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

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. 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,. 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. 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 epistolâ nos docens, Hic es qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus, non in aquâ tantum, sed in aquâ et sanguine; et Spiritus est qui testimonium perhibet, quia Spiritus est veritas; quia tres testimonium perhibent, Spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et isti tres in unum sunt-For John, in his epistle, says concerning our Lord, This is he, Jesus Christ, who came by water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood; and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth; for there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. If all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions say concerning the Spirit, the water, and the blood, that in unum sunt-they agree in one, then it was not of them that Cyprian spoke, whatever variety there might be in the copies in his time, when he said it is written, unum sunt-they are one. And therefore Cyprian's words seem still to be a firm testimony to v. 7, and an intimation likewise that a forger of the text would have scarcely so exactly hit upon the apostolical name for the second witness in heaven, the Word. Them, [3.] As only this apostle records the history of the water and blood flowing out of the Saviour's side, so it is he only, or he principally, who registers to us the Saviour's promise and prediction of the Holy spirit's coming to glorify him, and to testify of him, and to convince the world of its own unbelief and of his righteousness, as in his gospel, ch. 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15. It is most suitable then to the diction and to the gospel of this apostle thus to mention the Holy Ghost as a witness for Jesus Christ. Then, (5.) It was far more easy for a transcriber, by turning away his eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, it being obliterated or defaced on the top or bottom of a page, or worn away in such materials as the ancients had to write upon, to lose and omit the passage, than for an interpolator to devise and insert it. He must be very bold and impudent who could hope to escape detection and shame; and profane too, who durst venture to make an addition to a supposed sacred book. And, (6.) It can scarcely be supposed that, when the apostle is representing the Christian's faith in overcoming the world, and the foundation it relies upon in adhering to Jesus Christ, and the various testimony that was attended him, especially when we consider that he meant to infer, as he does (v. 9), If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this (which he had rehearsed before) is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. Now in the three witnesses on earth there is neither all the witness of God, nor indeed any witness who is truly and immediately God. The antitrinitarian opposers of the text will deny that either the Spirit, or the water, or the blood, is God himself; but, upon our present reading, here is a noble enumeration of the several witnesses and testimonies supporting the truth of the Lord Jesus and the divinity of his institution. Here is the most excellent abridgment or breviate of the motives to faith in Christ, of the credentials the Saviour brings with him, and of the evidences of our Christianity, that is to be found, I think, in the book of God, upon which single account, even waiving the doctrine of the divine Trinity, the text is worthy of all acceptation. 2. Having these rational grounds on out side, we proceed. The apostle, having told us that the Spirit

See Page 16

Page 16

that bears witness to Christ is truth, shows us that he is so, by assuring us that he is in heaven, and that there are others also who cannot but be true, or truth itself, concurring in testimony with him: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one, v. 7. (1.) Here is a trinity of heavenly witnesses, such as have testified and vouched to the world the veracity and authority of the Lord Jesus in his office and claims, where, [1.] The first that occurs in order is the Father; he set his seal to the commission of the Lord Christ all the while he was here; more especially, First, In proclaiming him at his baptism, Mt. 3:17. Secondly, In confirming his character at the transfiguration, Mt. 17:5. Thirdly, In accompanying him with miraculous power and works: If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though you believe not me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him, Jn. 10:37, 38. Fourthly, In avouching at his death, Mt. 27:54. Fifthly, In raising him from the dead, and receiving him up to his glory: He shall convince the world-of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and you see me no more, Jn. 16:10, and Rom. 1:4. [2.] The second witness in the Word, a mysterious name, importing the highest nature that belongs to the Saviour of Jesus Christ, wherein he existed before the world was, whereby he made the world, and whereby he was truly God with the Father. He must bear witness to the human nature, or to the man Christ Jesus, in and by whom he redeemed and saved us; and he bore witness, First, By the mighty works that he wrought. Jn. 5:17, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Secondly, In conferring a glory upon him at his transfiguration. And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, Jn. 1:14. Thirdly, In raising him from the dead. Jn. 2:19, Destroy this temple, and in three days will I raise it up. [3.] The third witness is the Holy Ghost, or the Holy Spirit, and august, venerable name, the possessor, proprietor, and author of holiness. True and faithful must he be to whom the Spirit of holiness sets his seal and solemn testimony. So he did to the Lord Jesus, the head of the Christian world; and that in such instances as these:- First, In the miraculous production of his immaculate human nature in the virgin's womb. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, Lu. 1:35, etc. Secondly, In the visible descent upon him at his baptism. The Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, Lu. 3:22, etc. Thirdly, In an effectual conquest of the spirits of hell and darkness. If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come unto you, Mt. 12:28. Fourthly, In the visible potent descent upon the apostles, to furnish them with gifts and powers to preach him and his gospel to the world after he himself had gone to heaven, Acts 1:4, 5; 2:2-4, etc. Fifthly, In supporting the name, gospel, and interest of Christ, by miraculous gifts and operations by and upon the disciples, and in the churches, for two hundred years (1 Co. 12:7), concerning which see Dr. Whitby's excellent discourse in the preface to the second volume of his Commentary on the New Testament. These are witnesses in heaven; and they bear record from heaven; and they are one, it should seem, not only in testimony (for that is implied in their being three witnesses to one and the same thing), but upon a higher account, as they are in heaven; they are one in their heavenly being and essence; and, if one with the Father, they must be one God. (2.) To these there is opposed, though with them joined, a trinity of witnesses on earth, such as continue here below: And there are three that bear witness on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one, v. 8. [1.] Of these witnesses the first is the spirit. This must be distinguished from the person of the Holy Ghost, who is in heaven. We must say then, with the Saviour (according to what is reported by this apostle), that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, Jn. 3:6. The disciples of the Saviour are, as well as others, born after the flesh. They come into the world endued with a corrupt carnal disposition, which is enmity to God. This disposition must be mortified and abolished. A new nature must be communicated. Old lusts and corruptions must be eradicated, and the true disciple become a new creature. The regeneration or renovation of souls is a testimony to the Saviour. It is his actual though initial salvation. It is a testimony on earth, because it continues with the church here, and is not performed in that conspicuous astonishing manner in which signs from heaven are accomplished. To this Spirit belong not only the regeneration and conversion of the church, but its progressive sanctification, victory over the world, her peace, and love, and joy, and all that grace by which she is made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light. [2.] The second is the water. This was before considered as a means of salvation, now as a testimony to the Saviour himself, and intimates his purity and purifying power. And so it seems to comprehend, First, The purity of his own nature and conduct in the world. He was holy, harmless, and undefiled. Secondly, The testimony of John's baptism, who bore witness of him, prepared a people for him, and referred them to him, Mk. 1:4, 7, 8. Thirdly, The purity of his own doctrine, by which souls are purified and washed. Now you are clean through the word that I have spoken unto you, Jn. 15:3. Fourthly, The actual and active purity and holiness of his disciples. His body is the holy catholic church. Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit, 1 Pt. 1:22. And this signed and sealed by, Fifthly, The baptism that he has appointed for the initiation or introduction of his disciples, in which he signally (or by that sign) says, Except I wash thee, thou hast no part in me. Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, 1 Pt. 3:21. [3.] The third witness is the blood; this he shed, and this was our ransom. This testifies for Jesus Christ, First, In that it sealed up and finished the sacrifices of the Old Testament, Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Secondly, In that it confirmed his own predictions, and the truth of all his ministry and doctrine, Jn. 18:37. Thirdly, In that it showed unparalleled love to God, in that he would die a sacrifice to his honour and glory, in making atonement for the sins of the world, Jn. 14:30, 31. Fourthly, In that it demonstrated unspeakable love to us; and none will deceive those whom they entirely love, Jn. 14:13-15. Fifthly, In that it demonstrated the disinterestedness of the Lord Jesus as to any secular interest and advantage. No impostor and deceiver ever proposes to himself contempt and a violent cruel death, Jn. 18:36. Sixthly, In that it lays obligation on his disciple to suffer and die for him. No deceiver would invite proselytes to his side and interest at the rate that the Lord Jesus did. You shall be hated of all men for my sake. They shall put you out of their synagogues; and the time comes that whosoever kills you will think that he doeth God service, Jn. 16:2. He frequently calls his servants to a conformity with him in sufferings: Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach, Heb. 13:13. This shows that neither he nor his kingdom is of this world. Seventhly, The benefits accruing and procured by his blood (well understood) must immediately demonstrate that he is indeed the Saviour of the world. And then, Eighthly, These are signified and sealed in the institution of his own supper: This is my blood of the New Testament (which ratifies the New Testament), which is shed for many, for the remission of sins, Mt. 26:28. Such are the witnesses on earth. Such is the various testimony given to the author of our religion. No wonder if the rejector of all this evidence he judged as a blasphemer of the Spirit of God, and be left to perish without remedy in his sins. These three witnesses (being more different than the three former) are not so properly said to be one as to be for one, to be for one and the same purpose and cause, or to agree in one, in one and the same thing among themselves, and in the same testimony with those who bear record from heaven. III. The apostle justly concludes, If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God, that he hath testified of his Son, v. 9. Here we have, 1. A supposition well founded upon the premises. Here is the witness of God, the witness whereby God hath testified of his Son, which surely must intimate some immediate irrefragable testimony, and that of the Father concerning his Son; he has by himself proclaimed and avouched him to the world. 2. The authority and acceptableness of his testimony; and that argued from the less to the greater: If we receive the witness of men (and such testimony is and must be admitted in all judicatories and in all nations), the witness of God is greater. It is truth itself, of highest authority and most unquestionable infallibility. And then there is, 3. The application of the rule to the present case: For this is the witness, and here is the witness of God even of the Father, as well as of the Word and Spirit, which he hath testified of, and wherein he hath attested, his Son. God, that cannot lie, hath given sufficient assurance to the world that Jesus Christ is his Son, the Son of his love, and Son by office, to reconcile and recover the world unto himself; he testified therefore the truth and divine origin of the Christian religion, and that it is the sure appointed way and means of bringing us to God
[source - Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible]


People's New Testament

6-10. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ. The subject of faith in Christ calls out a statement concerning some of the constantly testifying witnesses of Christ. The water and the blood refer primarily to the baptism that revealed him at the beginning of his earthly ministry and the blood which he shed at its close. John came baptizing in order that Christ should be made manifest (John 1:31). It was while in the waters of the Jordan that Christ was manifested and anointed. On the cross flowed the water and the blood (John 19:34). Two rites, both monumental institutions, hence both of them witnesses, testify of him. We are baptized into his death (Rom. 6:1-3); the Lord's Supper points to his shed blood. Not by water only, but by water and blood. The revelation of Christ in water at the baptism does not stand alone; Calvary came also with its shedding of blood. It is the Spirit that beareth witness. Witness is usually borne in words. The Spirit which descended on the apostles on Pentecost bore witness with mighty power that the crucified Jesus was Lord and Christ (Acts 2:4; 4:31; 5:32). 7. There are three that bear record in heaven. This verse is not found in the Revision or in any ancient MS. It is no doubt an interpolation. 8. There are three that bear witness. In notes on verse 6 I have shown how these three bear witness. These three agree in one. They bear testimony to the same end. 9. If we receive the witness of men. We do receive human testimony. We have human testimony of many and unimpeachable witnesses to the facts of the life of Christ, but we have also the greater witness of God. We have the Father's testimony on record, and we have it constantly repeated in his transforming grace. Every one born again to a new life is a new demonstration. 10. He that believeth on the Son. He hath the witness in his changed heart and life. He that believeth not God. He makes God a liar by rejecting the witness God gives to the Son.
[source - Johnson, Barton W. "Commentary on 1 John 5". "People's New Testament". 1891].


Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament on 1 John 5:7-8

For there are three who bear witness (oti treiv eisin oi marturountev).
At this point 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, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has 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. The spurious addition is: en twi ouranwi o pathr, o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin kai treiv eisin oi marturountev en thi ghi (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 last clause belongs to verse 8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. 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.
[source - Robertson, A.T. "Commentary on 1 John 5:7". "Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament".y Broadman Press 1932,33, Renewal 1960].


Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition) on 1 John 5:7-8

5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
v. 7

It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted. 1 John 5:7.


5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

in earth Omit "in earth."

agree Or, are to one point or purpose.
[source - Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition) on 1 John 5:7-8]


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

Colossians 2:8-12 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally. 10 And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power. 11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ. 12 Buried with him in baptism: in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him up from the dead. (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB)

PART I, Colossians 2:8:

To fully understand this scripture, you need to deal with it in three parts. The first being Colossians 2:8 which a modern translation throws a very good understanding on, "Be careful that nobody spoils your faith through intellectualism or high-sounding nonsense. Such stuff is at best founded on men's ideas of nature of the world, and disregards Christ!" (The New Testament in Modern English by J.B. Phillips). This part is a warning against false doctrine of men as affirmed at Hebrews 13:9, "Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein." (American Standard Version; ASV); And at Isaiah 32:6, "For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail." (ASV). Now true Christians should be the opposite of this and speak truth and righteousness and not doctrines and fables of men one to another as stated at 1 Corinthians 2:12-13, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (ASV); And not artfully contrived false stories and fables of man per 2 Peter 1:16, "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (ASV); And at Ephesians 5:6, "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." (ASV). In other words we should not become enslaved to the false doctrines and fables of the world such as the Duality, the Trinity, the Mother of God [he had no mother as he always existed], etc. per Galations 4:3, "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." (ASV); Lastly Colossians 2:22 tells what will happen to those accepting the doctrines and fables of men, "Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?" (ASV). So it is plain that Colossians 2:8 is a warning to all of us to cast off the doctrines and fables of men in keeping with Matthew 15:2-3, "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandments of God by your traditions?" (Asv). Obviously worldly wisdom is foolishness with God (YHWH) as testified to at 1 Corinthians 3:9, "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." (ASV).

PART II, Colossians 2:9-10:

Now let's deal with Colossians 2:9-10 which in a modern English translation reads as, "Yet it is in him God gives a full and complete expression of himself (within the physical limits that he set himself in Christ). 10 Moreover, your own completeness is only realized in him, who is the authority over all authorities, and the supreme power over all powers." (The New Testament in Modern English by J.B. Phillips) or at the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible renders it, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally. 10 And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power." (DRCB). Now just what is this fullness? The J.B. Phillips hints at what it is when it says, "God gives a full and complete expression of himself (within the physical limits that he set himself in Christ).", but Colossians 1:15-19 cast more light on it, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by himwere 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 fullness dwell." (Authorized King James Bible; AV); Clearly this scripture shows that Jesus' (Yeshua's) Father, Almighty God (YHWH) created Jesus (Yeshua) in his image and gave him preeminence over all other creations and actually used him as his master worker in the creation of all else in keeping with the Jewish Law of Agencies.

That he would be his Father's (YHWH's) master worker was revealed at Proverbs 8:22-30 about Jesus (Yeshua) being brought forth and being his Father's (YHWH's) master workman, "Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth; 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. 27 When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep, 28 When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong, 29 When he gave to the sea its bounds, That the waters should not transgress his commandments, When he marked out the foundations of the earth; 30 Then I was by him, as a master workman; And I was daily his delight, Rejoicing always before him." (ASV); And Jesus' (Yeshua's)existence before the earth was is affirmed at John 8:58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am." (ASV); Thus as Colossians 1:17 says, ""and he is before all things, and in him all things consist." (ASV); And at Revelation 3:14, "And to the angel of the church is Laodicea write: 'These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:" (ASV), Jesus (Yeshua) is once more shown as the first of creation. Clearly, then, he, Jesus (Yeshua) is neither the same individual and/or manifestation of the same individual; Nor co-eternal, nor co-equal with his Father (YHWH).

And he would become his Father's (YHWH's) master worker in keeping with The Jewish Law of Agencies which is basically as follows, "Jesus (Yeshua) was God's (YHWH's) appointed agent in accordance with the 'Biblical law of agency' described as, "Scripture mentions something being done by Person A, whilst another mentions it being done by Person B. This is best understood when we grasp the Schaliach Principle, or the Jewish Law of Agency, which is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." (The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder). And 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus," (ASV). This is why Jesus (Yeshua) could say, John 16:23, "And in that day ye shall ask me no question. Verily, verily, I say unto you, if ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name."(ASV).

This fact is further affirmed at Ephesians 1:20-23 which shows that his Father (YHWH) raised him from the dead and put him at his right hand to administer all for him, "Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all." (ASV); This fact, that his Father (YHWH) placed him over all things except himself, a superior one, is highlighted at 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, "But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. 21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." (ASV). This will bring the fulfillment foretold at Isaiah 45:23, "By myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." (ASV). This scripture shows that God (YHWH) will bring the earth back to perfection, i.e., a place where everyone will love their creator, Almighty God (YHWH), and his chief agent or mediator of life, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, and their neighbor, and he, God (YHWH) will once more be using his Son, the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) as his master worker to accomplish this as shown by 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, previously quoted.

With respect to Jesus' (Yeshua's) fullness, John 1:15-17, shows it to be with respect to bring grace and truth to all who would accept it, "John bare witness of him and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for frace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." (AV); This is in keeping with 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). Which leads to the subject of what is fullness in the spiritual sense which is revealed at Ephesians 3:19, "And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God." (AV); And at Colossians 1:18-19, "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 fullness dwell:" (AV); His preeminence is emphasized by 1 Peter 3:22 where it shows Almighty God (YHWH) has put his Son, the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) at his right hand, "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." (AV).

Interestingly, if Jesus was truly God then his divinity could not be said to be derived from another as it is at Colossians 1:19 as quoted above. It is because of God's will that fullness dwells in Christ, this could not be said of someone who was almighty - Almighty God's (YHWH's) divinity does not depend on another person giving it to him. And as, Col 1:15 clearly says, ""Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" (AV) plainly showing that Jesus (Yeshua) is the image of the invisible God, and like all images Jesus is a relection of the reality, he is not himself God. If Jesus were himself God (YHWH) he would not be said to be the image of God (YHWH). This clearly shows the error of those saying that if Christ as having "the fullness of the Deity" means that Jesus is God, does the fact that the readers " and you have been given fullness in Christ " (from Colossians 2:10 in the AV) then mean that they are Jesus (Yeshua)! Of course not, neither is the case. This type of reasoning is but the foolishness of men per 1 Corinthians 3:19, "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." (ASV).

Therefore as Colossians 2:10 says in The New English Bible, "

and you have been given full life in union with him. He is supreme over every spiritual ruler and authority." (The New English Bible; NEB); Or as the Amplified Bible puts it, "And you are in Him, made full and have come to fullness of life-in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and reach full spiritual stature. And He is the head of all rule and authority-of every angelic principality and power." (The Amplified Bible; AMP). Since true Christians are one in purpose with Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father (YHWH) what should we be boasting in? Surely not ourselves, but as Philippians 3:3 show, "for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh:" (ASV); thereby, showing we should NOT be boasting in ourselves, but in Christ. This leads us into the next Part.

PART III, Colossians 2:11-12:

Philippians 3:3 quoted above shows us that we should not be boasting in ourselves, but also refers to the circumcision as does Colossians 2:11-12, "In union with him you were circumcised, not with the circumcision that is made by men, but with Christ's own circumcision, which consists of being freed from the power of this sinful body, 12 For when you were baptized, you were buried with Christ, and in baptism you were also raised with Christ through your faith in the active power of God, who raised him from death." (Good News for Modern Man, the New Testament in Today's English Version, by American Bible Society; GNMM). This scripture harkens back to Deuteronomy 10:16, "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and stiffen your neck no more." (DRCB). And returning to Philippians 3:3-9, 3 already quoted above, we see, "though I myself might have confidence even in the flesh: if any other man thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I yet more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 as touching zeal, persecuting the church: as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless. 8 Yea verily, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but refuse, that I may gain Christ, 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of mine own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith." (ASV); here the Apostle Paul is showing fleshly circumcision counts for nothing, but a circumcision of the heart is required as affirmed at Romans 12:2, "And be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God." (ASV).

To do this, we must bury are former course of life of chasing after wickedness and false doctrines and myths and other workings of the worldly per Romans 6:4-8, "We were buried therefore with him through bnaptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; 6 knowing this that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin; 7 for he that hath died is justified from sin. 8 But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him;" (ASV). To do so, as previously mentioned, we must per Hebrews 12:1, "Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2 looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." (ASV); And at Isaiah 55:7, "let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto Jehovah, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." (ASV).

In other words, what is needed is 'spiritual surgery' or casting aside the evil ways of mankind and their false doctrines and fables and the acceptance only of the Truth of God's (YHWH's) and NOT THAT OF ANY MAN OR DENOMINATION, in keeping with Romans 8:3, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." (ASV); clearly showing we should reject the doctrines of mankind and only accept those from our Creator (YHWH), and this in keeping with Colossians 3:5, "Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry; 6 for which things' sake cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience: 7 wherein ye also once walked, when ye lived in these things; 8 but now do you also put them all away: anger, wrath,m malice, railing, shameful speaking out of your mouth:" (ASV).

Remember that per 1 Corinthians 12:13-14, "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many." (ASV); therefore, what is needed is a spiritual resurrection for all true Christians per Romans 8:11, "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Hjesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you." (ASV); so what is this Spirit? And what does it mean to be filled with the Spirit? The Spirit or Holy Spirit here being spoken of is Almighty God's (YHWH's) active force or power. Therefore, being filled with God's active force or power gives individuals extra strength, power, and abilities they would otherwise not have as shown by Acts 2:4, ""And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (AV); And at, Luke 1:15, "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."(AV); And at Luke 1:41, "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:" (AV); And at Acts 4:8, "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel," (AV); And 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 spake the word of God with boldness." (AV); And at Acts 9:17, "And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." (AV); And in fact, God (YHWH) filled his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) with Holy Ghost or Spirit when he anointed him, 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." (AV).

Now as we have seen, the Holy Ghost or Spirit is God's (YHWH's) active force or power that he can 'fill' someone with to accomplish his objectives. It gives the filled one extra strength, power, and abilities they would otherwise not have as previously shown. But from what the Hebrew word here rendered Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, or Spirit which is translated from 'ru'ach' meaning "breath; wind; spirit," and in the Greek Scriptures, the word is 'pneu'ma,' having a similar meaning. All implicitly showing a force or power. Therefore, since we have seen, the Holy Ghost or Spirit is God's (YHWH's) active force or power we should show the proper respect for it. We should NOT as stated at Luke 12:10, "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven." (AV) by denying the accomplishments of God (YHWH) through use of his force or power. Also we should respect his chief servant, his only begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) as directed at Matthew 12:17-21, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, 18 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. 19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. 20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. 21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust." (AV).

So salvation boils down to a simple denominator as testified to at John 5:14, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life." (ASV), plainly showing, first, that those who hear the message that Jesus (Yeshua) delivered on behalf of his Father (YHWH) as his agent or as the scripture puts it, "and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life.", and second, it shows that Jesus (Yeshua) was sent by a superior one, his Father (YHWH), to carry out Almighty God's (YHWH's) commission to his Son, the Son of God (YHWH), to make his Father's (YHWH's) message known to all. The Apostle Paul clearly showed at Colossians 3:1, "If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God." (ASV). However, to enjoy this prize, we must avoid falling under the power of the prince of this system per Ephesians 2:2, "wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience." (ASV)


13 – Colossians 1:15:

First of all, the NWT is hardly the only translation to render the Greek
construction as "of" at Colossians 1:15, but "over" at John 17:2. The King
James Version, the New American Standard Bible, the very literal New Testament
TransLine, the English Standard Version and others NOT translated by Jehovah's
Witnesses make the same distinction. So to translate this "not too dissimilar"
Greek construction in dissimilar English phraseology is not merely a "JW thing."
It's good translation.

There are a number of reasons. First of all, grammar is only part of good,
accurate translation. Recognizing and respecting the context is the other vital
part.

When one speaks of "authority" as at John 17:2, it is normal in English to think
of authority "over" something or someone.

However, when it comes to being firstborn, the same concept does not follow
naturally. First-born requires the referent of being "among" or "out of" a
class that includes others, as shown in the adjective (number) "first." First
OF a class.

Because the two words do not bring the same associations, ἐîïõóίáí
ðάóçò óáñêόò (John 17:2) would naturally and normally be translated
differently from ðñùôόôïêïò ðάóçò êôίóåùò (Colossians 1:15).

"Firstborn" simply does not call for "over," since "of" suffices naturally. But
"authority" does naturally call for "over."

So it has nothing to do with any special Jehovah's Witness interpretation, since
other translations, including some by Trinitarians, make the same natural
distinction.

It is more about context than about simple grammar.

Solomon Landers

--- In JohnOneOne@yahoogroups.com, "first_corinthians_chap1_verse10"
<john1one@...> wrote:
>
> To All,
>
> The following comment was made about the NWT:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> A quick exegetical review of Colossians 1:15 on the `NIV' bible reveals
support for their translation of the text from the stand point of Greek grammar.
Jehovah's Witnesses over the years have denied that it is possible to translate
Colossians 1:15 as "firstborn OVER all creation" on the grounds that it can only
be a `subordinate genitive.'
>
> The grammatical construction of Colossians 1:15 is this "[Greek words]" which
is when translated into English "firstborn over all creation" - which is not to
dissimilar to "[Greek words]" or "authority over all flesh" John 17:2; granted
there are some differences (the word "firstborn" is an `adjective', where as the
word "authority" is a `noun'), but both sayings "over all creation (Colossians
1:15)" and "over all flesh (John 17:2) are constructions of the genitive
`adjective' + `noun.'
>
> It is interesting to note that the `New World Translation of the Holy
Scriptures' a bible produced by Jehovah's Witnesses uses the terms "over all" in
John 17:2 - so why all the objection to the `NIV' using "over all" in Colossians
1:15?

14 – Isaiah 9:6:

Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom is the transliterated Masoretic Hebrew, the JPS chose not to follow the KJV and remained ambiguous about saying a child born would be The Everlasting Father and The Mighty God! When the Rabbis established the Masoretic reading of this verse in reaction to the Christains messianic interpretation, they inadvertantly stepped in it! Literally! Read the foot note for this verse in the modern Tanakh, they are pretty ambivelant about the verse! Jesus and the Apostles read Isaiah 9:6 as: Isa 9:6 For a Child is born to us, and a Son is given to us, whose government is upon His shoulder; and His name is called the Angel of mighty counsel; for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to Him. 7 His government shall be great, and of His peace there is no end; it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from this time forward and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this. (Septuagint, Codex B) Jerome interpreted the Hebrew as: IS 9:6 For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. IS 9:7 His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. 9:5 quia omnis violenta praedatio cum tumultu et vestimentum mixtum sanguine erit in conbustionem et cibus ignis 9:6 parvulus enim natus est nobis filius datus est nobis et factus est principatus super umerum eius et vocabitur nomen eius Admirabilis consiliarius Deus fortis Pater futuri saeculi Princeps pacis Masoretic into English translation by Alexader Harkavy (Hebrew Publishing Co.): 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. How can I say Jesus and the Apostles read from the Septuagint? Well let's compare the quotation sorces! Mat 4:15 "The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, Mat 4:16 the people sitting in darkness have seen a great light, and to those who sat in the land and the shadow of death, light sprang up on them." LXX: Isa 9:1 O land of Zebulun, land of Naphtali, and the rest that inhabit the seacoast, and the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. Isa 9:2 O people walking in darkness, behold a great light; you that dwell in the region and shadow of death, a light shall shine upon you. Masoretic: Isa 9:1 Now the former hath lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter hath dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations. Isa 9:2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.


15 – Jeremiah 23:5 -6:

Jeremiah 23:5-6 and the Confusion on YHWH Tsidqenu and Its Equivalents:

INTRODUCTION:

Jeremiah 23:5-6 is a most interesting scripture that has confused many with respect its meaning due to their preconceived beliefs. Even the well known preacher John Wesley was stumbled by it due to his preconceived beliefs with respect how the Father (YHWH); the Son, Jesus (Yeshua); and the Holy Spirit, God's (YHWH's) active force interrelate. However, other renown Bible scholars such as the Reverend R.A. Torrey writer of the,"The New Topical Text Book," A. R Fausset, A.M. in his "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible," Theodore Beza in his "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible," and many others had a correct understanding of it. Much of the confusion was caused by the many different ways translators translated the scripture into English as we will later see that YHWH Tsidqenu and its equivalents expressions have confused many. Now let's look at the scripture in the Noah Webster Bible translation:

Jeremiah 23:5-6:
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice upon the earth. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell in safety: and this is his name by which he shall be called, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Noah Webster Bible; NWB)

Now note, the last part of verse 6 which is in capital letters as this is the phrase that is the principle part of this discussion with YHWH Tsidqenu being one of the constructs used for this title that contains as one of its parts the name of Almighty God (YHWH). We will now delve into who this title applies to; remember, "that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice upon the earth," this part of the fifth verse as it is the key to a proper understanding of this scripture.

UNDERSTANDING OF JESUS (YESHUA) AS THE ONLY MEDIATOR AND THE JEWISH LAW OF AGENCIES:

The Only Mediator, the Son of God (YHWH):

To be able to fully grasp the meaning of this scripture, one must comprehend that there is only one mediator between God (YHWH) and mankind and not many; And also understand that there is only one ultimate savior, YHWH, which is made clear at Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (American Standard Version; ASV). This scripture affirms the fact that God (YHWH) required exclusive worship and required Abraham's descendents his chosen people at the time to be strict monotheist. Idolatry was one of ancient Israel's most heinous sins, according to the inspired men who wrote the Bible. However, the prophets railed against Israel's tendency to backslide into worship of other deities as testified to at Jeremiah 2:28-29, "But where are thy gods that thou hast made for thyself? let them arise, if they can save thee in the time of thy trouble: for according to the number of thy cities are thy gods, O Judah. 29 Why will ye plead with me? ye all have transgressed against me, saith the LORD." (NWB); And at Jeremiah 11:13, "For according to the number of thy cities were thy gods, O Judah; and according to the number of the streets of Jerusalem have ye set up altars to that shameful thing, even altars to burn incense to Baal." (NWB).

The fact that there is only one mediator between God (YHWH) and man is clearly shown in the New or Greek Testament by 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus, " (ASV); And at Galations 3:19, "What purpose then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." (NWB); And at Hebrews 8:6, "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." (NWB).

The Jewish Law of Agencies and Why Jesus Could be Called a Savior:

However, since his Father (YHWH) has appointed his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) as his only mediator, for us he could rightly be called a savior, Why? This is pointed out in Hebrews 9:11-15, " But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, 12 nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh: 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (ASV) . To gain a full understand this scripture fully we must have a working understanding of the Jewish Law of Agencies which is basically as follows, "Jesus (Yeshua) was God's (YHWH's) appointed agent in accordance with the 'Biblical law of agency' described as, 'Scripture mentions something being done by Person A, whilst another mentions it being done by Person B. This is best understood when we grasp the Schaliach Principle, or the Jewish Law of Agency, which is expressed in the dictum,' "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." (The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder).

We, therefore, must understand this law of agencies concept, whether we know it by its theological name or not, since this will enhance our understanding of many key texts, such as why the Judges and angels were called "god" (Ex. 21:6; 22:8; Ps. 8:5; 82:1). Many more instances could be provided, but brevity is in order here. John 8:54 drives this law of agency home, "Jesus answered, 'If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God." (Confraternity Edition of The New Testament; CENTN), showing that Jesus (Yeshua) was his Father's (YHWH's) agent, and he sought not his own glory, but glory from his Father (YHWH). Therefore, Jesus (Yeshua) could say as he did at John 11:40, "Jesus said to her, 'Have I not told thee that if thou believe thou shalt behold the glory of God?'" (CETNT). Even Satan the Devil recognized this, Jesus (Yeshua), as God's (YHWH's) agent, 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In their case, the god of this world has blinded their unbelieving minds, that they should not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (CETNT); thus he is trying to blind the minds of the unbelieving to prevent them from recognizing this truth. [source = "Commentary on Genesis 1:1," by Iris the Preacher 2001]

This fact, that he, Jesus (Yeshua) was clearly serving as his Father's (YHWH's) agent, is clearly affirmed by Proverbs 8:22-31, "Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth; 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. 27 When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep, 28 When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong, 29 When he gave to the sea its bound, That the waters should not transgress his commandment, When he marked out the foundations of the earth; 30 Then I was by him, [as] a master workman; And I was daily [his] delight, Rejoicing always before him, 31 Rejoicing in his habitable earth; And my delight was with the sons of men." (ASV) which shows several important Bible truths, (1) Jesus (Yeshua) was the first being YHWH created, long before YHWH's creation of "his works of old." (2) That Jesus (Yeshua) existed eons before the universe and the earth was and of course before Abraham, (3) That Jesus (Yeshua) was his Father's (YHWH's) "master workman," whom his Father (YHWH) delighted in. (4) Jesus (Yeshua) cared a lot for mankind, and (5) that they were two separate beings not co-eternal or co-equal.

YHWH TSIDQENU AND ITS EQUIVALENTS EXPRESSIONS AND THE TRUE MEANING OF JEREMIAH 23:5-6:

YHWH Tsidqenu And Its Equivalents in Select Translations:

We shall first consider the meaning of YHWH Tsidqenu and its equivalents, but let's first look at several different Bible translation of these scriptures with notes:

World English Bible,
" Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: Yahweh our righteousness. [or equivalent of the term you mentioned, 'YHWH Tsidqenu']."" [note, it says Yahweh will raise to David a righteous branch, clearly showing God (YHWH) or Yahweh would raise up a branch which was Jesus (Yeshua) and not that Jesus (Yeshua) was (YHWH)]

Youngs Literal Translation,
"Lo, days are coming -- an affirmation of Jehovah, And I have raised to David a righteous shoot, And a king hath reigned and acted wisely, And done judgment and righteousness in the earth. 6 In his days is Judah saved, and Israel dwelleth confidently, And this his name that Jehovah proclaimeth him, `Our Righteousness[or equivalent of the term you mentioned, 'YHWH Tsidqenu'].".'" ." [note, it says Jehovah will raise to David a righteous branch, clearly showing God (YHWH) or Jehovah would raise up a branch which was Jesus (Yeshua) and not that Jesus (Yeshua) was (YHWH)]

JPS Jewish Bible, (in English)
"Behold, the days come, saith HaShem, that I will raise unto David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, HaShem is our righteousness [or equivalent of the term you mentioned, 'YHWH Tsidqenu']." ." [note, it says HaShem will raise to David a righteous branch, clearly showing God (YHWH) or HaShem would raise up a branch which was Jesus (Yeshua) and not that Jesus (Yeshua) was (YHWH) or HaShem]

Translational Constructs of Jeremiah 23:5-6:

First, let's consider who the word Branch or righteous shoot refers to, and to get an understanding of that we will go to "Torrey's Topical Textbook," under "Titles and names of chris," it states, '* Branch,' Jeremiah 23:5; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12 [Torrey's Topical Textbook," by Reverand R.A. Torrey,1897] here clearly referring to Jeremiah 23:5 showing this reference referrs to Jesus (Yeshua) Christ. Now for purposes of clarity while examining these two scriptures, let's refer to Almighty God (YHWH) as the party of the first part, and his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ as the party of the second part who acts as a master worker and agent of the party of the first part.

We shall now proceed to break down Jeremiah 23:5-6 into its constituting translation constructs using the Authorized King James Bible:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD[[end of construct 1]], that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth[[end of construct 2]]. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS[[end of construct 3]]" (Authorized King James Bible; ASV).

Construct 1:

The first construct above, construct 1, clearly refers to Almighty God (YHWH), the party of the first part, and shows him for-telling in advance an event that would transpire in the future.

Construct 2:

The second construct above, construct 2, clearly refers to Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, the party of the second part who is the agent and master worker of the party of the first part. In this construct, the party of the first part states that he, "will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth." This was fulfilled when Jesus's (Yeshua's) life force was transferred to the womb of a virgin on earth per Matthew 1:18-22, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this manner: When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, purposed to put her away privately. 20 But while he thought on these things, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take to thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is by the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (NWB). This was further testified to at Luke 3:21-23, "Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. 23 And Jesus himself, when he began `to teach', was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the `son' of Heli," (ASV); And at Luke 1:32, "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David." (NWB); And at Romans 3:23-25, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he may be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." (NWB); this scripture showing also that he would be the mediator and savior of mankind.

See page 17

Page 17

Construct 3:

The third construct above, construct 3, clearly shows that Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is being referred to by the party of the first part. This is made plain by, "In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely" which is exactly what Jesus (Yeshua) is tasked with as shown by 1 Corinthians 15:21-28, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (AV); This scripture testifies that God (YHWH) had given his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) over all except himself when the scripture says "it is manifest that he is excepted." We note that at Jesus (Yeshua) here is foretold as carrying out God's (Yeshua's) assignment to him in relation to judgment and the end of the world or system, and has given Him power over all as his agent, except over Himself as recorded at 1 Corinthians 15:27 recorded above. Therefore, it is also obvious that the last part of this construct, construct 3, "and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" refers to Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, and that "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS," is but one of his many titles.

YHWH Tsidqenu:

Therefore, YHWH Tsidqenu is just another way of translating the original Hebrew. But let's re-look at Jeremiah 23:5-6 in the JPS Jewish Bible, (in English) once more:


"Behold, the days come, saith HaShem, that I will raise unto David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, HaShem is our righteousness [or equivalent of the term you mentioned, 'YHWH Tsidqenu']." ." [note, it says HaShem will raise to David a righteous branch, clearly showing God (YHWH) or HaShem would raise up a branch which was Jesus (Yeshua) and not that Jesus (Yeshua) was (YHWH) or HaShem].

COMMENTS AND COMMENTARIES ON JEREMIAH 23:5-6 BY RENOWN EXPERTS:

Theodore Beza:

Theodore Beza in his, "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible," said, the following:

"23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise to David a righteous e Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice upon the earth.

(e) This prophecy is of the restitution of the Church in the time of Jesus Christ, who is the true branch, read (Isaiah 11:1,45:8; Jeremiah 35:15; Daniel 9:24)."
[Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Jeremiah 23". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible," 1600-1645]

Commentaries by Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Jeremiah Chapter 23:

"Jeremiah 23:1-40. THE WICKED RULERS TO BE SUPERSEDED BY THE KING, WHO SHOULD REIGN OVER THE AGAIN UNITED PEOPLES, ISRAEL AND JUDAH.


...5. As Messianic prophecy extended over many years in which many political changes took place in harmony with these, it displayed its riches by a variety more effective than if it had been manifested all at once. As the moral condition of the Jews required in each instance, so Messiah was exhibited in a corresponding phase, thus becoming more and more the soul of the nation's life: so that He is represented as the antitypical Israel (Isaiah 49:3).
unto David--HENGSTENBERG observes that Isaiah dwells more on His prophetical and priestly office, which had already been partly set forth (Deuteronomy 18:18, Psalms 110:4). Other prophets dwell more on His kingly office. Therefore here He is associated with "David" the king: but in Isaiah 11:1 with the then poor and unknown "Jesse."
righteous Branch--"the Branch of righteousness" (Jeremiah 33:15); "The Branch" simply (Zechariah 3:8, 6:12); "The Branch of the Lord" (Isaiah 4:2).
prosper--the very term applied to Messiah's undertaking (Isaiah 52:13, Margin; Isaiah 53:10). Righteousness or justice is the characteristic of Messiah elsewhere, too, in connection with our salvation or justification (Isaiah 53:11, Daniel 9:24, Zechariah 9:9). So in the New Testament He is not merely "righteous" Himself, but "righteousness to us" (1 Corinthians 1:30), so that we become "the righteousness of God in Him" (Romans 10:3,4'2 Corinthians 5:19-21'Philippians 3:9').
execute judgment and justice in the earth--(Psalms 72:2, Isaiah 9:7, 32:1,18). Not merely a spiritual reign in the sense in which He is "our righteousness," but a righteous reign "in the earth" (Jeremiah 3:17,18). In some passages He is said to come to judge, in others to reign. In Matthew 25:34, He is called "the King." Psalms 9:7 unites them. Compare Daniel 7:22,26,27.
6. Judah . . . Israel . . . dwell safely--Compare Jeremiah 33:16, where "Jerusalem" is substituted for "Israel" here. Only Judah, and that only in part, has as yet returned. So far are the Jews from having enjoyed, as yet, the temporal blessings here foretold as the result of Messiah's reign, that their lot has been, for eighteen centuries, worse than ever before. The accomplishment must, therefore, be still future, when both Judah and Israel in their own land shall dwell safely under a Christocracy, far more privileged than even the old theocracy (Jeremiah 32:37, Deuteronomy 33:28, Isaiah 54:1-17, 60:1-22, 65:17-25, Zechariah 14:11).
shall be called, the Lord--that is, shall be (Isaiah 9:6) "Jehovah," God's incommunicable name. Though when applied to created things, it expresses only some peculiar connection they have with Jehovah (Genesis 22:14, Exodus 17:15), yet when applied to Messiah it must express His Godhead manifested in justifying power towards us (1 Timothy 3:16).
our--marks His manhood, which is also implied in His being a Branch raised unto David, whence His human title, "Son of David" (compare Matthew 22:42-45).
Righteousness--marks His Godhead, for God alone can justify the ungodly (compare Romans 4:5, Isaiah 45:17,24,25)."


[Fausset, A. R., A.M. "Commentary on Jeremiah 23". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible," 1871.]

Matthew Henry:

", v. 5, 6. The house of David seemed to be quite sunk and ruined by that threatening against Jeconiah (ch. 22:30), that none of his seed should ever sit upon the throne of David. But here is a promise which effectually secures the honour of the covenant made with David notwithstanding; for by it the house will be raised out of its ruins to a greater lustre than ever, and shine brighter far than it did in Solomon himself. We have not so many prophecies of Christ in this book as we had in that of the prophet Isaiah; but here we have one, and a very illustrious one; of him doubtless the prophet here speaks, of him, and of no other man. The first words intimate that it would be long ere this promise should have its accomplishment: The days come, but they are not yet. I shall see him, but not now. But all the rest intimate that the accomplishment of it will be glorious. (1.) Christ is here spoken of as a branch from David, the man the branch (Zec. 3:, his appearance mean, his beginnings small, like those of a bud or sprout, and his rise seemingly out of the earth, but growing to be green, to be great, to be loaded with fruits. A branch from David's family, when it seemed to be a root in a dry ground, buried, and not likely to revive. Christ is the root and offspring of David, Rev. 22:16. In him doth the horn of David bud, Ps. 132:17, 18. He is a branch of God's raising up; he sanctified him, and sent him into the world, gave him his commission and qualifications. He is a righteous branch, for he is righteous himself, and through him many, even all that are his, are made righteous. As an advocate, he is Jesus Christ the righteous. (2.) He is here spoken of as his church's King. This branch shall be raised as high as the throne of his father David, and there he shall reign and prosper, not as the kings that now were of the house of David, who went backward in all their affairs. No; he shall set up a kingdom in the world that shall be victorious over all opposition. In the chariot of the everlasting gospel he shall go forth, he shall go on conquering and to conquer. If God raise him up, he will prosper him, for he will own the work of his own hands; what is the good pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in the hands of those to whom it is committed. He shall prosper; for he shall execute judgment and justice in the earth, all the world over, Ps. 96:13. The present kings of the house of David were unjust and oppressive, and therefore it is no wonder that they did not prosper. But Christ shall, by his gospel, break the usurped power of Satan, institute a perfect rule of holy living, and, as far as it prevails, make all the world righteous. The effect of this shall be a holy security and serenity of mind in all his faithful loyal subjects. In his days, under his dominion, Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely; that is, all the spiritual seed of believing Abraham and praying Jacob shall be protected from the curse of heaven and the malice of hell, shall be privileged from the arrests of God's law and delivered from the attempts of Satan's power, shall be saved from sin, the guilt and dominion of it, and then shall dwell safely, and be quiet from the fear of all evil. See Lu. 1:74, 75. Those that shall be saved hereafter from the wrath to come may dwell safely now; for, if God be for us, who can be against us? In the days of Christ's government in the soul, when he is uppermost there, the soul dwells at ease. (3.) He is here spoken of as The Lord our righteousness. Observe, [1.] Who and what he is. As God, he is Jehovah, the incommunicable name of God, denoting his eternity and self-existence. As Mediator, he is our righteousness. By making satisfaction to the justice of God for the sin of man, he has brought in an everlasting righteousness, and so made it over to us in the covenant of grace that, upon our believing consent to that covenant, it becomes ours. His being Jehovah our righteousness implies that he is so our righteousness as no creature could be. He is a sovereign, all-sufficient, eternal righteousness. All our righteousness has its being from him, and by him it subsists, and we are made the righteousness of God in him. [2.] The profession and declaration of this: This is the name whereby he shall be called, not only he shall be so, but he shall be known to be so. God shall call him by this name, for he shall appoint him to be our righteousness. By this name Israel shall call him, every true believer shall call him, and call upon him. That is our righteousness by which, as an allowed plea, we are justified before God, acquitted from guilt, and accepted into favour; and nothing else have we to plead but this, "Christ has died, yea, rather has risen again;'' and we have taken him for our Lord. 3. This great salvation, which will come to the Jews in the latter days of their state, after their return out of Babylon, shall be so illustrious as far to outshine the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt"
[Henry, Matthew. "Commentary on Jeremiah 23". "Matthew Henry Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible," byMatthew Henry, 1706.]

Easton's Bible Dictionary Kingly office of Christ:

"One of the three special relations in which Christ stands to his people. Christ's office as mediator comprehends three different functions, viz., those of a prophet, priest, and king. These are not three distinct offices, but three functions of the one office of mediator.
Christ is King and sovereign Head over his Church and over all things to his Church (Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; Colossians 1:18; 2:19). He executes this mediatorial kingship in his Church, and over his Church, and over all things in behalf of his Church. This royalty differs from that which essentially belongs to him as God, for it is given to him by the Father as the reward of his obedience and sufferings (Phil 2:6-11), and has as its especial object the upbuilding and the glory of his redeemed Church. It attaches, moreover, not to his divine nature as such, but to his person as God-man.
Christ's mediatorial kingdom may be regarded as comprehending, (1) his kingdom of power, or his providential government of the universe; (2) his kingdom of grace, which is wholly spiritual in its subjects and administration; and (3) his kingdom of glory, which is the consummation of all his providential and gracious administration.
Christ sustained and exercised the function of mediatorial King as well as of Prophet and Priest, from the time of the fall of man, when he entered on his mediatorial work; yet it may be said that he was publicly and formally enthroned when he ascended up on high and sat down at the Father's right hand (Psalms 2:6; Jeremiah 23:5; Isaiah 9:6), after his work of humiliation and suffering on earth was "finished." ["Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition," by M.G. Easton M.A., D.D.,published by Thomas Nelson, 1897].

YHWH THE THE SUPREME GOD OF EXODUS 20:3:

No God's Before Me:

As Exodus 20:3 states, "Thou hast no other Gods before Me." (Youngs Literal Translation) says, true Christians shall have no gods before Almighty God (YHWH). This scripture shows that we must worship him as the supreme deity and have no other divine beings we consider as equal to or greater than he is. As Isaiah 44:6 testifies, "Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God." (ASV), and reaffirms the Biblical command of given at Exodus 20:3.

However some in error and/or because they have been blinded to the truth per 2 Corinthians 4:4, ""In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (AV), may believe that he is just a different manifestation of Almighty God (YHWH); but this would be impossible as shown by Philippians 2:1-8, "If there is therefore any exhortation in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions, 2 make full my joy, that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind; 3 `doing' nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself; 4 not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others. 5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; 8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient `even' unto death, yea, the death of the cross." (ASV); Thus, clearly showing him as an obedient Son; And clearly showing whose son he was at John 5:17-19, "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work. 18 For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and greater works than these will he show him, that ye may marvel. 21 For as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom he will. (ASV). And at John 14:28, ""Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father; for the Father is greater than I." (ASV). In fact, in heaven He will be at His Father's (YHWH's) right hand as testified to at Hebrews 10:12, "but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sat down on the right hand of God:" (ASV). The foregoing clearly showing him as second in the hierarchy in heaven, with his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) being the supreme one at whose right hand he sits; therefore, his Father (YHWH) is clearly greater than he is thus no violation of Exodus 20:3 has occurred since he is at a lower 'station' and not as great as his Father (YHWH). Yet he has divinity the same as his Father (YHWH) because his Father (YHWH) made him of the same 'stuff' that he is as previously shown in Philippians 2:6 above. This fact is reaffirmed at Philippians 2:9-11, ", "Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; 10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven and [things] on earth and [things] under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (ASV)

In fact, the teaching that Jesus is just a different manifestation of God (YHWH) is part of three false doctrines with the first being Modulism which many religious dictionaries state is, "The belief that God is a single entity who has appeared in different modes at different times. This is the same as "SABELLIANISM THEOLOGY-- God is three only in relation to the world, in so many "manifestations" or "modes." The unity and identity of God are such that the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) did not exist before the incarnation; because the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) are thus one, the Father (YHWH) suffered with the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) in his passion and death.

Uniqueness - They believe that God is one in earthly manifestations, but not heavenly. [Branham's Bible Believers, Inc.][ to Branham's 1189 page book "Conduct, Order, Doctrine of the Church," the "First thing is to straighten out you on your 'trinity' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. "God is like a three-foot rule... The first twelve inches was God, the Father; the second twelve inches, God, the Son, the same God; the third twelve inches was God, the Holy Ghost, the same God," (pp.182 & 184). Branham clarifies his position in a speech given October 2, 1957 when he exclaims, "See, there cannot be an Eternal son, because a son had to have a beginning. And so Jesus had a beginning, God had no beginning," (Ibid, p.273).]" [sourse, Discourse by a Theologian who wishes to remain anonymous].

He appeared as the Father in the Old Testament, as Jesus during the first century CE, and has since taken the form of the Holy Spirit." This same concept is also found in the false doctrines of the Duality and the Trinity in a slightly different form. But all these false doctrines in one way or another attempt to claim that the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua), are one and the same individual.

Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is Free of Sin, Why?:


Now some may say how can Jesus (Yeshua) Christ that since the Apostle Paul stated at Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God:" (AV), how can Jesus (Yeshua) be free from sin; however, they fail to recognize that he is without sin as his Father (YHWH) is God Almighty (YHWH) and not an earthly man, thus he did not inherit sin as did all others of mankind. This is made clear at Romans 5:12-15, "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned 13 for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the trespass, so also `is' the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many." (ASV); And at John 17:3-5 it is made clear where he came from, "And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, `even' Jesus Christ. 4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (ASV).

Simply put Jesus (Yeshua) is the Son of God (YHWH) as stated over 40 times in the Bible. How so is he the only begotten Son of God (YHWH), simply put he was the first created being, created erons before the universe was.

In fact, Jesus (Yeshua) called God (YHWH) "the only true God..." at John 17:3. Never did he refer to God (YHWH) as a diety of plural persons. So nowhere in the Bible is anyone but God (YHWH) called the Almighty. Otherwise, it voids the meaning of the word 'almighty.' No not Jesus (Yeshua) nor the Holy Spirit is ever called that, for God (YHWH) alone is supreme and above all else. At Genesis 17:1, he declares, "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect." (American Standard Version; ASV), and this is affirmed at Exodus 18:11, "Now I know that Jehovah is greater than all gods; yea, in the thing wherein they dealt proudly against them." (ASV).

Meaning of The Name Jesus (Yeshua):

The basic root name of Jesus comes from the Hebrew name HO-SH-U-A (Joshua) meaning "Salvation." But "salvation" was only half the essence of his name. The full essence of the name Jesus comes from the story of Twelve Scouts when Moses gave Hoshea his new name "Yeho-shua," meaning "Yahweh-is-Salvation"

The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation." Though the name in one form or another occurs frequently in the Old Testament, it was not borne by a person of prominence between the time of Josue, the son of Nun and Josue, the high priest in the days of Zorobabel. It was also the name of the author of Ecclesiaticus of one of Christ's ancestors mentioned in the genealogy, found in the Third Gospel (Luke 3:29), and one of the St. Paul's companions (Colossians 4:11). During the Hellenizing period, Jason, a purely Greek analogon of Jesus, appears to have been adopted by many (I Machabees 8:17; 12:16; 14:22; II Machabees 1:7; 2:24; 4:7-26; 5:5-10; Acts 17:5-9; Romans 16:21). The Greek name is connected with verb iasthai, to heal; it is therefore, not surprising that some of the Greek Fathers allied the word Jesus with same root (Eusebius, "Dem. Ev.", IV; cf. Acts 9:34; 10:38) . Though about the time of Christ the name Jesus appears to have been fairly common (Josephus, "Ant.", XV, ix, 2; XVII, xiii, 1; XX, ix, 1; "Bel. Jud.", III, ix, 7; IV, iii, 9; VI, v, 5; "Vit.", 22) it was imposed on our Lord by God's express order (Luke 1:31; Matthew 1:21), to foreshow that the Child was destined to "save his people from their sins." Philo ("De Mutt. Nom.", 21) is therefore, right when he explains Iesous as meaning soteria kyrion; Eusebius (Dem., Ev., IV, ad fin.; P.G., XXII, 333) gives the meaning Theou soterion; while St. Cyril of Jerusalem interprets the word as equivalent to soter (Cat., x, 13; P.G., XXXIII, 677). This last writer, however, appears to agree with Clement of Alexandria in considering the word Iesous as of Greek origin (Paedag., III, xii; P.G., VIII, 677); St. Chrysostom emphasizes again the Hebrew derivation of the word and its meaning soter (Hom., ii, 2), thus agreeing with the exegesis of the angel speaking to St. Joseph (Matthew 1:21). [The New Catholic Encyclopedia].

YHWH is The Supreme One and Jesus (Yeshua) is His Son, There is No Trinity:


In the Hebrew scriptures (NT) 'eloh'ah' [god] has two plural forms, namely, 'elo-him' [gods] and 'elo-heh' [god of]. These to forms usually refer to God (YHWH), in which case they are translated in the singular as 'God'. However these forms do in no way indicate a Trinity as shown in "A dictionary of the Bible", "The fanciful idea that ['elo-him'] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God." ['A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith].

Also, The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature says of 'elo-him', "It is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribnute.' [The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature]. This, title, 'elo-him' occurs over 34 times alone in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what God (YHWH) said is singular. Thus the previously mentioned publication concludes with, 'elo-him' must rather be elplained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty." [The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature].

Therefore since the word 'elo-him' means, not 'persons,' but 'gods,' those who argue that this word implies a trinity make themselves polytheists, worshippers of more than one god. This is so since it would mean that there were three gods in the trinity. In fact, the word trinity means three.

Also, the Bible uses the words 'elo-him' and 'elo-heh' when referring to a number of false gods, good examples are found at Exodus 12:12, "For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am Jehovah." (ASV), And at Exodu8s 20:23, "Ye shall not make [other gods] with me; gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you." (ASV). But it is also used to refer sometimes to a single false god such as at Judges 16:23-24, "And the lords of the Philistines gathered them together to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their god, and to rejoice; for they said, Our god hath delivered Samson our enemy into our hand. 24 And when the people saw him, they praised their god; for they said, Our god hath delivered into our hand our enemy, and the destroyer of our country, who hath slain many of us." (ASV). The term was also applied to a human, Moses at Exodus 4:16, "And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him as God." (ASV).

Therefore it should be evident that the Hebrew titles of 'elo-him' and 'elo-heh' for false gods, and some humans, did not imply a plurality of gods. Likewise applying these terms to God (YHWH) in no way implies more than one person; this being especially so when one considers the testimony of the rest of the Bible on this subject.

APPENDIX:

(1) Various Bible renderings of Jeremiah 23:5-6:


Youngs Literal Translation,
"Lo, days are coming -- an affirmation of Jehovah, And I have raised to David a righteous shoot, And a king hath reigned and acted wisely, And done judgment and righteousness in the earth. 6 In his days is Judah saved, and Israel dwelleth confidently, And this his name that Jehovah proclaimeth him, `Our Righteousness.'" ." [note, it says Jehovah will raise to David a righteous branch, clearly showing God (YHWH) or Jehovah would raise up a branch which was Jesus (Yeshua) and not that Jesus (Yeshua) was (YHWH)]

The Darby Translation,
"Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, when I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, who shall reign as king, and act wisely, and shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell in safety; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our Righteousness." [note, it says Jehovah will raise to David a righteous branch, clearly showing God (YHWH) or Jehovah would raise up a branch which was Jesus (Yeshua) and not that Jesus (Yeshua) was (YHWH)]

New American Standard Version,
"Behold, {the} days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land. 6 "In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, 'The LORD our righteousness."

American Standard Version,
" Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness."

New King James Bible,
"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. 6 In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

Authorized King James Bible,
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS"

New Living Translation,
"For the time is coming," says the LORD, "when I will place a righteous Branch on King David's throne. He will be a King who rules with wisdom. He will do what is just and right throughout the land. 6 And this is his name: 'The LORD Is Our Righteousness.' In that day Judah will be saved, and Israel will live in safety"

New Revised Standard Version,
"The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. And this is the name by which he will be called: "The Lord is our righteousness."

Revised Standard Version,
""Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.'

Good News Translation,
"The Lord says, "The time is coming when I will choose as king a righteous descendant of David. That king will rule wisely and do what is right and just throughout the land. 6 When he is king, the people of Judah will be safe, and the people of Israel will live in peace. He will be called "The Lord Our Salvation.'"

Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible (original),
"Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I will raise up to David a just branch: and a king shall reign, and shall be wise: and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 6 In those days shall Juda be saved, and Israel shall dwell confidently: and this is the name that they shall call him: The Lord our just one."

Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible,
"Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Yehudah shall be saved, and Yisra'el shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: the LORD our righteousness."

New Century Version,
""The days are coming," says the Lord, "when I will raise up a good branch in David's family. He will be a king who will rule in a wise way; he will do what is fair and right in the land. 6 In his time Judah will be saved, and Israel will live in safety. This will be his name: The Lord Does What Is Right."

The Latin Vulgate,
"ecce dies veniunt ait Dominus et suscitabo David germen iustum et regnabit rex et sapiens erit et faciet iudicium et iustitiam in terra 6 in diebus illius salvabitur Iuda et Israhel habitabit confidenter et hoc est nomen quod vocabunt eum Dominus iustus noster"

(2) Special comments by Mark Larson on God's (YHWH) Name:

"When I first came across this amazing assertion that 'adoni' is
never used in ref. to Almighty GOD, I was stunned.
I used 'Bibleworks' bible software, which allows you to search
actual Hebrew & Greek words, in order to see if these things be so.
I took the Hebrew adoni as shown in Psalms 110:1 and searched 'on
that actual Hebrew word' and sure enough ... 195 verses appeared.
I check each occurrence, and sure enough, adoni is never used in
ref. to Almighty GOD. (I attached the list below)
Just remember, 'LORD' - all caps = YAHWEH, GOD's name
[Strong's 3068, 3069]
'Lord' - cap. L - Adonai = GOD's title as SUPREME LORD - solely used
in regards to Almighty GOD [Strong's 136] Except for about 30 times
when 'Lord' is used for 'adon' in ref. to GOD
'lord' - lowercase = adon (or adoni) = lord, master or owner
[Strong's 113]
Although Strong assigns the number 113 to this Hebrew word, he does
NOT number its derivatives; i.e. Strong's does NOT show/number the
distinction between adon & adoni.
The word 'adon' IS USED in regards to GOD about 30 times, in the
sense that He is Lord/Owner of the earth e.g. Josh 3:13, Psa 97:5,
Micah 4:13, Zec 4:14, etc. - even as shown in your list below

[For more details have a read of http://www.planetkc.com/stm/lord,_lord,_lord.htm
AND
http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/adonai.htm
]

Here is a list of the 195 occurrences of adoni ... a total of 163
verses ... where the word 'adon' occurs more than once, I repeat the
verse again e.g. Gen 24:12
Hope this is of help ...

1. Gen. 18:12
2. Gen. 23:6
3. Gen. 23:11
4. Gen. 23:15
5. Gen. 24:12
6. Gen. 24:12
7. Gen. 24:14
8. Gen. 24:18
9. Gen. 24:27
10. Gen. 24:27
11. Gen. 24:27
12. Gen. 24:35
13. Gen. 24:36
14. Gen. 24:36
15. Gen. 24:37
16. Gen. 24:39
17. Gen. 24:42
18. Gen. 24:44
19. Gen. 24:48
20. Gen. 24:48
21. Gen. 24:49
22. Gen. 24:54
23. Gen. 24:56
24. Gen. 24:65
25. Gen. 31:35
26. Gen. 32:4
27. Gen. 32:5
28. Gen. 32:18
29. Gen. 33:8
30. Gen. 33:13
31. Gen. 33:14
32. Gen. 33:14
33. Gen. 33:15
34. Gen. 39:8
35. Gen. 42:10
36. Gen. 43:20
37. Gen. 44:5
38. Gen. 44:7
39. Gen. 44:9
40. Gen. 44:16
41. Gen. 44:16
42. Gen. 44:18
43. Gen. 44:18
44. Gen. 44:19
45. Gen. 44:20
46. Gen. 44:22
47. Gen. 44:24
48. Gen. 44:33
49. Gen. 47:18
50. Gen. 47:18
51. Gen. 47:18
52. Gen. 47:25
53. Exod. 21:5
54. Exod. 32:22
55. Num. 11:28
56. Num. 12:11
57. Num. 32:25
58. Num. 32:27
59. Num. 36:2
60. Num. 36:2
61. Jos. 5:14
62. Jdg. 4:18
63. Jdg. 6:13
64. Ruth 2:13
65. 1 Sam. 1:15
66. 1 Sam. 1:26
67. 1 Sam. 1:26
68. 1 Sam. 22:12
69. 1 Sam. 24:6
70. 1 Sam. 24:8
71. 1 Sam. 24:10
72. 1 Sam. 25:24
73. 1 Sam. 25:25
74. 1 Sam. 25:25
75. 1 Sam. 25:26
76. 1 Sam. 25:26
77. 1 Sam. 25:27
78. 1 Sam. 25:27
79. 1 Sam. 25:28
80. 1 Sam. 25:28
81. 1 Sam. 25:29
82. 1 Sam. 25:30
83. 1 Sam. 25:31
84. 1 Sam. 25:31
85. 1 Sam. 25:31
86. 1 Sam. 25:41
87. 1 Sam. 26:17
88. 1 Sam. 26:18
89. 1 Sam. 26:19
90. 1 Sam. 29:8
91. 1 Sam. 30:13
92. 1 Sam. 30:15
93. 2 Sam. 1:10
94. 2 Sam. 3:21
95. 2 Sam. 4:8
96. 2 Sam. 9:11
97. 2 Sam. 11:11
98. 2 Sam. 11:11
99. 2 Sam. 13:32
100. 2 Sam. 13:33
101. 2 Sam. 14:9
102. 2 Sam. 14:12
103. 2 Sam. 14:15
104. 2 Sam. 14:17
105. 2 Sam. 14:17
106. 2 Sam. 14:18
107. 2 Sam. 14:19
108. 2 Sam. 14:19
109. 2 Sam. 14:20
110. 2 Sam. 14:22
111. 2 Sam. 15:15
112. 2 Sam. 15:21
113. 2 Sam. 15:21
114. 2 Sam. 16:4
115. 2 Sam. 16:9
116. 2 Sam. 18:28
117. 2 Sam. 18:31
118. 2 Sam. 18:32
119. 2 Sam. 19:19
120. 2 Sam. 19:19
121. 2 Sam. 19:20
122. 2 Sam. 19:26
123. 2 Sam. 19:27
124. 2 Sam. 19:27
125. 2 Sam. 19:28
126. 2 Sam. 19:30
127. 2 Sam. 19:35
128. 2 Sam. 19:37
129. 2 Sam. 24:3
130. 2 Sam. 24:3
131. 2 Sam. 24:21
132. 2 Sam. 24:22
133. 1 Ki. 1:2
134. 1 Ki. 1:2
135. 1 Ki. 1:13
136. 1 Ki. 1:17
137. 1 Ki. 1:18
138. 1 Ki. 1:20
139. 1 Ki. 1:20
140. 1 Ki. 1:21
141. 1 Ki. 1:24
142. 1 Ki. 1:27
143. 1 Ki. 1:27
144. 1 Ki. 1:31
145. 1 Ki. 1:36
146. 1 Ki. 1:37
147. 1 Ki. 1:37
148. 1 Ki. 2:38
149. 1 Ki. 3:17
150. 1 Ki. 3:26
151. 1 Ki. 18:7
152. 1 Ki. 18:10
153. 1 Ki. 18:13
154. 1 Ki. 20:4
155. 1 Ki. 20:9
156. 2 Ki. 2:19
157. 2 Ki. 4:16
158. 2 Ki. 4:28
159. 2 Ki. 5:3
160. 2 Ki. 5:18
161. 2 Ki. 5:20
162. 2 Ki. 5:22
163. 2 Ki. 6:5
164. 2 Ki. 6:12
165. 2 Ki. 6:15
166. 2 Ki. 6:26
167. 2 Ki. 8:5
168. 2 Ki. 8:12
169. 2 Ki. 10:9
170. 2 Ki. 18:23
171. 2 Ki. 18:24
172. 2 Ki. 18:27
173. 1 Chr. 21:3
174. 1 Chr. 21:3
175. 1 Chr. 21:3
176. 1 Chr. 21:23
177. 2 Chr. 2:14
178. 2 Chr. 2:15
179. Ps. 110:1
180. Isa. 36:8
181. Isa. 36:9
182. Isa. 36:12
183. Jer. 37:20
184. Jer. 38:9
185. Dan. 1:10
186. Dan. 10:16
187. Dan. 10:17
188. Dan. 10:17
189. Dan. 10:19
190. Dan. 12:8
191. Zech. 1:9
192. Zech. 4:4
193. Zech. 4:5
194. Zech. 4:13
195. Zech. 6:4




(3) The title, and that is what it is, of YHWH Sabbaoth does NOT apply to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) when correctly used/translated as shown, "Sabbaoth: "Translated as host(s) saba' means army(ies). ... Yahweh of Hosts is a special name for God. Yahweh and 'elohim occur with seba'ot some 285 times. ... Yahweh Sabbaoth appears for the first time in 1 Samuel 1:3.... Its origin appears to have been at the close of the period of the judges and in the vicinity of the sanctuary Shiloh, where the ark of the covenant was housed. The ark itself symbolized Yahweh's rulership; for he is declared to be enthroned between the cherubim (1Sam 4:4; cf, Psa 99:1). This name certainly contains the affirmation that Yahweh is the true head of Israel's armies" [source, "(TWOT) Harris, R. Laird, (editor). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press. 1980.] The fact that this title applied only to the Father (YHWH) was clearly shown by 1 Samuel 17:45 as David clearly understood that that God was the real commander of the Israelites army and Goliath's taunts were therefore directed at Almighty God (YHWH). In reality it was not the Almighty God (YHWH) was on their side, but that they were on his side. At this battle he proved he was the sovereign and was mightier than the pagan foes of his chosen people.

(3) Bible quotes made by others but dealing with there being only one Almighty God (YHWH):

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD(YHWH); and beside me there is no savior.

Isaiah 49:26b and all flesh shall know that I the LORD(YHWH) am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.


Isaiah 60:16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD(YHWH) am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD(YHWH) thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no savior beside me


Isiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD(YHWH) the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD(YHWH) of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.


Jeremiah 50:34 Their Redeemer is strong; the LORD(YHWH) of hosts is his name: he shall throughly plead their cause, that he may give rest to the land, and disquiet the inhabitants of Babylon

(4) How Jesus' (Yeshua's) name came to contain as its makeup his Father (YHWH), and how the use of YHWH as part of other names was common in ancient Israel:

ELIJAH m English, Jewish, Biblical
Pronounced: ee-LIE-zha
From the Hebrew name Eliyahu meaning "my God is YAHWEH". Elijah was a Hebrew prophet of the 9th century BC, during the reign of King Ahab and his queen, Jezebel. The two Books of Kings in the Old Testament tell of his exploits, which culminate with him being carried to heaven in a chariot of fire.

ISHMAEL m Biblical, English
Pronounced: ISH-may-el
From the Hebrew name Yishma'el meaning "God will hear". In the Old Testament this is the name of a son of Abraham. He is the traditional ancestor of the Arabs.

ISHMERAI m Biblical
Means "YAHWEH guards" in Hebrew. This name is mentioned briefly in the Old Testament

JEDIDIAH m Biblical
Pronounced: je-di-DIE-a
Means "beloved of YAHWEH" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament this is a name given to Solomon by Nathan.

JEHOSHAPHAT m Biblical
Pronounced: jee-HAWSH-a-fat
Means "YAHWEH has judged" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament he is a king of Judah.

JEHU m Biblical
Pronounced: JEE-hyoo
Means "YAHWEH is he" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament this name belongs to both a prophet and a king of Israel.

JEPHTHAH m Biblical
Pronounced: JEF-tha
Means "YAHWEH sets free" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament this name belongs to a judge who defends Israel from the Ammonites.

JEREMIAH m English, Jewish, Biblical
Pronounced: jer-e-MIE-a
From the Hebrew name Yirmeyahu which meant "YAHWEH has uplifted". This was the name of one of the major prophets of the Old Testament, author of the Book of Jeremiah and (supposedly) the Book of Lamentations. He lived to see the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in the 6th century BC.

JOAB m Biblical
Pronounced: JO-ab
Means "YAHWEH is the father" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament he was the commander of King David's army, but when Solomon came to power he was executed.

JOACHIM m English, French, German, Polish, Biblical
Pronounced: JO-a-kim (English), zho-a-SHEN (French), YO-aw-khim (German), yo-AW-khim (German)
Means "established by YAHWEH" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament Joachim is a king of Judah. In the apocryphal Gospel of James, Saint Joachim was the husband of Saint Anne and the father of the Virgin Mary.

JOASH m Biblical
Pronounced: JO-ash
From the Hebrew name Yoash which possibly meant either "fire of YAHWEH" or "YAHWEH has given". In the Old Testament this name belongs to several characters including the father of Gideon, a king of Judah, and a son of King Ahab of Israel.

JOEL m English, Jewish, Biblical
Pronounced: JOL, JO-ul
From the Hebrew name Yoel meaning "YAHWEH is God". Joel was a minor prophet in the Old Testament, the author of the Book of Joel.

JONATHAN m English, Biblical
Pronounced: JAWN-a-than
From the Hebrew name Yehonatan (contracted to Yonatan) meaning "YAHWEH has given". In the Old Testament Jonathan was the eldest son of Saul and a friend of David. He was killed in battle with the Philistines. A famous bearer of this name was Jonathan Swift, the satirist who wrote 'Gulliver's Travels' and other works.

JOSHUA m English, Biblical
Pronounced: JAW-shu-wa, JAW-shwa
From the Hebrew name Yehoshua which meant "YAHWEH is salvation". Joshua was one of the twelve spies sent into Canaan by Moses in the Old Testament. After Moses died Joshua succeeded him as leader of the Israelites. The name Jesus was a variant of the name Joshua.

JOSIAH m Biblical, English
Pronounced: jo-SIE-a
Means "YAHWEH supports" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament this is the name of a king of Judah famous for his religious reforms. He was killed fighting the Egyptians at Megiddo.

JOTHAM m Biblical
Pronounced: JO-tham
Means "YAHWEH is upright" in Hebrew. In the Old Testament this was the name of both a son of Gideon and a king of Judah.
[source, "t h e e t y m o l o g y a n d h i s t o r y o f f i r s t n a m e s "]

Joshua's name change

The name "Jesus" from the Greek New Testament is the same as the name "Joshua" from the Hebrew Old Testament. The man we call Jesus Christ was actually Joshua Christ.

Joshua was, of course, the name of the second leader of the nation of Israel. He was the man who saved Israel from its wilderness wandering and took it to the promised land.

Joshua's full name means "Jehovah saves." Joshua is actually a combined name. The first part is the name "Jehovah." The second part is the name "Hosea" (meaning "saviour").

However, most people do not know that "Joshua" was not this man's birth name. In Deuteronomy 32:44 he is called "Hosea." It appears that that was his birth name.

This is shown by the fact that the name "Jehovah" was not revealed to humanity until after Joshua's birth (Exodus 3:15). So it could not have been part of his name at birth. His name must have been changed later in life.

This name change was appropriate. If he was "Hosea" (saviour), people might think he was the one saving them from life in the wilderness. But as Joshua ("Jehovah-Hosea"), it shows that Jehovah was their true saviour.

A difficult task

About 1000 years after Joshua died, the Hebrew Old Testament was for the first time translated into another language, into Greek. The translators had a particularly difficult task translating Joshua's name.

The "Hosea" part of the name could be written in Greek fairly easily. (In Greek, it became "Osea," there being no "H" written in Greek.

However, the "Jehovah" part of Joshua's name had a serious problem.

In Hebrew, the word "Jehovah" is spelt YHWH. However, none of those letters occured in the Greek alphabet of the time. There was no Y or W in Greek. And while the letter H did exist, it was never written and was always the first letter of the word. So none of the letters from "Jehovah" could be written in Greek.

When the translators wanted to translate the word "Jehovah," they put a substitute word in its place. They used the Greek word for "Lord."

However, translating Joshua's name wasn't so easy. You couldn't put another word as part of the name. You had to make it the closest sound that the Greek alphabet could make for the name.

The translators did this by translating the Y in YHWH with the Greek letter "I." The other three letters (HWH) they just left out entirely. They also had to leave out the H at the start of "Hosea." So the name "Jehovah-Hosea" became "I-osea," or "Iesou." Since most Greek male names end in "s," "Iesou" became "Iesous," (Jesus).
[source, "Amazing Meaning Of The Name Jesus," by Phil Ward]


16 – Philippians 2:1 -6:

SCRIPTURES:

1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship
of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of
one mind.
3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each
esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was
made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto
death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above
every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in
earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
the Father.
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but
now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the
midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run
in vain, neither laboured in vain.” (Philippians 2:1-16 AV – Authorized King James
Version).

See Page 18

Page 18

SALIENT HEIGHLIGHTS – PHILIPPIANS 2:5-8:

First, Philippians 2:5-8 clearly show that Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) exist as a spirit
being in the same physical form type as his Father, Almighty God (YHWH), but that he,
Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) was obedient to his Father, but gave no thought to a
consideration to a seizure, namely that he should be equal to God. This can clearly be
seen by:

“6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a
thing to be grasped,” (Philippians 2:6 ASV – American Standard Bible).

“6 Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized, accounted the being equal
with God,” (Philippians 2:6 Rotherham)

“6 Existiendo en forma de Dios, él no consideró el ser igual a Dios como algo a qué
aferrarse;” (Philippians 2:6 Spanish RVA 89)

“who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own
advantage.” (Philippians 2:6 Holoman Standard Christian Bible)

“who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,”
(Philippians 2:6 NASV – New American Standard Version)

“who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something
to be exploited, “ (Philippians 2:6 NRSV – New Revised Standard Version)

“Who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should
be equal to God.” (Philippians 2:6 NWT – New World Translation)

“Christ himself was like God in everything. But he did not think that being equal with
God was something to be used for his own benefit.” (Philippians 2:6 New Century
Version)
“6Who, being in very nature[1] God, did not consider equality with God something to be
grasped, “ [alternate rend. Footnote - - 1 - Or in the form of] (Philippians 2:6 NIV – New
International Version)

“Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God, something to be grasped.”
(Philippians 2:6 The New American Bible –Catholic- Approved in the Vatican, September 18, 1970 by the
Pope)

“He was in every way like God. Yet he did not think that being equal to God was something he must hold
on to. “ (Philippians 2:6 World Wide English)

SALIENT SCRIPTURE AND ITS UNDERSTANDING – PHILIPPIANS 2:5-11:

This fact, that God’s Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is a separate spirit being from his Father
(YHWH) is even made much clearer if we view more than one scripture at a time:

“Let Christ himself be your example as to what your attitude should be. For he, who had
always been God by nature, did not cling to his prerogatives as God's equal, but stripped
himself of all privilege by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born as mortal
man. And, having become man, he humbled himself by living a life of utter obedience,
even to the extent of dying, and the death he died was the death of a common criminal.
That is why God has now lifted him so high, and has given him the name beyond all
names, so that at the name of Jesus "every knee shall bow", whether in Heaven or earth or
under the earth. And that is why, in the end, "every tongue shall confess" that Jesus
Christ" is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11 J B PHILLIPS
Translation of the NEW TESTAMENT)

The J.B. Phillips Translation of the New Testament makes clear the Son’s, Jesus’s
(Yeshua or YHWH saves) attitude with respect to being obedient to his Father, Almighty
God (YHWH). It states, “Let Christ himself be your example as to what your
attitude should be.” Which clearly shows that all genuine followers of the Son
should also be humble. Also, it clearly says, “For he, who had always been God by
nature, did not cling to his prerogatives as God's equal, but stripped himself of all
privilege by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born as mortal man.” That
although he was existing as a spirit creature just like his Father (YHWH) that he gave no
thought to being the equal of his Father (YHWH), but was subordinate and obedient to
him in clear conformity to “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is
Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1
Corinthians 11:3 AV). Clearly then, he, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) can not then
be a member of a co-equal trinity of beings in a Trinitarian Godhead since he is neither
equal to his Father, nor did not always exist as did his Father (YHWH) “ And unto the
angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful
and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;” (Revelation 3:14 AV) and “ Who
is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” (Colossians 1:15 AV).

His subjection was made quite clear as follows, “And, having become man, he humbled
himself by living a life of utter obedience, even to the extent of dying, and the death he
died was the death of a common criminal.” Clearly he, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves)
was doing the will of his Father (YHWH) . In fact, when tempted by Satan the Devil he
stated “ Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matthew 4:10 AV), “ Jesus
saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my
brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God,
and your God.” (John 20:17 AV), “21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour
cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father
in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and
they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 25 The woman saith unto
him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all
things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.” (John 4:21-26 AV).

Of course, since Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH) is Almighty God (YHWH) only begotten Son, he is
also a God, but a lessor one; therefore, The First Commandment of the Ten Commandments, “
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:3 AV), is not violated since he is neither
equal to or before his Father.

Since he has proved his obedience to his Father (YHWH), his Father (YHWH) has " That is why
God has now lifted him so high, and has given him the name beyond all names, so that at
the name of Jesus "every knee shall bow", whether in Heaven or earth or under the earth.
And that is why, in the end, "every tongue shall confess" that Jesus Christ" is the Lord, to
the glory of God the Father.” And his Father has subjected all things onto his Son, except
himself, “17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they
also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ,
we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the
firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection
of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every
man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father;
when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he
hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” 27 For he
hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that
he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto
him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God
may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:17-28 AV). Therefore, it is clear that Almighty God, the
Father (YHWH) is the superior one since he has put all things under his Son, Jesus (Yeshua or
YHWH saves), except himself, and could not do so unless he was above or superior to his Son.
Also, it is clear that after he accomplishes his Father’s purpose, he, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH
saves), will subject himself to his father, “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then
shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all
in all.” This clearly shows that Trinitarian Theology and Dualism Theology are false dogma and
should be clearly rejected by all Christians.

COMMENTS BY OTHER BIBLE SCHOLARS ON PHILIPPIANS 2:5 -11:

Bible Scholar, Theodore Beza, stated:

2:5 2 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
(2) He sets before them a most perfect example of all modesty and sweet conduct, Christ Jesus,
whom we ought to follow with all our might: who abased himself so much for our sakes, although
he is above all, that he took upon himself the form of a servant, that is, our flesh, willingly subject
to all weaknesses, even to the death of the cross.
2:6 Who, being in the d form of God, e thought it not robbery to be f equal with God:
(d) Such as God himself is, and therefore God, for there is no one in all parts equal to God but God
himself.
(e) Christ, that glorious and everlasting God, knew that he might rightfully and lawfully not appear
in the base flesh of man, but remain with majesty fit for God: yet he chose rather to debase
himself.
(f) If the Son is equal with the Father, then is there of necessity an equality, which Arrius that
heretic denies: and if the Son is compared to the Father, then is there a distinction of persons,
which Sabellius that heretic denies.
2:7 But made himself of g no reputation, and took upon him the h form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men:
(g) He brought himself from all things, as it were to nothing.
(h) By taking our manhood upon him.
2:9 3 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a i name which is above every name:
(3) He shows the most glorious even of Christ’s submission, to teach us that
modesty is the true way to true praise and glory.
(i) Dignity and high distinction, and that which accompanies it.
2:10 That at the name of Jesus k every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and
[things] under the earth;
(k) All creatures will at length be subject to Christ.
2:11 And [that] l every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
(l) Every nation. [Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible".
1600-1645.]

Bible Scholar, Matthew Henry, said:

Note, this scholars comments cover more than Philippians 2:5-11, it cover Philippians 2:1-11.
The apostle proceeds in this chapter where he left off in the last, with further exhortations to
Christian duties. He presses them largely to like-mindedness and lowly-mindedness, in
conformity to the example of the Lord Jesus, the great pattern of humility and love. Here we may
observe, I. The great gospel precept passed upon us; that is, to love one another. This is the law
of Christ’s kingdom, the lesson of his school, the livery of his family. This he represents (v. 2) by
being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. We are of a like mind
when we have the same love. Christians should be one in affection, whether they can be one in
apprehension or no. This is always in their power, and always their duty, and is the likeliest way
to bring them nearer in judgment. Having the same love. Observe, The same love that we are
required to express to others, others are bound to express to us. Christian love ought to be
mutual love. Love, and you shall be loved. Being of one accord, and of one mind; not crossing
and thwarting, or driving on separate interests, but unanimously agreeing in the great things of
God and keeping the unity of the Spirit in other differences. Here observe, 1. The pathetic
pressing of the duty. He is very importunate with them, knowing what an evidence it is of our
sincerity, and what a means of the preservation and edification of the body of Christ. The
inducements to brotherly love are these:—(1.) "If there is any consolation in Christ. Have you
experienced consolation in Christ? Evidence that experience by loving one another.’’ The
sweetness we have found in the doctrine of Christ should sweeten our spirits. Do we expect
consolation in Christ? If we would not be disappointed, we must love one another. If we have not
consolation in Christ, where else can we expect it? Those who have an interest in Christ have
consolation in him, strong and everlasting consolation (Heb. 6:18; 2 Th. 2:16), and therefore
ought to love one another. (2.) "Comfort of love. If there is any comfort in Christian love, in God’s
love to you, in your love to God, or in your brethren’s love to us, in consideration of all this, be you
like-minded. If you have ever found that comfort, if you would find it, if you indeed believe that the
grace of love is a comfortable grace, abound in it.’’ (3.) "Fellowship of the Spirit. If there is such a
thing as communion with God and Christ by the Spirit, such a thing as the communion of saints,
by virtue of their being animated and actuated by one and the same Spirit, be you like-minded; for
Christian love and like-mindedness will preserve to us our communion with God and with one
another.’’ (4.) "Any bowels and mercies, in God and Christ, towards you. If you expect the benefit
of God’s compassions to yourselves, be you compassionate one to another. If there is such a
thing as mercy to be found among the followers of Christ, if all who are sanctified have a
disposition to holy pity, make it appear this way.’’ How cogent are these arguments! One would
think them enough to tame the most fierce, and mollify the hardest, heart. (5.) Another argument
he insinuates is the comfort it would be to him: Fulfil you my joy. It is the joy of ministers to see
people like-minded and living in love. He had been instrumental in bringing them to the grace of
Christ and the love of God. "Now,’’ says he, "if you have found any benefit by your participation of
the gospel of Christ, if you have any comfort in it, or advantage by it, fulfil the joy of your poor
minister, who preached the gospel to you.’’ 2. He proposes some means to promote it. (1.) Do
nothing through strife and vain glory, v. 3. There is no greater enemy to Christian love than pride
and passion. If we do things in contradiction to our brethren, this is doing them through strife; if
we do them through ostentation of ourselves, this is doing them through vain-glory: both are
destructive of Christian love and kindle unchristian heats. Christ came to slay all enmities;
therefore let there not be among Christians a spirit of opposition. Christ came to humble us, and
therefore let there not be among us a spirit of pride. (2.) We must esteem others in lowliness of
mind better than ourselves, be severe upon our own faults and charitable in our judgments of
others, be quick in observing our own defects and infirmities, but ready to overlook and make
favourable allowances for the defects of others. We must esteem the good which is in others
above that which is in ourselves; for we best know our own unworthiness and imperfections. (3.)
We must interest ourselves in the concerns of others, not in a way of curiosity and
censoriousness, or as busy-bodies in other men’s matters, but in Christian love and sympathy:
Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others, v. 4. A selfish
spirit is destructive of Christian love. We must be concerned not only for our own credit, and
ease, and safety, but for those of others also; and rejoice in the prosperity of others as truly as in
our own. We must love our neighbour as ourselves, and make his case our own. II. Here is a
gospel pattern proposed to our imitation, and that is the example of our Lord Jesus Christ: Let this
mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, v. 5. Observe, Christians must be of Christ’s mind.
We must bear a resemblance to his life, if we would have the benefit of his death. If we have not
the Spirit of Christ, we are none of his, Rom. 8:9. Now what was the mind of Christ? He was
eminently humble, and this is what we are peculiarly to learn of him. Learn of me, for I am meek
and lowly in heart, Mt. 11:29. If we were lowly-minded, we should be like-minded; and, if we were
like Christ, we should be lowly-minded. We must walk in the same spirit and in the same steps
with the Lord Jesus, who humbled himself to sufferings and death for us; not only to satisfy God’s
justice, and pay the price of our redemption, but to set us an example, and that we might follow
his steps. Now here we have the two natures and the two states of our Lord Jesus. It is
observable that the apostle, having occasion to mention the Lord Jesus, and the mind which was
in him, takes the hint to enlarge upon his person, and to give a particular description of him. It is a
pleasing subject, and a gospel minister needs not think himself out of the way when he is upon it;
any fit occasion should be readily taken. 1. Here are the two natures of Christ: his divine nature
and his human nature. (1.) Here is his divine nature: Who being in the form of God (v. 6),
partaking of the divine nature, as the eternal and only begotten Son of God. This agrees with Jn.
1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God: it is of the same import with
being the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), and the brightness of his glory, and express
image of his person, Heb. 1:3. He thought it no robbery to be equal with God; did not think himself
guilty of any invasion of what did not belong to him, or assuming another’s right. He said, I and
my Father are one, Jn. 10:30. It is the highest degree of robbery for any mere man or mere
creature to pretend to be equal with God, or profess himself one with the Father. This is for a man
to rob God, not in tithes and offerings, but of the rights of his Godhead, Mal. 3:8. Some
understand being in the form of God — en morphe Theou hyparchon, of his appearance in a
divine majestic glory to the patriarchs, and the Jews, under the Old Testament, which was often
called the glory, and the Shechinah. The word is used in such a sense by the Septuagint and in
the New Testament. He appeared to the two disciples, en hetera morphe — In another form, Mk.
16:12. Metemorphothe — he was transfigured before them, Mt. 17:2. And he thought it no
robbery to be equal with God; he did not greedily catch at, nor covet and affect to appear in that
glory; he laid aside the majesty of his former appearance while he was here on earth, which is
supposed to be the sense of the peculiar expression, ouk harpagmon hegesato. Vid. Bishop
Bull’s Def. cap. 2 sect. 4 et alibi, and Whitby in loc. (2.) His human nature: He was made in the
likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man. He was really and truly man, took part of our
flesh and blood, appeared in the nature and habit of man. And he voluntarily assumed human
nature; it was his own act, and by his own consent. We cannot say that our participation of the
human nature is so. Herein he emptied himself, divested himself of the honours and glories of the
upper world, and of his former appearance, to clothe himself with the rags of human nature. He
was in all things like to us, Heb. 2:17. 2. Here are his two estates, of humiliation and exaltation.
(1.) His estate of humiliation. He not only took upon him the likeness and fashion of a man, but
the form of a servant, that is, a man of mean estate. He was not only God’s servant whom he had
chosen, but he came to minister to men, and was among them as one who serveth in a mean and
servile state. One would think that the Lord Jesus, if he would be a man, should have been a
prince, and appeared in splendour. But quite the contrary: He took upon him the form of a
servant. He was brought up meanly, probably working with his supposed father at his trade. His
whole life was a life of humiliation, meanness, poverty, and disgrace; he had nowhere to lay his
head, lived upon alms, was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, did not appear with
external pomp, or any marks of distinction from other men. This was the humiliation of his life. But
the lowest step of his humiliation was his dying the death of the cross. He became obedient to
death, even the death of the cross. He not only suffered, but was actually and voluntarily
obedient; he obeyed the law which he brought himself under as Mediator, and by which he was
obliged to die. I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again: this
commandment have I received of my Father, Jn. 10:18. And he was made under the law, Gal.
4:4. There is an emphasis laid upon the manner of his dying, which had in it all the circumstances
possible which are humbling: Even the death of the cross, a cursed, painful, and shameful
death,—a death accursed by the law (Cursed is he that hangeth on a tree) —full of pain, the body
nailed through the nervous parts (the hands and feet) and hanging with all its weight upon the
cross,—and the death of a malefactor and a slave, not of a free-man,—exposed as a public
spectacle. Such was the condescension of the blessed Jesus. (2.) His exaltation: Wherefore God
also hath highly exalted him. His exaltation was the reward of his humiliation. Because he
humbled himself, God exalted him; and he highly exalted him, hyperypsose, raised him to an
exceeding height. He exalted his whole person, the human nature as well as the divine; for he is
spoken of as being in the form of God as well as in the fashion of man. As it respects the divine
nature, it could only be the recognizing of his rights, or the display and appearance of the glory he
had with the Father before the world was (Jn. 17:5), not any new acquisition of glory; and so the
Father himself is said to be exalted. But the proper exaltation was of his human nature, which
alone seems to be capable of it, though in conjunction with the divine. His exaltation here is made
to consist in honour and power. In honour; so he had a name above every name, a title of dignity
above all the creatures, men and angels. And in power: Every knee must bow to him. The whole
creation must be in subjection to him: things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the
earth, the inhabitants of heaven and earth, the living and the dead. At the name of Jesus; not at
the sound of the word, but the authority of Jesus; all should pay a solemn homage. And that
every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord —every nation and language should
publicly own the universal empire of the exalted Redeemer, and that all power in heaven and
earth is given to him, Mt. 28:18. Observe the vast extent of the kingdom of Christ; it reaches to
heaven and earth, and to all the creatures in each, to angels as well as men, and to the dead as
well as the living.— To the glory of God the Father. Observe, It is to the glory of God the Father to
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; for it is his will that all men should honour the Son as they
honour the Father, Jn. 5:23. Whatever respect is paid to Christ redounds to the honour of the
Father. He who receiveth me receiveth him who sent me, Mt. 10:40.
[Henry, Matthew. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole
Bible". 1706.]

Bible Scholar, Barton W. Johnson, stated:

5-8. Let this mind be in you. He points to Christ as the example of humility and consecration to the good
of others. 6. Who, being in the form of God. He refers to the state of our Savior before he took human
form. His form was divine. "He had a glory with the father before the world was." See John 1:1; 2 Cor. 4:4;
Heb. 1:3, etc. Thought it not robbery to be equal with God. The Revision says, "Counted it not a prize."
The meaning is not entirely clear, but probably is that "Having a form of glory like God, he did not count it
a prize which must be clung to tenaciously, especially when he appeared upon the earth, that he should be
equal with God, that is, appear in a divine form, but was willing to lay aside his glory and make himself a
servant." 7. Emptied himself. Of the divine form and glory, and took the form of a servant, of our own
race, a race whose duty it is to serve God. The divine glory was exchanged for human lowliness. 8. He
humbled himself. Note the infinite condescension: (1) The form of God and sharing the divine glory. (2)
He divests himself of this. (3) Nor does he then take the divine form, or even the form of an angel, but of
lowly, sinful man. (4) But this is not all. He not only takes the form of man, but the mortality of the flesh,
and dies. (5) Nay, more; he dies the most shameful and painful of all deaths, even the death of the cross.

9-11. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him. His wonderful humility had been shown, but it is the
law of the universe that he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. Therefore God lifted him up from the
grave to the heavens, gave all power into his hands (Matt. 28:18), and gave him a name above every
name. The idea is an authority, a position, above that of all intelligences. This exaltation made the humble
name, Jesus, a name above every name. 10. That at the name of Jesus. That name, by the exaltation, has
become the name of the King of kings. It is supreme. Hence, every knee in all the universe bows to its
majesty. Under the earth. In the under-world, hades, the abode of the dead. 11. And that every tongue
should confess. All the universe is called to confess him as Lord, and thus glorify God. All will yet confess
him, either in joy or shame. [Johnson, Barton W. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "People's New
Testament". 1891.]

SALIENT HEIGHLIGHTS – PHILIPPIANS 2:1-4:

“Now if your experience of Christ's encouragement and love means anything to you, if
you have known something of the fellowship of his Spirit, and all that it means in
kindness and deep sympathy, do make my best hope for you come true! Live together in
harmony, live together in love, as though you had only one mind and one spirit between
you. Never act from motives of rivalry or personal vanity, but in humility think more of
each other then you do of yourselves. None of you should think only of his own affairs,
but should learn to see things from other people's point of view.” .” (Philippians 2:1-4 J
B PHILLIPS Translation of the NEW TESTAMENT).

This group of scriptures drives home the point that God’s way is love. It clearly
emphasis Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) encouragement to love, “love means anything
to you, if you have known something of the fellowship of his Spirit, and all that it means
in kindness and deep sympathy, do make my best hope for you come true!”

It shows we should, “! Live together in harmony, live together in love, as though you had
only one mind and one spirit between you. Never act from motives of rivalry or personal
vanity, but in humility think more of each other then you do of yourselves. None of you
should think only of his own affairs, but should learn to see things from other people's
point of view.”

This same point of love distinguishes true Christianity as being all about love, 1 st. love
for the Creator, Jehovah God, and second love for one's fellow man. You can not love
God whom you can not see if you do not at first love your fellow man whom you can see.
When Jesus Christ was asked what is the greatest commandment, he answered, “Master,
which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is
the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
(Matthew 22:36-40 AV). The Holy Bible plainly shows we should not judge our
neighbors, but love them. This does not mean loving their sin. Matthew 7:1-2, states,
"Stop judging that you may not be judged; for with what judgment you are judging, you
will be judged," and Romans 14:4, 10-13, "Who are you to judge the house servant of
another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God
can make him stand. But why do you judge your brother? For we shall all stand before
the judgment seat of God... Therefore let us not be judging one another any longer," this
plainly shows no true Christian should be executing judgment on anyone with respect sin.
In fact this would be a usurping of God's exclusive right, i.e., blaspheme, Matthew 25:31-
32 states, "When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he
will sit down on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and
he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the
goats." Second, we should be loving our neighbors and attempting to get them to turn
away from sin, not judging, hurting, or killing them in violation of God's law.

COMMENTS BY OTHER BIBLE SCHOLARS ON PHILIPPIANS 2:1-4:

Bible Scholar, Theodore Beza, stated:

2:1 If 1 [there be] therefore any consolation in a Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of
the Spirit, if any b bowels and mercies,
(1) A most earnest request to remove all those things, by which that great and special
consent and agreement is commonly broken, that is, contention and pride, by which it
comes to pass that they separate themselves from one another.
(a) Any Christian comfort.
(b) If any seeking of inward love.
2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the c same love, [being] of one accord, of one
mind.
(c) Equal love. [Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible". 1600-
1645.]
Bible Scholar, Barton W. Johnson, stated:
1-4. If there be therefore any consolation, etc. The apostle does not doubt that there is consolation,
comfort, spiritual fellowship, etc., in Christ, but bases an exhortation on what the Philippians knew to be
the case. Bowels and mercies. "Tender mercies and compassion," as in the Revision. 2. Fulfil ye my joy.
Make my joy full. They had already given him much joy (4:1-10), but he desired one thing more; viz., that
they be like-minded, in full agreement, perfect harmony. Having the same love. Loving one another with
pure hearts fervently. Being of one accord. Of one heart and soul. No outward strife. 3. Nothing through
strife or vain glory. No party spirit or striving for human praise. Let each esteem, etc. Instead of exalting
himself, each is to exalt others in his esteem. He that is willing to serve is greatest. 4. Look not every man
on his own things. Do not look out for your own interests alone, but for the interests of others rather than
your own. [Johnson, Barton W. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "People's New Testament". 1891.]

SALIENT HEIGHLIGHTS – PHILIPPIANS 2:11-16:

“So then, my dearest friends, as you have always followed my advice - and that not only
when I was present to give it - so now that I am far away be keener than ever to work out
the salvation that God has given you with a proper sense of awe and responsibility. For it
is God who is at work within you, giving you the will and the power to achieve his
purpose. Do all you have to do without grumbling or arguing, so that you may be God's
children, blameless, sincere and wholesome, living in a warped and diseased world, and
shining there like lights in a dark place. For you hold in your hands the very word of life.
Thus can you give me something to be proud of in the day of Christ, for I shall know then
that I did not spend my energy in vain. “.” (Philippians 2:1-4 J B PHILLIPS Translation
of the NEW TESTAMENT).

Here the Apostle Paul is showing we must work out our salvation with God (YHWH).
He states, “For it is God who is at work within you, giving you the will and the power to
achieve his purpose.” How so, well through his active force which is commonly known
as the Holy Spirit.

He gives us admonition to, “Do all you have to do without grumbling or arguing, so that
you may be God's children, blameless, sincere and wholesome, living in a warped and
diseased world, and shining there like lights in a dark place. For you hold in your hands
the very word of life.” We should not be grumbling or arguing with each other, but
should bear in mind that we are living in a warped and diseased world that will shortly be
replaced by a righteous world that we pray for, “5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not
be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the
corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have
their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast
shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret
shall reward thee openly. 7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen
do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8 Be not ye therefore
like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy
name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew
6:5-10 AV).

This will clearly come about shortly when Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) starts to fulfill his assignment
by his Father is given the ‘go ahead’ to answer our pray, “10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done
in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10 AV). This day, will be, “Thus can you give me
something to be proud of in the day of Christ, for I shall know then that I did not spend
my energy in vain. “ To reiterate, Almighty God’s (JYWH’s) command or assignment to
his Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves), “22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits;
afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall
have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all
rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under
his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all
things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that
he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be
subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things
under him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:10-28 AV).

COMMENTS BY OTHER BIBLE SCHOLARS ON PHILIPPIANS 2:12-16:

Bible Scholar, Theodore Beza, stated:

12, 13. Wherefore, my beloved. From the contemplation of Christ's glory, the apostle turns to the lessons
needed by the Philippian church. Work out your own salvation. While Christ is our Savior, and the author
of our salvation, we must accept him and work together with him. Hence the Holy Spirit says, "Save
yourselves" (Acts 2:40), and "work out your own salvation." Unless we do our part Christ cannot save us.
With fear and trembling. With constant anxiety not to fail. 13. For it is God which worketh in you. God
works in the converted person by his word and Spirit. His Spirit is a helper. It does not destroy our free
will, for we may resist it (1 Thess. 5:19). Both to will and to work. God shows his will by his word and
spirit and work in us. We ought to heed it. We can work in harmony with the divine will, or we may reject
to our damnation. His good pleasure. As seemeth best to him.

14-18. Do all things without murmurings. Without complaining. Some persons pass their lives
complaining. 15. The sons of God. Those of so high estate ought to be harmless, blameless, and in the
midst of a crooked and perverse generation, a wicked world, they should shine as lights by their pure
and holy lives. 16. Holding forth the word of life. Always preaching Christ in word, in life, and in deed.
That was their work. Unless they did this they were a failure. That I may rejoice. Unless they had done so
he would be made to feel, in the day of Christ, the day of accounts, that his labor at Philippi was in vain.
[Johnson, Barton W. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "People's New Testament". 1891.]

Bible Scholar, Matthew Henry, said:

He exhorts them to diligence and seriousness in the Christian course: Work out your own salvation. It is the
salvation of our souls (1 Pt. 1:9), and our eternal salvation (Heb. 5:9), and contains deliverance from all the
evils sin had brought upon us and exposed us to, and the possession of all good and whatsoever is
necessary to our complete and final happiness. Observe, It concerns us above all things to secure the
welfare of our souls: whatever becomes of other things, let us take care of our best interests. It is our own
salvation, the salvation of our own souls. It is not for us to judge other people; we have enough to do to
look to ourselves; and, though we must promote the common salvation (Jude 3) as much as we can, yet we
must upon no account neglect our own. We are required to work out our salvation, katergazesthe. The word
signifies working thoroughly at a thing, and taking true pains. Observe, We must be diligent in the use of
all the means which conduce to our salvation. We must not only work at our salvation, by doing something
now and then about it; but we must work out our salvation, by doing all that is to be done, and persevering
therein to the end. Salvation is the great thing we should mind, and set our hearts upon; and we cannot
attain salvation without the utmost care and diligence. He adds, With fear and trembling, that is, with great
care and circumspection: "Trembling for fear lest you miscarry and come short. Be careful to do every
thing in religion in the best manner, and fear lest under all your advantages you should so much as seem to
come short,’’ Heb. 4:1. Fear is a great guard and preservative from evil. II. He urges this from the
consideration of their readiness always to obey the gospel: "As you have always obeyed, not as in my
presence only, but now much more in my absence, v. 12. You have been always willing to comply with
every discovery of the will of God; and that in my absence as well as presence. You make it to appear that
regard to Christ, and care of your souls, sway more with you than any mode of showing respect
whatsoever.’’ They were not merely awed by the apostle’s presence, but did it even much more in his
absence. "And because it is God who worketh in you, do you work out your salvation. Work, for he
worketh.’’ It should encourage us to do our utmost, because our labour shall not be in vain. God is ready to
concur with his grace, and assist our faithful endeavours. Observe, Though we must use our utmost
endeavours in working out our salvation, yet still we must go forth, and go on, in a dependence upon the
grace of God. His grace works in us in a way suitable to our natures, and in concurrence with our
endeavours; and the operations of God’s grace in us are so far from excusing, that they are intended to
quicken and engage our endeavours. "And work out our salvation with fear and trembling, for he worketh
in you.’’ All our working depends upon his working in us. "Do not trifle with God by neglects and delays,
lest you provoke him to withdraw his help, and all your endeavours prove in vain. Work with fear, for he
works of his good pleasure.’’—To will and to do: he gives the whole ability. It is the grace of God which
inclines the will to that which is good: and then enables us to perform it, and to act according to our
principles. Thou hast wrought all our works in us, Isa. 26:12. Of his good pleasure. As there is no strength
in us, so there is no merit in us. As we cannot act without God’s grace, so we cannot claim it, nor pretend to
deserve it. God’s good will to us is the cause of his good work in us; and he is under no engagements to his
creatures, but those of his gracious promise. [Henry, Matthew. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "Matthew
Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible". 1706.]

Bible Scholar, Barton W. Johnson, stated:

12-13 Wherefore, my beloved. From the contemplation of Christ's glory, the apostle turns to the lessons
needed by the Philippian church. Work out your own salvation. While Christ is our Savior, and the author
of our salvation, we must accept him and work together with him. Hence the Holy Spirit says, "Save
yourselves" (Acts 2:40), and "work out your own salvation." Unless we do our part Christ cannot save us.
With fear and trembling. With constant anxiety not to fail. 13. For it is God which worketh in you. God
works in the converted person by his word and Spirit. His Spirit is a helper. It does not destroy our free
will, for we may resist it (1 Thess. 5:19). Both to will and to work. God shows his will by his word and
spirit and work in us. We ought to heed it. We can work in harmony with the divine will, or we may reject
to our damnation. His good pleasure. As seemeth best to him.

14-16. Do all things without murmurings. Without complaining. Some persons pass their lives
complaining. 15. The sons of God. Those of so high estate ought to be harmless, blameless, and in the
midst of a crooked and perverse generation, a wicked world, they should shine as lights by their pure
and holy lives. 16. Holding forth the word of life. Always preaching Christ in word, in life, and in deed.
That was their work. Unless they did this they were a failure. That I may rejoice. Unless they had done so
he would be made to feel, in the day of Christ, the day of accounts, that his labor at Philippi was in vain.
[Johnson, Barton W. "Commentary on Philippians 2". "People's New Testament". 1891.]

CONCLUSION:

It can clearly be seen that while Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is a God, he is a lessor
God than his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) and is subordinate to his and not equal to or
before him. Therefore Christianity is a monotheistic religion. This is in keeping with the
First of the Ten Commandments, “ And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto
Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to
them.” (Exodus 6:3 AV) and “ That men may know that thou, whose name alone is
JEHOVAH [Yehovah probably is more in keeping with YHWH], art the most high over all
the earth.” (Psalms 83:18 AV), and his Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) said, “ And
he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy
name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.” (Luke 11:2 AV).
Note, he, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) wanted his followers to recognize that his
Father’s (YHWH’s) name should be “hallowed” and not his own name, clearly showing
he was obedient to his Father, a superior one.

As stated earlier, “Of course, since Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH) is Almighty God (YHWH) only begotten
Son, he is also a God, but a lessor one; therefore, The First Commandment of the Ten Commandments, “
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:3 AV), is not violated since he is neither equal to or
before his Father.” The Bible makes his position as, “ The beginning of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God;” (Mark 1:1 AV). He is the ONLY mediator between God (YHWH)
and mankind as shown by, “ For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus;” (1 Timothy 2:5 AV).

This is a most interesting scripture as it clearly shows Almighty God’s (YHWH’s) superior
position and that the Father (YHWH) and his Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) are
two distinct spirit beings with the Son being the subordinate.

See Page 19

Page 19


17 – John 8:58:

With regard John 8:58 “ Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58 AV). Now let’s look at some of the Bible scriptures impinging on this:

a) That Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) did not always exist, but was created long before the foundation or creation of the earth in which he participated:
“ 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)
“ Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” (Colossians 1:15 AV)
Thus, Jesus’ statement that he was, “, Before Abraham was, I am.” Is obviously correct as he was created before the foundations of the earth were created.
b) Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) participated in the creation of the earth also showing he existed before Abraham:
“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.” (Colossians 1:16-17 AV)
“ He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.” (John 1:10 AV)
c) When he was down on earth he said he was going back to where he came from and asked his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) to give him back his glory that he previously had, expressed in earthly terms, at the right hand of his Father (YHWH):
“ And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (John 17:5 AV)
“ What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” (John 6:62 AV)
“ But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;” (Hebrews 10:12 AV)
“ But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,” (Acts 7:55 AV)
“ Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” (Acts 2:33 AV)
“ So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” (Mark 16:19 AV)
“ And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:62 AV)
“ Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.” (Luke 22:69 AV)
d) God has given his Son, Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) power over everything but himself until conditions are turned around:
“22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Coronthians 15:22-28 AV)
e) When asked by the mother some of his followers to let her sons sit on his right hand in heaven, he said:
“ And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” (Matthew 20:23 AV)
f) Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) never claimed to be God, but the son of God:
“ 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 10:36 AV)
“ And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.” (John 5:37 AV)
“17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. 19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.” (John 8:17-19 AV)
f) Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) is the one mediator between mankind and God, one can not be a mediator with himself proving they are separate entities in heaven where he is the mediator:
“ For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” (1 Timothy 2:5 AV)
g) The God of Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) is his Father, Almighty God:
“ Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:17 AV)
“ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,” (1 Peter 1:3 AV)
“ And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34 AV)
h) His first century followers did not believe he was God:
“ But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1 Corinthians 8:6 AV)
i) Jesus called his Father the only true God:
“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.” (John 17:1-3 AV)
j) His Apostles and the Virgin Mary and his first century followers considered him God’s Son and not Almighty God (YHWH):
“ Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.” (Matthew 14:33 AV)
“ Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.” (1 John 4:15 AV)
“ 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 1:35 AV)
“ And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.” (John 1:34 AV)
“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. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 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 3:16-18 AV)
“29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 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.” (John 20:29-31 AV)

Now one scholar said this about John 8:58:
“I note two recurring assumptions made by several participants regarding this pericope.
(1) That Jesus' response somehow directly answers his interlocuter's question. I hold that this assumption is invalidated given the tendency of Jesus to answer a question with a question (and to rarely answer any question directly, particularly when addressed to him by an interlocuter, and never in a spiral of ad homonym violence).
(2) That both parties (Jesus and "the Jews") understood the statement of the other(s) unequivocally. I hold that given the emotionally charged context (the (il)legitimacy
of Jesus) that it is very likely there was misunderstanding, hence, when Jesus says "Abraham rejoiced to see my day" (disregarding the variant MSS evidence and patristic commentary which suggests "Abraham desired to see my day") that he could well have been commenting on Abraham's celebrating the birth of Jesus in the presence of the saints (i.e., the bosom of Abraham). The fact that "the Jews" understand him to be saying something different (or that a later redactor makes a convenient change of nuance to signify something different) should not be construed as "obvious." Jesus (in the midst of an ad homonym spiral of violence) is commenting that Abraham (the professed Father of his interlocuters) behaves more admirably than his interlocuters where he (Jesus) is concerned, and finally, that YHWH is the pattern (source) of Jesus' works, and not Abraham (which, Jesus maintains, is not the pattern (source) of his interlocuter's actions either (which leads to the attempted stoning)).

Until an exegesis can be forwarded that doesn't make these assumptions a priori, other alternatives which can make sense of the text without relying on these assumptions (i.e., by not multiplying entities unnecessarily) should hold sway given that the Greek does not differentiate _in and of itself_(apart from theological assumptions) between the alternatives.” [“Mike Phillips (mphilli3@mail.tds.net)]

Now some may ask about the meaning of “I AM” at the end of John 8:58. See broken down by Strong #s:

58 Jesus <2424> said <2036> (5627) unto them <846>, Verily <281>, verily <281>, I say <3004> (5719) unto you <5213>, Before <4250> Abraham <11> was <1096> (5635), I <[1473]> am <[1510> (5748).]

[1473] egw ego eg-o’

a primary pronoun of the first person I (only expressed when emphatic); TDNT-2:343,196; pron

AV-I 365, my 2, me 2, not tr 1; 370

1) I, me, my

[1510] eimi eimi i-mee’

the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; TDNT-2:398,206; v

AV-I am + 1473 74, am 55, it is I + 1473 6, be 2, I was + 1473 1, have been 1, not tr 7; 146

1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

[5748] Tense-Present See 5774
Voice-No Voice Stated See 5799
Mood - Indicative See 5791
Count-1617

Therefore the example of “I am” used in John 8:58 is quite different than for example the “I am” used at Exodus 3:14, see the following breakdown by Strong #s of Exodus 3:14:

14 And God <0430> said <0559> (8799) unto Moses <04872>, I AM <[01961> (8799)] THAT I AM <01961> (8799): and he said <0559> (8799), Thus shalt thou say <0559> (8799) unto the children <01121> of Israel <03478>, I AM hath sent <07971> (8804) me unto you.

[01961] hyh hayah haw-yaw

a primitive root [compare 01933]; TWOT-491; v

AV-was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee; 75

1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
1a) (Qal)
1a1) ——-
1a1a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
1a1b) to come about, come to pass
1a2) to come into being, become
1a2a) to arise, appear, come
1a2b) to become
1a2b1) to become
1a2b2) to become like
1a2b3) to be instituted, be established
1a3) to be
1a3a) to exist, be in existence
1a3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
1a3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
1a3d) to accompany, be with
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
1b2) to be done, be finished, be gone

[08799] Stem - Qal See 08851
Mood - Imperfect See 08811
Count-19885

As can be seen, although two things may appear similar due to translation into English a language quite different from the original, but when you make reference back the original language, you see the differences that at times can be quite significant. Therefore, no assumption of similarity should ever be made without a check to the original language using Strong or an equivalent method.


18 – Titus 2:11 – 13:

“11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;” (Titus 2:11-13 King James Bible - AV)

This set of scripture, Titus 2:11 -13, has proven difficult for some to develop an accurate understanding of its significance and its purpose. The significance and meaning will be brought out by excerpts from many world renown commentators on the Bible and by myself:

VERSE 11: Let’s start with Verse 11 with a scriptural quote from three different well known translations of the Bible:

“11 Who must be reproved, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.” (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible)

“11 ¶ For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men,” (American Standard Version – ASV)

“11 Whose mouths must needs be stopped, men who are upsetting whole houses, teaching the things which ought not to be taught—for the sake of base gain.” (Rothrham)

Verse 11. For the grace of God. The favour of God, shown to the undeserving "Ro 1:7".

That bringeth salvation. Marg., to all men, hath appeared. That is, in the margin, "the grace which brings salvation to all men has been revealed." The marginal reading is most in accordance with the Greek, though it will bear either construction. If that which is in the text be adopted, it means that the plan of salvation has been revealed to all classes of men; that is, that it is announced or revealed to all the race that they may be saved. Comp. "Col 1:23". If the other rendering be adopted, it means that that plan was fitted to secure the salvation of all men; that none were excluded from the offer; that provision had been made for all, and all might come and be saved. Whichever interpretation be adopted, the sense here will not be essentially varied. It is, that the gospel was adapted to man as man, and therefore might include servants as well as masters; subjects, as well as kings; the poor, as well as the rich; the ignorant, as well as the learned. See "1Ti 2:1,2"; "Ac 17:26". (B)

This scripture, “11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,” makes clear that Almighty God (YHWH) has seen it proper to have his Son, Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves), to bring salvation to all those with a right heart condition through his plan of salvation. (I)

2:11 {5} For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

(5) The eighth admonition belongs to all the godly: seeing that God calls all men to the Gospel, and Christ has so justified us, that he has also sanctified us, all of us must therefore give ourselves to true godliness, and righteousness, setting before us a sure hope of that immeasurable glory. And this thing must be so learned by them that the deniers also must be reproved, by the authority of the mighty God. (G)

#Tit 2:11-15

Hath appeared to all men. The divine favor shown forth in the gospel of salvation is for all men, servants as well as masters. (BJ)

VERSE 12: Now, Let’s consider Verse 12 with a scriptural quote from three different well known translations of the Bible:

“12 A certain one of them, a prophet of their own, said—‘Cretans! always liars, evil beasts, lazy bellies!’” (Youngs Bible Translation)

“12 instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world;” (ASV)

“12 One of them a prophet of their own, said: The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies.” (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible)

Verse 12. Teaching us. That is the "grace of God" so teaches us; or that system of religion which is a manifestation of the grace of God, inculcates the great and important duties which Paul proceeds to state.

That denying ungodliness and worldly lusts. "That by denying ourselves of these, or refusing to practise them, we should lead a holy life." The word ungodliness, here means all that would be included under the word impiety; that is, all failure in the performance of our proper duties towards God. "Ro 1:18". The phrase "worldly lusts," refers to all improper desires pertaining to this life—the desire of wealth, pleasure, honour, sensual indulgence. It refers to such passions as the men of this world are prone to, and would include all those things which cannot be indulged in with a proper reference to the world to come. The gross passions would be of course included, and all those more re- fined pleasures also which constitute the characteristic and peculiar enjoyments of those who do not live unto God.

We should live soberly. See the word soberly (swfronwv) explained "Tit 2:2", "Tit 2:4". It means that we should exercise a due restraint on our passions and propensities.

Righteously. Justly. This refers to the proper performance of our duties to our fellowmen; and it means that religion teaches us to perform those duties with fidelity, according to all our relations in life; to all our promises and contracts; to our fellow-citizens and neighbours; to the poor, and needy, and ignorant, and oppressed; and to all those who are providentially placed in our way who need our kind offices.

Justice to them would lead us to act as we would wish that they would towards us.

And godly. Piously; that is, in the faithful performance of our duties to God. We have here, then, an epitome of all that religion requires:

(1.) Our duty to ourselves—included in the word "soberly," and requiring a suitable control over our evil propensities and passions;

(2.) our duty to our fellow-men in all the relations we sustain in life; and

(3.) our duty to God—evinced in what will be properly regarded as a pious life. He that does these things, meets all the responsibilities of his condition and relations; and the Christian system, requiring the faithful performance of these duties, shows how admirably it is adapted to man.

In this present world. That is, as long as we shall continue in it. These are the duties which we owe in the present life. (B)


Here is revealed a universal truth about Almighty God’s (YHWH’s) principles and laws for mankind to live by “ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;” (Romans 1:18 AV); therefore it is imperative that all genuine Christians live a godly life paying heed to the laws and principles of the Father (YHWH) and not believing in God dishonoring dogma. Such as the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) are co-equal when the Bible clearly says: “ 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) and “ 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). (I)

2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and {d} worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

(d) Lusts of the flesh, which belong to the present state of this life and world.

2:13 {e} Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(e) Christ is here most plainly called that mighty God, and his appearance and coming is called by the figure of speech metonymy, our hope. (G)

#Tit 2:12

Teaching us. We are taught in this system of grace that we must deny ourselves all sinful lusts, and live godly lives. (BJ)

VERSE 13: Now, Let’s consider Verse 13 with a scriptural quote from three different well known translations of the Bible:

“ Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;” (Titus 2:13 AV)

“13 Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible)

“13 Prepared to welcome the happy hope and forthshining of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Christ Jesus,” (Titus 2:13 Rothrham)

Here Jesus is referred to as a great God, but not the Almighty God (YHWH) and no wonder when Jesus even said to humans:
“29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
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 10:29-36 AV); a God being here used as someone higher than one’s self, but who were the human opposers the superior ones to? Well let’s investigate the order of subordination starting with Almighty God (YHWH) as the supreme one “ 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 is made even clearer by Albert Barnes in his “Barnes New Testament notes set, ALBERT BARNES. PHILADELPHIA, August 25th, 1832” when he states, “(3.) That the expectation of Christians was directed to the advent of the ascended Saviour, not to the appearing of God as such.” In addition, he noted, that this scripture has led to much discussion, “. The doctrine there is, that God will be manifest in his Son; that the Divine approach to our world will be through him to judge the race; and that though he will be accompanied with the appropriate symbols of the Divinity, yet it will be the Son of God who will be visible. No one, accustomed to Paul’s views, can well doubt that when he used this language he had his eye throughout on the Son of God, and that he expected no other manifestation than what would be made through him. (3.) That the expectation of Christians was directed to the advent of the ascended Saviour, not to the appearing of God as such. This sense has been vindicated by the labours of Beza, Whitby, Bull, Matthaei, and Middleton, (on the Greek article,) and is the common interpretation of those who claim to be orthodox.” Therefore, this scripture clearly shows that in heaven Jesus (Jeshua or JHWH saves) and his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) are two distinct entities with the Father being the superior one and the Son being the subordinate that will appear figuratively in the clouds at the end times. None of the early Christians ever took this scripture to mean that Almighty God himself would appear, but only the Son, Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves) would appear. He, Albert Barnes, went on to say, “(1.) that no plain reader of the New Testament, accustomed to the common language there, would have any doubt that the apostle referred here to the coming of the Lord Jesus.” Once more making it clear which individual spirit being he was talking about. So here we learn that in one sense the term a God can be applied to Jesus, but not in the sense of placing him on the same level or position of power with his Father (YHWH). Since as he himself said “ 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 that while existing in a spirit form the same as Almighty God (YHWH) “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.” (Philippians 2:5-11 AV), we clearly see that “God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name,” so he truly is second only to his Father (YHWH) in heaven where he is figuratively spoken as “ Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.” (1 Peter 3:22 AV). (I)

Verse 13. Looking for. Expecting; waiting for. That is, in the faithful performance of our duties to ourselves, to our fellow-creatures, and to God, we are patiently to wait for the coming of our Lord.

(1.) We are to believe that he will return;

(2.) we are to be in a posture of expectation, not knowing when he will come; and

(3.) we are to be ready for him whenever he shall come. "Mt 24:42", seq. "1Th 5:4"; "Php 3:20".

That blessed hope. The fulfillment of that hope so full of blessedness to us.

The glorious appearing. "2Th 2:8". Compare #1Ti 6:14 2Ti 1:10 4:1,8.

Of the great God. There can be little doubt, if any, that by "the great God" here, the apostle referred to the Lord Jesus, for it is not a doctrine of the New Testament that God himself as such, or in contradistinction from his incarnate Son, will appear at the last day. It is said, indeed, that the Saviour will come "in the glory of his Father with his angels," (#Mt 16:27,) but that God as such will appear, is not taught in the Bible. The doctrine there is, that God will be manifest in his Son; that the Divine approach to our world will be through him to judge the race; and that though he will be accompanied with the appropriate symbols of the Divinity, yet it will be the Son of God who will be visible. No one, accustomed to Paul’s views, can well doubt that when he used this language he had his eye throughout on the Son of God, and that he expected no other manifestation than what would be made through him. (3.) That the expectation of Christians was directed to the advent of the ascended Saviour, not to the appearing of God as such. This sense has been vindicated by the labours of Beza, Whitby, Bull, Matthaei, and Middleton, (on the Greek article,) and is the common interpretation of those who claim to be orthodox. See Bloomfield, Rec. Syn., and Notes, in loc. He contends that the meaning is, "the glorious appearance of that GREAT BEING who is our GOD AND SAVIOUR." The arguments for this opinion are well summed up by Bloomfield. Without going into a critical examination of this passage, which would not be in accordance with the design of these Notes, it may be remarked in general,

(1.) that no plain reader of the New Testament, accustomed to the common language there, would have any doubt that the apostle referred here to the coming of the Lord Jesus.

(2.) That the "coming" of God, as such, is not spoken of in this manner in the New Testament.

(3.) That the expectation of Christians was directed to the advent of the ascended Saviour, not to the appearing of God as such.

(4.) That this is just such language as one would use who believed that the Lord Jesus is Divine, or that the name God might properly be applied to him.

(5.) That it would naturally and obviously convey the idea that he was Divine, to one who had no theory to defend.

(6.) That if the apostle did not mean this, he used such language as was fitted to lead men into error. And

(7.) that the fair construction of the Greek here, according to the application of the most rigid rules, abundantly sustains the interpretation which the plain reader of the New Testament would affix to it. The names above referred to are abundant proof that no violation is done to the rules of the Greek language by this interpretation, but rather that the fair construction of the original demands it. If this be so, then this furnishes an important proof of the divinity of Christ.

{d} "Looking" #2Pe 3:12
{e} "appearing" #Re 1:7 (B)

13. (#Php 3:20,21).

Looking for—with constant expectation (so the Greek) and with joy (#Ro 8:19). This will prove the antidote to worldly lusts, and the stimulus to "live in this present world" conformably to this expectation. The Greek is translated, "waiting for," in #Lu 2:25.

that—Greek, " the."

blessed—bringing blessedness (#Ro 4:7,.

hope—that is, object of hope (#Ro 8:24 Ga 5:5 Col 1:5).

the glorious appearing—There is but one Greek article to both "hope" and "appearing," which marks their close connection (the hope being about to be realized only at the appearing of Christ). Translate, "The blessed hope and manifestation (compare Note, see JFB on "Tit 2:11") of the glory." The Greek for "manifestation" is translated "brightness" in #2Th 2:8. As His "coming" (Greek, " parousia") expresses the fact; so "brightness, appearing," or "manifestation" (epiphaneia) expresses His personal visibility when He shall come.

the great God and our Saviour Jesus—There is but one Greek article to "God" and "Saviour," which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being. "Of Him who is at once the great God and our Saviour." Also (2) "appearing" (epiphaneia) is never by Paul predicated of God the Father (#Joh 1:18 1Ti 6:16), or even of "His glory" (as ALFORD explains it): it is invariably applied to CHRIST’S coming, to which (at His first advent, compare #2Ti 1:10) the kindred verb "appeared" (epephanee), #Tit 2:11, refers (#1Ti 6:14 2Ti 4:1,. Also (3) in the context (#Tit 2:14) there is no reference to the Father, but to Christ alone; and here there is no occasion for reference to the Father in the exigencies of the context. Also (4) the expression "great God," as applied to Christ, is in accordance with the context, which refers to the glory of His appearing; just as "the true God" is predicated of Christ, #1Jo 5:20. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, but often in the Old Testament. #De 7:21 10:17, predicated of Jehovah, who, as their manifested Lord, led the Israelites through the wilderness, doubtless the Second Person in the Trinity. Believers now look for the manifestation of His glory, inasmuch as they shall share in it. Even the Socinian explanation, making "the great God" to be the Father, " our Saviour," the Son, places God and Christ on an equal relation to "the glory" of the future appearing: a fact incompatible with the notion that Christ is not divine; indeed it would be blasphemy so to couple any mere created being with God. (J)

#Tit 2:13

Looking for. The attitude of Christians is that of waiting in expectation of the fulfillment of a glorious hope. Compare #1Co 1:7 Php 3:20 _ 1Th 1:9. (BJ)

Bibliography:

(B) - Barnes New Testament notes set, ALBERT BARNES. PHILADELPHIA, August 25th, 1832.

(BJ) - PNT - Johnson, Barton W. "Commentary on John 15". "People's New Testament”, 1891

(G) - Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on John 15". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible”, 1600-1645.

(I) – Iris the Preacher (Iris89) A.G.S.

(J) - Brown, David, D.D. "Commentary on John 15". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible". 1871.]


19 – Historical Data On The Trinity By Renown Authors:

Here is data on the false trinity doctrine by others:

An Appeal to Trinitarian Christians


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

Historical Background of the Trinity

By

Jeff Rath

The current mainstream teaching in Christianity is that God is a coequal, coeternal, one-substance trinity, and that Jesus Christ is God. This doctrine is considered by many as the cornerstone of Christianity, but where did this doctrine come from? The historical record is overwhelming that the church of the first three centuries did not worship God as a coequal, coeternal, consubstantial, one-substance three in one mysterious godhead. The early church worshipped one God and believed in a subordinate Son. The trinity originated with Babylon, and was passed on to most of the world's religions. This polytheistic (believing in more than one god) trinitarianism was intertwined with Greek religion and philosophy and slowly worked its way into Christian thought and creeds some 300 years after Christ. The idea of "God the Son" is Babylonian paganism and mythology that was grafted into Christianity. Worshipping "God the Son" is idolatry, and idolatry is Biblically condemned; it breaks the first great commandment of God of not having any gods before him (Exodus 20:3). Then three centuries after Christ the corrupt emperor Constantine forced the minority opinion of the trinity upon the council of Nicea. The Christian church went downward from there; in fact some of the creeds and councils actually contradict each other. The council of Nicea 325 said that "Jesus Christ is God," the council of Constantinople 381 said that "the Holy Spirit is God," the council of Ephesus 431 said that "human beings are totally depraved," the council of Chalcedon 451 said that "Jesus Christ is both man and God." If you follow the logic here then first you have Jesus Christ as God, then you have man totally depraved, and then you have Jesus Christ as man and God. If Jesus Christ is both man and God does this mean that God is also totally depraved? Well maybe the doctrine of the coequal, coeternal, one-substance, mysterious three in one triune godhead is deprived of any historical foundation tying it into the Christianity of the Bible and the Christianity of the first three centuries. However the historical information ties the trinity into various pagan origins.



And yet most Christian churches continue to teach and believe the doctrine that God is a coequal, coeternal, one-substance, mysterious three in one triune godhead, and that Jesus Christ is God, and that the trinity is "the cornerstone of Christianity".



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."



During the first three centuries, Christians did not believe that Jesus Christ was coequal, and coeternal with God, or that he was God the Son, they believed that Jesus Christ was subordinate to God, and that he had a beginning, that he was born. Those that believed otherwise were the exception.



The Doctrine of the Trinity Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound 1994 Anthony F. Buzzard Charles F. Hunting

"Those Trinitarians who believe that the concept of a Triune God was such an established fact that it was not considered important enough to mention at the time the New Testament was written should be challenged by the remarks of another writer, Harold Brown:"

"It is a simple fact and an undeniable historical fact that several major doctrines that now seem central to the Christian Faith - such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the nature of Christ - were not present in a full and self-defined generally accepted form until the fourth and fifth centuries. If they are essential today - as all of the orthodox creeds and confessions assert - it must be because they are true. If they are true, then they must always have been true; they cannot have become true in the fourth and fifth century. But if they are both true and essential, how can it be that the early church took centuries to formulate them?"



A History of the Christian Church 2nd Ed. 1985 Williston Walker

"AD 200. . Noetus had been expelled from the Smyrnaean church for teaching that Christ was the Father, and that the Father himself was born, and suffered, and died."



Man's Religions John B. Noss 1968

"The controversy first became heated when Apollinarius, a bishop in Syria . . . asserted that Christ could not have been perfect man united with complete God, for then there would not have been one Son of God, but two sons, one by nature and one by adoption, the first with a divine, the second with a human will. Such a thing seemed inconceivable, religiously abhorrent."

"Nestorius . . . preached a sermon against calling the virgin Mary 'the mother of God' declaring she did not bear a deity, she bore a man,"

Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die, but when people deviate from what the Bible teaches you can come up with the bizarre complexities of trinitarian religious mysteries that contradict logic, common sense and God's Word.



New Bible Dictionary 1982

"The word trinity is not found in the Bible . . ."

". . . it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."

". . . it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formation of it can be found in the Bible, . . ."

"Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the trinity, . . ."



The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995

". . . scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament."

If the trinity is the cornerstone of Christianity then how did the church of the first three centuries get along so well without it? If the trinity is the cornerstone of Christianity then why is it not mentioned in the Bible?



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."



The trinity is a deviation from believing in one God; it is a deviation from what the early church taught and it is a deviation from the scripture.



The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967

"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."



Who is Jesus? Anthony Buzzard

"The Old Testament is a strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there or even in any way shadowed forth, is an assumption that has long held sway in theology, but is utterly without foundation."



The New Encyclopedia Britannica 1976

"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 Shema consists of three sections of scripture Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21, and Numbers 15:37-41. It is called the Shema after the Hebrew word hear, the first word in Deut. 6:4. The Shema was to be recited twice daily once upon arising and once when going to bed. So the Old Testament Jews would start and finish their day with 'Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.'



The Complete Word Study Old Testament 1994

"To the Jew, (Deut. 6:4-9) this is the most important text in the Old Testament. Jesus himself called the injunction in 6:5 'the first and great commandment' Matt.22:36-38. . . Moses is teaching not only the priority of belief in one God, but also a means to preserve that belief. As time went on, the proper understanding of the Shema with its spiritual implications was no longer grasped by the people. This absence of saving knowledge became a factor in their spiritual downfall."



Whenever God's people forget that there is only one God and they follow after other gods this will result in their downfall. This can be seen time and time again in the Old Testament where God's people forsook the Lord and then evil came upon them. God does not send this evil, but He warns us to stay away from the evil of worshipping more than one God.



Dictionary of The Bible 1995 John L. Mckenzie

"The trinity of God is defined by the church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. 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."



Why You Should Believe In The Trinity 1989 Robert M. Bowman Jr.

"The New Testament does not contain a formalized explanation of the trinity that uses such words as trinity, three persons, one substance, and the like."



The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology 1976

"The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence. [said Karl Barth]"



Exploring The Christian Faith 1992

"nowhere in the Bible do we find the doctrine of the trinity clearly formulated"

"People who are using the King James Version might be inclined to point to I John 5:7 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost' But it is now generally recognized that this verse does not belong to the original text of the letter; it is a later insertion."

"The theological formulation took place later, after the days of the apostles."

"the doctrine of the trinity is not found in the Bible"

"The doctrine was to develop along mainly Greek lines"



Take note of the words "explicitly and formally", "formalized explanation", "express declaration", and "clearly formulated". These words are indicative of the fact that all the clear verses on the subjects of God, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit do not even hint at a trinity. There are only a few verses that seem to hint at a trinity, and then only when they are twisted. The difficult or unclear verse must always be interpreted in light of the clear verses. If God is a coeternal, coequal, one substance, three-in-one Godhead, trinity, if that is what God really is, then he would have made himself known as such to the first century apostles; they would have made the trinity part of their beliefs teachings and writings. They would have used words like God the Son, coequal, coeternal, one substance, or trinity, but the scripture is devoid of all of these trinitarian words and phrases because the first century apostles did not believe or teach, or write about God being a trinity, or Jesus Christ being God. But the pagan and Greek and Babylonian religions used those words.



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."



The Rise of Christianity W.H.C. Frend 1985

"For him [Clement] the trinity consisted of a hierarchy of three graded beings, and from that concept - derived from Platonism - depended much of the remainder of his theological teaching."



The Doctrine of the Trinity Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound 1994 Anthony F. Buzzard Charles F. Hunting

"Eberhard Griesebach, in an acedemic lecture on "Christianity and humanism" delivered in 1938, observed that in its encounter with Greek philosophy Christianity became theology. That was the fall of Christianity. The Problem thus highlighted stems from the fact that traditional orthodoxy, while it claims to find its origins in scripture, in fact contains elements drawn from a synthesis of Scripture and Neo-Platonism. The mingling of Hebrew and Greek thinking set in motion first in the second century by an influx of Hellenism through the Church Fathers, whose theology was colored by the Platonists Plotinus and Porphyry. The effects of the Greek influence are widely recognized by theologians, though they go largely unnoticed by many believers."

". . . the Trinity is an unintelligible proposition of platonic mysticisms that three are one and one is three" [quote from Thomas Jefferson]



The Greek mythology and pagan religious beliefs were derived from Babylon.



Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel 1870

"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, 4th century BC) conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all ancient (pagan) religions"



The Two Babylons 1916 Rev. Alexander Hislop

"Egypt and Greece derived their religion from Babylon"



Microsoft Encarta Funk & Wagnalls 1994

"Neoplatonism is a type of idealistic monism in which the ultimate reality of the universe is held to be an infinite, unknowable, perfect One. From this One emanates nous (pure intelligence), whence in turn is derived the world soul, the creative activity of which engenders the lesser souls of human beings. The world soul is conceived as an image of the nous, even as the nous is an image of the One; both the nous and the world soul, despite their differentiation, are thus consubstantial [one substance] with the One."



Microsoft Encarta Funk & Wagnalls 1994

"The theologians Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and St. Augustine were early Christian exponents of a Platonic perspective. Platonic ideas have had a crucial role in the development of Christian theology"

See Page 20

Page 20



The Rise of Christianity W.H.C. Frend 1985

"we find Christianity tending to absorb Greek philosophical values, until by the end of the third century the line between the beliefs of educated Christian and educated pagan in the east would often be hard to draw."



The early Christians began mixing Greek and pagan and Babylonian philosophical and religious trinitarian concepts with their Christian doctrine which lead them to begin considering the trinity, and after three centuries that thinking finally took hold. Acts 17:22 says that the Greeks were too superstitious, and I Corinthians 1:22 says that the Jews require a sign and the Greeks seek after wisdom. The Greeks were too intellectual in their approach to God's Word. They became wise in their own eyes and the truth of God's Word became foolishness to them, so they grafted their own superstitious philosophical wisdom into God's Word and changed the truth into a lie; they changed Son of God to God the Son.



Catholic Encyclopedia 1991

"The term 'Trinity' does not appear in scripture"

"(The Doctrine of the Trinity) - hammered out over the course of three centuries of doctrinal controversy against modalism and subordinationism"



Why You Should Believe In The Trinity 1989 Robert M. Bowman Jr.

"Roman Catholics . . often claim that the trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was first revealed through the ministry of the church centuries after the Bible was written. This is in keeping with the Roman Catholic belief that Christian doctrine may be based either on the Bible or on church tradition."



The Roman Catholic Church did not get the doctrine of the trinity from the Bible, they hammered out their own theology of what they wanted God to be over several hundred years, and mixed Greek philosophy with Babylonian mystery religion, and their own private interpretations of the Bible.



I Peter 1:20, 21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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.



II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.



People don't respect God's Word, they are more interested in inventing their own theology by the will of man instead of believing the word of God, they are not interested in rightly dividing God's word of truth. The trinity is private interpretation and wrong dividing of God's word.



Jesus Christ is not God 1975 Victor Paul Wierwille

"Long before the founding of Christianity the idea of a triune god or a god-in-three persons was a common belief in ancient religions. Although many of these religions had many minor deities, they distinctly acknowledged that there was one supreme God who consisted of three persons or essences. The Babylonians used an equilateral triangle to represent this three-in-one god, now the symbol of the modern three-in-one believers."

"The Hindu trinity was made up of the gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. The Greek triad was composed of Zeus, Athena and Apollo. These three were said by the pagans to 'agree in one.' One of the largest pagan temples built by the Romans was constructed at Ballbek (situated in present day Lebanon) to their trinity of Jupiter, Mercury and Venus. In Babylon the planet Venus was revered as special and was worshipped as a trinity consisting of Venus, the moon and the sun. This triad became the Babylonian holy trinity in the fourteenth century before Christ."

"Although other religions for thousands of years before Christ was born worshipped a triune god, the trinity was not a part of Christian dogma and formal documents of the first three centuries after Christ."

"That there was no formal, established doctrine of the trinity until the fourth century is a fully documented historical fact."

"Clearly, historians of church dogma and systematic theologians agree that the idea of a Christian trinity was not a part of the first century church. The twelve apostles never subscribed to it or received revelation about it. So how then did a trinitarian doctrine come about? It gradually evolved and gained momentum in late first, second and third centuries as pagans, who had converted to Christianity, brought to Christianity some of their pagan beliefs and practices."



Who is Jesus? Anthony Buzzard

". . . we shall find not a hint that Jesus believed himself to be an uncreated being who had existed from eternity. Matthew and Luke trace the origin of Jesus to a special act of creation by God when the Messiah's conception took place in the womb of Mary. It was this miraculous event which marked the beginning-the genesis, or origin of Jesus of Nazareth"



Arius and his followers believed that Jesus Christ was created, that he was not in the beginning with God. They believed that he had a beginning, whereas God has no beginning. This makes Jesus Christ substantially different from God, which means he cannot be of one-substance with God as the trinitarians believe.



Documents of the Christian Church 2nd Ed 1963 Henery Bettenson

(quotes from Arius and his followers)

"If, said he, the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence; hence it is clear that there was a [a time] when the son was not."

"The Son of God is from what is not and there was [a time] when he was not; saying also that the Son of God, in virtue of his free will, is capable of evil and good, and calling him a creature and a work."

The Rise of Christianity 1985 W.H.C. Frend

"If the Father begat the son, there must be when he was not. He could not therefore be coeternal with the Father."[said by Arius]



Man's Religions 1968 John B. Noss

"Arius held that Christ, . . . was a created being; he was made like other creatures out of nothing, . . . The Son, he argued, had a beginning, while God was without beginning."

The Church in History 1964 B. K. Kuiper

"The heathen believe in many gods. Arius thought that to believe that the Son is God as well as that the Father is God would mean that there are two Gods, and that therefore the Christians would be falling back into heathenism."



Arius believed that Jesus Christ was born, that he had a beginning, he believed that Jesus Christ was the created Son, not the Creator, and for taking the Word of God literally he was excommunicated and anathematized. Starting with Nimrod in ancient Babylon until today man has stubbornly rebelled against the doctrine of one God.



Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.



Exodus 34:14a For thou shalt worship no other god:



The trinity is idolatry, it puts Jesus Christ as a god before God.



Forgers of the Word 1983 Victor Paul Wierwille

"To say Jesus Christ is God the Son is idolatry. To say Jesus is the Son of God is truth."



I Samuel 15:23 For Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:



The Lord God Almighty, the Creator, the Father of Jesus Christ is one God not three, not three-in-one, not one-in-three, ONE! and only ONE! God is not a three-headed multi-personality trinity.



The Bible clearly refers to Jesus Christ as the Son of God 50 times; it never refers to him as God the Son. The phrase, Son of God, is in the genitive case; showing that Jesus Christ originated from and belongs to God. In no way can the Son of God be the same as God the Son, that violates grammar, language and common sense. God the Son is not a biblical term, it does not appear in the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic texts. God the Son is however a Babylonian term. The Babylonians made Nimrod a god, and when he died they deified his son Tammuz as God the Son. Making God a man and man a god was invented in Babylon. This idolatry and false belief has been carried into pagan religions, and it has worked its way into Christianity as the doctrine of the trinity.



Ravaged By The New Age 1996 Texe Marrs

"Nimrod, the first of the great Babylonian rulers, was also declared to be the first of the man-gods."



The Two Babylons 1916 Rev. Alexander Hislop

"He was worshipped in Babylon under the name of El-Bar, or 'God the Son'."



It is clear that the trinity does not have a Biblical origin. It can be traced back to ancient Babylon, pagan Greeks and Romans. It was forced upon the Christian Church by the emperor Constantine. It was adhered to by bishops who were afraid to speak against it. Then when the Protestants broke away from the corrupt Roman Church most of them still carried the pagan doctrine of the trinity, because they had practiced error for so long that they accepted the trinitarian doctrine.

Encyclopedia Britannica 1968

"The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325. Constantine himself presiding, actively guiding the discussion, and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council. 'of one substance with the father.' Over-awed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them against their inclination. Constantine regarded the decision of Nicaea as divinely inspired. As long as he lived no one dared openly to challenge the creed of Nicaea."



The Origins of Pagan and Christian Beliefs Edward Carpenter 1920 1996

"And when at the Council of Nicea (325 AD) it [the early church] endeavored to establish an official creed, the strife and bitterness only increased."

"-the Nicean creed had nothing to propound except some extremely futile speculations about the relation to each other of the Father and the Son, and the relation of both to the Holy Ghost,"



Man's Religions 1968 John B. Noss

"This creed, adopted under pressure from the emperor, who wanted peace, did not immediately solve the doctrinal difficulties or save the peace. The phrases (not made) and (of the same substance with the Father) were bitterly denounced by many"



The Rise of Christianity 1985 W.H.C. Frend

"The Emperor exerted all his influence toward winning unanimous acceptance and nearly succeeded. Only two bishops stood out against it; but two other senior bishops refused to sign the anathemas against Arius and were exiled."



Constantine was really only interested in unifying the empire and gaining more power. He broke truces, started wars, and even had relatives killed to further his power. Constantine was more interested in unity than in getting the correct doctrine of the trinity. In fact before he died Constantine switched sides and took Arius' position regarding the trinity instead of the position that he forced through the council of Nicea. Without Constantine's presiding, actively guiding, and actively controlling the discussion there would not have been a 'coequal' 'coeternal' 'God the Son' Nicene creed. But what manner of man was this person who pushed through this doctrine which was to become the cornerstone of Christianity?



A History of Christianity Volume 1 1997 Kenneth Scott Latourette

"Constantine. . . although only a catechumen, [One who is being instructed in a subject at an elementary level] presided over its [the council of Nicea] opening session, and was active in its deliberations. Whether Constantine appreciated the niceties of the questions at issue is highly doubtful, for he was a layman, a warrior and administrator, not a philosopher or an expert theologian."



The Rise of Christianity 1985 W.H.C. Frend

"Like all great conquerors from Alexander to Napoleon or even Hitler his [Constantine's] aim was unity and unification on a worldwide scale."



A History of the Christian Church 2nd Ed. 1985 Williston Walker

"He [Constantine] accepted the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus, and his coins still showed the emblems of the Sun-God."



Babylon Mystery Religion 1981 Ralph Woodrow

". . his [Constantine's] conversion is to be seriously questioned. Even though he had much to do with the establishment of certain doctrines and customs within the church, the facts plainly show that he was not truly converted-not in the Biblical sense of the word."

"Probably the most obvious indication that he was not truly converted may be seen from the fact that after his conversion he committed several murders-including the murder of his own wife and son!"

"Yet in 326-very shortly after directing the Nicean Council-he had his son put to death."



The Doctrine of the Trinity Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound 1994 Anthony F. Buzzard Charles F. Hunting

"It was Constantine who by official edict brought Christianity to believe in the formal division of the Godhead into two - God the Father and God the Son. It remained the task of a later generation to bring Christianity to believe in the Triune God."

". . . years after winning this heaven-inspired triumph, history divulges that the alleged follower of Jesus murdered an already vanquished rival, killed his wife by having her boiled alive in her own bath - and murdered an innocent son." [speaking of Constantine]



A History of Christianity 1976 Paul Johnson

". . . appears to have been a sun-worshipper, one of a number of the late pagan cults which had observances in common with Christians. Worship of such gods was not a novel idea. Every Greek or Roman expected that political success followed from religious piety. Christianity was the religion of Constantine's father. Although Constantine claimed that he was the thirteenth apostle, his was no sudden Damascus conversion. Indeed it is highly doubtful that he ever truly abandoned sun-worship. After his professed acceptance of Christianity, he built a triumphal arch to the sun god and in Constantinople set up a statue of the same sun god bearing his own features. He was finally deified after his death by official edict in the Empire, as were many Roman rulers."

". . . His private life became monstrous as he aged . . . His abilities had always lain in management . . . [he was] a master of . . . the smoothly-worded compromise."



It would be an understatement to say that Constantine was a crooked politician; yet this is the man who is mainly responsible for the Nicene Creed's doctrine of the coequal, coeternal, one substance three in one God. One day he is setting the doctrine for the Christian church another day he is murdering people; it would seem that to anyone with any common sense that formulating church doctrine should not be done by a non-repentant murderer. How many of you would like to have a non-repentant murderer setting your Christian doctrine? Yet if you believe the Nicene Creed you have done just that.



Documents of the Christian Church 2nd Ed 1963 Henery Bettenson

"The decisions of Nicea were really the work of a minority, and they were misunderstood and disliked by many"

Forgers of the Word 1983 Victor Paul Wierwille

"The truth of Jesus Christ the Son of God was deliberately forged into the doctrine of God the Son. Seeds of Jesus Christ as God were planted and sprouted during the lifetime of Paul, continued growing during Timothy's lifetime and flourished shortly thereafter, reaching full bloom for all future creeds by 325 AD"

"The doctrine that Jesus Christ the Son of God was God the son was decreed by worldly and ecclesiastical powers. Men were forced to accept it at the point of the sword or else, Thus, the error of the trinity was propounded to the end that ultimately people believed it to be the truth. Thus Christianity became in essence like Babylonian heathenism, with only a veneer of Christian names."



A History of Christianity Volume 1 1997 Kenneth Scott Latourette

"To enforce the decisions of the Council of Nicea, Constantine commanded, with the death penalty for disobedience, the burning of all books composed by Arius, banished Arius and his closest supporters, and deposed from their sees Eusebius of Nicomedia and another bishop who had been active in the support of Arius."



The Rise of Christianity 1985 W.H.C. Frend

"the controversial term, defining the son as Consubstantial with [homoousios] the father was introduced by Constantine. The term was objectionable to any Origenist bishop and had been rejected by Dionysius of Alexandria when used by the Libyan bishops, and the Council of Antioch"

"The great majority of the eastern bishops were placed in a false position. they dared not challenge the emperor"



A History of the Christian Church 2nd Ed. 1985 Williston Walker

"The majority (of the bishops) were conservatives in the sense that they represented . . . subordinationism of the eastern tradition. The Emperor himself was present at the assembly and dominated its proceedings."

"From the very beginning, however, people like Eusebius of Caesarea had doubts about the (Nicene) creed, doubts focused on the word 'homoousios'. (Greek for one substance) . . . The term was non-Scriptural, it had a very doubtful theological history."

"Eusebius of Nicomedia and all save two of the other bishops, signed the creed-willing no doubt, to go along with what the emperor wanted. Yet he and many others continued to suspect its language."



The majority of the bishops at the council of Nicea believed in what is called subordinationism, which is a belief that Jesus Christ is subordinate to God the Father, not coequal, not coeternal, and not God the Son. The teachings of Arius were condemned in 325, but the teachings of Arius did not die, by 359 Arianism was widely accepted, that is until the minority trinitarian bishops found another emperor that they could get to propose their trinitarian creed at the Council of Constantinople in 381.



Man's Religions John B. Noss 1968

"The doctrine of the trinity he [Michael Servetus] felt to be a Catholic perversion and himself to be a good New Testament Christian in combating it. . . According to his conception, a trinity composed of three distinct persons in one God is a rational impossibility;"



Saying that Jesus Christ is not God does not degrade Jesus Christ it merely sets things in their proper order so we can know God and worship Him in spirit and truth.



John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way the truth and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me.



John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do that the Father may be glorified in the Son.



Satan the Devil strongly desires man to worship him instead of the one true God, and when he can't achieve his primary goal then his next desire is to get man to worship anything other than the true God. Satan has been quite successful in tricking good Christians into worshipping Jesus Christ as God instead of worshipping the one true God, the Father of Jesus Christ.



Eph 5:14 Wherefore he saith Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.



We can no longer be lulled to sleep by the bizarre, complex, confusing, ritualistic, mysterious Babylonian traditions of trinitarian doctrines. We must come back to God's Word and worship the one true God; the Father of Jesus Christ.



1 Corinthians 8:4b there is none other God but one.



1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.



The Doctrine of the Trinity Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound 1994 Anthony F. Buzzard Charles F. Hunting

"The God of Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, and the apostles was one person, the Father. One cannot be made equal to two or three. All that can be done with one is to fractionalize it. Divide it into smaller segments and it is no longer one. Expand it, and in spite of prodigious mental gymnastics on the part of Trinitarians, it cannot be made into two or three and still remain one."

". . . it is not uncommon for religious leaders to insist that you must believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, or be branded a cultist."

"One of the great marvels of Christian history has been the ability of theologians to convince Christian people that three persons are really one God."



A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrine of the Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ 1833 Andrews Norton

"When we look back through the long ages of the reign of the Trinity . . . we shall perceive that few doctrines have produced more unmixed evil."



The Bible does not give us a doctrine of a trinity, the historical record shows that modern Christian trinitarian beliefs were not formulated until about 300 years after the death of Jesus Christ, but in pagan religions trinitarian beliefs date back to ancient Babylon, thousands of years before Jesus Christ. The coequal, coeternal, one substance, three in one trinity is not a Christian Biblical doctrine; yet there are those who insist that it is the cornerstone of Christianity.

In our day and time the doctrine of the trinity is a cornerstone of idolatry.[source - http://www.answering-christianity.com/trinityhistory.htm on 11/07/2007]

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

Hebrews 1:10-12
and
Psalm 102:25-27
And, "You, Lord, in the beginning, laid the foundation of the earth. The heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you continue. They all will grow old like a garment does. As a mantle you will roll them up. And they will be changed. But you are the same. Your years will not fail." -- Hebrews 1:10-12

Our trinitarian neighbors and some others claim that in Hebrews 1:10-12, a scripture originally applied to Yahweh (Jehovah) is applied to Jesus. They tell us that it is Yahweh that is being spoken to by the Father in Hebrews 1:10-12, when the writer of Hebrews referenced Psalm 102:25-27. If in Psalm 102:25-27 it is indeed Yahweh who is being addressed, then who is it that is speaking to Yahweh? It would have to be the Psalmist himself. However the writer of Hebrews indicates that it is the God of Israel who is speaking to the one being spoking to in Psalm 102:25-27. Thus to say that is is Yahweh being spoken to in Psalm 102:25-27 would, in effect, make the Psalmist be playing the role of Yahweh as applied in this manner to Hebrews 1:10-12. In actuality, there is no reason to believe that Psalmist was playing the role of the Father [who is Yahweh] speaking to the Son [supposedly, according to trinitarians, who is also Yahweh].

Paul in Hebrews plainly tells us that this is God [Yahweh], the Father of Jesus, speaking to Jesus, his Son. We should, therefore, view Psalm 102:25-27 from this perspective, else we would come to the conclusion that Paul was wrong in his reference.

Paul was not wrong when he said the Father (Yahweh) spoke to his Son when referencing Psalm 102:25-27. Yahweh [the Father] is not being spoken to at all in these verses, but just as the writer of Hebrews truthfully tells us, the Father [Yahweh] speaks to his Son when he stated these matters.

If we read the Psalm closely, we can see that the Psalmist is prophetically playing the role of Messiah in verse 24: "I said, O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days." As David often did not speak of himself when using the first person, but prophetically of the Messiah (Psalm 16:8-10=Acts 2:25-30; Psalm 22:1=Matthew 27:46; Psalm22:22=Hebrews 2:11,12; Psalm 35:19=John 15:25; Psalm 40:-6-8=Hebrews 10:5-10; Psalm 41:9=John 13:18, etc.), so the writer of Hebrews tells us that the Psalmist who wrote Psalm 102 was prophetic of the Messiah to whom Yahweh, the Father, spoke. From this we can also reasonably conclude that the author of Psalm 102 is also David. Thus Jesus fulfilled this role in his statement: "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me; nevertheless, not what I want, but what you want." -- Matthew 26:39; See also John 12:27.

It should be borne in mind that punctuation is a modern invention, and thus the punctuation we see in our translations is not inspired. The Scriptures were previously without any punctuation. The punctuation as given in many translations is manifestly wrong in several places. Let us look at Psalm 102-24-27, applying punctuation as Paul states:

For he has looked down from the height of his sanctuary. From heaven, Yahweh saw the earth; To hear the groans of the prisoner; To free those who are condemned to death; That men may declare the name of Yahweh in Zion, And his praise in Jerusalem; When the peoples are gathered together, The kingdoms, to serve Yahweh. [Now Jesus is represented as speaking at the time of his death.] He weakened my strength along the course. He shortened my days. I said, "My God, don't take me away in the midst of my days. Your years are throughout all generations."

[Hear Yahweh's answer to that heart prayer:] "Of old, you laid the foundation of the earth. The heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will endure. Yes, all of them will wear out like a garment. You will change them like a cloak, and they will be changed. But you are the same. Your years will have no end. The children of your servants will continue. Their seed will be established before you."

Thus we have no reason to believe Paul is incorrect in his application of the scripture, and likewise this scripture does not provide any proof of the claim that Jesus is Yahweh.

Some claim that since Jesus laid the foundations of the earth, that this means that Jesus is Yahweh. What we need to do, however, is look closely and compare spiritual revealment with spiritual revealment as given in the scriptures.

In context, this heavens and earth is said to pass away. Thus, this is not speaking of the heavens where God's throne is, or where God and angels dwell, nor is it speaking of the physical heavens or the physical earth, which will never be removed. -- Psalm 72:17; 78:69; 89:36; 104:5.

Hebrews 1:10: "And, "You, Lord, in the beginning, laid the foundation of the earth. The heavens are the works of your hands." This refers to the same period of time spoken of in Genesis 1:1 - 2:1. These six days, in which God created the heavens and the earth (Exodus 20:11; 31:17), through the Logos (John 1:3,10), does not refer to the making of the actual planet earth, nor of the making of the heavens that is God's throne. (Psalm 1:11; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:34; 23:22; Acts 7:49)

The heavens and earth being spoken of are said to be created by God, but we learn in the New Testament that God created "through" the Logos, or as it reads in the World English at Ephesians 3:9: "God ... created all things through Jesus Christ." Thus, "in [or, by means of] him were the all things created." -- Colossians 1:16, Young's Literal Translation.

The "heavens" that ruled the earth in the beginning was established by means of the Logos. However, it was corrupted by a usuper. Using the King of Tyre as a symbol of the angel that rebelled, this arrangement is spoken of in Ezekiel 28:13-15. Satan set himself up as the ruler and "god of this world". (2 Corinthians 4:4) Thus we are told that our fight is against "against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." -- Ephesians 6:12.

The foundations of human society were also laid there (Mark 10:6), in family and fraternal relationships, on the basis of love and justice, on which the human race could have built up a social structure as fine and as sweet as that of heaven; and, in perfect joy with each other, delight in the unfolding wonders with which then Creator had filled the earth. But Solomon said: "This only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." -- Ecclesiastes 7:29.

They will perish, but you continue. They all will grow old like a garment does. -- Hebrews 1:11

This present evil world or arrangement -- both its heavens [the rulership by Satan and his demons as well as their agencies] and its earth [the arrangement of disobedient human society] are to perish.

As a mantle you will roll them up. And they will be changed. But you are the same. Your years will not fail. -- Hebrews 1:12.

As a an old piece of clothing, they will be rolled up, and changed. As they were they will no longer be actively worn as a mantle. In effect, they will no longer be active. However, as God says: "Behold, I make all things new." (Revelation 21:5) The old system of Satan, as such is destroyed, but out of its "mantle", which is folded and changed, comes forth "the new heavens [with its New Jerusalem from which to rule] and the new earth," in which righteousness will dwell - - Revelation 21:1-5; 2 Peter 3:13.

As foretold, Jesus has remained faithful from creation's beginning -- he has remained the same. Even while made to suffer as a man on earth, he remained the same -- he continued in faithful obedience to his God. (Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 5:8; 10:7-9) And Jesus will remain the same, and his years will not fail or ever end, since having been made alive from death, he now dies no more. -- Romans 6:9; Hebrews 7:16,25; Revelation 1:18.

There is nothing in any of this, however, that means that Jesus is Yahweh, his God. -- Hebrews 1:9.

Creator

Some argue that this scripture shows that Jesus is Yahweh, since it refers to him as the one who laid the foundation of the earth, and that the heavens are the works of his hands.

In context, this heavens and earth is said to pass away. Thus, this is not speaking of the heavens where God's throne is, or where God and angels dwell, nor is it speaking of the physical heavens or the physical earth, which will never be removed. -- Psalm 72:17; 78:69; 89:36; 104:5; Matthew 18:10.

In Isaiah 48:13, Yahweh speaks of his laying the foundation of the physical earth and spreading out the physical heavens. These obey his commands, so that when he calls, they stand up together (in harmony). We see from Genesis 1:14-19 that the physical earth and the stars, etc., are shown as obeying the commands of Yahweh. --Genesis 1:14-19.

The physical earth spoken of in Isaiah 48:13 has been established forever, and will never be removed forever . . -- Psalm 78:69; 104:5 -- Strong's #05703 and #05769 are both used in Psalm 104:5, thus signifying that the foundation of the physical earth will never be removed.

Therefore, the day will come when the righteous will never be removed from the physical earth when it has been made new, but the wicked will not dwell in the earth anymore. -- Psalm 37:9-11,22,28,39; Proverbs 10:30; Matthew 5:5; Revelation 20:1-5.

Thus, Isaiah 43:13 is speaking of the physical heavens and earth that will never be removed, while Hebrews 1:10 is speaking of a heavens and earth that will be be removed.

In Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, we read of a "beginning". Many have assumed that this "beginning" refers to absolutely everything in the universe, yet if we compare spiritual revealment with spiritual revealment, in both cases we can see that the scriptures show otherwise. Likewise, the "panta" -- all -- that was created through the Logos, referred to in John 1:3,4, is speaking, not of everything in the universe, but the world of mankind.[source - Restoration Light - Bible study services, http://godandson.reslight.net/heb-1-10.html ]

[[general source - http://godandson.reslight.net/index.html on 11/11/2007]

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

Yes the book is The Christian Doctrine of God By Emil Brunner. It is no longer in print, but is available online used for under $7.00. Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity is also a great book on the false a deceptive paganistic Trinity doctrine.

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

[1] <<<"There arose several controversies in that age, especially with those Jews who had been converted to Christianity. Some of these are treated of in the Epistles. But it is very observable, that amongst the questions which thus arose and required explanations from the Apostles, there is no record of any question or controversy respecting the Object of worship. And yet, if the new religion was adding two new objects of worship ["Jesus" and "Holy Spirit"] to that of the old ["Jehovah God" alone], this would have been, to a Jew, by far the most important, most interesting, and most perplexing of all the peculiarities of the gospel. No such doctrine could have been added to the ancient faith of the Jews, with whom the Unity of God was the proud and distinguishing tenet [Deuteronomy 6:4], without its occasioning some controversy, between those who received and those who persecuted the new birth. Yet not such controversy took place; neither is there the slightest appearance in the New Testament, that any objection, difficulty, or doubt arose in any quarter upon this ground. Is it not impossible, then, that any such doctrine should have been taught? "[source - Ware, Henry, Jr. (b.1794-d.1843) - "Outline of the Testimony of Scripture Against the Trinity. "This Tract is taken from an Address delivered in 1827 before the Unitarian Association of York County, Maine." (Boston, Massachusetts: Gray and Bowen, 1832). Now contained within the First Series, Numbers 50-61 of: Tracts of the American Unitarian Association. (Boston, Massachusetts: The Association, Series 1-, vol. 1-, 1827-), Number 58, pp. 211- 232. Scattered issues only in Miscellaneous Pamphlet Collection (AC901.M5) and in YA Pamphlet Collection. BX9813 .A5 / 46028939]>>>.

[2] <<<" We nowhere find either in the Acts or the Epistles any trace of the controversy and questionings which the direct announcement of such a doctrine [of the Trinity] must have excited. The one aim of the early apostolic preaching was to convince first the Jews, and then the Gentiles, that Jesus, whose life and teaching were so wonderful, whom God had raised from the dead, was the Messiah, exalted by God to be a Prince and a Saviour. To acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, or Jesus as Lord, which is essentially the same thing, was the one fundamental article of the Christian faith. Much, indeed, was involved in this confession; but it is now, I suppose, fully established and generally admitted that the Jews in the time of Christ had no expectation that the coming Messiah would be an incarnation of Jehovah, and no acquaintance with the mystery of the Trinity. [source - Abbot, Ezra (b.1819-d.1884), D.D, LL.D. "On the Construction of Romans ix [9]. 5." Article appearing within: Journal of Biblical Literature. (Boston, Massachusetts: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, vol. 1-, 1881-), vol. 1 (1881). BS410 .J47 / 01-009638]>>>.

[3] <<<" ...[The Trinity] is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church....There is another, more general objection against the doctrine of the Trinity. It is essentially an argument from the apparent silence of the Bible on this important subject. This contention notes that there really is no explicit statement of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible, particularly since the revelation by textual criticism of the spurious nature of 1 John 5:7b. Other passages have, in many cases, been seen on closer study to be applicable only under the greatest strain. There are, to be sure, still a number of passages intimating something that contributes to the formulation of the doctrine. The question, however, is this. It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity's uniqueness, as over against unitarian monotheism on the one hand [in particular, with respect to the Jewish belief about God], and polytheism on the other hand [referring to the Gentile/Pagan belief systems], how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? In response to the complaint that a number of portions of the Bible are ambiguous or unclear, we often hear a statement something like, "It is the peripheral matters that are hazy, or on which there seem to be conflicting biblical materials. The core beliefs are clearly and unequivocally revealed." This argument would appear to fail us with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, however. For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly....Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct and unmistakable fashion. [source - Erickson, Millard J. (b.?-d.?). God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity. 2nd Printing. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1996), pp. 11, 12, 108, 109 (respectively). BT111.2 .E75 1995 / 94-046191]>>>.

[4] <<<" [The Trinity] is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible....What is amazing, however, is that this confession of God as One in Three took place without significant struggle and without controversy by a people [the Jews] indoctrinated for centuries in the faith of the one God, and that in entering the Christian church they were not conscious of any break with their ancient faith. [source - The Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Douglas, James Dixon (b.1922-d.2003), Editor. Hillyer, N. (b.?-d.?), Joint Editor. (Leicester, England; Sydney and Auckland, Australia: InterVarsity Press; Tyndale House Publishers; Hodder and Stoughton, 1980), pp. 1597, 1598. OCLC: 7285769]>>>.

[5] <<<" Why is it that whenever there was an occasion for discussing the identity of the one, true God, the authors and participants of Scripture always spoke of him as "the Father" and never as "the triune God"? Perhaps these facts do not decisively affect the validity of Trinitarian teaching (what Trinitarian apologists would ultimately have to contend), but who could rightfully deny the reasonableness and significance of the question? Why is it that every positively and deliberately-set-forth scriptural presentation of God's identity is always different from Trinitarianism's? In a considerable number of cases it can be pointed out (if we assume the Trinity to be biblical) that whenever opportunities arose to introduce or defend the Trinitarian concept (an entirely distinctive and revolutionary one from the Jewish perspective), not one of God's faithful servants in Scripture, including Jesus himself, ever made it a point to speak a word on its behalf. Instead, they always made expressions that - when considered in hindsight - leave one with the impression that the idea of a Deity whose most distinguishing and, perhaps, most fascinating characteristic, involved the idea of "one essence" being shared by three distinct "persons" had no place in their understanding of God's nature and identity after all. [source - Navas, Patrick (b.?-d.?). Divine Truth or Human Tradition? A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom [England]; Bloomington, Indiana: Authorhouse, 2007), p. 152. ? / 2006906613]>>>.

[6] <<<" Now if Jesus were the infinite God, would he be preached as Messiah? Messiah was to be only king of the Jews, not God. Would the apostles deliberately ignore the awful [meaning, great] assertion of the Deity of Jesus, and place all their emphasis on the comparatively trivial Messiahship? This is inconceivable. Peter preached Jesus as Messiah simply because it never entered his mind that Jesus was the Eternal. His language throughout proves this. Thus: "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you." [Acts 2:22] "This Jesus did God raise up." [Acts 2:32] "The God or our fathers has glorified his Servant Jesus." [Acts 3:13] And the prayer of the disciples in the fourth chapter: "Thy holy Servant Jesus whom thou didst anoint." [Acts 4:27] "Grant unto thy servants that signs and wonders may be done through the name of thy holy Servant Jesus." [Acts 4:29, 30]. Are there texts in the New Testament which directly express the Trinity by putting the three persons together, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? If the Trinity is a genuine element in the Christian faith, and if it was taught by Jesus, we should expect to find several such texts. We should further expect that the texts thus proclaiming what is called a fundamental truth should be authentic and sure beyond any likelihood of doubt. What we find, however, is not that at all. [source - Sullivan, William Laurence (b.1872-d.1935), D.D. From the Gospel to the Creeds; Studies in the Early History of the Christian Church. (Boston, Massachusetts: The Beacon Press, 1919), Chapter XVII [17], "The Apostolic Teaching," "1. What the First Apostolic Preachers Thought of Jesus," and "4. Does the Trinity- Formula Occur in the New Testament?", pp. 117, 118, 121 (respectively). BR162 .S8 / 20000187]>>>.

[7] <<<"The first teachers of Christianity were never charged by the Jews (who unquestionably believed in the strict unity of God), with introducing any new theory of the Godhead.5 Many foolish and false charges were made against Christ; but this was never alleged against him or any of his disciples. When this doctrine of three persons in one God was introduced into the Church, by new converts to Christianity, it cause immense excitement for many years.6 Referring to this, Mosheim writes, under the forth century, "The subject of this fatal controversy, which kindled such deplorable divisions throughout the Christian world, was the doctrine of the Three Persons in the Godhead; a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches, and had been left undefined and undetermined by any particular set of ideas." Would there not have been some similar commotion among the Jewish people in the time of Christ, if such a view of the Godhead had been offered to their notice, and if they had been told that without belief in this they "would perish everlastingly"? Stannus' footnotes read: 5"Monotheism was the proud boast of the Jew". - Canon Farrar, "Early Days of Christianity", vol. i [1], p. 55. [Farrar, Frederic William (b.1831-d.1903). The Early Days of Christianity. (Boston, Massachusetts: DeWolfe, Fiske & Company, 1882). BS2361 .F3 1883a / 16-003273.] 6"In the Fourth Century", says Jortin, vol. ii [2], p. 60, "were held thirteen Councils against Arius, fifteen for him, and seventeen for the semi-Arians, - in all, forty-five". *Mention of "Jortin" [sources - Jortin, John (b.1698-d.1770). Remarks on Ecclesiastical History. 5 vols. (London, England: Printed for C. Davis, R. Manby, H. Shute Cox and J. Whiston, 1751-54, 1773). OCLC: 5340436. British Library: 680.d.5-9 and 212.b.15-19. / SN: 001903745. Taken from: Stannus, Hugh Hutton (b.1840-d.1908). A History of the Origin of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church, With an Introduction and Appendix by the Rev. R[obert] Spears [b.1825- d.1899]. (London, England: Christian Life Publishing Company, 1882), pp. 35, 36 (italics his). BT111 .S7 / 07-028755]>>>.

[8] <<<" So entirely do the Scriptures abstain from stating the Trinity, that when our opponents would insert it into their creeds and doxologies, they are compelled to leave the Bible, and to invent forms of words altogether unsanctioned by Scriptural phraseology. That a doctrine so strange, so liable to misapprehension, so fundamental as this is said to be, and requiring such careful exposition, should be left so undefined and unprotected, to be made out by inference, and to be hunted through distant and detached parts of Scripture, - this is a difficulty, which, we think, no ingenuity can explain.

We have another difficulty. Christianity, it must be remembered, was planted and grew up amidst sharp-sighted enemies, who overlooked no objectionable part of the system, and who must have fastened with great earnestness on a doctrine involving such apparent contradictions as the Trinity. We cannot conceive an opinion against which the Jews, who prided themselves on an adherence to God's unity, would have raised an equal clamor. Here's a good question Now, how happens it that in the apostolic writings, which relate so much to objections against Christianity, and to the controversies which grew out of this religion, not one word is said implying that objections were brought against the gospel from the doctrine of the Trinity, not one word is uttered in its defence and explanation, not a word to rescue it from reproach and mistake? Note-#3=OK, I-C This argument has almost the force of demonstration. We are persuaded that had three divine persons been announced by the first preachers of Christianity, all equal and all infinite, one of whom was the very Jesus who had lately died on the cross, this peculiarity of Christianity would have almost absorbed every other, and the great labor of the Apostles would have been to repel the continual assaults which it would have awakened. But the fact is, that not a whisper of objection to Christianity on that account reaches our ears from the apostolic age. In the Epistles we see not a trace of controversy called forth by the Trinity. [source - Channing, William Ellery (b.1780-d.1842). Unitarian Christianity; A Discourse on Some of the Distinguishing Opinions of Unitarians, Delivered at [the Ordination of Rev. Jared Sparks (b.1789- d.1866) in The First Independent Church of] Baltimore, May 5, 1819. Centenary Edition. "Introduction" signed by E.M.W. [Wilbur, Earl Morse (b.1866-d.1956)]. (Boston, Massachusetts: American Unitarian Association, 1919), heading II [2], subheading 1. Library of Congress: BX9843.C5 S55 1919 / 21-017181]>>>.

[9] <<<"This is true. ...the unbelieving Jews, in the time of the Apostles, opposed Christianity with the utmost bitterness and passion. They sought on every side for objections to it. There was much in its character to which the believing Jews could hardly be reconciled. The Epistles are full of statements, explanations, and controversy, relating to questions having their origin in Jewish prejudices and passions. With regard however to this doctrine [the Trinity], which if it had ever been taught, the believing Jews must have received with the utmost difficulty, and to which the unbelieving Jews would have manifested the most determined opposition, - with regard to this doctrine, there is not trace of any controversy. Note:-#4 But, if it had ever been taught, it must have been the main point of attack and defense between those who assailed, and those who supported Christianity. There is nothing ever said in its explanation. But it must have required, far more than any other doctrine, to be explained, illustrated, and enforced; for it appears, not only irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Unity of God, but equally so with that of the humanity of our Saviour; and yet both these doctrines, it seems, were to be maintained in connexion with it. It must have been necessary, therefore, to state it as clearly as possible, to exhibit it in its relations, and carefully to guard against the misapprehensions to which it is so liable on every side. Especially must care have been taken to prevent the gross mistakes into which the Gentile converts from polytheism were likely to fall. Yet so far from any such clearness of statement and fulness of explanation, the whole language of the New Testament in relation to this subject is...a series of enigmas, upon the supposition of its truth. Great-Point-#5 The doctrine, then, is never defended in the New Testament, though unquestionably it would have been the main object of attack, and the main difficulty in the Christian system. It is never explained, though no doctrine could have been so much in need of explanation. On the contrary, upon the supposition of its truth, the Apostles express themselves in such a manner, that if it had been their purpose to darken and perplex the subject, they could not have done it more effectually. And still more, this doctrine is never insisted upon as a necessary article of faith; though it is now represented by its defenders as lying at the foundation of Christianity." [source - Norton, Andrews (b.1786-d.1853). A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing The Doctrines of Trinitarians, Concerning The Nature of God and The Person of Christ. Abbot, Ezra (b.1819-d.1884), DD, LL.D., Editor. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Brown, Shattuck, and Company; Boston, Massachusetts: Hilliard, Gray, and Company, 1833), pp. 38, 39. BX9841 .N7 1833 / unk83-14874]>>>.

[10] <<<"This is indeed an interesting observation: It would have been utterly impossible that our Lord's contemporaries, his Apostles, his companions and disciples, or that the historians of his life, and miracles, and sufferings, should have written and spoken of him, have conversed with him, and behaved to him with all the familiarity which they always manifested, if they believed that Christ was in truth the very and eternal God. Note:-#6 Let us for a moment place ourselves in their situation; and we shall feel at once, that the instant the amazing truth was communicated to them, their faculties would be absorbed in terror and astonishment; - no more free conversation, no more asking of questions: no more attempts to impose upon him or to rebuke him: the greatest awe and distance would instantaneously take place, and all the endearing and familiar relations of master, instructor, companion and friend, would be absorbed in the overwhelming apprehension of their Maker and their God. OK, I agree:&-C-the reasoning-4-such questions as listed below: And what would be the style and manner of those who, under these impressions, should sit down to write the narrative of his life and his miracles, his discourses and his sufferings? Would three out of four of his historians completely forget the awful fact of his divine nature, and not drop a single hint of it from the beginning to the end of their histories? Would the rest of the sacred writers have insisted upon this circumstance only incidentally and obscurely? Would the most direct evidence of the divinity of Christ have been found chiefly in passages at least suspicious, if not notoriously spurious? Would the great discovery have been left to be spelled out from a text here and another there, which if put together by a profound scholar, and especially be one who was critically versed in the niceties of the Greek article, might to men, whose minds are fond of mystery, be made to convey some such dark and hidden meaning? Would it be necessary, in order to establish the astonishing doctrine of the proper deity of Christ, to collect twenty or thirty texts, which, some being rightly, and some wrongly translated, might appear to countenance it: and to repeat those texts over and over, so that ignorant and inattentive persons might imagine that they recurred in every page of the New Testament? Note-#7 If Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John, and Paul, and Peter, believed "that our Lord Jesus Christ is the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father," could they not have expressed the doctrine in language as plain as that of the learned Lecturer, or any other framer or supporter of creeds and articles whatever? And could they not with equal facility have lavished the charges of falsehood, impiety and blasphemy, against the impugners of the faith? I am confident that it is impossible for any person, who reflects calmly and seriously upon the subject, to doubt, that if the doctrine of their Lord's equality with God were true, and made known to the Apostles and first believers, their minds would have been so deeply and so powerfully impressed with the subject, that they would be able to think, and speak, and write of nothing else, and that this great and wonderful doctrine would be blazoned from one end of the New Testament to the other: it would flame in every chapter, it would shine in every page, it would dazzle in every line. I agree & can C-it 2-B-true That it does not so; that not only pages and chapters, but even whole books of the New Testament, yea, that professed histories of our Lord's life and character, and of the progress and success of his doctrine, of what he was and what he taught, and of what his disciples said and taught of him, should have passed over this great discovery in silence as deep and as total as the silence of the grave, is a demonstration as clear as light to every human being whose understanding is not veiled by the grossest prejudice, that these writers had never heard of the divinity of Christ, that it never entered into their conception that the Master whom they revered and loved, was the very and eternal God whom they adored and worshipped. All arguments and criticisms, however ingenious, however learned, however recondite [obscure], which can be produced in reply to considerations and facts like these, are as chaff before the whirlwind; and like Samson's cords, they fall asunder, as a thread of tow touched by the fire." [source - Belsham, Thomas (b.1750-d.1829). The Bampton Lecturer Reproved: Being a Reply to Calumnious Charges of the Rev. C[harles] A [bel] Moysey [b.1779-d.1859]...In His Late Bampton Lectures Against the Unitarians, and Especially the Editors of the Improved Version [of the New Testament]; in Letters to a Friend. To Which is Annexed a Letter, in Reply to the Charges of the Very Reverend Dean [William] Magee [b.1766-d.1831], in...His Dissertations on Atonement and Sacrifice. (London, England: R. Hunter; Dean Eaton, 1819), Pamphlets on Protestant Christian Denominations, 28 vols., Part 2; 1819-1947, number 34. Library of Congress Collection Level Cataloging, Collection Management: BX4807 / 95127685]>>>.

See Page 21

Page 21

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

The Shema is the unitarian creed of Israel and of course of Jesus himself in Mark 12:29. Why then do Christians not recite the creed of Jesus as their basic creed? Simply because the Church has taught them a Trinitarian creed which Jesus would not have reocgnized. Christians would be well advised to return to the creed which Jesus said was the most important command of all. I have written extensively on this issue in my Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self Inflicted Wound available at 800 347 4261 Anthony Buzzard[source - Christianity is Jewish - Shema, 1400 B.C., http://christianityisjewish.blogspot.com/2005/11/shema-1400-bc.html on 11/13/2007]

"This important new work is a detailed biblical investigation of the relationship of Jesus to the One God of Israel. The authors challenge the notion that biblical monotheism is legitimately represented by a Trinitarian view of God and demonstrate that within the bounds of the canon of Scripture Jesus is confessed as Messiah, Son of God, but not God Himself. Later Christological developments beginning in the second century, and under the influence of pagan Gnosticism, misrepresented the biblical doctrine of God and Christ by altering the terms of the biblical presentation of the Father and the Son. This fateful development laid the foundation of a revised, unscriptural creed which needs to be challenged. This book provides a definitive presentation of a Christology rooted in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. The authors present a sharply-argued appeal for an understanding of God and Jesus in the context of Christianity's original, Apostolic, unitary monotheism. " [source - book review of The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound by Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, by Aamazon.com, http://www.tektonics.org/books/buzzrvw01.html on 11/13/2007]
RELIGIOUS TRIADS EXISTED FOR CENTURIES IN BABYLON: Many centuries before the time of Christ, back at the very beginning of civilization, there were trinities of gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria. It was common in the ancient world to group pagan gods in threes or triads. Egypt, Greece, and Rome were noted for following trinitarian practices in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. After the death of the apostles, these pagan beliefs slowly became a part of Christianity. According to the Encylopedia Americana, "Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching."[source - ![source - N S B Notes: TRINITY, http://www.webspawner.com/users/newsimplifiedbible/nsbnotestrinity.html on 11/13/2007]

The doctrine of the Trinity was NOT a teaching of the original Christians, who were either with Jesus himself or taught directly by the surviving apostles. This explains why it is not found in the Bible. If it was a fundamental, core doctrine of such great
importance, it would have been clearly and unmistakably stated in scripture. The fact that the vast majority of professed Christians and church doctrine today maintain a belief in the Trinity does not prove it is correct. Rather, it suggests that corruption of
Christian doctrinal truths is widespread and deep." [source -- Is Jesus God Almighty? Is the Trinity Scriptural? By Gordon Coulson]

"TRINITY DOCTRINE, A ROMAN CATHOLIC CREATION: The Trinity Doctrine was officially adopted by the Roman Catholic Church nearly 300 years after Christ! The apostles had completed the writing of the Christian Greek Scriptures 250 years before the Catholic Church approved of the Trinity Doctrine. The Catholic Encylopedia will verify that fact.

It was a gradual process that took many years and much debate but in the year 325 C.E. the Creed of the Council of Nicaea was approved and the teaching of the Trinity became formalized in the church. Arius, a priest in Alexandria denied the dogma from the church that Jesus was God incarnate. He claimed it to be false doctrine and contrary to Holy Scriptures. The Emperor Constantine (Constine) convoked a church council at Nicaea in 325 to organize the Catholic Church against the teaching of Arius.

The Council of Constantinople also approved the teaching of the Trinity in 381 C.E. Previous to this in the year 200 C.E. Tertullian quoted the old Roman Creed which was completely devoid of any reference to the Trinity. The New Simplified Bible features the true monotheistic God, one God, not three in one!"[source - N S B Notes: TRINITY, http://www.webspawner.com/users/newsimplifiedbible/nsbnotestrinity.html on 11/13/2007]

"It was Constantine - who by official edict brought Christianity to believe in the formal division of the Godhead into two - God the Father - and - God the Son... It remained the task of a later generation to bring Christianity to believe in the Triune God."[source - The Doctrine of the Trinity - Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound 1994, by
Anthony F. Buzzard Charles F. Hunting]

In order to make the previously despised cult of the Early Christians acceptable to Constantine, emperor of Rome - the new (pagan) Church Fathers had to remove from its teachings certain doctrines which they knew were objectionable to Constantine. To accomplish this, certain "correctors" were
appointed, whose task it was to rewrite the Gospels."
[source -Apollonius the Nazarene Part 1:, The Historical Apollonius Versus
the Mythical Jesus By: Dr. R. W. Bernard, Ph.D.][note, more will be said on this in the historical account of the Trinity]

"Learned men, so called Correctores were, following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected by the church authorities to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned." [source - Prof. Eberhard Nestle `Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek Testament,' Einfhrung in die Textkritik des griechischen Testaments: Eberhard Nestle]

"The day was to come when the Nicene party won out completely and then the emperors decreed that one who denied the Trinity should be put to death."[source - The Church of our Fathers - 1950, pg. 46]

(Strong's Bible Dictionary: Theos: God, a god, magistrate, deity, godly or God-like) (Family relationship, son with father) (Logos en pros Theos; Jesus Christ the Word was with {pros} God) Transliteration: In the beginning was Jesus Christ the Son of God, and Jesus Christ the Son of God was with God, and Jesus Christ the Son of God was like his Father, God. Another way to state this: "The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like God. This is a family relationship, son with father. "Logos en pros Theos." Jesus Christ the Word (Logos) was with (pros) God. And Jesus Christ was like, his Father, God (Theo's). (1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:27, 28) (John 1:18) (Philippians 2:6) (Acts 7:55) (Hebrews 10:12) GREEK: "kai theos en ho logos." ENGLISH: and God-like was the Word. [source - (Strong's Bible Dictionary]

" . . . 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." [source - The Church of the First Three Centuries (1865 Alvan Lamson)]


"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." [source - The Encyclopedia Americana (1956)]


"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." [source - The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967)]

"The trinity of God is defined by the church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. 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." [source - Dictionary of The Bible (1995 John L. Mckenzie)]

". . . scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament." [source - The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism (1995)]

The Rise of Christianity (W.H.C. Frend 1985)
"we find Christianity tending to absorb Greek philosophical values, until by the end of the third century the line between the beliefs of educated Christian and educated pagan in the east would often be hard to draw." [source - The Rise of Christianity (W.H.C. Frend 1985)]


"The truth of Jesus Christ the Son of God was deliberately forged into the doctrine of God the Son. Seeds of Jesus Christ as God were planted and sprouted during the lifetime of Paul, continued growing during Timothy's lifetime and flourished shortly thereafter, reaching full bloom for all future creeds by 325 AD" [source - Forgers of the Word (1983 Victor Paul Wierwille)]

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

HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS BY ANY DIFFERENT SCHOLARS AND HISTORIANS THAT DISPROVE THE TRINITY:

"The Catholic View: The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."
Per Billy Graham: The Bible shows very clearly that there is only one God, and yet that there are three personal distinctions in His complex nature, traditionally referred to as "three Persons in the Godhead" -- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Each is distinct from the others but never acts independently."[source - Christendom's False Doctrines , #4 The Doctrine of the Trinity, in The Voice of Jesus, Edition #34, June 1, 2004]

"The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation: . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers." [source - The Church of the Fist Three Centuries, by Alvan Lamson]

"At first the Christian Faith was not Trinitarian. . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian writings."[source - The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics]

"... Greek Platonic elements were unmistakably present in the Trinitarian definition of One God in "three persons."
"The doctrine of the Trinity. . .must be interpreted in a manner that would be consistent with this a priori definition of the deity of God (One essence, three persons). Neoplatonic elements were unmistakably present in this definition. . ."[source - The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, by Church Historian Jaroslav Pelikan]

"From the middle of the 4th century onward, however, Christian thought was strongly influenced by Neo-platonic philosophy and mysticism."[source - The New Catholic Encyclopedia vol. 10, page 335]

"firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians."[source - Outlines of the History of Dogma by Adolf Harnack]

"We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists."[source - A Statement of Reasons by Andrew Norton]

"In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus. . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic views of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality. which is triadically represented."[source - Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics by James Hastings]

"The Platonic Trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian Churches. . . Thus Greek philosophers conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient pagan religions."[source - The French New Universal Dictionary]

"The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there . . . is utterly without foundation."[source - L. L. Paine, professor of Ecclesiastical History]

The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity."

"The doctrine of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who. . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied."[source - The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge]

"The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament."[source - The New Catholic Encyclopedia]

". . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a Trinity within the Godhead. . . Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers." [source - The Triune God by Jesuit Edmund Fortman]

"Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."[source - The Encyclopedia of Religion]

"Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds."[source - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology]

"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."[source - The Encyclopedia Americana]

"Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament."[source - The New Encyclopedia Britannica]

"The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity."[source - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology]

"The Christian dogma did not start from a polytheistic or pantheistic ground, but from Jewish monotheism; but the development from one God to a trinity was just as completely a historical evolution as any other."[source - The Ethnic Trinities by L. L. Paine, page 219]

"The New Testament writers. . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead." [source - Jesuit Fortman]

"To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . .they say nothing about it." [source - Origin and Evolution of Religion by Yale University professor E. Washburn ]

"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."[ source - The Paganism in Our Christianity by Historian Arthur Weigall]

"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."[source - History of Christianity by Edward Gibbons]

"The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . These gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology."[source - Egyptian Religion by Siegfried Morenz]

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

"Moderns are often unaware that [theos] had a much broader semantic range than is allowed for G/god in contemporary Western European languages." [source - Mosser, Carl (b.1972-d.?). "The Earliest Patristic Interpretations of Psalm 82, Jewish Antecedents, and the Origin of Christian Deification." Article appearing within: "Journal of Theological Studies." (London, England: Oxford University Press, vols. 1-50 {Numbers 1-199/200} October 1899-July/October 1949; New Series, vol. 1-, Apr. 1950-), vol. 56, no. 1 (April 2005), p. 22. BR1 .J8 / sv86-8566, 52-016065. ]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"If Moses could be [called elohim, "a god," at Exodus 4:16 and 7:1], then, for the gospel writers, so could Jesus [be called, in Greek, theos (= 'elohim)], who was regarded by the New Testament [writers] as the very least a new Moses." Taken from: Fletcher-Louis, Crispin (b.?-d.?). "4Q374: A Discourse on the Sinai Tradition: The Deification of Moses and Early Christology." [Source -Article appearing within: "Dead Sea Discoveries, A Journal of Current Research on the Scrolls and Related Literature." (Leiden, Netherlands; New York, New York: E. J. Brill, vol. 1, no. 1; April 1994-), vol. 3, no. 3 (1996), p. 252. BM487.A6 E6 / 96647062. ]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"I said, Ye are gods. In Exodus xxii [22]. 28, the judges (Elohim, not Jehovah,) are called gods on account of their office, because they sit in God's stead and are God's servants;..." [source - Luther, Martin (b.1483-d.1546). "Luther's Explanatory Notes on the Gospels, Compiled from His Works." Mueller, E. (b.?- d.?), Pastor in Guetersloh, Germany; Compiler. Anstadt, Peter (b.1819-d.1903), d.d., Editor of the Teachers' Journal, [etc.]. (York, Pennsylvania: P. Anstadt & Sons, 1899), p. 334. BS2555.A2 L8 / 99-003035.]

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

"Scripture gives the name of gods to those on whom God has conferred an honorable office [e.g., judges]. He [Jesus] whom God has separated, to be distinguished above all others is far more worthy of this honorable title....This passage which Christ quotes is in Psalm 82:6....where God expostulates with the kings and judges of the earth, who tyrannically abuse the authority and power for their own sinful passions, for oppressing the poor, and for every evil action....Christ applies this to the case at hand, that they receive the name of gods, because they are God's ministers for governing the world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams forth in the world....In short, let us know that magistrates are called gods, because God has given them authority." [source - Calvin, John (b.1509-d.1564). "Commentary on the Gospel According to John." 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdman's Publishing, 1949), vol. i [1], pp. 419, 420. BS2615 .C323 / a51-3521.]

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

"In this passage the principal proof [of Jesus being identified as God] does not lie in the word ["Logos" or "Word"], nor even in the word [theos], which in a larger sense is often applied to kings and earthly rulers,..." source - Knapp, Georg[e] Christian (b.1753-d.1853), D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Halle. "Lectures on Christian Theology." Translated by Woods, Leonard (b.?-d.?), Jun.D.D., President of Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine. Second American Edition, Reprinted from the last London Edition. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Thomas Wardle, 1845), pp. 136, 137. BT75 .K64 1845 / 35-22780.]

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

"The thoughtful student must ask himself: If it was hard to convince the Jews in the early church to let go of the Law, wouldn't it have been even harder to get them to change their view of God? Fifteen New Testament chapters are dedicated to changing the Jew's mind on the Law. And if it took that much to deal with the Law, shouldn't we find at least 1 or 2 chapters explaining the change in how God would be viewed from now on? But not a single verse suggests the Jew change his view of God....[There is not] a single verse which taught ... [the Trinity] doctrine. The Bible has many verses which 'teach' justification, 'teach' repentance, 'teach' baptism, 'teach' resurrection, but not one verse in the entire Bible 'teaches' the doctrine of the Trinity. No verse describes it, explains it, or defines it. And no verse tells us to believe it." [source - Wagoner, Robert A. (b.?-d.?). "The Great Debate Regarding the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit; An Exhaustive Verse-by-Verse, Side- by-Side Comparison of the Four Major Historical Paradigms." Rice, David (b.?-d.?); Parkinson, Jim (b.?-d.?); Cordaro, John V. (b.?- d.?); Hagensick, Cher-El (b.?-d.?), Contributors. (Santa Ana, California: 1997, 1998).]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Although it is true that Jehovah declared that he is the only God, the most outstanding point to keep in mind is that it was Jehovah himself who designated the ancient rulers of Israel with the honorific title "gods." However, this obviously did not mean that these were "of the same essence" or "being" as God; thought of as "false gods." They were properly called gods because they had authority delegated to them by the Almighty God. That is why one benefits from remembering, as the Psalmist declared, "Jehovah is a great King over all other gods." [ftn: Psalm 95:3] He is "the God of gods." [ftn: Psalm 136:2] That is why the angels, or gods of the heavenly realm, are commanded to worship Jehovah: "Worship him all ye gods...For thou, Jehovah art the Most High above all the earth; thou art exalted above all gods" [ftn: Psalm 97:9]....Appreciating the fact - established by the biblical tradition - that there are individual beings beside God Almighty (particularly angels and human rulers) that can properly be called "god" or "gods" in a positive scriptural affirmation - without in any way compromising or calling into question the biblical truth that there is only one Most High God - may in fact be the essential key to understanding those few texts, both in the Old and New Testaments, that do in fact apply the term "God" to God's Son, Jesus Christ. As pointed out, in the Old Testament, the term God was applied to Moses (Exodus 4:16; 7:1), to the King of Israel (possibly King Solomon; Psalm 46:6), to the pre- monarchical judges of Israel (Psalm 82:6), as well as to the angelic hosts of heaven (Psalm 8:5). They were all honored with the title, evidently, based on their representative role (or function) and exalted position given to them by God....If we can verify from the Scriptures that men were given a measure of authority from God can appropriately be called "gods" (without resulting in a compromise to `biblical monotheism,' or the scriptural truth that there is only one true God), how much more fitting would it be for the Scriptures to have called God's very own Son "God," the one who was given, not merely a measure of authority, but "all authority in heaven and on earth," [Matthew 28:18; John 17:2] without representing a negation or violation of that truth in any way? Actually, in light of the fact that other beings in addition to the Father are rightfully called "God" (Psalm 8:5; 45:6) or "gods" (based on the authority delegated to them; and with angels, perhaps because of their divine nature as powerful, celestial beings), it would have really been inconsistent, even surprising, for the Bible not to have described God's Son by that very same kind of description; he is, clearly, far more worthy of that special dignity....Was and is not the Messiah God's perfect "representative," one who acted "in God's name" as "God's ultimate spokesman (compare Hebrews 1:1-3; Matthew 21:9; John 5:43)? Could we not - in light of such clear, scriptural precedents and principles - say the same with respect to the Christ in the terms of his own Godship?: "The idea {in Scripture} is, that Christ was the representative of the divine sovereignty in the administration of justice...(Hebrews 1:3, 8; Matthew 28:18; compare Daniel 7:13-14; Isaiah 11:1-6) He was, in a sense, `God' to other people (John 20:28); but he was not to forget that God Stood among him as his God (John 20:17); that if he was exalted to a high rank in respect to his fellow men (Philippians 2:9-11), he was, nevertheless, subject to the One to whom the name of God belonged in the highest sense (1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:26-28; compare Revelation 3:2, 12)." [source - Navas, Patrick, "Divine Truth or Human Tradition? A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures." (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom [England]; Bloomington, Indiana: Authorhouse, 2007), pp. 226-230 (brackets mine; braces mine to represent authors use of brackets). 2006906613.]

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

"The reference [to "gods" in Psalm 82f], however, is undoubtedly to magistrates, and the idea is, that they were to be regarded as representatives of God; as acting in his name; and as those, therefore, to whom, in a subordinate sense, the name gods might be given. Compare Psalms 82:6. In Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8-9, Exodus 22:28, also, the same word in the plural is applied to magistrates, and is properly translated judges in our common version. Compare the notes at John 10:34-35. The idea is, that they were the representatives of the divine sovereignty in the administration of justice. Compare Romans 13:1-2, Romans 13:6. They were, in a sense, gods to other people; but they were not to forget that God stood among them as their God; that if they were exalted to a high rank in respect to their fellowmen, they were, nevertheless, subject to One to whom the name of God belonged in the highest sense. [source - Barnes, Albert (b.1798-d.1870), Contributor, Editor. "Notes, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical, on the Book of Psalms." 3 vols. (New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, c1895), vol. 1, p. 328. BS1430 .B3 1895 / 33004349.]

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

The Hebrew for `gods' (`elohim) could refer to various exalted begins besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,... [source - Blomberg, Craig L. (b.?-d.?). "The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary." (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002), "The feast of Dedication" ([John] 10:22-42), p. 163. BS2615.6.H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.]

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

"Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical ("interlinear") translation of the controversial clause would read: 'And a god was the Word.' A minimal literal ("formal equivalence") translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: 'And the Word was a god.' The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation,...." [source - "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament." By, Dr. Jason David BeDuhn (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2003), chapter 11, "AND THE WORD WAS...WHAT?", subheading, "Summing Up," pp. 132, 133. BS2325 .B43 2003 / 20-03050712].

Yes, as Professor BeDuhn has pointed out, although "John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate," and even with all the 'contexts' considered, apparently, something else gets in the way of certain ones seeing this clause to be rendered properly as, "and the Word was a god." Here's where an astute observation made by even a Catholic theologian/scholar comes into play:

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

"Here I may observe, that, to persons uninitiated in the doctrines of Christianity, this passage [John 1:1c], and other obscure passages of the present Gospel, must have appeared unintelligible; yet by the disciples of the evangelist, already acquainted with his language on such subjects, they would be easily understood. Their previous knowledge led them to the true explanation. At the present day, the readers of Scriptures have generally imbibed certain religious notions from education before they sit down to the task; and then, unconsciously, perhaps, but very naturally, they explain every difficulty in accordance with those notions. Hence it happens that men of every persuasion find the confirmation of their peculiar opinions in the sacred volumes: for, in fact, it is not the Scripture that informs them, but they that affix their own meaning to the language of Scripture." [source - "A New Version of The Four Gospels with Notes Critical and Explanatory, by a Catholic." By John Lingard, (London, England: J. Booker, 1836), p. 330. BS2553 .L5 / 06-30318.]

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

"It is only assumption,...that universality and ubiquity are made the tests of religious doctrine. No universality or ubiquity can make that divine which never was such. It is mere prejudice of veneration for antiquity, and the imposing aspect of an unanimous acquiescence (if unanimous it really be) which makes us regard that as truth which comes so recommended to us. Truth is rather the attribute of the few than the many. The real church of God may be the small remnant, scarcely visible amidst the mass of surrounding professors. Who, then, shall pronounce any thing to be divine truth, simply because it has the marks of having been generally or universally received among men?" [source - Hampden, Renn Dickson (b.1763-d.1868), D.D., Regis Professor of Divinity at Oxford. "Bampton Lectures." Annual. (Oxford, England: Oxford University, 1833), p. 356. BR45 .B3 / sv87- 025507.]

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

"In this passage [John 1:1] the principal proof [for "the Word" being identified as "God"] does not lie in the word ["Logos" or "Word"], nor even in the word ["theos"], which in a larger sense is often applied to kings and earthly rulers,..."[source - Knapp, Georg[e] Christian (b.1753-d.1853), d.d., Professor of Theology in the University of Halle. Lectures on Christian Theology. Translated by Woods, Leonard (b.?-d.?), jun.d.d., President of Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine. Second American Edition, Reprinted from the last London Edition. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Thomas Wardle, 1845), pp. 136, 137. BT75 .K64 1845 / 35-22780.]

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

"The Hebrew for `gods' (`elohîm) could refer to various exalted begins besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,..." [source - Blomberg, Craig L. "The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary." (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002), "The feast of Dedication" ([John] 10:22- 42), p. 163. BS2615.6.H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.]

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

"...explicit references to Jesus as `God' (theos) are very few, and even those few are generally plagued with uncertainties of either text or interpretation." [source - Kaiser, Christopher B. , "The Doctrine of God: An Historical Survey." (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, c1982), p. 29. BT98 .K34 1982/ 82072324.]

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

"...all the texts in which Jesus appears to be called `God' are subject to textual or exegetical ambiguity," [source - Harvey, Anthony Ernest, University Lecturer in Theology and Fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford. "God Incarnate, Story Of Belief." (London, England: Holy Trinity Church, Marylebone Road; SPCK, 1981). p. 52. BL: X.200/37433 or, 82/08065

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

"...whether [the "New Testament"] ever calls Jesus God, since almost every text proposed has its difficulties." [source - Brown, Raymond Edward (b.1935-d.?), S.S. "The Anchor Bible." "Gospel of John, Introduction, Translation, Notes." vol. 1 - John i-xii [1-12]. vol. 2 - John xiii-xxi [13-21]. (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1970-1983), vol. i, p. 24. BS192.2 .A1 1964 .G3, no. 29-29a / 66-12209].

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

"When we consider further the fact...that Christ is nowhere called God in any unambiguous passage by any writer of the New Testament and that it is nowhere recorded that he ever claimed this title, we cannot reasonably regard this abstinence from the use of the term as accidental." [source - Abbot, Ezra (b.1819-d.1884), d.d, ll.d. "On the Construction of Romans ix [9].5." Article appearing within: Journal of Biblical Literature. (Boston, Mass.: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, vol. 1, 1881-), vol. 1 (1881). BS410 .J47 / 01-009638].

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

"There are...several statements in Paul and the other letters, which might be read as describing Jesus as God (ho theos), though in each case it is not a deliberate, unambiguous affirmation, but depends upon texts which are problematic in various ways, either in their grammar and translation or in establishing the correct text itself." [source - Behr, John (b.?-d.?). "The Way to Nicaea. Series: "The Formation of Christian Theology," vol. 1. (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2001), p. 58. BT23 .B47 2001 / 2001- 019386].

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

"In his annotation on John 1:1 ('the Word was God'), Erasmus had questioned whether Christ had ever been called 'God' and thus laid himself open to the accusation of Arianism by seeming to deny the full divinity of Christ." [source - from: Jenkins, Allan K. (b.1931-d.?); Preston, Patrick (b.?- d.?). "Biblical Scholarship and the Church: A Sixteenth Century
Crisis of Authority." (Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies). (Aldershot, England; Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate, c2007), p. 61. BS500 .J46 2007 / 2006018035.][Special note, To examine the actual notes of Erasmus, see: Erasmus, Desiderius (b.?- d.1536). "Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. Selections. Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: The Gospels: Facsimile of the Final Latin Text (1535) with all Earlier Variants (1516, 1519, 1522 and 1527)." Reeve, Anne (b.?-d.?), Editor. Screech, M. A. (b.?-d.?), Introduction. Payn, Patricia (b.?-d.?), Calligraphy. Originally published: Des. Erasmi Roterodami in Novum Testamentum Annotationes.
(Basiliae: Froben, 1535). Notes: Text in Latin; Introduction in English. (London, England: Duckworth, 1986). BS2335 .E652x 1986 /86672888.]

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


20 - the Great Deceit:

Today con men are very much in the news and deceit is being practiced by many; however, con jobs and deceit are nothing new. The greatest deceit of all history, however, was the slipping into so called Christianity of a pagan God dishonoring doctrine by a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, one Emperor Constantine, with the tacit approval of many bishops of an apostate church that was seeking to become 'respectable' with its pagan neighbors. This occurred in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea.

Why was this pagan Emperor so concerned with getting this God dishonoring doctrine into the so called Christian church. Well let's examine the political situation of the time. 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.

Let's regress for a moment and see how this all came about. A feud started within the church between two theologians, Alexander and Arius over theology. All Arius said was that if the Father begat the Son, then the Son must have had a birth, and therefore there was a time when the Son of God did not exist. But his simple statement of truth by Arius started the greatest theological controversy of all times between the forces for maintaining strict adherence to the Bible and the forces for attachment of personal ideas and compromise.

Inevitably it came to the ears of the emperor, who discussed with Hosius, the saintly bishop of Cordova, what should be done to put an end to the quarrels among the sects. Like James I of England, Constantine regarded unity as "the mother of order," and he was not overmuch concerned with the theological truths at stake: he decided to send Hosius to Nicomedia and Alexandria with a letter written in his own hand, ordering by imperial rescript an end to the quarrel.

The letter-one of the most astonishing letters ever written by an emperor to priests-has come down to us in a version that shows no signs of being edited. It is hot-tempered, querulous, disjointed, and commanding. It is abundantly clear that the emperor is not quite clear in his own mind what the quarrel is about. He observes that "these questions are the idle cobwebs of contention, spun by curious wits," and he asks, "Who is capable of distinguishing such deep and hidden mysteries?" He recognizes that the contestants are well-armed with arguments, but he can make neither head nor tail of them.
[The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957).]

It makes no difference to Emperor Constantine that, "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch, about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). [The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV]

His concern is to unite his empire religiously so that he has unity. 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. His opening speech started out as, ""When I gained my victories over my enemies, I thought nothing remained for me but to give thanks unto God and to rejoice with those who have been delivered by me. But when I learned, contrary to all expectations, that there were divisions among you, then I solemnly considered them, and praying that these discords might also be healed with my assistance, I summoned you here without delay. I rejoice to see you here, yet I should be more pleased to see unity and affection among you. I entreat you, therefore, beloved ministers of God, to remove the causes of dissension among you and to establish peace." [The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957).]
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). [DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION: which can be read at,
http://religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=none&thread=1162919759&page=1, Iris89, 2002 and John the 15 chapter]

Now how illogical this doctrine is for genuine Christianity can not only be seen from a historic point of view, but from a doctrinal point of view:

Robert Ingersoll makes the following comments in Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 4, p. 266-67:

Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost third.
Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both.
The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son.
The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say, before he existed, but he is of the same age as the other two.
So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son and the Holy Ghost God, and these three Gods make one God. According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three time one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar: if we add two to one we have but one. Each one equal to himself and to the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity. [Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 4, p. 266-67: by Robert Ingersoll]
Christians therefore are presented with a dilemma, accept the Bible or accept the doctrine of man put forth as the greatest deceit in all human history. This choice will separate the genuine from the counterfeit.
To quickly determine which is which from the Holy Bible, let's look at some pertinent text:
" I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11 AV - Authorized King James Version)

"Salvation belongeth unto Jehovah: Thy blessing be upon thy people." (Psalms 3:8 ASV - American Standard Version of 1901)

"For, I,-Yahweh, am, Thy God, The Holy One of Israel Ready to save thee,-I have given, as thy ransom, Egypt, Ethiopia and Seba, in thy stead." (Isaiah 43:3 Rothrham Bible)

Now let's consider the reality, that according to the Old Testament (OT) only God (YHWH) can be the Savior; therefore in order for Jesus Christ (Yeshua or YHWH saves) to be the Savior, he would have to be God (YHWH). But is this so? Advocates of this con job try and support it with scriptures that in reality do not:

" I and my Father are one." (John 10:30 AV), but forget to mention this is one in purpose.

" And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:" (John 17:22 AV), but on close examination this clearly shows only one in purpose.

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1 AV), use this product of a biased translation to try and prove their point, but overlook the scripture of a few verses later that sheds light onto reality, " 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." (John 1:14 AV), which clearly shows Biblical truth.

" Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" (John 14:9 AV), but overlook the scripture a few verses later that clearly show what is meant, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." (John 14:12 AV)

" 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." (John 17:11 AV), but forget that says his Father (YHWH) has given them to his Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves); therefore could not be the same spiritual person.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2:8-9 AV), but overlook the meaning here of Godhead per Easton's Revised Bible Dictionary, #Ac 17:29 Ro 1:20 Col 2:9 the essential being or the nature of God. In reality, it only shows, Preeminent position given to Christ: He is the image of God, the firstborn of all creation, the one through whom all other things were created, the head of the congregation, the firstborn from the dead and Through Christ reconciliation to God is effected. Also, for those interested in translation, in the New Testament (NT), certain words derived from the•os' (god) appear and relate to that which is divine. The related words thei'os, thei•o'tes, and the•o'tes occur at Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9, and 2 Peter 1:3, 4. Thus is vital position is highlighted, Yehovah (Almighty God) "saw fit to make his firstborn Son the central, or key, figure in the outworking of all His purposes (Joh 1:14-18; Col 1:18-20; 2:8, 9), the focal point on which the light of all prophecies would concentrate and from which their light would radiate (1Pe 1:10-12; Re 19:10; Joh 1:3-9), the solution to all the problems that Satan's rebellion had raised (Heb 2:5-9, 14, 15; 1Jo 3:, and the foundation upon which God would build all future arrangements for the eternal good of His universal family in heaven and earth. (Eph 1:8-10; 2:20; 1Pe 2:4- Because of the vital role he thus plays in God's purpose, Jesus could say, rightly and without exaggeration: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."-Joh 14:6." [Insight, Vol. 2]
Likewise, they overlook the many scriptures that make clear there can be no such thing as the Trinity:
" And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17 AV), and this is Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) speaking.

" Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16 AV); here Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) clearly shows that the doctrine is not his but his Father's (YHWH), and that he had been sent by him.

" 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); here Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) clearly shows that his Father (YHWH) is greater than he is. For any one to argue against this, they would be calling the Son a liar and he is not.

" And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." (Matthew 26:39 AV); here Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) clearly is praying to his Father (YHWH) and recognizing that all worship belongs exclusively to him in keeping with " Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matthew 4:10 AV).

" And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46 AV); clearly Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) he was speaking to his Father (YHWH) and not to himself.

" 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 AV); here Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) clearly reveals that only his Father (YHWH) and not he knows that hour for the end times. If their relationship were that which is claimed by Trinitarians this would definitely not be the case.

There are, of course, more scriptures. The passages quoted are a representative of the opposing concepts.

Thus as can be seen, early Christians that had gone astray adopted the Trinity doctrine to please a pagan emperor who worshipped the Unconquered Sun as God in a pagan religion that had a Trinity. The emperor really did not care much about doctrine and certainly did not care about Biblical truths, but for political reasons, not doctrinal, wanted a religiously united empire. He obtained this by winning most of the bishops that attended the Council of Nicea that he, not the so called church fathers, over to the point of view that was politically expedient for him. Thereby, creating a dilemma for all Christians, genuine and counterfeit. To get away from the dilemma, this false dogma creates, those Christians departing from Bible truths have come up with a great con cover-up, "these wayward Christians go to nearly any length to prove the Trinity including the declaration that its a "mystery" and we "just don't have the mind to understand it". [DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION: which can be read at,
http://religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=none&thread=1162919759&page=1,Iris89, 2002] Now this begs the question, Is the bible the perfect, in-errant word of God?

Truly, The arrival of the Trinity doctrine into errant Christianity is appalling. Like most historic issues pertaining to Christianity, there was much deceit and bloodshed. Many lives were lost before 'Trinitarianism' was finally adopted, and imposed at the point of the sword.

As many Christians know, the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible. It doesn't because it is a doctrine which evolved after being borrowed in early Christianity from the pagans. It was a manipulated, bloody and deadly process before it finally arrived as an 'accepted' doctrine of the so called church. In other words, the founders of the early Christian church had no idea that the Trinity concept would evolve, be voted upon by politicians, forced by emperors and eventually become an integral part of so called Christianity such as we have it today. Is it any wonder that its "difficult" to explain?
Is there one Christian God or Three In One? The majority of Christian churches hold to the Trinity doctrine but there are still Christian church holdouts who reject the teaching. We now enjoy the freedom to believe either doctrine but at risk of ridicule if we choose non-Trinitarian beliefs.

Now to know the truth, go to:

1) http://religioustruths.forumsland.com/

2) http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/

3) http://religioustruths.lefora.com/

4) http://religioustruths.boardhost.com/

5) http://religious-truths.forums.com/


Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!