Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:44 pm

Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Foreword: Different styles are used throughout this book as I wrote the various chapters over a period of 16 years – Iris the Preacher

Introduction and Table of Contents

1 – Definition of What The Trinity Doctrine Is:

Before an in-depth discussion of why the Trinity is false doctrine, I consider it necessary to give a detailed explanation of this doctrine as I have uncovered the fact that 90% of the believers in the Trinity do NOT have a clear knowledge with regard to this doctrine. Now here is an explanation from a world renown religious encyclopedia:

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].

2 – Bible View With Respect The Trinity By Scripture:

+ Sent Ones Are Subordinate Ones

3 - History On The Trinity Doctrine With Regard To Entry Into So Called Christianity:

+ 1 – Details on Constantine

+ 2 – Details on the Council of Nicea

+ 3 – The Great Debate

4 – Paul and the Trinity

5 – Exposure of Errors in The Greatest Document Ever Written In Support Of The Trinity – The Westminster Confession the Greatest Twesting by Use of Hermeneutic Methodology to Back Up a Myth/False Doctrine:

6 – Three Scriptures That Utterly Destroy The False Doctrine Of The Trinity:

7 - Belief In The Trinity A Distinguishing Feature Between Apostate And Genuine Christians:

8 – Technical Items With Respect John 1:1

+ 1 - Special Translation Appendix on John 1:1:

+ 2 – On The Constructs Of John 1:1

+ 3 – More on The Constructs Used To Translate John 1:1

+ 4 - Colwell's Rule Does Not Really Support The Trinity

9 – Jesus (Yeshua) Christ Not His Father, Almighty God (YHWH):

Sub-Section On Scriptures Used In Error To Support The Trinity And Why They Do Not:

10 - Digital Book On The Bibles Use Of Alpha and Omega – An Explanation:

11 – 1 John 5:7, The Johanna Comma:

12 – Colossians 2:8 – 12, in Three Parts:

13 – Colossians 1:15:

14 – Isaiah 9:6:

15 – Jeremiah 23:5 -6:

16 – Philippians 2:1 -6:

17 – John 8:58:

18 – Titus 2:11 – 13:

19 – Historical Data On The Trinity By Renown Authors:

20 - the Great Deceit:






2 – Bible View With Respect The Trinity By Scripture:

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.

Sent Ones Are Subordinate Ones:

Jesus (Yeshua) identifies himself as the one "sent" by a superior, he did not come of his own accord per Jesus' (Yeshua's) own testimony at John 8:14-16, "Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. 15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. 16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me." And John 8:28-29, "Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.", and John 8:42, "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. " (Authorized King James Bible; AV). This superior is identified as "Father" and "God" per John 8:54, " 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: " (AV). Is not the sender
The superior of the one sent? Let's look at John 13:16 where Jesus' (Yeshua) testifies to, " 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." (AV); and 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).

Jesus (Yeshua)does nothing of his "own initiative" and he can only speak what he was "taught" by the Father as he testified to at John 8:28, "Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things" (AV).

Jesus (Yeshua) sought not his own glory, but God's and "keeps His word" as he testified to at John 8:49-54," 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:" (AV). Of course this could NOT be said of Almighty God (YHWH) , his Father clearly showing the following facts:

Jesus (Yeshua) Christ == The Son of God (YHWH).

Almighty God (YHWH) == The Father of Jesus (Yeshua).

So why do the Jews try to kill him? Probably for the same reason
that they stoned Stephen. Does this mean that Stephen was claiming
equality with God? Let us look at the context even more closely:
Jesus (Yeshua) says they will die at John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (AV).
Jesus (Yeshua) says they are killers at John 8:36-40, "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham." (AV).

Jesus (Yeshua) says their Father is not God at John 8:41, "Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. " (AV).

Jesus (Yeshua) says their Father is Satan at John 8:44, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode 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 of it." (AV).
Jesus (Yeshua) says he is above Abraham At John 8:53-58, "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." (AV).

Says A Rabbinic Anthology, "So great is the [merit] of Abraham that he can atone for all the vanities committed and lies uttered by Israel in this world." (London, 1938, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe, p. 676)

It was only after all this, and after FIVE "I AM's" at John 8:12 & 18 & 24 & 28 & 53, "12-Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.," And "18-I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.," & "24- I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.," and "28- Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.," and "58- Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. " (AV); that they tried to stone him as recorded at John 8:59, "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.," (AV). The Jews definitely did not understand the 'I AM' to mean that he was saying he was Almighty God (YHWH), they were upset at him for elevating himself above Abraham, and this is only heightened by the fact that he was hurling the above rebukes at them, simply put.


3 - History On The Trinity Doctrine With Regard To Entry Into So Called Christianity:

INTRODUCTION:

Mainstream religion or the religion that is considered 'orthodox' in any era has varied tremendously with time. What one era or time or nation or group of nations considers mainstream religion varies greatly both with time and geography. In the western world, the Catholic Church and the groups that split from it, the eastern or Orthodox church, and Protestant groups are generally viewed as mainstream religion; whereas, in the eastern world, depending on area, the Islam Religion or the Hindu Religion is considered mainstream. Now one could wonder if the mainstream groups have anything in common? Or they correct in belief?

BIBLE POINTS TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER:

In considering whether the mainstream groups of Christianity are correct in belief or in serious error, one needs to consider several scriptures in the new testament showing the Truth with respect what God (YHWH) has to say through inspired writers and then reflect back to how this would apply to mainstream Christianity to which most so called Christians belong. 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!

SATAN'S TRICK - FALSE DOCTRINE EVOLUTION:


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 (*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).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION OF DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:


The search for the origins of the Trinity begins with the earliest writings of man. Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show polytheistic religions, though many scholars assert that earliest man believed in one god. The 19th century scholar and Protestant minister, Alexander Hislop, devotes several chapters of his book The Two Babylons (*2) to showing how this original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Catholic Church dogmas. A more recent Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: '[Monotheism is] a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts,' which were written between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51); but there is no question that ancient man believed in 'one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all' (*2); and in a multitude of gods at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad. (*32).

As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions evoked by the Church's expansion. (*10)
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." (*10).

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" (*14).


As can readily be seen from the foregoing, even the concept of the Trinity came from the pagan world, and the Bible shows " 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." (*33) is trying to keep out the glorious gospel of Christ. Satan the Devil is slipping false dogma in its place. Do not be trapped by him, reject false dogma of the Trinity.

REFERENCES:

*1 - Saggs,H. W. F. "The Greatness that was Babylon: A Sketch of the Ancient Civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley." New York: New American Library. 1968.
*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.
*32 - Hagensick, Cher-El L, "The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine."
*33 - The Holy Bible (King James Bible), American Bible Society, NY (page 185, 2 Corinthians 4:4).

See Page 2

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:47 pm

Page 2

APPENDIX TO DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:


(1) it wasn't until the Council of Nicea that Babylonian paganism became the official doctrine of "modern" Christianity. [The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity, James Parkes, 196

(2) It is customary in Trinitarian language to speak of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These are assumed to be proper titles, and used extensively. Yet in the Scriptures only one of these appears, "God the Father," and that not as a title, but an expression denoting that God is the Father. "There is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things" (1 Corinthians 8:6). The term appears 11 times in the New Testament. By contrast, the terms "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" appear zero times.


(3) Will Durant, the popular Catholic historian of our day, wrote: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it ... pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist results. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity ... [Caesar and Christ, page 595) (Lamson, Newton & Durant cited from Charles Redeker, To Us there is One God, June 197 ]

(4) When Constantine succeeded in becoming sole emperor of Rome in A.D. 324, he publicly embraced Christianity. Politically, he saw Christianity as an effective tool of unifying his domain and therefore viewed the Arian controversy as a significant threat to his goal. To solve the problem, in 325 he convened the first ecumenical council of Christendom since Bible days, paying for the delegates to come to the town of Nicea, near the imperial residence. [The FORWARD magazine, January - March 1996, volume 28, No. 1]

(5) It was of great importance in Christian and even in world history," wrote historian W.H.C. Frend about the first Council of Nicea. In Christian history, the doctrine of Christ's divinity (a doctrine essential and unique to Christianity) was formally affirmed for the first time. In world history, never before had the entire church gathered to determine policy and doctrine (let alone at the bidding of the Roman emperor).The follow article, written by the late writer and biographer Robert Payne (d. 1983), is excerpted and adapted from his "The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957).

A - It was at the Council of Nicea, in 325 AD that the Roman Sun-day or day of the Sun was declared to be the Christian Sabbath along with the worship of the sun being the official state religion.

B - It was at the Council of Nicea, in 325 AD that the emblem of the Sun god, the cross of light, was adopted as the emblem of Christianity. ....

(6) Around the start of the 4th Century AD, The Roman Empire was governed by the Emperor Constantine. The Empire at this time was not in the best of health, being a morass of different cults and belief systems. The official state religion was the worship of Sol Invictus, the Sun God, and this was Constantine's own religion. However, the relatively new cult, as it then was, of Christianity was starting to enjoy a groundswell of support, and it did not require much thought to see that steps needed to be taken if Rome's tenuous grip on the Empire was to be strengthened. [British Broadcasting Corp., http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A307487]

(7) CONSTANT1NE was faced with a very difficult problem when he became Emperor of the Roman Empire in 313 A.D., for 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 [ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, page 366]

( "The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official. The subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . . Finally, cart-loads of saints raised to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, it was the most polytheistic religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This untenable contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt with by accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages." - {The Doubter's Companion (John Ralston Saul)}

(9)To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it." - [Yale University Professor E. Washburn Hopkins: Origin and Evolution of Religion.]

(10)As early as the 8th century, the Theologian St. John of Damascus frankly admitted what every modern critical scholar of the NT now realizes: that neither the Doctrine of the Trinity nor that of the 2 natures of Jesus Christ is explicitly set out in scripture. In fact, if you take the record as it is and avoid reading back into it the dogmatic definitions of a later age, you cannot find what is traditionally regarded as orthodox Christianity in the Bible at all." - [Tom Harpur states, For Christ's Sake. ]

(11) Historian Arthur Weigall: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord." - [Historian Arthur Weigall: The Paganism in Our Christianity ]

(12) Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' -- Deut. 6:4
. . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." -[The New Encyclopedia Britannica: " Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976) ]

(13) The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." [The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "- (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299. ]

(14) The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -[ The Encyclopedia Americana: " (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L. ]

(15) The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." -[ The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, " (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.]

(16) "The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature: which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as "essence" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God by some theologians." [Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, S.J. p. 899 ]

(17) "Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything." - [Robert A. Heinlein]

First, From http://www.convert.org/differ.htm GOD Judaism insists on a notion of monotheism, the idea that there is one God. As Judaism understands this idea, God cannot be made up of parts, even if those parts are mysteriously united. The Christian notion of Trinitarianism is that God is made up of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Such a view, even if called monotheistic because the three parts are, by divine mystery, only one God, is incompatible with the Jewish view that such a division is not possible. The Jewish revolutionary idea is that God is one. This idea allows for God's unity and uniqueness as a creative force. Thus, for Jews, God is the creator of all that we like and all that we don't. There is no evil force with an ability to create equal to God's. Judaism sees Christianity's Trinitarianism as a weakening of the idea of God's oneness. Jews don't have a set group of beliefs about the nature of God; therefore, there is considerable, and approved, debate within Judaism about God. However, all mainstream Jewish groups reject the idea of God's having three parts. Indeed, many Jews see an attempt to divide God as a partial throwback, or compromise with, the pagan conception of many gods.

Second, Why was the Trinity adopted and for what reason? To understand we need to look at the conditions of the Roman Empire in the early 4 th. Century. 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.

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).

(18) 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."

(19) World Book Encyclopedia, volume 19, page 363 "Trinity - is a term used of God to express the belief that in the one God there are three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). The idea of trinity is drawn from the teaching of Christ as recorded in the New Testament. Belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325. This council declared that the Spirit is of the same substance as the Father. The Eastern and Western branches of the church later disagreed as to how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the other divine Persons. The Eastern Church held that the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son comes from the Father through the Spirit. The Western Church held that the Spirit comes from the Father and Son together. Most Christians believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have equal power and glory. Each has His own activity. The Father creates; the Son saves souls; and the Spirit makes holy."

(20) From Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, 1972, volume 23, page 291 "Trinity - in Christian theology, doctrine, according to the Book of Common Prayer that in 'unity of the Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost'. The most elaborate statement of the doctrine is to be found in the Athanasian Creed, which asserts that 'the Catholic faith is this: That 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, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one; the glory equal; the majesty coeternal.' "The term Trinitas was first used, in the second century, by the Christian ecclesiastical writer Tertullian, but the concept took form only in the debates on Christology. It was not until the progress of opposing parties sought, on the one hand, to degrade the divine dignity of Christ (Ebionitism in its various forms and Arianism) or, on the other hand, to confound the personality of Christ with God the Father, that the Church was led to define in the Nicaean Creed the relation of the Son to the Father and further, in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the relation of the Holy Ghost to the Father."

(21) From 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'.

(22) "Thus, the concept of the Trinity did not take its present form until some 400 years after Christ's death." From Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, revised by Ivor H. Evans, page 1101.

(23) "The Trinity - the three Persons in one God - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. "And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater or less than another; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together; and co-equal. The Athanasian Creed "The term triad was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180) for this concept; the term Trinity was introduced by Tertullian about 217 in his treatise Adversus Praxean." From Hastings Bible Dictionary, volume 12, page 458

(24) From 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."

(25) "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 later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.
"Later believers systematized the diverse references to God, Jesus and the Spirit found in the New Testament in order to fight against heretical tendencies of how the three are related. Elaboration on the concept of a Trinity also serves to defend the church against charges of di- or tritheism. Since the Christians have come to worship Jesus as god (Pliny, Epistles 96.7), how can they claim to be continuing the monotheistic tradition of the God of Israel? Various answers are suggested, debated, and rejected as heretical, but the idea of a Trinity - one God subsisting in three persons and one substance - ultimately prevails.
"While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do.
"The earliest New Testament evidence for a tripartite formula comes in 2 Corinthians 13:14, where Paul wishes that 'the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit' be with the people of Corinth. It is possible that this three-part formula derives from later liturgical usage and was added to the text of 2 Corinthians as it was copied. In support of the authenticity of the passage, however, it must be said that the phrasing is much closer to Paul's understandings of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit than to a more fully developed concept of the Trinity. Jesus, referred to not as Son, but as Lord and Christ, is mentioned first and is connected with the central Pauline theme of grace. God is referred to as a source of love, not as father, and the Spirit promotes sharing within the community. The word 'holy' does not appear before 'spirit' in the earliest manuscript evidence for this passage." From The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M Metzger and Michael D Coogan, page 782.

(26)McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "proves only that there are the three subjects named, . . . but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor."

See Page 2

Page 2

(27) "Trinity - this word is not used in the Bible. It is the name given to the statements about God in the creeds drawn up in the early centuries of the church to explain what is meant by saying that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament as a whole. From earliest times it was stated at every Christian baptism.
"The Jewish teaching was that there is only one God. No one and nothing must compromise that belief. Yet the New Testament writers clearly show God as the Father who created and sustained everything in his love and power, as the Son who came into this world, and as the Spirit who worked in their own lives.
"After the end of the New Testament period the church found it necessary to work out carefully worded statements about three persons in one God, in order to uphold the truth of the New Testament against false beliefs." From The Lion Encyclopedia of the Bible, page 158.

(24) 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].

(25) Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: "It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'" The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We cannot find any passage where [har•pa'zo] or any of its derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'" From the foregoing it is apparent that the translators of versions such as the Douay and the King James are bending the rules to support Trinitarian ends. Far from saying that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal to God, the Greek of Philippians 2:6, when read objectively, shows just the opposite, that Jesus did not think it was appropriate. The context of the surrounding verses (3-5, 7, 8, Dy) makes it clear how verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: "In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves." Then Paul uses Christ as the outstanding example of this attitude: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." What "mind"? To 'think it not robbery to be equal with God'? No, that would be just the opposite of the point being made! Rather, Jesus, who 'esteemed God as better than himself,' would never 'grasp for equality with God,' but instead he "humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death." Surely, that cannot be talking about any part of Almighty God. It was talking about Jesus Christ, who perfectly illustrated Paul's point here-namely the importance of humility and obedience to one's Superior and Creator, Jehovah God.

+ 1 – Details on Constantine

Now let’s consider the facts with respect the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine:

[1]
325 AD
325 AD - The battle over the status of Jesus came to a head in 325 CE, when the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the official state religion of Rome. The status of Jesus therefore had to be settled. Emperor Constantine assembled Gentile ...
[source - retrieved from Timeline, http://www.google.com/search?q=emperor+constantine&hl=en&noj=1&prmd=ivn&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=RZ6TTIDSOIT6lwe_ia2nCg&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=18&ved=0CGUQ5wIwEQ on 9/14/2010]

[2] “…Constantine saw this victory as directly related to the vision he had had the night before.
Henceforth Constantine saw himself as an 'emperor of the Christian people'. If this made him a Christian is the subject of some debate. But Constantine, who only had himself baptized on his deathbed, is generally understood as the first Christian emperor of the Roman world.
With his victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, Constantine became the dominant figure in the empire. The senate warmly welcomed him to Rome and the two remaining emperors, Licinius and Maximinus II Daia could do little else but agree to his demand that he henceforth should be the senior Augustus. It was in this senior position that Constantine ordered Maximinus II Daia to cease his repression of the Christians.
Though despite this turn toward Christianity, Constantine remained for some years still very tolerant of the old pagan religions. Particularly the worship of the sun god was still closely related with him for some time to come. A fact which can be seen on the carvings of his triumphal Arch in Rome and on coins minted during his reign.


In AD 325 Constantine once again held a religious council, summoning the bishops of the east and west to Nicaea. At this council the branch of the Christian faith known as Arianism was condemned as a heresy and the only admissible Christian creed of the day (the Nicene Creed) was precisely defined.
Constantine's reign was that of a hard, utterly determined and ruthless man. Nowhere did this show more than when in AD 326, on suspicion of adultery or treason, he had his own eldest son Crispus executed.
One account of the events tells of Constantine's wife Fausta falling in love with Crispus, who was her stepson, and made an accusation of him committing adultery only once she had been rejected by him, or because she simply wanted Crispus out of the way, in order to let her sons acceed to the throne unhindered. Then again, Constantine had only a month ago passed a strict law against adultery and might have felt obliged to act. And so Crispus was executed at Pola in Istria.
Though after this execution Constantine's mother Helena convinced the emperor of Crispus' innocence and that Fausta's accusation had been false. Escaping the vengeance of her husband, Fausta killed herself at Treviri.” [source - retrieved from 'Constantine the Great' 'Saint Constantine' Flavius Valerius Constantinus (AD ca. 285 - AD 337), at http://www.roman-empire.net/decline/constantine-index.html on 9/14/2010]
Clearly his actions show him as an ambitious politician without scruples who definitely was not a Christian, but just using Christianity as a tool to give him more power.
[3] “Emperor Constantine the Great: Pagan, Christian, or First Pope?
This is a reply to the claim of some Protestant fundamentalists that the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great or Constantine I (born c. 280 - died 337 A.D.) remained a pagan, was never a Christian, and was the first Pope. Here is a typical false history believed by fundamentalists. The following was posted on the Catholic Answers boards:
When Christians were on the verge of growing, Satan’s forces started to move. Persecutions, under Satan’s command, hit the early believers in Christ. But instead of destroying them, they grew in numbers. The Force was ruling over Rome, using the Pagan Roman Caesars to slaughter the followers of Christ. The time was getting close for Satan then to give the world his own version of the “Christian” church. And paganism was about to get a new face. When the Emperor of Rome died, two men claimed the throne: Constantine, and the other Roman General named Maxentius.
In 312 AD, Constantine’s army faced his enemy, Maxentius, who stood between him and the Roman Empire. It was during this battle when he “apparently” saw a sign of the cross in the heavens saying, “In this sign Conquer.” Having backed up by “The Force,” he won the battle…and owned Rome. A few years after, he “Christianized” Rome. As a result of this battle, Constantine claimed that his conversion to Christianity had taken place. He publicly issued his edict of toleration in 313 AD, and supposedly stopped the persecutions against the Christians and brought peace. His job, under the direction of Satan, was to merge paganism in the perverted form of Christianity, which he did, and turned it into ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
Testified records from the underground vaults of the inner Vatican tell the truth about Constantine and his family. Constantinus Maximus was NOT really “Christianized” for he still worshipped the sun god “Sol” (Roman name for Nimrod) even until his death in 337 AD. He also had been ordering the killing of the true believers who were hiding in the mountains to survive, and to protect the Word of God. And as a claim aside from the apostle Peter, Constantine was the FIRST pope. Yet the seducing spirits, just like every pope that followed him, controlled him. In short, he was the second coming of NIMROD.
Even after his “Conversion,” facts testifying that he wasn’t really saved were his devious family affairs from his brother-in-law, to his wives and to his sons which most, resulted in murders. Some of the political and personal reasons. F.Y.I. Another point of “Christianized” contribution was Constantine's mother Helena, who claims to have found the real cross where Christ was crucified!!! A Pope's Title: Sumo Maximus Pontifix -- after his retirement as the “first Pope,” he gave the bishop of Rome his title and moved to Byzantium, Turkey in 330 AD. Then, he gave it a face lift and renamed the place “Constantinople.” Amidst the retirement, he remained loyal to the Catholic Church, fulfilling the prophecy of Revelation 17:9.’ [source - retrieved from Emperor Constantine the Great: Pagan, Christian, or First Pope?, http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ConstantinePaganChristian.htm on 9/14/2010]
[4] “…

Preamble: Boys from the 'Hood – The Meritocracy of Diocletian


Diocletian (son of a freed slave) supported by Maximian (son of a shop keeper) – a successful partnership that lasted over twenty years.





Diocletian and Maximian, now supported by two deputy caesars Galerius and Constantius .
It was the son of the least of them – Constantine – who set his sights on restoring absolute and undivided power.


Diocletian – Son of a Slave Makes Good
Diocletian was the product of merit and of the social mobility which was possible in the late third century.
Diocletian ruled the Roman world for over twenty years. Neither mad nor debauched, he (uniquely) retired from power and famously boasted of growing cabbages "with his own hand" in retirement.
Diocletian had recognised that the empire was too vast for one man's autocratic rule and had sensibly divided absolute power between four monarchs. At the same time he put in place a mechanism for orderly succession, with the junior Caesars stepping up to the rank of Augustus and appointing deputy Caesars in turn. Moreover, Diocletian had had the wisdom to chose colleagues and successors on the basis of ability and loyalty, not blood-ties. The tetrarchy provided orderly succession for a generation. The provinces themselves were grouped into a dozen Dioceses, each ruled by a Vicar.

Constantine – Pampered Prince Enters the Ring
As caesar of Britain and Gaul, Constantine's father – Constantius – had been chosen for the most junior post in the tetrarchy. Constantine himself had been obliged to spend his youth at Nicomedia – as 'hostage' in the court of Diocletian.
When the ailing Diocletian stepped down as Augustus after twenty years in 305, Constantine was dismayed that he had been passed over for the position of caesar. Galerius became senior Augustus in the east. Frustrated, and fearful for his life, Constantine fled to Gaul to join his father, and together they campaigned in northern Britain.
Constantius – nicknamed 'Chlorus' because of his pale and sickly complexion – died at Eburacum (York) the following year and Constantine was 'proclaimed' Augustus by the troops in what was the most marginal of frontier provinces. The ambitious prince was now vulnerable to a charge of usurping imperial authority. His unauthorized promotion was a blow against the Tetrarchy which had stabilized the Roman world. The empire had almost collapsed during the 3rd century because of military rebellions and only a generation before, Aurelian had brought to an end fifteen years of secession by the western provinces. Subsequently, Constantine's own father had invaded Britain precisely to end a decade of separate imperium in the province under the rebel emperors Carausius and Allectus.
Constantine immediately left Britain and the legionary fortress where he had been acclaimed to establish a firmer base with the legions of the Rhineland. He moved quickly to establish a court in the northern city of Augusta Treverorum (Trier) – often a secessionist capital – but his sights were on a far bigger prize.
Like his father before him, Constantine abandoned a concubine (the mother of his child) to make a politically useful marriage into the family of the senior Augustus (and rival), Maximian, Diocletian's original colleague, who had returned to imperial politics from an unwelcome retirement. Soon after, Maximian was dead, almost certainly on the orders of his new son-in-law. In the eastern capital an unhappy Galerius reluctantly acknowledged Constantine as a caesar but appointed his own nominee – Severus – as supreme ruler for the west.
In the meantime, Maxentius (son of Maximian and now Constantine's brother-in-law!) had been proclaimed Augustus in Rome by the praetorian guard. Severus lost his life in an unsuccessful attempt to remove the usurper.

Conversion? My Enemy's Enemy is My Friend
In Constantine's day, the eastern provinces were by far the richest and most populous of the Roman world. Some of its cities – Pergamon, Symrna, Antioch and so on – had existed for almost a millennium and had accumulated vast wealth from international trade and venerated cult centres. Through its numerous cities passed Roman gold going east in exchange for imports from Persia, India and Arabia. Flowing west with those exotic imports came exotic 'mystery religions' to titillate and enthrall Roman appetites.
In contrast, the western provinces now ruled by Constantine were more recently colonized and less developed. Its cities were small 'new towns', its hinterland still barbarian. During the crisis decades of the 3rd century many provincial Romans in the west had been carried off into slavery by Germanic raiders and their cities burned. The province of Britain and part of northern Gaul had actually seceded from the empire in the late third century – and had been ruled by its own 'emperors' (Carausius, Allectus) with the help of Frankish mercenaries (286-297).
Constantine had no power-base in the east from which to mount a bid for the throne – but he had been at Nicomedia in 303 when Diocletian had decided to purge the Roman state of the disloyal Christian element. He had also served under Galerius on the Danube and witnessed at first-hand how the favoured Galerius – designated heir and rival – in particular despised the cult of Christ.
The ambitious and ruthless prince, from his base in Trier, immediately proclaimed himself 'protector of the Christians.' But it was not the handful of Jesus worshippers in the west that Constantine had in mind – there had not, after all, been any persecution in the west – but the far more numerous congregation in the east. They constituted a tiny minority within the total population (perhaps as few as 2%) but the eastern Christians were an organised force of fanatics, in many cities holding important positions in state administration. Some held posts even within the imperial entourage.
By championing the cause of the Christians Constantine put himself at the head of a 'fifth column' in the east, of a state within a state.

That Fabulous Fable
At first, Constantine honoured the tetrarchy which had stabilized the empire for a generation but Galerius himself died in 311 and Constantine saw his opportunity. In the spring of 312, in the first of his civil wars, Constantine moved against the ill-fated Maxentius to seize control of Italy and Africa, in the process almost annihilating a Roman army near Turin, and another outside of Rome.
A nonsense repeated ad nauseam is the fable of the ‘writing above the sun’ which advised Constantine of his divine destiny. In its worst form, the legend has it that the words ‘In this sign, you shall conquer’ and the sign of the cross were visible to Constantine and his entire army. The words would have been, perhaps, Latin ‘In Hoc Signo Victor Seris’, a bizarre cloud formation unique in the annuls of meteorological observation.
On the other hand, more than one author (e.g. S. Angus, The Mystery Religions, p236) says that the words were in Greek ('En Touto Nika'), which would have left them unintelligible to the bulk of the army. Then, again, perhaps they were in both Latin and Greek, a complete occluded front of cumulus cloud!
Digging below the legend however we discover that the vision was in fact a dream reported some years later by Constantine to his secretary Lactantius (On the Death of the Persecutors, chapter xliv; ANF. vii, 318.) The fable was later embellished by the emperor's ‘minister of propaganda’, Bishop Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine (1.xxvi-xxxi). The ‘sign of the cross’ was an even later interpolation (the cross was not a Christian symbol at the time of the battle – nor would be until the 6th century!). Any ‘good luck emblem’ at this date would have been the chi-rho – ambiguously the first two letters of the word Christos, the Greek word for ‘auspicious’ and also Chronos, god of time and a popular embodiment of Mithras!
What is perhaps most significant about this ‘origins’ fantasy is that ‘lucky charms’ had entered the parlance of Christianity. Constantine did not need to be a Christian; invoking its symbols was sufficient to win divine patronage. But did he invoke its symbols? Coins issued at the time celebrating his victory showed only Sol Invictus: his triumphant arch, still standing, refers only to ‘the gods’. In truth, Constantine was not a particularly pious man. Famously, he delayed his baptism until he was close to death for fear of further sinning – with good reason: among his many murders was that of his first wife Fausta (boiled alive) and eldest son Crispus (strangled).

Constantine's desire to impose upon the Empire a religion that would identify obsequiousness to the deity with loyalty to the emperor found its perfect partner in Christianity – or at least in the Christianity he was to patronize.
In the century before the ignoble alliance of one particular faction with the imperium many christianities had contended. Before Constantine, Christ had, for most Christians, been the ‘good shepherd’, just like Mithras and Apollo, not a celestial monarch or an imperial judge. Nor did the Christian sects dwell on the crucifixion scene:
‘They shrink from the recollection of the servile and degrading death inflicted on their lord, and conceive salvation in the gentle terms of the friendship of Christ, not in the panoply of imperial triumphs.’ (Oxford History, p14)

But with Constantine's absolute monarchy, Christianity acquired its 'panoply of imperial triumphs.' The leading Churchman and propagandist Eusebius hailed the autocrat as a new Moses, a new Abraham. Constantine saw himself, more modestly, as the thirteenth apostle, a saint-in-waiting. At the time, perhaps five per cent of the empire’s population was nominally ‘Christian.’ With imperial encouragement, support, funds and force the Universal Church set about the task of gathering in its flock.
In a number of provinces a serious breach had opened within the Christian churches between those who had 'apostatised' during Diocletian's brief persecution and those who had suffered penalties for their fanaticism. Some churches already had a 'nationalistic' bent, serving as a focus for opposition to the emperor.
Constantine, vexed by all such discord, called for an inclusive 'universal' or catholic faith. Of course all factions regarded themselves as that universal 'orthodox' faith and manoeuvred for preferment. It was inevitable that an autocrat like Constantine would identify with and adopt a church which modelled its organisation not merely upon the Roman State but upon its most authoritarian aspect: the imperial army.
In the Constantinian Church, bishops would rule districts corresponding with military dioceses, would control appointments and impose discipline. Lesser clerics would report through a chain of command up to the local pontiff. ‘Staff officers’, in the guise of deacons and presbyters, would control funds and allocations.
Just as well that in Christian morality there was no place for democracy, only for absolute monarchs, chosen by God. In Christianity there were no human rights (for example, of a slave to his freedom), only obligations (thus a slave should be honest and faithful to his master, because, of course, all would be judged on the day of reckoning).
Sources:
Edward Gibbon, The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire (Penguin, 1960)
Michael Grant, The Roman Emperors (Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985)
Michael Grant, The Emperor Constantine (Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985)
Arthur Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire (Thames & Hudson, 1986)
Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew (Harper Collins,1992)
Arther Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire (Thames & Hudson, 1986)
Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988)
Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain - A History of the Jews (Harper Collins, 1994)
Friedrich Heer, The Fires of Faith (Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1970)
H. A. Drake, Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance (John Hopkins, 2000)
[source - retrieved from Constantine – Pagan thug makes Christian emperor, http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Constantine.htm on 9/14/2010]

[5] “Emperor Constantine Was the First Pope!!


This exposé is under construction.
Caesar is Pope!!
Click on images to enlarge.

And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. (Revelation 6:2-3).
This is a description of the 1st of the 4 deadly horseman of the Apocalypse. It is a description of Emperor Constantine going forth to conquer the entire Roman world.
All the great prophecies in the Book of Revelation began to be fulfilled with the reign of Emperor Constantine. Before the battle of the Milvian Bridge outside Rome in 312 A.D., Constantine claimed to have seen a cross in the sky with this inscription: IN HOC SIGNO VINCES or IN THIS SIGN CONQUER. He immediately had the Roman eagle replaced by the cross on his battle standards.

IN HOC SIGNO VINCES or IN THIS SIGN CONQUER.
Constantine claimed to have seen a cross in the sky with the words: IN HOC SIGNO VINCES or IN THIS SIGN CONQUER.
The cross and the words IN HOC SIGNO VINCES or IHS became the battle standard of the Papal Roman Empire.
Constantine's division of the Empire into 2 halves was the fulfillment of King Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel chapter 2.

The cross is the one indispensable MARK of the Papal Roman Empire.
Emperor Constantine began to fulfill Bible prophecy when he founded a new capital for the Roman Empire in Constantinople.
Pagan Rome ended and Papal Rome began with the CROSS!!
Imperial Rome became PAPAL Rome on October 28, 312 A.D., when Constantine exchanged the eagle for the cross:
And not only so, but he (Constantine) also caused the sign of the salutary trophy to be impressed on the very shields of his soldiers; and commanded that his embattled forces should be preceded in their march, not by golden eagles, as heretofore, but only by the standard of the cross. (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, p. 545).
He would have been much better off if he had kept the eagle, because God is referred to as an eagle in the Old Testament, but you will never find the word CROSS in the Hebrew Old Testament . . . or the Greek New Testament.
Emperor Constantine was the first Pope!!
Emperor Constantine was a GIANT whose iron legs bestrode the vast Roman Empire from east to west....By founding a new capital at Constantinople, he divided the Empire into 2 halves, and actually fulfilled the prophecy in Daniel chapter 2 of the division of the Empire into East and West.



Emperor Constantine "rescued" the Christians from persecution!!
The idea of a Roman Emperor "rescuing" Christians from persecution seems incongruous but that is exactly what happened. Emperor Constantine defeated his rival Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and proclaimed religious toleration for all.
Constantine was always very ambiguous when he mentioned the divinity that he served....This was done to gain favor and acceptance with pagans and Christians in order to unite then with his new ecumenical religion whose sign or symbol was the cross.

Battle of Milvian Bridge outside Rome in 312 A.D.
With the defeat of Maxentius—Roman Emperor in the West—Constantine began to merge Christianity with paganism.
His triumphal arch mentions The Divinity as giving him victory . . . it says nothing about JESUS!!

Arch of Constantine in Rome.
Here are the words on his triumphal arch in Rome translated from Latin:
To the Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus, the greatest, pious, and blessed Augustus: because he, inspired by the divine, and by the greatness of his mind, has delivered the state from the tyrant and all of his followers at the same time, with his army and just force of arms, the Senate and People of Rome have dedicated this arch, decorated with triumphs.
With the defeat of Maxentius, Constantine was master of the entire Western Roman Empire and he began to fix his gave eastward....The Emperor of the East was named Licinius, and Constantine was determine to eliminate his rival and be sole master of the Roman world.

4 world empires of Daniel chapter 2.
The king of Babylon had a dream in which he saw all of world history from his day to the end of time.
Daniel the Prophet interpreted the dream for him, as a colossal statue composed of 4 different metals, representing 4 successive world empires.
The legs of iron represented the divided Roman Empire.

4 metals statue of Daniel chapter 2.
King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had a terrifying nightmare but when he awoke he couldn't remember the dream.
None of his astrologers or "wise men" could be of any help because they were all charlatans and fakes.
Daniel the Jewish prophet, who was a captive in Babylon, came to the rescue and told the king his forgotten dream . . . and its interpretation:
Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. (Daniel 2:37-40).
Notice that the 4 empires follow one another in SUCCESSION and there is no gap or break between them.
The MYTH of the Fall of the Roman Empire!!
The Holy Bible is the only book in the world where the future is given in ADVANCE....None of the founders of the major world religions dared make any prophecies about what will come to pass in the future, because they were all charlatans and fakes, like the "wise men" of Babylon.
Most children in school are told that the Western Roman Empire fell to the barbarians in 476 A.D., and that the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine) fell in 1453 A.D. It is a DOGMA that is held as firmly as the moving earth.
A British author named Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), greatly perpetuated this myth in his massive tome entitled: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Gibbon ended the Western Empire in 476 and the Eastern Empire in 1453.
It is a MYTH and falsehood because it contradicts the infallible Word of God.

Pope Julius I (337-352).
Emperor Julius I was the next to assume the purple after Constantine.
His palace was the basilica of St. John Lateran built by the order of Constantine himself.

Basilica of St. John Lateran.
The highest office in the pagan pantheon was that of Pontifex Maximus or Supreme Pontiff....This was held by the Roman Caesars. The last Caesar to hold that title was Emperor Gratian who conferred it upon Pope Damascus.

Emperor Gratian (359 - 383).
(Reigned from 375 to 383).
Empeor Gratian conferred the title and the office of Pontifex Maximus on Pope Damasus.
This shows the unbroken continuity between pagan and Papal Rome.
With the total destruction of Christian history, it was easy to associate the Papacy with St. Peter.

Pope Damasus I (305 -384).
Reigned from 366 to 383.
About 12 "Emperors" ruled from Rome until the last one, Romulus Augustulus, abdicated in 476. However, these "Emperors" were merely figureheads or puppets who answered to the Papal dynasty.
There were several barbarian invasions of Rome, but the Papal dynasty continued to rule the Western or Latin Empire right down to our own time....Even the Roman Catholics admit that Rome never fell when they claim an unbroken succession of pontiffs right back to St. Peter.
Moscow is the successor of Constantinople!!
According to the prophecy in Daniel chapter 2, the Roman Empire would be divided into 2 halves, and both halves would continue unbroken until the end of time.
Constantinople—headquarters of the Eastern Empire—fell to the Turks in 1453, but the Orthodox church found a new home in Moscow.
The Eastern Empire is derisively referred to as the BYZANTINE Empire meaning shady or characterized by intrigue; scheming or devious. As Old Rome's main rival, we know who was the author of that appellation.

References
Alföldi, Andreas (Andrew). The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome. Oxford, 1948 and 1969.
Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (in 6 volumes). Methuen & Co., London, 1909.
Eusebius Pamphili, (260 — 340), Preparation for the Gospel, Proof of the Gospel, Ecclesiastical History, Life of Constantine, Oration to Constantine, etc., etc. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1981.
Baynes, Norman, H. Constantine the Great and the Christian Church. London, 1934.
Burckhardt, Jacob.The Age of Constantine the Great. Pantheon Books Inc., New York, 1949.
Halsberghe, Gaston, H.The Cult of Sol Invictus. E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1972.
Kee, Alistair. Constantine Versus Christ: The Triumph of Ideology. SCM Press, London, 1982.
MacMullen, Ramsey. Constantine. The Dial Press, New York, 1969.
Norwich, John Julius. A Short History of Byzantium. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1997.

[source - retrieved from http://www.reformation.org/pope-constantine.html on 9/14/2010]

[6] Emperor Constantine - Was He Really a Christian?
Feb 11th, 2009 by VincentSummers
An article that considers the fruits of Constantine's life, and how they demonstrate that, baptized or not, Constantine was not a true Christian.
A Controversy
There is some controversy about the man, Constantine. Some maintain he was a sincere convert to Christianity and that he had a lot to do with the modern-day development of worship. There are others who say otherwise. How to know which, if either, is correct? Was Constantine really a Christian?
Was Constantine Really Is a Christian?
The Scriptures tell us the answer. Jesus' words (for who would know what constitutes Christianity better than the Christ himself?) at Matthew 7:15-23 read according to the King James Version:
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
Throughout the Inspired Scriptures, people are often likened to trees. Thus that the faithful and the unfaithful are likened to fruit trees should be of no surprise to us. Jesus is telling us that we can judge if a man is faithful or unfaithful by the kind of fruits or works he produces throughout his life.
So what kind of fruits did Emperor Constantine produce during his lifetime?
As I said, he was emperor, and as such had both military and political authority, things which are not part of Biblical Christianity. Constantine claimed to be Christian by the age of 40, but he maintained his title of Pontifex Maximus, meaning he was head of the pagan priesthood. This belies his being a Christian in itself. In fact, such actions demonstrate Constantine was a practicer of interfaith, something condemned in the Bible.
It is claimed by some that Constantine was never baptized as a Christian. If that is the case, by definition he could not have been a Christian, no matter what his works. But his works included, long after his claim to Christianity, murder and other sins. These are not the works of a Christian.
If Not Christian, What?
In reality, Constantine was a military genius who knew how to use religion to his own ends. The apostasy prophesied in the Bible had already taken a toll on the Christian Congregation long before Constantine appeared on the scene, and he merely helped it along to greater depths of error. He mixed the pagan with the Christian. The Sun God became God the Son. Here is a coin image of Constantine with Sol Invictus, the Sun God.
True Christianity is to be identified by love. Constantine's version of Christianity became what is commonly called Christendom, is characterized by inquisitions and "holy" wars.
Constantine did not produce "fine fruit," and thus was not a Christian.
Matthew 26:52, John 6:15, 15:19.
Peter Brown, The Rise of Christendom 2nd edition (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2003) p. 61
1 Corinthians 10:21
2 Corinthians 6:14-18
Revelation 21:8
John 13:35


Read more: http://www.bukisa.com/articles/32261_emperor-constantine-was-he-really-a-christian#ixzz0zoJHr3lL
[source - retrieved from http://www.bukisa.com/articles/32261_emperor-constantine-was-he-really-a-christian on 9/14/2010]

[7] “"The Sun"
And . . . to whom does "The Sun" refer? . . . Apollo the Sun god! And on which day of the week is Apollos' day of worship?
you guessed it . . . Sunday !
And . . . which day of the week did the Universal Roman church by their own authority choose to inforce as their official day of worship?
you guessed it . . . Sunday !
Coincidence? No Way! As you will see, there are far too many coincidences for the coincidence theory to hold up.
[source - retrieved from http://www.sabbatarian.com/Paganism/Constantine.html on 9/14/2010]



+ 1 – Details on Constantine

Now let’s consider the facts with respect the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine:

[1]
325 AD
325 AD - The battle over the status of Jesus came to a head in 325 CE, when the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the official state religion of Rome. The status of Jesus therefore had to be settled. Emperor Constantine assembled Gentile ...
[source - retrieved from Timeline, http://www.google.com/search?q=emperor+constantine&hl=en&noj=1&prmd=ivn&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=RZ6TTIDSOIT6lwe_ia2nCg&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=18&ved=0CGUQ5wIwEQ on 9/14/2010]

[2] “…Constantine saw this victory as directly related to the vision he had had the night before.
Henceforth Constantine saw himself as an 'emperor of the Christian people'. If this made him a Christian is the subject of some debate. But Constantine, who only had himself baptized on his deathbed, is generally understood as the first Christian emperor of the Roman world.
With his victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, Constantine became the dominant figure in the empire. The senate warmly welcomed him to Rome and the two remaining emperors, Licinius and Maximinus II Daia could do little else but agree to his demand that he henceforth should be the senior Augustus. It was in this senior position that Constantine ordered Maximinus II Daia to cease his repression of the Christians.
Though despite this turn toward Christianity, Constantine remained for some years still very tolerant of the old pagan religions. Particularly the worship of the sun god was still closely related with him for some time to come. A fact which can be seen on the carvings of his triumphal Arch in Rome and on coins minted during his reign.


In AD 325 Constantine once again held a religious council, summoning the bishops of the east and west to Nicaea. At this council the branch of the Christian faith known as Arianism was condemned as a heresy and the only admissible Christian creed of the day (the Nicene Creed) was precisely defined.
Constantine's reign was that of a hard, utterly determined and ruthless man. Nowhere did this show more than when in AD 326, on suspicion of adultery or treason, he had his own eldest son Crispus executed.
One account of the events tells of Constantine's wife Fausta falling in love with Crispus, who was her stepson, and made an accusation of him committing adultery only once she had been rejected by him, or because she simply wanted Crispus out of the way, in order to let her sons acceed to the throne unhindered. Then again, Constantine had only a month ago passed a strict law against adultery and might have felt obliged to act. And so Crispus was executed at Pola in Istria.
Though after this execution Constantine's mother Helena convinced the emperor of Crispus' innocence and that Fausta's accusation had been false. Escaping the vengeance of her husband, Fausta killed herself at Treviri.” [source - retrieved from 'Constantine the Great' 'Saint Constantine' Flavius Valerius Constantinus (AD ca. 285 - AD 337), at http://www.roman-empire.net/decline/constantine-index.html on 9/14/2010]

See Page 3

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:49 pm

Page 3

Clearly his actions show him as an ambitious politician without scruples who definitely was not a Christian, but just using Christianity as a tool to give him more power.
[3] “Emperor Constantine the Great: Pagan, Christian, or First Pope?
This is a reply to the claim of some Protestant fundamentalists that the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great or Constantine I (born c. 280 - died 337 A.D.) remained a pagan, was never a Christian, and was the first Pope. Here is a typical false history believed by fundamentalists. The following was posted on the Catholic Answers boards:
When Christians were on the verge of growing, Satan’s forces started to move. Persecutions, under Satan’s command, hit the early believers in Christ. But instead of destroying them, they grew in numbers. The Force was ruling over Rome, using the Pagan Roman Caesars to slaughter the followers of Christ. The time was getting close for Satan then to give the world his own version of the “Christian” church. And paganism was about to get a new face. When the Emperor of Rome died, two men claimed the throne: Constantine, and the other Roman General named Maxentius.
In 312 AD, Constantine’s army faced his enemy, Maxentius, who stood between him and the Roman Empire. It was during this battle when he “apparently” saw a sign of the cross in the heavens saying, “In this sign Conquer.” Having backed up by “The Force,” he won the battle…and owned Rome. A few years after, he “Christianized” Rome. As a result of this battle, Constantine claimed that his conversion to Christianity had taken place. He publicly issued his edict of toleration in 313 AD, and supposedly stopped the persecutions against the Christians and brought peace. His job, under the direction of Satan, was to merge paganism in the perverted form of Christianity, which he did, and turned it into ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
Testified records from the underground vaults of the inner Vatican tell the truth about Constantine and his family. Constantinus Maximus was NOT really “Christianized” for he still worshipped the sun god “Sol” (Roman name for Nimrod) even until his death in 337 AD. He also had been ordering the killing of the true believers who were hiding in the mountains to survive, and to protect the Word of God. And as a claim aside from the apostle Peter, Constantine was the FIRST pope. Yet the seducing spirits, just like every pope that followed him, controlled him. In short, he was the second coming of NIMROD.
Even after his “Conversion,” facts testifying that he wasn’t really saved were his devious family affairs from his brother-in-law, to his wives and to his sons which most, resulted in murders. Some of the political and personal reasons. F.Y.I. Another point of “Christianized” contribution was Constantine's mother Helena, who claims to have found the real cross where Christ was crucified!!! A Pope's Title: Sumo Maximus Pontifix -- after his retirement as the “first Pope,” he gave the bishop of Rome his title and moved to Byzantium, Turkey in 330 AD. Then, he gave it a face lift and renamed the place “Constantinople.” Amidst the retirement, he remained loyal to the Catholic Church, fulfilling the prophecy of Revelation 17:9.’ [source - retrieved from Emperor Constantine the Great: Pagan, Christian, or First Pope?, http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ConstantinePaganChristian.htm on 9/14/2010]
[4] “…


Preamble: Boys from the 'Hood – The Meritocracy of Diocletian


Diocletian (son of a freed slave) supported by Maximian (son of a shop keeper) – a successful partnership that lasted over twenty years.





Diocletian and Maximian, now supported by two deputy caesars Galerius and Constantius .
It was the son of the least of them – Constantine – who set his sights on restoring absolute and undivided power.


Diocletian – Son of a Slave Makes Good
Diocletian was the product of merit and of the social mobility which was possible in the late third century.
Diocletian ruled the Roman world for over twenty years. Neither mad nor debauched, he (uniquely) retired from power and famously boasted of growing cabbages "with his own hand" in retirement.
Diocletian had recognised that the empire was too vast for one man's autocratic rule and had sensibly divided absolute power between four monarchs. At the same time he put in place a mechanism for orderly succession, with the junior Caesars stepping up to the rank of Augustus and appointing deputy Caesars in turn. Moreover, Diocletian had had the wisdom to chose colleagues and successors on the basis of ability and loyalty, not blood-ties. The tetrarchy provided orderly succession for a generation. The provinces themselves were grouped into a dozen Dioceses, each ruled by a Vicar.

Constantine – Pampered Prince Enters the Ring
As caesar of Britain and Gaul, Constantine's father – Constantius – had been chosen for the most junior post in the tetrarchy. Constantine himself had been obliged to spend his youth at Nicomedia – as 'hostage' in the court of Diocletian.
When the ailing Diocletian stepped down as Augustus after twenty years in 305, Constantine was dismayed that he had been passed over for the position of caesar. Galerius became senior Augustus in the east. Frustrated, and fearful for his life, Constantine fled to Gaul to join his father, and together they campaigned in northern Britain.
Constantius – nicknamed 'Chlorus' because of his pale and sickly complexion – died at Eburacum (York) the following year and Constantine was 'proclaimed' Augustus by the troops in what was the most marginal of frontier provinces. The ambitious prince was now vulnerable to a charge of usurping imperial authority. His unauthorized promotion was a blow against the Tetrarchy which had stabilized the Roman world. The empire had almost collapsed during the 3rd century because of military rebellions and only a generation before, Aurelian had brought to an end fifteen years of secession by the western provinces. Subsequently, Constantine's own father had invaded Britain precisely to end a decade of separate imperium in the province under the rebel emperors Carausius and Allectus.
Constantine immediately left Britain and the legionary fortress where he had been acclaimed to establish a firmer base with the legions of the Rhineland. He moved quickly to establish a court in the northern city of Augusta Treverorum (Trier) – often a secessionist capital – but his sights were on a far bigger prize.
Like his father before him, Constantine abandoned a concubine (the mother of his child) to make a politically useful marriage into the family of the senior Augustus (and rival), Maximian, Diocletian's original colleague, who had returned to imperial politics from an unwelcome retirement. Soon after, Maximian was dead, almost certainly on the orders of his new son-in-law. In the eastern capital an unhappy Galerius reluctantly acknowledged Constantine as a caesar but appointed his own nominee – Severus – as supreme ruler for the west.
In the meantime, Maxentius (son of Maximian and now Constantine's brother-in-law!) had been proclaimed Augustus in Rome by the praetorian guard. Severus lost his life in an unsuccessful attempt to remove the usurper.

Conversion? My Enemy's Enemy is My Friend
In Constantine's day, the eastern provinces were by far the richest and most populous of the Roman world. Some of its cities – Pergamon, Symrna, Antioch and so on – had existed for almost a millennium and had accumulated vast wealth from international trade and venerated cult centres. Through its numerous cities passed Roman gold going east in exchange for imports from Persia, India and Arabia. Flowing west with those exotic imports came exotic 'mystery religions' to titillate and enthrall Roman appetites.
In contrast, the western provinces now ruled by Constantine were more recently colonized and less developed. Its cities were small 'new towns', its hinterland still barbarian. During the crisis decades of the 3rd century many provincial Romans in the west had been carried off into slavery by Germanic raiders and their cities burned. The province of Britain and part of northern Gaul had actually seceded from the empire in the late third century – and had been ruled by its own 'emperors' (Carausius, Allectus) with the help of Frankish mercenaries (286-297).
Constantine had no power-base in the east from which to mount a bid for the throne – but he had been at Nicomedia in 303 when Diocletian had decided to purge the Roman state of the disloyal Christian element. He had also served under Galerius on the Danube and witnessed at first-hand how the favoured Galerius – designated heir and rival – in particular despised the cult of Christ.
The ambitious and ruthless prince, from his base in Trier, immediately proclaimed himself 'protector of the Christians.' But it was not the handful of Jesus worshippers in the west that Constantine had in mind – there had not, after all, been any persecution in the west – but the far more numerous congregation in the east. They constituted a tiny minority within the total population (perhaps as few as 2%) but the eastern Christians were an organised force of fanatics, in many cities holding important positions in state administration. Some held posts even within the imperial entourage.
By championing the cause of the Christians Constantine put himself at the head of a 'fifth column' in the east, of a state within a state.

That Fabulous Fable
At first, Constantine honoured the tetrarchy which had stabilized the empire for a generation but Galerius himself died in 311 and Constantine saw his opportunity. In the spring of 312, in the first of his civil wars, Constantine moved against the ill-fated Maxentius to seize control of Italy and Africa, in the process almost annihilating a Roman army near Turin, and another outside of Rome.
A nonsense repeated ad nauseam is the fable of the ‘writing above the sun’ which advised Constantine of his divine destiny. In its worst form, the legend has it that the words ‘In this sign, you shall conquer’ and the sign of the cross were visible to Constantine and his entire army. The words would have been, perhaps, Latin ‘In Hoc Signo Victor Seris’, a bizarre cloud formation unique in the annuls of meteorological observation.
On the other hand, more than one author (e.g. S. Angus, The Mystery Religions, p236) says that the words were in Greek ('En Touto Nika'), which would have left them unintelligible to the bulk of the army. Then, again, perhaps they were in both Latin and Greek, a complete occluded front of cumulus cloud!
Digging below the legend however we discover that the vision was in fact a dream reported some years later by Constantine to his secretary Lactantius (On the Death of the Persecutors, chapter xliv; ANF. vii, 318.) The fable was later embellished by the emperor's ‘minister of propaganda’, Bishop Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine (1.xxvi-xxxi). The ‘sign of the cross’ was an even later interpolation (the cross was not a Christian symbol at the time of the battle – nor would be until the 6th century!). Any ‘good luck emblem’ at this date would have been the chi-rho – ambiguously the first two letters of the word Christos, the Greek word for ‘auspicious’ and also Chronos, god of time and a popular embodiment of Mithras!
What is perhaps most significant about this ‘origins’ fantasy is that ‘lucky charms’ had entered the parlance of Christianity. Constantine did not need to be a Christian; invoking its symbols was sufficient to win divine patronage. But did he invoke its symbols? Coins issued at the time celebrating his victory showed only Sol Invictus: his triumphant arch, still standing, refers only to ‘the gods’. In truth, Constantine was not a particularly pious man. Famously, he delayed his baptism until he was close to death for fear of further sinning – with good reason: among his many murders was that of his first wife Fausta (boiled alive) and eldest son Crispus (strangled).

Constantine's desire to impose upon the Empire a religion that would identify obsequiousness to the deity with loyalty to the emperor found its perfect partner in Christianity – or at least in the Christianity he was to patronize.
In the century before the ignoble alliance of one particular faction with the imperium many christianities had contended. Before Constantine, Christ had, for most Christians, been the ‘good shepherd’, just like Mithras and Apollo, not a celestial monarch or an imperial judge. Nor did the Christian sects dwell on the crucifixion scene:
‘They shrink from the recollection of the servile and degrading death inflicted on their lord, and conceive salvation in the gentle terms of the friendship of Christ, not in the panoply of imperial triumphs.’ (Oxford History, p14)

But with Constantine's absolute monarchy, Christianity acquired its 'panoply of imperial triumphs.' The leading Churchman and propagandist Eusebius hailed the autocrat as a new Moses, a new Abraham. Constantine saw himself, more modestly, as the thirteenth apostle, a saint-in-waiting. At the time, perhaps five per cent of the empire’s population was nominally ‘Christian.’ With imperial encouragement, support, funds and force the Universal Church set about the task of gathering in its flock.
In a number of provinces a serious breach had opened within the Christian churches between those who had 'apostatised' during Diocletian's brief persecution and those who had suffered penalties for their fanaticism. Some churches already had a 'nationalistic' bent, serving as a focus for opposition to the emperor.
Constantine, vexed by all such discord, called for an inclusive 'universal' or catholic faith. Of course all factions regarded themselves as that universal 'orthodox' faith and manoeuvred for preferment. It was inevitable that an autocrat like Constantine would identify with and adopt a church which modelled its organisation not merely upon the Roman State but upon its most authoritarian aspect: the imperial army.
In the Constantinian Church, bishops would rule districts corresponding with military dioceses, would control appointments and impose discipline. Lesser clerics would report through a chain of command up to the local pontiff. ‘Staff officers’, in the guise of deacons and presbyters, would control funds and allocations.
Just as well that in Christian morality there was no place for democracy, only for absolute monarchs, chosen by God. In Christianity there were no human rights (for example, of a slave to his freedom), only obligations (thus a slave should be honest and faithful to his master, because, of course, all would be judged on the day of reckoning).
Sources:
Edward Gibbon, The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire (Penguin, 1960)
Michael Grant, The Roman Emperors (Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985)
Michael Grant, The Emperor Constantine (Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985)
Arthur Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire (Thames & Hudson, 1986)
Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew (Harper Collins,1992)
Arther Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire (Thames & Hudson, 1986)
Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988)
Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain - A History of the Jews (Harper Collins, 1994)
Friedrich Heer, The Fires of Faith (Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1970)
H. A. Drake, Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance (John Hopkins, 2000)
[source - retrieved from Constantine – Pagan thug makes Christian emperor, http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Constantine.htm on 9/14/2010]

[5] “Emperor Constantine Was the First Pope!!


This exposé is under construction.
Caesar is Pope!!
Click on images to enlarge.

And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. (Revelation 6:2-3).
This is a description of the 1st of the 4 deadly horseman of the Apocalypse. It is a description of Emperor Constantine going forth to conquer the entire Roman world.
All the great prophecies in the Book of Revelation began to be fulfilled with the reign of Emperor Constantine. Before the battle of the Milvian Bridge outside Rome in 312 A.D., Constantine claimed to have seen a cross in the sky with this inscription: IN HOC SIGNO VINCES or IN THIS SIGN CONQUER. He immediately had the Roman eagle replaced by the cross on his battle standards.

IN HOC SIGNO VINCES or IN THIS SIGN CONQUER.
Constantine claimed to have seen a cross in the sky with the words: IN HOC SIGNO VINCES or IN THIS SIGN CONQUER.
The cross and the words IN HOC SIGNO VINCES or IHS became the battle standard of the Papal Roman Empire.
Constantine's division of the Empire into 2 halves was the fulfillment of King Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel chapter 2.

The cross is the one indispensable MARK of the Papal Roman Empire.
Emperor Constantine began to fulfill Bible prophecy when he founded a new capital for the Roman Empire in Constantinople.
Pagan Rome ended and Papal Rome began with the CROSS!!
Imperial Rome became PAPAL Rome on October 28, 312 A.D., when Constantine exchanged the eagle for the cross:
And not only so, but he (Constantine) also caused the sign of the salutary trophy to be impressed on the very shields of his soldiers; and commanded that his embattled forces should be preceded in their march, not by golden eagles, as heretofore, but only by the standard of the cross. (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, p. 545).
He would have been much better off if he had kept the eagle, because God is referred to as an eagle in the Old Testament, but you will never find the word CROSS in the Hebrew Old Testament . . . or the Greek New Testament.
Emperor Constantine was the first Pope!!
Emperor Constantine was a GIANT whose iron legs bestrode the vast Roman Empire from east to west....By founding a new capital at Constantinople, he divided the Empire into 2 halves, and actually fulfilled the prophecy in Daniel chapter 2 of the division of the Empire into East and West.



Emperor Constantine "rescued" the Christians from persecution!!
The idea of a Roman Emperor "rescuing" Christians from persecution seems incongruous but that is exactly what happened. Emperor Constantine defeated his rival Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and proclaimed religious toleration for all.
Constantine was always very ambiguous when he mentioned the divinity that he served....This was done to gain favor and acceptance with pagans and Christians in order to unite then with his new ecumenical religion whose sign or symbol was the cross.

Battle of Milvian Bridge outside Rome in 312 A.D.
With the defeat of Maxentius—Roman Emperor in the West—Constantine began to merge Christianity with paganism.
His triumphal arch mentions The Divinity as giving him victory . . . it says nothing about JESUS!!

Arch of Constantine in Rome.
Here are the words on his triumphal arch in Rome translated from Latin:
To the Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus, the greatest, pious, and blessed Augustus: because he, inspired by the divine, and by the greatness of his mind, has delivered the state from the tyrant and all of his followers at the same time, with his army and just force of arms, the Senate and People of Rome have dedicated this arch, decorated with triumphs.
With the defeat of Maxentius, Constantine was master of the entire Western Roman Empire and he began to fix his gave eastward....The Emperor of the East was named Licinius, and Constantine was determine to eliminate his rival and be sole master of the Roman world.

4 world empires of Daniel chapter 2.
The king of Babylon had a dream in which he saw all of world history from his day to the end of time.
Daniel the Prophet interpreted the dream for him, as a colossal statue composed of 4 different metals, representing 4 successive world empires.
The legs of iron represented the divided Roman Empire.

4 metals statue of Daniel chapter 2.
King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had a terrifying nightmare but when he awoke he couldn't remember the dream.
None of his astrologers or "wise men" could be of any help because they were all charlatans and fakes.
Daniel the Jewish prophet, who was a captive in Babylon, came to the rescue and told the king his forgotten dream . . . and its interpretation:
Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. (Daniel 2:37-40).
Notice that the 4 empires follow one another in SUCCESSION and there is no gap or break between them.
The MYTH of the Fall of the Roman Empire!!
The Holy Bible is the only book in the world where the future is given in ADVANCE....None of the founders of the major world religions dared make any prophecies about what will come to pass in the future, because they were all charlatans and fakes, like the "wise men" of Babylon.
Most children in school are told that the Western Roman Empire fell to the barbarians in 476 A.D., and that the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine) fell in 1453 A.D. It is a DOGMA that is held as firmly as the moving earth.
A British author named Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), greatly perpetuated this myth in his massive tome entitled: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Gibbon ended the Western Empire in 476 and the Eastern Empire in 1453.
It is a MYTH and falsehood because it contradicts the infallible Word of God.

Pope Julius I (337-352).
Emperor Julius I was the next to assume the purple after Constantine.
His palace was the basilica of St. John Lateran built by the order of Constantine himself.

Basilica of St. John Lateran.
The highest office in the pagan pantheon was that of Pontifex Maximus or Supreme Pontiff....This was held by the Roman Caesars. The last Caesar to hold that title was Emperor Gratian who conferred it upon Pope Damascus.

Emperor Gratian (359 - 383).
(Reigned from 375 to 383).
Empeor Gratian conferred the title and the office of Pontifex Maximus on Pope Damasus.
This shows the unbroken continuity between pagan and Papal Rome.
With the total destruction of Christian history, it was easy to associate the Papacy with St. Peter.

Pope Damasus I (305 -384).
Reigned from 366 to 383.
About 12 "Emperors" ruled from Rome until the last one, Romulus Augustulus, abdicated in 476. However, these "Emperors" were merely figureheads or puppets who answered to the Papal dynasty.
There were several barbarian invasions of Rome, but the Papal dynasty continued to rule the Western or Latin Empire right down to our own time....Even the Roman Catholics admit that Rome never fell when they claim an unbroken succession of pontiffs right back to St. Peter.
Moscow is the successor of Constantinople!!
According to the prophecy in Daniel chapter 2, the Roman Empire would be divided into 2 halves, and both halves would continue unbroken until the end of time.
Constantinople—headquarters of the Eastern Empire—fell to the Turks in 1453, but the Orthodox church found a new home in Moscow.
The Eastern Empire is derisively referred to as the BYZANTINE Empire meaning shady or characterized by intrigue; scheming or devious. As Old Rome's main rival, we know who was the author of that appellation.

References
Alföldi, Andreas (Andrew). The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome. Oxford, 1948 and 1969.
Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (in 6 volumes). Methuen & Co., London, 1909.
Eusebius Pamphili, (260 — 340), Preparation for the Gospel, Proof of the Gospel, Ecclesiastical History, Life of Constantine, Oration to Constantine, etc., etc. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1981.
Baynes, Norman, H. Constantine the Great and the Christian Church. London, 1934.
Burckhardt, Jacob.The Age of Constantine the Great. Pantheon Books Inc., New York, 1949.
Halsberghe, Gaston, H.The Cult of Sol Invictus. E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1972.
Kee, Alistair. Constantine Versus Christ: The Triumph of Ideology. SCM Press, London, 1982.
MacMullen, Ramsey. Constantine. The Dial Press, New York, 1969.
Norwich, John Julius. A Short History of Byzantium. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1997.

[source - retrieved from http://www.reformation.org/pope-constantine.html on 9/14/2010]

[6] Emperor Constantine - Was He Really a Christian?
Feb 11th, 2009 by VincentSummers
An article that considers the fruits of Constantine's life, and how they demonstrate that, baptized or not, Constantine was not a true Christian.
A Controversy
There is some controversy about the man, Constantine. Some maintain he was a sincere convert to Christianity and that he had a lot to do with the modern-day development of worship. There are others who say otherwise. How to know which, if either, is correct? Was Constantine really a Christian?
Was Constantine Really Is a Christian?
The Scriptures tell us the answer. Jesus' words (for who would know what constitutes Christianity better than the Christ himself?) at Matthew 7:15-23 read according to the King James Version:
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
Throughout the Inspired Scriptures, people are often likened to trees. Thus that the faithful and the unfaithful are likened to fruit trees should be of no surprise to us. Jesus is telling us that we can judge if a man is faithful or unfaithful by the kind of fruits or works he produces throughout his life.
So what kind of fruits did Emperor Constantine produce during his lifetime?
As I said, he was emperor, and as such had both military and political authority, things which are not part of Biblical Christianity. Constantine claimed to be Christian by the age of 40, but he maintained his title of Pontifex Maximus, meaning he was head of the pagan priesthood. This belies his being a Christian in itself. In fact, such actions demonstrate Constantine was a practicer of interfaith, something condemned in the Bible.
It is claimed by some that Constantine was never baptized as a Christian. If that is the case, by definition he could not have been a Christian, no matter what his works. But his works included, long after his claim to Christianity, murder and other sins. These are not the works of a Christian.
If Not Christian, What?
In reality, Constantine was a military genius who knew how to use religion to his own ends. The apostasy prophesied in the Bible had already taken a toll on the Christian Congregation long before Constantine appeared on the scene, and he merely helped it along to greater depths of error. He mixed the pagan with the Christian. The Sun God became God the Son. Here is a coin image of Constantine with Sol Invictus, the Sun God.
True Christianity is to be identified by love. Constantine's version of Christianity became what is commonly called Christendom, is characterized by inquisitions and "holy" wars.
Constantine did not produce "fine fruit," and thus was not a Christian.
Matthew 26:52, John 6:15, 15:19.
Peter Brown, The Rise of Christendom 2nd edition (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2003) p. 61
1 Corinthians 10:21
2 Corinthians 6:14-18
Revelation 21:8
John 13:35


Read more: http://www.bukisa.com/articles/32261_emperor-constantine-was-he-really-a-christian#ixzz0zoJHr3lL
[source - retrieved from http://www.bukisa.com/articles/32261_emperor-constantine-was-he-really-a-christian on 9/14/2010]

[7] “"The Sun"
And . . . to whom does "The Sun" refer? . . . Apollo the Sun god! And on which day of the week is Apollos' day of worship?
you guessed it . . . Sunday !
And . . . which day of the week did the Universal Roman church by their own authority choose to inforce as their official day of worship?
you guessed it . . . Sunday !
Coincidence? No Way! As you will see, there are far too many coincidences for the coincidence theory to hold up.
[source - retrieved from http://www.sabbatarian.com/Paganism/Constantine.html on 9/14/2010]

+ 2 – Details on the Council of Nicea

Let's take a look at what happened at the Council of Nicea of 325 A.D., and the fact that the pagan Emperor, Constantine, was after religious unity and cared not with whether it was in agreement with the Bible and the sound teachings of the apostles. And at how the pagan doctrine worked its way into a Christian church that went apostate from a time line chronological view.

FIRST, What happened from an apologist view, not a true Christian view,


Question: "What occurred at the Council of Nicea?"

Answer: The Council of Nicea took place in 325 A.D. by the order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicea was located in Asia Minor, east of Constantinople. At the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine presided over a group of Church bishops and leaders with the purpose of defining the true God for all of Christianity and to eliminate all the confusion, controversy, and contention within Christ's church. The Council of Nicea affirmed the deity of Jesus Christ and established an official definition of the Trinity - the deity of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit under one Godhead, having three co-equal and co-eternal Persona.

Constantine, a converted Christian (debatably), called for a council meeting to be held in Nicea with the bishop's of the Christian church to resolve escalating quarrels and controversy mounting to a bitter degree of disunity amongst the church leadership and congregates concerning theological issues. The failing Roman Empire, now under Constantine's rule, could not withstand the division caused by years of hard fought, "out of hand" arguing over doctrinal differences. He saw it not only as a threat to Christianity but as a threat to society as well. Therefore, at the Council of Nicea, Constantine demanded that the Christians settle their internal disagreements and become Christ-like agents who could bring new life into a troubled, beaten down empire. Constantine felt "called" to use his authority to help bring about the unity, peace, and love, all for which Christ stands. He and the bishops had reason to worry about the future survival of Christianity within the Roman world empire, let alone the survival of his world empire as well. The Council of Nicea, led by Emperor Constantine, was the meeting to settle differences, to become like minded, all to the glory of Christ.

The main theological issue and focus had always been about Christ. Since the ending of the Apostolic Age and beginning of the Church Age saints began questioning, debating, fighting, and separating over, "Who is the Christ?" Is He more "divine than human" or more "human than divine?" Was Jesus created / made or begotten? Being the Son of God, is He co-equal and co-eternal with Father God or less and lower in status than? Is the Father the One and only True God or is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit the One true God? "True God of True God", "One Being, Three Persons", a tri-unity called "Trinity"? Jesus said, "Who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15).

Constantine demanded once the Nicea Council meeting was underway that the 300 bishops make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. Constantine commanded them to create a "creed" doctrine that all of Christianity would follow and obey, a doctrine that would be called the "Nicene Creed" upheld by the Church and enforced by the Emperor. The bishops voted to make the fully deity of Christ the accepted position for the church. The Council of Nicea voted to make the Trinity the official doctrine of the church. However, the Council of Nicea did not invent these doctrines. Rather, it only recognized what the Bible taught, and systematized the doctrines.

The New Testament taught that Jesus the Messiah, should be worshipped and trusted which was/is to say He is co-equally God and man. The New Testament forbids the worship of angles (Colossians 2.18; Revelation 22.8,9) but commands worship of Jesus. Apostle Paul says about Jesus that, "in him the fullness of Deity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2.9; cf. 1.19). Paul declares Jesus as Lord and the One to whom a person must pray for salvation just as one calls on Jehovah, Yahweh (Joel 2.32; Romans 10.9-13). "Jesus is God overall" (Romans 9.5). Our God and Savior (Titus 2.13). Faith in Jesus' Deity is basic to Paul's testimony and theology.

Apostle John's Gospel declares Jesus being the Devine eternal Logo's, agent of creation and source of life and light (John 1. 1-5, 9). That Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14.6), an advocate with heavenly Father (1 John 2.1-2), that He is sovereign (Revelation 1.5), the Rider on white horse (Revelation 19.11-16), and the totality of the Son of God from the beginning to the end (Revelation 22.13). The author of Hebrews reveals the full deity of Jesus thru His perfection as the most high priest, Melchizedek (Hebrews 1.1,3,6,8,-12;7.3), and the full humanity (Hebrews chapter 2). The Divine-human Savior being the Christians object of faith, hope, and love.

The Council of Nicea did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea affirmed the Apostles teaching of who Christ is as the One true God in Deity and Trinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Amen. [source - What occurred at the Council of Nicea?]


Now a chronological time line study of a false doctrine adopted at the Council of Nicea of 325 AD to give Constantine, a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, 'Sol Invictus,' what he wanted to assist him in uniting his empire religiously and politically.


SATAN'S TRICK - FALSE DOCTRINE EVOLUTION:

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 (*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).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION OF DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:


The search for the origins of the Trinity begins with the earliest writings of man. Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show polytheistic religions, though many scholars assert that earliest man believed in one god. The 19th century scholar and Protestant minister, Alexander Hislop, devotes several chapters of his book The Two Babylons (*2) to showing how this original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Catholic Church dogmas. A more recent Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: '[Monotheism is] a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts,' which were written between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51); but there is no question that ancient man believed in 'one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all' (*2); and in a multitude of gods at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad. (*32).

As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions evoked by the Church's expansion. (*10)

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." (*10).

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" (*14).



As can readily be seen from the foregoing, even the concept of the Trinity came from the pagan world, and the Bible shows " 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." (*33) is trying to keep out the glorious gospel of Christ. Satan the Devil is slipping false dogma in its place. Do not be trapped by him, reject false dogma of the Trinity.

REFERENCES:

*1 - Saggs,H. W. F. "The Greatness that was Babylon: A Sketch of the Ancient Civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley." New York: New American Library. 1968.

*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.

*32 - Hagensick, Cher-El L, "The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine."

*33 - The Holy Bible (King James Bible), American Bible Society, NY (page 185, 2 Corinthians 4:4).

See Part 4

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:56 pm

Page 4


And, the Encyclopedia Britannica confirms his need to try and establish unity and that he was NO Christian,


Council of Nicaea

(325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now Iznik, Tur.). It was called by the emperor topic?idxStructId=133873&typeId=13Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by topic?idxStructId=34124&typeId=13Arianism, a heresy first proposed by topic?idxStructId=34795&typeId=13Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates.

The council condemned Arius and, with reluctance on the part of some, incorporated the nonscriptural word topic?idxStructId=270595&typeId=13homoousios ("of one substance") into a creed (the Nicene Creed) to signify the absolute equality of the Son with the Father. The emperor then exiled Arius, an act that, while manifesting a solidarity of church and state, underscored the importance of secular patronage in ecclesiastical affairs.

The council also attempted but failed to establish a uniform date for Easter. But it issued decrees on many other matters, including the proper method of consecrating bishops, a condemnation of lending money at interest by clerics, and a refusal to allow bishops, priests, and deacons to move from one church to another. topic?idxStructId=551945&typeId=13Socrates Scholasticus, a 5th-century Byzantine historian, said that the council intended to make a canon enforcing celibacy of the clergy, but it failed to do so when some objected. It also confirmed the primacy of Alexandria and Jerusalem over other sees in their respective areas.[source - Encyclopedia Britannica]

+ 3 – The Great Debate

FIRST, As was said,
An incident surrounding an attempt to impose celibacy on the clergy also took place. The proposal it seems was to forbid those who were married at the time of ordination from having intercourse with their wives, it being assumed that clergy would not marry after ordination.
is quite interesting as it would be one of the first indicators and/or signs the so called church (RC) was going apostate and defying clear Bible requirements as found at 1 Timothy 3:1-5, " This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" (Authorized King James Bible; AV); and 1 Timothy 4:1-3, " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." (AV).

SECOND, The comment,
Now we come to the important issue of unity/doctrine. This got the debate heated up greatly. At the outset those few who supported Arius, Eusebius included, gave to the assembled Council "a formulary of their faith" or to put that another way, they gave the assembled Bishops, deacons and so forth, a copy of a "Creed", their Creed. A statement of what they believed.

This was promptly torn to pieces, and was declared to be "spurious and false." In fact the uproar became so great against those who supported Arius, and so many accusations and reproaches were hurled at them that they all eventually with "the exception of Secundus and Theonas, stood up and took the lead in publicly renouncing Arius." (Socrates, Church History 1:11 - A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Second Series, 2:18).
The actions shown here of mudslinging and intrigue clearly indicate that many attending this council, the Council of Nicea of 325 AD, were clearly not really interested in the Lord's work but in power and greed, i.e., bettering their own position at the expense of others. This therefore was NOT in keeping with Jesus' (Yeshua's) command at Matthew 22:37-40, " 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." (AV).

THIRD, As was said,
But why should Eusebius have submitted a creed to the council?
The answer, has been realised only since the identification of the letter of the Council of Antioch, and is that Eusebius had been excommunicated, but had been granted at Nicaea 'a place of repentance and recognition of the truth.'
( J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius (London: SPCK, 1957) or to the later edition of this revised by W.H.C. Frend (London: SPCK, 1987)

Eusebius, naturally, does not draw attention to this. But proceeds to affirm his full commitment to the doctrines of the creed that he had submitted. He also goes on to say that the teaching of the Creed of Nicaea is identical to his, save only the addition of the single word homoousios. He then proceeds to give a blatantly minimising interpretation of the Creed of Nicaea."
Once more showing political intrigue and a 'jockeying' for power driven by greed and bettering of oneself by Eusebious and the others which of course would clearly not be in harmony with genuine Christian principles.

FOURTH, The Bible clearly says, at James 4:1-5, " From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
4 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.
4 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" (AV).

Clearly showing that they had become apostate and were greedly seeking after the things of the world such as power and prominence, and 1 Peter 4:1-4 which warns against, " Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.
3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:
5 Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:" (AV).

FIFTH, Pagan Emperor, Constantine, a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, NOT a Christian was the one who called the council. He was NOT really interested in whether the so called Christians adhered to Bible standards. His primary objective was political and NOT religious; to wit, he wanted to strengthen his empire and realized in order to do so he had to have religious unity. Strange, as it may seem, he actually favored Arias' views, but went the other way since he saw it necessary for political reasons. Constantine was a very adapt politician first and foremost, and did what ever was necessary to move forward on his political goals.

His personal life clearly showed that he was NOT a follower of Christ. This was pointed out in the Columbia Encyclopedia and in many other encyclopedias and historical accounts. Let's look at the Columbia Encyclopedia account as it is concise and to the point.
Historians differ greatly in their assessments of Constantine's motives and the depth of his Christian conviction. Early Christian writers portray him as a devout convert, although they have difficulty explaining his execution in 320 (on adultery charges) of Crispus, his son by his first wife, and Fausta, his wife. Some later historians see him as a political genius, expediently using Christianity to unify his empire. An intermediate interpretation pictures him as a pagan gradually converted to Christianity (he was baptized on his deathbed), using his new belief for personal ends much as earlier emperors had used the imperial cult.[source - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.]

It is to noted that many so called early Christian writers wanted display his as,
Early Christian writers portray him as a devout convert, although they have difficulty explaining his execution in 320 (on adultery charges) of Crispus, his son by his first wife, and Fausta, his wife.
to build up their position, but clearly he still acted and was a very ambitious pagan who let nothing or no one stand in his way. Even his claimed 'death bed' conversion is actually questionable as shown in the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as follows:
The religion of Sol Invictus continued to be a cornerstone of the emperors until Theodosius I's decree on Feb 27, 390 that only Nicene Christianity was acceptable. Before his supposed conversion (some think Emperor Constantine never converted but that a Christian coup took advantage of his death), on his deathbed, even the young Constantine portrayed Sol Invictus on his official coinage. Constantine on Mar 7, 321 decreed SUNday (dies Solis) as the Roman day of rest [CJ3.12.2]:
On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for grain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. [source - the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].

Definitely those accepting and attending this Council of Nicea of 325 AD were going against clearly stated things in the Bible by doing so since 1 John 5:19 clearly says, " And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." (AV); and Ephesians 2:2, " Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:" (AV). 1 John 2:15-16 makes the fact we should not be lusting after power and position in this world, " Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world" (AV).

4 – Paul and the Trinity

No more militant foe ever lashed out in anger at the early Christians than Saul of Tarsus. (Acts 8:1-3) Nor did a more learned theologian enter the early Church than this same Saul of Tarsus who later became known as Paul. He became a prolific writer and a leading spokesman for first century Christianity. In spite of many obstacles he has continued to withstand the harsh and cruel judgment of his critics and today remains a standard bearer for Christianity.

Paul claimed special revelation from the resurrected Jesus Christ. While many may contend that reason and revelation are incompatible, it is my belief that the two are not at odds. Paul serves to illustrate this point. No part of the revelation given to Paul by Jesus assaults reason - as is true of 'revelations' in sacred texts of other religious systems. Allowing for an element of progressive revelation, Paul's Christianity is not in disagreement with the earlier teaching of the historical Jesus or with other NT writers. He has not departed from the Messiah's doctrine of God.

Highly placed in Jewish religious circles, Paul states that he was "circumcised in the eighth day, of the nation of Israel ... A Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, Pharisee; ... a persecutor of the Church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless" (Phil 3:5,6) Without question this kind of background would have made him absolutely and uncompromisingly monotheistic -- a convinced advocate of the belief in the one true God AS A SINGLE PERSON! As we would expect, Paul's rabbinical training had instilled in him the firmest conviction that there was but one God, the Creator of all things. It is evident that he agreed completely with the recently executed Messiah about the law which Jesus had called the greatest of all the commandments. To the inquiring scribe Jesus said, "The foremost [commandment] is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart ..." (Mark 12:29,30) As a Pharisee, Paul would unquestionably have endorsed the scribe's enthusiasm for Jesus' monotheism. "Right teacher, you have truly stated that He is one; and there is no one else besides Him" (Mark 12:32) Paul's Jewish heritage had placed the single-person God at the pinnacle of his belief. His devotion to the One God of the Hebrew Bible remained, after his conversion to Christianity, the prime motivating force behind all his activity.

There is no hint anywhere in Paul's writings that he had ever disagreed with the early Church about the person of God. His pre-conversion hostility was directed toward Jesus' claim to be the Messiah, which he thought constituted a threat to the established religion of the nation of Israel. After careful examination of the evidence, biblical scholars do not think Paul ever disturbed the waters of Jewish conviction that God was a single person.

"Apparently Paul did not call Jesus God" - Sydney Cave, The Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Duckworth, 1925, 48.

"Paul habitually differentiates Christ from God." - C.J.Cadoux, A Pilgrim's Further Progress: Dialogues on Christian Teaching, Blackwell, 1943, 40-42.
One will search Paul's writings in vain for a plain statement that Jesus is God.
The Trinitarian problem must be analyzed from the perspective of Paul's strictly monotheistic Jewish background. Luke reports Paul's ministry in Acts. And we have Paul's recorded epistles. One question is vital, even critical: If Paul became a Trinitarian, or Binitarian, when did it happen? Was he taught the Trinity by the other Apostles, by revelation from Jesus, or was it developed over the period of his lifetime, the reality finally bursting upon him, drastically modifying his former belief in God as one person? There is simply NO HARD EVIDENCE to confirm any such development. Given the deep indoctrination of the Jewish mind in regard to monotheism, particularly in the case of this zealously religious Jew, the novelty of such a concept should have consumed great many pages of the NT Bible!

When the very foundation of a religion is changed, some clear explanation is required. Such drastic theological revolutions do not pass unnoticed; witness the volumes written and the sometimes bloody controversy waged by advocates of the Trinity against the protests of the strict unitarians. A divine revelation to introduce belief in a tripersonal God would have been acceptable and reasonable. But where both revelation is lacking and reason is assaulted, there is little basis for accepting such an extraordinary idea as the Trinity.

When Paul was in attendance at the conference at Jerusalem, the discussion centered around circumsicion and other OT laws. How far were these to be imposed upon Gentile Christians? (Acts 15:5) The decision was rendered by James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church. It was this same James who stated when writing to the scattered Church as "the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad" (James 1:1): "YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS ONE. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." (James 2:19) At this point in church history, there is NOTHING which suggests a radical change of understanding about the nature of God.

The absence of any new revelation defining the Trinity presents a problem to Trinitarian writers, such as E. Calvin Beisner in his book, God in Three Persons, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984. We'll use his work because he quotes the Apostle Paul in support of his ideas.

Beisner asks the question: "Does the New Testament contain such a doctrine [the Trinity] either explicitly or implicitly? And ... if so, how does it?" (page 24) The answers which scholars give to both of these questions, as Beisner points out, are "to say in the least, widely variant." (page 24) Nevertheless, he maintains that the Trinity is found in the Bible. The gist of his argument runs as follows: There is in the NT one and only one true God; there is a person called the Father who is called God; there is a person called the Son who is called God. (page 26)

In the section entitled "Monotheism in the New Testament", Beisner makes the excellent point that monotheistic view "pervades the whole outlook of Jesus," (page 26) and he cites John 17:3 - "Now this is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You sent."

Beisner then adds the evidence of Paul, who deliberately sets out to answer the question whether there are more gods than one. Paul's words are as follows: "We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is but one God, the Father .. and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Co 8:4-6).

Beisner correctly points out that Paul's answer to the monotheistic question was that "there is no God but one". "This monotheistic viewpoint", he adds, "rules the whole New Testament, but nowhere more strongly stated than here in the writings of Paul." (page 27)

It is at this critical point in the argument that we must look carefully at what Paul actually says. All will agree about Paul's belief that there is "only one God," but who, according to Paul, is that one God? Is there (A) "one God - the Father" (as in unitarianism), or (B) "one God - the Father and Son" (as in Binitarianism), or (C) "one God - the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" (as in Trinitarianism)? Beisner appears to overlook Paul's crucially important definition of monotheism. "To us [Christians] there is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER" (1 Co 8:6)

Paul names the one God as the Father, and he adds no other person! He goes on to say, certainly, that there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, but he does not say (here or anywhere else) that Jesus is "the one God". The one God of Paul's monotheism, expressly stated and in harmony with everything we have read in the OT and in the teaching of Jesus, is THE FATHER ALONE.

Paul never relinquished the idea that one, with reference to God, meant numerically one. He obviously had never abandoned his Jewish monotheism when he declared in a letter to Timothy: "For there is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and people. He is the man Christ Jesus." (1Ti 2:5 NLT) Here, one person only, THE FATHER, is declared to be the ONE GOD. In the same sentence, another individual is called THE MAN CHRIST JESUS. This imposes a considerable strain on Binitarianism and Trinitarianism. Paul upholds the same creed in his letter to the congregation or church as Ephesus. He speaks of "asking God, the glorious Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to give you spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you might grow in your knowledge of God." (Eph 1:17 NLT) and he goes on to asset in a later chapter that "We are all one body, we have the same spirit ... There is only one Lord, one faith, one baptism, there is only one God and Father, who is over us all ..." (Eph 4:4-6 NLT) We all understand the "one body", "same Spirit", "one Lord, "one faith", "one baptism" to be numerically one. But God, for Paul, is also one, in the mathematical sense. God the Father is the Father of of our Lord Christ Jesus. Paul's point of view is no different when he writes to the Galatians: "Now there can be an intermediary only between two parties, yet God is one." (Gal 3:20 NJB)

There is a remarkable consistency in Paul's writings when he speaks of God as a single being, namely the Father of Jesus. To say that Paul made the transition to the belief in a multipersonal being is most problematic. His creedal declarations are distinctly in line with the strict monotheism of of Jesus and the whole Jewish heritage which they shared.

When Paul insists that "yet for us there is only one God", he goes on to explain, "However, not everybody has this knowledge." (1 Co 8:4-7) We are tempted to think that not much has changed since the first century. Condensing Paul's plain statements in 1 Co 8:4,6, we have the assertion that "there is only one God, the Father" (NJB) The Binitarian or Trinitarian must bow before this simple pure monotheism. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson's passionate and strongly worded arguments against Trinitarian dogma may not have been too harsh. He regarded it as a relapse from the "true religion Jesus founded in the unity of God into unintelligible polytheism." (C.B. Sanford, The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, University Press of Virginia, 1987, 88-89) Writing to Jared Sparks, a minister friend, he regretted the subsequent growth of the dogma which he called the "hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus [the three-headed dog in Greek mythology who guarded the gates to Hades], with one body and three heads." (Ibid.)

It was Paul who expressed to the church or congregation at Corinth his deep fear that "... I fear that somehow you will be led away from your pure and SIMPLE devotion to Christ, just as Eve was deceived by the serpent. 4 You seem to believe whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach about a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed." (2Co 1:3-4 NLT) I exclaim that the notion of God as one person IS SIMPLICITY ITSELF! A God who is two or three persons, yet only one being, is complex to the extreme! Not the least of the problems of the Binity or Trinity is the fact that Jesus and God are obviously, in the Bible, two distinct persons in the sense of that word -- as much different individuals as any father and son.


5 – Exposure of Errors in The Greatest Document Ever Written In Support Of The Trinity – The Westminster Confession the Greatest Twesting by Use of Hermeneutic Methodology to 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.

<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.



See Page 5

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:59 pm

Page 5


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.

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 later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.
"Later believers systematized the diverse references to God, Jesus and the Spirit found in the New Testament in order to fight against heretical tendencies of how the three are related. Elaboration on the concept of a Trinity also serves to defend the church against charges of di- or tritheism. Since the Christians have come to worship Jesus as god (Pliny, Epistles 96.7), how can they claim to be continuing the monotheistic tradition of the God of Israel? Various answers are suggested, debated, and rejected as heretical, but the idea of a Trinity - one God subsisting in three persons and one substance - ultimately prevails.
"While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do.
"The earliest New Testament evidence for a tripartite formula comes in 2 Corinthians 13:14, where Paul wishes that 'the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit' be with the people of Corinth. It is possible that this three-part formula derives from later liturgical usage and was added to the text of 2 Corinthians as it was copied. In support of the authenticity of the passage, however, it must be said that the phrasing is much closer to Paul's understandings of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit than to a more fully developed concept of the Trinity. Jesus, referred to not as Son, but as Lord and Christ, is mentioned first and is connected with the central Pauline theme of grace. God is referred to as a source of love, not as father, and the Spirit promotes sharing within the community. The word 'holy' does not appear before 'spirit' in the earliest manuscript evidence for this passage."
(5) The Lion Encyclopedia of the Bible, page 158
"Trinity - this word is not used in the Bible. It is the name given to the statements about God in the creeds drawn up in the early centuries of the church to explain what is meant by saying that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament as a whole. From earliest times it was stated at every Christian baptism.
"The Jewish teaching was that there is only one God. No one and nothing must compromise that belief. Yet the New Testament writers clearly show God as the Father who created and sustained everything in his love and power, as the Son who came into this world, and as the Spirit who worked in their own lives.
"After the end of the New Testament period the church found it necessary to work out carefully worded statements about three persons in one God, in order to uphold the truth of the New Testament against false beliefs."
(6) Francis David's Tower, Strength through Peace, by Todd F. Eklof (06-16-02)
Yet his extraordinary life becomes even more meaningful if we find in it relevance for the circumstances of our own day. As we shall see, Francis David, the 16th Century son of a Saxon shoemaker, helped lay the foundation for a new sort of tower that may at last provide humanity with an enduring refuge.

The problem with most towers, that is, with the ideological constructs we adopt to make us feel safe, is that they are maintained by force. For example, when the Roman Emperor Constantine became a Christian, he wanted to rule a unified Christian empire. 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. 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.
(7) The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine by Cher-El L. Hagensick]The search for the origins of the Trinity begins with the earliest writings of man. Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show polytheistic religions, though many scholars assert that earliest man believed in one god. The 19th century scholar and Protestant minister, Alexander Hislop, devotes several chapters of his book The Two Babylons to showing how this original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Catholic Church dogmas. A more recent Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: '[Monotheism is] a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts,' which were written between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51); but there is no question that ancient man believed in 'one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all' (Hislop 14); and in a multitude of gods at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad.1
(Cool Durant, Will. , Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.- note, I believe this author was Catholic With this background, let's look at the growth and evolution of the Trinity. As previous stated, the Bible does not mention the trinity. Harnack affirms that the early church view of Jesus was as Messiah. After his resurrection he was "raised to the right hand of God" - but not considered as God. (78) Lonergan concurs that the educated Christians of the early centuries believed in one, supreme God. (119). As for the Holy Spirit, McGiffert tells us that "They [early Christians] thought of [the Holy Spirit] not as an individual being or person but simply as the divine power working in the world and particularly in the Church." (111) Durant summarizes Apostolic Christianity thus: "In Christ and Peter Christianity was Jewish; in Paul it became half Greek; in Catholicism it became half Roman." [
(9) 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. As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions evoked by the Church's expansion. The writers of these "Apologies" are known to us now as "Apologists". Pelikan states that "it was at least partly in response to pagan criticism of the stories in the Bible that the Christian apologists... took over and adapted the methods and even vocabulary of pagan allegorism."
(10) Dictionary Of The Bible 1995 John L. Mckenzie
"The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."
(11) The Encyclopedia Americana 1956
"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."
(12) The Church of the First Three Centuries 1865 Alvan Lamson
" . . . The modern doctrine of the Trinity is not found in any document or relic belonging to the Church of the first three centuries. . . so far as any remains or any record of them are preserved, coming down from early times, are, as regards this doctrine an absolute blank. They testify, so far as they testify at all, to the supremacy of the father, the only true God; and to the inferior and derived nature of the Son. There is nowhere among these remains a coequal trinity. . . but no un-divided three, -- coequal, infinite, self-existent, and eternal. This was a conception to which the age had not arrived. It was of later origin."
"The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official. The subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . . Finally, cart-loads of saints raised to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, it was the most polytheistic religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This untenable contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt with by accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. "
(13) The Doubter's Companion (John Ralston Saul) "The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages." -
(14) Colliers Encyclopedia "In brief, the ante-Nicene Fathers taught the real distinction and divinity of the three persons . . . but in their attempts at a philosophical interpretation of the Dogma, the ante-Nicene Fathers used certain expressions which would favor sudordinationism. In the late 17th century, the Socinians cited these expressions that the ante-Nicene tradition agreed rather with Arius than with Athanasius . . . Catholic theologians commonly defend the orthodoxy of these early Fathers, while admitting that certain of their expressions were inaccurate and eventually dangerous."
(15) The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." -- (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
(16) Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, S.J. p. 899 "The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature: which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as "essense" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."
(17) Quoting Bruce L. Shelley, a writer for Christian History, we read:
"The Council of Nicea, (was) summoned by Emperor Constantine and held in the imperial palace under his auspices. Constantine viewed the Arian teachings-that Jesus was a created being subordinate to God-as an 'insignificant' theological matter. But he wanted peace in the empire he had just united through force. When diplomatic letters failed to solve the dispute, he convened around 220 bishops, who met for two months to hammer out a universally acceptable definition of Jesus Christ.
"The expression homo ousion, 'one substance,' was probably introduced by Bishop Hosius of Cordova (in today's Spain). Since he had great influence with Constantine, the imperial weight was thrown to that side of the scales. . . . As it turned out, however, Nicea alone settled little. For the next century the Nicene and the Arian views of Christ battled for supremacy. First Constantine and then his successors stepped in again and again to banish this churchman or exile that one. Control of church offices too often depended on control of the emperor's favor." [Christian History, Bruce L. Shelley, "The First Council of Nicea," Issue 28 (Vol. IX, No. 4), 1990, p. 11. ]
(18) Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, The Council of Nice, Isaac Boyle, p. 27.] Furthermore, John 1:1 could not be a proof of the Trinity, for no mention is made of the holy Spirit. That is most embarrassing when the key scripture to the whole Trinity concept omits one-third of the Trinity. Therefore, whatever John 1:1 proves, it does not mention the holy Spirit, and it fails to provide the third part necessary to support the Trinity. Trinitarians have combed through the Bible using every possible text to prove their point. In the overwhelming majority of texts used, you find them doing the same thing as in John 1:1, using arguments that God and Jesus are one, hoping we will not notice that none of their proof verses include the third part necessary - the holy Spirit. The idea is to get people so involved in the discussion that they will forget the holy Spirit is not mentioned. Therefore, the debate lacks the third part needed for rational proof. In order to prove the Trinity doctrine, it is necessary to find Biblical statements of the oneness of being of Father, Son and holy Spirit. Even if we could prove the Father and Son were one being, would it give us a Trinity? When the Nicean Council ended on August 25, 325 A.D., Emperor Constantine delayed the festivities of his twentieth anniversary until the close of this council. We quote the following:
"A magnificent entertainment was provided by that prince, 'for the ministers of God' . . . No one of the bishops was absent from the imperial banquet, which was more admirably conducted than can possibly be described. The guards and soldiers, disposed in a circle, were stationed at the entrance of the palace with drawn swords. The men of God passed through the midst of them without fear, and went into the most private apartments of the royal edifice. Some of them were then admitted to the table of the emperor, and others took the places assigned them on either side. It was a lively image of the kingdom of Christ(?), and appeared more like a dream than a reality."
(19) Edward Gibbon says, in his preface to History of Christianity: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."8 [History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, preface. ] Note: Gibbon is an historian's historian. He would not speak so forthrightly without an enormous basis for his evaluations.
(20) Outline of History, H. G. Wells, p. 421. Commenting on the state of affairs in the early Church, H. G. Wells writes: "We shall see presently how, later on, all Christendom was torn by disputes about the Trinity. There is no clear evidence that the apostles of Jesus entertained that doctrine."


6 – Three Scriptures That Utterly Destroy The False Doctrine Of The Trinity:

The commonly believed myth or false doctrine of the Trinity brought into so called Christianity by the largest cult on earth that has permeated through so many groups because of the baggage carried by many who left/escaped this cult that could not for one reason or the other cut lose of the false doctrines of the cult have contaminated most of Christendom. However, the Bible truths from just three scriptures destroy it as follows:

FIRST:
John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (New English Translation; NEB)
John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (American Standard Version; ASV)
Neither mention in any way more than two beings, yet a trinity of anything requires three similar things.

SECOND:
John 1:2, "The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, "(New English Translation; NEB)
John 1:2, "The same was in the beginning with God." (American Standard Version; ASV)
Clearly states that the word, Jesus (Yeshua) was with God (YHWH) in the beginning, referring back to Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (ASV) when he and his Son started to create the earth and all on it.

THIRD:
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."

Jesus (Yeshua) clearly stated, "for the Father is greater than I." Showing the Father (YHWH) was greater as we all know Jesus (Yeshua) would not lie.

So we can NOW all see this myth is just that and actually just false doctrine baggage from the world's largest cult and those believing it are thoroughly deluded.

The persons believing this myth post false hate literature against those exposing their 'pet' myth, so be ye not surprised at ones using this evil tactic.

To learn more and get the facts which you should check with your own Bible in keeping with Acts 17:11, " Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).


7 - Belief In The Trinity A Distinguishing Feature Between Apostate And Genuine Christians:

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,
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,
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.


See Page 6

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:03 pm

Page 6

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 (*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).

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.


8 – Technical Items With Respect 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 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):

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.

Note: for more details see: The Encyclopedia Britannica; The Great Debate Regarding The Father, Son & Holy Spirit by Roger Wagner (on line at reslight.addr.com/greatdebate.html ); The Two Babylons by Rev. Alexander Hilsop (on line at philologos.org/__eb-ttb/default.htm ); www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt (minutes of the Council of Constantinopile in 381AD); mb-soft.com/believe/txn/monarchi.htm ; www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Sabellianism ; www.sandiego.edu/~baber/r...anism.html ; members.aol.com/davecrnll/corrupt4.html ; www.yashanet.com/library/antisem.htm ; www.webzonecom.com/ccn/cults/sabel.txt ; etc.

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.

+ 1 - Special Translation Appendix on John 1:1:

This is a short introduction on the translation of the word ‘god’ in its various forms.

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]


See Page 7

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:04 pm

Page 7


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".

+ 2 – On The Constructs Of John 1-1
Should John 1:1 read "a god"?

I am not Jehovah's Witness, but if I can bring to your attention 2 scriptures other than Col 1:15.
First is john 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
second John 1:1-3
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.
I will do this backwards. Second to First. If you find the word with God and the word was God
Who was with god in the beginning. The word was God Should actually be the word was a God
For how could God make the mistake of saying he was with himself in the beginning.
And then later you actually find out that the word became flesh.
Now to the first (HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON). There are many references through out the old testament that there are many sons of God, "JOB 1" and Genesis 6. However there is only one that shows the only one created through God was in fact Jesus.


John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
This is the first of many passages to be dealt with from the gospel of John . Before proceeding, it is only fair to mention the problems surrounding the gospel of John. Anyone who has carefully read the four gospels realizes that there is a great difference between the first three gospels and this last gospel. Most famous of these differences are the "I am" sayings attributed to Jesus by John. Although these "I am" sayings seem normal to us, they would have sounded lunical when the gospels were written. Moreover, these sayings are very extreme, so why don't the first three gospels pick them up? Aside from this, there are various theological differences between John and the first three gospels. The gospel of John is a very unique gospel, and there is much speculation regarding the validity of it's content.
The fact of the matter is that John 1:1 does not make logical sense. If the Word was God, how could the Word be with God? The verse makes a little more sense if it is translated differently. Some scholars have decided to translate it as, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Divine." Actually, the last part of the verse, "and the Word was God", does not intend to totally equate the Word with God. It intends to relate the Word as one same in essence to the essence of God. If another translation of the verse is not taken into account, the verse makes no sense at all. This is the reason most scholars have come to the conclusion that the last part of the verse has to do with equality in essence, not total equality.
John's purpose in recording the passage is not to equate Jesus to God, it is to glorify the fact that Jesus (allegedly) is the agent of creation. Taking into account the rest of the chapter, John's idea of an agent of creation becomes evident.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Flats/1716/john1.html

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

New American Bible, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 1 John 5:1-15


1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten by God, and everyone who loves the father loves (also) the one begotten by him.

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/germans.htm

An Open Letter to James White Regarding his
"Germans, JWs, and John 1:1"
To James White.
On one of your web-pages, you try to discredit anyone who would translate John 1:1c as "a god." You narrow in on a few examples, but it appears to me that you use the same tactics that the King James Only people use, to buttress your point. Let us continue:
You: "So what does all of this mean? It seems to be important that we cannot find any scholar who actually believes that the Bible is the Word of God and is inspired and consis-tent with itself that renders John 1.1 as "a god." We have found spirit mediums that do so, and Unitarians who have to use someone else's translation as a basis upon which they make "corrections"."
Reply: The problem with this statement is that it is not true. You have simply checked only a handful of German translators, and stopped at that. If you were really interested in finding more, you could have.
You also wrote though: "None of these scholars are classically Arian in their theology. Dr. Schneider was a Baptist." Does this mean, according to you, that Baptists do not believe the "Bible is the Word of God and is inspired and consis-tent with itself "?
[The others he is referring too are considered "Liberal."]
Are you saying that only those with the highest regard for scripture would translate John 1:1c as you would like?
Consider Dr. Bratcher, the main translator behind the Good News Bible/Today's English Version (which now does translate John 1:1 as "the Word was God") in Faith for the Family reported that at the Southern Baptist Life Commission seminar, Dallas, Texas, 1981, Bratcher made this statement:
"Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible ... To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into a false god." (Faith for the Family, Greenville: Bob Jones University, Sept. 1981)
Further quotes from Bratcher's speech were printed in the Baptist Press report written by Dan Martin, news editor, and printed in the Baptist Courier:
"Often in the past and still too often in the present to affirm that the Bible is the Word of God implies that the words of the Bible are the words of God. Such simplistic and absolute terms divest the Bible altogether of its humanity and remove it from the relativism of the historical process. No one seriously claims all the words of the Bible are the very words of God. If someone does so it is only because that person is not willing thoroughly to explore its implications. ...
"The Word of God is not words; it is a human being, a human life ... Quoting what the Bible says in the context of its history and culture is not necessarily relevant or helpful--and may be a hindrance in trying to meet and solve the problems we face. ..
"We are not bound by the letter of Scripture, but by the spirit. Even words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic in the thirties of the first century and preserved in writing in Greek, 35 to 50 years later, do not necessarily wield compelling authority over us today. The focus of scriptural authority is not the words themselves. It is Jesus Christ as the Word of God who is the authority for us to be and to do.
"As a biblical scholar, I view with dismay the misuse of scriptures by fundamentalists; as ... Christians we listen with alarm to the simpleminded diagnoses and the simplistic panaceas proposed with smug selfassurance by Moral Majority people intent on curing the evils of this age." (The Baptist Courier, Apr. 2, 1981; the Courier is the South Carolina SBC state paper.)
In conclusion he said;
"We are given authority by the Lord the Spirit to speak and to act, but we can never know in advance that we are doing the will of God. It is the height of presumption and arrogance to say, `I know this is God's will, and I am doing it.' No greater responsibility; no higher privilege is given to us than to hear and obey."
These statements caused quite a stir among conservative Christians, so much so that the American Bible Society began losing financial support.
Then there is the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version (again, reading "the Word was God), both of which come under considerable influence from Bruce Metzger.
The same Bruce Metzger that cut out 40% of inspired scripture to give us the Readers Digest Condensed Bible.
The same Bruce Metzger who said of Deuteronomy: "It's compilation is generally assigned to the seventh century B.C., though it rests upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses' time."
The same Bruce Metzger who said of Daniel: "Most scholars hold that the book was compiled during the persecutions (168-165 B.C.) of the Jewish people by Antiochus Epiphanes."
The same Bruce Metzger who said of John: "Whether the book was written directly by John, or indirectly (his teachings may have been edited by another), the church has accepted it as an authoritative supplement to the story of Jesus' ministry given by the other evangelists."
The same Bruce Metzger who said of James: "Tradition ascribes the letter to James, the Lord's brother, writing about A.D. 45, but modern opinion is uncertain, and differs widely on both origin and date."
The same Bruce Metzger who said of the Old Testament:
"The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. ... The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form. ... The process by which the Jews became 'the people of the Book' was gradual, and the development is shrouded in the mists of history and tradition. ... The date of the final compilation of the Pentateuch or Law, which was the first corpus or larger body of literature that came to be regarded by the Jews as authoritative Scripture, is uncertain, although some have conservatively dated it at the time of the Exile in the sixth century. ... Before the adoption of the Pentateuch as the Law of Moses, there had been compiled and edited in the spirit and diction of the Deuteronomic 'school' the group of books consisting of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in much their present form. ... Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long period of time."
There is much more that could be added on Metzger, but this should suffice, except for the fact that you, James White, had also used his research for your book, The King James Only Controversy, while obviously differing on some views.
The RSV is considered by many to be a "Liberal" version, which is why they had public burnings of it in the early 50's (see In Discordance of Scripture).
Martin Luther was an evil person, ( http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html) but no one is complaining about his rendering of John 1:1!
The American Standard Version is hailed as probably one of the most accurate versions of the Bible, yet there were Unitarians involved in its translation (Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot). Should we discard it?
Even the King James Version comes under attack, as some believe the translators were influenced by the Socinians (Unitarians) because of their referring to the holy spirit as an "it" (John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; I Peter 1:11). See Emery H. Bancroft, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961; revised edition], pp. 147-Cool
J.B. Phillips (whose version certainlly does not shy away from the deity of Christ), as I am told by KJV advocates, has an autobiography detailing his necromancy and communication with the dead.
Did you see that I make mention of the KJVO people. You have written a good book on the King James Only debate, yet you employ their tactics to make your point.
I am now going to take some of your words, and use them properly. Most of the time a translation that differs from the NWT
"is just as valid and reliable as the one found in the AV itself, and frequently, it is more clear and understandable. When differences are examined in a context of seeking to understand the reasons for the differences, rather than in one of fear and emotion, we learn more about the Word and the original intents of the authors. This is how Christian dialogue and discussion should take place. Whenever you encounter a supposed "change" in the Bible's text take the time to look carefully at the available information. You will discover that there are reasons for the differences, and that there is no rationale at all for running to theories of conspiracies or evil intentions..." The King James Only Controversy, James White, p. 146
There is much available information out there, and the conclusion is that the NWT rendering has much going for it. Consider:
Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"
Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god
Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god"
Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was"
Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"
Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
"In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." John 1:1 21st Century NT Literal
Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”
Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god"
J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"
George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"
James L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"
Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"
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]
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]
Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]
Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word].
John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"
Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"
Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"
Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should
rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'
Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. "a God"
Lant Carpenter, LL.D "a God"
Andrews Norton, D.D. "a god"
Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church "a God"
Couple this with others who have chosen an alternative rendering focusing on the quality of the Logos, and we have a very strong case:
Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine
Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god
New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"
Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine
International English Bible, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek
word]
Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"
Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]
International Bible Translators N.T. 1981
“In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity.”
Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"
Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"
Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word 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"
Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos
Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine
Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was
Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One
Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it
was what God was
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]
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"
William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And the Word was divine."
Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University,
1943, "And the Word was Divine"
For a fuller expanded list of various translations of John 1:1 click here.
Do I agree with the 100 % world-views of all the above translators? No! Just like I do not agree completely with the world-view of the translators of the other Bibles the WTS prints and distributes, like the ASV, KJV, Byington, NEB, JB, NAB, TEV or others like the RSV or Phillips...but I could never in good conscience tell people to stop using them.
White: We've also found German scholars who try to differentiate between the Father and the Son by coming up with unusual translations of John 1.1, though none of these would identify Jesus as some kind of created being like Michael the Archangel -
Reply: That is because John 1:1 was not written to support such a view. But let us take a look at what some have written:
Methodist Adam Clarke: And the Word was God.] Or, God was the Logos: therefore no subordinate being, no second to the Most High, but the supreme eternal Jehovah.
But regarding the occurence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10, he remarks:
"By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume commentary -- not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon Press, vol. 6, page 952).
John Wesley in his version also translates, "the Word was God," but notice what he says:
Chapter XII
A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.
Wesley on Daniel 10:21
Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes
of the earth desert or oppose it.
The Geneva Bible also follows the traditional rendering of John 1:1, but note what it says at Da 12:1
"And at that {a} time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since
there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
(a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel."
You: Hopefully you will be able to share these life-changing truths with the next follower of the Watchtower Society who knocks at your door.
Reply: And therein lies the rub. You have to wait for me to knock on YOUR door because your lazy and re-active theology bars you from knocking on mine. Can you imagine if Jesus only sat and waited for someone to call on him!
"Be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." 2 Tim 4:5 NASB
If I may, I am going to employ your words in closing, but suit them to fit the NWT, rather than the KJV:
*The anti-NWT movement is a human tradition. It has no basis in history. It has no foundation in fact. It is internally inconsistent, utilizing circular reasoning at its core, and involves the use of more double standards than almost any system of thought I have ever encountered.*
I like you, also "fully believe the Word of God is inerrant," but arguing against the NWT contradicts your claim. Like Professor Duthie says, "It is no more 'full of heresies' than any other translation." [p. 103, Bible Translations And How To Choose Between Them, The Paternoster Press]
Until you realize this Mr. White, then you are only providing fodder for atheists who also argue for the corruption of the Bible.


http://www.riverpower.org/John/C01v01-3.htm

The Word refers to Jesus the Christ. This is clarified in verse 14:
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John referred to Jesus as the "Word" in two other Bible books that he wrote:
1 John 1:1,2 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us--
Rev 19:13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Word is an expression of deity. To the Jews of John’s day, Word summed up all the Old Testament law and prophets. To the Greeks, Word expressed deity in symbolizing that Jesus revealed God the Father to mankind. As words express the thoughts of a person, Jesus, the Word, expressed the nature of God. God revealed Himself through Jesus Christ:



I am not Jehovah's Witness, but if I can bring to your attention 2 scriptures other than Col 1:15.
First is john 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
second John 1:1-3
4. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
5. The same was in the beginning with God.
6. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
I will do this backwards. Second to First. If you find the word with God and the word was God
Who was with god in the beginning. The word was God Should actually be the word was a God
For how could God make the mistake of saying he was with himself in the beginning.
And then later you actually find out that the word became flesh.
Now to the first (HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON). There are many references through out the old testament that there are many sons of God, "JOB 1" and Genesis 6. However there is only one that shows the only one created through God was in fact Jesus.

http://www.slsoftware.com/study/KJV/1John.html

1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may

be full.

http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/John%2011.htm
JOHN 1:1
Perhaps the translation that has stirred the most controversy in the NWT is John 1:1 The New World Translation reads here:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god."
Most are familiar with the KJV's: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
The latter is followed by most, but not all, modern translations, such as:
The Revised Standard Version
The New Revised Standard Version
The Modern Language Bible
The New Testament in Modern English
The New Testament in the Language of the People
The New American Standard Version
New American Bible
The Twentieth Century New Testament
The New International
VersionThe Jerusalem Bible
The 3 translations by Moffatt, Schonfield and Goodspeed(An American Translation)has: "...and the Word was divine."
Todays English Version reads:"...and he was the same as God."
The Revised English Bible reads:"...and what God was,the Word was."
Reflecting an understanding of Jn 1:1with the New World Translation's:"and the Word was a god." we have:
The New Testament in an Improved Version(1808)
The New Testament in Greek and English(A.Kneeland, 1822.)
A Literal Translation Of The New Testament.(H.Heinfetter, 1863)
Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible(R.Young, 1885)
The Coptic Version of the N.T.(G.W.Horner, 1911)
Das Evangelium nach Johannes(J.Becker, 1979)
The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed(J.L.Tomanec, 1958)
The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists(J.S.Thompson, 1829)
Das Evangelium nach Johannes(S.Schulz, 1975)
Others from each 'group' could be cited.
So from the incept we can see that "and the Word was God," is only ONE possible rendering of John 1:1. However, the rendering as found in the New World Translation has come under severe criticism. One late well known critic even saying that such a rendering as, "and the Word was a god," is "grammatically impossible." One website says, after listing 18 translations that read at Jn 1:1 as "the Word was God," and 8 others such as the New English Bible and Todays English Bible,:
"Out of all the existing translations of the Holy Bible, taken from the original languages, ONLY those published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society deny that Jesus is God."
Clearly, this is not the case, as the above lists shows. Unless of course the writer of the above thinks the WTB&TS published those others that say,"a g/God. from the "original languages!"
"Evidence of abysmal ignorance," "not held by any reputable Greek scholar," "is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholar," "rejected by all recognised scholars of Greek language," "obsolete and incorrect," "neither scholarly nor reasonable," "pernicious," "reprehensible," "monstrous," "intellectually dishonest," "totally indefensible."(to check up on the credibility of such remarks made go to Is The New World Translation Biased page.)
The above are some of the strong language used by some towards the NWT's rendering of "theos en ho logos." Well, if the above is anything to go by I might as well throw the towel in right now! But let us see. You can judge for yourselves dear reader whether the case is closed already because of such comments by scholars of 'repute.'
Firstly, is the translation of "theos en ho logos," as "the Word was a god," grammatically impossible?
("grammatically impossible," so said Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."-An Ancient heresy in Modern Dress, Expository Times, 65, Oct.1957.)
Robert H. Gundry-Westmont College, Ca, USA,-wrote me: "As to the translation of John 1:1,"and the Word was a god" is grammatically possible but not grammatically favoured."
D.Moody Smith Jnr,George Washington Ivey Professor of N.T. wrote me: "As to John 1:1 the translation "a god" is possible, but in the context* clearly not what is intended. "Divine" is better, but John clearly wants to say Jesus was theos°..."(*- on 'context'see below.°-exactly,again,see below)
Notice that these two scholars are honest enough to say that the rendering of John 1:1c as found in the NWT IS grammatically possible! Of course, they both reject such a translation but on grounds other than grammar. So a question does come to one's mind here. Who exactly is being "intellectually dishonest?" Has it been the NWT Translation Committee or the above late scholar?
Also, Murray J. Harris:
"According, from the point of view of grammar alone,[theos en ho logos]could be rendered "the Word was a god."-Jesus As God,1992,pp.60. (Again, Harris rejects this translation on grounds other than grammar.)
C.H.Dodd has also written:
"If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [theos en ho logos]; would be "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language,[theos en ho logos]might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement, in that sense["signifying one of a class of beings regarded as divine"-Dodd, ibed).....The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole."-Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No.1, January 1977.(emphasis/italics ours)
Again, note "possible translation" and "cannot be faulted."
So the following from Walter Martin's "The Kingdom of the Cults" is wholly erroneous when he states: "Contrary to the translations of The Emphatic Diaglott and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the Greek grammatical construction leaves no doubt whatsoever that this is the only possible rendering of the text."
One has to wonder how many persons has this late author has managed to mislead?
C.H.Dodd's rejection of the translation, "the Word was a god," are on grounds other than grammar. Jehovah's Witnesses, indeed others, would contend with him on that. Interestingly, James Parkinson has written: "
"It is difficult to find objectivity in the translation of John 1:1. If Colwell's rule is correct (that the definite predicate nominative does not take the article) then "the Word was God" would be allowable. This translation is rejected on two sides. Because the indefinite predicate nominative would also not take the definite article, "the Word was a god" should be no less allowable. Still others think the Greek theos here implies a quality and translate it as "the Word was divine." Rejecting all three, the New English Bible says, "What God was the Word was." The ancient reading of John 1:18 mentioned above will impact the translation of verse 1. C. H. Dodd, driving force of the NEB, acknowledges of the Word was a god--"As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." He rejects it, saying, "The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johanine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole" (as though theological acceptability should be a criterion!) Paralleling with John 4:24 ("God is [a] spirit"), Dodd rejects also the AV rendering of John 1:1 in favor of that of the NEB. As for the original text of John 1:18, he dismisses it as "grammatically exceptional, if not eccentric.(Actually the Greek from here is not identical to that of John 4:24, but to that of I Timothy 6:10)."
Note the astute remark by Parkinson,"It is difficult to find objectivity in the translation of John 1:1." He is aware of the problem of Dodd's stance given above by commenting,"as though theological acceptability should be a criterion!".Quite! But on this and whether the Trinity should influence a translator's choice of rendering John 1:1, see the book, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation by R.Furuli, Chapter 4, 'The Trinity Doctrine as a Translation Problem', pp 109-140.
Some have claimed that it is on the "mere lack of the article," that the New World Translation came by it's translation.(For instance, I have read on the wwww "Just because a noun is not preceded by the article does not automatically justify the insertion of the English indefinite "a". This is a gross over-simplification of the facts, a practice unfortunately common amongst those who are not properly trained in the Greek language. I am aware that this is a serious charge, however,the facts reveal that the WTB&TS has consistently refused to name any of it's NWT translators...". This person has accused the NWT of practicing something it does not practice-a straw man has been created. It is a serious charge. Not least because it's a false one but it also impugns the scholarship of others such as those I have quoted herein.To bolster this charge he trys to show that the anonimity of those behind the NWT indicates something unscholarly about their work. An ad hominem. Although the NWT thought that the omission was important it is not "merely" because, in the phrase "kai theos en ho logos" the word "theos" lacks the article that it so translated. Any one reading what the NWTTC has said(and critics as the above should have done!)will be able to see this. For instance, they have said:
"While the Greek langauge has no indefinite article corresponding to the English "a," it does have the definite article ho, often rendered into English as "the."...Frequently, though, nouns occur in Greek without the article.Grammarians refer to these nouns as "anarthrous," meaning "used without the article." Interestingly, in the final part of John 1:1, the Greek word for "god," theos, does not have the article ho before it. How do translators render such anarthrous Greek nouns into English?
"Often they add the English indefinite article "a" to give the proper sense to the passage.....This does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the Greek text it should appear in English with the indefinite article. Translators render these nouns variously, at times even with a "the," understanding them as definite, though the definite article is missing."-The Watchtower, 1975, p.702.
So, in this case before us, Why did the NWT choose to use the English "a" in John 1:1c? Let them answer:
"The New World Bible Translation Commitee chose to insert the indefinite article "a" there. This helps to distinguish "the Word," Jesus Christ, as a god, or divine person with vast power, from the God whom he was "with, "Jehovah, the Almighty....Alfred Marshall explains why he used the indefinite article in his interlinear translation of all the verses mentioned in the two previous paragraphs[Jn.4:19;6:70;8:34,44;10:1,13;18:26,37.],and in many more: "The use of it in translation is a matter of individual judgement....We have inserted 'a' or 'an' as a matter of course where it seems called for." Of course, neither Colwell(as noted above)nor Marshall felt that an "a" before "god" at John 1:1 was called for. But this was not because of any inflexible rule of grammar" It was "individual judgement" which scholars and translators have a right to express. The New World Bible Translation Committee expressed a different judgement in this place by the translation "a god."...The translation "a god" at John 1:1 does no injustice to Greek grammar. Nor does it conflict with the worship of the One whom the resurrected Jesus Christ called "my God" and to whom Jesus himself is subject-John 20:17; Rev.3:2,12; 1 Cor.11:3; 15:28."-ibed
So the NWT rendering was due to (1)The lack of the article in the phrase,"kai theos en ho logos." (2)Context;the Word was "with" the God[ho theos in John 1:1,2] and (3)What the rest of the Bible says about Jesus.
On (1) and (2),The Translator's New Testament says: "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific.In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that it's omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos(God)so that the phrase means 'The Word was divine.'"
Vincent Taylor says:
"Here, in the Prologue[of John's Gospel]the Word is said to be God, but as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not used(in the final clause). For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine'(Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the absolute sense of the name. The New English Bible neatly paraphrases the phrase in the words 'and what God was,the Word was',....In neither passage[including 1:18]is Jesus unequivocally called God...."- Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?, Expository Times, 73, No.4(Jan.1962), p.118.
This nicely leads us into this,which I have recently come across, on a site critical of the NWT's John 1:1:
"Merrill C. Tenney comments further, "To say the absence of the article bespeaks of the non-absolute deity of the Word is sheer folly. There are many places in this Gospel where the anarthrous theos appears (e.g. 1:6,12,13,18), and not once is the implication that this is referring to just "a god" (Tenney, Merrill. "The Gospel of John" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Regency, 1981,p.30). The NWT renders the first three anarthrous appearances of theos Tenney mentions as "God," and the last as "god" (no "a"). But if the WT were consistent in the application of its own Greek "rules" each of these should read, "a god."."
(I have read also, "If one is to dogmatically assert that any anarthrous noun must be indefinite and translated with an indefinite article, one must be able to do the same with the 282 other times theos appears anarthrously...". One has to wonder who has ever "dogmatically asserted" that any anarthrous noun must be indefinite! Not the NWT Translation Committee at any rate!)
Dr Jason BeDuhn shows the ignorance of the above by saying:
"In fact the KIT[Appendix 2A, p.1139]explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject. He[one particular critic who said the same as above]goes on to insist that the NWT is inconsistent because other uses of THEOS without the article in John 1 are not translated the same way (a charge repeated by Countess, as mentioned in the Stafford book, from the same ignorance.) He fails to note that not only that the constructs are different, but that these other uses are not nominative (THEOS) but genitive (THEOU); the latter form is governed by totally different rules. The genitive form of the noun does not require the article to be definite, whereas the nominative form normally does. It's that simple."
( The above clearly shows that this "ignorance" is consistently repeated.Notice the following example where the writer gives Countess as his source.We may have here a case of the blind leading the blind!: "The word "God" appears 282 times in the Greek without the article (anarthrous) in the New Testament. In order to be consistent with their "a god" translation, the New World Translation (NWT) should translate all anarthrous verses "a god." But this is not what we find. Instead, the NWT translates it "God" a whopping 266 times and god, a god, gods, and godly only 16 times! (The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament, Robert H. Countess, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1982, pp. 54-55). This proves the NWT deliberately changed John 1:1 to fit their theology. The verse is correctly translated, "The Word was God."
7. The New World Translation overlooks Colwell's rule in Greek which says, "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb." Simply stated, the word "God" doesn't need an article in John 1:1 because in Greek it precedes the verb.
8. In The New World Translation "God" is capitalized in John 1:6, 12, 13, and verse 18 (twice), yet all are without the articles! This proves once again, the committee that translated the NWT deliberately changed John 1:1 to "a god.")
We will look later whether the NWT "overlooks" Colwell's rule.The 2nd point made above shows an ignorance of basic Greek! However:
Those who have looked into the construction we find in John 1:1c: "theos [the predicate]was[the verb]the logos[articular subject]say:
"At a number of points in this study we have seen that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may be primarily qualitative in force yet may also have some connotation of definiteness. The categories of qualitativeness and definiteness, that is, are not mutually exclusive, and frequently it is a delicate exegetical issue for the interpreter to decide which emphasis a Greek writer had in mind. As Colwell called attention to the possibility that such nouns may be definite, the present sudy has focused on their qualitative force. In Mark 15:39 I would regard the qualitative emphasis as primary, although there may also be some connotation of definiteness.In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."-P.Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol.92.1, 1973, pp.85,87.(About Harner and the NWT editors quotation of him here, see below.)
This scotch's the arguement that the definite article was not needed but would be understood, because of the word order of the phrase, so that the phrase should read,"and the Word was God." In the translation of John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," the reader would not be aware that in the Greek text the first occurrence of "God," has the article, and the second has not. Yet, if the omission in the second case is "significant," then this should be brought out in translation.
So,what is the best way, even the correct way, to translate; "kai theos en ho logos?"
First of all, whenever we come across the indefinite "a" or "an" in an English translation these words are an insertion by the translator to bring out the correct thought inherent in the Greek. When the article is used it identifies a particular noun, so that when we say,"the man," we have a particular man in mind. When we use the indefinite article "a man," we are describing one of a group/class, so that "a man," means "one of mankind." Or, it could be describing the characteristics or qualities of that noun, so that "a man" means "man-like," "is manly." So, in Greek a noun can be definite, indefinite or qualitative, or a combination of them. We have just seen that the predicate noun "theos," in "theos en ho logos," cannot be considered definite. So that must mean it is either indefinite or qualitative or a combination of both indefinite/qualitative.
How have translator's translated singular anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb as we find in John 1:1c? Often they have used the English indefinite article. The New World Translation, Reference Edition(1984) has an appendix that lists of 11 instances of this syntax in Mark and John showing how they have been translated in 6 different Bible translations- 5 of whom come from the group above that translate the singular anarthrous predicate "theos" in John 1:1c as definite. In all instances they have, of course, translated them using the English indefinite article. The appendix says, in part:
"In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous [theos] in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read " a god." The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering."-Appendix 6A,p1579.
Does this mean that the NWT Translation Committee regarded the anarthrous predicate "theos" in John 1:1c as purely "indefinite".The 1950 1st edtion of the NWT contained an appendix that discussed John 1:1. Therein we read after citing both Goodspeed's and Moffatt's translation:"and the Word was divine":
"Every honest person will have to admit that John's saying that the Word or Logos "was divine" is not saying that he was the God with whom he was. It merely tells of a certain quality about the Word or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same God.....Careful translators recognise that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality,whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone".
This is exactly what one scholar wrote:
"An Exegetical Grammer Of The Greek New Testament, William D Chamberlain
page 57
d. A qualitative force is often expressed by the absence of the article: en tois propsetais (Heb. 1:1), 'in the prophets,' calls attention to a particular group, while en uio (Heb. 1:2), 'in son,' calls attention to the rank of the Son as a 'spokesman' for God. The ARV in trying to bring out the force of this phrase translates it, 'in his Son,' italicizing 'his.'
The predicate of a sentence may be recognized by the absence of the article: theos en ho logos(Jn. 1:1), the Word was God; kai ho logos sarz egento (Jn. 1:14), 'And the Word became flesh'; esontai oi eschatoi protoi (Mt. 20 :16), 'the last shall be first.' The article with each of these predicate nouns would equate them and make them interchangeable, e. g., ho theos en ho logos would make God and the Word identical. The effect of this can be seen in ho theos agape estin (1 Jn. 4 :Cool, 'God is love.' As the sentence now stands 'love' describes a primary quality of God; the article he with agape would make God and love equivalents, e. g., God would possess no qualities not subsumed under love.
"Summary
"The primary function of the article is to make something definite. It may point out something new to the discussion, or something already mentioned.
"Theos en ho logos" is describing the quality of the Logos-Word in that he possessed divine or divinity as the only begotten son of God who was a spirit being like God but not identical to Jehovah God."
William D.Chamberlain was professor of New Testament language and literature at the Louisville Presbyterian Seminary.It is a text book on Greek grammar that has been recommended by Bruce Metzger.
So we can see that the NWT Translation Committee recognized that the noun "theos" was primarily qualitative ,as well as being indefinite.It was considered primarily qualitative because of the Greek word order.If the verb,a form of 'I am',comes before the anarthrous predicate nominative then,as a rule,it would be considered primarily indefinite.If after,primarily qualitative.What would this mean to our understanding of John 1:1c? Well,the meaning of "and the Word was a god," would then be that the Word was "godlike"-divine,holy,powerful.Not just "a god," in the sense he was just one of many "gods," The Word was a "divine one." Or, as one German translator puts it: "and godlike sort was the Logos."-Das Evangelium nach Johannes,1978,by Johannes Schneider.
However, the NWT Translation Committee chose to use the indefinite article "a" to so render as it did and not like Moffatt and Goodspeed, because of two factors.One, it's avowed principle of being as "literal as possible" and second, the context*, from the Greek,shows a contrast between two that are "theos" but only one is "ho theos," "the God." As the Word was with "the God," he could not be that "God," and, yet, he was "theos"(°-cp. Moody-Smith's comment above,)so the Word must be distinguished from "God" by literally translating "theos." One way to do that is saying that the Word was "a god." A higher case 'G' is rightly used for the One said to be "THE" theos, and hence a lower case used for the Word said to be with this "God," "ho theos,"-the Almighty God. Can the use of the indefinite article bring out the qualitativeness of a noun though?(* re context-cp.D.Moody Smith's comment quoted above.)
In the book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended,An Answer to Scholars and Critics,the author,Greg Stafford, a Jehovah's Witness himself, cites and discusses three examples where he believes that "a qualitative/indefinite aspect is evident." One of these is Acts 28:4 where it is said of Paul, "the man is a murderer," from the Greek "phoneus estin ho anthropos." I can do no better here than quote Stafford:
"In translations of this verse the qualitative/indefinite aspect of the noun is usually brought out by means of the indefinite article.The indefinite aspect seems clear enough, and the qualitative nuance naturally follows from the noun used to describe Paul. How can he be a murderer without owning the qualities of a murderer? This text provides an exact parallel to John 1:1c, where we have an anarthrous preverbal nominative followed by an articulated subject."
Agreeing with the above are the comments, on this and Stafford's position here,i s Dr Jason BeDuhn who has written:
"The Jehovah's Witness editors, in explaining this verse, say that they are trying to convey that the word has qualitative sense--that is, that the word belongs to the class of divine beings. This is correct. In fact, it seems clear to me that the word theos is in this verse a predicate adjective. I would translate as Moffatt and Goodspeed (two excellent scholars of Greek) have: "And the Word was divine."
For the reason why this preference of translation of John 1:1c by Dr. Beduhn does _not_ undermine this site's 'use' of him re the New World Translation click here.
".....I have already told you that "the Word was divine" is a very simple and accurate way to convey the qualitative sense of this construct, and I am pleased to see that Stafford comes to the same conclusion. Towards the end of the chapter, Stafford cites Acts 28:4, which is a perfect choice, and shows how this qualitative sense for the anarthrous predicate nominative before the verb works."
(Another "exact parallel" is 1 Kings 18:27LXX.It has the same sentence structure as John 1:1. It says: "Call at the top of your voice, for he is a god"; "a god" is the natural translation of the Greek "theos estin", or "god he is." Stafford gives two other examples of qualitative/indefinite nouns;John 14:19 and from The Martyrdom of Polycarp,12:1)
There is no doubt then that the use of the English indefinite article can be used to bring out both the qualitative aspect of a Greek noun and the indefiniteness derived from it's context.
How might this little discussion be ended. Surely, anyone should be able to agree that the NWT's translation here is justifable at least. It breaks no 'rule' of grammar. It properly distinguishes between the one who is "Ho theos," and the Word as "theos." It fits in with the context better than the popular rendition.The context shows two individuals, one who is said to be "with" the other and so therefore they cannot be identical. True, "ho theos," is the Father, but John is not only distinguishing between the Father and the Word, but between two beings, one as an articulated "theos" and one who is an anarthrous "theos." A translation should do so aswell. Such translations such as "and the Word was God," certainly do not. Jehovah's Witnesses will say that the NWT's translation "a god," agrees with the rest of scriptures that portray Jesus not as "God," "the God," "God Almighty," whose name is, in English,Jehovah, but as his Son,who was sent to do his Father's will and remained subordinate to Him even after his resurrection, and who he called his God(Rev.3:12), the One he too worships and directs all worshippers to(Luke 4:Cool.(see "Jesus as Theos.")
So what is the real issue involved here in the severe criticism that such a rendering,"and the Word was a god," has been met with.In short, it's all to do with theology. Jehovah's Witness deny the trinity and indeed speak out 'against' it. I recommend the Awake 1972, May 22nd, pp.27-28 on this: Is it Grammar or Interpretation?
Lastly, it might be pointed out. Such scholars as Bruce Metzger and the late William Barclay's strong condemnation of the New World Translation here was based on Colwell's rule. At least their condemnation was, back then, in the 1960's, The NWT Translation Committee rejected such a 'rule' here, back then, and still do. They have been joined by others. Who has been proven right? These 'reputable' scholars or the anonymous persons, who were and are still, much maligned and their scholarship brought into question from all quarters? Do I need to tell you?
*Harner-Although he understands that 'theos' in John 1:1c is not definite that does not mean that he believes that "and the Word was a god" is correct. He had written, "Perhaps the clause[John 1:1c]could be translated "the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos." So BeDuhn is right about Harners "religous commitments." The NWT might agree that "theos" here is qualitative but would then disagree with Harner in believing that the Word was equal to the one called "God" here. The NWT editors cite Harner simply because he says that the anarthrous theos is not definite. Scholars, such as Metzger, had argued strongly in the past against such a translation as "...a god," from the belief that theos here WAS definite.As Stafford points out,"..to use Harners article in support of this view[that the anarthrous theos is not definite but qualitative]is certainly appropriate,since that is one of the primary purposes of his article!" It is quite clear that the belief that Jesus is part of a tri-une God-head has 'influenced' Harner's view of what the qualitative force of theos here indicates about the Word. It is the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses that to do this is erroneous, not least because the Trinity is, in it's full conception, a 4th century doctrine and should have no place in deciding what John was saying at the end of the 1st. In defending John 1:1c as proof of Jesus' deity in the sense he was "God," I have read,"The WT is ignoring the distinction between "Person" and "essence." The Word is not the same PERSON as God the Father, but it does not then follow He is not of the same ESSENCE as Him." Here we have a prime example of importing a term,"essence," used by later 'theologians' from after the 1st century into John's Gospel. The Bible does not contain that word or the idea that Trinitarians mean by it. It is wholly erroneous to import such a 3rd/4th century word and idea into a discussion of John 1:1. Also, John is not distinguishing the two beings here in terms of person but as two which are "theos." So, what John 1:1 is saying, rather than just "The Word is not the same PERSON as God the Father," it is saying that the "Word" is not the same "theos" as the one with whom he was with. Translations such as "and the Word was God" make out he was the "God" he was "with"! Even Trinitarians disagree with that, for that would mean that the Word was the Father! So we have translations that apparently recognise the confusion inherent in the "Word was God" translations and paraphrase the sentence to read "and he was the same as God."-Today's English Version(1976) Notice the 'addition' of the words "same as." It could be interpreted as saying he, the Word, although "with and the same as" "God" makes him other than "God." I see nothing wrong with this translation despite what the translator's think it is intended to mean. I can be with someone,a particular "man" and be the same as them,"man", a "man," myself. But if I said that to anyone would they think I was that particular man? No, they would rightly conclude I was "like" him but not actually him. Nor, then, was the Word "God" in John 1:1.

See Page 8

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:11 pm

Page 8

Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott as published by Fowler & Wells NY.,1883, You may notice that in Wilson's interlinear reading of John 1:1 he literally translates John 1:1c "kai theos en ho Logos" as "and a god was the Word." He shows that the Word or "Logos" is not the same "theos" as the one he was with by translating it in his main translation as "and the LOGOS was God." Note that it is "God" in lower case than the other occurrence which he has as "GOD."

Re scholars such as Metzger and Barclay. Any remarks I have said about them above does not take away the fact that they ARE excellent scholars in their field and I do not wish to be understood as saying otherwise. These two have contributed much over the years which to those who are interested have much benefited. But thier remarks do highlight tha fact that what credentials you have, whatever qualifications you may have gained, a person's theology can 'get in the way' of an objective approach to Bible translation and understanding.
I have read the following: "...if you are going to insist on a translation,you must be prepared to defend it in such a way as to provide a way for the author to have expressed the alternate translation.In other words ,if theos en ho logos is "a god," how could John have said "the Word was God?"
Good question--which can be answered.
Greg Stafford, after quoting Wallace where the latter says, "The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father,"(Greek Grammar,note 31,),writes,"However,there is a more concise way John could have communicated the precise distinction Wallace makes, had he simply written,[[ho logos en pros ho patera[or,pros theos patera],kai theos[or,ho theos]en ho logos("the Word was with the Father[or,'with God the Father],and the Word was God").If John had wanted to state that the Word was God but distinct from the Father, then the above, or some variation thereof, is all he need have written. Had he done so, there would be some justification for distinguishing the two in terms of "person," although not necessarily in the later Trinitarian sense in which the Father and Son are distinguished as "persons" in the "Godhead." However, as John 1:1 stands in our Greek texts today, a distinction can only be made in terms of theos, without reading later theology into the text. We agree that ho theos is the Father, but since John is careful to distinguish the being of the Father(ho theos) from that of the Word,we must also do so in our translations of this passage."-Jehovah's Witnesses Defended. 1st edition, p.219-220.(2nd edition now available)
So; "In the beginning the Word was,and the Word was with God and the Word was a god.This one was in the beginning with God."-NWT
In the 1950 edition of the New World Translation an appendix at the back discusses the reasons why the NWTTC choose to render John 1:1 as they did. Therein they quoted from A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey which remarks on p.148, paragraph (3): "The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4;6, [lit., "market was the place] and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1[kai theos en ho logos], and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with [theos]." The said NWT(1950) appendix went on to say about this remark by the above Grammarians: "Instead of translating John 1:1, and the word was deity, this Grammar could have translated it, and the word was a god, to run more parallel with Xenophon's statement, and the place was a market." Mantey has charged that the NWT appendix has misused his remarks as quoted above. A letter he wrote to a certain individual has been re-produced in various books that are critical of Jehovah's Witness and the New World Translation. However,despite what Mantey has said in that letter what his Grammar does say in regard to John 1:1 and Xenophon 1:4:6,t hat is, they are "parallel" in their sentence construction: both are examples where the predicate nominative is anarthrous and precede the verb and the subject is after the verb and has the article. There is no getting away from it that Dana and Mantey, although not intending to, has given the basis or allowance of the translation of 'kai theos en ho logos' as "and the word was a god." For a deeper discussion of this, between a Jehovah's Witness and a Trinitarian, re Dana and Mantey's Manual Grammar, the NWT(1950)appendix, John 1:1, the letter to Mantey here alluded to and Mantey's response, which has had wide publicity, go to Debatelog/Hommel

http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/John%2011.htm

(1 John 1:1 NKJV) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life;
(1 John 1:2 NKJV) the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us;
(1 John 1:3 NKJV) that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

http://www.seekgod.org/bible/chapters/1john1.html


http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.2.6.html [a Muslim Greek translator]

Another verse quoted in defense of the "Trinity" is the verse of John 1:1 :
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
When I first learned of this verse it appeared to me that I had finally found my elusive goal. However, after substantial research into Christian theological literature, I would later come to learn that this verse too can not be interpreted to justify a "triune" God. My own experience has shown that this verse is the one most popularly quoted by most Christians in defense of the Trinity. For this reason I shall spend a little more time in it's analysis than in the analysis of the other verses.
First of all, it is quite obvious from simply reading the above verse that even in the very best case, this verse speaks only of a "Duality" not a "Trinity." Even the most resolute conservative Christian will never claim to find in this verse any mention whatsoever of a "merging" of a Holy Ghost with God and "the Word." So even if we were to accept this verse at face value and just have faith, even then, we find ourselves commanded to believe in a "Duality" and not a "Trinity." But let us see if this verse does in fact even command us to believe in a "Duality." To do this we need to notice the following points:

1) Mistranslation of the text:
In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).
Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse is honestly presented as
"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."
The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173
And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of "God" we read
"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"
The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317
In yet another Bible we read:
"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"
The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt
Please also see "The Authentic New Testament" by Hugh J. Schonfield and many others.
If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to describe the devil, however, now the system of translation has been changed:
"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."
According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the Devil should also have been written as "The God" with a capital "G." If Paul was inspired to use the exact same words to describe the Devil, then why should we change it? Why is "The God" translated as simply "the god" when referring to the devil, while "divine" is translated as the almighty "God" when referring to "The Word"? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?
Well, what is the difference between saying "the word was God," and between saying "the word was a god (divine)"? Are they not the same? Far from it! Let us read the bible:
"I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of the most High"
Psalms 82:6:
"And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh"
Exodus 7:1
"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."
2 Corinthians 4:4
What does all of this mean? Let me explain.
In the West, it is common when one wishes to praise someone to say "You are a prince," or "You are an angel" ..etc. When someone says this do they mean that that person is the son of the King of England, or a divine spiritual being? There is a very slight grammatical difference between saying "You are a prince" and between saying "You are THE prince," however, the difference in meaning is quite dramatic.
Further, it is necessary when translating a verse to also take into account the meaning as understood by the people of that age who spoke that language. One of the biggest problems with the Bible as it stands today is that it forces us to look at ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called "original" manuscripts of the NT available today are written in Greek or Latin. The Jews had no trouble reading such verses as Psalms 82:6, and Exodus 7:1, while still affirming that there is only one God in existence and vehemently denying the divinity of all but God Almighty. It is the continuous filtration of these manuscripts through different languages and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church's extensive efforts to completely destroy all of the original Hebrew Gospels (see last quarter of this chapter) which has led to this misunderstanding of the verses.
The Americans have a saying: "Hit the road men." It means "It is time for you to leave." However, if a non-American were to receive this command without any explanation then it is quite possible that we would find him beating the road with a stick. Did he understand the words? Yes! Did he understand the meaning? No!
In the Christian church we would be hard pressed to find a single priest or nun who does not address their followers as "my children." They would say: "Come here my children", or "Be wary of evil my children" ... etc. What do they mean?
A fact that many people do not realize is that around 200AD spoken Hebrew had virtually disappeared from everyday use as a spoken language. It was not until the 1880s that a conscious effort was made by Eliezer Ben-Yehudah to revive the dead language. Only about a third of current spoken Hebrew and basic grammatical structures come from biblical and Mishnaic sources. The rest was introduced in the revival and includes elements of other languages and cultures including the Greek and Arabic languages.
Even worse than these two examples are cases when translation into a different languages can result in a reversal of the meaning. For example, in the West, when someone loves something they say "It warmed my heart." In the Middle East, the same expression of joy would be conveyed with the words: "It froze my heart." If an Mideasterner were to greet a Westerner with the words: "It froze my heart to see you," then obviously this statement would not be greeted with a whole lot of enthusiasm from that Westerner, and vice versa. This is indeed one of the major reasons why the Muslims have been so much more successful in the preservation of their holy text than the Christians or the Jews; because the language of the Qur'an has remained from the time of Muhammad (pbuh) to the present day a living language, the book itself has always been in the hands of the people (and not the "elite"), and the text of the book remains in the original language of Muhammad (pbuh). For this reason, a translator must not and should not "translate" in a vacuum while disregarding the culture and traditions of the people who wrote these words. As we have just seen, it was indeed quite common among the Jews to use the word "god" (divine) to convey a sense of supreme power or authority to human beings. This system, however, was never popularly adopted by them to mean that these individuals were in any way omnipotent, superhuman, or equal to the Almighty.
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.2.6.html Muslim-SA@acsu.buffalo.edu
___________________________________________________________________________________________

http://web.fares.net/w/.ee7f254
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
When I first learned of this verse it appeared to me that I had finally found my elusive goal. However, after substantial research into Christian theological literature, I would later come to learn that this verse too can not be interpreted to justify a "triune" God. My own experience has shown that this verse is the one most popularly quoted by most Christians in defense of the Trinity. For this reason I shall spend a little more time in it's analysis than in the analysis of the other verses.
First of all, it is quite obvious from simply reading the above verse that even in the very best case, this verse speaks only of a "Duality" not a "Trinity." Even the most resolute conservative Christian will never claim to find in this verse any mention whatsoever of a "merging" of a Holy Ghost with God and "the Word." So even if we were to accept this verse at face value and just have faith, even then, we find ourselves commanded to believe in a "Duality" and not a "Trinity." But let us see if this verse does in fact even command us to believe in a "Duality." To do this we need to notice the following points:

http://bibles.datasegment.com/weymouth/1%20John/1
Weymouth New Testament


1 That which was from the beginning, which we have listened to, which we have seen with our own eyes, and our own hands have handled concerning the Word of Life--

2 the Life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness, and we declare unto you the Life of the Ages which was with the Father and was manifested to us--

3 that which we have seen and listened to we now announce to you also, in order that you also may have fellowship in it with us, and this fellowship with us is fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

4 And we write these things in order that our joy may be made complete.
http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/JohnChapterOneCorrected.html
Assembly of Yahweh, Cascade
(an Assembly of True Israel, of the Diaspora)
An Accurate Translation (with comments) of John chapter 1: 1-15.
1 In [a] beginning was the Logic, and the Logic pertained to Elohim (G_d), and Elohim was the Logic. 2 This was in [a] beginning, [and] pertained to Elohim. 3 All things through it came into being and apart from it came into being not even one thing, which has come into being. 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men; 5 and the light in the darkness shines, and the darkness does not overcome it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.vocationsvancouver.com/scripture_1_john_1_1_4.htm Archdiocese of Vancouver


We Proclaim - 1 John 1:1-4
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-- 2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us-- 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.

... In John 1:1 we are told, "The Word was with God and the Word was God." A little later,
in John 1:14, we find, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Taken ...
members.datafast.net.au/sggram/f107.htm
Westcott-Hort text

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
It is strange you bring up John 1:1 which is probably the least understood scripture due to the rather unusual ancient Koine Greek grammatical structure he used which can be translated in at least nine different ways that all are equally valid and equally not able to be proven wrong depending on you theological bias or lack there of. At the moment, my husband is in the process of writing on this subject and I will post when he finishes.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

http://reslight.addr.com/john1.html
John 1:1
EN ARCHEE EEN HO LOGOS KAI HO LOGOS EEN PROS
IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS TOWARD
1722 0746 1511_3 3588 3056 2532 3588 3056 1511_3 4314


TON THEON KAI THEOS EEN HO LOGOS
THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD.
3588 2316 2532 2316 1511_3 3588 3056
Please note: This document is incomplete; I have only started comments on the first few verses and I still need to edit this some more. Some of what appears below are notes to myself. I hope to complete the entire first chapter of John in this treatise. R. Day - 04/07/01
(1) The "beginning" (Strong's #746) spoken of here is usually thought to be the beginning of all creation, including the unseen spirit world, but in connection with the context, it appears to be speaking of the beginning of the world of mankind. We say this because of verse 10, which speaks of the world into which the Word came, the world which was made through him, and which rejected him, which is the world of mankind. However, if John is speaking of the creation of all the spirit world and material world, then the beginning could refer to the creation of Jesus as the Logos, or it could be referring to a point in time after the creation of Jesus. The latter would seem more correct, as the Greek word een (Strong's #1722) seems to indicate that Jesus was already there in the beginning spoken of. This definitely is not referring to Yahweh's beginning, since he had no beginning. Jesus was not with the Father before the beginning of absolutely *every* creation, for he himself was "the beginning of the creation of God", "the firstborn of every creature." -- Proverbs 8:24; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 3:14.
(2) Nevertheless, the "beginning" in John 1:1 appears to be referring to the same beginning as in Genesis 1:1, which refers to the beginning of things pertaining to the physical earth and mankind (including all six days of creation), and not the creation of the spirit world or even of the stars and planet systems. (We should take note that there is a single "day" of creation spoken of in Genesis 2:4, which "day" includes "six days" in which he created the heavens [skies] and the earth [land masses]. -- Exodus 20:13; see also Matthew 19:4,5, which refers to the beginning when Adam and Eve were created.)
(3) Thus the Logos, the Word, existed with God his Father before the beginning of earth's creation (John 17:5; 1 John 1:1,2), as mentioned in Genesis. He was both the first created, being the first begotten of the Father -- the first that the Father gave life to, as well as the first or highest in rank. The translation of "toward", as given in the Westcott & Hort Interlinear, while more correct according to the Greek, in English would make sense if it is rendered "with" or "alongside of". Many scholars have argued that the Greek word pros (Strong's #4314) means more than just being with, as it indicates movement. We agree in that in the beginning the Word was actively with God in movement, with God when the vast material universe as well as spirit beings was being created. Some have seen in this word -- pros -- a thought not there: that time itself was created thus producing motion in time.
(4) The Greek word Logos could be properly translated by the words "intention", "plan", "purpose", or "expression". Jesus, before the beginning of the creation of the world of mankind, already existed as the full and complete expression of the divine will, mind, purpose and character.
________________________________________________________________
Footnotes: Hebrew words used for God, Lord, etc.1. ELOHIM - God; objects of worship
2. JEHOVAH / YAHWEH - the Eternal
3. JAH - Jehovah having become
4. EL - The Omnipotent God; mighty one
5. ELOAH - The living God; an object of worship
6. ELYON - The most high God
7. SHADDAI - The almighty.
8. ADON & ADONAI - denotes head ship in various aspects; lord, lords
9. ADONIM - plural of Adon
Choice of The New American Standard Bible text:
The Greek language has a certain amount of ambiguity as does English. Most modern English translations
(including the popular New International Version), in an effort to make the Scriptures easier to read, remove much
of the original text's ambiguity. 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. However, 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 NASV generally holds to the
literal meaning, including leaving much of the original ambiguity intact. So, for it's superior effort to remain true to
the original Greek and it's use of the most reliable manuscripts, we chose the NASV as our text of preference.
(For a good example of this ambiguity and how a passage can be viewed completely differently, see Luke 18: 18-
19.)
The reader should keep in mind that the translators of the NASV were believers in the doctrine of the Trinity and
thus what bias does exist in the translation will lean in the direction of the Trinity.
relationship between God and the Son.
How does it differ from other views? We are unique in that we conform strictly to
the objective of having only one God where
as others have more than one God.
We see a distinction in the persons of God, but
hold that there is but one God. It is a mystery
how this is possible, but understanding God is
beyond our ability, and we should not seek to
have it make sense to us. (Berkhof, pp 89- 90)
We believe that there is but one God who is one
person who is the Father.. That His son, Jesus
Christ, was his first creation and through His son
created all of creation. We do not believe that
Our beliefs are similar to
Arian, but we believe that
Jesus's existence began with
his earthly birth..

INTERVIEW QUESTION ONENESS THEOLOGY TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY ARIAN THEOLOGY UNITARIAN THEOLOGY
Briefly Describe your view of God,
the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit.

ONENESS THEOLOGY
We believe that the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit are the same God with no
distinction in person or being. The one God
simply manifests himself in these three ways
and/ or at different times.

U = We are unique in that we conform strictly to
the objective of having only one God where
as others have more than one God.




TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY
We believe that there is one God made up of
three separate and distinct persons of but one
indivisible essence. These three persons existed
from eternity, and are equal in power and
substance. They are known as Father, Son and
Holy Spirit. The undivided essence of God
belongs equally to each of the three persons.
The Church confesses the Trinity to be a
mystery beyond the comprehension of man.
(Berkhof, pp 87- 89)

U = We see a distinction in the persons of God, but
hold that there is but one God. It is a mystery
how this is possible, but understanding God is
beyond our ability, and we should not seek to
have it make sense to us.

ARIAN THEOLOGY
We believe that there is one God, and that God is
one. That God is called the Heavenly Father.
That we have one Lord who is not God, Jesus
Christ, who is the son of God. And we believe
the holy Spirit is the influence of God's power.
The Father and Son are separate beings and the
Father is superior in power, wisdom and
authority. Jesus is God's express image and was
given all power on heaven and earth. See Gen
41: 40- 44 for a Scriptural Type of this

U = We believe that there is but one God who is one
person who is the Father.. That His son, Jesus
Christ, was his first creation and through His son
created all of creation.



UNITARIAN THEOLOGY
We believe that there is one
God, the Father, and one
Lord, Jesus Christ. Jesus
became God's son at his birth
on earth but did not exist
previously. The holy Spirit
is God's power.

U = We do not believe that
Our beliefs are similar to
Arian, but we believe that
Jesus's existence began with
his earthly birth..



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 did not exist before the incarnation; because the Father and the Son are thus one, the Father suffered with the Son in his passion and death.

U = We 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).]

+ 3 – More on The Constructs Used To Translate John 1:1

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.

"And the Word was a god" - New World Translation

+ 4 - Colwell's Rule Does Not Really Support The Trinity

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 20:28) "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).

See page 9

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:14 pm

Page 9

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.


9 – Jesus (Yeshua) Christ Not His Father, Almighty God (YHWH):

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.


10 - Digital Book On The Bibles Use Of Alpha and Omega – An Explanation:

The Bible’s use of the terms Alpha and Omega at various places is one of the most misunderstood items in the Bible. This short digital book deals with each one of its usages in the Bible and attempts to clear up its meaning for all. Each separated segment/article deals with one specific occurrence in the Bible of Alpha and Omega and/or a subject bearing on this usage.

Discourse on Revelation 22:12-13:

INTRODUCTION:

Let’s first look at the two scriptures in several different Bible versions/translations:

“12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” (Revelation 22:12-13 AV – Authorized King James Version)

“12 Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is.
13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” .” (Revelation 22:12-13 ASV – American Standard Version of 1901)

“12 Lo! I come speedily, and my reward is with me, to render unto each one as, his, work is.
13 I, am the A and the Z, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” (Revelation 22:12-13 Rothrham)

BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA ON REVELATION 22:12-13:

The International Standard Encyclopedia of the Bible says:

ALPHA AND OMEGA

al'-fa, o'-me-ga, o-me'-ga (Alpha and Omega = A and O):

The first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, hence, symbolically, "beginning and end"; in Revelation "The Eternal One" in Revelation 1:8 of the Father, in Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13 of the Son. Compare Theodoret, Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, iv. 8:

"We used alpha down to omega, i.e. all." A similar expression is found in Latin (Martial, v.26). Compare Aretas (Cramer's Catenae Graecae in New Testament) on Revelation 1:8 and Tertullian (Monog, 5): "So also two Greek letters, the first and last, did the Lord put on Himself, symbols of the beginning and the end meeting in Him, in order that just as alpha rolls on to omega and omega returns again to alpha, so He might show that both the evolution of the beginning to the end is in Him and again the return of the end to the beginning." Cyprian, Testim, ii.1; vi.22, iii.100, Paulinus of Nola Carm. xix.645; xxx.89; Prudentius, Cathem., ix.10-12. In Patristic and later literature the phrase is regularly applied to the Son. God blesses Israel from 'aleph to taw (Leviticus 26:3-13), but curses from waw to mem (Leviticus 26:14-43). So Abraham observed the whole law from 'aleph to taw. Consequently, "Alpha and Omega" may be a Greek rendering of the Hebrew phrase, which expressed among the later Jews the whole extent of a thing.

CONCLUSION:

In these two scriptures we are dealing with the symbolic meaning to the use of the first letter of the Koine Greek alphabet, Alpha, and the last letter, omega. As the International Bible Dictionary of the Bible states, it means the '‘beginning and end’ and shows how in Revelation 1:8 this phase is applied to the Father (YHWH) “6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:6-8 AV). Here we note it says, “6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father” clearly here referring to two individuals, God the Father (YHWH), and his God the Son (Yeshua or YHWH saves) . The term Alpha and Omega in “8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” Which is made clearer in the Rothrham Bible as “8 I, am, the A, and, the Z, saith the Lord,—the, God who Is, and who Was, and who is Coming, The Almighty.”
Clearly showing he has no beginning in keeping with “2 Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” (Revelation 1:8 ASV), which is quite different from how this same phrase is later used at Revelation 21:6 and 22:13 to apply to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) who had a beginning as shown by “ 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); he was the first created thing with regard to all that was created.

To get a clear understanding of Revelation 22:13, we need to look at it in contest as follows:

“9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and sleepermongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” (Revelation 22:9-16 AV)

We note that Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) or one of his angels is quoted by the Apostle John as saying, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” [these being the Angels he was given authority over to carry out his assignment at 1 Corinthians 15:27-28.]. Since Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) had a beginning as shown “ 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 “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. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;” (1 Colossians 1:15-19 AV). Clearly Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is separate individual from his Father (YHWH) as the scripture states, “. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;” which makes plain that his Father (YHWH) was pleased that “all fulness dwell” in his faithful Son. Also, the scripture brings out in what manner Alpha and Omega properly applies to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) when it states, “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.” Where it shows that after his creation by his Father (YHWH), he, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) worked along with his Father in creating all of the remainder of creation in the entire universe. His, the Son’s Alpha and Omega symbolic application is further made clear in “17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Thus he is the Alpha in the sense he helped create all else except himself and the Omega as his Father (YHWH) has given him immortality for being faithful, and this is made certain by “. 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.”

So here we see a faithful Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) had been given authority over all by his Father (YHWH) with the “, it is manifest that he is excepted” exception of himself. This subjection to his Father (YHWH) is clearly shown by the faithful Son’s statements, “ 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) and “ 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).

Those denying that Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is not the faithful only begotten Son of Almighty God (YHWH) and not God (YHWH) are thus clearly committing blasphemy.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By a Jewish scholar on Revelation 1:8:


I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

I decided to clarify this passage since so many forget what Yehoshua said in John 14:8-10. But first let’s look at another passage.

Revelation 1:1 The revelation of Yehoshua Moshiach, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

In the beginning of the Book of Revelation we read that God gave Yehoshua Ha’Moshiach a Revelation which Yehoshua gave to John. So we understand that Yehoshua is giving and telling John what God told Yehoshua, to get a better understanding of this read John 12:49.

So why did Yehoshua say “I am the Alpha and Omega”? Well let me ask you how do you know it was Yehoshua who said it and not The Father who said it through Yehoshua?

John 14:8-10 Philip said to him, Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied. Yehoshua said to him, Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

I mad it in red where the Father speaks “through” the Son, and yet the Apostles would have thoughts Yehoshua said it if he wouldn’t tell them that The Father spoke “through” him, for the Father is in Yehoshua.

But look it says in Revelation 1:8 that “Lord God” said it. Oh yea? Well look in John where I made it in blue, it says “Yehoshua said” also, but yet the Father spoke “through” him. And how do you know Yehoshua was not repeating what The Father (The Only True God according to Yehoshua; John 17:3) told him to say?

What was said in Revelation 1:8 goes for everywhere else in the book of Revelation, the Father speaks through the Son, and the Son speaks for himself, it’s hard to understand what is going on in the book of Revelation since we were not there to see it for ourselves, and remember it was a vision.

Now since we are on this topic, let’s look at some other scriptures in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 3:2 Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of the God of me.

Some of you may be puzzled why it does not say what it says above in your English Bible, that is because the translators are scared of what it says in the Greek, look for yourself by clicking here.

Notice that Yehoshua says “the God of me” in Revelation 3:2, The True God does not have a True God, people wake up.

Revelation 3:12 He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Yerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.



Here we see Yehoshua speak of his God four times while in heaven in his glorified body.

You think this is the first time Yehoshua talks about his God? If you do then let’s look at another scripture.

John 20:17 Yehoshua said to her, Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

Here we see Yehoshua tell us that his God is our God and his Father is our Father, also read Hebrews 2:11-13. I have seen many Idolaters (those who claim Ha’Moshiach is God in flesh) say that Yehoshua said it because he was in the flesh. HELLO? What difference does it make if he said it in the flesh or in the spirit of if his flesh spoke by itself by some magical power or if his spirit spoke through the flesh? He said it, so OBEY IT!

Let’s look at what else Yehoshua said, and the reason I am going to give the two following scriptures is because Idolaters don’t have God and they will see death according to what Yehoshua and Apostle John said.

John 8:51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death.

How many Idolaters (those who claim Ha’Moshiach is God in flesh) keep what Yehoshua said in John 17:3 and in John 20:17?

2nd John 9-11 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Moshiach does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work.

How many Idolaters (those who claim Ha’Moshaich is God in flesh) keep what Yehoshua said in John 17:3 and in John 20:17?

I hope we now understand how dangerous it is to twist scriptures and to claim what the scriptures do not teach.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DISCOURSE ON ISAIAH 44:6:

INTRODUCTION:

Isaiah 44:6 has been one of the scriptures that the preachers of false doctrines such as the Trinity, Mol dualism, and Oneness have twisted the most to try and show support for their none Biblical doctrines, but in reality it supports the Truth of the Bible and not the false reasonings and doctrines of men. But before seeing why this is so, let's look at the scripture in several different Bibles to get a better perspective of it before discussing it - Isaiah 44:6:

"And who, as I, can proclaim--let him declare it, and set it in order for Me--since I appointed the ancient people? And the things that are coming, and that shall come to pass, let them declare". [Jewish Publication Society 1917 OT]

"kh-`mr yhvh mlk-ysr`l vg`lv yhvh &b`vt `ny r`svn v`ny `xrvn vmbljdy `yn `lhym". [Hebrew Transliteration Bible][[so as to give all some feel for how it looks in Hebrew, but with English Characters]]

"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." [American Standard Version, ASV]

"Thus saith the Lord the king of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. " [Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB]

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." [Authorized King James Bible; AV]

"Thus says the LORD, the King of Yisra'el, and his Redeemer, the LORD of Hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God" [Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible]

"Thus said Jehovah, king of Israel, And his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: `I [am] the first, and I the last, And besides Me there is no God." [Youngs Literal Translation]

"Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I [am] the first, and I [am] the last, and beside me there is no God." [The Darby Translation]

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and besides me [there is] no God." [The Noah Webster Bible; NWB]

TRANSLATION COMPARISON:

Now that we have the opportunity to look at the translation constructs in various Bibles with respect Isaiah 44:6, let's start considering its significance and meaning. As can readily be seen from the Youngs Literal Translation, The Darby Translation, American Standard Version, and Jewish Publication Society 1917 OT [note, the Jews are strict monotheist and well know the 1 Commandment at Exodus 20:3 that would rule out any three-in-one god] clearly show that this scripture applies solely to God Almighty (YHWH). The Youngs Literal Translation clearly says, "And his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts," leaving no doubt that it is referring to God (YHWH) and not to his Son, Jesus (Yeshua). However, some supporters of the Trinity claim the son is just a different manifestation of God (YHWH), but many scriptures show them as two distinct beings, such as, John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me." (ASV); and John 14:28, "Ye have heard that I said to you, I go away, and come [again] to you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go to the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (NWB). In fact their false contention is actually 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.

AN ALL ANSWERING ARTICLE ON ISAIAH 44:6 - USED WITH PERMISSION:

In fact the Restoration Light Bible Study Services, P.O. Box 2360, Philadelphia, PA , has already dealt with this question in an answer to one of these believers in false doctrine. Their answer is as follows, "We have shown that Jesus is a created being (See Did Jesus Have a Beginning?), thus the question has arisen concerning the various uses of the scripture regarding alpha and omega, as this title, as well as some others, seem to be applied to both.

In Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12 we find the expression "first and last" used of Yahweh. From Isaiah 44:6,7 this expression, "first and last" appears to mean that which is begun is carried through to completion, something which the false gods of the heathen cannot do. However, most of our trinitarian and oneness neighbors appear to read into this expression 'from eternity past to the eternal future,' although there is nothing in the scritpures to warrant this meaning.

In the last book of the Bible, we again find this expression "first and last". At least twice it is applied to Jesus in Revelation 1:17 and Revelation 2:8.Thus our trinitarian and oneness neighbors would have us accept this as proof that Jesus is Yahweh, since the phrase is applied to both Yahweh and Jesus. The phrase appears also in Revelation 22:13, where Yahweh applies it to himself.

Another similar phrase found in Revelation 21:6 and 22:13 is "beginning and the end". These scriptures apply to Yahweh; thus this phrase is not applied to Jesus . Still another phrase used in the book of Revelation is "alpha and omega." We find this phrase in Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 22:13 -- all three of which refer to Yahweh. This phrase is therefore not used of Jesus.

Let us go into more detail to support the above applications of these terms. Looking at Revelation 1:1, we note that the Revelation is from God who gave it to Jesus. (This should be enough to prove that Jesus is not God.) The message is delivered through an angel to John. In Revelation 1:4 John says the message is from the Father, Yahweh, who is and who was and who is to come. Then in verse 5, John says: "and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood." Thus John identifies two individuals which the messages are from, the Father, Yahweh, and Jesus, God's Son. Then in verse 8 we find the quote: "'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End', says the Lord God, 'the being who was and who is to come -- the Almighty.'"
"The Lord" in this verse is Yahweh, not Jesus, as shown from Revelation 1:4. The phrase "Lord God" is based on the later Septuagint usage of substituting Kurios for Yahweh. The Hebrew phrase is Yahweh Elohim. The later Septuagint has substituted Yahweh with Kurios [Lord] and Elohim with Theos [God]. This can be seen by comparing Acts 3:22; 7:37 with the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 18:15. In all instances where the phrase occurs in the NT, it is in reference to Yahweh, the Father of our Lord Jesus. -- Luke 1:32; 1 Peter 3:10-15; Revelation 11:17,19; 15:3; 16:7; 18:8; 21:11; 22:6. See Divine Name .

Likewise, with the phrases "the Lord our God" and "the Lord your God". These phrases are always used in reference to Yahweh, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. -- Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Deuteronomy 6:13; 10:20); Matthew 22:37 (Deuteronomy 6:5); Mark 12:29 (Deuteronomy 6:4); etc.
However, many of the Christian translators in the past must have thought that this was Yahweh speaking, for in their translations into Hebrew, they inserted the tetragrammaton into this verse. The following are some Hebrew translations that contain the tetragrammaton in Revelation 1:8: NT, by W. Robertson, 1661; NT, by J. C. Reichardt, 1846; NT, by J. C. Reichardt & J. H. R. Biesenthal, 1866; NT, by F. Delitzsch, 1981 edition; NT, by I. Salkinson & C. D. Ginsburg, 1891.

The fact that the NT copies we have give a substitute for God's name does not take away the fact that it is Yahweh, not his Son Jesus, who is speaking in Revelation 1:8. In verses 9 and 10 John refers to himself when he heard a loud voice, as of a trumpet, (verse 11) saying, "Write what you see... This quote is from Jesus, not Yahweh, as described in the following verses. In verse 18 Jesus says: "I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore." Jesus was actually dead and not alive anywhere, if this is to make any sense at all, for he contrasts his being dead with being alive forevermore. Now we know that God cannot die, so Jesus is thus by this verse proved to not be God Almighty.

Many translations have the words added in verse 11, before the word "Write": "I am the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last." However, this sentence does not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts and therefore does not appear in many Bible translations, and thus we do not include them as part of our discussion.
Revelation 22:12-16: "See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone's work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. "It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

The angel delivering the message recorded Revelation 22:13 is quoting Yahweh, the Father of Jesus, who comes to judge the world, not only with and by means of Jesus, but also the saints. -- Malachi 3:1-6; Psalm 96:13; 98:9; Daniel 7:18,22; Isaiah 40:10,11; Micah 1:3; Zechariah 14:5; Acts 17:31; 2 Peter 3:7,8; 1 Corinthians 6:2; Psalm 90:4; Revelaton 1:1; 20:4,11-13; 22:6.

Earlier, John says that the angel spoke these words, which he states are from Yahweh. (verse 6) In verse 7 the angel is evidently quoting Jesus. In verse 8 John is the one speaking, and the angel rebukes him in verse 9. In verse 10 John begins to quote the angel again, but in verse 12, the angel is delivering the words of Yahweh (see verse 6) -- it is evident that the angel is not referring to himself. Verses 14 and 15 could be either Jesus or the angel speaking. In verse 16, it is evident that the angel is quoting Jesus, and then in verse 17 the angel is prophetically quoting the spirit and the bride. In verses 18-19, the angel is again speaking (although he could be quoting Jesus), but in verse 20 he quotes Jesus, while the last part of verse 20 and all of verse 21 is John himself speaking.

But let us assume that Jesus is the one speaking in Revelation 22:12,13, as many have claimed. All this would mean is that these titles or phrases applied to Yahweh are also applied to Jesus. Does this mean that Jesus is Yahweh, the God who is identified also as the Father and God of Jesus? Absolutely not!
First we note that none of the passages say that the Father is the Son, or even that the Son equals the Father. Nor do any of these passages directly say anything about the non-creation of either the Father or the Son.
One must admit that just because the same title is applied to individuals, this does not make these two individuals one individual. Else every ruler who has ever used the title "king" would have to be the same individual as every other ruler who has used the title "king." Each ruler who uses this title, however, uses it with respect to his peculiar realm of domain and time. Thus just because the same titles are given to both the Father and the Son does not mean they are the same being.
That Jesus has not always existed throughout eternity can be seen from our earlier discussion, "Did Jesus Have a Beginning?". Thus these titles applied to him must not mean that he existed throughout eternity.
Nor can they refer especially to the Father's being from eternity (which, as a matter of fact, he is), since that would be incompatible with their being used of the Son, who is not from eternity.

Likewise, we have shown elsewhere that the word "beginning" does not mean eternity, but rather a point when something begins, or a person or thing at the start of something. Additionally the word "first" does not mean eternity but a person or thing at the start of something. Similarly can be said concerning the words "last" and "end": neither of these denote eternity, but rather, just as it says, the last or end of something. The Alpha and Omega symbolism only emphasizes the same thing, since Alpha is the first or start of the Greek alphabet, and Omega is the last or end of the Greek alphabet.

How, then, do these terms apply to both the Father and the Son within the domain of each? We have already pointed out that these expressions seem to carry the thought of that which is begun is carried through to completion: Isaiah 44:6,7. This would apply both to Yahweh as originator of his divine plan and the one who designed it from beginning to the completed end, and to the Son as the one who carries out the divine plan by means of his death, resurrection and the coming day of judgment. Some have noted that Jesus is the first human to be raised to life without end by Yahweh his Father, thus he is called the "firstborn of the dead". (Colossians 1:18) He is also the last to be so resurrected since all others who eventually receive such a resurrection will be through Jesus, not by Yahweh directly. (John 5:21,22; 6:39,44; 11:25) Thus there appears to be a connection between his statements that he became dead was now alive forever and ever. His holding the keys of death and Hades (Revelation 1:18) shows the authority given to him by his God of releasing all who are in death and hades. -- John 5:27-29 (New American Standard); Revelation 20:11-13
However, there is also another application that could be meant. Each -- both Jesus and Yahweh -- is the first and the last of his peculiar kind: Yahweh is the first and the last of his peculiar kind, in that he is the first and the last one to be increate, that is, never to have been created. No one was before Yahweh in this sense and no one will be after him in this sense. The Son is the first and the last of his peculiar kind, in that he is the first and the last to have been directly created by God, all other creatures having been indirectly created by God, that is, through the agency of the Logos. Thus the Father and the Son are both unique -- which is the meaning of these three expressions -- but each of them is unique in a different sense: The Father is unique in that he is the only -- the first and the last -- being never created; the Son is unique in that he is the only -- the first and the last -- being ever directly created by Yahweh without the assistance of an agent, which creative assistance by the Logos occurred in the case of all the rest of creation -- the Logos himself being excepted. (John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 15:27; See Question: John 1:1) Thus Yahweh is the first and the last, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end of increation -- the only being who never was created. The Logos is the first and the last, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end of God's direct creation. These terms used with reference to the Son are equivalent to his being called: "the only begotten of the Father." (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9) Their use with reference to the Father implies that he is from eternity, though not directly teaching it, the direct teaching being his uniqueness in that he never was created or begotten, as was the Son.

Answers to Objections
Some have replied that there can only be one first and last, although their reasons for saying this are vague, to say the least. It seems they wish demand a restricted application of the term so that it could only apply to God Almighty. It is true that there can only be on who is first and last as God Almighty. But we have no reason to restrict the term in application to God Almighty, except to satisfy the whims of those who wish to use it thus to prove that Jesus is Yahweh, which, in effect, would make the whole argument circular, that is, 'we believe that Jesus is Yahweh, thus we believe that the expression first and last must be used in application to God Almighty only, and thus this proves that Jesus is Yahweh.'

We have already shown above that there can be more than one first and last, depending on what is being spoken of and its application. We can also provide the following illustrations: Suppose Brother A goes to a Bible study in SW Philadelphia, and Brother B goes to a Bible study in South Philadelphia. Brother A is the first arrive at the Bible study and SW Philadelphia, and Brother B is the first to arrive at the study in South Philadelphia. Likewise Brother A is the last one to leave the study in SW. Philadelphia, and Brother B. is the last to leave the study in South Philadelphia. You have two who are first and two who are last. Additionally the first and the last line of one book is not the same as the first and last line of another book. Likewise, both Yahweh and Jesus are first and last in their respective applications of that term. Regardless, our trinitarian neighbors will have to agree that there are two persons who are referred to as 'first and last', both God the Father and His Son." [This document is presented by Restoration Light Bible Study Services, P.O. Box 2360, Philadelphia, PA 19142. Permission is given to duplicate this document in its entirety, including this statement, for not-for-profit usage in Bible studies and general distribution.]

It is not our object in this list of scriptures to refute all the arguments used by many who try to prove that Jesus is Yahweh. We simply present some of the scriptures that most definitely show that the Father is Yahweh and that Jesus is not Yahweh [his Father]:

Jesus was sent by Yahweh, speaks for Yahweh, represents Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh [who is the Father] whom he represents and speaks for.
Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1
Jesus receives his inheritance and dominion (power) from Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh [the Father] who gives him this dominion.

Psalm 2:7,8; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; Luke 1:32; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; Hebrews 1:2,6.
Jesus is son of the Most High Yahweh. He is not the Most High Yahweh.
Genesis 14:22; Psalm 7:17; 83:18; 92:1; Luke 1:32; John 13:16.
Jesus is anointed [made christ, the anointed one] by Yahweh. He is not Yahweh who thus anoints him.
Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36.
Yahweh speaks to Jesus. Jesus is not Yahweh who speaks to him.
Psalm 2:7,8; 110:1; Matthew 22:41-45.
Jesus is the servant of Yahweh; he is not Yahweh whom he serves.
Isaiah 42:1; 53:11; Matthew 12:18; John 13:16; Acts 4:27,30
Jesus is given the power of life in himself from Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh who gives him this power.
1 Samuel 2:6; Psalm 36:9; John 5:21,25-29.
Yahweh [the Father] is the only Most High. Jesus is not the Most High Yahweh who is his Father.
Deuteronomy 4:35,39; Psalm 2:7; 83:18; Luke 1:32; John 10:29; 17:1,3; Hebrews 1:5; Revelation 5:7
Yahweh appoints and gives Jesus authority as judge and to judge in his [Yahweh's] stead. Jesus is not Yahweh who gives this authority to him.
Isaiah 11:1-4; 42:1; John 5:22,23,27-30; Acts 17:31.
Jesus is never described as the father of Jesus, and Yahweh is never described as the son of Yahweh. The term "everlasting father" refers to Jesus' role toward mankind that he purchased, and of whom he has become father as the second or "last Adam." (Romans 5:15-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22,45,47; Psalm 45:16). Jesus came in the name of Yahweh his Father. (Deuteronomy 18:15,18; Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1) Yahweh never came in the name of any other than himself, thus since there is none higher, he swore by himself. -- Hebrews 6:13
Jesus' role as Mighty EL refers to the power and authority given to him by the Mighty EL that is mightier than he, the only true Supreme Being, Yahweh. -- Psalm 2:2,7,8; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; 61:1; Luke 1:32; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; John 17:1,3; Acts 2:36; Hebrews 1:2,6.
No scripture says that Jesus was God Almighty in the flesh, although possessing the mighty power of Yahweh as did Moses, he could be referred to as God (ELOHIM, THEOS) in a manner similar to Moses. (Exodus 7:1; Deuteronomy 18:15,18; Acts 3:18-22) Neither in the case of Moses nor Jesus does this make either of them into God Almighty who gives them their power and authority.
[This document is presented by Restoration Light Bible Study Services, P.O. Box 2360, Philadelphia, PA 19142. Permission is given to duplicate this document in its entirety, including this statement, for not-for-profit usage in Bible studies and general distribution.][[Special note, Much of Restoration Light Bible Study Service for this article came from, Paul S. L. Johnson's book, Creation, pages 51-53. Now a brief Background of Paul S. L. Johnson: Paul S. L. Johnson graduated from from Capital University in Columbus, OH on May 25, 1898. He won the valedictory and also the highest honors ever given in the history of that university. He also graduated from the Theological Seminary of the Ohio Synod of the Lutheran Church. He was thoroughly educated in both Hebrew and Greek; this gave him the skills necessary to understand the Bible from the original languages. He had been taught in the seminary the doctrine of eternal torture of those not saved; through his studies of the Bible itself he came to understand that a God of perfect, wisdom, justice, power and love, would not, could not, punish his enemies with such a punishment as eternal roasting. He also came to see the Hebraic viewpoint of God, as opposed to the trinitarian or oneness views.]][[[Restoration's article was used as no reason to go to Johnson's works and re-invent the wheel]]]

See Page 10

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:16 pm

Page 10

COMMENTARIES ON ISAIAH 44:6 BY RENOWN SCHOLARS:

By Theodore Beza:

44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; f I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and besides me [there is] no God.

(f) I am always like myself, that is, merciful toward my Church, and most able to maintain it, as in (Isaiah 41:4,48:12; Revelation 1:17,22:13). [Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Isaiah 44". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible", 1600-1645.]

By A.R. Faussett, A.M.:.

6. Here follows an argument for Jehovah, as the only God, and against the idols, as vanity [Fausset, A. R., A.M. "Commentary on Isaiah 44". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible", 1871]
By Matthew Henry:


Chapter 44
God, by the prophet, goes on in this chapter, as before, I. To encourage his people with the assurance of great blessings he had in store for them at their return out of captivity, and those typical of much greater which the gospel church, his spiritual Israel, should partake of in the days of the Messiah; and hereby he proves himself to be God alone against all pretenders (v. 1-Cool. II. To expose the sottishness and amazing folly of idol-makers and idol-worshippers (v. 9-20). III. To ratify and confirm the assurances he had given to his people of those great blessings, and to raise their joyful and believing expectations of them (v. 21-28).

Verses 1-8 Two great truths are abundantly made out in these verses:- I. That the people of God are a happy people, especially upon account of the covenant that is between them and God. The people of Israel were so as a figure of the gospel Israel. Three things complete their happiness:- 1. The covenant-relations wherein they stand to God, v. 1, 2. Israel is here called Jeshurun-the upright one; for those only, like Nathanael, are Israelites indeed, in whom is no guile, and those only shall have the everlasting benefit of these promises. Jacob and Israel had been represented, in the close of the foregoing chapter, as very provoking and obnoxious to God's wrath, and already given to the curse and to reproaches; but, as if God's bowels yearned towards him and his repentings were kindled together, mercy steps in with a non-obstante-notwithstanding, to all these quarrels: "Yet now, hear, O Jacob my servant! thou and I will be friends again for all this.'' God had said (ch. 43:25), I am he that blotteth out thy transgression, which is the only thing that creates this distance; and when that is taken away the streams of mercy run again in their former channel. The pardon of sin is the inlet of all the other blessings of the covenant. So and so I will do for them, says God (Heb. 8:12), for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. Therefore hear, O Jacob! hear these comfortable words; therefore fear not, O Jacob! fear not thy troubles, for by the pardon of sin the property of them too is altered. Now the relations wherein they stand to him are very encouraging. (1.) They are his servants; and those that serve him he will own and stand by and see that they be not wronged. (2.) They are his chosen, and he will abide by his choice; he knows those that are his, and those whom he has chosen he takes under special protection. (3.) They are his creatures. He made them, and brought them into being; he formed them, and cast them into shape; he began betimes with them, for he formed them from the womb; and therefore he will help them over their difficulties and help them in their services. 2. The covenant-blessings which he has secured to them and theirs, v. 3, 4. (1.) Those that are sensible of their spiritual wants, and the insufficiency of the creature to supply them, shall have abundant satisfaction in God: I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, that thirsts after righteousness; he shall be filled. Water shall be poured out to those who truly desire spiritual blessings above all the delights of sense. (2.) Those that are barren as the dry ground shall be watered with the grace of God, with floods of that grace, and God will himself give the increase. If the ground be ever so dry, God has floods of grace to water it with. (3.) The water God will pour out is his Spirit (Jn. 7:39), which God will pour out without measure upon the seed, that is, Christ (Gal. 3:16), and by measure upon all the seed of the faithful, upon all the praying wrestling seed of Jacob, Lu. 11:13. This is the great New-Testament promise, that God, having sent his servant Christ, and upheld him, will send his Spirit to uphold us. (4.) This gift of the Holy Ghost is the great blessing God had reserved the plentiful effusion of for the latter days: I will pour my Spirit, that is, my blessing; for where God gives his Spirit he will give all other blessings. (5.) This is reserved for the seed and offspring of the church; for so the covenant of grace runs: I will be a God to thee and to thy seed. To all who are thus made to partake of the privileges of adoption God will give the spirit of adoption. (6.) Hereby there shall be a great increase of the church. Thus it shall be spread to distant places. Thus it shall be propagated and perpetuated to after-times: They shall spring up and grow as fast as willows by the watercourses, and in every thing that is virtuous and praiseworthy shall be eminent and excel all about them, as the willows overtop the grass among which they grow, v. 4. Note, It is a great happiness to the church, and a great pleasure to good men, to see the rising generation hopeful and promising. And it will be so if God pour his Spirit upon them, that blessing, that blessing of blessings. 3. The consent they cheerfully give to their part of the covenant, v. 5. When the Jews returned out of captivity they renewed their covenant with God (Jer. 50:5), particularly that they would have no more to do with idols, Hos. 14:2, 3, 8. Backsliders must thus repent and do their first works. Many of those that were without did at that time join themselves to them, invited by that glorious appearance of God for them, Zec. 8:23; Esth. 8:17. And they say, We are the Lord's and call themselves by the name of Jacob; for there was one law, one covenant, for the stranger and for those that were born in the land. And doubtless it looks further yet, to the conversion of the Gentiles, and the multitudes of them who, upon the effusion of the Spirit, after Christ's ascension, should be joined to the Lord and added to the church. These converts are one and another, very many, of different ranks and nations, and all welcome to God, Col. 3:11. When one does it another shall by his example be invited to do it, and then another; thus the zeal of one may provoke many. (1.) They shall resign themselves to God: not one in the name of the rest, but every one for himself shall say, "I am the Lord's; he has an incontestable right to rule me, and I submit to him, to all his commands, to all his disposal. I am, and will be, his only, his wholly, his for ever, will be for his interests, will be for his praise; living and dying I will be his.'' (2.) They shall incorporate themselves with the people of God, call themselves by the name of Jacob, forgetting their own people and their fathers' house, and desirous to wear the character and livery of God's family. They shall love all God's people, shall associate with them, give them the right hand of fellowship, espouse their cause, seek the good of the church in general and of all the particular members of it, and be willing to take their lot with them in all conditions. (3.) They shall do this very solemnly. Some of them shall subscribe with their hand unto the Lord, as, for the confirming of a bargain, a man sets his hand to it, and delivers it as his act and deed. The more express we are in our covenanting with God the better, Ex. 24:7; Jos. 24:26, 27; Neh. 9:38. Fast bind, fast find. II. That, as the Israel of God are a happy people, so the God of Israel is a great God, and he is God alone. This also, as the former, speaks abundant satisfaction to all that trust in him, v. 6-8. Observe here, to God's glory and our comfort, 1. That the God we trust in is a God of incontestable sovereignty and irresistible power. He is the Lord, Jehovah, self-existent and self-sufficient; and he is the Lord of hosts, of all the hosts of heaven and earth, of angels and men. 2. That he stands in relation to, and has a particular concern for, his church. He is the King of Israel and his Redeemer; therefore his Redeemer because his King; and those that take God for their King shall have him for their Redeemer. When God would assert himself God alone he proclaims himself Israel's God, that his people may be encouraged both to adhere to him and to triumph in him. 3. That he is eternal- the first and the last. He is God from everlasting, before the worlds were, and will be so to everlasting, when the world shall be no more. If there were not a God to create, nothing would ever have been; and, if there were not a God to uphold, all would soon come to nothing again. He is all in all, is the first cause, from whom are all things, and the last end, to and for whom are all things (Rom. 11:36), the Alpha and the Omega, Rev. 1:11. 4. That he is God alone (v. 6): Besides me there is no God. Is there a God besides me? v. 8. We will appeal to the greatest scholars. Did they ever in all their reading meet with any other? To those that have had the largest acquaintance with the world. Did they ever meet with any other? There are gods many (1 Co. 8:5, 6), called gods, and counterfeit gods: but is there any besides our God that is infinite and eternal, any besides him that is the creator of the world and the protector and benefactor of the whole creation, any besides him that can do that for their worshippers which he can and will do for his? "You are my witnesses. I have been a nonsuch to you. You have tried other gods; have you found any of them all-sufficient to you, or any of them like me? Yea, there is no god,'' no rock (so the word is), none besides Jehovah that can be a rock for a foundation to build on, a rock for shelter to flee to. God is the rock, and their rock is not as ours, Deu. 32:4, 31. I know not any; as if he had said, "I never met with any that offered to stand in competition with me, or that durst bring their pretensions to a fair trial; if I did know of any that could befriend you better than I can, I would recommend you to them; but I know not any.'' There is no God besides Jehovah. He is infinite, and therefore there can be no other; he is all-sufficient, and therefore there needs no other. This is designed for the confirming of the hopes of God's people in the promise of their deliverance out of Babylon, and, in order to that, for the curing of them of their idolatry; when the affliction had done its work it should be removed. They are reminded of the first and great article of their creed, that the Lord their God is one Lord, Deu. 6:4. And therefore, (1.) They needed not to hope in any other god. Those on whom the sun shines need neither moon nor stars, nor the light of their own fire. (2.) They needed not to fear any other god. Their own God was more able to do them good than all the false and counterfeit gods of their enemies were to do them hurt. 5. That none besides could foretel these things to come, which God now by his prophet gave notice of to the world, above 200 years before they came to pass (v. 7): "Who, as I, shall call, shall call Cyrus to Babylon? Is there any but God that can call effectually, and has every creature, every heart, at his beck? Who shall declare it, how it shall be, and by whom, as I do?'' Nay, God goes further; he not only sees it in order, as having the foreknowledge of it, but sets it in order, as having the sole management and direction of it. Can any other pretend to this? He has always set things in order according to the counsel of his own will, ever since he appointed the ancient people, the people of Israel, who could give a truer and fuller account of the antiquities of their own nation than any other kingdom in the world could give of theirs. Ever since he appointed that people to be his peculiar people his providence was particularly conversant about them, and he told them beforehand the events that should occur respecting them-their bondage in Egypt, their deliverance from it, and their settlement in Canaan. All was set in order in the divine predictions as well as in the divine purposes. Could any other have done so? Would any other have been so far concerned for them? He challenges the pretenders to show the things that shall come hereafter: "Let them, if they can, tell us the name of the man that shall destroy Babylon ad deliver Israel? Nay, if they cannot pretend to tell us the things that shall come hereafter, let them tell us the things that are coming, that are nigh at hand and at the door. Let them tell us what shall come to pass to-morrow; but they cannot do that; fear them not therefore, nor be afraid of them. What harm can they do you? What hindrance can they give to your deliverance, when I have told thee it shall be accomplished in its season, and I have solemnly declared it?'' Note, Those who have the word of God's promise to depend upon need not be afraid of any adverse powers or policies whatsoever. [Henry, Matthew. "Commentary on Isaiah 44". "Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole," 1706]

By Reverand R.A. Torrey:


Torrey's Topical Textbook under God

None beside him Deuteronomy 4:35; Isaiah 44:6. [Torrey, R.A., Reverand. "Entry for 'God'". "The New Topical Text Book", 1897]

Easton's Bible Dictionary by M.G. Easton, M.A., D.D."

God [N] [T] [B] [S]
(A.S. and Dutch God; Dan. Gud; Ger. Gott), the name of the Divine Being. It is the rendering (1) of the Hebrew 'El , from a word meaning to be strong; (2) of 'Eloah_, plural _'Elohim . The singular form, Eloah , is used only in poetry. The plural form is more commonly used in all parts of the Bible, The Hebrew word Jehovah (q.v.), the only other word generally employed to denote the Supreme Being, is uniformly rendered in the Authorized Version by "LORD," printed in small capitals. The existence of God is taken for granted in the Bible. There is nowhere any argument to prove it. He who disbelieves this truth is spoken of as one devoid of understanding (Psalms 14:1).


The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of the being of God are:
? The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason.
? The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are,
(a) The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause.
(b) The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature.
(c) The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God. Conscience and human history testify that "verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth."
The attributes of God are set forth in order by Moses in Exodus 34:6,7. (see also Deuteronomy 6:4; 10:17; Numbers 16:22; Exodus 15:11; 33:19; Isaiah 44:6; Habakkuk 3:6; Psalms 102:26; Job 34:12.) They are also systematically classified in Revelation 5:12 and 7:12. [M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, 1897.]

CONCLUSION:

As can readily be seen from the foregoing, Isaiah 44:6 applies to God (YHWH) alone and not to his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) who acts as his agent and has after his assertion been given authority over all except his Father (YHWH) as clearly testified to 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." (ASV). Especially note verse 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. " which clearly shows the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) as two distinct beings, with one being subject to the other; hence no co-equality. Therefore, no Trinity, Duality, or Modulism; ther are thus proved to be false doctrines of men

in keeping with 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]." (ASV)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called: I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. [Authorized King James Bible, AV]

With regard this scripture when viewed in contest is clearly the words of Almighty God (YHWH) as recorded by the prophet Isaiah about 732 B.C.E. The first part of Isaiah the 48 chapter before this scripture deals with how the people of Israel were NOT walking is the ways of God (YHWH) and this is made clear at Isaiah 48:8-11, "Yea, thou heardest not; yea thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened; for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb. 9 For my name's sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off. 10 Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. 11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it; for how should my name be polluted? And I will not give my glory unto another." (AV). The last part, "I will not give my glory unto another" referring to the First Commandment, Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (AV).

Now let's consider the scriptures immediately after Isaiah 48:12 as they constitute part of a prophecy about Almighty God's (YHWH's) Son, Jesus (Yeshua) in which the Father (YHWH) where he has called or instructed his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) do his pleasure and stated that he will make his way prosperous clearly showing he, the Father is the supreme one who gives assignments to his Son, Jesus (Yeshua). The scripture at Isaiah 48:13-16, "Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. 14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The Lord hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Challdeans. 15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him; I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous. 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; am I: and now the Lord God and his Spirit, hath sent me." (AV). Here in prophecy, Jesus (Yeshua) testifying that, "the Lord God and his Spirit, hath sent me." Clearly showing that his Father, Lord God (YHWH), would send him on missions.

In fact, after creating him, his Father (YHWH) used him to create all else at his directions with Almighty God serving as the master planner of all. This is shown at Colossians 1:16-19, "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. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" (AV), and the Bible reaffirms the Father (YHWH) was pleased to let "in him should all fullness dwell." In 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." Thus these scriptures clearly show that Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father (YHWH) are two separate beings; one having always existed and having created the other as his only begotten Son.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Isaiah 41:4 Who has performed and accomplished it, Calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord, am the first, and with the last, I am He." [New American Standard Bible-Reference Edition by Moody Press, Chicago, a div. Of Moody Bible Institute; NASB-MP].

Some think this applies to Jesus (Yeshua), but it does not, it applies to his Father (YHWH) as clearly shown at Isaiah 44:6-8, 'Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. 7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.." (AV); and at Isaiah 46:9-10, "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: "; and Isaiah 43:10-11, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." (AV); and many others.

But Isaiah 48:17-18, "Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. 18 O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea:" (AV) clearly shows the Title, "Lord," being applied to Almighty God (YHWH). This is reaffirmed at Revelation 11:17, "Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.",(AV), yet there are those who attempt to twist the scriptures to serve the god of this system or world, and use scriptures such as Revelation 1:11, "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." (AV) , but fail to notice the critical difference "the first and the last" which rather than implying that Jesus (Yeshua) is Almighty God (YHWH) clearly show his as the first of Creation as does Revelation 3:14, "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans F1 write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (AV); Clearly they do not recognize the difference between "beginning and the ending" and "the first and the last."

Actually a lot of this confusion results from poor translation as clearly shown by the rendering of Revelation 1:11 in the New American Standard Bible-reference Edition by Moody Press, Chicago, a div. Of Moody Bible Institute; NASB-MP, "Saying, 'Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches; To Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyater and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodices." (NASB-MP); similar renderings are found in the American Standard Bible (ASB); the New World Translation (NWT); The Emphatic Dialogue; New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); the Westcott-Hort (1948 Reprint), and many more. Of particular interest is the rendering in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, the following, "Saying: What thou seest, write in a book and send to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamus and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.".

However, be not mislead by the trickery of men, but know this Psalms 83:18 says, "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." (AV). And the difference is drawn out at Acts 5:24-26, "Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow. 25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people. 26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned." (AV), where it clearly says, Acts 4:26, "The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord, and against His Christ." (NASB-MP). Clearly showing here "Lord" applied to Almighty God (YHWH) and distinguishing him from his son the Christ, Jesus (Yeshua) as it showed them against both as distinct beings and not as one and the same.

So we can clearly see those being mislead by the god of this system, see 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), are liars like their leader as shown at John 8:44. They twist scripture and/or use poor translations to try and support their idolatry, instead of trying to understand the plain Truth of the Bible.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The 'Textual Mechanics' of Early Jewish LXX/OG Papyri and Fragments
By Robert A. Kraft (University of Pennsylvania)

[Most recently modified 11 July 2001]
[This is a greatly expanded and revised form of a paper first delivered in May 1998 (Hampton Court, Herefordshire England) to the conference on "The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text" sponsored by the Van Kampen Foundation and The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities. A shorter form of the revised essay is scheduled to appear in the volume being prepared from that conference.]
[The images of MSS provided here are secondary and provisional in nature, mostly drawn from the referenced publications, and intended to help illustrate various aspects of the subject under examination. For a quick list of the fragments reviewed here (and others),
see Early Papyri and MSS for LXX/OG Study.
The following images are linked below [listed here for convenience; other links to be added]:
01. Qumran cave 4 LXXDeut 11 (2nd bce, parchment roll)
02. PRyl458 of Deut (2nd bce, papyrus roll),
03. Qumran cave7 Exod 28 (2nd/1st bce, papyrus roll),
04. Qumran cave4 Lev\a (2nd/1st bce, parchment roll),
05. Qumran cave7 EpJer (2nd/1st bce, papyrus roll),
05+. Qumran cave 7 frg 5 (unidentified controversial "Mark" frg, papyrus roll),
05+. Qumran cave7 frg 8 (unidentified),
06. PFouad266a [942] Gen (1st bce, papyrus roll),
07. Qumran cave4 Lev\b (1st bce, papyrus roll; tetragrammaton = IAW),
08. PFouad266b [848] Deut (1st bce, papyrus roll; Hebrew/Aramaic tetragrammaton),
09. PFouad266c [847] Deut (late 1st bce, papyrus roll),
10. Qumran cave4 paraphrase of Exod(?) (late 1st bce, papyrus roll),
11. Qumran cave4 unidentified Greek (late 1st bce, parchment roll),
12. Qumran cave4 Num 3-4 (turn of the era, parchment roll),
13. Nahal Hever Minor Prophets (hand A), with example of paleo-Hebrew tetragrammaton and hand B (turn of the era, parchment roll),
14. POxy3522 of Job 42 (1st ce, papyrus roll; paleo-Hebrew tetragrammaton), see also the black and white image,
15. POxy4443 of Esther (1st/2nd ce, papyrus roll), see also the black and white image,
16. PFouad 203 prayer/amulet? [no image yet]
17. PYale1 of Gen 14, recto, and verso (2nd ce, papyrus codex; number 318 abbreviated),
18. PBodl5 of Pss 48-49 (2nd ce, parchment codex),
19. POxy656 of Gen (2nd/3rd ce, papyrus codex, problematic tetragrammaton),
20. POxy1007 of Gen (3rd ce, parchment codex),
21. POxy1166 of Gen 16 (3rd ce, papyrus roll),
22. PBerlin 17213 of Gen (3rd ce) [no image yet]
23. POxy1075 of Exod (3rd ce, papyrus roll; end of book),
24. Cairo ostrakon 215 of Judith (late 3rd ce) [no image yet]
25. PLitLond 202 of Gen (3rd/4th ce, papyrus codex) [no image yet]
26. PWien Rainer 18 of Pss (3rd/4th ce, parchment roll; Symmachus?) [no image yet]
27. PAlex 203 of Isa 48 (3rd/4th ce, papyrus roll?),
28. PHarris 31 of Ps 43 (3rd/4th ce, papyrus roll/amulet?),
29. POxy1225 of Lev 16 (early 4th ce, papyrus roll),
30. PLitLond 211 of Dan 1 Theodotion (early 4th ce, vellum roll) [no image yet]

[[under construction (additions from July 2001)]]
add 31. Goettingen # 967 Ezekiel-Daniel-Esther (about 200 ce, papyrus codex); ending of Daniel/Susanna, with subscriptio (PKoeln Theol 37v, p.196)
add 32. POxy4442 Exodus [first side] (early 3rd ce, papyrus codex); [other side]
add 33. PVindobGr 29828+29456 Jannes and Jambres (early 3rd ce, papyrus roll [reused], nomina sacra uncontracted) [vh1068]
add 34. PMich 4925 Jannes and Jambres (early 3rd ce, papyrus roll [reused]) [BASP 16 (1979) 114]
add 35. PChBeat 16 Jannes and Jambres (4th ce, papyrus codex, odd nomina sacra) [Pietersma]
add 36. POxy1173+1356+1207+2158+ Philo (3rd ce, papyrus codex) [vh696]
add 37. PAntin 8 Prov-Wisd-Eccl (3rd ce, papyrus codex) [#928 = vh254]
add 38. PAntin 9 Prov (3rd ce, papyrus codex) [#987 = vh252]
add 39. Freer Minor Prophets (late 3rd ce, papyrus codex) [vh284];
add 40. Berlin Genesis (late 3rd ce, papyrus codex) [#911 = vh004];
add 41. PLond Christ 5 (3-5th ce, liturgical codex) [vh921],
add 42. POxy2745 Hebrew onomasticon (3/4th ce, papyrus roll) [vh1158]
add 43. POxy2068 (4th ce, papyrus liturgical roll) [vh966]
add 44. PAntin 10 Ezek (4th ce, papyrus codex) [#988 = vh316]
add 45. PSorbonne 2250 Jer 17f & 46 (late 4th ce, papyrus codex; aberrent text) [#817 = vh308];
add 46. PRanier 4.5 Psalm 9 (5th ce, papyrus amulet?) [#2086 = vh105].
add 47. PBerlin 17035 Gen 36 Symmachus? (5/6th ce, parchment codex) [vh022];
add 48. PGiessen 13+19+22+26 Deut 24-29 (5/6th ce; parchment codex; possibly non-Christian provenance) [no image yet]

for additional images of scriptural and other (mostly Christian) fragments, see Wieland Willkur's links
Context and Overview
This study is very much "in process," and to view the larger picture (including images of manuscripts) as well as to see periodic supplements and updates the reader is referred to the author's World Wide Web Internet LXX/OG (CATSS) homepage.
The main sources cited below are abbreviated as follows:
Aland = Kurt Aland (ed), Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri I: Biblische Papyri ... (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1976).
DJD = Discoveries in the Judean Desert, the official publication series for the Dead Sea Scroll materials (Oxford Press).
Roberts (MSB) = Colin H. Roberts Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt, The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1977 (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1979)
Tov = his article in this volume; otherwise also "Scribal Practices and Physical Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls" in The Bible as Book: the Manuscript Tradition ed by John Sharpe III and Kimberly Van Kampen (British Library 1998) 9-33; The Text- Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor 1997\2); and numerous other pertinent publications on scribal practices.
Treu = Kurt Treu, "The Significance of Greek for Jews in the Roman Empire," with an excursus on Jewish scriptural manuscripts/fragments, originally published as "Die Bedeutung des Griechischen f&u%;r die Juden im r&o%;mischen Reich," Kairos NF 15, Hft. 1/2 (1973), 123-144; translated by William Adler with Robert Kraft (1991) for Internet access.
Turner = E.G.Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, (Princeton University Press 1971); second edition revised and enlarged edited by P. J. Parsons (Bulletin Supplement 46, London: Institute of Classical Studies 1987).
Turner (Codex) = E.G.Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977).
vh### = Joseph van Haelst, Catalogue des Papyrus Litte/raires Juifs et Chre/tiens (Paris: Sorbonne 1976).
The standard papyrological designations will be used, as listed also in vh, Aland, and elsewhere.
A major goal of this research is to explore more closely the preserved evidence from early Jewish biblical and related materials in Greek reflecting scribal habits and techniques in order to address questions about Greek Jewish developments, on the one hand, and the relationship between Greek Jewish "scribal culture" and early Christian literary practices on the other. My intuitions are that the continuities between "Jewish" and "Christian" will outweigh the discontinuities in such matters, but the thrust of earlier scholarship (with some exceptions) has not tended in that direction. Thus I have attempted to select and examine closely some 30 biblical and related Greek fragmentary manuscripts, all of which are either clearly Jewish in origin or have a reasonable claim to be so, with a view to building up a more carefully controlled set of criteria for addressing ambiguities in other, even more ambiguous (with regard to origin) materials. It will be clear from this evidence that there was a variegated "scribal culture" in pre-Christian Jewish circles (not unlike the situation in the non-Jewish Greek world!); how much of it may have carried over into "Christian" practices, and under what conditions, remain less clear, but hopefully will receive further light from this study.
My work on this topic in many ways parallels and supplements the research of my colleague, Emanuel Tov, who focuses even more than I have attempted on the significance of various "physical" characteristics (spacing, punctuation, etc.) for the ancient preparers and users of the texts. I also view my efforts as continuations of the suggestive but relatively little known study by the late Kurt Treu, in his essay mentioned below (which is readily available in English through the aforementioned Internet home page). That I am often critical of the conclusions of the late Colin Roberts on these subjects does not detract from my appreciation of and respect for his pioneering efforts as one of the papyrological giants of the 20th century, on whose shoulders we all must stand.
Setting the Scene
Among the 120 or so papyri and other early fragments of Greek Jewish scriptures ("LXX/OG") and related materials dated paleographically from the 4th century and earlier, we find more than a dozen that are clearly of Jewish origin, and another dozen or so for which this identification has also been strongly suggested.\1/ The vast majority of the remainder has been assumed to have been produced by Christian copyists, although the evidence is seldom unambiguously clear. This study attempts to reexamine the situation with a focus especially on details of format and presentation ("textual mechanics"), without any special attention to textcritical content.\2/
---
\1/I have not included several manuscripts listed by Treu as ambiguous but worth consideration when his reasons appear to be less "mechanical" than seem appropriate for this study. For example, he points out (142f) that since we have evidence for Jewish presence at such sites as Oxyrhynchos and Antinoopolis, it is not unreasonable to suppose that some of the Jewish Greek scriptural materials from those sites might be of Jewish origin, and he offers some textcritical observations in support (e.g. closer affinities to the surviving Hebrew text, "eccentric text"). From this textual basis, he expands his horizons further; see his notes on PAntin 8, 9, 10 [vh254, 252, 316]; PGiss 13... [vh58]; PSorbonne 2250 [vh308]; PBerlin 17035 [vh022]; Freer Minor Prophets [vh284]; Berlin Genesis [#911 = vh004]; Chester Beatty (etc.) Ezekiel-Daniel-Esther [#967 = vh315]; PRanier 4.5 [#2086 = vh105]. Probably POx 2745, a Hebrew onomasticon roll [vh1158] mentioned by Treu (144) should be added to my list; see also n.11 below on liturgical materials (e.g. POx 2068). A fresh look at the evidence from the early papyri (3rd ce) of Philo's works will also be in order at some point.
\2/The textcritical situation seems analogous to what the NT papyri have shown -- that the textual relationships prior to the imagined watershed of recensional activity in the 3rd and early 4th centuries ce are in many ways just as confused and confusing as afterwards. Of course, the materials from this early period, on rolls and early mini-codices, must be examined book by book (and sometimes even in smaller units within "books") rather than in generalized "text types," but even then clear patterns seldom emerge. Did we really expect clear patterns, given what we have learned from the Judean Desert discoveries as well as from other avenues of information about those textually tumultuous early times? For details, consult Emanuel Tov's Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint.
===
The basis for scholarly discussion of these materials in the past quarter century was established primarily by the publications of Treu's article and Roberts' Schweich Lectures (MSB). Treu attempted to view the early fragments in the larger framework of how Judaism adapted to, or perhaps reacted to the Greco-Roman world in which it existed and often flourished. While Treu did not ignore textual matters (see n.1 above), he was much more focused on the sorts of "physical" and immediately visible criteria that could reasonably be employed in attempting to identify "Jewish" scriptural materials. The appendix to his 1973 article presents a challenge to previous analyses, and sets the stage for subsequent discussion.
Roberts, in his attempt to extract information from the early papyri for reconstructing the development of Christianity in Egypt, shows sympathy for some of Treu's observations while at the same time defending aspects of the "older" approach, with its tendency to focus on early Christianity.\3/ Perhaps unwittingly, in his quest to identify characteristic "Christian" traits in the early manuscripts and fragments, Roberts actually opens some new lines of investigation applicable to the Jewish materials as well: especially suggestive are his comments about the "documentary" tendencies exhibited in some aspects of the presentation of early Christian materials (use of spacing, punctuation, enlarged letters, etc.), and his attempt to distinguish the resultant paleographical "style(s)" of his "Christian" witnesses from a more "elegant" literary approach in (some of) the clearly Jewish fragments.
---
\3/This was not a new interest for Roberts, as his pioneering early article on "The Christian Book and the Greek Papyri" (JTS 50 [1949] 155-68) amply attests. It rewards rereading even now.
===
The Main Issues
The older "criteria" to which Treu, especially, reacts, and the new issues introduced into the discussion by Roberts (with further elaboration recently by Lawrence W. Hurtado\4/), may be summarized as follows -- we will want to be especially alert to such matters when we survey the data:
---
\4/"The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal," JBL 117 (1998) 655-673. Hurtado's primary contribution to the ongoing discussion relates to the graphic marker (overline stroke) used to indicate the significance of IH as both a suspension of the nomen sacrum IHSOUS (the name Jesus) and as the shorthand way of writing the number 18, which number in Hebrew gematria equivalences also is the word for "life" (XY. Perhaps not to be lost in this discussion is the fact that the Hebrew letter-number for 18 is YX, which in most early orthographies would resemble closely the anticipated (if the numbering system were consistent) Hebrew number 15 YH, but in the development of Jewish tradition this numerical representation is not used, but we find instead +W (nine plus six = 15; also +Z or nine plus seven = 16), presumably as protection against careless reprentation that might be associated with the tetragrammaton and/or its abbreviated forms, but perhaps also to avoid ambiguity. It would be useful to know when, and under what conditions, such a supposed modification in the Hebrew numbering conventions arose.
===
1. Scroll or codex format -- as a rule of thumb, and especially when other evidence is lacking, the equation of scroll with Jewish and codex with Christian has tended to prevail. Admittedly, Christians continued to use the roll format well after codices became popular, and clearly codices came to be used among Jews at some point, but there is little clarity or agreement on the history of such developments. In the survey of 30 Jewish and possibly Jewish texts that follows, all but items 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24 (ostrakon) and 25 are scrolls.
2. Papyrus or parchment material -- it is clear now that early Jewish scriptural copies could be inscribed on either material (see the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example), but in 1973 Treu felt the need to argue against the idea that authentic Jewish copies could only be written on animal skins. Of the unambiguously (by date) Jewish manuscripts listed below, all but items 1, 4, 11, 12, and 13 (see also 20, 24 [ostrakon], 26, 30) are on papyri.
3. Use of "nomina sacra" -- Roberts especially (developed further now by Hurtado) has championed the view that a widely accepted "system" of abbreviation by contraction of certain key words with "sacral" connotations (especially "Jesus," "Christ," "Lord," and "God"; but also several others) developed early in Christian scribal circles, although the modern inventor of the term "nomina sacra" (Ludwig Traube -- at a time when virtually no early Jewish evidence was available) thought that the practice must have had Jewish roots.\5/ No unambiguously Jewish manuscripts with abbreviated nomina sacra in Greek (as opposed to tetragrammaton representations, on which see below) have yet been agreed upon by the debating scholars, but items 19, 21, 23, 27, (and 29?) below (see also n.11 on POx 2068) would seem to offer a strong challenge to Roberts' position.
---
\5/Traube, Nomina Sacra: Versuch einer Geschichte der christlichen Ku%rzung (Munich: Beck 1907), 26. See also A.H.R.E.Paap, Nomina Sacra in the Greek Papyri of the First Five Centuries (Leiden: Brill 1959), 119ff, for a similar view of origins (but different details of development).
===
4. Treatment of the "tetragrammaton" -- the presence in many of the clearly Jewish fragments of a special way of representing the four lettered divine name YHWH, in contrast to the use of the Greek substitute term "LORD" (KURIOS) in most LXX/OG manuscripts, has led to discussions of the origins and history of such practices, including the relationship between this phenomenon and the development of "nomina sacra."\6/ None of the unambiguously (based on date) Jewish manuscripts described below preserves representations of the tetragrammaton with KURIOS, but the evidence from the first hand as well as the corrector/enhancer of item 19 deserves to be noted, along with the contracted forms found in items 21, 23, 27, and 29 (see above; note also the blank in item 22).
---
\6/Hurtado's article provides an excellent discussion of these related issues, as well as an extensive (if not exhaustive) bibliography.
===
5. Treatment of numbers -- Roberts also argued that Christian copyists tended to use number symbols rather than spelling out the numbers in good Greek literary style. He saw this as another "documentary" influence. (This feature, if accurate, could strengthen Hurtado's theory that the abbreviated use of IH = "Jesus" associated with it's numerical value as "18" reflects an early Christian development; see note 4 above.) The only manuscript to preserve abbreviated numbers discussed below is item 17, of ambiguous origin.
6. Use of "scriptio continua" (continuous writing, without word or sense division) or of spacing and other visual aids for the reader -- Roberts attempted to claim that influences from "documentary" scribal practices may have led early Christian scribes and copyists to abandon the strict literary convention of writing an unbroken string of letters and introduce various sorts of sense divisions and similar indicators (using blank spaces, punctuation, enlarged letters, marginal marks, etc.); similar features also seem to be present in many of the early Jewish texts (as Roberts also noted, rather in passing\7/). Of the unambiguously Jewish manuscripts listed below, only items 3 and 5 show completely unbroken strings of writing in their very limited fragmentary remains. Thus it makes no sense to employ this feature as a sign of "Christian" origin.
---
\7/Roberts MSB 18 and n.3: "Documentary practice may not have been the only influence on Christian scribes. In the manuscript of the Minor Prophets found in a cave near Engedi in Judaea [subsequently identified as Nahal Hever] and dated between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50, an enlarged letter, preceded by a small blank space, marks the beginning of a new phrase, while verses are marked off by larger spaces. This may well have been standard Hebrew usage in texts such as this, clearly intended for liturgical reading." The footnote refers to articles by E.J.Revell in BJRL 54 (1971) 214ff and StudPap 15 (1976) 131ff, comparing this situation with Hebrew Masoretic tradition. Roberts then concludes "this might indicate that the method of paragraphing by the initial letter was of Jewish origin." Study of such phenomena in early Jewish and Christian biblical texts is now underway by Emanuel Tov and will make it quite clear that this was no uniquely "Christian" development (in addition to the publications listed above, I have been privileged to see a draft form of his forthcoming "Scribal Features of Early Witnesses to Greek Scripture" [tentative title]).
===
7. Assessment of literary style -- Roberts saw in most of the early Jewish materials an "elegance" of writing style distinct from most of the early Christian examples. He noted especially the use of "serifs" (decorative strokes) on certain letters. I have also tried to pay attention to "shading," that is, the relative thickness of horizontal, vertical, and oblique strokes (shading occurs when one type of stroke tends to be thinner than another). The general comments of Eric Turner on these matters in the Greco-Roman world at large deserve attention, since in what follows attempts will be made briefly to describe the various Jewish hands:
Several 'styles' of writing were simultaneously in use [in the Ptolemaic as in the Roman period]. Contemporary with each other, they cross-fertilize and hybridize easily. Study of these reciprocal influences is rewarding, provided only that the investigator is not trying to prove a derivation of one 'style' from another.

Then Turner lists some of the "objective considerations" on which his classifications are based, including degree of formality or informality in writing, speed and skill in execution, size, shape, and tilt of the letters, and consistency of spacing between letters and lines (ed 1, p.24 = ed 2, p.20f).
Turner's resulting general categories of classification for literary hands of the first four centuries are: (1) Informal round hands; (2) Formal round hands (with three subdivisions: Round/Square, Biblical Majuscule, Coptic Uncial); (3) Formal mixed hands (20-21). Most of the materials described below will fit into Turner's second category, of formal round/square decorated hands. Indeed, it may help to nuance his "round/square" style by noting the extent of formal decoration present -- "highly decorated" indicates that most non-rounded strokes terminate with full serifs (short perpendicular strokes to both sides) or half serifs (to only one side); "moderately decorated" would include the use of hooks or blobs as well as some serifs; "sporadically/minimally decorated" and "undecorated" complete the scale.\8/
---
\8/With such paleographical backgrounding in view, here is my summary checklist of the phenomena that ideally would deserve attention in a complete examination and description of the materials listed below (but for present purposes, a summary treatment will suffice). Note that Aland also tries to follow such a checklist in his descriptions (p.6):
manuscript identification
? contents (author, work, etc.) and relevant modern editions
? current location, identification number(s), ownership history, etc.
? place and circumstances of discovery
? place of origin, probable date
overall form and format description
? type and characteristics (color, texture, etc.) of material for writing surface (papyrus, leather, etc.)
? type and characteristics of ink(s)
? mega-format (roll, codex, amulet, etc.)
? specifics of what is preserved (size, letters, etc.)
? mega-dimensions (writing surface, written blocks)
marginal markings (outside the writing blocks)
? column/page numbers
? corona
? paragraph marks
? indicators of special (e.g. quoted) material
? correction marks and marginal corrections
? other
overall style of writing (within the writing blocks)
? relative bilinearity (consistent letter heights)
? letter widths and proportions (square, rectangular, oval)
? letter slant (e.g. upright, slanting right/left at top)
? letter formation (strokes per letter, speed, ligatures, etc.)
? letter shading (thick/thin strokes)
? decoration
* serifs (i.e. horizontal strokes, esp. along the bilinear planes)
* finials, hooks and/or loops (other, less angular flourishes)
* shading (very subtle end strokes), blobs
use of internal spacing (absence of ink)
? blank lines or unusual vertical spacing
? indentations
? end of line space
? more than one letter width in line
? one letter width in line (or less)
? other (e.g. writing in shapes, like a triangle)
explicit in-line markings (presence of ink)
? enlarged letters
? reduced size letters
? unusual letters (e.g. tetragrammaton)
? punctuation
? trema/dieresis [diaeresis] ("organic" and "inorganic")
? apostrophes (e.g. to separate identical consonants)
? breathings
? accents
? contractions and/or suspensions (e.g. "nomena sacra")
? marking number symbols (e.g. between dots, overlined)
? other special symbols (e.g. "year," monetary denominations)
? correction marks and correction locations
? other (e.g. marked tetragrammaton space)
===
Now let us turn to the detailed evidence.
The Manuscript Fragments
Here are brief descriptions of the Jewish and possibly Jewish fragments (including a few unidentified, perhaps "parabiblical" early pieces) arranged in roughly chronological order (according to paleographical approximations).\9/
---
\9/Items are presented with the Goettingen Septuagint Institute (or "Rahlfs") number in brackets, where available, followed by the van Haelst number (vh###) and Aland's [AT##]. Other attempts to identify and discuss aspects of the early Jewish biblical papyri are noted by Hurtado (his n.6), and by Tov in his forthcoming study (above, n.7).
===
Attention will be given especially to the aforementioned "presentational" issues, as described by the respective editors and reevaluated, when possible, by the present author from available photographs -- and with the problematic issues described above also in mind.
1. 4Q122=LXXDeut, Deuteronomy 11 [#819; unknown to vh];
parchment roll, 2nd bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran, cave 4; ed. E.Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 195 (plate 43), with paleographical comments by P.Parsons, 11-12.
Very few consecutive letters are preserved on these tiny, misshapen fragments, making precise judgments especially problematic. The manuscript seems to have contained 26-29 letters per line, but the length of each column cannot be determined.

The hand is literary, but not elegant, tending to a thick informal upright bilinear round style (R and perhaps U descend below the plane; there is a tendency to vertical oval shape with QO, and S has a flattened top), perhaps with some tendencies to ligatured (note the long middle stroke of E) and to cursive forms (e.g. some representations of A), which might suggest "documentary" influence. It is moderately decorated, with small flourishes on the top and base of most verticals (and the left upper diagonal of U) in the form of short hooks or blobs (mostly to the left, except on the top right vertical of N). No shading of ink strokes is evident.
There is some evidence of spacing between at least three of the possible 7 word breaks, but no preserved left margins and not enough words to determine the extent and nature of the use of spacing or associated devices.
No nomina sacra or other special markings are preserved.

[[link appended excerpts]]
2. PRyl 458, Deuteronomy 23-28 [#957 = vh057 = AT28];
papyrus roll, 2nd bce; John Rylands Library, Manchester ENG.
Location of the find is unknown (purchased with other papyri in 1917 by Rendel Harris; cartonnage, possibly from the Fayum); ed. C.H.Roberts, Two Biblical Papyri ... (Manchester Univ Press 1936) (with one photo) and PRyl 3 (1938) (no photos); additional photos are found in E.Wu%rthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (1957, Eerdmans 1995\2).
The papyrus itself is light colored and of good quality. Originally it was about 28 cm tall with at least 30 lines per column, and columns about 10 cm wide with 27-29 letters per line (average). These fragments are written in a relatively bilinear (FY extend above and below the imagined lines, and IRTU below) square/round upright (but the rounded letters, especially S tend to "lean" back to the left at the top), highly decorated "elegant" formal book hand, with no clear evidence of shading.
The use of spacing is noteworthy, with both smaller and larger spaces employed between various word groups, but no word division as such. Roberts comments: "our text ... shows no sign of documentary influence and we cannot ascribe to this cause the systematic use of [spacing] found here" (26), and wonders about possible influence from Hebrew or Aramaic. See now the investigations by Emanuel Tov mentioned above.

No nomina sacra occur, or other special markings.
[[link appended excerpts]]
3. 7Q1 LXXEx, Exodus 28 [#805 = vh038 = AT18];
papyrus roll, ca 100 bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran cave 7; ed. M.Baillet (with J.T.Milik & R.de Vaux), DJD 3 (1962) 142-43 & plate 30. Brief paleographical comments by P.Parsons in DJD 8 (1990) 25.
Probably 19-20 letters per line average; column height cannot be determined on the basis of the two small preserved fragments. The hand is a highly decorated formal upright with strict bilinearity in the few preserved letters -- none protrude above or below the projected lines (there are no occurrences of FY); no shading is obvious.

No unusual formatting appears in the small extant fragments and there are no occurrences of nomina sacra or other special markings.

[[link appended excerpts]]
4. 4Q119=LXXLev\a, Leviticus 26 [#801 = vh049];
parchment roll, ca 100 bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran cave 4; ed. E. Ulrich DJD 9 (1992) 161 & plate 38; paleographical analysis by P.Parsons, 7.
Full scroll height about 20 cm, with at least 1.3 cm top margin and 1.5 bottom; about 28 lines per column, with an average of 47- 48 letters per line (about 10 cm wide, with at least .8 cm between columns). There are faint traces of horizontal guidelines, with the letters dropped from the line. This produces greater linearity at the top of the roughly bilinear (with FY extending both above and below, and BRU and occasionally I below) upright informal round (tending to oval in places) rather cramped writing. Sporadic ornamentation, with left hooks at the feet of some RF letters, and a downward hook sometimes on the left horizontal of T. No shading. See Turner's "informal round" style?
A textual break marked by an inline blank of about 3-4 letter widths and a horizontal paragraphos mark below that line on the left margin indicates the start of Lev 26.21. Otherwise there are a few possibly intentional short spaces between some words or clauses at other points in the fragment, but no observable pattern.

No nomina sacra are preserved in the fragment, or other special markings. Iota adscript is used. An interlinear correction occurs (apparently by the original copyist), and perhaps a couple of "strike-over" corrections as well.
[[link appended excerpts]]
5. 7Q2 LXX EpJer, Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) [#804 = vh312 = AT144];
papyrus roll, ca 100 bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran cave 7; ed. M.Baillet (with J.T.Milik & R.de Vaux), DJD 3 (1962) 143 & plate 30.

Parts of 5 lines (21 total letters) are preserved, with probably originally 23-24 letters per line; there is no way to know the size of the column(s). The hand appears to be bilinear, formal upright round/square, relatively thick but perhaps shaded on some horizontals and obliques, with subtle ornamentation (small but full serifs, curved flourishes) on most non-rounded letters. There are no preserved examples of the letters KMRFY, among others, and both a larger and a smaller form of S appears.

No spacing appears in the preserved material, although it is tempting to reconstruct it for one of the lacunae. There are no abbreviations, nomina sacra, or other special marks.\10/
[[link appended excerpts]]
---
\10/Qumran cave 7 has produced several other small Greek fragments that have not yet been identified convincingly. In general, many of them seem to be bilinear and decorated with serifs and/or hooks. Spacing may be present on 7Q5 and 7Q15, and 7Q16 may have a paragraph mark (see also 7Q7?). Since they are probably of Jewish provenance, they are also of possible relevance as attesting Jewish literary activity and scribal practices. In his forthcoming article (above, n.7) Tov notes the following suggested identifications with LXX/OG locations, any of which if verifiable would qualify the respective fragment(s) for inclusion in the present list:
7Q4 Numbers 14.23-24
7Q5 Exodus 36.10-11; Numbers 22.38
7Q6.1 Psalm 34.28; Proverbs 7.12-13
7Q6.2 Isaiah 18.2
7Q8 Zechariah 8.8; Isaiah 1.29-30; Psalm 18.14-15; Daniel 2.43; Qohelet 6.3
===
6. PFouad 266a, Genesis 3-38 [#942 = vh056 = AT3];
papyrus roll, 1st bce; Egyptian Papyrological Society, Cairo.
Unknown provenance (acquired by P.Jouget in 1943); ed. Zaki Aly and Ludwig Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy ... (Bonn: Habelt 1980) (includes plates); the descriptions and notes are by Koenen.
The height of the roll is unknown, while the preserved columns are about 15 cm wide (about 38 letters per line, average), and the width of vertical margins is unknown. It is good quality papyrus, written by the same hand or in the same scribal tradition as #848 (item 8 below) in a highly decorated rigorous bilinear formal upright (only F extends above and below the projected lines, and Y above); horizontal strokes tend to be thicker than verticals (obliques are mostly thick); there are full lower serifs on TUFY, and sometimes on I and on the left verticals of GHKNPR; half-serifs or hooks occur on most other vertical strokes, and on some obliques (especially also with thickened ends, or delicate "blobs"); the right vertical of P is rounded, and there is a tendency to rounding on the right vertical of H. The horizontal stroke in Q is short, and does not touch the circle on either side; the horizontal midstroke on E is relatively longer, and does connect on the left.

Spacing of about half the width of a letter is occasionally found, especially before and after some proper names.

No examples of the tetragrammaton have survived on these eight small fragments, nor any unusual markings, but QEOS is found (Gen 4.6) uncontracted and unaccompanied by the tetragrammaton, contrary to the majority of witnesses in this passage (compare #905, item 19 below). Iota adscript is frequent.
[[link appended excerpts]]
7. 4Q120=LXXLev\b, Leviticus 2-5 [#802 = vh046 = AT22];
papyrus roll, 1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran cave 4; ed. E.Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 168 (plates 39- 41), with paleographical analysis by P.Parsons, 10.
A tall scroll, about 31 cm high (about 38 lines per column), with columns of about 10-11 cm in width (23-29 letters).
This fragment is written in a highly decorated bilinear script, with no significant shading (compare #848 and #943b, items 8 and 13 below).
Spacing is used before and after the divine name (represented by IAW) and occasionally between sense-divisions or sentences. Paragraph signs also occur at the left margin. The manuscript also uses iota adscript (usually); and contains some corrections.

See Page 11

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:19 pm

Page 11

[[link appended excerpts]]
8. PFouad 266b, Deuteronomy 17-33 [#848 = vh56 = AT27];
papyrus roll, 1st bce; Egyptian Papyrological Society, Cairo.
Unknown provenance (acquired by P.Jouget in 1943); ed. Zaki Aly and Ludwig Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy ... (Bonn: Habelt 1980) (includes plates); the descriptions and notes are by Koenen.
The height of the roll was about 24 cm, with 21-23 lines per column, while the preserved columns vary from about 15.5 to 16.5 cm wide (about 37 letters per line, average, but line endings are irregular and the final letters sometimes cramped), and the width of vertical margins varies from about 1.5 cm down to 0.2 cm(!), with a tendency for the lower lines gradually to "move" their beginnings more to the left ("Mass' Law"). Similarly, there is a tendency for the top lines in a column to have more space between them than those at the bottom.
The text is written on good quality papyrus, by the same hand or in the same scribal tradition as #942 (item 6 above) in a highly decorated rigorous bilinear formal round/square upright (only F extends above and below the projected lines, and Y above); horizontal strokes tend to be thicker than verticals (obliques are mostly thick); there are full lower serifs on TUFY, and sometimes on I and on the left verticals of GHKNPR; half-serifs or hooks occur on most other vertical strokes, and on some obliques (especially also with thickened ends, or delicate "blobs"); the right vertical of P is rounded, and there is a tendency to rounding on the right vertical of H. The horizontal stroke in Q is short, and does not touch the circle on either side; the horizontal midstroke on E is relatively longer, and does connect on the left.

Paragraph markers are frequent at the left margin between the lines, and spacing of varying widths is found throughout to indicate various units (or sometimes with no apparent function). Spacing around proper names does not seem to be a feature of #848, unlike its sister MS #942 (item 6 above). At Deut 21.1, along with a paragraph sign, there is a large diagonal slash in the left margin. Its function (if any) is not clear. There are a few corrections, and a marginal gloss at the bottom of one column. Iota adscript is normal.

The tetragrammaton appears frequently, in small square Aramaic/Hebrew letters (resembling PIPI) that are oriented to the base line (not hung from the top), preceded but not followed by a high dot with the entire ensemble occupying the space of about 5-6 letter widths of which perhaps half (distributed on each side of the tetragrammaton) is blank. The first copyist left the dot marker and blank space, which was filled in later, presumably by another hand.
[[link appended excerpts]]
9. PFouad 266c, Deuteronomy 10-33 [#847 = vh56 = Aland01];
papyrus roll, late 1st bce; Egyptian Papyrological Society, Cairo.
Unknown provenance (acquired by P.Jouget in 1943); ed. Zaki Aly and Ludwig Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy ... (Bonn: Habelt 1980) (includes plates); the descriptions and notes are by Koenen.
The height of the roll may have been about 24 cm (as with #848, item 8 above), with about 21 lines per column, but the width of the columns was much smaller, around 17 cm (about 24 letters per line, average, but with a great deal of variation), and the width of vertical margins may have been around 1 cm.
The text is written on good quality papyrus, and although in some ways the hand is similar to ##942 and 848 (items 6 and 8 above), it is less formal in execution, while still generally bilinear (the top flourish on A usually breaks the upper plane; and the foot of U sometimes drops below the lower line; there do not seem to be any examples preserved of FY) and round/square (with some oval tendencies in the rounded letters); no obvious shading but highly decorated -- usually there are full lower serifs on TU, and sometimes on I (also on top); half-serifs or hooks occur on most other vertical strokes; the right vertical of P is rounded, but not the right vertical of H. The horizontal stroke in Q connects the two sides and sometimes extends beyond the right arc.
One paragraph stroke is preserved, and small spacing is used similarly to #848 (item 8 above) but also in connection with the start of proper names (as in #942, item 6 above), but not after such names.

There are no instances of the tetragrammaton, but QEOS is uncontracted, as expected. Interlinear corrections appear. The dieresis/trema is found once on an initial vowel, but no other diacritics or explicit punctuation marks occur.
[[link appended excerpts]]
10. 4Q127 Exodus Paraphrase (?) [no Goettingen #; unknown to vh];
papyrus roll, late 1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran cave 4; ed. E.Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 223f (plate 47), with paleographical analysis by P.Parsons, 12f.
Dimensions undetermined (no complete line or vertical fragment extending through an entire column's height has been preserved). The writing is similar to #802 (see above, item 7); an informal round/square highly decorated (but no shading) literary script ("ineptly written," so Parsons). Some spacing (e.g. with proper names) and paragraph markings, plus a marginal "coronis" (as in #848, item 8 above) and a few corrections by the original hand. No occurrences of nomina sacra or tetragrammaton are preserved.
[[link appended excerpts]]
11. 4Q126 unidentified Greek [no Goettingen #; unknown to vh];
parchment roll, late 1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran cave 4; ed. E.Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 219 (plate 46), with paleographical analysis by P.Parsons, 12.
The dimensions represented in these 8 fragments are undetermined. The hand is similar to #802 (item 7 above) and #803 (item 12 below) -- a highly decorated bilinear, but with no shading.
Some use of spacing occurs for larger as well as smaller units. Fragment 2 seems to have KURIO[], preceded by a short space.
[[link appended excerpts]]
12. 4Q121=LXXNum, Numbers 3-4 [#803 = vh051];
parchment roll, turn of the era; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran cave 4; ed. E.Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 188 (plates 42- 43), with paleographical analysis by P.Parsons, 11.
Large format, more than 25 cm tall (34 lines per column), with columns about 10.5-11 cm wide (27-34 letters per line) and perhaps a 1.5 cm margin between. Some use of spacing. Iota adscript. Highly decorated pronouncedly bilinear round/square hand (some oval letters, which tend to lean backwards) with no shading, similar to #802 (item 7 above). No occurrence of the tetragrammaton. A few corrections.
[[link appended excerpts]]
13. 8HevXIIgr = Nahal Hever Minor Prophets [#943 = vh285];
parchment roll(s), turn of the era; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From the Cave of Horror, Nahal Hever (Wadi Habra), Israel; ed. E.Tov, DJD 8 (1990), with paleographical analysis by P.Parsons, 19-26.
Dimensions can vary somewhat from column to column (especially widths), but in general the material was about 35 cm tall (42 lines per column for hand A, 33 for hand B) with column widths averaging around 9 cm (7.5-11.5 range), and about 1.7 average margins between. It is possible that the original scroll was around 10 meters long, if it was a single scroll containing all the Minor Prophets. It is also possible that two separate scrolls (hand A and hand B, thus #943a-b) are represented by the fragments. The leather inscribed by hand B is also coarser than that by hand A.

Scribe A uses spacing for sections and sub-sections (with some enlarged initial letters), but not for words as such; scribe B spaces between most words as well. Both hands are bilinear round/square in conception (but not necessarily in execution; hand A is especially inconsistent) and heavily ornamented (but not with full serifs). Hand A shows no consistent shading, while hand B does. Parsons concludes that hand B was "a much more fluent and consistent copyist than hand A" (22). Paragraph marks also occur in hand A, and some marginal marks.

Each of the respective sections (A and B) has a different rendering of the archaic Hebrew tetragrammaton, and probably hand A actually wrote the material in continuity with the Greek (not after the Greek was completed), from left to right. It is not clear whether hand B followed the same procedure (see Tov, DJD 8, p. 14).

It is possible that we have remnants of two scrolls here; in any event, two different hands worked on the materials that have survived, and the second hand presents virtual word division in those sections.
[[link appended excerpts]]
14. POx 3522 Job 42 [Goettingen #??; unknown to vh];
see also the black and white image; papyrus roll, 1st ce; Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
From Oxyrhynchos; ed. P.Parsons, POx 50 (1983) 1 (with plate).
Dimensions may be as small as 14 cm tall (15 lines per column), or as large as 29 cm (39 lines) or even 32 cm (46 lines), depending on the identification of the poorly represented (3 legible letters!) 2nd column, with 19-22 letters per line. Informal (even careless) upright bilinear (some ovals, tending to lean left) with moderate ornamentation (mostly by hooks on some vertical strokes); no shading; some ligatures and cursive tendencies; dieresis/trema on the initial letter of I+WB.

Use of spacing followed by an exaggerated letter for sense divisions. Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew, written consectutively by the original scribe from left to right.
[[link appended excerpts]]
15. POx 4443 Esther E + 8-9 [Goettingen #??; unknown to vh];
papyrus roll, 1st/2nd ce; Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
From Oxyrhynchos; ed. K.Luchner, POx 65 (1998) 4ff (with plate).
About 30 cm tall, with writing block 20 cm (31 lines) by 7 cm (25 letters average) and about 2 cm between columns. Has paragraph markers with enlarged initial letters of next line projecting into the left margin, and initial letters of most other lines also enlarged. Otherwise relatively bilinear with minimal ornamentation (some hooks and flourishes), and various "documentary" tendencies (ligatures, cursive forms, etc.).
Some spacing for word/phrase separation and at line ends before paragraph markers; dieresis/trema occurs several times, and iota adscript (not always where expected!). Otherwise no punctuation or special markings.
No occurence of tetragrammaton; "nomina sacra" are uncontracted -- e.g. QEOU, SWTHRIAN, ANQRWPOIS in E.16 (reconstructed) and 18, 23, 24.
[[link appended excerpts]]
16. PFouad 203 prayer/amulet? [no Goettingen #; vh911];
papyrus roll, ca 100 ce; Egyptian Papyrological Society, Cairo.
Unidentified provenance; Ed P.Benoit, RevBiblique 59 (1951) 549-65.
From the top of the middle column (of three), 19 lines (about 17- 18 letters per line) are preserved, but it is not possible to determine how much has been lost below. I have not seen a photo of this material but the editor provides an extensive paleographical description and classes the hand as clearly "literary," carefully written without any cursive forms.
Roberts MSB 78: "There can be little doubt of the Jewish origin [of this manuscript], a prayer against evil spirits, written on a roll of papyrus and attributed to the late first or early second century."\11/
---
\11/Roberts continues, MSB 78: "Both PLond Christ 5 (=vh921), a leaf from a liturgical book of the third century [vh reports 4- 5th ce!], and POx 17.2068 (=vh966), some fragments of a papyrus roll of the fourth century, have been thought to be Jewish [e.g. by G.D.Kilpatrick]; but in the latter the contraction of QEOS, the eccentric nomen sacrum BS = BASILEUS, and the apparent echoes of Revelation 15.3 and 1 Timothy 1.17 in l. 7 render the suggestion doubtful. To these should be added the Vienna text of The Penitence of Iannes and Iambres: it was written on the recto of a roll and nomina sacra are left uncontracted [p.61f n.5 calls this PVindobGr 29456 (=vh1068); p.63 n.3 refers to the forthcoming ed of Jannes/Jambres material by A. Pietersma and also to the republication of the Vienna fragment by P.Maraval in ZPE 25 (1977) pp. 199ff.]."
===
17. PYale1 recto and verso of Genesis 14 [#814 = vh012 = AT6];
papyrus codex, 2nd ce; Beinicke Library, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Largely bilinear upright round/square lettering but with descenders on RUYF and sometimes I, and enlarged B. Also FY and sometimes KI extend above the projected top line. There is no evidence of perpendicular or baseline serifs, but some decorative hooks, especially at the top of some diagonals, notably KU (see also ADL). The writing almost fits Turner's "Formal Round: Biblical Majuscule/Uncial" style (ed1, 25f = ed2, 21f) but is less disciplined, with horizontal strokes (especially on tau and epsilon) frequently touching the adjacent letter; no consistent shading is visible from the photographs.
The text includes mid-points after most proper or gentilic names, some breaks between verse-units, possibly some smaller breaks as well, and mid-points to offset number shorthand TIH (318).

The editor, Bradford Welles, dated PYale 1 to around the year 90 and especially because of the codex form considered it unquestionably Christian. Treu would date it at least a century later , and wonders if it might be of Jewish origin. Turner also dates it to late 2nd or early 3rd c [Codex "OT 7" pp. 90, 164].
Roberts also dates this text later than 100 [see van Haelst], but considers it definitely of Christian origin not only because of its codex form but because "the numeral 318 is written not in words but in symbols, contrary to the usual practice of Graeco- Jewish manuscripts; moreover, in this passage the symbols had for the author of the epistle of Barnabas [9.7-9; see further Hurtado] a mystical significance which the words could not have conveyed and it is reasonable to think that they had the same meaning for the writer of PYale 1" [MSB 78].
18. PBodl 5, Psalms 48-49 [#2082 = vh151 = AT68];
papyrus codex, 2nd ce; Bodleian Library, Oxford.
Ed J.W.B.Barns and G.D.Kilpatrick, Proc Br Acad 43 (1964), 229-32 (plate).
Originally 35-40 lines per page.
The photographs are difficult to read, but the hand appears to be a "delicate" round/square minimally decorated bilinear similar to #905 (item 19 below).
Stichometric format (with some long lines continued at the end of the next line and marked with guidelines accordingly). Uncontracted forms of QEOS and ANQRWPOS are restored ("conclusively," so Treu, but not so confidently Roberts MSB 78) in the gaps. Roberts thinks it "definitely" Christian (as did the original editors, because of the codex format), Treu is less sure.
19. POx 656 Genesis 14-27 [#905(U4) = vh013 = AT8];
papyrus codex, 2nd/3rd ce; Bodleian Library, Oxford.
Oxyrhynchos; ed. Grenfell & Hunt, POx 4 (1904) 28f (plate).
Page dimensions at least 11 by 24 cm, 41-42 lines per page (Turner, Codex OT 9).
Carefully written in a round/square large upright hand with minimal decoration (similar to #2082, item 18 above). Some use of spacing as well as explicit high and middle stops. No abbreviations except the stroke representing N at the end of some lines -- QEOS and KURIOS are uncontracted in the first hand. Some corrections have been made by a second hand, which also seems to have added the numeration at the top of each page.

Treatment of tetragrammaton passages warrants further comment. At Gen 15.8 (where the absence of KURIE is a variant in the MSS) there was a blank, four letters in width, filled in with KURIE by another hand. Presumably the manuscript being copied represented the tetragrammaton here in non-Greek letters, and space was left to be filled in by someone expert in the desired script. In Gen 24.40, no attempt is made to represent the tetragrammaton, in accord with a minority textual variant.

The remaining two passages are especially interesting since they both occur at the end of lines at Gen 24.31 (line 122) and 24.42 (line 166; see the photo), and in neither case is the full form of the word KURIOS preserved! In the first of these passages, only the first letter K can be seen before the fragment breaks off (where space for 1-3 letters would have remained, based on the format of the surrounding lines), and in the second passage only KU appears, although there is some room for additional letters after that on the preserved blank surface (the editors complete the word by supplying RIE in the margin of the lacuna preceding the next line, which would be highly unusual!). It seems to me more likely that only the abbreviated KU (without any mark of abbreviation) was supplied in the second instance, and possibly in the first as well!
[[link appended excerpts]]
20. POx 1007 = PLitLond 199, Genesis 2-3 [#907 = vh005];
parchment codex, 3rd ce; British Museum, London.
Oxyrhynchos; ed. A.S.Hunt, POx 7 (1910) 1-3 (plate).
Relatively square page format, about 16 cm high, with two columns of about 33 lines each and 20-25 letters per line.

Basically upright "formal mixed" bilinear lettering (FY break the upper and lower planes, and R the lower), with oval tendencies and minimal decoration -- some loops/hooks on some vertical strokes, but no serifs as such. A blank space of about one letter width appears between chapters 2 and 3; otherwise no clear evidence of punctuation or word division.

The tetragrammaton is rep resented by paleo-Hebrew double yod (two yods with a line through them both; a form found already on coins from the 2nd century bce [[locate a photo?]]), and QEOS is contracted, but no other nomina sacra contractions occur (e.g. ANQRWPOS is fully written several times). Treu, following Kahle (Cairo Geniza), considers the text to be of Jewish origin.

Roberts is more cautious:
"Either we have an instance of a Jewish scribe being influenced by Christian practice or we must assume that a Christian copying a Jewish manuscript preserved the Hebrew form of the Name, as a few later manuscripts, e.g. the Marchalianus [MS Q], do" (MSB ...). Apparently Roberts does not consider the possibility that the tradition of abbreviating QEOS may itself be of Jewish origin, along with abbreviating the tetragrammaton.
21. POx 1166 = PLitLond 201, Genesis 16 [#944 = vh014 = AT9];
papyrus roll, 3rd ce; British Museum, London.
Oxyrhynchos; ed. A.S.Hunt, POx 9 (1912) (plate).
At least 28 lines per column, about 14-15 letters per line.
The calligraphic style in this scroll fragment differs significantly from all that we have seen above; this is in an attractive large undecorated bilinear round/square "Biblical Uncial/Majuscule" with thick strokes except for the horizontals (thus "shaded"). KURIOS and QEOS (as reconstructed) are contracted, but not ANQRWPOS. A medial point occurs two (or three?) times (e.g. before 16.10 and 16.11), once clearly followed by a short blank space; no other spacing appears. A rough breathing mark also occurs in 16.10, O( AGGELOS KU.
This is an especially important text for the discussion of Jewish or Christian scribal practice. Roberts sees the evidence as ambiguous, finally concluding that "It is perhaps more likely to be Christian than Jewish" (MSB 77; but see his earlier comments in JTS 50 [1949] 157). Treu is less sure.\12/ If this text is Jewish in origin, it suggests that the "biblical majuscule" style may have come into Christianity from Judaism, and that the use of nomina sacra was no less Jewish than Christian in this early period!
---

\12/The fragment contains a variant that might also be relevant to this discussion: in Gen 16.11 which parallels the familiar wording of Matt 1.21 "she shall bear a son," #944 has paidion in agreement with some MSS of Philo, while all other known witnesses to the Genesis and the Matthew passages have uion. Was this an old Jewish reading that survived in our fragment (and in Philo) despite the temptation that Christian scribes might have had to harmonize the text with Matthew? Or is it evidence for Christian revisionary activity to make the Genesis text (on the birth of Ishmael) more different from the Matthew wording (Ishmael is a "servant/son," while Jesus is simply "son")?
===
22. PBerlin 17213, Genesis 19 [#995 = vh015 = AT10];
papyrus codex, early 3rd; Staatlichen Museen, Berlin.
Provenance unknown; ed. K.Treu, Archiv fuer Papyrusforschung 20 (1970) 46f (plate).
Fragments of 8 and 9 lines from a page that originally contained 27-28 lines of about 26-27 letters each. The script is in a relatively bilinear round/square hand that tilts slightly to the left at the top, with little obvious decoration (some feathering) or shading, and regular ligaturing of some letters (e.g. alpha, epsilon, and tau with what follows them).
There is a mid-stop with a space at the end of 19.17, and a space of about 3 letter widths at the end of 19.18, where most texts have a form of KURIOS. Treu comments: "...as though the scribe omitted the word unintentionally.... Or perhaps this resulted from a vorlage that had the Hebrew divine name here?" Roberts suggests that this is "a secular sense" of the designation "lord" (MSB 77 n.2), but it is at best ambiguous, referring to one or two divine messengers, and the textual variants in the context show that a tetragrammaton type of understanding was not impossible.

23. POx 1075 = PLitLond 203, Exodus 40 [#909 = vh044 = AT21];
papyrus roll, 3rd ce; British Museum, London.
Oxyrhynchos. Ed A.S.Hunt POx 8 (1911) (plate).
The remains of 23 lines plus a simple subscription at the end of the book of "Exodus," with about 19-23 letters per line. On the reverse side and in a different and slightly later hand from the 3rd/4th ce are 17 lines from near the beginning of the Apocalypse (POx 1079 = vh559 = NT18).
The Exodus scroll is clearly written in a "sloping uncial hand of medium size," bilinear in concept but erratically executed without literary formalism; there is sporadic ornamentation (no serifs as such) and appears to be some consciousness of word or phrase division (a few very small spaces, and some slightly enlarged letters) in addition to the one high-stop and space after 40.28. Dieresis/trema occurs on the first letter of "Israel." At the end of the text are found three pointed space fillers (> > >) after the last word (underlined, to separate it from the subscription?) and then centered (or indented) on a separated line the title ECODOS[...] with short lines above and below to set it off as well.

KURIOU is contracted as KU with an overstroke (in slightly enlarged letters followed by a small space -- it is possible that this was originally a blank space filled in later, probably by the same hand) but not "sons of Israel."
The reuse of this roll within a generation or so to inscribe a Christian apocalypse inclines one to believe that the Exodus text was also Christian in origin, but as Treu is quick to point out, "Jewish manuscripts in the possession of Christians are attested" (as well as the opposite -- see the reused Cairo Geniza copies of the Hexapla and of some church fathers). Roberts does not discuss this fragment in MSB.

24. Cairo Ostrakon 215, Judith 15 [#999 = vh080];
ostrakon, latter 3rd ce; Egyptian Papyrological Society(?), Cairo.
Fayum; ed. J. Schwartz, RevBiblique 53 (1946) 534-37 (plate).
This unusual fragmentary piece containing at least 19 lines (often with 50 letters or more) from Judith 15.1-7 is written in a sloping but neat semi-cursive hand with minimal ornamentation and no evidence of spacing or added marks of any sort. "Israel," "sons of Israel," and "Jerusalem" are spelled out in full.

The editor discusses some pros and cons of whether to classify the fragment as Jewish or Christian, and leaves the question open. Treu (143f and n.81) and Roberts (MSB 78) seem to agree.
25. PLitLond 202 = BM P 2557, Genesis 46-47 [#953 = vh030 = AT14];
papyrus codex, ca 300 ce; British Museum, London.
Provenance unknown; ed. H.J.M.Milne, Catalogue... (1927) 165f (no plate).
The page was originally about 14 by 17 cm, with 16-17 lines per page, written in a "medium-sized upright laterally compressed cursive hand of a type familiar in documents of the period of Diocletian. Punctuation by a middle point and a small space in the line. The I has the diaeresis once [on the first letter of the name Joseph, but not normally]" (Milne). An apostrophe separating double consonants "gg" and "ng" also seems to be present (judging from the transcript). "Father" and "Israel" occur without contraction.
26. PVindob 39777 = StudPal 11.114 = PWien Rainer 18, Ps 68/69, 80/81 (Symmachus) [Goettingen #?? = vh167];
parchment roll, 3/4 ce; Vienna.
Fayum or Heracleopolites Nome; ed. C.Wessely in Melanges ... Chatelain (1910) 224-29 [identified as Aquila], with handwritten replica in Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde ... Theologischen Inhalts 2 (1911) [corrected identification to Symmachus].
Roberts MSB 77: "The Tetragrammaton is in the archaic Hebrew characters; the writing is noticeably elegant." In the handwritten facsimile, it appears to be moderately decorated with cursive tendencies and frequent ligatures and no pattern of spacing. QEOU is uncontracted.
27. PAlex 203, Isaiah 48 [Goettingen #?? = vh300];
papyrus roll, 3/4th ce; Alexandria Museum, EGYPT.
Provenance unknown; ed. A.Carlini, Ann. Sc. Norm. Sup. Pisa, series 3, vol 2.2 (1972) 489-94 (plate).

The two best preserved columns (of three) differ significantly in width, with the first averaging about 11 letters, and the second about 15; the columns seem to have contained 24-25 lines (not 27 as the editor estimates).
The writing style fits Turner's "formal mixed" classification, with a combination of petit rounded letters (except omega) some medium sized forms (e.g. alpha, iota, rho) and otherwise bold strokes. The result is a relatively attractive upright hand with minimal decoration and a hint of shading (the photo is somewhat blurred, making subtle judgments difficult). One dieresis/trema is visible, on the first letter of the name Jacob. There is a wider space than normal between the last line of 48.11 and the first line of 48.12, and possibly a space was present in the line on which 48.16 begins. Otherwise, no spacing between letters is obvious.

The editor claims that KURIOS is contracted at one point (48.17), although the photo is not clear, and my reconstruction suggests that it was also contracted in the two other occurrences in this material. Possibly the one reconstructed occurrence of QEOS was similarly shortened. Other nomina sacra -- Israel and heaven -- do not seem to have been contracted (although the evidence for "Israel" seems ambiguous in both instances).

28. PHarris 31, Psalm 43 [#2108 = vh148 = AT67];
papyrus roll(?), 3/4th ce; Central Library of the Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham ENG.
Unknown provenance; ed. J.E.Powell, Rendel Harris Papyri 1 (1936) (plate); identified by G.D.Kilpatrick, JTS 50 (1949) 176-177.
Beginning of six fragmentary lines, stichometric (longest line has 44 letters, shortest 23 -- thus perhaps a page rather than a roll?). "The writing is of the elegant character referred to above [in connection with Jewish biblical manuscripts]" (Roberts MSB 77) -- shaded and modestly ornamented (mostly by feathering), with slightly enlarged initial letters. QEOS is uncontracted.
29. POx 1225, Leviticus 16.33f [#947 = vh048 = AT23];
papyrus roll, early 4th ce; Princeton Theological Seminary, NJ.
Oxyrhynchos; ed. A.S.Hunt, POx 10 (1914) (plate).

Parts of only 12 lines are preserved, with about 15-20 letters per reconstructed line. The style is a heavy, slightly sloping "formal mixed" tending towards "biblical majuscle" (but with relatively smaller O E S forms). There is a hint of ornamentation by means of some subtle thickening and/or feathering at the end of some strokes, and also a hint of shading. The ink is brownish in color rather than the more usual black.

In this short amount of text, three instances of dieresis/trema occur, and three middle stops, without any accompanying spacing (which suggests that they may have been added by a later hand). No nomina sacra are visible, although the editor has supplied -- perhaps unnecessarily -- the contracted form of "Israel" in one reconstruction, preceded by the full form of YI+W[N] (with dieresis/trema on the iota).

30. PLitLond 211, Daniel 1.17f (Theodotion) [#925 = vh319];
vellum roll, early 4th ce; British Museum, London.
Upper Egypt, from the cover of a Sahidic codex; ed. H.I.Bell in Budge, Coptic Biblical Texts (1912) xiv (no plate).
Parts of 8 lines are preserved. Since I have not seen a reproduction of this piece, here are Roberts' comments: "A fragment of a parchment roll of Daniel in the version of Theodotion, written in the first half of the fourth century; QEOS is uncontracted. This too exemplifies the light and elegant script found in other Jewish texts" (MSB 77).

Listing of other early fragments
Summary and Conclusions
There are various ways in which this complex body of literary "presentational evidence" can be analyzed, depending to a large extent on what sort of conclusions are being tested or what hypotheses developed. There are few "control" criteria, such as date, to assist the process. Intuitions are important, but also need careful testing. My own approach tends to assume that developments of this nature came into early Christian circles by means of the Greek Jewish world unless the evidence clearly indicates otherwise; my impression is that Roberts (and Hurtado) would assume the Christian origin of such practices unless there were contrary evidence. So how is the evidence to be evaluated?

It would be useful to have an appropriate and unambiguous term to denote the sorts of features under analysis, some of which have come back into the spotlight partly as a result of scholarly reconsideration of the "oral" side of ancient textual culture. Hurtado seems to prefer "material culture" (659 n.14), but that seems to me unnecessarily imprecise. Something like "textual presentation" or even "textual mechanics" gets closer to the point -- the conventions involved in laying out the text,
from choice of material (e.g. papyrus, leather, pottery, etc.)
to its mode of packaging (roll, codex, ostrakon, etc.)
to the details of how the writing is organized relative to the writing surfaces (dimensions of writing material, size of columns and letters, column/page layout)

as well as relative to itself (paragraphing and marginal markers, use of spacing in relation to lines and letters, punctuating, abbreviating, form of numbers, form of corrections and notations, use of diacritics, etc.), perhaps sometimes with a view to facilitating (public) reading.
"Style": A central point in the overall discussion is the assessment of relevant Greek transcriptional styles. Colin Roberts has moved farther than most in this area, in which he was very experienced -- although sometimes his desire to illuminate early Christian "orthodox" development seems to me to problematize aspects of his presentation.

Roberts sees most of the clearly "Jewish" LXX/OG texts as more professionally written -- more "literary" and "elegant" in appearance than most of the earliest "Christian" texts -- although exactly what features indicate the degree of "literaryness" for him would be useful to know with more precision (e.g. "bilinearity" or consistent height of letters, use of "serifs" and other embelleshments on non-rounded basic strokes, thickness of strokes, shading, etc.). For him this observation goes hand in hand with his explanation of certain "documentary" (in contrast to "literary") tendencies in the early Christian materials (e.g. the use of spacing/punctuation, diacritics, abbreviated numbers and special contractions, less formal script, cursive tendencies, ligatures).\13/

\13/Roberts, MSB 76: "There seems to have been a distinctive style of writing used for Jewish copies of the scriptures in Greek from the second century B.C. onwards and still used, with modifications of course, down to the third century A.D. [\fn/ The style of these Jewish manuscripts needs closer examination and definition than they have as yet been given, especially in the use of serifs (for these see GMAW, p.25).]; a parallel would be the development of the so-called Biblical Uncial or Biblical Majuscule.... But not all Greek manuscripts known to be Jewish are written in this style, witness the roll of the Minor Prophets from Engedi [actually, Nahal Hever], and parallels to it can be found among the secular literary papyri." See also P.Parsons, DJD 8 (1990) 23f, on the Minor Prophets scroll (item 13 above): "...the use of enlarged initials at line-beginning (hands A and B) and phrase-beginning (hand A) and (set out in the margin) to mark a new section (hand A) gives this manuscript a documentary look. ... The fact is itself remarkable. Early Christian books show the same characteristic; copies of the Greek classics do not. It has therefore been tempting to argue that the texts of the Early Church stood closer to the world of business than to that of literature, and to draw conclusions about the social milieu in which the texts circulated or the esteem in which they were held. Now we see the same thing in a Jewish manuscript of pre-Christian date. This may suggest that the Christians inherited the practice, rather than inventing it; the problem remains, why Greek-speaking Jews should have adopted it in the first place" (23f). Parsons adds, in his comparisons of the various Dead Sea Scroll Greek scripts: "This makes it clear that serifed hands are common enough (but not universal) in Judaean material assignable to the period i B.C.-i A.D." (25).
===
The range of hands and styles even within the Judean Desert fragments, which were produced within a fairly limited period of time, is noteworthy, and is also reflected in the Egyptian materials contemporary with the Judean. A detailed comparative analysis of the relevant features remains to be made, but I doubt that it will result in identifying "schools" or traditions of scribal culture except in very broad terms. Of course, comparison with what was happening at the same time in the larger Greco- Roman world will also be very relevant.\14/ If, in general, the Roman period (moving into the "common era") witnessed a tendency for literature to be copied less elegantly than it had been before, the presence of such a "decline" in Jewish texts, and its reflection in Christian materials would seem less significant than otherwise.
---
\14/Note, for example, Turner's strictures on giving too much weight to the use and forms of "serifs" in classifying styles of Greek hands (ed1, 25 = ed2, 21)!
===
Nevertheless, progress has been made in this survey simply by recognizing the extent of the problem and sampling some of the possibilities. A next step in assessing these phenomena more carefully would require availability of excellent reproductions of the extant fragments in a framework that facilitates close comparison and contrast (e.g. by computerized paleographic analysis). Hopefully, the Internet can be used to provide such a resources in the near future, if permissions from the current "owners" of the materials can be obtained to display high quality digitized images.

Scroll/Codex: Of course, the main vehicle for Greek literary production at the start of the period we are examining was the roll, and a major point of discussion is the introduction of the codex format and its very rapid acceptance in emerging (Egyptian) Christianity -- where the roll also survives, but not in such relative abundance.\15/ How soon and under what conditions Jewish authors and copyists accepted the codex format is not clear. But as Treu pointed out forcefully, the mere fact that a fragment of LXX/OG is in codex format does not necessarily mean that it must be of Christian origin. Whether there will ever be sufficient evidence to support my suspicion that the codex form came into early Christianity from Judaism remains to be seen. Probably not in my lifetime. But it is almost certain that at least one Jewish codex can be identified in the raw data of this report (as even Roberts gradually came to admit) -- POx 656, from the late 2nd or early 3rd century ce (item 19; see also 20 and 22).
---
\15/The previous state of this question has been defined by the study produced jointly by Roberts and T.C.Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (1983; also released with a 1987 date). ===
Spacing: Whether roll or codex, comprehending the texts required some mental gymnastics on the part of the reader, especially when little or no visual assistance was available to identify larger or smaller sense units or ideally, words. In general, traditional literary Greek texts are in scriptio continua -- an uninterrupted flow of letters -- with occasional breaks or indicators for larger units. As Roberts correctly points out, in many -- perhaps most -- of the early Christian texts with which he deals (not only LXX/OG texts), there are various helps for indicating sense units, whether spaces or lines in the left margin (paragraphoi) or punctuation marks, or exaggerated initial letters or letters that protrude into the left margin. Roberts explains this as part of what he calls the "documentary" influence on early Christian scribal practice.
What Roberts notes (e.g. in editing item 2) but fails to pursue with the same vigor or consistency is that despite their relatively more "literary" flavor the clearly Jewish fragments almost all show evidence of the same sort of "aids to the reader" phenomenon. Indeed, the second hand (or, if I am right, second scroll) of the Nahal Hever Greek Minor Prophets materials [#943b, item 13b above] uniquely engages in actual word division of an obvious sort. To me, this kind of evidence deserves much closer exploration than it has received thus far, and Emanuel Tov is making a major contribution to this discussion by his careful analysis of such phenomena in the Judean Desert materials and in other biblical texts (see n.7 above). Spacing occurs in the Jewish materials whether "elegant" or not, early or late. It also occurs quite early in materials of clearly Christian origin. To view this as coincidental seems highly unlikely, given the fact that early Christianity developed out of Judaism! This not so unambiguously "documentary" practice -- which has not yet received the attention it deserves in the study of Greco-Roman literature in general\16/ -- almost certainly has been inherited by Christian scribes, if not from their Jewish examples (which seems to me most likely), then from the scribal culture of the Greco-Roman world at large.

---
\16/A small (yet large!) step in this direction is taken by William A. Johnson in his Yale dissertation on The Literary Papyrus Roll: Formats and Conventions -- An Analysis of the Evidence from Oxyrhynchus (1992); witness his long list of corrections to the editions of these literary papyri (22-70), where he regularly notes the omission in the editions of signs of paragraphing, punctuation, and occasionally spacing. See also his brief note on "The Function of the Paragraphus in Greek Literary Prose Texts" in ZPE 100 (1994) 65-68.
===
Special Words: Some of the spacing issues in these early Jewish and Christian texts are associated with the appearance of personal or ethnic names and certain special words that, for present purposes, fall into three categories: (1) the tetragrammaton, (2) "nomina sacra," and (3) number symbolism.
Jewish scribes were selfconscious about the representation of the tetragrammaton -- the special revered 4 letter name of the Jewish God -- and had available a variety of devices, from paleo-Hebrew, to square Hebrew (thus Greek PIPI), to abbreviated Hebrew (ZZ), to the semi-transliteration (also an abbreviation?) IAW and the use of substitutes such as ADONAI and KURIOS ("Lord"), or even to using dots and blank spacing. If convincing evidence has not yet emerged that they also used a Greek abbreviated formation such as KS (see items 19, 21, 23, 27 above), that surprises me less than the claim that such abbreviation must have been a Christian invention.

Roberts certainly wants to see it otherwise, and traces the practice that became so prevalent, if not pervasive, in Christian MSS of abbreviating a select group of "nomina sacra" terms to the initial and original Christian sacralizing of "the Name" Jesus, which then led to similar treatment for "Lord," and for "God," and for the other "nomina sacra." Hurtado introduces some considerations (see n.4 above) to strengthen this argument. Nevertheless, I remain skeptical. Though it admittedly remains ambiguous, some of the evidence presented above suggests that Jewish scribes sometimes may have used contractions of QEOS, and perhaps a few other frequently used words, in the development of their scribal traditions (see items 20, 21[?], 27, and n.11 above).

One other "special words" detail that comes up in the discussion is treatment of numbers. Roberts argues that good literary Greek texts invariably (or perhaps, normally) spell out numbers rather than using symbols, while Christian texts -- again following "documentary" influences -- usually employ the symbols. In our early texts, examples are few, and I have not systematically explored all of the early fragments of Greek Jewish scriptures for this feature. If PYale 1 (item 17), a codex fragment of Genesis that should probably be dated no earlier than the 2nd century ce, is of Jewish origin, Roberts' hypothesis would be in trouble since number symbols are found in that material. But the combination of codex and symbolized number in PYale 1 unites to make it difficult for Roberts even to consider the possibility that the text is of Jewish origin. Treu is not so troubled, and leaves open the possibility. Obviously I agree that this should be an open question.

Concluding Remarks
This just scrapes the surface of the variety of information and of issues that can emerge from close study of these early LXX/OG materials. Roberts recreates a developmental historical hypothesis about early Christianity in Egypt from the details as he interprets them, and in general, the hypothesis makes a great deal of sense. But he does not consistently engage the question of what we can learn about Greek speaking/writing/reading Judaism in Palestine and Egypt from the same materials, and in that regard, often fails to be convincing about details.
The evidence is clear that prior to the emergence of Christianity, Greek speaking/writing Jews had access to a range of scriptural (and other) works copied in a highly "professional" manner. That these manuscripts were produced by specifically Jewish copyists cannot be assumed, although in some instances, the treatment of the tetragrammaton and the apparently selfconscious attention to indicating significant sense units by means of spacing suggests that the task must have been entrusted to persons who were familiar with those sorts of special literary traditions. The differences in overall "style" between some of the early Jewish manuscripts suggests that our preserved witnesses represent varieties of technique that had developed in Jewish literary circles. Whether on the basis of this evidence one can mount economic arguments (these Jews were rich enough to afford such quality), or liturgical ones (the spacing techniques were developed to assist in oral reading in the synagogues), or even issues of cultural-educational status (these Jews knew what was appropriate to their social station) I will leave to others. The data suggests variety, and that is what we should have expected. And as new situations developed in the transition to Roman rule and influence, we should expect changes to evidence themselves, not only in our Jewish to Christian trajectories, but in the surrounding world as well.

Early Christianity was formed in large measure in close relationship (positive and negative) to the types of Judaism present in the Greco-Roman world in the first century of the common era. The "scriptural" preoccupations of many early Christian representatives surely were influenced by the established Jewish frameworks of the time. Thus in the end -- if one can responsibly speak of such an end -- I would expect to find that the debt of early Christianity to its Jewish heritage is even greater in these areas of "textual mechanics" and transmitted scribal craft than our scholarly traditions and approaches have permitted us to recognize.
//08 July 1999 draft #6//
Appended Excerpts [[to be linked]]
1. 4Q122=LXXDeut Deuteronomy 11 [#819; not known to vh] parchment roll, 2nd bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 195 (plate 43): "The manuscript is inscribed in a literary hand not particularly elegant, though not careless; its uncial letters seem to be somewhat influenced by cursive forms. ... Space for word division appears between some words but not between others, and an unexpected space appears within the word ERUQRAS after the upsilon. Few, if any, clearly complete words survive, and ERUQRAS fragiley bears the sole possibility for the identification of the manuscript." These scraps would have been unknown to Roberts and Treu.
Parsons, DJD 9 (1992) 11-12: The letters ... are of irregular heights and widths. ... The letters are written with a thick pen, but without organised contrasts. ... There are small decorative hooks or blobs on the feet of some uprights, as well as on the tops of K and U. ... The scroll is written in an informal hand with some ligatures. The overall impression is of a script rather earlier than the others of this find. It is comparable with [some texts] ... of the early second century BCE, or ... of the mid-second century BCE. ... But it should be emphasised that, with so small a sample, the dating must be more than usually uncertain."

Parsons, DJD 8 (1990) 25: "The hand of this scrap shows no similarities with [#943a-b]; it is an informal script of Ptolemaic look with some cursive tendencies and no decoration except some terminal hooks and blobs."
2. PRyl 458 Deuteronomy 23-28 [#957 = vh057] papyrus roll, 2nd bce; John Rylands Library, Manchester ENG.

[excerpts]
Roberts, Two Biblical Papyri ... (Manchester Univ Press 1936) (with a facsimile): "The hand is a book hand, stylised and careful and of considerable elegance, if rather formal; its most striking feature is the use of decorative serifs, particularly noticeable on N, U and T. At first sight it has a somewhat archaic appearance, but this may well be deceptive and the formal character of the hand as a whole must be taken into consideration. [Then refers to similar hands, esp in PTeb]" 22f.

"What is paleographically of most interest about the text is the scribe's system of punctuation, or rather of interspacing. ...The writer regularly leaves a space not only at the end of a verse or sentence, but at the end of a KWLON or group of words. At the end of a verse, as in [Dt 24.1], a wider space is left and a high point added; otherwise the writer's principle seems to be to leave a fairly large space at the end of a sentence or clause ... and a smaller one at the end of a group of words. The interspacing does not seem to follow the sense of the passage [in some instances]. But there is no attempt at word division. ... Our text ... shows no sign of documentary influence and we cannot ascribe to this cause the systematic use of [spacing] found here. ... Possibly it may be due to Aramaic influence, as word division is found in the Aramaic papyri of the fifth century B.C. The Nash papyrus, however -- a Hebrew text, probably liturgical, which contains the Decalogue and the Shema and was written not later than the second century A.D. -- has spacing between words but no verse division. ... This system [otherwise] is not to be found in Biblical manuscripts; its origin may perhaps be due to Aramaic influence or if, as is possible, this roll was the property of some Jewish synagogue, to the exigencies of public reading" (25- 28).
3. 7QLXXEx Exodus 28 [#805 = vh038]; papyrus roll, 2nd/1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpt]
Parsons DJD 8 (1990) 25: "This small serifed bilinear hand has some similarities with hands A and B [of #943 Minor Prophets] (note the pointed alpha, and wide tau hooked down at the left)."
4. 4Q119=LXXLev\a Leviticus 26 [#801 = vh049]; parchment roll, 2nd/1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 161 (plate 38): "The scribe used the customary scriptio continua but with occasional spaces for word-division, as after SPORON (line 6), UMWN (line 12), etc. Of the 12 lines whose beginnings are preserved, only two (lines 19, 23) show the division of a word between lines. A new section at 26.14 (line 21) is marked by an interval of about three letters' width within the line and by a horizontal paragraph-mark in the left margin."
Parsons, DJD 9, 7: "The script ... is approximately bilinear .... The letter forms tend toward the oval/rectangular, but not consistently. ... There is no consistent use of shading as part of the style. ... There is no consistent use of ornament, but there are sporadic terminal hooks, notably on the foot of R and the left extremity of T. ...The scribe displays a pinched, plain hand of no great pretensions .... The general impression is of a script ... unlikely to be later than the first century BCE, ... or much earlier. C.H.Roberts (apud Kahle, 616) thought of first century BCE, with the end of the second 'not out of the question'."

Parsons, DJD 8 (1990) 25: "This is a pinched, undecorated hand ... with a pronounced Ptolemaic look; not similar to [#943a-b], and probably earlier"
5. 7QLXX EpJer Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) [#804 = vh312]; papyrus roll, 2nd/1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Parsons, DJD 8 (1990) 25: "This tiny scrap shows a broad bilinear script without ornament (except for a half-serif on the foot of tau)."
6. PFouad 266a Genesis 3-38 [#942 = vh056] papyrus roll, 1st bce; Egyptian Papyrological Society, Cairo.
[excerpts]
Zaki Aly & Ludwig Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy ... (Bonn: Habelt 1980) (includes plates). Descriptions are by Koenen. For #942 (Koenen 3): "The papyrus is of good quality. ... The use of the tetragrammaton is not attested for this roll, but may be inferred from the fact that 942 has probably been written by the same hand as 848 [see below] or, at least, by a scribe belonging to the same school and scribal tradition. Little blanks indicate new cola [footnote: "The practice was obviously the same as in 848 and 847" [see below]]. There is also a tendency to mark Hebrew names by little blanks before and after the names."
Turner, Greek Manuscripts\2 #56 (describing #848, below, which is virtually identical to the 9 small fragments of #942): "Medium to large, formal, upright, rounded capitals, written slowly. ... Markedly bilinear, the lower line outlined by horizontal strokes on the feet of letters [full feet on TU, half feet or hooks on most other verticals and on some obliques], the upper indicated by high horizontals; even R and U fall inside the parallels, only F protrudes [below and above, and Y slightly above, but not below]."
7. 4Q120=LXXLev\b Leviticus 2-5 [#802 = vh046]; papyrus roll, 1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Ed. E.Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 168 (plates 39-41): "The scribe used the customary scriptio continua, but with spaces before and after the divine name and occasionally with spaces between sense-divisions or sentences. Signs to mark a new paragraph occur at the left margin of frg. 27 between lines 6 and 7 (= Lev 6.1 [5.24]) and of frg. 32." It also uses iota adscript (usually); and contains some corrections. The tetragrammaton occurs as IAW twice, and KURIOS is not found in these fragments.
Parsons, DJD 9 (1992) 10: "The scribe used a bilinear script ..., with square/circular letter forms. The upper line is broken by the risers of F and Y; the lower line, emphasised by the serifs, is hardly broken at all. ... There is hardly any noticeable shading. ... Ornament ... is frequent. ... This is a full round hand, carefully executed, comparable with the Fouad Deuteronomy [#848 below] ... and the second script of the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll [below #943]. ... Such scripts may belong to the first century BCE, ... but they may extend well into the first century CE. ... This example has a slightly old-fashioned look ..., and could reasonably be assigned to the first century BCE."
8. PFouad 266b Deuteronomy 17-33 [#848 = vh56]; papyrus roll, 1st bce; Egyptian Papyrological Society, Cairo.
[excerpts]
Koenen, Three Rolls 4-5: "The quality of the papyrus is the same as in the case of 942, and both rolls have probably been written by the same scribe. The columns of 848 are smaller (... [about] 37 letters per line); the height of the writing area varies between 15.5-16.5 cm. (21-23 lines). The upper margin was originally at least 3.5 cm., the lower margin 4 cm. This indicates close to 24 cm. for the height of the entire roll. Kolleseis [joins between sheets of papyri] are occasionally visible, but since too much of the roll is missing, the length of the kollemata [sheets] cannot be determined. The intercolumnation varies around an average of 1.5 cm., but occasionally it narrows down to 0.2 cm. Towards the bottoms the lines have the tendency to begin progressively more to the left, thus producing slightly longer lines (Mass's Law). Paragraphoi marking the beginning of verses are used throughout, though not regularly. An additional long oblique stroke marks the beginning of chapter 21 [footnote: "... This is the only instance; a reason for this special treatment is not apparent. ...]. Frequently small blanks indicate new verses, sentences, or cola [footnote: "... The size varies according to the function of the blank. In addition, there occur blanks for which I see no reason...."], while Hebrew names are not surrounded by blanks, as is the case in 942. The ends of lines are occasionally left blank in order to start the next verse on a new line. Corrections are rare. A gloss appears on the lower margin on pl. 6. col.4."
The tetragrammaton is represented by small square Hebrew letters (slightly more than half the height of the Greek, written along the bottom part of the line) inserted into a space equivalent to about "5-6 Greek letters (i.e. about the size of KU/RIOS written in full) and marked ... by a high dot at its beginning [preceded by a space]. A second scribe filled in the Hebrew letters. They cover only the middle of the blank, usually the space of 2 1/2 - 3 letters" (Koenen 5-6).

Turner, Greek Manuscripts\2 #56: "The ends of lines are not even. Letters may be reduced in size at the line-end. Medium to large, formal, upright, rounded capitals, written slowly. Contrast between thick horizontals and downward obliques, and fine verticals [RAK Note: this is not obvious from the photos]. Markedly bilinear, the lower line outlined by horizontal strokes on the feet of letters [full feet on TU, half feet or hooks on most other verticals and on some obliques], the upper indicated by high horizontals; even R and U fall inside the parallels, only F protrudes [below and above, and Y slightly above, but not below]." "...Few orthographical errors. Iota adscript is written."
9. PFouad 266c Deuteronomy 10-33 [#847 = vh56] papyrus roll, late 1st bce; Egyptian Papyrological Society, Cairo.
[excerpts]
Koenen, Three Rolls 7: "The papyrus is of a quality similar to 942 and 848. Only 49 very small fragments of a few letters each are extant. ... The columns seem to have had [about] 21 lines. ... One might assume that the overall height of the roll 847 was the same (24 cm.) [as 848]. The width of the lines averages 24 letters ... but the number of letters per lines varies considerably. Kollesis may occur [once]. ... Paragraphos is extant on pl. 51 col. V. Small blanks separate verses, sentences, or cola [footnote: "... small blanks also occur elsewhere. ..."] and mark Hebrew names [footnote: "... all in front of the name. No example survives for a blank after those names. ..."]. A large blank precedes Moses' blessing of Dan, presumedly at the end of line (4?) of col VIII (pl.53) [[conjectural reconstruction]] in order that the blessing may begin at a new line.... No KURIOS or tetragrammaton is extant. QEOS is written in full; thus we may assume that the scribe did not use the Christian abbreviations of holy names, which came into use after 70 A.D. 'Inorganic' trema [or dieresis, a single or double dot above a vowel] indicating the beginning of a word) occurs once [51.IV.11; but not clear in photo]... [footnote: "'Inorganic' is the use of the trema which marks the initial or emphasizes the final vowel of a word, while its use for separating vowels in a cluster is called 'organic.' The 'organic' use is attested as early as the 2nd cent. B.C., though it does not become common before the 2nd cent. A.D. For 'inorganic' use I am not aware of any example before the end of the 1st cent. B.C. ...."]. ...Corrections are frequent."
"In many details, this hand is similar to 848 [above], but larger, thinner, more rounded and irregular, and less bilinear, though the extensions of letters above the 'upper line' and below the 'lower line' are only small (see particularly A). The letters are occasionally decorated by quite heavy strokes [Schubart's decorative style...]. Also the middle horizontal strokes are stressed" (6 n.28). In dating, Koenen has vacillated between 1st bce and 1st ce, preferring in his edition "the end of the 1st cent. B.C." (6 n.28 and see examples cited there). The use of serifs and hooks is similar to 848 and 942, but less obvious or obtrusive. It seems to be a more refined formal hand.
10. 4Q127 Exodus Paraphrase (?) [unknown to vh]; papyrus roll, late 1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 223f (very similar to 4QLXXLev\b = #802): "Where a margin is listed as questionable, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the blank portion of the papyrus actually represents a margin, or rather a blank line above or below the extant text, or a space between words; it should be remembered, however, that in the Greek manuscripts from Cave 4 blank lines to signal a new paragraph are unusual." ... "Paragraphing is indicated in at least two places. Above KAI in line 3 of frg. 17 is a short horizontal line of 0.3 cm. There is also a coronis, or elaborate marginal marking, preserved on frg. 8 (cf. also frg. 18?)." ... "The manuscript dates from about the first century BCE or the earlier first century CE.... It is written in scriptio continua, with full or narrow spaces occasionally left before sentences (cf KAI in frg. 1 line 5) and before or after proper names (cf. each of lines 6-11 in frg. 1)." There are some corrections by the original scribe. There is no evidence of tetragrammaton passages.
Parsons, DJD 9, 12f: "The scroll is written in a bilinear hand ..., with the letter forms round and square [F (and probably Y) extend slightly below and also above the projected lines]. ... There is no noticeable shading. ... The tops of some uprights are hooked to the left; the feet of uprights and obliques are generally decorated with full or half serifs, sometimes in the form of angled hooks. ... The manuscript is rather ineptly written in a bilinear, decorated literary script. This ineptness is not necessarily personal, since many literary scripts of the early Roman period show the same characteristics .... It is likely that the manuscript was written in the first century BCE or the earlier first century CE. A date early in the period is certainly possible."
11. 4Q126 unidentified Greek [not known to vh]; parchment roll, late 1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 219 (plate 46): "The scribe used the customary scriptio continua, though leaving some full- letter spaces probably between sentences ... and half- or quarter-spaces occasionally between words." Eight frgs (double plates of some). Frg. 2 seems to have KURIO[], preceded by a short space.
Parsons, DJD 9, 12: "The script ... is bilinear. ... There is no shading. ... There are some half-serifs or hooks on the feet of uprights, and full serifs on the base of T and U. ... To judge from this very small sample, the scroll is written by a hand of the same kind as those of 4Q120[Lev\b = #802] and 4Q121[Num = #803] (but more shakily executed), and it can be assigned to the same date (i.e. the first century BCE or possibly the early first century CE)."
Parsons, DJD 8 (1990) 25: "A decorated hand of the same type as [#803], but not so elegant."
12. 4Q121=LXXNum Numbers 3-4 [#803 = vh051]; parchment roll, turn of the era; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 188 (plates 42-43): "The scribe does not usually leave a space for word-division. He does leave a single space for some sense-divisions, occasionally at the end of a 'verse,' but not always, and occasionally at other points within a 'verse.' Thus in counting letters per line, for this manuscript one should not count spaces between words, except possibly before some sense-divisions." Uses iota adscript; two or three corrections; no occurrences of tetragrammaton, but "in reconstruction, spacing would seem to allow either KURIOS or YHWH, whereas IAW ... and the (Christian) abbreviation KS would be too short. Palaeo-Hebrew or PIPI forms in a Greek manuscript this early are improbable" [why?!].

See Page 12

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:21 pm

Page 12

Parsons, DJD 9, 11: The scribe used a bilinear script ..., with the letter-forms square/circular [FY and sometimes A extend above the projected top line (but not below?)]. ... Shading [is not] ... notable. ... Ornament ... is frequent: the tops of uprights and obliques are occasionally decorated with hooks, and the feet of uprights and obliques are regularly decorated with heavy full and half-serifs (these are sometimes oblique, sometimes formed as a hook in a single movement with the main stroke). The serifs are notably long, and may run into the serif preceding or following; this marks the lower line all the more emphatically. ... The script is similar to that of 4Q120[Lev\b = #802], but with heavier ornament. This too could be of late Ptolemaic date; but the early Roman period cannot be excluded."
Parsons, DJD 8 (1990) 25: "This bilinear script (the descenders of rho and phi are curtailed), heavily ornamented with half- and full serifs, has some similarities with [#943a], but it is much more elegant and finely written; a distinctive feature is that the oval letters tend to lean backwards."
13. 8HevXIIgr = Nahal Hever Minor Prophets [#943 = vh285]; parchment roll(s), turn of the era; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Tov, DJD 8 (1990) 9ff: "The text of the scroll has been subdivided into paragraphs with both minor and major breaks .... What has not been observed by these scholars is that the scroll contains also a division into 'verses' and that in all three divisions the scroll agrees to a great extent with the Masoretic tradition, not only regarding the system of subdividing the text, but also regarding the location of the divisions themselves. ..." "In addition to the open and closed sections the scroll indicates with one or two spaces the beginning of what in MT is a new verse. This practice is known from a few Hebrew sources (1QpaleoLev [limited evidence] and 4QDan\a,d/ [reported by S. J. Pfann]; the situation with regard to 1QIs\a/ is not clear) as well as from two early Greek biblical sources: PFouad 266 [see #848] and PRyl Greek 458 [= #957]. [[para]] It is relatively easy to recognize these spaces in the scroll since in the section written by scribe A there are otherwise no spaces between words. ... The second scribe left spaces between most words, and for the beginnings of new verses he left more than one space. Likewise, the scribe of PRyl Greek 458 [= #957] often left spaces within the verse, and between verses he left more than one space. ..."


It is possible that we have remnants of two scrolls here; in any event, two different hands worked on the materials that have survived, and the second hand presents virtual word division in those sections.
Peter Parsons describes the hands (19ff): With scribe A (the bulk of the preserved material) "the script is in intention bilinear (only F reaches well above the line; the descenders of R F and Y are normally curtailed), although uncertainty in execution, and the enlargement of initial letters, gives an irregular impression. ...[[para]]... The script is profusely ornamented. The feet of verticals and descending obliques carry blobs or hooks or half-serifs (horizontal or angular or arched) or -- rarely -- full serifs; hooks and half-serifs normally point to the right; they may be very large." For scribe B, "the script is bilinear (allowing for the enlargement of some line-initials), except for R and F (this scribe makes no attempt to curtail them). ... The general [horizontal] effect is round and square. ...[[paragraph]]... The feet of uprights, the tops of uprights in I, K, N, F, and the left- hand tips of U and X, take decoration in the form of blobs, hooks and half-serifs (horizontal or oblique), rarely full serifs; hooks and half-serifs more often (but not consistently) point to the left." In general, A "aspires to be a book-hand ..., but the performance is inconsistent." Hand B "is a much more fluent and consistent copyist than hand A." Comparison with other, especially dated materials (23) concludes: "Most of this material is documentary; but the comparison is rather appropriate, since the use of enlarged initials at line-beginning (hands A and B) and phrase-beginning (hand A) and (set out in the margin) to mark a new section (hand A) gives this manuscript a documentary look. ... The fact is itself remarkable. Early Christian books show the same characteristic; copies of the Greek classics do not. It has therefore been tempting to argue that the texts of the Early Church stood closer to the world of business than to that of literature, and to draw condlusions about the social milieu in which the texts circulated or the esteem in which they were held. Now we see the same thing in a Jewish manuscript of pre-Christian date. This may suggest that the Christians inherited the practice, rather than inventing it; the problem remains, why Greek-speaking Jews should have adopted it in the first place" (23f).
14. POx 3522 Job 42 [#??]; papyrus roll, 1st ce; [location?]
[excerpts]
---
POx 50 (1983) 1 (with plate): "The lines are of 19-22 letters; the columns perhaps of 15 lines [but see the discussion in the notes], which would give a roll-height of c. 14 cm.... There are no lectional signs; punctuation by blank space (i.4, 5, 7). The informal upright bilinear script, in which the verticals are often ornamented with back-hooks, has similarities with [[two dated MSS]]; a date in the early first century would suit. ... [[paragraph]] A copy in roll-form, and of this date, will have been Jewish, not Christian."
With regard to the "archaic Hebrew" tetragrammaton, "the scribe of 3522 himself wrote the Hebrew continuously and fluently ...; but apparently without understanding, since the medial and final he have different shapes." The writing appears to be relatively undisciplined (quickly executed, some ligatures and run-on strokes in letter formation), with no serifs of note beyond the "hooks" (mostly on T, H) mentioned above. The initial letter of the name JOB has a dieresis/trema (see above, on #847) over it, and the name may be followed by a short blank.
Tov, DJD 8 (1990) 12: "The scribe of POxy 3522 (Job) very clearly wrote the tetragrammaton from left to right, creating a ligature between the yod and the next Greek letter."
15. POx 4443 Esther E + 8-9 [#???] papyrus roll, 1st/2nd ce; [location?]
[excerpts]
Ed K. Luchner, POx 65 (1998): "...This was a luxurious copy. The columns have 31 lines (height 20 cm) with an average 25 letters (width 7 cm, plus 0.5 cm for projecting letters at paragraphs). The intercolumnium is approximately 2 cm. The back is blank." [[paragraph]] "This is the first known [Greek] copy of a passage from Esther in roll-form, a rare format for biblical texts, probably indicating Jewish provenance (C.H.Roberts and T.C.Skeat, Birthe of the Codex 38-40). It is also the first papyrus to preserve this passage [and it supplies many variants in the "E" "additions" section]. ..." [[paragraph]] "There are no diacritical signs or punctuation, apart from some paragraphi (with short lines preceding them, and projecting enlarged letters at the beginning of the following line), and diaeresis above I (ii.24, 31; iii.6, 24) and U (i.6, ii.16). Words are occasionally separated. There are occasional space fillers at the line ends, and the centre bar of E is frequently extended for the same purpose. Iota adscript is generally used (ii.10 the only exception); four examples are irrational (ii.25, 27, 28, 29). Itacism occurs in i.2, 18, 19." [[paragraph]] "The script is fluent and broadly bilinear, but with its frequent ligatures, cursive forms, enlarged initial letters [also enlarged B elsewhere] and tall risers [e.g. H, F] / deep descenders (R, F, sometimes I) it perhaps owes more to official documentary styles than to bookhands. For the general appearance cf. the earlier Roberts GLH 9a (between 7-4 BC)." Also, "nomina sacra" are uncontracted -- e.g. QEOU, SWTHRIAN, ANQRWPOIS in E.16 (reconstructed) and 18, 23, 24.
16. PFouad 203 [vh911] (1st/2nd ce, papyrus roll, prayer/amulet?)
Roberts MSB 78 (no plate?): "There can be little doubt of the Jewish origin ..., a prayer against evil spirits, written on a roll of papyrus and attributed to the late first or early second century. Both PLond Christ 5 (=vh921), a leaf from a liturgical book of the third century, and POx 17.2068 (=vh966), some fragments of a papyrus roll of the fourth century, have been thought to be Jewish; but in the latter the contraction of QEOS, the eccentric nomen sacrum BS = BASILEUS, and the apparent echoes of Revelation 15.3 and 1 Timothy 1.17 in l. 7 render the suggestion doubtful. To these should be added the Vienna text of The Penitence of Iannes and Iambres: it was written on the recto of a roll and nomina sacra are left uncontracted [p.61f n.5 calls this PVindobGr 29456 (=vh1068); p.63 n.3 refers to the forthcoming ed of Jannes/Jambres material by A. Pietersma and also to the republication of the Vienna fragment by P.Maraval in ZPE 25 (1977) pp. 199ff.]."

19. POx 656 [#905(U4) = vh013 = T009] (2nd/3rd ce, papyrus codex, Gen 14-27)
Grenfell & Hunt, POx 4 (1904) 28f: "The MS was carefully written in round upright uncials of good size and decidedly early appearance, having in some respects more affinity with types of the second century than of the third. To the latter, however, the hand is in all probability to be assigned, though we should be inclined to place it in the earlier rather than the later part of the century. ... Another mark of age is perhaps to be recognized in the absence of the usual contractions for QEOS, KURIOS, &c., but this may of course be no more than an individual peculiarity. The only abbreviation that occurs is the horizontal stroke instead of N, employed to save space at the end of a long line. Both high and middle ... stops are found, but are sparingly used: more often a pause is marked by a slight blank space. A few alterations and additions have been made by a second hand, which seems also to be responsible for the numeration in the centre of the upper margin of each page."
Roberts MSB 76f: [does not comment on literary style] "... The implication is that the Hebrew Tetragrammaton stood in the exemplar and the first scribe, like the scribe of PFouad 266 [#848], either did not know how to write it or was not entrusted with the writing. In the event the second scribe, perhaps not accustomed to writing biblical manuscripts but aware that KURIOS was the Greek equivalent of Adonai inserted it here. The text has a number of unique readings which may point to a revision of the LXX."
//end//

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Revelation 2:8 And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write; The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says this: [New American Standard Bible-Reference Edition by Moody Press, Chicago, a div. Of Moody Bible Institute; NASB-MP]

Now many misguided individuals try to use this scripture to 'prove' that Jesus (Yeshua) is coeternal and coequal with his Father (YHWH); however, it really shows the exact opposite. First, they overlook the fact that he "was dead" for three days which would be impossible if he were the same as Almighty God (YHWH) who has always been immortal and the source of all life, Psalms 36:9, "For with Thee is the fountain of life; In thy light we see light." (NASB-MP). This is further emphasized at Psalms 145:14-16, "The Lord sustains all who fall, And raises up all who are bowed down. 15 The eyes of all look to Thee, And thou dost give them their food in due time. 16 Thou dost open Thy hand, And dost satisfy the desire of every living thing." (NASB-MP). Also, they overlook that someone superior to himself, Jesus (Yeshua), had to resurrect Him and unless his Father was alive, there would be no one capable of doing so. Clearly then, if Jesus (Yeshua) was dead for parts of three days as the scriptures state, he could not be coeternal with his Father (YHWH) who is immortal.

Second, to be coeternal with his Father (YHWH), he, Jesus (Yeshua) would have to have always existed, and he has not. With respect to raising his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) from the dead, Acts 13:33 says, "that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou ART MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE." (NASB-MP); and Psalm 2:7, "I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, 'Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee.'" (NASB-MP); now when we look into what beget or begotten means in the Webster's New world College Dictionary, Fourth Ed., says, "1, to be the father or sire of; procreate, 2, to bring into being; produce ["Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4 ed.", Michael Agnes, Editor in Chief, ISBN 0-02-863118-8]; we can be see from the definition of the word, both these scriptures clearly show that Jesus (Yeshua) did NOT always exist, but was brought into being or created by his Father (YHWH). This clearly shows that Jesus (Yeshua) can NOT BE COETERNAL with his Father (YHWH) who the Bible shows always existed, Psalms 90:2, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." (NASB-MP); and Psalms 93:2, "Thy throne is established from of old; Thou art everlasting." (NASB-MP); and Jeremiah 10:10, "But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His Indignation." (NASB-MP); and, 1 Timothy 1:17, "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." (NASB-MP). In fact the Bible at Revelation 3:14 clearly states, ""And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans F1 write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (Authorized King James Bible; AV) that he is "the beginning of the creation of God" as does Colossians 1:15, ""Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" (AV).

Third, Jesus (Yeshua) stated that his Father (YHWH) was greater than he was, 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); Clearly if Jesus (Yeshua) said " for my Father is greater than I" we should believe him. He further reaffirmed this 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). And the scripture continues on, John 5:20, "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." (AV), so much so as to show him, Jesus (Yeshua) greater works. So it is clear that Jesus (Yeshua) is NEITHER COETERNAL NOR COEQUAL with his Father (YHWH). Always remember John 8:32, "and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (NASB-MP), and avoid false doctrine.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. [Authorized King James Bible: AV]

Clearly this verse does NOT apply to Jesus (Yeshua) as nowhere does the Bible use the term Almighty to apply to Jesus (Yeshua), but only to his Father, Almighty God (YHWH). This is made clear at Genesus 17:1, "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect, 2... 3 and Abram fell on his face; and God talked with him..." (AV); and at Genesis 35:11, "And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;" (AV). This is also reaffirmed at Revelation 4:8, "And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." (AV), which also shows the Lord here referred to is Almighty God (YHWH), and not his only begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to whom this title "Lord" is often also applied.

This fact, is also shown at Revelation 11:17, "Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.",(AV), yet there are those who attempt to twist the scriptures to serve the god of this system or world, and use scriptures such as Revelation 1:11, "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." (AV), but fail to notice the critical difference "the first and the last" which rather than implying that Jesus (Yeshua) is Almighty God (YHWH) clearly show his as the first of Creation as does Revelation 3:14, "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans F1 write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (AV); Clearly they do not recognize the difference between "beginning and the ending" and "the first and the last."

Actually a lot of this confusion results from poor translation as clearly shown by the rendering of Revelation 1:11 in the New American Standard Bible-reference Edition by Moody Press, Chicago, a div. Of Moody Bible Institute; NASB-MP, "Saying, 'Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches; To Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyater and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodices." (NASB-MP); similar renderings are found in the American Standard Bible (ASB); the New World Translation (NWT); The Emphatic Dialogue; New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); the Westcott-Hort (1948 Reprint), and many more. Of particular interest is the rendering in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, the following, "Saying: What thou seest, write in a book and send to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamus and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.".

However, be not mislead by the trickery of men, but know this Psalms 83:18 says, "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." (AV). Here it uses the name, Jehovah, as the English form of God's (YHWH's) name, but since his name in Hebrew is all constants this is only one of several possible transliterations in English.

And the difference is drawn out at Acts 5:24-26, "Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow. 25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people. 26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned." (AV), where it clearly says, Acts 4:26, "The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord, and against His Christ." (NASB-MP). Clearly showing here "Lord" applied to Almighty God (YHWH) and distinguishing him from his son the Christ, Jesus (Yeshua) as it showed them against both as distinct beings and not as one and the same.

So we can clearly see those entrenched in false doctrine try to use a poor translation (of Revelation 1:11) to support their God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine and a title "Lord" that has been at various times applied to both the Father (YHWH) and to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to mislead. How Deceitful!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Discourse on Revelation 22:12-13 and 21:6-7:

INTRODUCTION:

Let's first look at the two scriptures in several different Bible versions/translations:

"12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (Revelation 22:12-13 AV - Authorized King James Version)

"12 Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is.
13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." ." (Revelation 22:12-13 ASV - American Standard Version of 1901)

"12 Lo! I come speedily, and my reward is with me, to render unto each one as, his, work is.
13 I, am the A and the Z, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." (Revelation 22:12-13 Rothrham)

BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA ON REVELATION 22:12-13 AND 22:6-7:

The International Standard Encyclopedia of the Bible says:

ALPHA AND OMEGA

al'-fa, o'-me-ga, o-me'-ga (Alpha and Omega = A and O):

The first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, hence, symbolically, "beginning and end"; in Revelation "The Eternal One" in Revelation 1:8 of the Father, in Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13 of the Son. Compare Theodoret, Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, iv. 8:

"We used alpha down to omega, i.e. all." A similar expression is found in Latin (Martial, v.26). Compare Aretas (Cramer's Catenae Graecae in New Testament) on Revelation 1:8 and Tertullian (Monog, 5): "So also two Greek letters, the first and last, did the Lord put on Himself, symbols of the beginning and the end meeting in Him, in order that just as alpha rolls on to omega and omega returns again to alpha, so He might show that both the evolution of the beginning to the end is in Him and again the return of the end to the beginning." Cyprian, Testim, ii.1; vi.22, iii.100, Paulinus of Nola Carm. xix.645; xxx.89; Prudentius, Cathem., ix.10-12. In Patristic and later literature the phrase is regularly applied to the Son. God blesses Israel from 'aleph to taw (Leviticus 26:3-13), but curses from waw to mem (Leviticus 26:14-43). So Abraham observed the whole law from 'aleph to taw. Consequently, "Alpha and Omega" may be a Greek rendering of the Hebrew phrase, which expressed among the later Jews the whole extent of a thing.

CONCLUSION:

In these two scriptures we are dealing with the symbolic meaning to the use of the first letter of the Koine Greek alphabet, Alpha, and the last letter, omega. As the International Bible Dictionary of the Bible states, it means the ''beginning and end' and shows how in Revelation 1:8 this phase is applied to the Father (YHWH) "6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:6-8 AV). Here we note it says, "6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father" clearly here referring to two individuals, God the Father (YHWH), and his God the Son (Yeshua or YHWH saves) . The term Alpha and Omega in "8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Which is made clearer in the Rothrham Bible as "8 I, am, the A, and, the Z, saith the Lord,-the, God who Is, and who Was, and who is Coming, The Almighty."
Clearly showing he has no beginning in keeping with "2 Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Revelation 1:8 ASV), which is quite different from how this same phrase is later used at Revelation 21:6 and 22:13 to apply to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) who had a beginning as shown by " 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); he was the first created thing with regard to all that was created.

To get a clear understanding of Revelation 22:13, we need to look at it in contest as follows:

"9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and sleepermongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:9-16 AV)

We note that Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) or one of his angels is quoted by the Apostle John as saying, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." [these being the Angels he was given authority over to carry out his assignment at 1 Corinthians 15:27-28.]. Since Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) had a beginning as shown " 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 "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. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" (1 Colossians 1:15-19 AV). Clearly Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is separate individual from his Father (YHWH) as the scripture states, ". 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" which makes plain that his Father (YHWH) was pleased that "all fulness dwell" in his faithful Son. Also, the scripture brings out in what manner Alpha and Omega properly applies to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) when it states, "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." Where it shows that after his creation by his Father (YHWH), he, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) worked along with his Father in creating all of the remainder of creation in the entire universe. His, the Son's Alpha and Omega symbolic application is further made clear in "17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Thus he is the Alpha in the sense he helped create all else except himself and the Omega as his Father (YHWH) has given him immortality for being faithful, and this is made certain by ". 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."

So here we see a faithful Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) had been given authority over all by his Father (YHWH) with the ", it is manifest that he is excepted" exception of himself. This subjection to his Father (YHWH) is clearly shown by the faithful Son's statements, " 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) and " 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).

Those denying that Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is not the faithful only begotten Son of Almighty God (YHWH) and not God (YHWH) are thus clearly committing blasphemy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Revelation 22:12-13 "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every men according to what he has done. 13 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.'" [New American Standard Bible-Reference Edition by Moody Press, Chicago, a div. Of Moody Bible Institute; NASB-MP]

Many misguided ones attempt to use this scripture to 'prove' that Jesus (Yeshua) always existed and is coeternal with his Father (YHWH), but it does not. Many of these same individuals turn to Acts 13:33, "that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou ART MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE." (NASB-MP); and Psalm 2:7, "I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, 'Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee.'" (NASB-MP); whereas, in doing so they show their ignorance of the word begotten which comes from beget which the Webster's New world College Dictionary, Fourth Ed., says, "1, to be the father or sire of; procreate, 2, to bring into being; produce ["Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4 ed.", Michael Agnes, Editor in Chief, ISBN 0-02-863118-8]; as can be seen from the definition of the word, both these scriptures clearly show that Jesus (Yeshua) did NOT always exist, but was brought into being or created by his Father (YHWH). This clearly shows that Jesus (Yeshua) can NOT BE COETERNAL with his Father (YHWH) who the Bible shows always existed, Psalms 90:2, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." (NASB-MP); and Psalms 93:2, "Thy throne is established from of old; Thou art everlasting." (NASB-MP); and Jeremiah 10:10, "But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His Indignation." (NASB-MP); and, 1 Timothy 1:17, "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." (NASB-MP). In fact the Bible at Revelation 3:14 clearly states, ""And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans F1 write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (Authorized King James Bible; AV) that he is "the beginning of the creation of God" as does Colossians 1:15, ""Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" (AV).

Thus we can clearly see that those misguided ones that claim that Jesus (Yeshua) is coeternal with his Father (YHWH) are in gross error, and their use of begotten to attempt to prove this error only highlights their ignorance of the word 'begotten.'

Now with respect, "'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.'" They overlook the difference in the use of the Alpha and the Omega when applied to the Father (YHWH) at Revelation 1:8, "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'" (NASB-MP); Which is quite different than when applied to Jesus (Yeshua) where it says, "the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Since in Jesus' (Yeshua's) case, he was the first, that is of creation, or the beginning of creation, and also, the end of direct creation by his Father, Almighty God (YHWH). How so, his Father (YHWH) used him in the creation of all else as testified to at Colossians 1:16-17, "For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (NASB-MP); and John 1:10, "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him." (NASB-MP). Whereas, with respect the Father (YHWH) the scripture clearly says, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Where 'who is' emphasized which show implicitly that he always existed, and was not a created being as was his Son, Jesus (Yeshua). Thus as can be seen, he can NOT BE COETERNAL with his Father (YHWH), nor coequal with his Father (YHWH) since he, Jesus (Yeshua) was created by His Father (YHWH). Always remember John 8:32, "and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (NASB-MP).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Discourse on Assumptions:

Some accuse others falsely of not believing in the deity of Christ and pontificating, but when we closely examine what these accusers are writing we see they are the ones guilty of both of these acts. How so? Well let's look at what drives these individuals and what they write as shown by Albert V. Dicey in his book:

"Above all, bodies of beliefs may generally be traced to certain fundamental assumptions which at the time, whether they be actually true or false, are believed by the mass of the world to be true with such good confidence that they hardly appear to be bear the character of assumptions" [source - "The Relation Between Law and Public Opinion in England During the 19th. Century," by Albert V. Dicey, NY: Macmillan, 1905].

And, Gerard I. Nierenberg in his book:

"Few people realize what a large part of our beliefs is based on unconscious, hidden assumptions. They are not easy to bring out in the open and we frequently fail to recognize their existence. Like the iceberg, nine-tenths of our assumptions lie below the conscious level. Assumptions certainly are not learned, in the sense that we learn mathematics. When analyzed, they prove to be odds and ends of information, or usually misinformation, gathered during our lifetime, or dogmas that have their roots in emotional conflicts....Hidden assumptions are difficult to subject to rational verification...Perhaps the facts have become distorted because one or both parties are in the grip of hidden assumptions without being aware of it." [source - "The Complete Negotiator," by Gerard I. Nierenberg, Barnes & Noble books]

To take as an example the Deity of Christ, some have the wrong assumption of what it is due to the teachings of the mainstream churches and what they accepted as "truth" from the Council of Nicea of 325 AD. There to fit the political needs of a pagan Roman Emperor the false concept that God (YHWH) and his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) were one and the same was adopted so as to gain the approval of this pagan. However, both the facts and logic clearly show this to be a very false assumption.

For example, a writing by Uriyah the Messiahite:

Johnn 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself

Johnn 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 - Uriyah the Messiahite]

And Jesus (Yeshua) himself even said, at Johnn 14:28-31, "You have heard Me tell you, 'I am going away and I am coming to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you may believe. 30 I will not talk with you much longer, because the ruler of the world is coming. He has no power over Me. 31 On the contrary, I am going away so that the world may know that I love the Father. Just as the Father commanded Me,so I do. "Get up; let's leave this place." (The Holman Christian Standard Bible: HCSB). Here Jesus (Yeshua) clearly shows that his Father (YHWH) is greater than himself so of course he can NOT be his Father (YHWH) also.

And at Johnn 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." (American Standard Version; ASV).

But of course these ones who make this assumption fall back on corrupted translations made by biased individuals that tend to have Johnn 1:1 showing Jesus (Yeshua) is God (YHWH), i.e., they use the assumptions of similarly biased ones. Now, let's look at some none biased translations of this verse and learn the truth:

The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209 which makes the Emphatic Diaglott so vaLukeable in seeing exactly what the Koine Greek is and its word for word equivalency in English, see below:

Johnn 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," ( The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209" done by the great German Bible scholar and translator Dr. J. J. Griesbach)

Now let's look at how several unbiased translators translated these verses as opposed to the common biased translation:

The Complete Bible: An American Translation. Contributors: Edgar J. Goodspeed - transltr, J. M. Powis Smith - transltr. Publisher: University of Chicago Press. Place of Publication: Chicago. Publication Year: 1939.:
Johnn 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."

The New English Bible (NEB)
Johnn 1:1-5 & 14, "1 When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was 2 The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, 3 and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him. 4 All that came to be was alive with his life, 5 and that life was the light of men. The light shines on in the dark, and the darkness has never quenched it." And "14 So the Word became flesh; he came to dwell among us, and we saw his glory, such glory as befits the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth"

[History of this great translation, "A presbytery in the Church of Scotland in 1946 recommended to the General Assembly that a translation of the Bible be made in the language of the present day because the language in the Authorized Version was archaic and less generally understood. The General Assembly approached other churches. There was a desire that a completely new translation rather than a revision and for a contemporary idiom rather than a traditional Biblical English be used.

It was planned and directed by representatives of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Congregational Church in England and Wales, the Council of Churches for Wales, the Irish Council of Churches, the London Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, the Methodist Church of Great Britain, the Presbyterian Church of England, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the National Bible Society of Scotland. The Roman Catholic Church in England and Scotland sent representatives as observers.]

Other data that shows the truth with respect Johnn 1:1 in brief.

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'" [source - The Dictionary of the Bible by Johnn McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317]
"Recent commentaries on Johnn admit that despite the long-standing tradition to the contrary, the term "word" in the famous prologue of Johnn need not refer to the Son of God before he was born. Our translations imply belief in the traditional doctrine of incarnation by capitalizing "Word." But what was it that became flesh in Johnn 1:14? Was it a pre-existing person? Or was it the self-expressive activity of God, the Father, His eternal plan? A plan may take flesh, for example, when the design in the architect's mind finally takes shape as a house. What pre-existed the visible bricks and mortar was the intention in the mind of the architect. Thus, it is quite in order to read Johnn 1:1-3a: "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]. All things came into being through it." This rendering suits the Old Testament use of "word" admirably: "So shall My word be that goes forth out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it."2
We are now in a better position to see why Jesus is known as "the word (logos) in the flesh." Jesus was the ultimate expression of God. God's plan, wisdom and purpose was the logos, and when we speak of the Bible, it is called "the Word" because it also is God's expression of Himself. When we speak of a prophecy, we say, it is "the word of the Lord," both because it is in the form of words and because it is God's expression of Himself. Jesus was the logos in the most complete sense. He was the ultimate expression of God and the essence of His plan and purpose. Thus, it is quite correct to say that Jesus was the logos, but he was not all of the logos. "Jesus" does not equal "the logos," he was part of and the ultimate expression of the logos. If we see Jesus, we see the Father, but it is also true that if we study the Bible, God's Word, God's expression of Himself in writing, we will see the Father. More dimly, to be sure, because the written Word is not the clear and ultimate expression of God that the Living Word is, but it is the logos just the same. ... The logos or message of God, as it has been revealed in Jesus, incLukedes the following account of the meaning and purpose of creation: Jesus' coming was prophesied throughout the Hebrew Scriptures; he was finally born a man, and by his free will lived a sinless life; Jesus died on the Cross to mark the beginning of the end of the present age of sin and death, revealing that it is only a matter of time until this age and fallen humanity as it now exists come to an end; Jesus was raised from the dead to reveal that death (the experience that all humans since Adam have held in common) is contrary to God's will and will ultimately be abolished by resurrection; Jesus was exalted as Lord to the right hand of God where he presently exercises this authority; after he comes to gather together the Church, Jesus will come again at the end of this age in judgment, bringing destruction on the unbelieving world and salvation to the community of faith; he will rule for one thousand years on this earth; finally he will destroy Satan and all evil, end the heavens and earth of the present age and begin the new heavens and earth of the age to come, a "new creation.".... The meaning of "beginning" that immediately comes to mind when Johnn 1:1 is read refers to the time before history when God first conceived of man, and foresaw the possibility that he would fall and need a Savior. This is because of the familiar phrase, "In the beginning God" in Genesis 1:1. Johnn tells us that "in the beginning" God had wisdom and a plan, and was prepared to start acting that plan out so that the people He created and invested His love in could be rescued from death and live with Him eternally. The crowning piece of the plan of God was the creation of Jesus Christ, who was in a very real sense, "the last word." ... The "word" was with God in the same sense that "wisdom" was with God. Proverbs 8:29b and 30a says, "When He [God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side." No one we know of believes that there was a being called "Wisdom" who helped God make the heavens and the earth. Everyone knows that wisdom is personified to make the record interesting and easy to understand. So too, in Johnn 1:1 when Scripture says that the logos was "with God," it is a personification. God had His plan and power, and "when the time had fully come" (Gal. 4:4), Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary. This means that the person called "Jesus" did not yet exist, as is the case with all human persons, until he was conceived in his mother's womb. Prior to his conception, his existence was not personal, but prophetic, as foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures (the "Word"). Before Jesus' conception in the womb of Mary, the logos was to Jesus what promise is to fulfillment. When "the logos became flesh," the promise was fulfilled in the form of a person. While this understanding will be objectionable, perhaps anathema, to Trinitarian believers, it must be admitted that it is not a denial of Jesus' divine Sonship or Messiahship but, rather, a compelling alternative interpretation of relevant scriptural texts.... Because logos has the article [ho] preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai ("and") shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had the article preceded theos as well as logos, the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also "with God." What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or, to use a piece of modern jargon, was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase, "what God was, the Word was," brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can. Johnn intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God [i.e., "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"]; if this be not true, the book [i.e., the Gospel of Johnn] is blasphemous.25
What it does say is defined as succinctly and accurately as it can be in the opening verse of St. Johnn's Gospel. But we have to be equally careful about the translation. The Greek runs: kai theos en ho logos. The so-called Authorized Version has: "And the Word was God." This would indeed suggest the view that "Jesus" and "God" were identical and interchangeable. But in Greek this would most naturally be represented by "God" with the article, not theos but ho theos. But, equally, St. Johnn is not saying that Jesus is a "divine" man, in the sense with which the ancient world was familiar [the product of God and man] or in the sense in which the Liberals spoke of him [as a great man, teacher, prophet, etc.]. That would be theios. The Greek expression steers carefully between the two. It is impossible to represent it in a single English word, but the New English Bible, I believe, gets the sense pretty exactly with its rendering, "And what God was, the Word was." [source - Biblical Unitarians]

Now, let's consider the subject by way of logic. Biology always shows that like begets like. For example, you have never seen a dog beget a cat and/or a cat beget a dog, have you? So since we know that a son of anything has many of the same characteristics and attributes as the father, and is always the same species as the father we would expect that from this fact that Jesus (Yeshua) would be a divine individual the same as his father. What else would one expect than a god would beget a god? Thus of course Jesus (Yeshua) would be a deity; however, for many this simple fact becomes clouded due to their assumptions consciously and/or unconsciously based on the Council of Nicea of 325 AD. Specifically, the false assumption that Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father (YHWH) are the same deity, an impossibility. In fact they are shown as two distinct divine individuals at Proverbs 8:22-31, with one acting as the Master Worker for the other with respect to everything that was created/beget after his creation, "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).

In fact, his Father (YHWH) has put everything under this only begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) except himself as clearly shown at 1 Corinthians 15:21-28, " 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). Now if they were the one and same god as this ones who are misguided by their unconscious assumptions assume, the 27 verse would be meaningless and in error when it says, " 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." (ASV).

Also, the Bible would not say Son of God (YHWH), but would say God the Son which it does not say as clearly shown by over 40 scriptures, let's look at a few to see the facts from the American Standard Version:

Luke 8:28
And 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 the Most High God? I beseech thee, torment me not.
Luke 12:8
And I say unto you, Every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
Luke 22:69
But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God.
Luke 22:70
And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
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].
John 1:34
And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.
John 1:49
Nathanael answered him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art King of Israel.
John 1:51
And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:36
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.
John 5:25
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.
John 6:27
Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him the Father, even God, hath sealed.
John 9:35
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
John 10:36

say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am [the] Son of God?
John 11:4
But when Jesus heard it, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.
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.
John 13:31
When therefore he was gone out, Jesus saith, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him;
John 19:7
The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
John 20:31
but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.
Acts 7:56
and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. (ASV).

Last, but not least consider three scriptures that absolutely prove this false unconscious assumption an untruth that there are three divine creatures that make up this false God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine of the trinity that these ones believing in the doctrine of the trinity and who are not in line with reality believe:

John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (New English Translation; NEB)
John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (American Standard Version; ASV)
Neither mention in any way more than two beings, yet a trinity of anything requires three similar things.

John 1:2, "The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, "(New English Translation; NEB)
John 1:2, "The same was in the beginning with God." (American Standard Version; ASV)
Clearly states that the word, Jesus (Yeshua) was with God (YHWH) in the beginning, referring back to Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (ASV) when he and his Son started to create the earth and all on it.

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)[previously quoted]
Jesus (Yeshua) clearly stated, "for the Father is greater than I." Showing the Father (YHWH) was greater as we all know Jesus (Yeshua) would not lie.

So we can NOW all see this myth is just that and actually just false doctrine baggage from the world's largest cult and those believing it are thoroughly deluded.

Yet some of these deluded ones who have been deluded by their own unconscious assumptions accuse others who have broken away from their deluded unconscious assumptions and see things clearly of being wrong, etc. They say when the ones who have broken away from being deluded tell them the facts that these ones are pontificating and/or just expressing their own opinion even when they use over 50% scripture in their writings mostly made in the true 'Sola Scriptura' writing style that demands the use of over 50% scripture. Yet the ones deluded by their own unconscious assumptions are in reality the ones expressing their own opinion and pontificating, but can NOT see the facts since they are being deluded by their own wrong unconscious assumptions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Trinity Disproved By Refuting Specific Questions/Accusations by Trinitarians:

FIRST, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

There are places in the NT that definitely show Jesus to be God and yet some would deny this. To deny the Son is to deny the Father, meaning that those who say that Jesus is no more than Son and not God deny God the Father.

Answer:

Obviously overlooking the fact that Jesus (Yeshua) also is one of God's (Yeshua's) children, the first or only begotten, and that everything he has was given to him. Now, let's look at the facts concerning Jesus's (Yeshua's) incarnation and his status before his incarnation in brief.

See Page 13

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:22 pm

Page 12

Parsons, DJD 9, 11: The scribe used a bilinear script ..., with the letter-forms square/circular [FY and sometimes A extend above the projected top line (but not below?)]. ... Shading [is not] ... notable. ... Ornament ... is frequent: the tops of uprights and obliques are occasionally decorated with hooks, and the feet of uprights and obliques are regularly decorated with heavy full and half-serifs (these are sometimes oblique, sometimes formed as a hook in a single movement with the main stroke). The serifs are notably long, and may run into the serif preceding or following; this marks the lower line all the more emphatically. ... The script is similar to that of 4Q120[Lev\b = #802], but with heavier ornament. This too could be of late Ptolemaic date; but the early Roman period cannot be excluded."
Parsons, DJD 8 (1990) 25: "This bilinear script (the descenders of rho and phi are curtailed), heavily ornamented with half- and full serifs, has some similarities with [#943a], but it is much more elegant and finely written; a distinctive feature is that the oval letters tend to lean backwards."
13. 8HevXIIgr = Nahal Hever Minor Prophets [#943 = vh285]; parchment roll(s), turn of the era; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Tov, DJD 8 (1990) 9ff: "The text of the scroll has been subdivided into paragraphs with both minor and major breaks .... What has not been observed by these scholars is that the scroll contains also a division into 'verses' and that in all three divisions the scroll agrees to a great extent with the Masoretic tradition, not only regarding the system of subdividing the text, but also regarding the location of the divisions themselves. ..." "In addition to the open and closed sections the scroll indicates with one or two spaces the beginning of what in MT is a new verse. This practice is known from a few Hebrew sources (1QpaleoLev [limited evidence] and 4QDan\a,d/ [reported by S. J. Pfann]; the situation with regard to 1QIs\a/ is not clear) as well as from two early Greek biblical sources: PFouad 266 [see #848] and PRyl Greek 458 [= #957]. [[para]] It is relatively easy to recognize these spaces in the scroll since in the section written by scribe A there are otherwise no spaces between words. ... The second scribe left spaces between most words, and for the beginnings of new verses he left more than one space. Likewise, the scribe of PRyl Greek 458 [= #957] often left spaces within the verse, and between verses he left more than one space. ..."


It is possible that we have remnants of two scrolls here; in any event, two different hands worked on the materials that have survived, and the second hand presents virtual word division in those sections.
Peter Parsons describes the hands (19ff): With scribe A (the bulk of the preserved material) "the script is in intention bilinear (only F reaches well above the line; the descenders of R F and Y are normally curtailed), although uncertainty in execution, and the enlargement of initial letters, gives an irregular impression. ...[[para]]... The script is profusely ornamented. The feet of verticals and descending obliques carry blobs or hooks or half-serifs (horizontal or angular or arched) or -- rarely -- full serifs; hooks and half-serifs normally point to the right; they may be very large." For scribe B, "the script is bilinear (allowing for the enlargement of some line-initials), except for R and F (this scribe makes no attempt to curtail them). ... The general [horizontal] effect is round and square. ...[[paragraph]]... The feet of uprights, the tops of uprights in I, K, N, F, and the left- hand tips of U and X, take decoration in the form of blobs, hooks and half-serifs (horizontal or oblique), rarely full serifs; hooks and half-serifs more often (but not consistently) point to the left." In general, A "aspires to be a book-hand ..., but the performance is inconsistent." Hand B "is a much more fluent and consistent copyist than hand A." Comparison with other, especially dated materials (23) concludes: "Most of this material is documentary; but the comparison is rather appropriate, since the use of enlarged initials at line-beginning (hands A and B) and phrase-beginning (hand A) and (set out in the margin) to mark a new section (hand A) gives this manuscript a documentary look. ... The fact is itself remarkable. Early Christian books show the same characteristic; copies of the Greek classics do not. It has therefore been tempting to argue that the texts of the Early Church stood closer to the world of business than to that of literature, and to draw condlusions about the social milieu in which the texts circulated or the esteem in which they were held. Now we see the same thing in a Jewish manuscript of pre-Christian date. This may suggest that the Christians inherited the practice, rather than inventing it; the problem remains, why Greek-speaking Jews should have adopted it in the first place" (23f).
14. POx 3522 Job 42 [#??]; papyrus roll, 1st ce; [location?]
[excerpts]
---
POx 50 (1983) 1 (with plate): "The lines are of 19-22 letters; the columns perhaps of 15 lines [but see the discussion in the notes], which would give a roll-height of c. 14 cm.... There are no lectional signs; punctuation by blank space (i.4, 5, 7). The informal upright bilinear script, in which the verticals are often ornamented with back-hooks, has similarities with [[two dated MSS]]; a date in the early first century would suit. ... [[paragraph]] A copy in roll-form, and of this date, will have been Jewish, not Christian."
With regard to the "archaic Hebrew" tetragrammaton, "the scribe of 3522 himself wrote the Hebrew continuously and fluently ...; but apparently without understanding, since the medial and final he have different shapes." The writing appears to be relatively undisciplined (quickly executed, some ligatures and run-on strokes in letter formation), with no serifs of note beyond the "hooks" (mostly on T, H) mentioned above. The initial letter of the name JOB has a dieresis/trema (see above, on #847) over it, and the name may be followed by a short blank.
Tov, DJD 8 (1990) 12: "The scribe of POxy 3522 (Job) very clearly wrote the tetragrammaton from left to right, creating a ligature between the yod and the next Greek letter."
15. POx 4443 Esther E + 8-9 [#???] papyrus roll, 1st/2nd ce; [location?]
[excerpts]
Ed K. Luchner, POx 65 (1998): "...This was a luxurious copy. The columns have 31 lines (height 20 cm) with an average 25 letters (width 7 cm, plus 0.5 cm for projecting letters at paragraphs). The intercolumnium is approximately 2 cm. The back is blank." [[paragraph]] "This is the first known [Greek] copy of a passage from Esther in roll-form, a rare format for biblical texts, probably indicating Jewish provenance (C.H.Roberts and T.C.Skeat, Birthe of the Codex 38-40). It is also the first papyrus to preserve this passage [and it supplies many variants in the "E" "additions" section]. ..." [[paragraph]] "There are no diacritical signs or punctuation, apart from some paragraphi (with short lines preceding them, and projecting enlarged letters at the beginning of the following line), and diaeresis above I (ii.24, 31; iii.6, 24) and U (i.6, ii.16). Words are occasionally separated. There are occasional space fillers at the line ends, and the centre bar of E is frequently extended for the same purpose. Iota adscript is generally used (ii.10 the only exception); four examples are irrational (ii.25, 27, 28, 29). Itacism occurs in i.2, 18, 19." [[paragraph]] "The script is fluent and broadly bilinear, but with its frequent ligatures, cursive forms, enlarged initial letters [also enlarged B elsewhere] and tall risers [e.g. H, F] / deep descenders (R, F, sometimes I) it perhaps owes more to official documentary styles than to bookhands. For the general appearance cf. the earlier Roberts GLH 9a (between 7-4 BC)." Also, "nomina sacra" are uncontracted -- e.g. QEOU, SWTHRIAN, ANQRWPOIS in E.16 (reconstructed) and 18, 23, 24.
16. PFouad 203 [vh911] (1st/2nd ce, papyrus roll, prayer/amulet?)
Roberts MSB 78 (no plate?): "There can be little doubt of the Jewish origin ..., a prayer against evil spirits, written on a roll of papyrus and attributed to the late first or early second century. Both PLond Christ 5 (=vh921), a leaf from a liturgical book of the third century, and POx 17.2068 (=vh966), some fragments of a papyrus roll of the fourth century, have been thought to be Jewish; but in the latter the contraction of QEOS, the eccentric nomen sacrum BS = BASILEUS, and the apparent echoes of Revelation 15.3 and 1 Timothy 1.17 in l. 7 render the suggestion doubtful. To these should be added the Vienna text of The Penitence of Iannes and Iambres: it was written on the recto of a roll and nomina sacra are left uncontracted [p.61f n.5 calls this PVindobGr 29456 (=vh1068); p.63 n.3 refers to the forthcoming ed of Jannes/Jambres material by A. Pietersma and also to the republication of the Vienna fragment by P.Maraval in ZPE 25 (1977) pp. 199ff.]."

19. POx 656 [#905(U4) = vh013 = T009] (2nd/3rd ce, papyrus codex, Gen 14-27)
Grenfell & Hunt, POx 4 (1904) 28f: "The MS was carefully written in round upright uncials of good size and decidedly early appearance, having in some respects more affinity with types of the second century than of the third. To the latter, however, the hand is in all probability to be assigned, though we should be inclined to place it in the earlier rather than the later part of the century. ... Another mark of age is perhaps to be recognized in the absence of the usual contractions for QEOS, KURIOS, &c., but this may of course be no more than an individual peculiarity. The only abbreviation that occurs is the horizontal stroke instead of N, employed to save space at the end of a long line. Both high and middle ... stops are found, but are sparingly used: more often a pause is marked by a slight blank space. A few alterations and additions have been made by a second hand, which seems also to be responsible for the numeration in the centre of the upper margin of each page."
Roberts MSB 76f: [does not comment on literary style] "... The implication is that the Hebrew Tetragrammaton stood in the exemplar and the first scribe, like the scribe of PFouad 266 [#848], either did not know how to write it or was not entrusted with the writing. In the event the second scribe, perhaps not accustomed to writing biblical manuscripts but aware that KURIOS was the Greek equivalent of Adonai inserted it here. The text has a number of unique readings which may point to a revision of the LXX."
//end//

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Revelation 2:8 And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write; The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says this: [New American Standard Bible-Reference Edition by Moody Press, Chicago, a div. Of Moody Bible Institute; NASB-MP]

Now many misguided individuals try to use this scripture to 'prove' that Jesus (Yeshua) is coeternal and coequal with his Father (YHWH); however, it really shows the exact opposite. First, they overlook the fact that he "was dead" for three days which would be impossible if he were the same as Almighty God (YHWH) who has always been immortal and the source of all life, Psalms 36:9, "For with Thee is the fountain of life; In thy light we see light." (NASB-MP). This is further emphasized at Psalms 145:14-16, "The Lord sustains all who fall, And raises up all who are bowed down. 15 The eyes of all look to Thee, And thou dost give them their food in due time. 16 Thou dost open Thy hand, And dost satisfy the desire of every living thing." (NASB-MP). Also, they overlook that someone superior to himself, Jesus (Yeshua), had to resurrect Him and unless his Father was alive, there would be no one capable of doing so. Clearly then, if Jesus (Yeshua) was dead for parts of three days as the scriptures state, he could not be coeternal with his Father (YHWH) who is immortal.

Second, to be coeternal with his Father (YHWH), he, Jesus (Yeshua) would have to have always existed, and he has not. With respect to raising his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) from the dead, Acts 13:33 says, "that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou ART MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE." (NASB-MP); and Psalm 2:7, "I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, 'Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee.'" (NASB-MP); now when we look into what beget or begotten means in the Webster's New world College Dictionary, Fourth Ed., says, "1, to be the father or sire of; procreate, 2, to bring into being; produce ["Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4 ed.", Michael Agnes, Editor in Chief, ISBN 0-02-863118-8]; we can be see from the definition of the word, both these scriptures clearly show that Jesus (Yeshua) did NOT always exist, but was brought into being or created by his Father (YHWH). This clearly shows that Jesus (Yeshua) can NOT BE COETERNAL with his Father (YHWH) who the Bible shows always existed, Psalms 90:2, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." (NASB-MP); and Psalms 93:2, "Thy throne is established from of old; Thou art everlasting." (NASB-MP); and Jeremiah 10:10, "But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His Indignation." (NASB-MP); and, 1 Timothy 1:17, "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." (NASB-MP). In fact the Bible at Revelation 3:14 clearly states, ""And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans F1 write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (Authorized King James Bible; AV) that he is "the beginning of the creation of God" as does Colossians 1:15, ""Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" (AV).

Third, Jesus (Yeshua) stated that his Father (YHWH) was greater than he was, 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); Clearly if Jesus (Yeshua) said " for my Father is greater than I" we should believe him. He further reaffirmed this 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). And the scripture continues on, John 5:20, "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." (AV), so much so as to show him, Jesus (Yeshua) greater works. So it is clear that Jesus (Yeshua) is NEITHER COETERNAL NOR COEQUAL with his Father (YHWH). Always remember John 8:32, "and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (NASB-MP), and avoid false doctrine.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. [Authorized King James Bible: AV]

Clearly this verse does NOT apply to Jesus (Yeshua) as nowhere does the Bible use the term Almighty to apply to Jesus (Yeshua), but only to his Father, Almighty God (YHWH). This is made clear at Genesus 17:1, "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect, 2... 3 and Abram fell on his face; and God talked with him..." (AV); and at Genesis 35:11, "And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;" (AV). This is also reaffirmed at Revelation 4:8, "And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." (AV), which also shows the Lord here referred to is Almighty God (YHWH), and not his only begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to whom this title "Lord" is often also applied.

This fact, is also shown at Revelation 11:17, "Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.",(AV), yet there are those who attempt to twist the scriptures to serve the god of this system or world, and use scriptures such as Revelation 1:11, "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." (AV), but fail to notice the critical difference "the first and the last" which rather than implying that Jesus (Yeshua) is Almighty God (YHWH) clearly show his as the first of Creation as does Revelation 3:14, "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans F1 write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (AV); Clearly they do not recognize the difference between "beginning and the ending" and "the first and the last."

Actually a lot of this confusion results from poor translation as clearly shown by the rendering of Revelation 1:11 in the New American Standard Bible-reference Edition by Moody Press, Chicago, a div. Of Moody Bible Institute; NASB-MP, "Saying, 'Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches; To Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyater and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodices." (NASB-MP); similar renderings are found in the American Standard Bible (ASB); the New World Translation (NWT); The Emphatic Dialogue; New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); the Westcott-Hort (1948 Reprint), and many more. Of particular interest is the rendering in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, the following, "Saying: What thou seest, write in a book and send to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamus and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.".

However, be not mislead by the trickery of men, but know this Psalms 83:18 says, "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." (AV). Here it uses the name, Jehovah, as the English form of God's (YHWH's) name, but since his name in Hebrew is all constants this is only one of several possible transliterations in English.

And the difference is drawn out at Acts 5:24-26, "Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow. 25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people. 26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned." (AV), where it clearly says, Acts 4:26, "The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord, and against His Christ." (NASB-MP). Clearly showing here "Lord" applied to Almighty God (YHWH) and distinguishing him from his son the Christ, Jesus (Yeshua) as it showed them against both as distinct beings and not as one and the same.

So we can clearly see those entrenched in false doctrine try to use a poor translation (of Revelation 1:11) to support their God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine and a title "Lord" that has been at various times applied to both the Father (YHWH) and to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to mislead. How Deceitful!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Discourse on Revelation 22:12-13 and 21:6-7:

INTRODUCTION:

Let's first look at the two scriptures in several different Bible versions/translations:

"12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (Revelation 22:12-13 AV - Authorized King James Version)

"12 Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is.
13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." ." (Revelation 22:12-13 ASV - American Standard Version of 1901)

"12 Lo! I come speedily, and my reward is with me, to render unto each one as, his, work is.
13 I, am the A and the Z, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." (Revelation 22:12-13 Rothrham)

BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA ON REVELATION 22:12-13 AND 22:6-7:

The International Standard Encyclopedia of the Bible says:

ALPHA AND OMEGA

al'-fa, o'-me-ga, o-me'-ga (Alpha and Omega = A and O):

The first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, hence, symbolically, "beginning and end"; in Revelation "The Eternal One" in Revelation 1:8 of the Father, in Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13 of the Son. Compare Theodoret, Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, iv. 8:

"We used alpha down to omega, i.e. all." A similar expression is found in Latin (Martial, v.26). Compare Aretas (Cramer's Catenae Graecae in New Testament) on Revelation 1:8 and Tertullian (Monog, 5): "So also two Greek letters, the first and last, did the Lord put on Himself, symbols of the beginning and the end meeting in Him, in order that just as alpha rolls on to omega and omega returns again to alpha, so He might show that both the evolution of the beginning to the end is in Him and again the return of the end to the beginning." Cyprian, Testim, ii.1; vi.22, iii.100, Paulinus of Nola Carm. xix.645; xxx.89; Prudentius, Cathem., ix.10-12. In Patristic and later literature the phrase is regularly applied to the Son. God blesses Israel from 'aleph to taw (Leviticus 26:3-13), but curses from waw to mem (Leviticus 26:14-43). So Abraham observed the whole law from 'aleph to taw. Consequently, "Alpha and Omega" may be a Greek rendering of the Hebrew phrase, which expressed among the later Jews the whole extent of a thing.

CONCLUSION:

In these two scriptures we are dealing with the symbolic meaning to the use of the first letter of the Koine Greek alphabet, Alpha, and the last letter, omega. As the International Bible Dictionary of the Bible states, it means the ''beginning and end' and shows how in Revelation 1:8 this phase is applied to the Father (YHWH) "6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:6-8 AV). Here we note it says, "6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father" clearly here referring to two individuals, God the Father (YHWH), and his God the Son (Yeshua or YHWH saves) . The term Alpha and Omega in "8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Which is made clearer in the Rothrham Bible as "8 I, am, the A, and, the Z, saith the Lord,-the, God who Is, and who Was, and who is Coming, The Almighty."
Clearly showing he has no beginning in keeping with "2 Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Revelation 1:8 ASV), which is quite different from how this same phrase is later used at Revelation 21:6 and 22:13 to apply to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) who had a beginning as shown by " 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); he was the first created thing with regard to all that was created.

To get a clear understanding of Revelation 22:13, we need to look at it in contest as follows:

"9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and sleepermongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:9-16 AV)

We note that Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) or one of his angels is quoted by the Apostle John as saying, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." [these being the Angels he was given authority over to carry out his assignment at 1 Corinthians 15:27-28.]. Since Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) had a beginning as shown " 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 "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. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" (1 Colossians 1:15-19 AV). Clearly Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is separate individual from his Father (YHWH) as the scripture states, ". 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" which makes plain that his Father (YHWH) was pleased that "all fulness dwell" in his faithful Son. Also, the scripture brings out in what manner Alpha and Omega properly applies to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) when it states, "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." Where it shows that after his creation by his Father (YHWH), he, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) worked along with his Father in creating all of the remainder of creation in the entire universe. His, the Son's Alpha and Omega symbolic application is further made clear in "17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Thus he is the Alpha in the sense he helped create all else except himself and the Omega as his Father (YHWH) has given him immortality for being faithful, and this is made certain by ". 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."

So here we see a faithful Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) had been given authority over all by his Father (YHWH) with the ", it is manifest that he is excepted" exception of himself. This subjection to his Father (YHWH) is clearly shown by the faithful Son's statements, " 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) and " 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).

Those denying that Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is not the faithful only begotten Son of Almighty God (YHWH) and not God (YHWH) are thus clearly committing blasphemy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Revelation 22:12-13 "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every men according to what he has done. 13 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.'" [New American Standard Bible-Reference Edition by Moody Press, Chicago, a div. Of Moody Bible Institute; NASB-MP]

Many misguided ones attempt to use this scripture to 'prove' that Jesus (Yeshua) always existed and is coeternal with his Father (YHWH), but it does not. Many of these same individuals turn to Acts 13:33, "that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou ART MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE." (NASB-MP); and Psalm 2:7, "I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, 'Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee.'" (NASB-MP); whereas, in doing so they show their ignorance of the word begotten which comes from beget which the Webster's New world College Dictionary, Fourth Ed., says, "1, to be the father or sire of; procreate, 2, to bring into being; produce ["Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4 ed.", Michael Agnes, Editor in Chief, ISBN 0-02-863118-8]; as can be seen from the definition of the word, both these scriptures clearly show that Jesus (Yeshua) did NOT always exist, but was brought into being or created by his Father (YHWH). This clearly shows that Jesus (Yeshua) can NOT BE COETERNAL with his Father (YHWH) who the Bible shows always existed, Psalms 90:2, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." (NASB-MP); and Psalms 93:2, "Thy throne is established from of old; Thou art everlasting." (NASB-MP); and Jeremiah 10:10, "But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His Indignation." (NASB-MP); and, 1 Timothy 1:17, "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." (NASB-MP). In fact the Bible at Revelation 3:14 clearly states, ""And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans F1 write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (Authorized King James Bible; AV) that he is "the beginning of the creation of God" as does Colossians 1:15, ""Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" (AV).

Thus we can clearly see that those misguided ones that claim that Jesus (Yeshua) is coeternal with his Father (YHWH) are in gross error, and their use of begotten to attempt to prove this error only highlights their ignorance of the word 'begotten.'

Now with respect, "'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.'" They overlook the difference in the use of the Alpha and the Omega when applied to the Father (YHWH) at Revelation 1:8, "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'" (NASB-MP); Which is quite different than when applied to Jesus (Yeshua) where it says, "the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Since in Jesus' (Yeshua's) case, he was the first, that is of creation, or the beginning of creation, and also, the end of direct creation by his Father, Almighty God (YHWH). How so, his Father (YHWH) used him in the creation of all else as testified to at Colossians 1:16-17, "For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (NASB-MP); and John 1:10, "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him." (NASB-MP). Whereas, with respect the Father (YHWH) the scripture clearly says, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Where 'who is' emphasized which show implicitly that he always existed, and was not a created being as was his Son, Jesus (Yeshua). Thus as can be seen, he can NOT BE COETERNAL with his Father (YHWH), nor coequal with his Father (YHWH) since he, Jesus (Yeshua) was created by His Father (YHWH). Always remember John 8:32, "and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (NASB-MP).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Discourse on Assumptions:

Some accuse others falsely of not believing in the deity of Christ and pontificating, but when we closely examine what these accusers are writing we see they are the ones guilty of both of these acts. How so? Well let's look at what drives these individuals and what they write as shown by Albert V. Dicey in his book:

"Above all, bodies of beliefs may generally be traced to certain fundamental assumptions which at the time, whether they be actually true or false, are believed by the mass of the world to be true with such good confidence that they hardly appear to be bear the character of assumptions" [source - "The Relation Between Law and Public Opinion in England During the 19th. Century," by Albert V. Dicey, NY: Macmillan, 1905].

And, Gerard I. Nierenberg in his book:

"Few people realize what a large part of our beliefs is based on unconscious, hidden assumptions. They are not easy to bring out in the open and we frequently fail to recognize their existence. Like the iceberg, nine-tenths of our assumptions lie below the conscious level. Assumptions certainly are not learned, in the sense that we learn mathematics. When analyzed, they prove to be odds and ends of information, or usually misinformation, gathered during our lifetime, or dogmas that have their roots in emotional conflicts....Hidden assumptions are difficult to subject to rational verification...Perhaps the facts have become distorted because one or both parties are in the grip of hidden assumptions without being aware of it." [source - "The Complete Negotiator," by Gerard I. Nierenberg, Barnes & Noble books]

To take as an example the Deity of Christ, some have the wrong assumption of what it is due to the teachings of the mainstream churches and what they accepted as "truth" from the Council of Nicea of 325 AD. There to fit the political needs of a pagan Roman Emperor the false concept that God (YHWH) and his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) were one and the same was adopted so as to gain the approval of this pagan. However, both the facts and logic clearly show this to be a very false assumption.

For example, a writing by Uriyah the Messiahite:

Johnn 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself

Johnn 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 - Uriyah the Messiahite]

And Jesus (Yeshua) himself even said, at Johnn 14:28-31, "You have heard Me tell you, 'I am going away and I am coming to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you may believe. 30 I will not talk with you much longer, because the ruler of the world is coming. He has no power over Me. 31 On the contrary, I am going away so that the world may know that I love the Father. Just as the Father commanded Me,so I do. "Get up; let's leave this place." (The Holman Christian Standard Bible: HCSB). Here Jesus (Yeshua) clearly shows that his Father (YHWH) is greater than himself so of course he can NOT be his Father (YHWH) also.

And at Johnn 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." (American Standard Version; ASV).

But of course these ones who make this assumption fall back on corrupted translations made by biased individuals that tend to have Johnn 1:1 showing Jesus (Yeshua) is God (YHWH), i.e., they use the assumptions of similarly biased ones. Now, let's look at some none biased translations of this verse and learn the truth:

The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209 which makes the Emphatic Diaglott so vaLukeable in seeing exactly what the Koine Greek is and its word for word equivalency in English, see below:

Johnn 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," ( The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209" done by the great German Bible scholar and translator Dr. J. J. Griesbach)

Now let's look at how several unbiased translators translated these verses as opposed to the common biased translation:

The Complete Bible: An American Translation. Contributors: Edgar J. Goodspeed - transltr, J. M. Powis Smith - transltr. Publisher: University of Chicago Press. Place of Publication: Chicago. Publication Year: 1939.:
Johnn 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."

The New English Bible (NEB)
Johnn 1:1-5 & 14, "1 When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was 2 The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, 3 and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him. 4 All that came to be was alive with his life, 5 and that life was the light of men. The light shines on in the dark, and the darkness has never quenched it." And "14 So the Word became flesh; he came to dwell among us, and we saw his glory, such glory as befits the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth"

[History of this great translation, "A presbytery in the Church of Scotland in 1946 recommended to the General Assembly that a translation of the Bible be made in the language of the present day because the language in the Authorized Version was archaic and less generally understood. The General Assembly approached other churches. There was a desire that a completely new translation rather than a revision and for a contemporary idiom rather than a traditional Biblical English be used.

It was planned and directed by representatives of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Congregational Church in England and Wales, the Council of Churches for Wales, the Irish Council of Churches, the London Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, the Methodist Church of Great Britain, the Presbyterian Church of England, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the National Bible Society of Scotland. The Roman Catholic Church in England and Scotland sent representatives as observers.]

Other data that shows the truth with respect Johnn 1:1 in brief.

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'" [source - The Dictionary of the Bible by Johnn McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317]
"Recent commentaries on Johnn admit that despite the long-standing tradition to the contrary, the term "word" in the famous prologue of Johnn need not refer to the Son of God before he was born. Our translations imply belief in the traditional doctrine of incarnation by capitalizing "Word." But what was it that became flesh in Johnn 1:14? Was it a pre-existing person? Or was it the self-expressive activity of God, the Father, His eternal plan? A plan may take flesh, for example, when the design in the architect's mind finally takes shape as a house. What pre-existed the visible bricks and mortar was the intention in the mind of the architect. Thus, it is quite in order to read Johnn 1:1-3a: "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]. All things came into being through it." This rendering suits the Old Testament use of "word" admirably: "So shall My word be that goes forth out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it."2
We are now in a better position to see why Jesus is known as "the word (logos) in the flesh." Jesus was the ultimate expression of God. God's plan, wisdom and purpose was the logos, and when we speak of the Bible, it is called "the Word" because it also is God's expression of Himself. When we speak of a prophecy, we say, it is "the word of the Lord," both because it is in the form of words and because it is God's expression of Himself. Jesus was the logos in the most complete sense. He was the ultimate expression of God and the essence of His plan and purpose. Thus, it is quite correct to say that Jesus was the logos, but he was not all of the logos. "Jesus" does not equal "the logos," he was part of and the ultimate expression of the logos. If we see Jesus, we see the Father, but it is also true that if we study the Bible, God's Word, God's expression of Himself in writing, we will see the Father. More dimly, to be sure, because the written Word is not the clear and ultimate expression of God that the Living Word is, but it is the logos just the same. ... The logos or message of God, as it has been revealed in Jesus, incLukedes the following account of the meaning and purpose of creation: Jesus' coming was prophesied throughout the Hebrew Scriptures; he was finally born a man, and by his free will lived a sinless life; Jesus died on the Cross to mark the beginning of the end of the present age of sin and death, revealing that it is only a matter of time until this age and fallen humanity as it now exists come to an end; Jesus was raised from the dead to reveal that death (the experience that all humans since Adam have held in common) is contrary to God's will and will ultimately be abolished by resurrection; Jesus was exalted as Lord to the right hand of God where he presently exercises this authority; after he comes to gather together the Church, Jesus will come again at the end of this age in judgment, bringing destruction on the unbelieving world and salvation to the community of faith; he will rule for one thousand years on this earth; finally he will destroy Satan and all evil, end the heavens and earth of the present age and begin the new heavens and earth of the age to come, a "new creation.".... The meaning of "beginning" that immediately comes to mind when Johnn 1:1 is read refers to the time before history when God first conceived of man, and foresaw the possibility that he would fall and need a Savior. This is because of the familiar phrase, "In the beginning God" in Genesis 1:1. Johnn tells us that "in the beginning" God had wisdom and a plan, and was prepared to start acting that plan out so that the people He created and invested His love in could be rescued from death and live with Him eternally. The crowning piece of the plan of God was the creation of Jesus Christ, who was in a very real sense, "the last word." ... The "word" was with God in the same sense that "wisdom" was with God. Proverbs 8:29b and 30a says, "When He [God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side." No one we know of believes that there was a being called "Wisdom" who helped God make the heavens and the earth. Everyone knows that wisdom is personified to make the record interesting and easy to understand. So too, in Johnn 1:1 when Scripture says that the logos was "with God," it is a personification. God had His plan and power, and "when the time had fully come" (Gal. 4:4), Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary. This means that the person called "Jesus" did not yet exist, as is the case with all human persons, until he was conceived in his mother's womb. Prior to his conception, his existence was not personal, but prophetic, as foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures (the "Word"). Before Jesus' conception in the womb of Mary, the logos was to Jesus what promise is to fulfillment. When "the logos became flesh," the promise was fulfilled in the form of a person. While this understanding will be objectionable, perhaps anathema, to Trinitarian believers, it must be admitted that it is not a denial of Jesus' divine Sonship or Messiahship but, rather, a compelling alternative interpretation of relevant scriptural texts.... Because logos has the article [ho] preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai ("and") shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had the article preceded theos as well as logos, the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also "with God." What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or, to use a piece of modern jargon, was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase, "what God was, the Word was," brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can. Johnn intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God [i.e., "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"]; if this be not true, the book [i.e., the Gospel of Johnn] is blasphemous.25
What it does say is defined as succinctly and accurately as it can be in the opening verse of St. Johnn's Gospel. But we have to be equally careful about the translation. The Greek runs: kai theos en ho logos. The so-called Authorized Version has: "And the Word was God." This would indeed suggest the view that "Jesus" and "God" were identical and interchangeable. But in Greek this would most naturally be represented by "God" with the article, not theos but ho theos. But, equally, St. Johnn is not saying that Jesus is a "divine" man, in the sense with which the ancient world was familiar [the product of God and man] or in the sense in which the Liberals spoke of him [as a great man, teacher, prophet, etc.]. That would be theios. The Greek expression steers carefully between the two. It is impossible to represent it in a single English word, but the New English Bible, I believe, gets the sense pretty exactly with its rendering, "And what God was, the Word was." [source - Biblical Unitarians]

Now, let's consider the subject by way of logic. Biology always shows that like begets like. For example, you have never seen a dog beget a cat and/or a cat beget a dog, have you? So since we know that a son of anything has many of the same characteristics and attributes as the father, and is always the same species as the father we would expect that from this fact that Jesus (Yeshua) would be a divine individual the same as his father. What else would one expect than a god would beget a god? Thus of course Jesus (Yeshua) would be a deity; however, for many this simple fact becomes clouded due to their assumptions consciously and/or unconsciously based on the Council of Nicea of 325 AD. Specifically, the false assumption that Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father (YHWH) are the same deity, an impossibility. In fact they are shown as two distinct divine individuals at Proverbs 8:22-31, with one acting as the Master Worker for the other with respect to everything that was created/beget after his creation, "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).

In fact, his Father (YHWH) has put everything under this only begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) except himself as clearly shown at 1 Corinthians 15:21-28, " 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). Now if they were the one and same god as this ones who are misguided by their unconscious assumptions assume, the 27 verse would be meaningless and in error when it says, " 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." (ASV).

Also, the Bible would not say Son of God (YHWH), but would say God the Son which it does not say as clearly shown by over 40 scriptures, let's look at a few to see the facts from the American Standard Version:

Luke 8:28
And 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 the Most High God? I beseech thee, torment me not.
Luke 12:8
And I say unto you, Every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
Luke 22:69
But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God.
Luke 22:70
And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
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].
John 1:34
And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.
John 1:49
Nathanael answered him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art King of Israel.
John 1:51
And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:36
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.
John 5:25
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.
John 6:27
Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him the Father, even God, hath sealed.
John 9:35
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
John 10:36

say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am [the] Son of God?
John 11:4
But when Jesus heard it, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.
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.
John 13:31
When therefore he was gone out, Jesus saith, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him;
John 19:7
The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
John 20:31
but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.
Acts 7:56
and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. (ASV).

Last, but not least consider three scriptures that absolutely prove this false unconscious assumption an untruth that there are three divine creatures that make up this false God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine of the trinity that these ones believing in the doctrine of the trinity and who are not in line with reality believe:

John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (New English Translation; NEB)
John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (American Standard Version; ASV)
Neither mention in any way more than two beings, yet a trinity of anything requires three similar things.

John 1:2, "The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, "(New English Translation; NEB)
John 1:2, "The same was in the beginning with God." (American Standard Version; ASV)
Clearly states that the word, Jesus (Yeshua) was with God (YHWH) in the beginning, referring back to Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (ASV) when he and his Son started to create the earth and all on it.

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)[previously quoted]
Jesus (Yeshua) clearly stated, "for the Father is greater than I." Showing the Father (YHWH) was greater as we all know Jesus (Yeshua) would not lie.

So we can NOW all see this myth is just that and actually just false doctrine baggage from the world's largest cult and those believing it are thoroughly deluded.

Yet some of these deluded ones who have been deluded by their own unconscious assumptions accuse others who have broken away from their deluded unconscious assumptions and see things clearly of being wrong, etc. They say when the ones who have broken away from being deluded tell them the facts that these ones are pontificating and/or just expressing their own opinion even when they use over 50% scripture in their writings mostly made in the true 'Sola Scriptura' writing style that demands the use of over 50% scripture. Yet the ones deluded by their own unconscious assumptions are in reality the ones expressing their own opinion and pontificating, but can NOT see the facts since they are being deluded by their own wrong unconscious assumptions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Trinity Disproved By Refuting Specific Questions/Accusations by Trinitarians:

FIRST, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

There are places in the NT that definitely show Jesus to be God and yet some would deny this. To deny the Son is to deny the Father, meaning that those who say that Jesus is no more than Son and not God deny God the Father.

Answer:

Obviously overlooking the fact that Jesus (Yeshua) also is one of God's (Yeshua's) children, the first or only begotten, and that everything he has was given to him. Now, let's look at the facts concerning Jesus's (Yeshua's) incarnation and his status before his incarnation in brief.

See Page 13

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:23 pm

Page 13

HIS INCARNATION:

Now the Bible says at Matthew 1:18-25, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; 25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS." (ASV) clearly showing his conception to be through God's (YHWH's) power or Spirit, a miracle. Now some may ask, what is God's (YHWH's) spirit, let's examine this subject and view the evidence. Now what is this Spirit or Holy Spirit that John the Baptist mentioned 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)? 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 established 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. And in Ancient Hebrew the word here rendered Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, or Spirit which is translated from 'ru'ach' meaning "breath; wind; spirit."

WHO HIS REAL FATHER IS:

The Bible says his Father is Almighty God (YHWH) who we have seen from the foregoing used his power to implant his life force into a virgin Jewish girl named Mary. Also, that he was supposedly the son of Joseph which is clearly shown at Luke 3:23, "And when He began His Ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, [b]being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli." (New American Standard Bible; NASB). He was in effect de-facto adopted by Joseph the husband of Mary who DID NOT have relations with Mary until after Jesus' (yeshua's) birth as testified to at Matthew 1:25, " And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB); thus there can not be any doubt that his real Father is none other than Almighty God (YHWH) as clearly shown in the account of his pre-human existence given at 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 clearly shows that he was the first or beginning of God's (YHWH's) creation and absolutely proves in gross error anyone imputing anything but legitimacy to his birth since in fact he existed long before the earth or his incarnation on earth.

START OF HIS MINISTRY:

Let's also take a brief look at the start of his ministry. At the age of 30 Jesus (Yeshua) came from Galilee to Jordan to be baptized by John. This is detailed in the Bible at 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." (ASV). . Jesus (Yeshua) was therefore, now, ready and prepared to take up his ministry, but had not yet received the Holy Spirit with which he would be able to prove that he was the Son of God (YHWH). Now, at his baptism, his Sonship was confirmed by the Spirit of God (YHWH) descending upon him like a dove, and by the voice from heaven which said "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased". There is beautiful symbolism in the use of a dove to g visibly represent the Spirit of God (YHWH). Jesus (Yeshua) was to be the mediator through whom peace would be re-established between God and man. Many people find it difficult to associate human nature with its weakness and propensities with Jesus (Yeshua), the Son of God (YHWH). This association, however, is extremely important since it is only because Jesus (Yeshua) was 'made like his brethren in every respect' as testified to at Hebrews 2:16-18, " For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted." (Revised Standard Version; ASV). This was so to permit him to represent them perfectly in his sacrifice as shown at Hebrews 4:15-16, "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." (RSV) tells us that he was tempted in all ways like we are but without sinning', and because of this he is 'able to help those who are tempted'. We must acknowledge we are all desperately in need of his help.

SECOND, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

1 - 1 John 5:2,3 is saying that if we love GOD we will keep HIS commandments.

2 - John 14:15 shows that if we love JESUS we will keep HIS commandments!

The key is on keeping the commandments. Whose are they? Answer the question this time.

Answer:

Read Jesus' (Yeshua's) words 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." (American Standard Version; ASV) for your answer. Jesus (Yeshua) clearly answers your question for you and at the same time shows where he receives all from.

Now, to understand 1 John 5:2-3, one need no more than look at it in contest and it actually proves the Trinity impossible, 1 John 5:1-9, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him[Note; Clearly shows that Jesus (Yeshua) is the begotten of God (YHWH) and NOT God (YHWH)]. 2 Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4 For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, [even] our faith. 5 And who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? [Note, Clearly identifies Jesus (Yeshua) as the Son of God and NOT God (YHWH) or God the Son as would be required for the Trinity to even be plausible] 6 This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for the witness of God is this, that he hath borne witness concerning his Son." (ASV) [Note: Some older translations had an error at 1 John 5:7 that had been deliberately inserted by someone way back, but the finding of older manuscripts has clearly shown this to be a violation of Revelations 22:18 called the Comma Johannenium as this error is so well known it has even been given a name].

THIRD, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

Once again, Almighty God is El Shaddai (not YHWH ) AND Being the SON does not exempt Him from being YHWH, as you assume that is the name of the Father ONLY, which it is not. It is the name of GOD, not the name of the Father ONLY.

Answer:

YHWH is the name of God and in no way used to describe the devil. Now let's consider what the leading expert has to say on the subject, Gérard GERTOUX is a Hebrew scholar, specialist of the Tetragram; He has been president of the Association Biblique de Recherche d'Anciens Manuscrits since 1991. His training as an engineer and teacher has enabled him to compile an amount of information coming from a great diversity of specialized departments. He has written a book, "The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which Is Pronounced As It Is Written I_Eh_Ou_Ah", and it clearly shows what God's (YHWH's) name is, its history, and that it can in no way properly be applied to the Devil.

A short abstract of it appeared in The Wall Street Journal and other publications as follows:

Usually, God's name is presented as fundamental in the monotheistic religions, but its pronunciation is controversial. However, the key to unlock this mystery was provided by the famous Maimonides 800 years ago, when he wrote that the Name 'is read as it is written'. The paradox starts and ends here with these intriguing words...

God's name is fundamental to all monotheistic religions. "May your name be held holy" is the first request for Christians in the Lord's Prayer taught by Jesus (Mt 6:9). "They exult in you, those who love your name" is sung by Jews when they sing the Psalms of David (Ps 5:11). "The hearts of humble ones quiver when the name of God is mentioned" is what Muslims say when they recite certain surahs of the Quran (22:35).

Paradoxically, religions prefer to translate God's name as Yahweh 'He is', Adonay 'my Lord', Allah 'The God', etc., rather than a transcription of the name, which is more usual. This study, initially published in the form of thesis, was greatly appreciated by many renowned specialists, because the subject had never been approached from the historical angle. This work created renewed interest in this fascinating topic -the disappearance of the Name followed by its slow re-emergence- which is relatively unknown.

Eight centuries ago, the famous Talmudist, Moses Maimonides, arrived at the right conclusion: There is no mystical mystery, because God's name is simply pronounced as it is written, that is to say: Y-H-W-H = I-eH-U-A in the same way: Y-H-W-D-H = I-eH-U-D-A.

And other expert critics said this of the book:

From United Bible Societies (Sarah Lind: Editor of the Newsletter)
Gérard Gertoux. 2002. The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its Story. University Press of America. Translated from the French Un historique du nom divin. Un Nom Encens (L¹Harmattan, 1999). G. follows Maimonides' teaching that that YHWH "is read as it is written," i.e., yehua, in the same way that yhwdh is vocalized yehuda -applying the (coincidentally correct) Masoretic vowels. G. first considers biblical treatment of "the name": the power of the name; to know God's name; Jesus, Satan, the controversy over the name; and "the name read distinctly" (reconstruction of the reading). Part 2 examines the historical record from Adam to the American Standard Version, and the name of Jesus and its connections to the name. There is a seven part appendix that includes "interpretation of the Hebrew names" and "lack of nomina sacra in the earliest Christian papyrus." G. maintains a website with excerpts at divinename.net. Published in the Translation Information Clearinghouse Talk N°57, 2004.
www.ubs-translations.org/.../tt57.html

From Religious Studies Review (Won W. Lee professor at the Calvin College):
"In contrast to the long-held Jewish tradition, the author claims that the name of God in the HB should be pronounced. His claim is based on Exod 9:16, "... to make my name resound through all the earth" and Maimonides' work stressing the impossibility of a deep, personal relationship with a nameless God. With a survey of the historical record from "Adam" to the American Standard Version, Gertoux argues that the letters Y, W, H are read as the vowels I (or E), U (or O), and A. For the H, a mute e could be added in order to be better heard. The tetragrammaton, YHWH, is therefore read I-eH-U-A (Iehoua), the equivalent of YeHoWaH in Masoretic punctuation. This means that the name is to be pronounced as it is written, or according to its letters. The result is that the tetragrammaton is the only Hebrew name constituted, not of four consonants, but of four vowels, as noted by Josephus. This detailed treatment of the Name is useful for those who are interested in the history of its translation over the centuries." published in the Religious Studies Review Volume 29 Number 3 July 2003 page 285.
www.cssr.org/article.asp?idx=26142

From Seek God Association (Michael John Rood: Messianic Karaite Rabbi)
Emanuel Tov's credentials are numerous and lengthy, but one of the most interesting aspects of Mr. Tov's work is his study on the Masoretic Text and the translation of YHVH. According to postings on various forums, it has been stated that both Emanuel and Nehemiah Gordon believe that the Name of God is closer to Yehowah, which is similar to Jehovah in English, and not even close to Yahweh (...) The Masoretic Text manuscripts tend to vary later on, per Nehemiah Gordon (who also defends Yehovah after extensive study of the Masoretic Text manuscripts). Nehemiah's view, developed quite separately from Gertoux,... based on studying the actual manuscripts under Emanuel Tov, is that Yahweh cannot be defended, and the earlier Masoretic manuscripts all have a Yehowah (or Yehovah) pronounciation, while later on there is a lot of variation.
www.seekgod.ca/roodkaraite.htm

From Golden Age Books (Anthony Byatt: Specialist in English Bibles and Bible Study Material)
The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH (...): Its Story reflects on God's name as fundamental to all monotheistic religions. Maimonides, 800 years ago, wrote that the Name "is read as it is written." Gerard Gertoux has written a deep treatise with a great deal of factual evidence for Jehovah's name. Contents include The Power of The Name; Jesus and Satan - Their Controversy Over the Name; The Pronunciation of Jesus' Name; Methods to Restore a Pronunciation; and a long section on the historical record from Adam through Bible times and down to the American Standard Version. Many appendices, notes and charts.
www.goldenagebooks.co.uk/...oductID=71

From New Testament Abstracts (Weston Jesuit School of Theology):
Gertoux contends that YHWH, the Tetragram, which is the proper name of God, is pronounced without difficulty because "it is read as it is written" according to the words of Maimonides. He first considers "the name": the power of the name; to know God's name; Jesus, Satan, their controversy over the name; and the name read distinctly. Then he examines the historical record: from Adam to Moses, from Moses to David, from David to Zedekiah, from Zedekiah to Simon the Just, from Simon the Just to Jesus, from Jesus to Justin, from Justin to Jerome, from Jerome to the Masoretes, from the Masoretes to Maimonides, from Maimonides to Tyndale, from Tyndale to the American Standard Version, and the name of Jesus and its connections to the name. Eight appendices are included. Published in the New Testament Abstracts Volume 47 Number 3 (2003) page 553. www.wjst.edu/news/nta/index.htm

From Booknews (Reference and Research Book News)
As indicated in the title, Gertoux concludes that the tetragram YHWH is the proper name of God, and is easy to pronounce because it sounds just like it is written according to the great Maimonides. In order to reach that destination, however, he has examined errors that have accumulated for at least 20 centuries, and wandered through linguistic questions. He posts warnings so non-specialist readers can avoid the very technical bogs. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com) www.paratext.com/booknews_intro.htm
Reference and Research Book News 2002 Volume 17 N°1-4. 5739 NE Summer Street, Portland Or 97218 ISSN 0-887-3763

From Old Presbyterian Meeting House (Professor Bruce M. Metzger)
The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era (....) for further scholarly information on the origins of sacred names, please visit the pages of Gérard GERTOUX. www.opmh.org/newbibles.htm

FOURTH, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

Only SCRIPTURE can either prove or disprove the deity of Christ!

Answer:

Is correct, but used often by Trinitarians who get caught in a corner and need to obfuscate the issue. But common reasoning can go along way to backing up the Bible with regard to the fact that Jesus (Yeshua) is indeed divine and a diety. You should well know the fact that 'like begets like' and know by this law of nature that Jesus (Yeshua) would have to be a diety and not question it; but that in NO way makes him the same spirit being as his Father (YHWH) than it makes any other son the same being as his father. This fact should be obvious to all.

FIFTH, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

That is not the translation you are referring to. That is the Greek words used in John 1:1 if used OUT OF CONTEXT and SEPARATELY. That is not the meaning of those words. Therefore, it is not an interpretation of John 1:1. [Referring to, "The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209" done by the great German Bible scholar and translator Dr. J. J. Griesbach]

Answer:

WRONG, The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209 which makes the Emphatic Diaglott so valuable in seeing exactly what the Koine Greek is and its word for word equivalency in English, see below:

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," ( The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209" done by the great German Bible scholar and translator Dr. J. J. Griesbach)

Now let's look at how several unbiased translators translated these verses as opposed to the common biased translation:

The Complete Bible: An American Translation. Contributors: Edgar J. Goodspeed - transltr, 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.:
John 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."

The New English Bible (NEB)
John 1:1-5 & 14, "1 When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was 2 The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, 3 and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him. 4 All that came to be was alive with his life, 5 and that life was the light of men. The light shines on in the dark, and the darkness has never quenched it." And "14 So the Word became flesh; he came to dwell among us, and we saw his glory, such glory as befits the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth"

[History of this great translation, "A presbytery in the Church of Scotland in 1946 recommended to the General Assembly that a translation of the Bible be made in the language of the present day because the language in the Authorized Version was archaic and less generally understood. The General Assembly approached other churches. There was a desire that a completely new translation rather than a revision and for a contemporary idiom rather than a traditional Biblical English be used.

It was planned and directed by representatives of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Congregational Church in England and Wales, the Council of Churches for Wales, the Irish Council of Churches, the London Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, the Methodist Church of Great Britain, the Presbyterian Church of England, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the National Bible Society of Scotland. The Roman Catholic Church in England and Scotland sent representatives as observers.]

Other data that shows the truth with respect John 1:1 in brief.

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'" [source - The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317]
"Recent commentaries on John admit that despite the long-standing tradition to the contrary, the term "word" in the famous prologue of John need not refer to the Son of God before he was born. Our translations imply belief in the traditional doctrine of incarnation by capitalizing "Word." But what was it that became flesh in John 1:14? Was it a pre-existing person? Or was it the self-expressive activity of God, the Father, His eternal plan? A plan may take flesh, for example, when the design in the architect's mind finally takes shape as a house. What pre-existed the visible bricks and mortar was the intention in the mind of the architect. Thus, it is quite in order to read John 1:1-3a: "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]. All things came into being through it." This rendering suits the Old Testament use of "word" admirably: "So shall My word be that goes forth out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it."2
We are now in a better position to see why Jesus is known as "the word (logos) in the flesh." Jesus was the ultimate expression of God. God's plan, wisdom and purpose was the logos, and when we speak of the Bible, it is called "the Word" because it also is God's expression of Himself. When we speak of a prophecy, we say, it is "the word of the Lord," both because it is in the form of words and because it is God's expression of Himself. Jesus was the logos in the most complete sense. He was the ultimate expression of God and the essence of His plan and purpose. Thus, it is quite correct to say that Jesus was the logos, but he was not all of the logos. "Jesus" does not equal "the logos," he was part of and the ultimate expression of the logos. If we see Jesus, we see the Father, but it is also true that if we study the Bible, God's Word, God's expression of Himself in writing, we will see the Father. More dimly, to be sure, because the written Word is not the clear and ultimate expression of God that the Living Word is, but it is the logos just the same. ... The logos or message of God, as it has been revealed in Jesus, includes the following account of the meaning and purpose of creation: Jesus' coming was prophesied throughout the Hebrew Scriptures; he was finally born a man, and by his free will lived a sinless life; Jesus died on the Cross to mark the beginning of the end of the present age of sin and death, revealing that it is only a matter of time until this age and fallen humanity as it now exists come to an end; Jesus was raised from the dead to reveal that death (the experience that all humans since Adam have held in common) is contrary to God's will and will ultimately be abolished by resurrection; Jesus was exalted as Lord to the right hand of God where he presently exercises this authority; after he comes to gather together the Church, Jesus will come again at the end of this age in judgment, bringing destruction on the unbelieving world and salvation to the community of faith; he will rule for one thousand years on this earth; finally he will destroy Satan and all evil, end the heavens and earth of the present age and begin the new heavens and earth of the age to come, a "new creation.".... The meaning of "beginning" that immediately comes to mind when John 1:1 is read refers to the time before history when God first conceived of man, and foresaw the possibility that he would fall and need a Savior. This is because of the familiar phrase, "In the beginning God" in Genesis 1:1. John tells us that "in the beginning" God had wisdom and a plan, and was prepared to start acting that plan out so that the people He created and invested His love in could be rescued from death and live with Him eternally. The crowning piece of the plan of God was the creation of Jesus Christ, who was in a very real sense, "the last word." ... The "word" was with God in the same sense that "wisdom" was with God. Proverbs 8:29b and 30a says, "When He [God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side." No one we know of believes that there was a being called "Wisdom" who helped God make the heavens and the earth. Everyone knows that wisdom is personified to make the record interesting and easy to understand. So too, in John 1:1 when Scripture says that the logos was "with God," it is a personification. God had His plan and power, and "when the time had fully come" (Gal. 4:4), Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary. This means that the person called "Jesus" did not yet exist, as is the case with all human persons, until he was conceived in his mother's womb. Prior to his conception, his existence was not personal, but prophetic, as foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures (the "Word"). Before Jesus' conception in the womb of Mary, the logos was to Jesus what promise is to fulfillment. When "the logos became flesh," the promise was fulfilled in the form of a person. While this understanding will be objectionable, perhaps anathema, to Trinitarian believers, it must be admitted that it is not a denial of Jesus' divine Sonship or Messiahship but, rather, a compelling alternative interpretation of relevant scriptural texts.... Because logos has the article [ho] preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai ("and") shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had the article preceded theos as well as logos, the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also "with God." What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or, to use a piece of modern jargon, was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase, "what God was, the Word was," brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can. John intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God [i.e., "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"]; if this be not true, the book [i.e., the Gospel of John] is blasphemous.25
What it does say is defined as succinctly and accurately as it can be in the opening verse of St. John's Gospel. But we have to be equally careful about the translation. The Greek runs: kai theos en ho logos. The so-called Authorized Version has: "And the Word was God." This would indeed suggest the view that "Jesus" and "God" were identical and interchangeable. But in Greek this would most naturally be represented by "God" with the article, not theos but ho theos. But, equally, St. John is not saying that Jesus is a "divine" man, in the sense with which the ancient world was familiar [the product of God and man] or in the sense in which the Liberals spoke of him [as a great man, teacher, prophet, etc.]. That would be theios. The Greek expression steers carefully between the two. It is impossible to represent it in a single English word, but the New English Bible, I believe, gets the sense pretty exactly with its rendering, "And what God was, the Word was." [source - Biblical Unitarians]

Now let's consider a comment on two scriptures 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 - Uriyah the Messiahite]
SIXTH, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:
Yes and I am the byproduct of MY father and I have HIS name IN me and we share the same attributes. In the same way, Jesus has the name of YHWH IN Him, making Him deity, as YHWH is deity. Jesus is not 'a god' unless you are a polytheist. The Word cannot be WITH God and BE a god at the same time. Scripture will not allow it.
Answer,
But obviously one is NOT his father, and the same goes for Jesus (Yeshua); a very simple truth. With respect polytheist accusation this clearly shows one has obviously NOT read Exodus 20:3 with understanding as it says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Authorized King James Bible; AV), so Jesus (Yeshua) is NOT polytheistic thinking as he is NOT a deity before his Father (YHWH) as clearly shown 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) in Jesus' (Yeshua's) own words. So again what I am seeing is a lack of comprehension on the part of some; they should let me assist them in this most important matter instead of resisting.

SEVENTH, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:
[claim by Trinitarians] I am not influenced by any councils. The word of GOD has priority and IT says that Jesus is GOD"

Answer:

Here is the facts the reality, remember John 8:32, "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (The Goodnews Bible), now let's look at the facts:
"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).

*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.[source - "Discourse on Mainstream Religion," by Iris the Preacher- 2001]

EIGHTH, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

Jesus Christ's Father is God. Therefore, Jesus Christ is God because they share an Attibute with each other that cannot be changed. They share the Attribute of God. Jesus Christ is still the Son of God and God as well.

Answer:

All sons share Attributes with their father, but that in NO way makes them their father also. This is just common knowledge that no play on words, logomachy, can change. Now let's look at Jesus' (Yeshua's) name as differentiating him from his father, "Yehoshua, Yeshua or Yeshu;
Which one is the name of Jesus in Hebrew?
By Dr. James D. Price
Forward by Guy Cramer
The Jewish community has claimed the name of Jesus in Hebrew is Yeshu the traditional Jewish spelling of Jesus. Why do others spell Jesus as Yeshua with four letters and sometimes spell it as Yehoshua with five letters ?
Before we look at the answer lets look at the origin of the name. The sixth book of the Old Testament is called Joshua.
The title of the book is appropriately named after its central figure, Joshua. His original name is Hoshea, "Salvation" (Num.13:Cool; but Moses evidently changes it to Yehoshua, "Yahweh (Jehovah) is Salvation" (Num.13:16). He is also called Yeshua, a shortened form of Yehoshua. This is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek name Iesous (Jesus). (NKJV, Thomas Nelson Inc.,1980, p.190)
Why is it important to find out which spelling to use? Advanced mathematical research into the equidistant letter sequences (ELS) discovered in the Hebrew Bible (see The Mysterious Hebrew Codes) needs the proper spelling of words and names. The wrong spelling of a name can invalidate all (ELS) research on that name. There is a great deal that depends on this simple question.
(Guy Cramer)
The Names Yeshua and Yehoshua
by Dr. James Price, professor of Hebrew
Yehoshua in the Septuagint
Two things indicate that Yehoshua is the proper Hebrew name for Jesus:
(1) In the Greek Translation of the OT known as the Septuagint (LXX), the name Joshua is rendered *Iasous* = Jesus.
(2) In the NT, Joshua is mentioned twice (Acts 7:45; Heb 4:Cool, and in both places the Greek NT spells the name *Iasous* = Jesus.
Thus the Greek *Iasous* is the equivalent of Hebrew *Yehoshua*
Yehoshua in the Hebrew Bible
As far as the Hebrew Bible is concerned, it is important to note that in the early books, the name Joshua is spelled as ( yod-hey-waw-shin-ayin) or on rare occasions as ( yod-hey-waw-shin-waw-ayin). However, in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the high priest is named Jeshua the son of Jozadak ( yod-shin-waw-ayin); whereas in the contemporary books of Haggai and Zechariah, the same high priest is named Joshua the son of Jehozadak ( yod-hey-waw-shin-ayin beth-nun). Thus, it can be concluded that in post-exilic times of the Biblical era, the namesYeshua and Yehoshua were regarded as equivalent.
Yehoshua in the Talmud
(From A.D. 200 to 500 ancient rabbis compiled their commentaries on the Bible, Jewish social customs and historical events in the Talmud. Because it was compiled by rabbis who were leaders in rabbinical academies, the Talmud is considered to be very authoritative by Jews, even to this day. [Missler, Chuck, "The Creator Beyond Time and Space", 1996 The Word For Today, p.165] )
As far as the Talmud is concerned, it is evident that the old uncensored editions of the Talmud associated Jesus of Nazareth with the name Joshua. This is demonstrated by the following passage:
Sotah 47a
Our Rabbis have taught: Always let the left hand thrust away and the right hand draw near. Not like Elisha who thrust Gehazi away with both his hands (and not like ' Joshua b. Perahiah who thrust one of his disciples away with both his hands).11
Here, the editor's footnote reads:
[(11) MSS. and old editions read Jesus the Nazarene. R. T. Herford sees in Gehazi a hidden reference to Paul. Cf. his Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, pp. 97ff.]
Another interesting passage indicates that the Talmud regarded the changing of the spelling of a name to be a sign of divine disapproval. The following passage discusses the change of a name from Yehoshua to Yoshua. Arachim 32b
And the other?13 - He [Ezra] had prayed for mercy because of the passion for idolatry and he removed it, and his merit then shielded them even as the booth. That is why Scripture reproved Joshua, for in all other passages it is spelt: Jehoshua, but here, Joshua.14
The editor's footnote reads:
[(14) For his failure to implore the Lord to remove the passion for idolatry from the heart of the people. Just as with Abram the enlargement of his name into 'Abraham' was an expression of divine approval, so did this diminution of Jehoshua into Joshua express divine disapproval. The reason for Joshua's failure to implore the Lord to remove the passion for idolatry was his assumption that he possessed the land in its pristine holiness, so that it would in itself help Israel to overcome its idolatrous tendencies.]
Perhaps that is the reason why the Talmud altered the spelling of the name Jesus of Nazareth from Yeshua ha-Notzri to Yesu ha-Notzri. However, it is clear that the editor of the Talmud regarded this as the equivalent of Yeshua ha-Notzri. Associated with the following passage in the Talmud is an interesting footnote by the editor:

Sanhedrin 67a
For it has been taught: And for all others for whom the Torah decrees death, witnesses are not hidden, excepting for this one. How is it done? - A light is lit in an inner chamber, the witnesses are hidden in an outer one [which is in darkness], so that they can see and hear him,11 but he cannot see them. Then the person he wished to seduce says to him, 'Tell me privately what thou hast proposed to me'; and he does so. Then he remonstrates; 'But how shall we forsake our God in Heaven, and serve idols'? If he retracts, it is well. But if he answers: 'It is our duty and seemly for us', the witnesses who were listening outside bring him to the Beth din, and have him stoned.12

The editor's footnote reads:
[(12) In the uncensored editions of the Talmud there follows this important passage (supplied from D.S. on the authority of the Munich and Oxford Mss. and the older editions) 'And this they did to Ben Stada in Lydda ( . . .), and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ben Stada was Ben Padira. '. Hisda said: 'The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But was nor the husband Pappos b. Judah? - His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman's hair? (. . . megaddela neshayia): - As they say in Pumbaditha, This woman has turned away (. . .) from her husband, (i.e., committed adultery).' T. Herford, in 'Christianity in the Talmud', pp. 37 seqq, 344 seqq, identifies this Ben Stada with Jesus of Nazareth. As to the meaning of the name, he connects it with ** 'seditious', and suggests (p. 345 n.1) that it originally denoted 'that Egyptian' (Acts XXI 38, Josephus, Ant. XX, 8, 6) who claimed to be a prophet and led his followers to the Mount of Olives, where he was routed by the Procurator Felix, and that in later times he might have been confused with Jeshua ha-Notzri. This hypothesis, however, involves the disregard of the Talmudic data, for Pappos b. Judah lived a century after Jesus (Cit. 90a), though the mother's name, Miriam (Mary), would raise no difficulty, as . . . megaddla neshayia may be the result of a confusion with Mary Magdalene (v. also Box, The Virgin Birth of Jesus, pp. 201f, for other possible meanings of Ben Stada and Ben Pandira) Derenbourg (Essai note 9, pp. 465-471) rightly denies the identity of Ben Stada with Jesus, and regards him simply as a false prophet executed during the second century at Lydda.]
Note that the editor spells the name of Jesus as Jeshua ha-Notzri when he transliterated it.
From this evidence it can be concluded that in post-exilic Bible times the names Yehoshua and Yeshua were regarded as equivalent names of the same person. Also the Talmudic evidence indicates that historically the Jews regarded the name of Jesus as Yeshua, perhaps omitting the *hey* as their sign of divine disapproval, and then subsequently omitting the *ayin* as further disapproval. [source - Dr. Price, Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Temple Baptist Seminary][Note, this gentlemen is a Trinitarian but even differentiates Jesus' (Yeshua's) name from that of his father.

NINTH, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

Revelation 1:7. Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Isn't Revelation 1:7 referring to The Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6?

Revelation 1:8. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Doesn't Revelation 1:8 support Jesus Christ's claim in John 10:30? John 10:30 states...

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Answer,

Now we have a similar result in the New Testament with titles often times being substituted for proper names such as Jesus' (Yeshua) proper name being substituted with titles such as 'Lord,' 'Logos,' etc. This causes great confusion as the same title, 'Lord,' is often used for Almighty God (YHWH) in the New Testament, such as at Revelation 1:8, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. " (AV); and at, Revelation 22:6, "And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done." (AV).; whereas, isused as a title for his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) at Revelation 22:20, "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so come, Lord Jesus." (AV).[[source - "The Confusion Factor," by Iris the Preacher 1987]

As can be seen from the above many wrestle with the scriptures trying to make them fit their tradition instead of trying to get an understanding of same. This is clearly shown by the poster's question if you can call it that of, "Doesn't Revelation 1:8 support Jesus Christ's claim in John 10:30?" which clearly shows one trying to support his pet tradition. Why, well John 10:30 says, "My Father and I are one" (the New English Bible; NEB), but if this poster really wanted understanding rather than to support his misguided tradition he would continue to read on in the Book of John since at John 17:11 this oneness is explained as unity of purpose as, "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]." (ASV).

Next, this same poster asks about Revelation 1:7, "Every eye shall see him, and among them those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the world shall lament in remose. So it shall be. Amen." (NEB). Obviously, unlike Revelation 1:8 which refers to the Father (YHWH), this one refers to Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH is Salvation). Now it is high time that all start reading the Bible for understanding instead of constantly trying to trick me with silly questions in the same perverted manner as the Jews at Matthew 22: , "But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, trying him: 36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 And he 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 great and first commandment. 39 And a second like [unto it] is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets. 41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The son] of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet? 45 If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions." (ASV).


11 – 1 John 5:7, The Johanna Comma

This consist of a series of comments and scriptural comments by many knowledgeable people sent to me.

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.'

See Page 14

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:25 pm

Page 14



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


The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8

By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., 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.[source - The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8, by Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.]


FIRST, When the Authorized King James Bible (AV) was translated in the 15/16 century the translators really only add access to 1 or 2 ancient manuscripts, scroll, and fragments; whereas, today translators have access to over 20,000 so now mistakes and additions are easily uncovered. 1 John 5:7 is such a well known wrongful addition in direct violation of Revelation 22:18 that it even has its own name, the Johanna Comma. But be that as it may, here is a comparison of two Bibles that you should read by Clarence T. Craig, Bible Scholar.


The King James and the American Standard Versions of the New
Testament

by

Clarence T. Craig

(The following is the first in a series of five articles to be
reprinted in successive issues of The Bible Translator by
permission of the International Council of Religious Education,
which first *Issued these articles, together with certain others,
under the title "An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of
the New Testament". The Revised Standard Version has met with
unusually wide acceptance, and these explanatory articles should be
of help to those who wish to understand more fully the nature of the
revision and what underlies it. - Ed.)

The King James Version was not the first English Bible. It is
difficult to realize that it had to fight its way for general
recognition for fifty years. It was charged with "bad theology, bad
scholarship, and bad English". To this day the form of the Lord's
Prayer most widely used is not that of the King James Version. The
Psalter and some other parts of the Book of Common Prayer were never
made to conform to this translation. But the noble language of the
King James Version so endeared it to generations of English-speaking
people that it has become the most widely used translation of the
Bible. and by far the most widely read English book.

It is needless to join here in the praise which has been heaped upon
this English classic. It will never be dislodged from its high place
in the history of our literature. But the Christian Church has more
than a literary interest in the Bible. It believes that the Bible is
the record of a divine revelation. Is this version of the New
Testament an accurate and understandable translation of the original
Greek? That is the vital question for religion.. During the
nineteenth century it became increasingly clear to all scholars that
such was not the case, The many and serious faults of the King James
Version finally led to the setting up in England of an official
committee for revision. These men in turn solicited co-operation
from an American committee. After more than ten years of exacting
labor, they published the New Testament in 1881, The American
preferences were inserted in the American Standard Version of 1901.

The first and most important improvement made by the revisers was in
the Greek text which was made the basis for their translation. The
King James Version was based essentially upon the Greek text of
Beza, printed in 1598. Though he had available what we know to be
much better manuscripts, Beza had followed the text of Erasmus,
which was based on late and corrupt medieval manuscripts. The
tremendous advance in textual criticism during the nineteenth
century made it clear that it was indefensible to follow this so-
called "Received Text". The revisers, following the principles used
by Westcott and Hort for recovering the original text. found
correction to be necessary at more than five thousand points.

The vast majority of these corrections are hardly noticed by the
average reader, but the attentive reader will find interesting
differences. A beginning student in Greek was translating I John 4 :
19, "We love him because he first loved us." I stopped him with the
query, "Where is the word for him?" He confessed that there was
none: but he was so familiar with the King James Version that he
took for granted that it must be correct. Yet John bad not said that
it I's our love of God that depends on his prior love for us, As the
text followed by the American Standard Version has it, all Christian
love depend, on that When a class comes to Acts 8, 1 usually ask a
student to read verse 37. Either he cannot find it, or finally
locates the footnote which tells him that it is not found in the
best manuscripts. An early scribe had thought it improper for Philip
to baptize the Ethiopian eunuch without a confession of faith,
Hence, he supplied the deficiency. The King James Version was based
on this corrupted text. Once I was comparing the version of the
Great Commandments as given in a modern hymnal with the true Greek
text and I was shocked at the inaccuracies. While the substance was
the same, within four verses there were four important deviations
from the correct text. Then I realized that the hymnal had used the
version of King James rather than the American Standard Version. A
slight textual change may be siqnificant as in 2 Corinthians 5: 14.
There the Received Text called for the translation. "If one died for
all then were all dead". But Paul did not think that there was
anything hypothetical about the representative death of Christ. The
apostle wrote, as the American Standard Version translates. "One
died for all".

A second need for the revision lay in the fact that many words used
in the King

James Version had become obsolete or had changed their meaning, What
modern reader would imagine that the "carriages " which Paul took
tip on his trip to Jerusalem were in fact "baqgage" (Acts 21 - 15)?
Or, when Paul beheld the "devotions" of the Athenians, that it
was "the objects of your worship" (Acts 17 : 23). He would hardly
know that "scrip" meant a "wallet" or "bag" (Mark 6 : Cool unless he
consulted his dictionary. Certainly a schoolboy would be forgiven
some perplexity if he should remember the date of the invention of
the compass and then read in the description of Paul's sea
voyage, "We fetched a compass" (Acts 28 : 13), "Made a circuit" is
more intelligible even if it is not particularly nautical. He could
probably guess the meaning of some words. When he read in Matthew
13: 21 of the seed which did not have root that it "dureth for a
while" he in might understand that as -endureth-, Or when I Peter 3 -
11 said, "Seek peace and ensue it", he might think the
word "pursue" instead. But in other
the reader would have an entirely false certainty. Flow, could he
know that the "nephews" of certain widows in I Timothy 5 , 4 were in
fact their "grandchildren"? He would assume that Mark was perfectly
clear in speaking of -tbe coasts of Tyre and !Sidon", for these
cities stood on the Mediterranean. But, as a matter of fact, the
word was used as a synonym for "borders" (Mark 7:24,31).

A great many words have changed their meaning in the last three
hundred years. We still use the word "let", but that does not help
us understand that "he who now letteth" really means "one that
restraineth" now (2 Thess. 2 : 7). Unless a reader remembers his
Latin he is likely to be misled by the words, "We which... remain
unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep
(I Thess. 4 - 15). Since we use "prevent" for "hinder", the revisers
wisely substituted "precede". Many people have charged Jesus with
qiving impractical advice when he said. "Take no thought for your
life" (Matthew 6 - 25). They welcomed the revision which read, "Be
not anxious", But that was exactly what the word "thought" meant to
our Elizabethan forefathers. We may speak of a "charger", but we
think of a prancing horse rather than a "platter" on which the head
of John the Baptist might be laid (Mark 6 - 25). We may use the
adjective "lively", but never when what we mean is "living" (I Peter
2 : 4-5). We may refer to a man's "conversation", but we never mean
by that his "conduct" (James 3 : 13) : yet that is the way the word
was used over and over again in the King James Version. No matter
what kind of "room" we eat in, we would never refer to higher and
lower rooms at a dinner table (Luke 14 .7-10). We know what
an "estate" is, but that does not help us to see how "chief estates"
could be invited to a birthday supper (Mark 6: 21). The Revised
Versions of 1881 and 1901 put all of these passages into words which
we use today.

It was in the use of prepositions that the King James Version was
most misleading.The famous "strain at a gnat' (Matthew 23 - 24) was
simply a misprint for "strain out a gnat", but the misprint was not
corrected. In some cases the reader might guess what the passage
really means. He may recognize that "Make to yourselves friends of
the mammon of unrighteousness" means in fact "by means of the mammon
of unrighteousness (Luke 16 : 9). When Jesus says. "against the day
of my burying hath she kept this", the meaning is "for the day"
(John 12 : 7), Other cases are probably too absurd to be misleading,
Pilate could not possibly have said about Jesus, "Nothing worthy of
death is done unto him" (Luke 23 : 15), It must mean "done by him",
as the revisers made it. But the average reader was left totally in
the dark when Pats] was made to write, "I know nothing by myself" (I
Cor. 4 - 4). The apostle certainly believed that he owed everythinq
to Christ, but what he actually wrote here was. "I know nothing
against myself". Among the significant points obscured by the King
James use of prepositions was the distinction between source and
mediation. In the prologue of John they said of the Word, "All
things were made by him" (I : 3). The American revisers properly
corrected it to "through him". The same change was made in I
Corinthians 8 - 6 where Christ is called the mediator rather than
the absolute source of creation.

Actual mistranslations are numerous, Paul did not write to the
Thessalonians, "Abstain from all appearance of evil" (I Thess,
5 :22). He meant that they should keep from "every form of evil."
When the Pharisee was made to say in the parable of Jesus, "I give
tithes of all that I possess", this ascribed to Jesus a
misconception of the law of the tithe. It was not on property but on
income. Hence the revisers properly wrote, "All that I get" (Luke
18 : 12). In I Timothy 6 : 5 the subject was mistaken for the
predicate. "Supposing that gain is godliness" had to be corrected
to "supposinq that godliness is, a way of gain". What Herod did with
John the Baptist when be put him in prison was not to "observe him"
but "keep him safe- (Mark 6 :20).

Some wrong translations were due to the influence of the Latin
Vulgate, In Luke 23 : 33 the 1611 Bible kept the word "Calvary",
which had been used since Tyndale for "the place which is called The
Skull", The Latin word for skull was calvaria. There is no reason
for its use in the English translation of a Greek book. The mistake
in John 10:16 has a pertinent bearing on the question of Christian
unity. The King James Version reads, "Other sheep I have, which are
not of this fold... and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd",
But in the Greek there are two different words. both of which are
translated here fold". as in the Vulgate, What the gospel says is
that there are sheep who do not belong to this fold, but that all
belong to one flock.

For its own time the 1611 version did not contain many mistakes in
Enqlish grammar. But our usage in the gender of pronouns has become
entirely different. Any student who turned in a composition with
such sentences as "salt has lost his savour", (Matthew 5 - 13),
or "my messenger. .. which shall prepare thy way" (Mark I : 2),
would have his work blue-penciled rather severely. "Cherubims"
(Hebrews 9 :5) is a false plural, for the Hebrew word "cherubim" is
itself the plural of cherub. When they wrote in Hebrews 5 :
8 "though he were a Son", it was a false use of the subjunctive for
any period of our lanquaqe. Since there is nothing hypothetical
involved, the revisers properly made it read "though he was a Son".
Probably the most notorious grammatical slip was in the story of
Peter's confession. They must have been thinking in Greek, where the
subject of an infinitive is in the accusative case, when they
wrote, "Whom do men say that I am". (Mark 8 : 27). Naturally the
revisers restored it to English syntax with the nominative "who".

The King James Version introduced many distinctions which have no
basis in the original, In their famous preface, the translators
affirmed that they did not feel bound to a single rendering for the
same word. It is true that a translator must consider the
differences of context, and give attention to the literary
possibilities of the language in which he is writing. A Greek verb
like katargeo must be rendered in English in a wide variety of ways,
but when Paul deliberately used it three times in the same paragraph
with the same meaning they were not justified in using three
different expressions (I Cor. 13 : 8-10). What was to be gained by
calling the same Old Testament character by three different names,
Jeremiah, Jeremias, and Jeremy? The result of this carelessness or
freedom (whichever we prefer to call it) is that, the King James
Version gives an inaccurate picture of the underlying Greek text,
For instance, in Acts 17:11 are told that Paul was brought to the
Areopagus. Then in 17 : 22 he stands "in the midst of Mars' Hill".
How is the reader to know that both translate the same Greek word
and are really alternative possibilities as to its meaning? It was
most unfortunate that in I Corinthians 13 and a few other places
they forsook the Anglo-Saxon word "love" for the Latin "charity" as
a translation for agape. Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva Bible had
all been uniform in their use of "love". If Paul used one and the
same word, why should not we?

In the Synoptic Gospels, where the parallels are so important, the
King James Version does not give any indication of the literary
dependence revealed by the Greek text.
Matthew 18 - 33 reads, "Shouldest not thou also have compassion on
thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee?" Why should the same
Greek word be "compassion" in one half of the sentence and "pity" in
the other? The revisers chose "mercy" in both cases. In Matthew
20,20 the King James Version reads. "Then came to him the mother of
Zebedee's children with her sons**. Zebedee may have had daughters
as well as sons, but the Greek word is "son" in each case.

On the other hand, the translators of the King James Version
obliterated many distinctions which are in the Greek, They
used "bell" indiscriminately for "Hades" (Matt, II : 23) and for -
Gehenna" (Matt. 5: 22). One meant the abode of the dead. the other,
a place of punishment. But how could the English reader know which
Greek word stood in any individual passage? The revisers of 1881
were very careful at this point, Again, the King James Version used
the word "beast" both for the four "living creatures" who stood
round about the throne singing praises to God (Rev. 4:6) and for the
diabolical monsters who were the opponents of God and his servants
(Rev. II :7: 13 - I). In the original, entirely different words are
used and the, revisers made this clear. To mention one more point,
the distinctions in Greek tenses were often not observed, even when
it was important for the meaning.

Two illustrations will suffice of the anachronisms which slipped
into the King James Version. The resurrection of Jesus is central in
the New
Testament, but that does not mean that apostolic Christianity had a
festival which they called "Easter" (Acts 12 : 4) Our Easter may be
close to the Jewish Passover, but that is hardly a justification for
translating the latter word as "Easter' , . It seemed perfectly
natural in
Elizabethan England that a woman should light a candle and sweep
the house to find a lost coin (Luke 15:Cool. But in first-century
Palestine
it was a little lamp which gave light to the room. The more exact
knowledge of the revisers made possible these corrections.

Examples might be extended almost indefinitely. but enough have been
given to indicate why so many changes were made by the revisers. In
their desire to remove inaccuracies, they may be accused of having
dropped into other pitfalls. A later chapter will deal with what
they failed to do and some of the points on which their judgment
proved faulty, But no one can, successfully deny that the English
Revised Version, and the American Standard Version provided the most
faithful and accurate translation of the New Testament which had yet
been produced. An advance to a more perfect translation could only
begin by building on their achievements.

LAST, I wish to make a comment. The King James Bible was an excellent translation in its day, but many thousands of manuscripts and parts of ancient manuscripts have been uncovered/found since then and our understanding of Koine Greek has improved since then very much. Also, the KJB was influenced by the biases of the day, and also contained some unauthorized additions in violation of Revelation 22:18-19.


SECOND, Here is more on the well known illegitimate addition to the Bible known as the Johanna Comma:


1 John 5:7 and 8

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one (KJV).

1. Some English versions have a shorter rendition of 1 John 5:7 and 8 than the KJV quoted above. The King James Version has words that support the Trinity that most modern versions do not have. How can this be? The reason that there are different translations of this verse is that some Greek texts contain an addition that was not original, and that addition was placed into some English versions, such as the KJV (the words added to some Greek texts are underlined in the quotation above). The note in the NIV Study Bible, which is well known for its ardent belief in the Trinity, says, "The addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or NT translation prior to the 16th century."

Most modern versions are translated from Greek texts without the addition. We will quote the NIV: "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." We agree with the textual scholars and conclude from the evidence of the Greek texts that the statement that the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit are "one" was added to the Word of God by men, and thus has no weight of truth.

There are many Trinitarian scholars who freely admit that the Greek text from which the KJV is translated was adjusted in this verse to support the Trinity. The Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, author of the unparalleled work, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research, and the multi-volumed Word Pictures in the New Testament, writes:

At this point [1 John 5:7] the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, [No.] 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it, and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian's exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus."42

Robertson shows how this addition entered the text. It was a marginal note. Since all texts were hand-copied, when a scribe, copying a text, accidentally left a word or sentence out of his copy, he would place it in the margin in hopes that the next scribe would copy it back into the text. Unfortunately, scribes occasionally did not make the distinction between what a previous scribe had left out of the last copy and wrote in the margin, and marginal notes that another scribe had written in the margin to help him understand the text. Therefore, some marginal notes got copied into the text as Scripture. Usually these additions are easy to spot because the "new" text will differ from all the other texts. However, there are times when people adore their theology more than the God-breathed original, and they fight for the man-made addition as if it were the original words of God. This has been the case with 1 John 5:7 and 8, and we applaud the honesty of the translators of modern versions who have left it out of their translations.

The famous textual scholar, F. F. Bruce, does not even mention the addition in his commentary on 1 John (The Epistles of John). The International Critical Commentary does not mention it either. The conservative commentator R. C. H. Lenski, in his 12 volume commentary on the New Testament, only mentions that it is proper to leave the addition out. He writes: "The R. V. [Revised Version] is right in not even noting in the margin the interpolation found in the A.V. [KJV]." Henry Alford, author of the The Greek Testament, a Greek New Testament with extensive critical notes and commentary, writes:

...OMITTED BY ALL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS previous to the beginning of the 16th century;

ALL the GREEK FATHERS (even when producing texts in support of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity: as e.g., by [abbreviated names of Church "fathers"] Clem Iren Hipp Dion Ath Did Bas Naz Nys Ephih Caes Chr Procl Andr Damasc (EC Thl Euthym);

ALL THE ANCIENT VERSIONS (including the Vulgate (as it came from Jerome, see below) and (though interpolated in the modern editions, the Syriac;

AND MANY LATIN FATHERS (viz. Novat Hil Lucif Ambr Faustin Leo Jer Aug Hesych Bede) [Emphasis his].43

2. With the spurious addition gone, it is clear that there is no reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 and 8. The context is speaking of believing that Jesus is the Son of God (v. 5 and 10). There are three that testify that Jesus is the Son of God: the spirit that Jesus received at his baptism, the water of his baptism and the blood that he shed.

Scripture says, "We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God which He has given about his Son" (v. 9). This verse is so true! How often people accept man's testimony and believe what men say, but do not believe what God says. We need to accept the testimony of God that He has given about His Son, and agree with the testimony of the spirit, the water and the blood, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Farley, pp. 28-33

Morgridge, pp. 70-87

Sir Isaac Newton, "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture," reprinted in 1841 (John Green, 121 Newgate Street, London), pp. 1-58.

Norton, pp. 185 and 186

Racovian Catechism, pp. 39-42

Snedeker, pp. 118-120 [source - Bible Unitarians - Scholars]

I hope this gives you the facts and you realize this scripture as given in some Bibles is spurious.


Additional Data on 1 John 5:7 by None Christian Scholars:

1.2.2.5 1 John 5:7
The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 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."


This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been asking for. However, as I would later find out, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says:


"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."


Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and God's people. Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a "Trinity" therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God chose to inspire someone to insert this verse in order to clarify the true nature of God as being a "Trinity." Notice how mankind was being inspired as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being "inspired" (see chapter two).


If these people were being "inspired" by God, I wondered, then why did they need to put these words into other people's mouths (in our example, in the mouth of John). Why did they not just openly say "God inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name"? Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to "inspire" his "true" nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself?


The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words:


"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza."

"Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418.


Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who also proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only first inserted by the Church into the Bible in the year 400C.E.(Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).


Regarding Porson's most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbon later said


"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text."


To which Mr. Bentley responds:


"In fact, they are not. No modern Bible now contains the interpolation."


Mr. Bentley, however, is mistaken. Indeed, just as Mr. Gibbon had predicted, the simple fact that the most learned scholars of Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse to be a later interpolation of the Church has not prevented the preservation of this fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.


Peake's Commentary on the Bible says


"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."


It was only the horrors of the great inquisitions which held back Sir Isaac Newton from openly revealing these facts to all:


"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books... Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honor for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best"

Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, p. 156


According to Newton, this verse first appeared for in the third edition of Erasmus's (1466-1536) New Testament.


For all of the above reasons, we find that when thirty two biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations got together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is. For more on the compilation of the RSV Bible, please read the preface of any modern copy of that Bible.


Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a "colt", or was it an "ass and a colt"? see point 42 in the table of section 2.2) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read:


"And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring [him]. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed [them] in the way And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."


Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is completely free of any description of the "Trinity" which is supposedly a description of the very nature of the one who rode this ass, who is claimed to be the only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of mankind. I found myself asking the question: If every aspect of Christian faith is described in such detail such that even the description of this ass is so vividly depicted for us, then why is the same not true for the description of the "Trinity"? Sadly, however, it is a question for which there is no logical answer.


Once again, here is the table:



- Explicit Statement Implicit Statement
God is ONE Isaiah 43:10-11, Deuteronomy 4:39, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 45:22, Exodus 20:3, Exodus 34:14 -
God is TWO John 1:1, John 10:30 John 20:28, John.14:6, John 14:8-9
God is THREE 1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,

II Corinthians 13:14,

Jude 1:20-21

God is MANY Genesis 1:26 -
[source - Muslim-SA@acsu.buffalo.edu]

Forum Owner Muslims, Bible, Quran (Koran) and Copyist Mistakes May 17 2005, 2:22 PM

Muslims, Bible, Quran (Koran) and Copyist Mistakes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's my latest effort at a discussion with a Muslim I managed to inveigle into R Catholic-L (of Yahoo Groups). Any comments about my discussion with Fadi? Part 2 covers the Johannine Comma (late textual addition of 1 John 5:7).
As you know, I consider the threat of Islam to be far more dangerous and important than bashing ORTHODOX Catholics like Fr. Raymond E. Brown! <g>

Sean

see also Bible Contradictions Answered originally by Andrew Tong, edited by PhilVaz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Fadi, thanks for this note.

Apologies for the delay. I have been distracted at home by various matters.

PP> is Phil Porvaznik, FS> is Fadi, a Muslim, the rest is Sean Brooks

PP> No need to find it disturbing. Catholics (or Eastern Orthodox) are NOT "Sola Scriptura" (Scripture ALONE) -- we DO NOT rely on the Bible ALONE for our beliefs. You have mistaken Sean Brooks and I for Protestant Fundamentalists. That is one reason I said the slight differences you have pointed out are NOT a problem. >>

FS> Ok I have no problem with catholics basing their faith on other works besides the Bible but to say that it is not a problem to have unknown... >>

Nope. Not a problem. You didn't understand what Phil Porvaznik was saying. We CATHOLICS don't say revelation is from the Bible alone. The Church teaches that God speaks thru BOTH the Bible and from TRADITION. And I repeat that trivial scribal errors don't matter

FS> That is like saying God isn't perfect: [like saying] Contradictions in Divine inspiraton is a TOTALLY FAIR ASSESSMENT of God's work. Yes, God has limits like not doing stupid things or silly things but God is not so... >>

No. We say God chose to work thru imperfect human beings, accepting their human limitations and weaknesses. To say nothing of God assented to revelation being given to mankind "filtered" thru the cultures and literary styles and genres the sacred authors chose to write with.

PP> Another reason is they are simply not a problem for most Fundamentalists either. Consider James R. White's book The King James Only Controversy (Bethany House, 1995). White is a Protestant Reformed anti-Catholic but basically agrees with Catholics/Orthodox on the issues of text, transmission, and copyist error. They are quite insignificant, despite what you may read in Ahmed Deedat (Muslim apologist). >>

FS> Now I'm gonna reply to this not only because I'm a big fan of Deedat but because to say that errors are insignificant is such a STRONG phrase to use when describing the work of God. Its like seeing your boss at work make a mistake and not telling him because you want a raise. >>

See Page 15

Admin
Admin

Posts : 2711
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile http://religioustruths.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Digital Book On The Trinity And Why It Is Only A Myth:

Post  Admin on Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:27 pm

Page 15

And I repeat, as I and others have said, NO doctrine of Christian faith depends on any textually dubious text. In addition, trivial errors like a scribe misspelling or omitting minor words do not matter. This phenomenon is true not only of the Bible but of ALL books copied by hand.

That is why the science of textual criticism arose over the past two centuries. Scholars study different families of mss. of the Bible, Homer's epics, the Fathers, etc., to arrive at as accurate as possible a text. And Muslims would do well to adopt such techniques to study the textual history of the Koran.

PP> Okay, we are agreed on something then. The originals were divinely inspired, even though slight imperfections came into during the transmission process. You don't believe that every person for 1,400 years who ever heard the Quran, who ever attempted to memorize or copy the Quran or parts of the Quran were inspired prophets, right? They were imperfect people, just as the monks, copyists, and scribes who transmitted the text of the Bible. Christians believe the prophets were inspired, the apostles were inspired, Jesus was divinely inspired, but the folks who transmitted the text were not. They did a great job, but they were not inspired prophets. >>

FS> Although we Muslims agree that the original Injeel and Original Torah were divinely inspired free of error that doesnt mean that... >>

Yes, they most certainly were! I know it's a Muslim contention that when the Koran speaks approvingly of the Bible, Mohammed was not referring to the actual mss. of the Bible we have. But that is not true. The Bible used by Jews and Christians of Mohammed's time was the same Bible we use today. If not, present EVIDENCE that we use a different OT and NT from the Gospel and Torah mentioned in the Koran.

FS> Nor does it mean we accept the words of Matthew, John, and Luke >>

Needless to say, I disagree. The reason why Muslims deny the NT and OT are divinely inspired is because they teach ideas and doctrines which contradict the beliefs of Islam. So Mohammed claimed that means we don't have the "true" Bible.

FS> We believe certain prophets came with the word of God. >>

Correct. Except Our Lord Jesus Christ is MORE than a mere prophet. He is also True God and True Man. And he became incarnate to teach his first disciples, die on the Cross and rise from the dead to redeem all mankind.

FS> Now in the old testament never once does it say "according to" when referring where each book came from. IN the Quran it doesn't say according to when referring to a chapter. That's because its felt they are divine inspirations. >>

What exactly is your point here? The Bible is a large collection of many different kinds of books. The genres include law codes, history, allegorical/edifying fiction, poetry, prophecy, etc. I.e., books like Deuteronomy, Kings, Tobit, Psalms, Isaiah. And we Christians say all these different kinds of books are inspired.

FS> Now taking all this in because I don't feel like adding more stuff because I'm a lazy college student and I only did this to help Sean cause because he said he needs Muslims in his forum; Yes Muslims do believe that the true Injeel and Torah are divinely inspired without errors however they would surely not have according to individuals because it would be known >>

Again, thanks for accepting my invitation to drop by this forum. Yes, I do want Muslims in here to debate and discuss theological issues with us Christians. And we say the Bible IS without error. That is, without DOCTRINAL errors. Regardless of the existence of petty scribal blunders.

PP> Your comments on the transmission of the Quran I suspect need some elaboration. But thanks for the info. I assume there are errors in the transmission of the Quran, differences in manuscript readings, etc just like the Bible. But I admit I am ignorant on the specifics, and would have to do a little study on that. >>

FS> Ok now regarding the Quran having errors in transmission. We are told in the Quran that God would protect it from errors and textual inaccuries that occur in transmission. >>

Except I am not convinced of that. The mere fact that Othman destroyed different editions or versions of the Koran after having the "standard" edition prepared means the Koran had textual variants. To say nothing of how I'm aware that some Shias accuse the Sunnis of tampering with the Koran. Plus, have all the most ancient mss. of the Koran ever yet been collated and published to show their agreements or disagreements?

FS> Much like catholics take the word of the Church in its claim that the bible truly is the ORIGINAL word of God we Muslims shall take Gods word in His claim that He will protect the Quran. >>

Until a critical edition of all the most ancient mss. of the Koran has been published, I remained unconvinced. To say nothing of how this does not matter if we Christians believe the Koran is doctrinally erroneous.

FS> Now I totally don't agree wth the brother that wrote the message that the Quran has errors or his belief that it does. It has been proven that the Quran has no errors despite some of the inaccuracies that may occur in translations from arabic because many Arabic words have different meanings. >>

Again, as you know from above, unconvincing.

FS> Needless to say we have to remember that the Quran is the epitome of what the Arabic language should be. It is the standard and it has challenged people for what 1400 some odd yrs to produce something like it and many have tried from Ibn Muqfaa' one of the premier poets of early arabian culture and ALL have failed. >>

And not all are convinced the Koran is "perfect" even as simple literature. I'll quote from Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb's ANSWERING ISLAM (Baker Books: 1993, 2002; page 192) on this point:

Eloquence is highly questionable as a test for divine inspiration. At best it only proves that Muhammad was extremely gifted. After all Mozart wrote his first symphony at the age of six! In fact Mozart was even more talented, since his entire music corpus was produced before age thirty five; Muhammad did not begin to produce the suras of the Qur'an until age forty. But what Muslims would say that Mozart's works are miraculous like the Qur'an? If eloquence were the test, then a case could be made for the divine authority of many literary classics. Homer would qualify as a prophet for producing the ILIAD and the ODYSSEY. Shakespeare is without peer in the English language. But Muslims would scarcely accept the challenge to produce a work like ROMEO AND JULIET or else accept the divine inspiration of the works of Shakespeare.

Furthermore, the Qur'an is not unrivaled, even among works in Arabic. The Islamic scholar, C.G. Pfander, points out that

"it is by no means the universal opinion of unprejudiced Arabic scholars that the literary style of the Qur'an is superior to that of all other books in the Arabic language."

For example,

"some doubt whether in eloquence and poetry it surpasses the Mualla'qat, or the Magamat or Hariri, though in Muslim lands few people are courageous enough to express such an opinion."

Moreover, the authors quote an Iranian Shia writer named Ali Dashti about the literary defects of the Koran:

"The Qur'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concord of gender and number; illogical and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects."

(cited from Geisler/Saleeb, Answering Islam, page 192)

FS> Yes Uthman burned Qurans. But he burned the ones without the accent markings because people were reading in different dialects incorrectly and it was small parts that these errors were occurring. What I find interesting is that Christians and other non-Muslims use our own history which we provide with you free of charge without hiding it from you as proof that there were other versions of the Quran. Well Im here to say you can also say that God was fufilling the prophecy that He would protect the Quran from having any errors by having Uthman burn all the other Qurans. >>

And not even all the early Muslims would agree. I have read of complaints that the editors of the Othmanic text omitted KORANIC PASSAGES. Not merely a matter of minor errors of vowel markings.

<< But the whole point is that changes occurred with time and the copies were not favored by a full divine protection and thus became unreliable.... >>

PP> Unreliable in what way? You're gonna have to be extremely specific. Let's talk Christian doctrine, and the differences in Christian doctrine that might exist between different manuscript readings, between different translations of the Bible. That is all that really matters. For example, are you saying some Bible translations/manuscript traditions teach Jesus is NOT the Son of God? or some Bible translations/manuscript traditions teach Jesus was NOT crucified? or some Bible translations/manuscript traditions teach Jesus did NOT resurrect from the dead? Those are the major differences between Islam and Christianity and they are found in ALL modern Bible translations, in ALL manuscript traditions. If you can produce a couple MAJOR differences between the various Bibles and manuscript traditions that exist, then you might have a good point. I don't think you can. We are Catholics, not Protestant Fundamentalists, so keep that in mind also. [ I recommended F.F. Bruce's The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? and Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, both Evangelical Protestant sources ] >>

FS> I have to do research on this but I'm gonna check this out and I will like to say thanx for letting me into this forum and I hope its not just because I am a Muslim!!! >>

Please do. Besides the books listed or recommended by Phil Porvaznik, I have any number in mind which I could urge you to read. I'll limit myself to two: AN INTRODUCTION TO NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY, by Fr. Raymond E. Brown. Plus the same author's INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. And, yes, I am glad to have you participating here. Take your time responding to esp. difficult or complex notes.

Pax tecum. Sean


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2: The Johannine Comma (Example of Copyist Addition)

As I "threatened," I'm finally buckling down to the task of explaining why the Bible can be said to contain "error" in a certain sense. I'll use the Johannine Comma as the specific example I'll discuss.

Setting the Stage

First, what do I mean by saying the Bible contains "error" in any sense? The following text comes from pages 686-687 of THE NEW WORLD DICTIONARY CONCORDANCE TO THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (World Bible Publishers: 1970):

None of the books of the Bible have come down to us in the manuscript of its author. We only have manuscripts that date from several centuries after the books were written. In this work of transmission there was the possibility of copyists' errors, which in fact took place, as well as deliberate modifications introduced into the text. Textual criticism is the art of recovering and establishing the authentic text of a writing on the basis of the manuscripts that we possess. The fruit of the application of textual criticism is called a recension. A recension, then, is the text that emerges when an expert in textual criticism applies his art -- the text, that is, that he judges to be nearest to the authentic one.

The first step in textual criticism is to gather the manuscript material that exists and study the interdependence between them. This means creating a genealogical tree of manuscripts. This is very important to facilitate the work, for if it can be proved that fifty manuscripts depend on one single one and another fifty on another, then it is sufficient to compare these two which are the sources of all the rest.

For textual criticism work it is also necessary to know the most common changes that occur in the transcription of the manuscripts. These changes are of two kinds, deliberate and indeliberate. Involuntary changes arise from the weakness of the human faculties, from fatigue, monotony and so on. Thus the scribe might write only once what was repeated in the original text (haplography) or vice versa (dittography). Again the scribe or amanuensis, having paused at one word, might take up again at the same word in a different place, either before or after, and in the latter case, might omit all that went between (homoeoteleuton). Confusion can arise between letters that look alike, or if the writing is done on dictation, the sounds can be confused. In copying ancient manuscripts that did not separate the words, the copyist could decide on a wrong division or badly interpret the abbreviations that abounded in those times.

Other changes however could be deliberate, such as corrections of style, grammar or orthography. Sometimes the scribe is anxious to clarify the text by additions, or to change it because of theological scruples.

(above from The New World Dictionary Concordance to the New American Bible, pages 686-687)

Next, I'm quoting from page 48 of AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT (Anchor/Doubleday:1998) by the late Fr. Raymond E. Brown.

Approximately 3,000 mss. of the Greek NT (part or whole) have been preserved, copied between the 2nd and 17th centuries, plus over 2,000 lectionary mss. containing sections (pericopes) of the NT arranged for reading in church liturgy from the 7th century on. These witnesses to the text of the NT do not agree among themselves in myriad ways, but relatively few of the differences are significant. [2] No autograph or original ms. of a NT book has been preserved; the differences came in the course of copying the original. Not all the differences stemmed from mistakes by copyists; [3] some arose from deliberate changes. Copyists, at times, felt impelled to improve the Greek of what they received, to modernize the spelling, to supplement with explanatory phrases, to harmonize Gospels, and even to omit something that seemed dubious. One might think that the oldest preserved of the Greek NT (part or whole) would be the best guide to the originals; but that is not necessarily so. For instance, a sixth century ms. might be the only remaining exemplar of a much earlier, now lost copy that was closer that was closer to the autograph than an extant 2nd- or 4th-century copy.

(above from An Introduction to the New Testament by Fr. Raymond Brown, page 48)

Notes:

[2] Metzger, NEW 281, states, "No doctrine of the Christian faith depends solely upon a passage that is textually uncertain."

[3] Copyists mistakes occurred through both the eye (mis-reading and carelessly copying from a text) and the ear (misunderstanding a person who was dictating a text aloud). One should allow too for a misreading by the person who was dictating to the copyists.

The Johannine Comma

Having thus explained the general background, I'll now discuss an example of a textually uncertain text in the New Testament, the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:6-8. I'll quote an older and then a more recent translation of that passage.

Rheims-Challoner-Confraternity NT, 1941

1 John 5.6-8: "This is he who came in water and blood, Jesus Christ; not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood. And it is the Spirit that bears witness that Christ is the truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one."

New American Bible, rev. NT (1986)

1 John 5.6-8: "This is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth. So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord."

Commentary on the Johannine Comma

Why have recent translations omitted the text "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one"? Not for any sinister reasons denying the divinity of Christ or the Trinity!

First, I'll be quoting from Pheme Perkins commentary "The Johannine Epistles," THE NEW JEROME BIBLICAL COMMENTARY (Prentice-Hall: 1990), pages 992-993:

Comma Joanneum: Some Lat witnesses contain an expansion of 1 John 5:7-8: "because there are three who testify IN HEAVEN, FATHER, WORD, AND HOLY SPIRIT; AND THESE THREE ARE ONE; AND THERE ARE THREE WHO TESTIFY ON EARTH, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are unto one." This expanded reading, the so-called Johannine Comma, is not attested before the end of the 4th cent. AD. It begins to appear in mss. of the Vg of Spanish provenience in the 8th cent. and in some Carolingian copies of the Vg, though more mss. prior to AD 1200 lack the expansion than contain it. Its presence in the Vg led to the inclusion of a Gk rendering of it in Erasmus's 3d ed. of the Gk NT (1522), whence it found its way into the textus receptus and the KJV and Rheims translation. Modern textual critics would agree with Erasmus's judgment that this Lat reading does not represent an original variant of the Gk text of 1 John. It follows a theological tradition attested from 3d cent. Church Fathers (Cyprian, DE ECCLESIAE CATHOLICAE UNITATE 6; CC 3.254; Augustine, CONTRA MAXIMINUM 2.22.3; PL 42.794-95), appealed to this text in combination with John 10:30 to provide scriptural evidence for the orthodox doctrine of the equality and unity of persons in the Trinity. (See further the Declaration of the Holy Office, EB 135-36 [1897]; DS 3681-82 [1927]).

(from The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, article on The Johannine Epistles, page 992-993)

Iow, the Johannine Comma is not an original part of the text of 1 John. Rather, it was most likely a marginal gloss or interlinear comment which scribes accidentally copied into the text. And such a view has not been condemned out of hand by the Catholic Church. One piece of evidence for my view is this comment on 1 John 5.7f from the Rheims-Challoner-Confraternity edition of the New Testament (1941):

"According to the evidence of many manuscripts, and the majority of commentators, these verses should read -- And there are three who give testimony, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one -- The Holy See reserves to itself the right to pass finally on the origin of the present reading."

Conclusion

I conclude that the Johannine Comma is an example of scribes erroneously adding to the text. And since the Church has not insisted that recent translations include the Comma as part of the text, we are not bound to accept it as genuine.

Nor does excluding the Johannine Comma from the text of 1 John mean denying the divinity of Christ or the Trinity. Those cardinal doctrines of our faith are amply attested in many other texts of the New Testament. Such as Matthew 3:13-17 (the baptism of Christ by John the Baptist), John 1:1 and 2 Corinthians 13:13.
[source - Muslims, Bible, Quran (Koran) and Copyist Mistakes, by Sean M. Brooks]

1 John 5:7-8
This is one of the most hotly debated passages in the New Testament when it comes to the King James Version debate. Compare the readings of the KJV and NIV in this passage:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV, italics added)


For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NIV)

The italicized words in the KJV are known as the Comma Johanneum. KJV only advocates point to this text perhaps more than any other as an example of modern translations omitting a significant doctrinal passage.

Understanding the history of the Comma Johanneum will help you to understand why it is not included in the modern translations of Scripture.

When Erasmus published the first edition of his Greek text, the foundation of the TR, he did not include this sentence, even though it was present in the Latin Vulgate. When challenged on this point he rashly stated that if he was shown a Greek manscript that contained it he would include it. He was finally shown such a manuscript, and thus included the phrase in his third edition, with a note that he doubted its authenticity. It appears that the manuscript (61) that Erasmus was shown was produced at Oxford about 1520 for the very purpose of showing Erasmus a manuscript with the Comma Johanneum in it.

The evidence is overwhelmingly against the Comma Johanneum being part of the original text. I will quote at length from Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pages 647-649, which summarizes the evidence quite well:

That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

(A)EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:

61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenthcentury.

88v.r.: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.

221v.r.: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in theBodleian Library at Oxford.

429v.r.: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbiittel.

636v.r. : a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.

918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.

2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 7161) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.

Clearly the manuscript evidence is overwhelming against the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum. For all of its orthodoxy, it is, sadly, an addition to Scripture. [source - http://home.wi.rr.com/rationlchristian/1John5.htm]


Dating of the Addition of the Johanna Comma to the Bible:

1 John 5:7-8 The words from "in heaven" (v. 7) through
"in earth" (v. Cool are only found in a few Greek
manuscripts, none dating earlier than the fourteenth
century. Furthermore, the passage is not quoted by any
of the Greek church fathers. The textual data suggests
that these words were absent from the original letter.
[source - Believer's Study Bible]


Comma Johanneum 1 John 5:7,8

"And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."(1 John 5:7,8 King James Version,Catholic Douay-Rheims Version).


Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote:

"We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 1Jo 5:8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim."-A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.

But what of what John Gill says in his Exposition of the New Testament? In it he writes:

"As to its being wanting in some Greek Manuscripts, as the Alexandrian and others, it need only be said that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens' , nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient Fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having scripture enough without it to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius in the beginning of the sixth century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as had been observed before it in his translation made in the latter part of the fourth century. In his epistle to Eustochium prefixed to his translation of the canonical epistles, he complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian, in the middle of the 3rd century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian about the year 200; and which was within 100 years, or a little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of the passage; and besides there was never any dispute over it till Erasmus left it out of the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation."

So what is wrong with the above quote?


Gill lived in the 18th century, most of the ancient texts where unknown in his day.


The Comma Johanneum is not in "many other Greek Manuscripts.


It is not in 9 of the 16 used by Stephanus.


It was found in 4 Greek manuscripts that popped up after Erasmus's 2nd edition.


The "ancient" copies of Stephanus did not predate the 10th century.


The "old British Copy" was miniscule 61, which was written after Erasmus's 2nd edition, apparently so that he was forced to include it in his later editions.


Erasmus protested that he was forced to include it under duress.*


Erasmus claimed the comma johanneum was not original.


The Fathers cited by Gill were not citing scripture.


The comma johanneum did not become established until the 5th Century.


It does not appear in Jerome`s Vulgate(Gill didn`t know that there were revisions made after Jerome.["This passage is absent from the original Vulgate, but later found its way into the Latin text and is present in the Clementine edition." The English Bible, F.F. Bruce p.204]


The comma johanneum doesn`t appear in the Vulgate until the 9th century.


In the Eastern Church(orthodox) where Greek was still being used, not ONE manuscript had the comma johanneum.


The Complutensian edition included the comma johanneum because it found it in the Vulgate, not any greek manuscript that we know of.


In the fourth century C.E., in a Latin treatise, an overzealous advocate of
the newly framed Trinity teaching evidently included the words "in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one" as if
these were a quotation from 1 John 5:7. Later that passage crept right into
a Latin bible Manuscript. It appears in cursive mss No. 61 (16th century)
and No. 629 (in Latin and Greek, 14th to 15th century) and Vgc (Latin
Vulgate, Clementine recension).

*Erasmus was attacked for not adding the Comma Johanneum(1John 5:7,Cool. He answered that he had not found the words in any greek manuscript, including several he examined after publishing his editions. But he unwisely said that he would insert the Comma Johanneum in future editions if a greek manuscript could be found that contained the spurious passage. Interestingly, one was found, or made, that contained the words. The manuscript was made by a Franciscan friar named Froy(or Roy) in 1520 A.D. Erasmus kept his word and added the passage in his 3rd edition, but he added a long footnote expressing his suspicion that the manuscript had been prepared just so to confute him.
Also,

"Luther used the text prepared by Erasmus. But even though the inserted words taught the Trinity, Luther ruled them out and never had them in his translation. In 1550 Bugenhagen objected to these words 'on account of the truth.' In 1574 Feyerabend, a printer, added them to Luther's text, and in 1596 they appeared in the Wittenburg copies." footnote at 1 John 5:7-9 by William F. Beck(The Holy Bible in the Language of Today)
When Erasmus translated his Greek "New Testament," he appealed to the authority of the Vatican Codex to omit the spurious words from 1 John chapter 5, verses 7 and 8. Erasmus was right, yet as late as 1897 Pope Leo XIII upheld the corrupted Latin text of the Vulgate. This insertion was protected by the Vatican until 1927. Only with the publication of modern Roman Catholic translations has this textual error been acknowledged. Thus, a footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are "not in any of the early Greek MSS
[manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the
Vulg[ate] itself."

In the _Interpreter's Bible_ which can be found in about any county
library, the following is stated concerning 1 John 5:7ff:

"This verse in the KJV is to be rejected (with RSV). It appears in no
ancient Greek MS nor is it cited by any Greek fathers; of all the
versions only the Latin contained it, and even this in none of its most
ancient sources. The earliest MSS of the Vulg. do not have it. As [CH]
Dodd (Johannine Epistles, p. 127n) reminds us, "It is first quoted as a
part of 1 John by Priscillian, the Spanish heretic, who died in 385,
and it gradually made its way into MSS of the Latin Vulgate until it
was accepted as part of the authorized Latin text." The mention in the
true text (vs. Cool of the three witnesses which agree naturally led to
an interpretation along trinitarian lines, and this occasioned the
present gloss which appears in various forms in MSS and quotations from
the fifth century onward" (Interpreter's Bible, 293-294).
One of the translators of the NIV also writes the following about 1
John 5:7:

"Anyone who uses a recent scholarly version of the NT will see that
these words on the Trinity are not in verse 7. This is because they
have no basis in the Greek text. Under Roman Catholic pressure, Erasmus
inserted them from the Latin Vulgate. They are not a part of the
inspired Bible" (Word Meanings in the NT, Ralph Earle. P. 452).
"Robert M. Grant makes this comment about 1 John 5:6-8:

"To this mysterious but not theologically useful passage a Spanish
Pricillianist in the late fourth century added explicitly trinitarian
language so that it would mention three witnesses "on earth" and end
thus: "And there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Spirit, and these three are one." The addition is suitable in a
Johannine context, for it refers to the Logos as John does and is
ultimately based on "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
Unfortunately it is not genuine, since it appears in no old manuscript
or versions or in any early [church] fathers" (_Gods and the One God_,
Robert M. Grant. P. 151).
Also read William Barclay's commentary on 1 John
and Raymond Brown's extensive treatment of the subject in his Anchor
Bible Commentary.



Which texts DO contain these words? "Among the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the NT examined since the time of Erasmus, only three others are known to contain this spurious passage. They are Greg. 88, a 12th century manuscript which has the Comma writen in the margin in a 17th century hand; Tisch. w 110, which is a 16th century manuscript copy of the Complutensian Polyglot Greek text; and Greg. 629. dating from the 14th century or, as Riggenbach has argued, from the latter half of the 16th century." The Text of the New Testament-It Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration [Third Enlraged Edition] by Bruce M. Metzger p.102,103
What I would like to know is, why, if the Bible teaches the Trinity like the trinitarians claim, is there such a need to go thru great lengths to add a triune formula to the text that was never there to begin with, especially after the Bible says,"I testify to everyone who gears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book."(rev.22:18)
WHY? Because the Bible does not teach a Trinity:The New Encyclopædia Britannica observes:

"Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament." [source - http://freeweb.lombardiacom.it/bergheim/esegesi%20biblica/1%20giov5%207%20e%208/comma%20johanneum.htm}


Quote from Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verse 7
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

It is not possible to tell exactly what the apostle had in mind here. He could have been referring to the witness of the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove and alighting and remaining upon him at the time of Jesus' baptism, thus witnessing to the divinity and Godhead of Jesus; or, he might have reference to his own inspired testimony. It should be remembered that he was one of the Twelve to whom Jesus promised that the Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13). As Orr noted, "The present tense might be significant here"; F13 and that would seem to make the second alternative the preferable view.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verse 8
For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

There are three that bear witness ...
Note the use of the present tense, contrasting with the past tense of 1 John 5:6, a fact that indicates the three agreeing witnesses as giving their testimony at the time of John's writing and continuously thereafter.

The Spirit ...
There is no doubt regarding the identity of this witness, the same being the inspired testimony of the holy apostles of Jesus Christ as revealed in the New Testament; and apart from that New Testament, there is no other authentic written source of the historical events which are the foundation of Christianity. Of the many claims in our own times regarding people claiming to "have the Spirit," not any one of them, nor all of them put together has ever produced a single line of intelligible teaching regarding the holy religion of Christ. In a lesser sense, of course, the earnest of the Holy Spirit given to all believers in Christ on condition of and subsequent to their repentance and baptism imparts the blessed fruit of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, etc. (Galatians 5:22).

And the water ...
At the time John wrote, the baptism of Christ could hardly have been spoken of as "witnessing" anything. It was a past event, by a whole generation; and John here spoke of the water as "witnessing" in the present tense. How could this be true? The grand initiatory rite of the Christian religion is a continual witness in all generations of the essential facts of the gospel; namely, the death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God. The very form of the ordinance with its burial and resurrection to "walk in newness of life" was designed for that very purpose; and how Satan does hate it! In all ages and communities, a believer's baptism "into Christ" declares the gospel message. It is a continuing witness of almost cosmic dimensions, taking place thousands of thousands of times in every place and at every time throughout history. As Macknight stated it: "The water is the rite of baptism regularly administered in the Christian church to the end of the world." F14

And the blood ...
"The blood signifies the commemoration of the shedding of the blood of Christ for the remission of sins, in the Lord's Supper." F15 As the apostle Paul declared, "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death until he come" (1 Corinthians 11:26), thus clearly designating this grand ordinance of the religion of Christ as a continuing witness of the holy gospel until the end of time, "until he come." How could there be any doubt that John spoke of the same thing here?

[source - Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament]


Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible

Verses 6-9 The faith of the Christian believer (or the believer in Christ) being thus mighty and victorious, it had need to be well founded, to be furnished with unquestionable celestial evidence concerning the divine mission, authority, and office of the Lord Jesus; and it is so; he brings his credentials along with him, and he brings them in a way by which he came and in the witness that attends him. I. In the way and manner by which he came; not barely by which he came into the world, but by and with which he came, and appeared, and acted, as a Saviour in the world: This is he that came by water and blood. He came to save us from our sins, to give us eternal life, and bring us to God; and, that he might the more assuredly do this, he came by, or with, water and blood. Even Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ, I say, did so; and none but he. And I say it again, not by or with water only, but by and with water and blood, v. 6. Jesus Christ came with water and blood, as the notes and signatures of the true effectual Saviour of the world; and he came by water and blood as the means by which he would heal and save us. That he must and did thus come in his saving office may appear by our remembering these things:- 1. We are inwardly and outwardly defiled. (1.) Inwardly, by the power and pollution off sin and in our nature. For our cleansing from this we need spiritual water; such as can reach the soul and the powers of it. Accordingly, there is in and by Christ Jesus the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. And this was intimated to the apostles by our Lord, when he washed their feet, and said to Peter, who refused to be washed, Except I wash thee, thou hast no part in me. (2.) We are defiled outwardly, by the guilt and condemning power of sin upon our persons. By this we are separated from God, and banished from his favourable, gracious, beatific presence for ever. From this we must be purged by atoning blood. It is the law or determination in the court of heaven that without shedding of blood there shall be no remission, Heb. 9:22. The Saviour from sin therefore must come with blood. 2. Both these ways of cleansing were represented in the old ceremonial institutions of God. Persons and things must be purified by water and blood. There were divers washings and carnal ordinances imposed till the time of reformation, Heb. 9:10. The ashes of a heifer, mixed with water, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, Heb. 9:13; Num. 19:9. And likewise almost all things are, by the law, purged with blood, Heb. 9:22. As those show us our double defilement, so they indicate the Saviour's two-fold purgation. 3. At and upon the death of Jesus Christ, his side being pierced with a soldier's spear, out of the wound there immediately issued water and blood. This the beloved apostle saw, and he seems to have been affected with the sight; he alone records it, and seems to reckon himself obliged to record it, and seems to reckon himself obliged to record it, as containing something mysterious in it: And he that saw it bore record, and his record is true. And he knoweth, being an eye-witness, that he saith true, that you might believe, and that you might believe this particularly, that out of his pierced side forthwith there came water and blood, Jn. 19:34, 35. Now this water and blood are comprehensive of all that is necessary and effectual to our salvation. By the water our souls are washed and purified for heaven and the region of saints in light. By the blood God is glorified, his law is honoured, and his vindictive excellences are illustrated and displayed. Whom God hath set forth, or purposed, or proposed, a propitiation through faith in his blood, or a propitiation in or by his blood through faith, to declare his righteousness, that he may be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, Rom. 3:25, 26. By the blood we are justified, reconciled, and presented righteous to God. By the blood, the curse of the law being satisfied, and purifying Spirit is obtained for the internal ablution of our natures. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit, the promised Spirit, through faith, Gal. 3:13, etc. The water, as well as the blood, issued out of the side of the sacrificed Redeemer. The water and the blood then comprehend all things that can be requisite to our salvation. They will consecrate and sanctify to that purpose all that God shall appoint or make use of in order to that great end. He loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, Eph. 5:25-27. He who comes by water and blood is an accurate perfect Saviour. And this is he who comes by water and blood, even Jesus Christ! Thus we see in what way and manner, or, if you please, with what utensils, he comes. But we see his credentials also, II. In the witness that attends him, and that is, the divine Spirit, that Spirit to whom the perfecting of the works of God is usually attributed: And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, v. 6. It was meet that the commissioned Saviour of the world should have a constant agent to support his work, and testify of him to the world. It was meet that a divine power should attend him, his gospel, and servants; and notify to the world upon what errand and office they came, and by what authority they were sent: this was done in and by the Spirit of God, according to the Saviour's own prediction, "He shall glorify me, even when I shall be rejected and crucified by men, for he shall receive or take of mine. He shall not receive my immediate office; he shall not die and rise again for you; but he shall receive of mine, shall proceed on the foundation I have laid, shall take up my institution, and truth, and cause, and shall further show it unto you, and by you to the world,'' Jn. 16:14. And then the apostle adds the commendation or the acceptableness of this witness: Because the Spirit is truth, v. 6. He is the Spirit of God, and cannot lie. There is a copy that would afford us a very suitable reading thus: because, or that, Christ is the truth. And so it indicates the matter of the Spirit's testimony, the thing which he attests, and that is, the truth of Christ: And it is the Spirit that beareth witness that Christ is the truth; and consequently that Christianity, or the Christian religion, is the truth of the day, the truth of God. But it is meet that one or two copies should alter the text; and our present reading is very agreeable, and so we retain it. The Spirit is truth. He is indeed the Spirit of truth, Jn. 14:17. And that the Spirit is truth, and a witness worthy of all acceptation, appears in that he is a heavenly witness, or one of the witnesses that in and from heaven bore testimony concerning the truth and authority of Christ. Because (or for) there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And so v. 7 most appositely occurs, as a proof of the authenticity of the Spirit's testimony; he must needs be true, or even truth itself, if he be not only a witness in heaven, but even one (not in testimony only, for so an angel may be, but in being and essence) with the Father and the Word. But here, 1. We are stopped in our course by the contest there is about the genuineness of v. 7. It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not. We shall not here enter into the controversy. It should seem that the critics are not agreed what manuscripts have it and what not; nor do they sufficiently inform us of the integrity and value of the manuscripts they peruse. Some may be so faulty, as I have an old printed Greek Testament so full of errata, that one would think no critic would establish a various lection thereupon. But let the judicious collators of copies manage that business. There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading. As, (1.) If we admit v. 8, in the room of v. 7, it looks too like a tautology and repetition of what was included in v. 6, This is he that came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and blood; and it is the Spirit that beareth witness. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood. This does not assign near so noble an introduction of these three witnesses as our present reading does. (2.) It is observed that many copies read that distinctive clause, upon the earth: There are three that bear record upon the earth. Now this bears a visible opposition to some witness or witnesses elsewhere, and therefore we are told, by the adversaries of the text, that this clause must be supposed to be omitted in most books that want v. 7. But it should for the same reason be so in all. Take we v. 6, This is he that came by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. It would not now naturally and properly be added, For there are three that bear record on earth, unless we should suppose that the apostle would tell us that all the witnesses are such as are on earth, when yet he would assure us that one is infallibly true, or even truth itself. (3.) It is observed that there is a variety of reading even in the Greek text, as in v. 7. Some copies read hen eisi - are one; others (at least the Complutensian ) eis to hen eisin - are to one, or agree in one; and in v. 8 (in that part that it is supposed should be admitted), instead of the common en te ge - in earth, the Complutensian reads epi tes ges - upon earth, which seems to show that that edition depended upon some Greek authority, and not merely, as some would have us believe, upon the authority either of the vulgar Latin or of Thomas Aquinas, though his testimony may be added thereto. (4.) The seventh verse is very agreeable to the style and the theology of our apostle; as, [1.] He delights in the title the Father, whether he indicates thereby God only, or a divine person distinguished from the Son. I and the Father are one. And Yet I am not alone; because the Father is with me. I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. Grace be with you, and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, 2 Jn. 3. Then, [2.] The name the Word is known to be almost (if not quite) peculiar to this apostle. Had the text been devised by another, it had been more easy and obvious, from the form of baptism, and the common language of the church, to have used the name Son instead of that of the Word. As it is observed that Tertullian and Cyprian use that name, even when they refer to this verse; or it is made an objection against their referring to this verse, because they speak of the Son, not the Word; and yet Cyprian's expression seems to be very clear by the citation of Facundus himself. Quod Johannis apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus, Carthaginensis antistes et martyr, in epistolâ sive libro, quem de Trinitate scripsit, de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu sancto dictum intelligit; ait enim, Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt.-Blessed Cyprian, the Carthaginian bishop and martyr, in the epistle or book he wrote concerning the Trinity, considered the testimony of the apostle John as relating to the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit; for he says, the Lord says, I and the Father are one; and again, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit it is written, And these three are one. Now it is nowhere written that these are one, but in v. 7. It is probable than that St. Cyprian, either depending on his memory, or rather intending things more than words, persons more than names, or calling persons by their names more usual in the church (both in popular and polemic discourses), called the second by the name of the Son rather than of the Word. If any man can admit Facundus's fancy, that Cyprian meant that the Spirit, the water, and the blood, were indeed the Father, Word, and Spirit, that John said were one, he may enjoy his opinion to himself. For, First, He must suppose that Cyprian not only changed all the names, but the apostle's order too. For the blood (the Son), which Cyprian puts second, the apostle puts last. And, Secondly, He must suppose that Cyprian thought that by the blood which issued out of the side of the Son the apostle intended the Son himself, who might as well have been denoted by the water,-that by the water, which also issued from the side of the Son, the apostle intended the person of the Holy Ghost,-that by the Spirit, which in v. 6 is said to be truth, and in the gospel is called the Spirit of truth, the apostle meant the person of the Father, though he is nowhere else so called when joined with the Son and the Holy Ghost. We require good proof that the Carthaginian father could so understand the apostle. He who so understands him must believe too that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are said to be three witnesses on earth. Thirdly, Facundus acknowledges that Cyprian says that of his three it is written, Et hi tres unum sunt-and these three are one. Now these are the words, not of v. 8, but of v. 7. They are not used concerning the three on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; but the three in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost. So we are told that the author of the book De baptismo haereticorum, allowed to be contemporary with Cyprian, cites John's words, agreeably to the Greek manuscripts and the ancient versions, thus: Ait enim Johannes de Domino nostro in epistol