:27
78. 1 Sam. 25:27
79. 1 Sam. 25:28
80. 1 Sam. 25:28
81. 1 Sam. 25:29
82. 1 Sam. 25:30
83. 1 Sam. 25:31
84. 1 Sam. 25:31
85. 1 Sam. 25:31
86. 1 Sam. 25:41
87. 1 Sam. 26:17
88. 1 Sam. 26:18
89. 1 Sam. 26:19
90. 1 Sam. 29:8
91. 1 Sam. 30:13
92. 1 Sam. 30:15
93. 2 Sam. 1:10
94. 2 Sam. 3:21
95. 2 Sam. 4:8
96. 2 Sam. 9:11
97. 2 Sam. 11:11
98. 2 Sam. 11:11
99. 2 Sam. 13:32
100. 2 Sam. 13:33
101. 2 Sam. 14:9
102. 2 Sam. 14:12
103. 2 Sam. 14:15
104. 2 Sam. 14:17
105. 2 Sam. 14:17
106. 2 Sam. 14:18
107. 2 Sam. 14:19
108. 2 Sam. 14:19
109. 2 Sam. 14:20
110. 2 Sam. 14:22
111. 2 Sam. 15:15
112. 2 Sam. 15:21
113. 2 Sam. 15:21
114. 2 Sam. 16:4
115. 2 Sam. 16:9
116. 2 Sam. 18:28
117. 2 Sam. 18:31
118. 2 Sam. 18:32
119. 2 Sam. 19:19
120. 2 Sam. 19:19
121. 2 Sam. 19:20
122. 2 Sam. 19:26
123. 2 Sam. 19:27
124. 2 Sam. 19:27
125. 2 Sam. 19:28
126. 2 Sam. 19:30
127. 2 Sam. 19:35
128. 2 Sam. 19:37
129. 2 Sam. 24:3
130. 2 Sam. 24:3
131. 2 Sam. 24:21
132. 2 Sam. 24:22
133. 1 Ki. 1:2
134. 1 Ki. 1:2
135. 1 Ki. 1:13
136. 1 Ki. 1:17
137. 1 Ki. 1:18
138. 1 Ki. 1:20
139. 1 Ki. 1:20
140. 1 Ki. 1:21
141. 1 Ki. 1:24
142. 1 Ki. 1:27
143. 1 Ki. 1:27
144. 1 Ki. 1:31
145. 1 Ki. 1:36
146. 1 Ki. 1:37
147. 1 Ki. 1:37
148. 1 Ki. 2:38
149. 1 Ki. 3:17
150. 1 Ki. 3:26
151. 1 Ki. 18:7
152. 1 Ki. 18:10
153. 1 Ki. 18:13
154. 1 Ki. 20:4
155. 1 Ki. 20:9
156. 2 Ki. 2:19
157. 2 Ki. 4:16
158. 2 Ki. 4:28
159. 2 Ki. 5:3
160. 2 Ki. 5:18
161. 2 Ki. 5:20
162. 2 Ki. 5:22
163. 2 Ki. 6:5
164. 2 Ki. 6:12
165. 2 Ki. 6:15
166. 2 Ki. 6:26
167. 2 Ki. 8:5
168. 2 Ki. 8:12
169. 2 Ki. 10:9
170. 2 Ki. 18:23
171. 2 Ki. 18:24
172. 2 Ki. 18:27
173. 1 Chr. 21:3
174. 1 Chr. 21:3
175. 1 Chr. 21:3
176. 1 Chr. 21:23
177. 2 Chr. 2:14
178. 2 Chr. 2:15
179. Ps. 110:1
180. Isa. 36:8
181. Isa. 36:9
182. Isa. 36:12
183. Jer. 37:20
184. Jer. 38:9
185. Dan. 1:10
186. Dan. 10:16
187. Dan. 10:17
188. Dan. 10:17
189. Dan. 10:19
190. Dan. 12:8
191. Zech. 1:9
192. Zech. 4:4
193. Zech. 4:5
194. Zech. 4:13
195. Zech. 6:4
(3) The title, and that is what it is, of YHWH Sabbaoth does NOT apply to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) when correctly used/translated as shown, "Sabbaoth: "Translated as host(s) saba' means army(ies). ... Yahweh of Hosts is a special name for God. Yahweh and 'elohim occur with seba'ot some 285 times. ... Yahweh Sabbaoth appears for the first time in 1 Samuel 1:3.... Its origin appears to have been at the close of the period of the judges and in the vicinity of the sanctuary Shiloh, where the ark of the covenant was housed. The ark itself symbolized Yahweh's rulership; for he is declared to be enthroned between the cherubim (1Sam 4:4; cf, Psa 99:1). This name certainly contains the affirmation that Yahweh is the true head of Israel's armies" [source, "(TWOT) Harris, R. Laird, (editor). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press. 1980.] The fact that this title applied only to the Father (YHWH) was clearly shown by 1 Samuel 17:45 as David clearly understood that that God was the real commander of the Israelites army and Goliath's taunts were therefore directed at Almighty God (YHWH). In reality it was not the Almighty God (YHWH) was on their side, but that they were on his side. At this battle he proved he was the sovereign and was mightier than the pagan foes of his chosen people.
(3) Bible quotes made by others but dealing with there being only one Almighty God (YHWH):
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD(YHWH); and beside me there is no savior.
Isaiah 49:26b and all flesh shall know that I the LORD(YHWH) am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
Isaiah 60:16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD(YHWH) am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.
Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD(YHWH) thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no savior beside me
Isiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD(YHWH) the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD(YHWH) of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Jeremiah 50:34 Their Redeemer is strong; the LORD(YHWH) of hosts is his name: he shall throughly plead their cause, that he may give rest to the land, and disquiet the inhabitants of Babylon
(4) How Jesus' (Yeshua's) name came to contain as its makeup his Father (YHWH), and how the use of YHWH as part of other names was common in ancient Israel:
ELIJAH m English, Jewish, Biblical
Pronounced: ee-LIE-zha
From the Hebrew name Eliyahu meaning "my God is YAHWEH". Elijah was a Hebrew prophet of the 9th century BC, during the reign of King Ahab and his queen, Jezebel. The two Books of Kings in the Old Testament tell of his exploits, which culminate with him being carried to heaven in a chariot of fire.
ISHMAEL m Biblical, English
Pronounced: ISH-may-el
From the Hebrew name Yishma'el meaning "God will hear". In the Old Testament this is the name of a son of Abraham. He is the traditional ancestor of the Arabs.
ISHMERAI m Biblical
Means "YAHWEH guards" in Hebrew. This name is mentioned briefly in the Old Testament
JEDIDIAH m Biblical
Pronounced: je-di-DIE-a
Means "beloved of YAHWEH" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament this is a name given to Solomon by Nathan.
JEHOSHAPHAT m Biblical
Pronounced: jee-HAWSH-a-fat
Means "YAHWEH has judged" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament he is a king of Judah.
JEHU m Biblical
Pronounced: JEE-hyoo
Means "YAHWEH is he" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament this name belongs to both a prophet and a king of Israel.
JEPHTHAH m Biblical
Pronounced: JEF-tha
Means "YAHWEH sets free" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament this name belongs to a judge who defends Israel from the Ammonites.
JEREMIAH m English, Jewish, Biblical
Pronounced: jer-e-MIE-a
From the Hebrew name Yirmeyahu which meant "YAHWEH has uplifted". This was the name of one of the major prophets of the Old Testament, author of the Book of Jeremiah and (supposedly) the Book of Lamentations. He lived to see the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in the 6th century BC.
JOAB m Biblical
Pronounced: JO-ab
Means "YAHWEH is the father" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament he was the commander of King David's army, but when Solomon came to power he was executed.
JOACHIM m English, French, German, Polish, Biblical
Pronounced: JO-a-kim (English), zho-a-SHEN (French), YO-aw-khim (German), yo-AW-khim (German)
Means "established by YAHWEH" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament Joachim is a king of Judah. In the apocryphal Gospel of James, Saint Joachim was the husband of Saint Anne and the father of the Virgin Mary.
JOASH m Biblical
Pronounced: JO-ash
From the Hebrew name Yoash which possibly meant either "fire of YAHWEH" or "YAHWEH has given". In the Old Testament this name belongs to several characters including the father of Gideon, a king of Judah, and a son of King Ahab of Israel.
JOEL m English, Jewish, Biblical
Pronounced: JOL, JO-ul
From the Hebrew name Yoel meaning "YAHWEH is God". Joel was a minor prophet in the Old Testament, the author of the Book of Joel.
JONATHAN m English, Biblical
Pronounced: JAWN-a-than
From the Hebrew name Yehonatan (contracted to Yonatan) meaning "YAHWEH has given". In the Old Testament Jonathan was the eldest son of Saul and a friend of David. He was killed in battle with the Philistines. A famous bearer of this name was Jonathan Swift, the satirist who wrote 'Gulliver's Travels' and other works.
JOSHUA m English, Biblical
Pronounced: JAW-shu-wa, JAW-shwa
From the Hebrew name Yehoshua which meant "YAHWEH is salvation". Joshua was one of the twelve spies sent into Canaan by Moses in the Old Testament. After Moses died Joshua succeeded him as leader of the Israelites. The name Jesus was a variant of the name Joshua.
JOSIAH m Biblical, English
Pronounced: jo-SIE-a
Means "YAHWEH supports" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament this is the name of a king of Judah famous for his religious reforms. He was killed fighting the Egyptians at Megiddo.
JOTHAM m Biblical
Pronounced: JO-tham
Means "YAHWEH is upright" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament this was the name of both a son of Gideon and a king of Judah.
[source, "t h e e t y m o l o g y a n d h i s t o r y o f f i r s t n a m e s "]
Joshua's name change
The name "Jesus" from the Greek New Testament is the same as the name "Joshua" from the Hebrew Old Testament. The man we call Jesus Christ was actually Joshua Christ.
Joshua was, of course, the name of the second leader of the nation of Israel. He was the man who saved Israel from its wilderness wandering and took it to the promised land.
Joshua's full name means "Jehovah saves." Joshua is actually a combined name. The first part is the name "Jehovah." The second part is the name "Hosea" (meaning "saviour").
However, most people do not know that "Joshua" was not this man's birth name. In Deuteronomy 32:44 he is called "Hosea." It appears that that was his birth name.
This is shown by the fact that the name "Jehovah" was not revealed to humanity until after Joshua's birth (Exodus 3:15). So it could not have been part of his name at birth. His name must have been changed later in life.
This name change was appropriate. If he was "Hosea" (saviour), people might think he was the one saving them from life in the wilderness. But as Joshua ("Jehovah-Hosea"), it shows that Jehovah was their true saviour.
A difficult task
About 1000 years after Joshua died, the Hebrew Old Testament was for the first time translated into another language, into Greek. The translators had a particularly difficult task translating Joshua's name.
The "Hosea" part of the name could be written in Greek fairly easily. (In Greek, it became "Osea," there being no "H" written in Greek.
However, the "Jehovah" part of Joshua's name had a serious problem.
In Hebrew, the word "Jehovah" is spelt YHWH. However, none of those letters occured in the Greek alphabet of the time. There was no Y or W in Greek. And while the letter H did exist, it was never written and was always the first letter of the word. So none of the letters from "Jehovah" could be written in Greek.
When the translators wanted to translate the word "Jehovah," they put a substitute word in its place. They used the Greek word for "Lord."
However, translating Joshua's name wasn't so easy. You couldn't put another word as part of the name. You had to make it the closest sound that the Greek alphabet could make for the name.
The translators did this by translating the Y in YHWH with the Greek letter "I." The other three letters (HWH) they just left out entirely. They also had to leave out the H at the start of "Hosea." So the name "Jehovah-Hosea" became "I-osea," or "Iesou." Since most Greek male names end in "s," "Iesou" became "Iesous," (Jesus).
[source, "Amazing Meaning Of The Name Jesus," by Phil Ward]
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!
Here is some short simple logic that proves beyond doubt that Jesus (Yeshua) Christ in NOT Jehovah (YHWH) of the old testament as some claim, but his Son as stated over 40 times in the Word of God (YHWH), the Bible:
Matthew 24:36 proves he is not Jehovah (YHWH). Its quite simple, Jesus (Yeshua) is the Son of God (YHWH) and can NOT be God (YHWH) as shown by his own words at Matthew 24:36, clearly shows that no man, and even Jesus (Yeshua), the Son of God (YHWH), knows the hour for God's (YHWH's) judgment on this earth to come, "But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father". (American Standard Version; ASV). If he were God (YHWH) as some wrongly claim he would of course know the date for the culmination of the end times.
And this fact that Jesus (Yeshua) and Jehovah (YHWH), his Father (YHWH) are two distinct entities is further testified to at Matthew 26:52-56 as follows,"Then saith Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 53 Or thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then should the scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be? 55 In that hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize me? I sat daily in the temple teaching, and ye took me not. 56 But all this is come to pass, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left him, and fled. " (ASV) where Jesus (Yeshua) in his own words clearly says, "Or thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?" clearly showing his Father (YHWH) to be separate and apart from his Father (YHWH).
Or where he clearly shows his Father (YHWH) as being greater than himself at John 14:28, "Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I."(AVS), and this statement would definately NOT be so if they were one and the same.
Or where the Father (YHWH) gives authority over all except himself to Jesus (Yeshua) at 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, " For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.". Now pay particular attention to verse 27 where it says, "For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him." which would be ridiculas and impossible if they were one and the same; for this scripture to be so they would have to be two separate entities.
Or 1 Corinthians 11:3 where the chain-of-authority is shown as, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."(ASV). Now if they were one and the same, the statement, "and the head of Christ is God." would be impossible.
Or consider Luke 3:21-23, " Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. 23 And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli,"(ASV), which clearly shows Jesus' (Yeshua's) Father, God (YHWH) letting his Holy Spirit or active force come down on his beloved Son, Jesus (Yeshua) and anoint him, once more showing them as two distinct entities.
Or consider John 20:17,"Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."(ASV) which clearly shows the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) and the Father (YHWH), Jehovah as two distince and separate individuals.
Or consider when Jesus (Yeshua) prayed to his Father (YHWH) at John 17:1-5, "These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: 2 even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. 3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, [even] Jesus Christ. 4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
"(ASV); which shows him praying to his Father (YHWH) which would have been impossible if they, the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) and the Father, Jehovah (YHWH), were the same individual.
Or John 5:19, "Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner."(ASV) where Jesus (Yeshua) clearly testifies that he, the Son, can "do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing" which leaves no doubt that Jesus (Yeshua) and Jehovah (YHWH), the Father (YHWH) are indeed two separate individuals.
One individual once said, "Some have a problem dealing with what is written concerning the Son and the fact that the NT writers call Him God, Paul calling Him the GREAT God and Savior." which is an incorrect statement meant to cover the fact of their own error; the fact is that the New Testament writers NEVER referred to Jesus (Yeshua) as Almighty God (YHWH), but as the Son of God (YHWH) in over 40 different places. However, some translators mistranslated, for example John 1:1, to make it seem like he was God (YHWH), but a close examination of their mistranslation of John 1:1 clearly shows there is a definite problem as their mistranslation creates an impossible situation. Let's look at John 1:1 and see why this is the case, "In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God." (Douay Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB). Now this first says [in the first part of the translational construct] that the "Word was with God," and then [in the second part of the translational construct] that the "Word was God." Obviously you CAN NOT BE BOTH WITH SOMEONE AND BE THAT SOMEONE. This is both impossible and absolutely ridiculas at the same time, and this all the more so when you consider John 1:2, "The same was in the beginning with God." (DRCB).
Thus you can easily see there is something very wrong with this translation and it could IN NO WAY be the thoughts of the original writer, and of course you would be correct. But now what were the thoughts of the original writer? The New English Bible (NEB) captures the thoughts of the original writer as follows for John 1:1-3, "When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was. The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him." (The New English Bible; NEB) or in the translation by the renown American translator, An American Translation," by Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed - transltr, J. M. Powis Smith - transltr. Publisher: University of Chicago Press, "IN THE beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine. It was he that was with God in the beginning. Everything came into existence through him, and apart from him nothing came to be." (An American Translation; AAT). Both clearly showing that he was what his father was a diety or divine; but clearly not on the same level with his Father (YHWH) since as he himself said at John 14:28, " You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come unto you. If you loved me you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I." (DRCB); thus no violation of Exodus 20:3 against polytheism, "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me." (DRCB). And as God's (YHWH's) he showed where worship should be directed in Matthew 4:10 when he was giving an answer to the Devil on worship and to whom it should be given, "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (American Standard Version; ASV), and this is in keeping with Isaiah 42:8, "I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images." (ASV). Jesus (Yeshua) even showed that his own glory was subordinate to his Father's (YHWH's) and dependent on his Father (YHWH) at John 17:1-5, "These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: 2 even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. 3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, [even] Jesus Christ. 4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (ASV). So we can clearly see that Jesus (Yeshua) and His Father (YHWH) must be two separate and distinct individuals as there is NO POSSIBLE WAY THEY COULD BE ONE INDIVIDUAL, since one is dependent on the other for his power, this being the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) who is dependent on his Father (YHWH) who is greater than he is.
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!
1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship
of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of
one mind.
3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each
esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was
made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto
death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above
every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in
earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
the Father.
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but
now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the
midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run
in vain, neither laboured in vain.” (Philippians 2:1-16 AV – Authorized King James
Version).
SALIENT HEIGHLIGHTS – PHILIPPIANS 2:5-8:
First, Philippians 2:5-8 clearly show that Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) exist as a spirit
being in the same physical form type as his Father, Almighty God (YHWH), but that he,
Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) was obedient to his Father, but gave no thought to a
consideration to a seizure, namely that he should be equal to God. This can clearly be
seen by:
“6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a
thing to be grasped,” (Philippians 2:6 ASV – American Standard Bible).
“6 Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized, accounted the being equal
with God,” (Philippians 2:6 Rotherham)
“6 Existiendo en forma de Dios, él no consideró el ser igual a Dios como algo a qué
aferrarse;” (Philippians 2:6 Spanish RVA 89)
“who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own
advantage.” (Philippians 2:6 Holoman Standard Christian Bible)
“who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,”
(Philippians 2:6 NASV – New American Standard Version)
“who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something
to be exploited, “ (Philippians 2:6 NRSV – New Revised Standard Version)
“Who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should
be equal to God.” (Philippians 2:6 NWT – New World Translation)
“Christ himself was like God in everything. But he did not think that being equal with
God was something to be used for his own benefit.” (Philippians 2:6 New Century
Version)
“6Who, being in very nature[1] God, did not consider equality with God something to be
grasped, “ [alternate rend. Footnote - - 1 - Or in the form of] (Philippians 2:6 NIV – New
International Version)
“Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God, something to be grasped.”
(Philippians 2:6 The New American Bible –Catholic- Approved in the Vatican, September 18, 1970 by the
Pope)
“He was in every way like God. Yet he did not think that being equal to God was something he must hold
on to. “ (Philippians 2:6 World Wide English)
SALIENT SCRIPTURE AND ITS UNDERSTANDING – PHILIPPIANS 2:5-11:
This fact, that God’s Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is a separate spirit being from his Father
(YHWH) is even made much clearer if we view more than one scripture at a time:
“Let Christ himself be your example as to what your attitude should be. For he, who had
always been God by nature, did not cling to his prerogatives as God's equal, but stripped
himself of all privilege by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born as mortal
man. And, having become man, he humbled himself by living a life of utter obedience,
even to the extent of dying, and the death he died was the death of a common criminal.
That is why God has now lifted him so high, and has given him the name beyond all
names, so that at the name of Jesus "every knee shall bow", whether in Heaven or earth or
under the earth. And that is why, in the end, "every tongue shall confess" that Jesus
Christ" is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11 J B PHILLIPS
Translation of the NEW TESTAMENT)
The J.B. Phillips Translation of the New Testament makes clear the Son’s, Jesus’s
(Yeshua or YHWH saves) attitude with respect to being obedient to his Father, Almighty
God (YHWH). It states, “Let Christ himself be your example as to what your
attitude should be.” Which clearly shows that all genuine followers of the Son
should also be humble. Also, it clearly says, “For he, who had always been God by
nature, did not cling to his prerogatives as God's equal, but stripped himself of all
privilege by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born as mortal man.” That
although he was existing as a spirit creature just like his Father (YHWH) that he gave no
thought to being the equal of his Father (YHWH), but was subordinate and obedient to
him in clear conformity to “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is
Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1
Corinthians 11:3 AV). Clearly then, he, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) can not then
be a member of a co-equal trinity of beings in a Trinitarian Godhead since he is neither
equal to his Father, nor did not always exist as did his Father (YHWH) “ And unto the
angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful
and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;” (Revelation 3:14 AV) and “ Who
is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” (Colossians 1:15 AV).
His subjection was made quite clear as follows, “And, having become man, he humbled
himself by living a life of utter obedience, even to the extent of dying, and the death he
died was the death of a common criminal.” Clearly he, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves)
was doing the will of his Father (YHWH) . In fact, when tempted by Satan the Devil he
stated “ Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matthew 4:10 AV), “ Jesus
saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my
brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God,
and your God.” (John 20:17 AV), “21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour
cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father
in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and
they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 25 The woman saith unto
him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all
things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.” (John 4:21-26 AV).
Of course, since Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH) is Almighty God (YHWH) only begotten Son, he is
also a God, but a lessor one; therefore, The First Commandment of the Ten Commandments, “
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:3 AV), is not violated since he is neither
equal to or before his Father.
Since he has proved his obedience to his Father (YHWH), his Father (YHWH) has " That is why
God has now lifted him so high, and has given him the name beyond all names, so that at
the name of Jesus "every knee shall bow", whether in Heaven or earth or under the earth.
And that is why, in the end, "every tongue shall confess" that Jesus Christ" is the Lord, to
the glory of God the Father.” And his Father has subjected all things onto his Son, except
himself, “17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they
also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ,
we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the
firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection
of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every
man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father;
when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he
hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” 27 For he
hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that
he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto
him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God
may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:17-28 AV). Therefore, it is clear that Almighty God, the
Father (YHWH) is the superior one since he has put all things under his Son, Jesus (Yeshua or
YHWH saves), except himself, and could not do so unless he was above or superior to his Son.
Also, it is clear that after he accomplishes his Father’s purpose, he, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH
saves), will subject himself to his father, “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then
shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all
in all.” This clearly shows that Trinitarian Theology and Dualism Theology are false dogma and
should be clearly rejected by all Christians.
COMMENTS BY OTHER BIBLE SCHOLARS ON PHILIPPIANS 2:5 -11:
Bible Scholar, Theodore Beza, stated:
2:5 2 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
(2) He sets before them a most perfect example of all modesty and sweet conduct, Christ Jesus,
whom we ought to follow with all our might: who abased himself so much for our sakes, although
he is above all, that he took upon himself the form of a servant, that is, our flesh, willingly subject
to all weaknesses, even to the death of the cross.
2:6 Who, being in the d form of God, e thought it not robbery to be f equal with God:
(d) Such as God himself is, and therefore God, for there is no one in all parts equal to God but God
himself.
(e) Christ, that glorious and everlasting God, knew that he might rightfully and lawfully not appear
in the base flesh of man, but remain with majesty fit for God: yet he chose rather to debase
himself.
(f) If the Son is equal with the Father, then is there of necessity an equality, which Arrius that
heretic denies: and if the Son is compared to the Father, then is there a distinction of persons,
which Sabellius that heretic denies.
2:7 But made himself of g no reputation, and took upon him the h form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men:
(g) He brought himself from all things, as it were to nothing.
(h) By taking our manhood upon him.
2:9 3 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a i name which is above every name:
(3) He shows the most glorious even of Christ’s submission, to teach us that
modesty is the true way to true praise and glory.
(i) Dignity and high distinction, and that which accompanies it.
2:10 That at the name of Jesus k every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and
[things] under the earth;
(k) All creatures will at length be subject to Christ.
2:11 And [that] l every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
(l) Every nation. [Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible".
1600-1645.]
Bible Scholar, Matthew Henry, said:
Note, this scholars comments cover more than Philippians 2:5-11, it cover Philippians 2:1-11.
The apostle proceeds in this chapter where he left off in the last, with further exhortations to
Christian duties. He presses them largely to like-mindedness and lowly-mindedness, in
conformity to the example of the Lord Jesus, the great pattern of humility and love. Here we may
observe, I. The great gospel precept passed upon us; that is, to love one another. This is the law
of Christ’s kingdom, the lesson of his school, the livery of his family. This he represents (v. 2) by
being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. We are of a like mind
when we have the same love. Christians should be one in affection, whether they can be one in
apprehension or no. This is always in their power, and always their duty, and is the likeliest way
to bring them nearer in judgment. Having the same love. Observe, The same love that we are
required to express to others, others are bound to express to us. Christian love ought to be
mutual love. Love, and you shall be loved. Being of one accord, and of one mind; not crossing
and thwarting, or driving on separate interests, but unanimously agreeing in the great things of
God and keeping the unity of the Spirit in other differences. Here observe, 1. The pathetic
pressing of the duty. He is very importunate with them, knowing what an evidence it is of our
sincerity, and what a means of the preservation and edification of the body of Christ. The
inducements to brotherly love are these:—(1.) "If there is any consolation in Christ. Have you
experienced consolation in Christ? Evidence that experience by loving one another.’’ The
sweetness we have found in the doctrine of Christ should sweeten our spirits. Do we expect
consolation in Christ? If we would not be disappointed, we must love one another. If we have not
consolation in Christ, where else can we expect it? Those who have an interest in Christ have
consolation in him, strong and everlasting consolation (Heb. 6:18; 2 Th. 2:16), and therefore
ought to love one another. (2.) "Comfort of love. If there is any comfort in Christian love, in God’s
love to you, in your love to God, or in your brethren’s love to us, in consideration of all this, be you
like-minded. If you have ever found that comfort, if you would find it, if you indeed believe that the
grace of love is a comfortable grace, abound in it.’’ (3.) "Fellowship of the Spirit. If there is such a
thing as communion with God and Christ by the Spirit, such a thing as the communion of saints,
by virtue of their being animated and actuated by one and the same Spirit, be you like-minded; for
Christian love and like-mindedness will preserve to us our communion with God and with one
another.’’ (4.) "Any bowels and mercies, in God and Christ, towards you. If you expect the benefit
of God’s compassions to yourselves, be you compassionate one to another. If there is such a
thing as mercy to be found among the followers of Christ, if all who are sanctified have a
disposition to holy pity, make it appear this way.’’ How cogent are these arguments! One would
think them enough to tame the most fierce, and mollify the hardest, heart. (5.) Another argument
he insinuates is the comfort it would be to him: Fulfil you my joy. It is the joy of ministers to see
people like-minded and living in love. He had been instrumental in bringing them to the grace of
Christ and the love of God. "Now,’’ says he, "if you have found any benefit by your participation of
the gospel of Christ, if you have any comfort in it, or advantage by it, fulfil the joy of your poor
minister, who preached the gospel to you.’’ 2. He proposes some means to promote it. (1.) Do
nothing through strife and vain glory, v. 3. There is no greater enemy to Christian love than pride
and passion. If we do things in contradiction to our brethren, this is doing them through strife; if
we do them through ostentation of ourselves, this is doing them through vain-glory: both are
destructive of Christian love and kindle unchristian heats. Christ came to slay all enmities;
therefore let there not be among Christians a spirit of opposition. Christ came to humble us, and
therefore let there not be among us a spirit of pride. (2.) We must esteem others in lowliness of
mind better than ourselves, be severe upon our own faults and charitable in our judgments of
others, be quick in observing our own defects and infirmities, but ready to overlook and make
favourable allowances for the defects of others. We must esteem the good which is in others
above that which is in ourselves; for we best know our own unworthiness and imperfections. (3.)
We must interest ourselves in the concerns of others, not in a way of curiosity and
censoriousness, or as busy-bodies in other men’s matters, but in Christian love and sympathy:
Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others, v. 4. A selfish
spirit is destructive of Christian love. We must be concerned not only for our own credit, and
ease, and safety, but for those of others also; and rejoice in the prosperity of others as truly as in
our own. We must love our neighbour as ourselves, and make his case our own. II. Here is a
gospel pattern proposed to our imitation, and that is the example of our Lord Jesus Christ: Let this
mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, v. 5. Observe, Christians must be of Christ’s mind.
We must bear a resemblance to his life, if we would have the benefit of his death. If we have not
the Spirit of Christ, we are none of his, Rom. 8:9. Now what was the mind of Christ? He was
eminently humble, and this is what we are peculiarly to learn of him. Learn of me, for I am meek
and lowly in heart, Mt. 11:29. If we were lowly-minded, we should be like-minded; and, if we were
like Christ, we should be lowly-minded. We must walk in the same spirit and in the same steps
with the Lord Jesus, who humbled himself to sufferings and death for us; not only to satisfy God’s
justice, and pay the price of our redemption, but to set us an example, and that we might follow
his steps. Now here we have the two natures and the two states of our Lord Jesus. It is
observable that the apostle, having occasion to mention the Lord Jesus, and the mind which was
in him, takes the hint to enlarge upon his person, and to give a particular description of him. It is a
pleasing subject, and a gospel minister needs not think himself out of the way when he is upon it;
any fit occasion should be readily taken. 1. Here are the two natures of Christ: his divine nature
and his human nature. (1.) Here is his divine nature: Who being in the form of God (v. 6),
partaking of the divine nature, as the eternal and only begotten Son of God. This agrees with Jn.
1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God: it is of the same import with
being the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), and the brightness of his glory, and express
image of his person, Heb. 1:3. He thought it no robbery to be equal with God; did not think himself
guilty of any invasion of what did not belong to him, or assuming another’s right. He said, I and
my Father are one, Jn. 10:30. It is the highest degree of robbery for any mere man or mere
creature to pretend to be equal with God, or profess himself one with the Father. This is for a man
to rob God, not in tithes and offerings, but of the rights of his Godhead, Mal. 3:8. Some
understand being in the form of God — en morphe Theou hyparchon, of his appearance in a
divine majestic glory to the patriarchs, and the Jews, under the Old Testament, which was often
called the glory, and the Shechinah. The word is used in such a sense by the Septuagint and in
the New Testament. He appeared to the two disciples, en hetera morphe — In another form, Mk.
16:12. Metemorphothe — he was transfigured before them, Mt. 17:2. And he thought it no
robbery to be equal with God; he did not greedily catch at, nor covet and affect to appear in that
glory; he laid aside the majesty of his former appearance while he was here on earth, which is
supposed to be the sense of the peculiar expression, ouk harpagmon hegesato. Vid. Bishop
Bull’s Def. cap. 2 sect. 4 et alibi, and Whitby in loc. (2.) His human nature: He was made in the
likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man. He was really and truly man, took part of our
flesh and blood, appeared in the nature and habit of man. And he voluntarily assumed human
nature; it was his own act, and by his own consent. We cannot say that our participation of the
human nature is so. Herein he emptied himself, divested himself of the honours and glories of the
upper world, and of his former appearance, to clothe himself with the rags of human nature. He
was in all things like to us, Heb. 2:17. 2. Here are his two estates, of humiliation and exaltation.
(1.) His estate of humiliation. He not only took upon him the likeness and fashion of a man, but
the form of a servant, that is, a man of mean estate. He was not only God’s servant whom he had
chosen, but he came to minister to men, and was among them as one who serveth in a mean and
servile state. One would think that the Lord Jesus, if he would be a man, should have been a
prince, and appeared in splendour. But quite the contrary: He took upon him the form of a
servant. He was brought up meanly, probably working with his supposed father at his trade. His
whole life was a life of humiliation, meanness, poverty, and disgrace; he had nowhere to lay his
head, lived upon alms, was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, did not appear with
external pomp, or any marks of distinction from other men. This was the humiliation of his life. But
the lowest step of his humiliation was his dying the death of the cross. He became obedient to
death, even the death of the cross. He not only suffered, but was actually and voluntarily
obedient; he obeyed the law which he brought himself under as Mediator, and by which he was
obliged to die. I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again: this
commandment have I received of my Father, Jn. 10:18. And he was made under the law, Gal.
4:4. There is an emphasis laid upon the manner of his dying, which had in it all the circumstances
possible which are humbling: Even the death of the cross, a cursed, painful, and shameful
death,—a death accursed by the law (Cursed is he that hangeth on a tree) —full of pain, the body
nailed through the nervous parts (the hands and feet) and hanging with all its weight upon the
cross,—and the death of a malefactor and a slave, not of a free-man,—exposed as a public
spectacle. Such was the condescension of the blessed Jesus. (2.) His exaltation: Wherefore God
also hath highly exalted him. His exaltation was the reward of his humiliation. Because he
humbled himself, God exalted him; and he highly exalted him, hyperypsose, raised him to an
exceeding height. He exalted his whole person, the human nature as well as the divine; for he is
spoken of as being in the form of God as well as in the fashion of man. As it respects the divine
nature, it could only be the recognizing of his rights, or the display and appearance of the glory he
had with the Father before the world was (Jn. 17:5), not any new acquisition of glory; and so the
Father himself is said to be exalted. But the proper exaltation was of his human nature, which
alone seems to be capable of it, though in conjunction with the divine. His exaltation here is made
to consist in honour and power. In honour; so he had a name above every name, a title of dignity
above all the creatures, men and angels. And in power: Every knee must bow to him. The whole
creation must be in subjection to him: things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the
earth, the inhabitants of heaven and earth, the living and the dead. At the name of Jesus; not at
the sound of the word, but the authority of Jesus; all should pay a solemn homage. And that
every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord —every nation and language should
publicly own the universal empire of the exalted Redeemer, and that all power in heaven and
earth is given to him, Mt. 28:18. Observe the vast extent of the kingdom of Christ; it reaches to
heaven and earth, and to all the creatures in each, to angels as well as men, and to the dead as
well as the living.— To the glory of God the Father. Observe, It is to the glory of God the Father to
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; for it is his will that all men should honour the Son as they
honour the Father, Jn. 5:23. Whatever respect is paid to Christ redounds to the honour of the
Father. He who receiveth me receiveth him who sent me, Mt. 10:40.
[Henry, Matthew. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole
Bible". 1706.]
Bible Scholar, Barton W. Johnson, stated:
5-8. Let this mind be in you. He points to Christ as the example of humility and consecration to the good
of others. 6. Who, being in the form of God. He refers to the state of our Savior before he took human
form. His form was divine. "He had a glory with the father before the world was." See John 1:1; 2 Cor. 4:4;
Heb. 1:3, etc. Thought it not robbery to be equal with God. The Revision says, "Counted it not a prize."
The meaning is not entirely clear, but probably is that "Having a form of glory like God, he did not count it
a prize which must be clung to tenaciously, especially when he appeared upon the earth, that he should be
equal with God, that is, appear in a divine form, but was willing to lay aside his glory and make himself a
servant." 7. Emptied himself. Of the divine form and glory, and took the form of a servant, of our own
race, a race whose duty it is to serve God. The divine glory was exchanged for human lowliness. 8. He
humbled himself. Note the infinite condescension: (1) The form of God and sharing the divine glory. (2)
He divests himself of this. (3) Nor does he then take the divine form, or even the form of an angel, but of
lowly, sinful man. (4) But this is not all. He not only takes the form of man, but the mortality of the flesh,
and dies. (5) Nay, more; he dies the most shameful and painful of all deaths, even the death of the cross.
9-11. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him. His wonderful humility had been shown, but it is the
law of the universe that he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. Therefore God lifted him up from the
grave to the heavens, gave all power into his hands (Matt. 28:1, and gave him a name above every
name. The idea is an authority, a position, above that of all intelligences. This exaltation made the humble
name, Jesus, a name above every name. 10. That at the name of Jesus. That name, by the exaltation, has
become the name of the King of kings. It is supreme. Hence, every knee in all the universe bows to its
majesty. Under the earth. In the under-world, hades, the abode of the dead. 11. And that every tongue
should confess. All the universe is called to confess him as Lord, and thus glorify God. All will yet confess
him, either in joy or shame. [Johnson, Barton W. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "People's New
Testament". 1891.]
SALIENT HEIGHLIGHTS – PHILIPPIANS 2:1-4:
“Now if your experience of Christ's encouragement and love means anything to you, if
you have known something of the fellowship of his Spirit, and all that it means in
kindness and deep sympathy, do make my best hope for you come true! Live together in
harmony, live together in love, as though you had only one mind and one spirit between
you. Never act from motives of rivalry or personal vanity, but in humility think more of
each other then you do of yourselves. None of you should think only of his own affairs,
but should learn to see things from other people's point of view.” .” (Philippians 2:1-4 J
B PHILLIPS Translation of the NEW TESTAMENT).
This group of scriptures drives home the point that God’s way is love. It clearly
emphasis Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) encouragement to love, “love means anything
to you, if you have known something of the fellowship of his Spirit, and all that it means
in kindness and deep sympathy, do make my best hope for you come true!”
It shows we should, “! Live together in harmony, live together in love, as though you had
only one mind and one spirit between you. Never act from motives of rivalry or personal
vanity, but in humility think more of each other then you do of yourselves. None of you
should think only of his own affairs, but should learn to see things from other people's
point of view.”
This same point of love distinguishes true Christianity as being all about love, 1 st. love
for the Creator, Jehovah God, and second love for one's fellow man. You can not love
God whom you can not see if you do not at first love your fellow man whom you can see.
When Jesus Christ was asked what is the greatest commandment, he answered, “Master,
which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is
the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
(Matthew 22:36-40 AV). The Holy Bible plainly shows we should not judge our
neighbors, but love them. This does not mean loving their sin. Matthew 7:1-2, states,
"Stop judging that you may not be judged; for with what judgment you are judging, you
will be judged," and Romans 14:4, 10-13, "Who are you to judge the house servant of
another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God
can make him stand. But why do you judge your brother? For we shall all stand before
the judgment seat of God... Therefore let us not be judging one another any longer," this
plainly shows no true Christian should be executing judgment on anyone with respect sin.
In fact this would be a usurping of God's exclusive right, i.e., blaspheme, Matthew 25:31-
32 states, "When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he
will sit down on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and
he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the
goats." Second, we should be loving our neighbors and attempting to get them to turn
away from sin, not judging, hurting, or killing them in violation of God's law.
COMMENTS BY OTHER BIBLE SCHOLARS ON PHILIPPIANS 2:1-4:
Bible Scholar, Theodore Beza, stated:
2:1 If 1 [there be] therefore any consolation in a Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of
the Spirit, if any b bowels and mercies,
(1) A most earnest request to remove all those things, by which that great and special
consent and agreement is commonly broken, that is, contention and pride, by which it
comes to pass that they separate themselves from one another.
(a) Any Christian comfort.
(b) If any seeking of inward love.
2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the c same love, [being] of one accord, of one
mind.
(c) Equal love. [Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible". 1600-
1645.]
Bible Scholar, Barton W. Johnson, stated:
1-4. If there be therefore any consolation, etc. The apostle does not doubt that there is consolation,
comfort, spiritual fellowship, etc., in Christ, but bases an exhortation on what the Philippians knew to be
the case. Bowels and mercies. "Tender mercies and compassion," as in the Revision. 2. Fulfil ye my joy.
Make my joy full. They had already given him much joy (4:1-10), but he desired one thing more; viz., that
they be like-minded, in full agreement, perfect harmony. Having the same love. Loving one another with
pure hearts fervently. Being of one accord. Of one heart and soul. No outward strife. 3. Nothing through
strife or vain glory. No party spirit or striving for human praise. Let each esteem, etc. Instead of exalting
himself, each is to exalt others in his esteem. He that is willing to serve is greatest. 4. Look not every man
on his own things. Do not look out for your own interests alone, but for the interests of others rather than
your own. [Johnson, Barton W. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "People's New Testament". 1891.]
SALIENT HEIGHLIGHTS – PHILIPPIANS 2:11-16:
“So then, my dearest friends, as you have always followed my advice - and that not only
when I was present to give it - so now that I am far away be keener than ever to work out
the salvation that God has given you with a proper sense of awe and responsibility. For it
is God who is at work within you, giving you the will and the power to achieve his
purpose. Do all you have to do without grumbling or arguing, so that you may be God's
children, blameless, sincere and wholesome, living in a warped and diseased world, and
shining there like lights in a dark place. For you hold in your hands the very word of life.
Thus can you give me something to be proud of in the day of Christ, for I shall know then
that I did not spend my energy in vain. “.” (Philippians 2:1-4 J B PHILLIPS Translation
of the NEW TESTAMENT).
Here the Apostle Paul is showing we must work out our salvation with God (YHWH).
He states, “For it is God who is at work within you, giving you the will and the power to
achieve his purpose.” How so, well through his active force which is commonly known
as the Holy Spirit.
He gives us admonition to, “Do all you have to do without grumbling or arguing, so that
you may be God's children, blameless, sincere and wholesome, living in a warped and
diseased world, and shining there like lights in a dark place. For you hold in your hands
the very word of life.” We should not be grumbling or arguing with each other, but
should bear in mind that we are living in a warped and diseased world that will shortly be
replaced by a righteous world that we pray for, “5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not
be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the
corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have
their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast
shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret
shall reward thee openly. 7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen
do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8 Be not ye therefore
like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy
name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew
6:5-10 AV).
This will clearly come about shortly when Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) starts to fulfill his assignment
by his Father is given the ‘go ahead’ to answer our pray, “10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done
in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10 AV). This day, will be, “Thus can you give me
something to be proud of in the day of Christ, for I shall know then that I did not spend
my energy in vain. “ To reiterate, Almighty God’s (JYWH’s) command or assignment to
his Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves), “22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits;
afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall
have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all
rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under
his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all
things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that
he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be
subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things
under him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:10-28 AV).
COMMENTS BY OTHER BIBLE SCHOLARS ON PHILIPPIANS 2:12-16:
Bible Scholar, Theodore Beza, stated:
12, 13. Wherefore, my beloved. From the contemplation of Christ's glory, the apostle turns to the lessons
needed by the Philippian church. Work out your own salvation. While Christ is our Savior, and the author
of our salvation, we must accept him and work together with him. Hence the Holy Spirit says, "Save
yourselves" (Acts 2:40), and "work out your own salvation." Unless we do our part Christ cannot save us.
With fear and trembling. With constant anxiety not to fail. 13. For it is God which worketh in you. God
works in the converted person by his word and Spirit. His Spirit is a helper. It does not destroy our free
will, for we may resist it (1 Thess. 5:19). Both to will and to work. God shows his will by his word and
spirit and work in us. We ought to heed it. We can work in harmony with the divine will, or we may reject
to our damnation. His good pleasure. As seemeth best to him.
14-18. Do all things without murmurings. Without complaining. Some persons pass their lives
complaining. 15. The sons of God. Those of so high estate ought to be harmless, blameless, and in the
midst of a crooked and perverse generation, a wicked world, they should shine as lights by their pure
and holy lives. 16. Holding forth the word of life. Always preaching Christ in word, in life, and in deed.
That was their work. Unless they did this they were a failure. That I may rejoice. Unless they had done so
he would be made to feel, in the day of Christ, the day of accounts, that his labor at Philippi was in vain.
[Johnson, Barton W. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "People's New Testament". 1891.]
Bible Scholar, Matthew Henry, said:
He exhorts them to diligence and seriousness in the Christian course: Work out your own salvation. It is the
salvation of our souls (1 Pt. 1:9), and our eternal salvation (Heb. 5:9), and contains deliverance from all the
evils sin had brought upon us and exposed us to, and the possession of all good and whatsoever is
necessary to our complete and final happiness. Observe, It concerns us above all things to secure the
welfare of our souls: whatever becomes of other things, let us take care of our best interests. It is our own
salvation, the salvation of our own souls. It is not for us to judge other people; we have enough to do to
look to ourselves; and, though we must promote the common salvation (Jude 3) as much as we can, yet we
must upon no account neglect our own. We are required to work out our salvation, katergazesthe. The word
signifies working thoroughly at a thing, and taking true pains. Observe, We must be diligent in the use of
all the means which conduce to our salvation. We must not only work at our salvation, by doing something
now and then about it; but we must work out our salvation, by doing all that is to be done, and persevering
therein to the end. Salvation is the great thing we should mind, and set our hearts upon; and we cannot
attain salvation without the utmost care and diligence. He adds, With fear and trembling, that is, with great
care and circumspection: "Trembling for fear lest you miscarry and come short. Be careful to do every
thing in religion in the best manner, and fear lest under all your advantages you should so much as seem to
come short,’’ Heb. 4:1. Fear is a great guard and preservative from evil. II. He urges this from the
consideration of their readiness always to obey the gospel: "As you have always obeyed, not as in my
presence only, but now much more in my absence, v. 12. You have been always willing to comply with
every discovery of the will of God; and that in my absence as well as presence. You make it to appear that
regard to Christ, and care of your souls, sway more with you than any mode of showing respect
whatsoever.’’ They were not merely awed by the apostle’s presence, but did it even much more in his
absence. "And because it is God who worketh in you, do you work out your salvation. Work, for he
worketh.’’ It should encourage us to do our utmost, because our labour shall not be in vain. God is ready to
concur with his grace, and assist our faithful endeavours. Observe, Though we must use our utmost
endeavours in working out our salvation, yet still we must go forth, and go on, in a dependence upon the
grace of God. His grace works in us in a way suitable to our natures, and in concurrence with our
endeavours; and the operations of God’s grace in us are so far from excusing, that they are intended to
quicken and engage our endeavours. "And work out our salvation with fear and trembling, for he worketh
in you.’’ All our working depends upon his working in us. "Do not trifle with God by neglects and delays,
lest you provoke him to withdraw his help, and all your endeavours prove in vain. Work with fear, for he
works of his good pleasure.’’—To will and to do: he gives the whole ability. It is the grace of God which
inclines the will to that which is good: and then enables us to perform it, and to act according to our
principles. Thou hast wrought all our works in us, Isa. 26:12. Of his good pleasure. As there is no strength
in us, so there is no merit in us. As we cannot act without God’s grace, so we cannot claim it, nor pretend to
deserve it. God’s good will to us is the cause of his good work in us; and he is under no engagements to his
creatures, but those of his gracious promise. [Henry, Matthew. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "Matthew
Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible". 1706.]
Bible Scholar, Barton W. Johnson, stated:
12-13 Wherefore, my beloved. From the contemplation of Christ's glory, the apostle turns to the lessons
needed by the Philippian church. Work out your own salvation. While Christ is our Savior, and the author
of our salvation, we must accept him and work together with him. Hence the Holy Spirit says, "Save
yourselves" (Acts 2:40), and "work out your own salvation." Unless we do our part Christ cannot save us.
With fear and trembling. With constant anxiety not to fail. 13. For it is God which worketh in you. God
works in the converted person by his word and Spirit. His Spirit is a helper. It does not destroy our free
will, for we may resist it (1 Thess. 5:19). Both to will and to work. God shows his will by his word and
spirit and work in us. We ought to heed it. We can work in harmony with the divine will, or we may reject
to our damnation. His good pleasure. As seemeth best to him.
14-16. Do all things without murmurings. Without complaining. Some persons pass their lives
complaining. 15. The sons of God. Those of so high estate ought to be harmless, blameless, and in the
midst of a crooked and perverse generation, a wicked world, they should shine as lights by their pure
and holy lives. 16. Holding forth the word of life. Always preaching Christ in word, in life, and in deed.
That was their work. Unless they did this they were a failure. That I may rejoice. Unless they had done so
he would be made to feel, in the day of Christ, the day of accounts, that his labor at Philippi was in vain.
[Johnson, Barton W. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "People's New Testament". 1891.]
CONCLUSION:
It can clearly be seen that while Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is a God, he is a lessor
God than his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) and is subordinate to his and not equal to or
before him. Therefore Christianity is a monotheistic religion. This is in keeping with the
First of the Ten Commandments, “ And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto
Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to
them.” (Exodus 6:3 AV) and “ That men may know that thou, whose name alone is
JEHOVAH [Yehovah probably is more in keeping with YHWH], art the most high over all
the earth.” (Psalms 83:18 AV), and his Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) said, “ And
he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy
name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.” (Luke 11:2 AV).
Note, he, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) wanted his followers to recognize that his
Father’s (YHWH’s) name should be “hallowed” and not his own name, clearly showing
he was obedient to his Father, a superior one.
As stated earlier, “Of course, since Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH) is Almighty God (YHWH) only begotten
Son, he is also a God, but a lessor one; therefore, The First Commandment of the Ten Commandments, “
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:3 AV), is not violated since he is neither equal to or
before his Father.” The Bible makes his position as, “ The beginning of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God;” (Mark 1:1 AV). He is the ONLY mediator between God (YHWH)
and mankind as shown by, “ For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus;” (1 Timothy 2:5 AV).
This is a most interesting scripture as it clearly shows Almighty God’s (YHWH’s) superior
position and that the Father (YHWH) and his Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) are
two distinct spirit beings with the Son being the subordinate.
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!
Contrary to what some Trinitarian publications cite, there are many scholars who recognize Colwell's rule does not have much bearing on John 1:1.
I'll quote a few:
http://members.aol.com/dixonps/Colwells_Rule_Denied.html
This is the conclusion of my Th.M. thesis, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John" (Dallas Seminary, 1975). It was cited favorably several times in Wallace's recent grammar, "Beyond the Basics".
Paul S. Dixon, dixonps@juno.com
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
The use of the anarthrous predicate nominative in John is significant. It is qualitative in 65 out of 74 occurrences, or 88% probability. When the anarthrous predicate nominative precedes the verb it is qualitatative in 50 of 53 occurrences, or 94% probability. When it follows the verb the anarthrous predicate nominative is qualitative 13 of 19 occurrences, or 68%.
The implications of this are equally significant. No longer should Colwell's rule mislead us into thinking that an anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb is just as definite as the articular predicate nominative following the verb and that "there need be no doctrinal significance in the dropping of the article, for it is simply a matter of word-order."(1) Our conclusions show that when John wished to express a definite predicate nominative, he usually wrote it after the verb with the article, 66 of 77 occurrences or 86% probability. When he wished to express a qualitative predicate nominative with the verb, he usually wrote it before the verb without the article, 50 of 63 occurrences or 80% probability.
Finally, we may conclude three things about John 1:1. First, Colwell's rule cannot be applied to the verse as an argument for definiteness. Colwell's rule says that definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are anarthrous. The rule says nothing about definiteness. It does not say that anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually are definite. This is the converse of the rule, and as such is not necessarily valid. Indeed, our thesis demonstrates just the opposite, that anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb usually are qualitative, 94% of occurrences. Second, on the basis of the contrast with 1:14 (where the humanity of Christ is stressed), we conclude that QEOS in 1:1c stresses quality. Third, this thesis demonstrates that the statistical probability of QEOS being qualitative, rather than definite or indefinite, is quite high, 94%.
(1) E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):13.
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm
by
William Arnold III
A Greek scholar named E. C. Colwell discovered a rule which applied to certain uses of the Greek article (in English this is the word "the"). His rule stated that "definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article."1 The word theos (God) in John 1:1c is a predicate noun and it is anarthrous (it lacks the article). The question I would like to address is: "How does this rule apply to John 1:1 and how does this relate to a Oneness perspective of this passage?"
In the past, Trinitarians have argued that Colwell's rule proves that the anarthrous theos in John 1:1c (the Word was God) must be taken as definite. They have done so to combat Arianism and modern day Jehovah's Witnesses. The New World Translation, the official Bible of Jehovah's Witnesses, translates John 1:1c as "the Word was a god." So we can see why Trinitarian scholars would object to such a translation and instead argue for a definite theos, thus proving the deity of Christ in this passage. However, as Daniel Wallace has pointed out, simply appealing to Colwell's rule alone does not prove that theos must be taken as definite.2 His rule would only say that if theos is definite then it would probably lack the article (and it does). But the reverse is not necessarily true. Simply lacking the article in this construction does not make the noun definite.
Wallace goes on to argue that theos should not be taken as definite but instead as qualitative, thus emphasizing "the nature of the Word, rather than his identity." The glosses which he suggests bring out this idea are, "What God was, the Word was" (NEB), or "the Word was divine" (a modified Moffatt translation).3 He also states that a definite theos in this passage would imply Sabellianism or Modalism (making Jesus to be God the Father, i.e., a Oneness perspective). In a footnote he quotes several other Greek scholars which concur, some even more emphatically (Westcott, A. T. Robertson, Lange, Chemnitz, Alford and even Martin Luther).4
My question to all of these grammarians is this: "Why does a definite theos have to refer to God the Father, since all three persons are co-equal in Trinitarian theology?" The Holy Spirit is identified as "God" with the article present in Acts 5:3-4. Jesus is identified as "God" with the article present in John 20:28, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Wallace acknowledges these passages, but states that (in John 20:2 "there is nothing in that context that would identify [Jesus] with the Father."5 But if God is a Trinity, I see nothing in John 1:1b ("the Word was with God") that would require that this occurrence of theos be identified as God the Father either.6 It simply says that "the Word was with God (article present)." Why could this not be referring to God the Holy Spirit? Surely if God is an eternal Trinity then Jesus would have been with him (God the Holy Spirit) in the beginning as well.
The point we should note here is that when a Trinitarian reads the word "God," he (rightly) assumes that it refers to God the Father, unless there is reason to believe otherwise. Somehow, the Father is more 'God' than the other two people. So if a definite theos in this passage would make Jesus God the Father (as Wallace and the other grammarians above have stated) then I see no reason why a definite theos applied to Jesus anywhere else in the New Testament would not also make Jesus God the Father! (such as in the passages noted above).
So what other options were open to John? He could have easily left theos anarthrous and still put it after the verb, thus retaining the qualitative sense that Wallace argues for. So it was not necessary to place it before the verb merely for that reason. The fact that he chose to put it before the verb and to the beginning of the phrase would seem to indicate emphasis (The Word was God!). As mentioned before, Colwell's rule states that "definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article."7 So if John intended a definite theos and wanted to emphasize the word "God," then he would have said it exactly how he did! Now, I am in agreement with Wallace, that Colwell's rule does not prove a definite theos, but it most definitely supports it. Even he admits that a definite theos is "certainly possible grammatically."8
Furthermore, you could only derive a Trinitarian interpretation from John 1:1 if you come to this passage with an already developed Trinitarian theology. If you approached it with a strict Monotheism (which is what I believe John held to) then this passage would definitely support such a view. If John had wanted to emphasize the word theos then he would have moved it to the beginning of the phrase before the verb and thus, (according to Colwell's rule) it would be anarthrous (as it is).
Footnotes
1. E. C. Colwell, A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament, p. 20, quoted in Wallace, GGBB, 257.
2. Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 269.
3. Wallace, 269. He does not however suggest that these glosses should actually be used in a translation since they can be misleading.
4. Wallace, 268.
5. Wallace, 268.
6. Which is how a Trinitarian reads this passage - ". . . the Word was WITH God the Father, and the Word WAS God the Son" (emphasis added).
7. Colwell, A Definite Rule, quoted in Wallace, GGBB, 257.
8. Wallace, 268. He still argues against it for reasons of frequency and theology, p. 269.
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/greek/bayes.html
A Bayesian Analysis of John 1:1
Abstract
Colwell's rule and other statistical arguments are occasionally used in analyzing Jn1:1, whether the QeoV of the last clause should be rendered definitely ("and the Word was God") or qualitatively ("and the Word was divine.") Colwell's rule is framed in terms of conditional probability (that is, when we are given additional information about an event) and many of the statistics are also conditional probabilities. Therefore, one of the most important theorems about conditional probability, Bayes Theorem, ought to be relevant.
Although the placement of QeoV before the verb, without the article, is evidence for a qualitative meaning, it is very weak evidence for it, due to the fact the QeoV is overwhelmingly definite in John. This is not the kind of question that can be decided by the use of statistics. Rather, good old-fashioned exegesis is called for.
A Bayesian Analysis to John 1:1
Consider a fair coin flipped twice. Now the probability that it came up heads twice (HH) is 25%. If you were told that (at least) one of the flips came up heads, what is the probability that both are heads? In the mid-18th century, the Rev. Thomas Bayes was investigating this kind of problem, and he figured out, in a theorem that now bears his name, that we must look at the relative probabilities of the events involved when new information is received. In this case, there is only one chance that the coins are HH, but two chances, HT and TH, that there are not two heads, given that one of them is heads. Therefore, the odds are 1:2, or a probability of 33%. (If the information is that the *first* coin was heads, the odds change to 1 {HH} : 1 {HT}, or 50%.)
Here we see how new information affects our understanding of the probabilities. Before we're told anything about the flipped coins, the prior probability for two heads was 25%. When we're told that one of them is heads, that information changes the prior probability to a posterior probability of 33%. Similarly, when we're told that the first one is heads, that information changes the priority to a posterior probability of 50%. Evidence is information, which if accepted, causes us to consider a conclusion to be more likely than before or less likely than before. Irrelevant information, which does not make the conclusion either more or less likely, is not evidence. Since the information that one of the coins is heads increases the probability that both are heads, it constitutes evidence for that proposition. The strength of the evidence is determined by looking at how much the probability changes. In this case, knowing that one of the coin flips was head is good, but not strong, evidence that both were heads.
Bayesian analysis is most practically used today in the context of medical screening for diseases. Consider a disease, D, that affects one person in a thousand [i.e, P(D) = 0.001]. There is a screening test that 90% of the time gives a positive result, P, only when the person actually has the disease [P(P|D) = .9], but will also give a false positive result in 2% of the cases when the person does not have the disease [P(P|D') = .02]. What is the probability that a person who tests positive for the disease will actually have it?
According to Bayesian analysis, we have to consider at the relative probabilities. Testing positive will happen for two reasons: (1) one had the disease and the test worked, with probability: P(D)P(P|D) = .001 * .9 = 0.0009; and (2) not having the disease and getting a false positive, with probability P(D')P(P|D') = .999 * .02 = 0.01998. Therefore the odds of actually having the disease with a positive test result are 0.0009 to 0.01998, or only 4.3%. The answer may appear counter-intuitive, but the reason the number worked out the way it did is that the disease is so rare that most of the positive results are false positives, even at the 2% rate. Because it produces answers that are counter-intuitive, Bayes theorem can be a powerful tool in analyzing probabilities.
Now, consider Jn1:1c: kai QeoV hn o logoV. What is the probability that QeoV is definite (D), given that is is anarthrous and precedes the verb (AP)? This is ripe for an application of Bayes Theorem. We would need to calculate the odds P(D)P(AP|D) : P(D')P(AP|D'), where P(D) is the (prior) probability that QeoV is definite in John, P(AP|D) is the probability that a definite predicate nominative is anarthrous and precedes the verb, and P(AP|D') is the probability that a qualitative predicate nominative precedes the verb.
I must thank Dr. Paul Dixon for sharing with the B-GREEK mailing back in May, some of the results of his thesis on the abuse of Colwell's rule. He said,
"Our conclusions show that when John wished to express a definite predicate nominative, he usually wrote it after the verb with the article, 66 of 77 occurrences or 86% probability. When he wished to express a qualitative predicate nominative, he usually wrote it before the verb without the article, 50 of 63 occurrences or 80% probability."
Therefore, P(AP|D') is 80%. Applying Colwell's rule, we'll assume that all of the remaining 14% of the cases in which John does not write a definite predicate nominative after the verb with the article, he writes it before the verb without it. (My numbers do not have to be very precise to support my general conclusions, there is quite a bit of tolerance in the exact values.) So, the odds that QEOS is definite in Jn1:1 is P(D) * 14% : P(D') * 80%, where P(D) is the prior probability that QeoV is definite.
What is that prior probability? John uses QEOS, in its various forms, about 80 times, none of which (excluding Jn1:1c) is clearly qualitative. Therefore, I may be justified in assuming a 1/80 that QeoV is qualitative, or 98.75% prior probability that QeoV is definite. The odds then become: 98.75 * 14 : 1.25 * 80, or about 93% probability. Therefore, although the fact that QeoV is anarthrous and precedes the verb is evidence against it being definite, it is not very strong evidence, because it is still 93% probable (down from 98.75%) that it is definite. The fact that QeoV is so overwhelmingly definite in John means that the normal indicator of a qualitative meaning is not very probative. In fact, if the prior probability of it being qualitative improved to 1/8 (ten times more likely), QeoV would still more likely than not statistically be definite in this position.
Conclusions
The syntax of Jn1:1c is evidence in favor of QeoV being qualitative, but its strength is very weak because the noun is overwhelmingly definite.
What is more important, however, is evaluating the prior probability of QeoV being qualitative before looking at the syntax. This article assumed that it can be determined simply by counting the occurrences. This may not be the best approach. The context itself may suggest different populations (rather than the singular QeoV in John) for the prior probability.
Due to the importance of the prior probability in how it affects the Bayesian analysis and due to the strength of this kind of evidence, statistics alone don't help much. We still have to examine the context very carefully to determine its meaning. There is contextual evidence for either position. Jn1:1c may be in contrast with v14 which calls for the qualitative meaning, but the climactic structure of v1 and its juxtaposition of Qeon with kai QeoVargues the other way.
Colwell's rule is not directly applicable to this situation, but it helped to determine one of the relevant probabilities in the Bayesian analysis.
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!
The History of Arius and His Fellow Believers in Scripture Alone to the 16th Century.
Ins and outs of religious false dogma starting with the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
This council may seem a strange place to start discussing how false doctrine started to enter the early Christian church that had drifted from following the teachings of Jesus Christ into backsliding. However, the Council of Nicea marked a real turning point that led from a slight drift from the true teachings of Christ to precipitous jump into false dogma for political reasons. First we need to look at the major players at this council:
Emperor Constantine, a pagan who wanted a fusion of Christian beliefs with pagan beliefs to solidify his empire that was being torn apart over the controversy of religion. He called, even though not a Christian, for the convening of this council.
Bishop Athanasius, a prominent figure in the so called Christian church at the time and a very suave politician who knew what the emperor’s goals were and aimed to fulfill them.
Bishop Arius , a stickler for not deviating from the inspired word of God, the Bible, maintained that ‘the Son of God was a creature, made from nothing; that there was a time when he had no existence; that he was capable of his own free will of right and wrong,’ and that, ‘were he in the truest sense a son, he must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when he was not, and hence he was a finite being.’
Eusebius Pamphili-Compromising Bishop of Caesarea -Compromising Bishop of Caesarea who supported the ideas of Arius, but switched sides since he was also the ‘right hand man’ of the Emperor Constantine and knew maintaining principles and what he knew to be truth would not be in his personal best interest.
The Council of Nicea was convened at the order of the Pagan Emperor Constantine and only one sixth of the bishops of Christendom came. Emperor Constantine, who presided over the Council, and he made the opening oration on behalf of the 318 bishops assembled and in praise of the emperor who had convened the assembly. Many doctrines were discussed and Arius, a stickler for maintaining Christian purity, opposed the adoption of most doctrines put forth on the basis they were not in accord to the written inspired word of God (Yahweh (JHVH)). This tried the patience of Constantine because all he wanted was unity in his empire; therefore, he sought a fusion of pagan and Christian beliefs so there would be uniformity. He, Constantine, cared nothing with regard to Christian purity and the inspired word of God, the Bible. On one proposed doctrine, the trinity, the concept of three Gods in one, co-equal, co-substantial, co-eternal much debate arose as Arius hotly contended it was clearly against the inspired word of God, (Yahweh (JHVH)), and the debate continued on for months. At first, Eusebius Pamphilj, Bishop of Caesarea took Arius’s side, but quickly switched when his mentor/boss Emperor Constantine obviously told him to. Even after months of debate, they could not agree as to whether Arius or Athanasius had the truth. Finally, the yet unbaptized pagan Emperor Constantine, decreed in favor of the trinity and declared illegal all religious opinions that were not in line with that dogma.
Bishop Arius, however, would not let the matter die as he believed in true worship and felt as the Apostles “ 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 AV). Arius’s insistence on truth won him the animosity of the Emperor and for this Arius and two other Bsihops that would not compromise were banished. Later many sought to catch Arius and put him to death, but he successfully escaped all of his persecutors and went and preached to nations not under the control of Rome.
However, the controversy did not end. While the birth of the Catholic Church may be pinpointed at A.D. 325, when Constantine decided the debate on the trinity held at Nicea in favor of Athanasius and against Arius, it was not until after the year A.D. 440 that the bishop of the Roman see, Leo I, became in fact the first pope, according to history but not the Catholic church. After he became Pope, Leo I, set out, not on a Christian path as a footstep follower of Jesus Christ (Jehoshua), but on a presumptuous path. Beacon Lights of History, Vol. III, Page 244 states, “I will revive government once more upon this earth; not by bringing back the Caesars, but by declaring a new theocracy, by making myself the vicegerent of Christ, by virtue of the promise made to Peter, whose successor I am, in order to restore law, punish crime, head off heresy, encourage genius, conserve peace, heal dissensions, protect learning; appealing to love, but ruling by fear. Who but the Church can do this? A theocracy will create a new civilization. Not a diadem, but a tiara will I wear, a symbol of universal sovereignty, before which barbarism shall flee away.” In fact, he and some later Popes tried to gain control over many secular governments and with some success. This was directly against the teachings of the one whom they claimed they were vicegerents of as recorded at “ Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” (James 4:4 AV). This is not surprizing as in the Apostle Paul’s day there were ambitious men like Leo I and he said in a letter to the Corinthians, “ Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.” (1 Corinthians 4:8 AV)
Moving on in time, others took up the cry for pure worship and against the dogma that was only accepted because of an imperial degree. Francis David, superintendent of the Reform Church appeared before the Diet of Torda (1568 A.D.) as a supporter of the pure religion ideas of Arius, and on the other side was Peter Melius, leader of the Transylvanian Reformed Church. Francis David appealed to the Bible alone; whereas, Peter Melius appealed to the results of the Council of Nicea. This debate went on for some days an most considered Francis David had won it, and he was given a hero’s welcome in his home town of Kolozsvar (now Cluj-Napoca, Romania). Francis David then joined forces with Georgia Biandrata another who believed as Arius. The two of them produced a book, “De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti cognitione,” (The False and True Knowledge of the Unity of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). This book contained a historical examination of many learned men who refused to believe the Trinity.
However, Francis David and Georgia Biandrata were not the only people of the time wanting to maintain pure worship, there were others. The Spanish theologian Michael Servetus, was a learned scholar that maintained the Bible was the only and ultimate source of truth and the dogma of man was not acceptable to God. For this he and Westphal paid with their lives, both being roasted alive by counterfeit Christians who held for man’s dogma as having a higher authority than God’s word (both were supporters of pure worship as exposed by Arius and one was his very distant decendent). The motto of all of these men was ‘sola Scriptura’ (Scripture alone).
In Belgium, many were accepting the moto, ‘sola Scriptura’ (Scripture alone). Van Liesvelt a publisher wanted the common people to know the truth and accept only the scripture and not church dogma. In 1526 A.D. he printed a complete Dutch Bible with this view in mind. In his edition, of 1542 A.D., he put a woodcut picture of the Devil as a bearded monk with a rosary and goat’s feet next to Matthew 4:3, and a marginal note, “Salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone.” This infuriated the Catholic church and was used as the basis for getting Val Liesvelt condemned to death. Yet this is exactly what the Bible says as Arius had pointed out approximately a millennium earlier. Another individual that believed the moto, ‘sola Scriptura’ (Scripture alone), was an ordained priest William Tyndale. He wanted to let the common people have a chance to learn the truth directly from the word of God, the Bible. He set out to translate the Bible into English and by 1526 he was successful in publishing a new testament in English. However Catholic authorities under the direction of Bishop Tunstall were determined to prevent the common people from reading the Bible. Finally in May 1535 A.D. William Tyndale was arrested in Antwerp, Belgium. He was tied to a stake, strangled, and burned; however his ultimate words were, “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes!”
Actually, much of William Tyndale’s translation lives on in the King James Version (AV) and this because the eyes of King Henry VIII of England were ‘opened.”
Some of the sources (many sent to me as copies of pages or read in libraries in major cities) are:
1. A Short History of Christian Doctrine, by Bernhard Lohse [translated from the German by F. Ernest Stoeffler in 1963], 2 nc. Paperback printing 1980.
2. An Essay of the Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Cardinal Newman, 6 th. Ed. 2989
3. The International Standard Bible encyclopedia 1982
4. The Formation of Christian Dogma byMartin Warner 1957
5. Gods and the One God by Robert m. Grant 1986
6. The Church of the First Three Centuries by Dr. Alan Lamson 1869
7. “De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti cognitione,” (The False and True Knowledge of the Unity of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) by ). Francis David and Georgia Biandrata
8. Beacon Lights of History, Vol. III
9. The Search for The Christian Doctrine of God by R.P. C. Hanson
10. The Story of the Early Church by Dr. Martin Werner
11. Short Story of the Early Church by Dr. H. R. boer
12. The Apostolic Fathers by Robert A. Kraft 1965
13. The Library of Christian Classics edited by Cyril C. Richardson 1953
14. Dictionary of Christian Theology edited by Alan Richardson, 1969
15. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15 th. Ed. 1985
16. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson [American Reprint of the Edinburgh Edition] 1885
17. The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity by Edwin Hatch
18. Entschlues/Offen-April 1985 (German Jesuit Magazine)
19. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
20. Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus
21. The Two Babylons by Alexander Hilsop
22. New Catholic Encylopeadia
23. Should you Believe in the Trinity WB&TS
24. Masters Thesis, When Will This System of Things or World End, Taken in Relationship with Jesus’s Statement, no oneKnows the Hour or Day Except my Father Who Art in Heaven, Copyright #TXu 217 406, of Oct. 9, 1985 by my husband
25. Several unpublished theological papers by my husband and others.
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. With this pre-existent glory, which He veiled on earth, He asks to be reinvested, the design of the veiling being accomplished--not, however, simply as before, but now in our nature. (a) As can clearly be seen, Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) had been in heaven with his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) before he came down to earth to prove himself faithful under temptation, and here he was asking his Father (YHWH) for what he had had before in heaven. This clearly shows two individuals, one a superior being prayed to and a subordinate asking the superior for what he had had before in heaven. (b) ]>
