CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HOLY SCRIPTURES (Carte, Teologie)

 

THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HOLY

SCRIPTURES

 

Announcement

Dear interested!

 

I am a researcher in classic Christianity looking to launch a book, THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. The book has seven parts, each part having ten chapters. The book describes how a second-century sect succeeded in falsifying the Holy Scriptures to justify its misconceptions about God.

 

What has happened has had adverse effects that have continued until today. You can discover the history, and sequence of events that led to this misconception from this book.

 

Please share with your relatives and acquaintances.

No copyright!

Thank you and God bless you!

Best regards!

 

Johanan Oreg

 

 

 

 

Presentation of the book:

THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HOLY

SCRIPTURES on the Discussions about CLASSIC CHRISTIANITY and The End Time. This is a BIBLE STUDY book.

Join with us in debate>

In English

Discussions about CLASSIC CHRISTIANITY and The End Time

 

Preface of the book

 

Greetings!

 

What does the Bible say about God and his plan?

 

The Bibles’ Creed

 

According to the Bible, there is one God, the Father Almighty, known from very ancient time as the God of the Hebrews, Yehowah (anglicized Jehovah), the wise Creator of heaven and earth and of all things within the Universe.

Genesis 1:1, Exodus 20, Matthew 5:45, Romans 1:20

 

According to the Bible, God has a plan, and He sent a special messenger to present this plan.  The messenger was known as Yeshua Messiah, in Geek Iesous Christos, anglicized as Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 1:1-4, John 3:16, John 17:5, Romans 8:28

 

According to the Bible, Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son, who came from heaven to be born on Earth through Mary, a holy virgin, by the Holy Spirit, God’s holy power, to show his Father's great love for mankind.

 

According to the Bible he was made by God to be our Lord and Savior, to whom God gave all power in heaven and on earth.

 

According to the Bible, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Son of the Almighty Father, was crucified under Pontius Pilate.  He died for our sins as a lamb sacrifice, and was buried in a stone tomb.  He was then guarded by a group of soldiers so as not to be stolen.

 

According to the Bible, he rose from the dead on the third day for our salvation, ascended to heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Almighty Father to help us.

 

According to the Bible, he will come again to judge the living and the dead, and to restore the divine order on Earth which has been disturbed by Satan, God’s enemy. Matthew 3:17, Luke 1:35, John 3:16, John 17:5, John 19:19-42, 1 Peter 3:18, Matthew 6:10, Acts 5:31, Matthew 28:18,19

 

According to the Bible, those who believe will receive the grace of God and also of His Son.  Through the Holy Spirit of God Almighty, and the Lord Jesus Christ, they will also receive the remission of sins, a resurrection from death in an incorruptible body, for an eternal life in happiness, if they live in the peace and sanctification that God requires. 1Cor. 2.9, Revelation 21:3-5, Hebrews 12:14

Hallelujah, Praise the Father and His Son!

 

There arose a pseudo-Christian sect of the second century that could not perceive a difference between the Father and the Son, mistakenly believing that Christ is the Father.  This manifested into a great controversy, and a great conflict arose.  This conflict eventually came before the pagan Roman authority, and was presented to the emperor himself.  The emperor, a cunning politician, wanting peace, proposed a compromise. The compromise was known as the doctrine of the trinity. He made a creed, in which the controversial versions appeared together.  However as expected, a compromise often does not bring any stable peace.  Since then there have been countless debates with pros and cons and two major camps have been established, the non-Trinitarian camp and the Trinitarian camp.

 

Nontrinitarianism is a form of Christianity that rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, they believe that God is three distinct hypostases or persons who are coeternal, coequal, and indivisibly united in one being, or essence (from the Greek ousia). Certain religious groups that existed before and also emerged during the Protestant Reformation have historically been known as Nontrinitarian or Antitrinitarian.

 

A new survey from Ligonier Ministries titled “The State of Theology” (2020) revealed lots of interesting things.  The most interesting finding was centered around what most modern Christians believe concerning our Lord and Savior Jesus, the only begotten Son of God.  For example nearly 70% of Catholics believe Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God, while 57% of Catholics believe Jesus was a great teacher, but he was not God.  Some of the bishops discussing this survey have warned of an ancient heresy that these statements reflect (the so called “Nontrinitarianism” or "Arianism").

How is it that there is such a big difference between what ordinary believers believe and what church officials think? Who is right?

 

This book can assist you in this regard, presenting the true monotheist Christian doctrine about the meaning of “God is one” found in the Bible, in comparison with the Gnostic “monotheist” doctrine, more specifically concerning The Trinity Doctrine. This could be a final, epic, and spiritual argument-by-argument battle, between Nontrinitarians and Trinitarians, with Nontrinitarian Bible arguments versus Trinitarian Bible arguments.

 

The study of the doctrine of the trinity has been taken up by many. Those interested in this study have compared multiple Bible translations in several languages, at the same time studying the history of religious dogmas and ideas related to this doctrine. The disclosures in this book could end the controversy between the Nontrinitarians and Trinitarians.  The result could have positive effects in all aspects of the faith, by helping the undecided, uniting Christians with the truth, and not by force or an underground interest.   The Bible will be much more intelligible, not contradicting but harmonious, in the monotheistic doctrine of God. This work is not directed against the Bible, nor against our Trinitarian brothers, instead it brings an ease of understanding to the topic, uniting all of us in the truth of true monotheism, for the eternal Glory of God and His Son.

 

That’s why this is a must read:

THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY

AGAINST THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

 

Any collaboration on this is welcome, expecting those interested to join the work.

Looking for a corrector – proofreader and sponsor or impresario to print this theological work, in the hope of reaching and benefiting many readers of the Holy Scriptures (the Holy Bible), let us pray to God Almighty, to encourage and bless the translation of this work into other languages, for His glory.

Best regards to all!

 

THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN

CONSPIRACY AGAINST

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

 

A book about: Gnostic-Patripassian “Christians”, who they were, their school of thought, the legacy they left behind and the conspiracies they were engaged in.

 

The Gnostics: classic Christian wheat or tares?

 

Matthew 13:24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.”

 

From the Wikipedia about Gnosticism and Gnostic-Christian (Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge), sources refer to a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge, who is frequently identified with the Abrahamic God.

The demiurge may be depicted as an embodiment of evil, or in other instances as merely imperfect and as benevolent as it inadequacy permits. This demiurge exists alongside another remote and unknowable Supreme Being that embodies good. In order to free oneself from the inferior material world, one needs gnosis, or esoteric spiritual knowledge available through direct experience or knowledge (gnosis) of (this unknowable) God. Within the sects of Gnosticism, however, only the Pneumatics or Psychics obtain gnosis; the Hylics or Somatics, though human, are doomed.

Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered mostly a corruption of Christianity, it now seems clear that traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era. Gnosticism may have been earlier than the First Century, thus predating Jesus Christ, then continuing in the Mediterranean and Middle East before and during the Second and Third Centuries. Gnosticism became a dualistic heresy to Judaism, Christianity and Hellenic philosophy in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and Arian Goths (see Huneric), and the Persian Empire. Conversion to Islam and the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229) greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the Middle Ages, though a few isolated communities continue to exist to the present. Gnostic ideas became influential in the philosophies of various esoteric mystical movements of the late 19th and 20th Centuries in Europe and North America, including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier Gnostic groups.

In the gnostic book of The First Thought which is in Three Forms (or The Three Forms of the First Thought, originally The Trimorphic Protennoia) appears to have been rewritten at some point to incorporate Sethian gnostic beliefs, when originally it was a treatise from another Gnostic sect. Unusually, the text is in the form of an explanation of the nature of cosmology, creation, and a docetic view of Jesus, in the first person. That is, the text is written as if the writer is God, the three-fold first thought. Like most Gnostic writing, the text is extremely mystical, more so for being in the first person. Like the more familiar gnostic book The Apocryphon of John, which is similar, it is thought to be from the mid-second century.

 

I have been studying the Bible since 1991, in three languages: Romanian, Hungarian, and English. In time, seeing some differences between them, I consulted some Hebrew-English and Greek-English interlinear sites. That's how I came to be interested in the authentic text of the Bible. In time I learned what is the original text of the Bible and what is a copy of its copies. I have come to the conclusion that only by restoring the original text, both Hebrew and Greek, can we gain insight into the understanding of true doctrines. The first great mission of the End Time Church, who truly fears and loves God, is to restore God's word in the Bible, in the context that God Himself presents.

 

God bless you!

The truth must be told! Have a blessed time in the research!

 

THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HOLY

SCRIPTURES

 

PART ONE – The First or Classic Christians’ Creed

 

 

Content

 

Chapter 1

 

The real background of the Trinitarian doctrine

 

Chapter 2

 

“Who is the Holy Spirit?” versus “What is the holy spirit?”

 

Chapter 3

 

Why the Bible doesn't say what the songs say?

 

Chapter 4

 

A mysterious verse: “All the angels of God worship him”

 

Chapter 5

 

The second problem: a second god

 

Chapter 6

 

The great problem

 

Chapter 7

 

The unknown Council of Antioch, in 267 A.D and it’s decision

 

Chapter 8

 

The Codex Sinaiticus markings and the real text of Matthew 28:18,19

 

Chapter 9

 

The reconsideration of Hebrews 1:8, 10-12

 

Chapter 10

 

THE APOSTLES' CREED - Reconstruction according to the oldest known versions

 

 

 

Chapter 1

The real background of the Trinitarian doctrine

 

Is the Bible really the real background of the Trinitarian doctrine? Unfortunately, no.

 

Here is the ancient Gnostic-Patripassian doctrine about God in a few

words, directly from a primary source:

“The moment I thought about them, behold, the heavens opened, all the

creature beneath the sky lit up, and the world shook. I was scared, and

here I saw someone sitting next to me in the light. Looking, he seemed

to be someone old. Then he changed his appearance to a young man.

Not that there were more faces in front of me, but inside the light, there

was a face with more faces. These faces were visible to each other, and

the face had three faces.”

Apocryphon of John

 

{The Secret Book of John, also called the Apocryphon of John, is a second-century forgery, made by the Gnostic-Patripassian proto-Trinitarians}.

 

How is the doctrine of the trinity interpreted today?

Wikipedia: Trinity "Within Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is a single "Being" who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a communion of three persons (personae, prosopa): Father (the Source, the Eternal Majesty); the Son (the eternal Logos or Word, incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth); and the Holy Spirit. Traditionally, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "One God in Three Persons", all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal "persons" or "hypostases", "share a single Divine essence, being, or nature."

 

Is this position really biblical or just a copy taken from apocryphal sources, which they have made to sound biblical? This theme is debated at large in this book.

 

I wrote this book in order to raise public awareness about the importance of a more careful study of the Bible, coming out of stereotypes that some have taught for so long.

 

As we see, the doctrine of the Trinity was not invented at the Council of Nicaea in 325, but earlier. I must also mention that the doctrine of the Trinity has a shorter form, namely, the Binitarian doctrine. This Binitarian doctrine excludes the idea that the Holy Spirit is part of the “Godhead”. They claim that only the Father and the Son are part of the “Godhead”. Therefore they cannot speak of Trinitarianism, but only of Binitarianism.

 

But, is it possible to falsify the Bible?

To understand the seriousness of the situation, please read Revelation 12: 9

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceived the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Whoever underestimates this evil power, unjustifiably overestimates himself.

Those before the demolition of the Temple in Jerusalem argued that this was not possible because it was the Temple of God. What a weak argument they had! Not because God is weak, as General Titus shouted in the Temple! But because He is sovereign and does what He wants! Even today, some are stubborn in believing that the Bible could not be falsified because it is God's Word. What a weak argument. Well, if God allowed Himself to be mocked in this world, wouldn't He allow a book about Him to be mocked? Of course, the Devil will not come and tell you, "See how great I am, for I have the power to falsify even the Word of God!" No, because he will make you believe the opposite, that everything he forged is OK.

Lord Jesus warned that Satan would be involved in falsifying the message.

Matthew 13:19 in the Aramaic Bible: Everyone who hears the word of the Kingdom and does not understand, The Evil One comes into him and snatches the word that was sown in his heart; this is that which was sown upon the roadside.

Because Satan is involved, the fruit of this action is so dangerous: their own destruction:

2Peter 3:16 Just as in all of his letters he spoke about these things, in which are things difficult for the intellect, which those who are without teaching and unstable, pervert, as also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Here's a sample of how easy it is to falsify the Bible right under the guidance of the Evil One.

Re: Luke 23:43 – Where does the comma go?

John Albu (rt20@columbia.edu)

Fri, 2 Aug 1996 00:13:58 -0400

“For the punctuation marks in Luke 23:43, three possibilities have been offered: to put a comma before the word “today,” to put it after “today,” or to put a comma both before and after “today.” — See “Understanding and Translating ‘Today’ in Luke 23.43,” by J. Hong, published in “The Bible Translator,” Vol. 46, 1995, pp. 408-417.

Early Greek manuscripts had no punctuation, but occasionally it is found in some MSS, and this is the case here, where B (the Vatican 1209) has a lower point ((hypostigme) after semeron. Regarding the punctuation used by this MS, it was noted that in general “B has the higher point as a period, the lower point for a shorter pause.” (A. T. Robertson, “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament,” Nashville, 1934, p. 242) The ink of the uncial letters in codex B was at one time a faded brown color, and in a later century a scribe traced over many of the letters and punctuation marks.

However, in Luke 23:43 the ink of the lower point is the same as the letters of the text, and thus it can be traced back to the fourth century C.E.

The Vatican 1209 uses punctuation marks also in other places. Thus, at Romans 8:5, ABCL and 26 cursives have a point after sarka.

Does anybody know any MS that displays some kind of punctuation in Luke 23:43, beside the Vatican 1209?

The Curetonian Syriac (fifth century C.E.) renders Luke 23:43: “Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden.'” – F. C. Burkitt, “The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels,” Vol. I, Cambridge, 1904.

Below I am quoting from several Greek sources, in transliteration and providing an English translation. I would appreciate if improvements would be offered for the English renderings.

Tines men houtos anaginoskousin* _Amen lego soi semeron*_ kai hypostizousin* eita epipherousin, hotiet’ emou ese e to paradeiso._

(“Some indeed read this way: ‘Truly I tell you today,’ and put a comma;

then they add: ‘You will be with me in Paradise.'” – Hesychius of Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E. Greek text found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 93, columns 432, 1433.

Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <> hin’ e to legomenon toiouton* <> eita to, <> epipherontes. (“But others press upon the saying, putting a punctuation mark after ‘today,’ so that it would be said

this way: ‘Truly I tell you today'; and then they add the expression: ‘You will be with me in Paradise.'”) – Theophylact, an ecclessistical writer who died about 1112 C.E. Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123, column 1104.

alloi — to rheton ekbiazontai* legousin gar dein hypostizontas (254: hypostizantas) anaginoskein* amen lego soi semeron*>> eith’ houtos epipherein to* met’ emou ese etc. (“Others press upon what is spoken;

for they say it must read by putting a comma thus: ‘Truly I tell you today,’ and then adding the expression this way: ‘You will be with me’ etc.”) –Scholia 237, 239, 254. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke 23:43.

kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met’ emou ese en

to parad[eiso]. (“And immediately he said to me: ‘Most truly today I tell you, You will be with me in Paradise.'”) –Descent into Hades, an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43.

ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton parad[eison] met’ emou. (“And he said to him: ‘Today I tell you the truth, that I should have you in Paradise with me.'”) – Gospel of Nicodemus (=Acts of Pilate) b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke 23:43.

Therefore, at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the twelfth century C.E. there were readers who understood the text at Luke 23:43 as “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.”

On that very day, when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in

Paradise. (Psalms 16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb

until the third day and was then resurrected as “the firstfruits” of the resurrection. (Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18) Thus, the word “today” at Luke 23:43 does not give the time of the evildoer’s being with Jesus in Paradise.”

 

Do you see - if Satan is at the helm - how easy it is to juggle the biblical text and take it in the direction you want? This is exactly what those who introduced the doctrine of the Trinity into the Bible did. To make room for the doctrine of the trinity in the Bible, some did much worse things than move a comma to the left or right.

 

Chapter 2

“Who is the Holy Spirit?” versus “What is the holy spirit?”

How did “something” become “someone”?

How would you write "God's hand?" Obviously you wouldn't write "God's Hand". Why? Because the "hand" belongs to God and should not be honored with a capital letter. We often come across the phrase "Holy Spirit" written in capital letters. What if it's like God's hand? If it's “something” and not “someone”?

 

There was a long dispute for 1 John 5:

7For there are three that beare record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that beare witnesse in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one.

    — King James Version (1611)

 

Quote from Edward Gibbon in 1776:

    “Even the Scriptures themselves were profaned by their rash and sacrilegious hands. The memorable text, which asserts the unity of the three who bear witness in heaven, is condemned by the universal silence of the orthodox fathers, ancient versions, and authentic manuscripts. It was first alleged by the Catholic bishops whom Hunneric summoned to the conference of Carthage. An allegorical interpretation, in the form, perhaps, of a marginal note, invaded the text of the Latin Bibles, which were renewed and corrected in a dark period of ten centuries.”

 

Johannine Comma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“English translations based on a modern critical text have omitted the comma from the main text since the English Revised Version (1881), including the New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV), and New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

The Catholic tradition publishes Vulgate editions which have the verse, such as the Rheims, the Confraternity Bible (1941), the Knox Bible (1945), the Jerusalem Bible (1966) and the New Jerusalem Bible (1985). However the Holy See's Nova Vulgata (1979) omits the comma as it is based on the modern critical text. The New American Bible (1970) also omits the comma.”

 

The original text

1John 5:7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

 

Now, “who” or “what” is this “Spirit”?

The argument of Binitarians: why do they say that the holy spirit is not a third person of the “Godhead”?

They say that the holy spirit is of God, so “He” (God) has a mind, will, emotions, and power, expressed by or through His holy spirit, and this spirit is not a third person of God.

Let’s see if the argument of the trinitarians concerning Acts 1:5 is a baptism with a “third heavenly person” or as the binitarians say, a “divine mind-will-emotions-power”.

Compare with Acts 1:8 and Acts 2:17,18,33. This is a good context. The Word of God is well able to speak for God, and no human interpretation is required.

Acts 1:5 "for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the

holy spirit not many days from now."

Acts 1:8 "But you will receive power when the holy spirit has come

upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea

and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

Acts 2:17,18,33 "“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will

pour out my spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall

prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall

dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those

days I will pour out my spirit, and they shall prophesy.

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received

from the Father the promise of the holy spirit, he [Jesus] has poured out

this, that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

Note, that "my spirit" means "the holy spirit", exactly as the Lord Jesus

said in Matthew 10:20: "For it is not you who speak, but the spirit of your

Father speaking through you."

[my spirit = the holy spirit = the spirit of your Father = God's spirit]

See the entire context of the Bible, that is about God's spirit, yes, God's

spirit wants us, not a "third person":

Young’s Literal Translation: Romans 8:11 “and if the spirit of him who did raise up Jesus out of the dead doth dwell in you, he who did raise up the Christ out of the dead shall quicken also your dying bodies, through his spirit dwelling in you.”

Old translation: „And if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you; He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his spirit that dwelleth in you."

See again the context:

Rom 8:14 „For whosoever are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons

of God.”

See again the context:

Rom 8:26 „Likewise the spirit [of God] (not a "3rd person") also helpeth

our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but

the spirit [of God] (not a 3rd person) himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings. 27. And he [God] that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what the spirit [of God] (not a 3rd person) desireth; because he

asketh for the saints according to God.

There is not a „3rd person”.

Yes, God has a spirit. His spirit, the holy spirit. The holy spirit is not "someone", but "something" that belongs to God. Their argument is plausible. But are the Binitarians right when they consider the Son to be God, just like the Trinitarians? “Binitarianism is a Christian theology of two persons, personas, or aspects in one substance/Divinity (or God). Classically, binitarianism is understood as a form of monotheism—that is, that God is absolutely one being—and yet with binitarianism there is a "twoness" in God, which means one God family. The other common forms of monotheism are "unitarianism", a belief in one God with one person, and "trinitarianism", a belief in one God with three persons.” - According to Wikipedia

 

Chapter 3

Why the Bible doesn't say what the songs say?

 

It is true that the Bible speaks about God, the heavenly Father and Creator of all things.  The Bible also speaks about His Son and His spirit, the holy spirit, however we can read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and we will only find the testimony that there is One true God, the Father only.

 

Here are some examples:

Exodus 20:1. And God spoke all these words: 2.“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3.“You shall have no other gods before a me.”

Matthew 4:10: "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the LORD (YHWH) your God, and serve him only. (quote from the Old Testament)

We see this from Exodus 20 and John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

1Corinthians 8:5-6: “For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"),

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”

1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”

James 2:19: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.”

 

If this God spoken of in the Bible were a trinity or a binity, we would have expected these texts to specify this clearly, and there is no mention for a “Trinity” or a “Binity” here. Reading the Bible, in any language, we will find one God and one Creator, nothing more, the Father only! The Universe was created by God the Father, the Creator alone, THROUGH the Son, not BY the Son (John 1:3), not with a second god and third god. We have here an Architect or Engineer (God, the Father alone) and a worker (the Son). Everyone who has ever worked a factory are well aware of the difference.

 

However, when Christmas comes around, there is an old tradition in the songs that are sung in Church, and these songs reveal that God became man, being born as Jesus. And if God was born, He had to die. This idea is very old, and it is not of our present time.

 

For example, Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170-180), about the death of Christ, he writes thus (if indeed he wrote this and it is not a writing attributed to him falsely):

"And so He was lifted up on a wood and He was given an inscription, to indicate Who was killed. Who was this? It's a hard thing to say, and one of the most frightening things to keep from saying. But listen, as you tremble before the face of the One to whom the earth shook. He who hanged the earth in his place was hanged. He who set the heavens in their place is fixed in one place. The One who posted all things fast is posted quickly on the wood. The Lord is insulted. God IS KILLED. The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israeli hand." (Peri Pascha —On the Pascha, 96)

Wow! How is it that the Bible doesn't say that?

 

John 3:16 ”For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

 

The Death of Jesus

Mark 15:33 ”At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34. And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud

voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God,

why have you forsaken me?”).

 

However, the question remains: how did some Christians like Melito (or a pseudo-Melito), come to this radical conclusion that God the Creator of the world [Himself] became man, died, and then rose from the death?

 

Chapter 4

A mysterious verse: “All the angels of God worship him”

 

In the work of repositioning the Christian theology according to the classic reading of the Bible, we must compare manuscripts and evaluate playback variants which sometimes occur in certain places (verses). This is critical to ensure that we are on the path followed by the early classic Christians.

 

The Epistle to Hebrews chapter 1 contains some elements that need to be discussed carefully.  We refer to a phrase from the Septuagint - a quote in verse 6 (“All the angels of God worship him”) - which in the ancient Hebrew text (the Masoretic text) does not exist at all.  This is not found in the Samaritan text (Pentateuch) nor in certain versions (revisions) of the Septuagint. We will not find this phrase in the Old Testament as translated by many good and well known authors.

 

How do we make our decisions? How will we interpret the missing text? A learned textual critic wrote about what he found in a manuscript from a cave near the Dead Sea. A manuscript in which revealed similarities to the Septuagint, but with polytheistic tendencies: Deuteronomy 32:43 "All the gods shall worship him."

There was no reason for this phrase match either. Didn't they know that the fallen angels would not worship God? And if there are no gods but one, this expression is astonishing. This manuscript near the Dead Sea also contained other texts added, which were not in the Masoretic text, neither in the Septuagint.

 

We have only two possibilities for interpretation:

 

1. The ancient Jewish text was corrected (in the negative sense) and so this phrase was removed from the text. Thus, the text of the Septuagint being the original one, and if someone did make such a change, the question arises, for what reason the Jewish scribes done this? I don’t see any good reason.

 

2. In the original Epistle to the Hebrews there was no verse 6, being added later by a copyist. Thus, the Masoretic text being the original one. This also begs the question, for what reason, a Christian scribe done this? Well, there is a good reason if he wanted to harmonize the epistle with the doctrine of the trinity.

 

Let us consider what does the Septuagint say:

Septuagint, Deuteronomy 32:43 "

"Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.” Brenton Septuagint Translation

 

Now, let us consider the Masoretic text:

Deuteronomy 32:43 says much less: "Sing aloud, O ye nations, of His people; For He doth avenge the blood of His servants, And doth render vengeance to His adversaries, And doth make expiation for the land of His people." JPS Tanakh 1917

 

We notice that the Septuagint text has been enriched and stylized.

 

A little background about the Septuagint version:

A friend of mine met an Orthodox theologian and they discussed the Greek version of the Septuagint. To his surprise, he said that this version was not so good, so a review of it was needed. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184 - c. 253), also known as Origen Adamantius, was an early Christian scholar, ascetic, and theologian. He did Hexapla, a monumental work. For the most part, Hexapla consisted of the text of the Old Testament arranged on 6 parallel columns, as follows: (1) the Hebrew text; (2) the Hebrew text transliterated with Greek characters; (3) the Greek version of Aquila, (4) the Greek version of Symmachus; (5) Septuagint; (6) the Greek version of Theodotion.

 

Two questions arise:

a) Why did the Septuagint need so many revisions?

b) Why wasn't the Septuagint a good [enough] version?

 

The Talmud says that once in the courtyard of the temple in Jerusalem, three versions of the Hebrew Scriptures have been found. After one of these Hebrew versions the Septuagint was translated. It is possible that this Hebrew version - the text for the Septuagint version, was the version of the ancestors of the Sadducees priests, who modified certain passages to support their doctrine. The other two Hebrew versions could have been of the ancestors of the Pharisees - the ancestor of the so called Masoretic text and the Essenes had the version of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

Other problems mentioned: The quotation from Hebrews 1:8,9 does not match the Masoretic text. Indeed, it does partially match that of the Septuagint (verse 6 of Septuagint Ps 44: 6), but which one should we choose?

In the Septuagint text: Psalm 44:6,7 “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness.

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”

(for those interested, between LXX [Septuagint] and TM there is a

difference of one chapter):

 

The Masoretic text: Psalm 45:7,8 JPS Tanakh 1917

Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever;

A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness;

Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee

With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

 

The Masoretic text speaks for itself in easy-to-understand language. We should not be scared and hurt if, during this time, when knowledge seems to have exploded, reaching the peaks of the indescribable – as the Hope group sings - this is also right with the Bible, science showing impurities that have been added by the scribes to the original text.

 

It is obvious that those Christians from the first centuries of the Christian era, when they read the Septuagint, faced some problems.  However the epistle to the Hebrews was written to the Christian Jews before the demolition of the temple in Jerusalem (70 AD), the following question arises:

-- In what language was it written to them, and what version was quoted

in the epistle to the Hebrews?

 

Chapter 5

The second problem: a second god

 

We are facing a second problem. The first issue was with the lack of the words in the Masoretic Text: “All the angels of God worship him”.

 

If the author of the epistle to the Hebrews was a Jew, then we expect to have written to his brethren in their mother tongue and quoted from a Hebrew version, not from the Septuagint. But was the letter written in Hebrew? Yes! After reading the epistle we see that the author is very familiar with the Jewish environment in Judea and the Hebrew Scriptures, so the text itself is an asset, that the author was a Hebrew.

 

But who is the author?

The Epistle tells us that those in Italy greeted their Jewish brothers, and Timothy was released from prison by the authorities, so the author was someone who was in Italy at the time. From this we can conclude that both, the author of the epistle and his companion were imprisoned because of their faith (Hebrews 13:23,24).

 

Saint Pantaenus died c. 200, was a significant figure in the second century Christianity. Citing an old tradition inherited from Bishop Pantaneus, who collected the apostolic writings, this description fits best with the Paul-Timothy tandem, who have been together for a long time (Acts 16.1-3), according to Clement of Alexandria, although it was written by Paul, it was only translated into Greek byLuke.

 

In 1931, a scroll was found called Chester Beatty. Roll number two contains eighty sheets, a collection of Paul’s letters alone, including this one. All this together, can be a guarantee that the apostle Paul is the author of the epistle to the Jews, as the ancestral tradition of Christians maintains.

 

If apostle Paul is the author of the epistle and he was a Pharisees, he certainly had the Pharisee-approved version of the Hebrew Scriptures, the text on which the Masoretic Text was based. Thus in this text there were no mention of another, second god, as in the text of the Septuagint. What version would the apostle Paul have quoted to his Jewish brothers?

 

Let’s see the entire Psalm 45 in the Masoretic Text, according to the JPS Tanakh 1917:

1.For the Leader; upon Shoshannim; [a Psalm] of the sons of Korah. Maschil. A

Song of loves.

2.My heart overfloweth with a goodly matter;

I say: ‘My work is concerning a king’;

My tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

3.Thou art fairer than the children of men;

Grace is poured upon thy lips;

Therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.

4.Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one,

Thy glory and thy majesty.

5.And in thy majesty prosper, ride on,

In behalf of truth and meekness and righteousness;

And let thy right hand teach thee tremendous things.

6.Thine arrows are sharp—

The peoples fall under thee—

[They sink] into the heart of the king’s enemies.

7.Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever;

A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

8.Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness;

Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee

With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

9.Myrrh, and aloes, and cassia are all thy garments;

Out of ivory palaces stringed instruments have made thee glad.

10.Kings’ daughters are among thy favourites;

At thy right hand doth stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

11.‘Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear;

Forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house;

12.So shall the king desire thy beauty;

For he is thy lord; and do homage unto him.

13.And, O daughter of Tyre, the richest of the people

Shall entreat thy favour with a gift.’

14.All glorious is the king’s daughter within the palace;

Her raiment is of chequer work inwrought with gold.

15.She shall be led unto the king on richly woven stuff;

The virgins her companions in her train being brought unto thee.

16.They shall be led with gladness and rejoicing;

They shall enter into the king’s palace.

17.Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons,

Whom thou shalt make princes in all the land.

18.I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations;

Therefore shall the peoples praise thee for ever and ever.

 

No mention of another, second god.

 

Let’s compare it with the Brenton version of the Septuagint, where a second god appears:

1.For the end, for alternate strains by the sons of Core; for instruction, a Song concerning the beloved. My heart has uttered a good matter: I declare my works to the king: my tongue is the pen of a quick writer.

2.Thou art more beautiful than the sons of men: grace has been shed forth on thy lips: therefore God has blessed thee for ever.

3.Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O Mighty One, in thy comeliness, and in thy beauty;

4.and bend thy bow, and prosper, and reign, because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall guide thee wonderfully.

5.Thy weapons are sharpened, Mighty One, (the nations shall fall under thee) they are in the heart of the king's enemies.

6.Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness.

7.Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy fellows.

8.Myrrh, and stacte, and cassia are exhaled from thy garments, and out of the ivory palaces,

9.with which kings' daughters have gladdened thee for thine honour: the queen stood by on thy right hand, clothed in vesture wrought with gold, and arrayed in divers colours.

10.Hear, O daughter, and see, and incline thine ear; forget also thy people, and thy father's house.

11.Because the king has desired thy beauty; for he is thy Lord.

12.And the daughter of Tyre shall adore him with gifts; the rich of the people of the land shall supplicate thy favour.

13.All her glory is that of the daughter of the king of Esebon, robed as she is in golden fringed garments,

14.in embroidered clothing: virgins shall be brought to the king after her: her fellows shall be brought to thee.

15.They shall be brought with gladness and exultation: they shall be led into the king's temple.

16.Instead of thy fathers children are born to thee: thou shalt make them princes over all the earth.

17.They shall make mention of thy name from generation to generation: therefore shall the nations give thanks to thee for ever, even for ever and ever.

As we see, the problem arises in verse 6, where a second god appears:

 

Masoretic Text 7.Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever;

A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

8.Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness;

Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

 

Brenton Septuagint 6.Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness.

7.Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy fellows.

 

Why would a Jew write to other Jews in Greek? And especially, why would he quote – a learned Jew like Paul, with a Pharisee past, from the Septuagint, considered by the Jews a dubious translation?

 

The echo of the Septuagint translation left a bitter taste in Judea, we learn this from Jewish sources. After this translation was well received by some of the elite of the Jewish diaspora in Egypt, but not by all, this was not at all the case in the translators native country. The position of the Jewish tradition regarding this translation is one of disapproval. A passage from the Talmud, Mesechta Sofrim, echoes those times, when the Torah was translated into Greek for Emperor Ptolemy: “The day was as difficult for the Jewish people as the day they worshiped the golden calf".

 

Why was so hard that day of presentation of the translation made by those 72 scholars to the Jews in Judea? Because they saw what a great compromis were made? What was introduced in the text?

 

Megillat Taanit, lit. “The Fasting Scroll" is an ancient text, in the form of a chronicle, about the fasting days of the Jews. This ancient chronicle tells us that on the 8th day of Tevet the translation of the Torah into Greek was completed in the days of Emperor Ptolemy, and darkness descended upon the world for three days. In this heavenly sign, some saw the divine disapproval of this work, which is why it was decided to commemorate this day as a day of fasting and regret.

 

Aristeas' letter tells us that the 72 scholars brought with them a leather scroll on which the Hebrew text was written in gold letters. Given that the text was brought from the high priest Eleazar (c. 260–245 BC), and the priests usually joined the ancestors of the Sadducee sect, we can assume that the text was adapted to this ideology, as seen in the notes from Genesis 1:1,26 and Genesis 11:7.

 

A note from the Masorites states that in Genesis 18:22 there was a correction added to the text. So it is possible that before this correction the text sounded like this: “Those men went away and went to Sodom. But the angel of Yehowah still stood before Abraham.” The Sadducee priests, who did not believe in angels in the traditional sense, removed the word angel, as they removed the plural “let us” from Genesis 1:26 and 11:7 for a singular “let I”, to support their pantheistic ideology. It is possible that this Sadducee thesis of denying angels as distinct heavenly beings appeared in Judea after the Jews entered the sphere of Hellenistic influence. Pantheism is a monistic philosophical conception that identifies divinity with all matter and the universe, God being the Universe and Nature. The pantheists wanted to believe that all the gods are only one god, these gods being only the face of one god. So the pantheists believed in one god with many faces. This ideology was also embraced by the Sadducees, who saw in angels only the face of God, not distinct heavenly persons.

 

Did not know - a learned man like the apostle Paul -  the controversial history of this translation, the Septuagint?

 

Chapter 6

The great problem

 

But the big problem is just beginning. It is found in Hebrews 1:10-12. This is a quotation from Psalm 102 and if we put them in context, it becomes clear that they are addressed to the Father YEHOWAH, the God of Israel, and not to His Son.

 

Consider the context:

Young's Literal Translation

Do Not Hide Your Face From Me

1. A Prayer of the afflicted when he is feeble, and before Jehovah poureth out his plaint. O Jehovah, hear my prayer, yea, my cry to Thee cometh.

2. Hide not Thou Thy face from me, In a day of mine adversity, Incline unto me Thine ear, In the day I call, haste, answer me.

3. For consumed in smoke have been my days, And my bones as a firebrand have burned.

4. Smitten as the herb, and withered, is my heart, For I have forgotten to eat my bread.

5. From the voice of my sighing Hath my bone cleaved to my flesh.

6. I have been like to a pelican of the wilderness, I have been as an owl

of the dry places.

7. I have watched, and I am As a bird alone on the roof.

8. All the day mine enemies reproached me, Those mad at me have sworn against me.

9. Because ashes as bread I have eaten, And my drink with weeping have mingled,

10. From Thine indignation and Thy wrath, For Thou hast lifted me up,

And dost cast me down.

11. My days as a shadow [are] stretched out, And I — as the herb I am

withered.

12. And Thou, O Jehovah, to the age abidest, And Thy memorial to all

generations.

13. Thou — Thou risest — Thou pitiest Zion, For the time to favour her,

For the appointed time hath come.

14. For Thy servants have been pleased with her stones, And her dust

they favour.

15. And nations fear the name of Jehovah, And all kings of the earth Thine honour,

16. For Jehovah hath builded Zion, He hath been seen in His honour,

17. He turned unto the prayer of the destitute, And He hath not despised

their prayer.

18. This is written for a later generation, And the people created do praise Jah.

19. For He hath looked From the high place of His sanctuary. Jehovah

from heaven unto earth looked attentively,

20. To hear the groan of the prisoner, To loose sons of death,

21. To declare in Zion the name of Jehovah, And His praise in Jerusalem,

22. In the peoples being gathered together, And the kingdoms — to serve Jehovah.

23. He hath humbled in the way my power, He hath shortened my days. 24. I say, ‘My God, take me not up in the midst of my days,’ Through all

generations [are] Thine years.

25. Beforetime the earth Thou didst found, And the work of Thy hands [are] the heavens.

26. They — They perish, and Thou remainest, And all of them as a garment become old, As clothing Thou changest them, And they are changed.

27. And Thou [art] the same, and Thine years are not finished.

28. The sons of Thy servants do continue, And their seed before Thee is

established!

The question is: why the Son is called "God" in Hebrews 1:8, and the

Creator in Hebrew 1:10, if the Father is the God and the Creator in the message of the Bible?

 

Some say that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is called God in Hebrews 1:8 where it reads, "But of the Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever.'" Similarly, according to them, the Son is referred to as the Creator in Hebrews 1:10 where it reads: "And, You, Lord (the Son), laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;" but these things would be true, with only one essential condition, to have been thus formulated in the original epistle to the Hebrews.

 

But were they really so? This question arises, because towards the end

of the first century AD, there appeared some turbulent sects, with different strange ideas, that falsified the Holy Scriptures, in order to help

their writings with these false renderings. Such a problem was the propagation of a triune god, a god with three faces, three in one.

 

These sects did their best to adjust the Scriptures to match their ideas.

Let's see again how these ideas render, in their doctrine:

“The moment I thought about them, behold, the heavens opened, all the

creature beneath the sky lit up, and the world shook. I was scared and,

here, I saw someone sitting next to me in the light. Looking, he seemed

to be someone old. Then he changed his appearance to a young man. Not that there were more faces in front of me, but inside the light, there was a face with more faces. These faces were visible to each other, and the face had three faces.” {Apocryphon of John}

The Secret Book of John, also called the Apocryphon of John, is a second-century forgery, made by the Gnostic proto-Trinitarians.

 

Our book is about this type of Christians, who they were, their school of thought, and the conspiracies they were engaged in against the true message of the Bible. We wrote this book in order to raise public awareness about the importance of a general revision of the Bible, coming out of the unfair stereotypes taken from the Gnostics, that have been worked on for so long.

 

Chapter 7

The unknown Council of Antioch, in 267 A.D and it’s decision

 

Long time before the Council of Nicaea (325) was the Council of Antioch, in 267 A.D. At this council the doctrine of the trinity proposed by Sabellius was discussed. This Council is unknown and many do not know what decisions were made there. It is astonishing that what was proposed many years later at Nicaea, was also proposed at this council, but was rejected. The Greek term "homoousios" favored by Sabellius and others, but rejected at Antioch, ironically, was later favored at the Council of Nicaea.

 

Sabellius was a third-century theologian. His Trinitarian theology is identical to the one we read in the Apocryphon of John, so the question arises whether he or one of his disciples is the author of this falsehood. Many did not know his excommunication from 220 at Rome and as Sabellius' theology became popular, a Council examining this teaching was convened in Antioch in 267 AD.

 

At the Council of Antioch in 267 the church rejected Sabellius and his formula that Jesus is homo-ousios with the Father.  Homo-ouios means in Sabellius view “of the same essence, substance, or being,” so if the Father and Son is the same being, God died at the cross,  which the Synod of Antioch refused to admit and declared the idea of Sabelius gnostic (heretic).

(Sproul, R.C.; Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology; Baker Books; Grand Rapids, MI; copyright 1997; p. 81)

 

After the Sabellian proto-trinitarian gnostic party loses the battle in the Council of Antioch (267), that is, the Father and the Son is the same being - because of the Scriptures in some Christian leaders hands were most still unchanged – the Sabellians began the offensive of bringing the text of the Scriptures on their side, falsifying the text, where it was clearly against their conceptions. The Sabellians believed that they were not well enough understood at the Council of Antioch and they cast this guilt upon the Scriptures held by their opponents, which they considered edited (forged). With this suspicion in mind, they set out on a counter-offensive, modifying the Scriptures that disadvantaged them in the discussions. Thus began a crusade of counterfeits or so-called corrections, with many involved. Indeed, the church had declined certain corrupt texts by the Marcionite Gnostics, whose congregations were flourishing, but the Sabellians saw something wrong in this, as they were not clear about who the Marcionites really were. They deceived themselves into believing that the Marcionite texts were correct.

 

What many fail to realize today is that some documents of the New Testament in some places was edited, by Marcionites and Sabellians, to confirm the doctrines of their branches. And not only this documents but also other Christian documents also.

The noted Church Historian Eusebius of Caesarea quotes the Church Father Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria in the third century (Hist. Eccl.,

Bk. 4. 23), who reports that his own epistles had been tampered by the

Gnostic party:

"When my fellow Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord Himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts".

 

In the book The Revision Revised by John William Burgon, we find another proof, of what happened in that ancient time, quoting Gaius, presbyter of Rome in the second and first half of the third century:

"Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures,

alleging that they have corrected them. That I am not speaking falsely of

them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect

their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find

that they differ greatly. Those of Asclepiades, for example, do not agree

with those of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because

their disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them, that is the corruptions, of each of them. Again, those of Hermophilus do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides are not

consistent with themselves. For you can compare those prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted later, and you will find them widely different. But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are

unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and

in that case what else are they than demoniacs? For they cannot deny

the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their

own hands. For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed".

 

Here is the model followed by them: the Gnostic party so many copies

did until they eclipsed with the multitude of copies, the true copies of the

Scriptures, the forged copies being more accessible to the uninitiated public, than the authentic ones.

 

Comparison of the manuscripts made by scientists, shows that indeed

errors were made by negligence, but also three intentional tricks were

made.

 

About the tricks made in the text:

1 words intentionally omitted

2 words added intentionally

3. words intentionally changed

 

Dr. F H The Scrivener text critic writes:

"In the second century, we see too many attempts to change the text of Scripture, some only recklessly, others proven to be dishonest."

 

Scrivener states that "this is no less true, though it sounds paradoxical that the worst mistakes the New Testament has ever been made were originally made within 100 years after the (New Testament) was made, and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers , and throughout the West, part of the Syrian Church used "inferior manuscripts. (FHA Scrivener, Introduction to New Testament Text Criticism).

 

Dr. FH Scrivener text critic noted two kind of scribes who altered the text:

"recklessly, others proven to be dishonest." Scrivener states that the first

100 years was the WORST TIME of the manuscripts.

 

Ernest Cadman Colwell, Which is the Best New Testament Text ?, p. 119: "The first two centuries witnessed a large number of (different text)

variations known to scholars today. Most (different text) versions of New

Testament manuscripts, I believe they did it consciously."

 

The testimony of Origen, third century: "It is a fact revealed today that

there is a GREAT VARIETY among the manuscripts, either because of

the carelessness of the scribes, or because of the outrageous daring of

the people who copied..." Origen, Contra Celsum

 

This rout was due to the fact that in the second century the Gnostic Christian rival groups reached a dozen of sects, each making their own

canon and their own favorite text (Raoul Vaneigem, The Resistance to

Christianity.The Heresies at the Origins of the18thCentury).

 

 

Chapter 8

The Codex Sinaiticus markings and the real text of Matthew 28:18,19

 

The real text of Matthew 28:18,19?

 

In the Codex Sinaiticus - considered to be the second oldest complete Bible in the world, after the Codex Vaticanus Graecus - the phrase “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is placed between two points. The dots are placed in the middle of the letter, which shows a special mark, made by a scribe. This is how the scribes marked the problematic places, while copying the texts.

 

Before tackling the issue of the forgery in Hebrews chapter 1, we will show the falsification of the text in Matthew 28:18,19, which before the forgery reads as follows:

 

18 And Jesus, approaching, spoke unto them, saying, All authority was given to me in heaven and on earth. As my Father sent me, I also send you:
19 Go and make disciples of all nations in my name,
20 Teaching them to keep all that I have commanded you! And, behold, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world.

Important notes

 

The text of Shem Tob version omits "in Galilee" (Matthew 28:7), which shows that originally, the angel did not refer to walking in Galilee, but only promised a meeting with Jesus. Then, Christ remembers Galilee (Matthew 28:10), but it is rather a sort of walking, a sort of going to a common meeting. Unfortunately, the early translators of the Hebrew autograph or Aramaic translation, at that time, did not understand what the reference was, and for this reason we now have texts in Matthew 28 which contradict the words of the Lord Jesus recorded in Luke 24:49, according to which the disciples had to stay in Jerusalem until the outpouring of the holy spirit.

In the Aramaic text of Matthew 28:18 exist the phrase "As my Father hath sent me, I also send you”, deleted later or omitted from the Greek translation, typical for heretic scribes. This was not an isolated case, but habitual, they deleted, changed or mixed the text for doctrinal reasons.

          
The verse in Matthew 28:19 is taken in accordance with the Bible of the erudite bishop Lucian of Antioch (Christian martyr who lived in the third-fourth century), inherited by his disciple Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea and quoted before the Council of Nicea. Eusebius of Cesarea and Aprahates, two bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and others quotes this verse differently.

 

Unfortunately, some Bible manuscripts have missing pages, such as the last page of the Gospel of Matthew. The missing pages, why here?

 

This is another argument in support of the hypothesis of falsification.

 

"In the only Codex (version) in which we would have kept an older version, namely the Syrian Sinaiticus version and in the oldest Latin manuscript, the pages containing the end of Matthew are missing." (F.C. Conybeare).

 

Unfortunately, the same fate had the Gothic Bible of the Bishop of the Goths, Wulfila, does not contain the last chapter of Matthew, and as the first of John would have expected. Who made these pages disappear from old codices and why?

 

The missing text “As my Father sent me, I also send you”

 

Another great omission, another argument for support the hypothesis of falsification.

 

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. As my Father sent me, I also send you (the Aramaic text, omitted from the Greek):

19 Go and make disciples of all nations, (the Hebrew version, the Greek version including and "baptizing" them) in my name (This kind of verse is taken according to the old Hebrew edition quoted by Rabbi Shem Tob of fourteenth-century Spain), and from the Bible of the non-Trinitarian bishop the scholar Lucian of Antioch (Christian martyr who lived in the III-IV century). This was inherited by his disciple Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, and quoted before the Council of Nicaea Eusebius of Caesarea and Aprahates of Syria, two bishops present at the Council of Nicaea in 325, but others also quote this verse differently from what we have today.),

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

The Christian Ordinances, Chapter X,

Origin of the Trine Immersion

 

This contains a very interesting historical note on Matthew 28:19.

One of the authors who wrote about the transformation of the text in Matthew 28:19 is the Baptist Christian Henry Forney (1829-1926). He wrote The History of the Church of God in the United States (1914). In 1883 he wrote The Christian Ordinances, and in Chapter X appears Origin of the Trine Immersion. He and other authors say that the "long baptismal formula" is a change from the original baptism that was performed only in the name of the Lord Jesus and that it spread from Asia to Africa and Europe. It was not known until a certain Christian of Sicilian origin, Pantaneus, brought it from his Asian tour to Alexandria (Cairo, Africa), where he had settled. Here he formed a Christian school, from where this form of baptism spread further.

Pantaneus excelled in the struggle against Gnosticism, but it can be seen that in some respects he was influenced by them. That is, it was contaminated, it was gnosticized to some extent.

Gnostics were the first trinitarians.

From here, from this school, this kind of baptism spread to North Africa and Europe, not with little resistance, for example bishop Stephen of Rome (third century) agreeing with those who baptized only in the name of Jesus. Pope of Rome, Pelagius (VI century), complained that there were still many Christians who were baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus.

A significant number of scholars today admit that the original baptism was only in the name of the Lord Jesus. Yet why do we not have at least one biblical copy of this form other than a 14th-century manuscript? Take a close look at the images of the Inquisition, where the old Bibles were burned with their owners, and you can answer for yourself.

 

Statements of history and historians:

The most important historical sources confirm that the Christian church did not use a threefold name as a baptismal formula but invoked the Name of Jesus until the third century. Encyclopedia of Religions and Ethics (1951) vol. II, pp. 384, 389:

The formula used was "in the name of Jesus Christ" or phrases synonymous with it; there is no testimony regarding the three name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts of the Apostles, was the simple immersion in water, the use of the Name of Jesus and the laying on of hands. To these was added, in a time that cannot be established exactly, the thee name (Justin)”.

Explanatory Bible Dictionary (1962), vol. I, p. 351: "Evidence… Suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the triune name, but in the Name of Jesus Christ or in the Name of the Lord Jesus."

Otto Heick, a renowned Christian historian (1947), p. 58: "The Trinitarian formula of baptism" took the place of the old formula of baptism "in the name of Jesus."

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898), vol. I, p. 241: "The original name of the words was" in the name of Jesus Christ "or" the Lord Jesus." Baptism in the name of the Trinity was a subsequent change."

Williston Walker, a Christian Church Historian (1947), p. 58 The Trinitarian Baptism Formula" Took the place of the Old Baptism „in the Name of Christ"

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament testifies only to the baptism in the Name of Jesus… which was practiced until the third century"

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), p. 53: "People were first baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is only normal to conclude that baptism was originally administered" in the name of Jesus Christ, "or" in the name of the Lord Jesus. "This view is confirmed by the fact that the early forms of baptismal witness were singular and not tripled, as was the later belief.

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: The Trinitarian formula and diving three times was not a uniform practice from the beginning… Baptism in the Name of Jesus is the New Testament formula. In the third century, baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen declared it valid, opposing Cyprian of Carthage.

 

A brief reconstruction of what happened:

In the first and second centuries, a pseudo-Christian Jewish sect with Gnostic tendencies developed, called "Nazoreans" or "Nazarenes". In fact, they came to Christianity from a Jewish sect of the same name, close to the Essene ideas. When they became Christians, they came up with their own ideas, unifying their ideas with those of the Christians. They had an apocryphal gospel, called the Gospel of the Nazarenes or the Gospel of the Jews. It was a harmony of the four existing gospels, a kind of compilation of them, which included the specific doctrines of this heretical group. Outside of Judea, they were also known as encratites. They rejected the writings of the apostle Paul althogether. They did not eat meat, did not marry, did not drink wine, believed in the doctrine of the trinity and immortality of souls, and practiced triple baptism. From this syncretistic gospel the idea of ​​threefold baptism spread to Rome, through Justin the Martyr, and to the Middle East through Tatian, to northwestern India. Justin and Tatian were the promoters of this sect. Pantaneus of Alexandria, Egypt, an eminent Christian, former Stoic philosopher, was called by anxious leaders from Antioch and sent on a mediation tour with Gnostic sects or a tendency toward Gnosticism to return them from the heretical wandering, back to the authentic Christian values. He succeeded in part, but in part he allowed himself to be contaminated by this group of Nazarenes and brought back to Alexandria certain doctrines of the above-mentioned group, such as the immortality of souls, the trinity, and the threefold baptism. From here it spread throughout North Africa, and especially to Carthage, which became a bastion and outpost of these doctrines toward Europe.

 

Chapter 9

The reconsideration of Hebrews 1:8, 10-12

 

A textual critic wrote that in Acts 16:7 would be four textual variations:

 

For example, in Acts 16:7 would be four textual variations:

1. πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ Spirit of Jesus: Papyrus p74, p72, Codex Sinaiticus (א), Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Alexandrinus (A), corrected Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D), Cyrill of Alexandria, Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions

 

2. The Spirit of the Lord: Bohairic Coptic and original Ephraemi Rescriptus)

 

3. the Holy Spirit

 

4. πνεῦμα Spirit: (Textus Receptus, Byzantine Lectionary, Efrem the Syriac, Chrisostom).

 

Why so many textual variations and for what reason? It is not strange? According to the context of the Bible, the right version is "the spirit" as in Acts 5:9, Acts 8:39, means an angel of God guides them as in Acts 8:29, Acts 10:19, Acts 11:12, Acts 16: 9. The spirit of Jesus is unique in all the Bible, we meet this only in Acts 16:7, and this is not the genuine version.

 

Some is now trying to minimize this facts and even to reduce the number of variants. When we read again some sources, some uncomfortable information disappeared in the meantime. This is how somebody protect some doctrines from antiquity until today.

 

The most interesting thing is in the Vatican Codex. In a marginal note, some scribe wrote on page 1512, next to Hebrews 1: 3, an interesting thing "Fool and knave, leave the old reading and don't change it!" - "ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ, ἄφες τὸν παλαιόν, μὴ μεταποίει" which may suggest that unauthorized correcting was a recognized problem in scriptoriums. Could anyone get so upset if it was just a word change? No. It might have been more serious.

 

Therefore, we must be careful because Hebrews 1:8 is quoting Psalm 45:6.

 

So let's see how the text sounds there:

JPS Tanakh 1917

Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever; A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

 

This verse is even clearer when we see the following context in verse 7:

JPS Tanakh 1917

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

 

What then is the explanation for the inconsistency with the text of Hebrews 1:8? Wasn't this text edited by the Gnostic trinitarian copyists who later copied the manuscripts? This is very possible. 

 

So it is very possible that in the original of Hebrews 1:8 written in the first century there was also this ancient form, the original one:

"But of the Son He says, Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever'"  

Even so, it remains open that why Jesus is the Creator:

10 and, 'Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, O Lord, and the heavens are the work at thy hands; 11 they will perish, but thou remainest, they will all be worn out like a garment, 12 thou wilt roll them up like a mantle and they win be changed, but thou art the same, and thy years will never fail.'

 

Open yes, but not sure. Why? Because if we read the original of the Psalm 102:25-27 in the context, we learn that this text is addressed to the Father, not to the Son:

JPS Tanakh 1917 Psalm 102

1A Prayer of the afflicted, when he fainteth, and poureth out his complaint before the LORD.
2O LORD, hear my prayer,
And let my cry come unto Thee.
3Hide not Thy face from me in the day of my distress;
Incline Thine ear unto me;
In the day when I call answer me speedily.
4For my days are consumed like smoke,
And my bones are burned as a hearth.
5My heart is smitten like grass, and withered;
For I forget to eat my bread.
6By reason of the voice of my sighing
My bones cleave to my flesh.
7I am like a pelican of the wilderness;
I am become as an owl of the waste places.
8I watch, and am become
Like a sparrow that is alone upon the housetop.
9Mine enemies taunt me all the day;
They that are mad against me do curse by me.
10For I have eaten ashes like bread,
And mingled my drink with weeping,
11Because of Thine indignation and Thy wrath;
For Thou hast taken me up, and cast me away.
12My days are like a lengthening shadow;
And I am withered like grass.
13But Thou, O LORD, sittest enthroned for ever;
And Thy name is unto all generations.
14Thou wilt arise, and have compassion upon Zion;
For it is time to be gracious unto her, for the appointed time is come.
15For Thy servants take pleasure in her stones,
And love her dust.
16So the nations will fear the name of the LORD,
And all the kings of the earth Thy glory;
17When the LORD hath built up Zion,
When He hath appeared in His glory;
18When He hath regarded the prayer of the destitute,
And hath not despised their prayer.
19This shall be written for the generation to come;
And a people which shall be created shall praise the LORD.
20For He hath looked down from the height of His sanctuary;
From heaven did the LORD behold the earth;
21To hear the groaning of the prisoner;
To loose those that are appointed to death;
22That men may tell of the name of the LORD in Zion,
And His praise in Jerusalem;
23When the peoples are gathered together,
And the kingdoms, to serve the LORD.
24He weakened my strength in the way;
He shortened my days.
25I say: ‘O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days,
Thou whose years endure throughout all generations.
26Of old Thou didst lay the foundation of the earth;
And the heavens are the work of Thy hands.
27They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure;
Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment;
As a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall pass away;
28But Thou art the selfsame,
And Thy years shall have no end.
29The children of Thy servants shall dwell securely,
And their seed shall be established before Thee.’

 
If the trinitarians do not agree that it is addressed to the Father, please tell us by what method they distinguish, when a text is addressed to the Father and when to the Messianic Son. The Jewish rabbis never believed that the Messiah would be the Creator of the Heaven and Earth.

Therefore, based on the firm testimonies of the Old Testament and the warnings of Christian writers from the 1st to the 4th centuries, as well as confirmations from the resources of the historical researchers, we can try the following reconstruction of the original text of the Hebrews chapter 1 from the first century, eliminating the inconsistency that many didn't notice.

 

The Gnostic proto-trinitarians would have eliminated a connecting phrase, possible this "from God” to „O God” to give this understanding „But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” But originally, the text in Hebrews 1:8 did not exist in this way, but similar to „But of the Son He says, Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever.”

 

After this the Gnostic proto-trinitarians added a text that does not exist in the original Hebrews chapter 1:

"'Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, O Lord, and the heavens are the work at thy hands; 11 they will perish, but thou remainest, they will all be worn out like a garment, 12 thou wilt roll them up like a mantle and they win be changed, but thou art the same, and thy years will never fail.'

 

So the answer to the question "Why is Jesus called "God" in Hebrews 1: 8 and Creator in Hebrews 1:10?" is: "We were fooled!" There were no such ideas in the original Epistle to the Hebrews!

It all comes down to the zeal of some to impose their ideas, shamelessly falsifying the Holy Scriptures.

 

These problems have troubled may, and some lost their faith, rejecting Jesus and returning to Judaism. They noticed that someone really wanted to juggle. The argument that the Son is the one invoked here in Psalm 102:25-27, even if the context makes no such difference, could not be accepted.

 

They are right. We are witnessing a crude and fanciful attempt to manipulate the text of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in order to identify the Son with God, the Creator himself.

 

In the following we will present some texts on which the uncertainty of the correct rendering or of a correct understanding hovers.

 

Chapter 10

THE APOSTLES' CREED - Reconstruction according to the oldest known versions

 

The so called APOSTLES' CREED was written in Greek language (later translated in Latin), around 135 AD - possible in Rome - as a synthesis of what the apostles believed, to oppose the virulent pseudo-christian Gnostic sects.

The Apostles’ Creed is the earliest known biblical Christian creed. The idea of God as a trinity, Jesus as God himself, Christ’s descending in hell, the immediate after-death judgement and the endless torment of the sinners is not hinted. In Italy and Gaul, in the fifth century, the phrase “he descended into hell” came into the creed. 

 

In Latin

Credo in Deum, Patrem omnipoténtem 

(pantokratora - Hippolytus and Marcellus),

creatórem cæli et terræ.

Et in Iesum Christum,

Fílium eius únicum,

Dóminum nostrum,

qui concéptus est de Spíritu Sancto,

natus ex María Vírgine,

passus sub Póntio Piláto,

crucifíxus, mórtuus et sepúltus,

(descéndit ad ínferos, - from Rufinus (Aquileia) 404, Hippolytus c. 215 and Marcellus 340 don't mention it)

tértia die resurréxit a mórtuis,

ascéndit ad cælos,

sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis,

inde ventúrus est iudicáre vivos et mórtuos.

Credo in Spíritum Sanctum,

sanctam Ecclésiam (cathólicam - Rufinus, Hippolytus and Marcellus don't mention it),

sanctórum communiónem,

remissiónem peccatórum,

carnis (sarkos - Hippolytus and Marcellus) resurrectiónem,

[et] vitam ætérnam. Amen.

 

 Reconstruction according to the oldest versions:

“I believe in God, the Father All-powerful; and in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried in the grave, rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and sits on the right hand of the God Father All-powerful; whence he will come, to judge the living and the dead: and in the Holy Spirit; the holy church; the remission of sins; and the resurrection of the flesh.”

 

As we can see, the early Christians did not know that Jesus was God Himself or the Creator Himself. This fact was attributed to the Almighty Father only. This shows that the early Christians did not have the text of the Epistle to the Hebrews as we do today.

 

To whom do the first or classic Christians pray?

A comparison

 

Today it is fashionable to worship what you want. But what is the right model, if you are a Christian?

 

First, second and third century prayers. To whom do you pray today?

 

An example from today. “I have a sports friend I talked to about Christ, and at the end he asked me if it was right that he was praying to his father. He told me that his father died without seeing his performance, and now he came to him every time he enters the field and says, "Dad, please be with me!" Then he dedicates any victory to him. Although he had to shatter an illusion that seemed to do him good, although I brought him a state of thought that initially saddened him, yet I brought him to the truth. That the dead, whoever they are, can no longer help us. We cannot ask who we want, whom we loved most on earth, and who went to the eternal ones.” Tony

 

Prayers in the first century, only to the Father

 

The early Christians (or classic Christians) did not pray to the dead, not even to the most famous. Saint Mary is one of the many dead. She is not alive, so she could not help us. She is not in Heaven, nobody is in Heaven till the resurrection and the rapture of the Companions’ Church in Heaven occurs (John 3:13). This is precisely why our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ , the Son of God Almighty, does not allow us to ask anyone else but the Father alone, in His name.

 

Consider Matthew 6:9-13

 

9 “Pray then in this way:

 

Our Father in heaven,

    hallowed be your name.

10

    Your kingdom come.

    Your will be done,

        on earth as it is in heaven.

11

    Give us this day our daily bread.

12

    And forgive us our debts,

        as we also have forgiven our debtors.

13

    And don’t leave us in the time of temptation,

        but rescue us from the evil one.

 

Prayers in the second century, only to the Father

A famous example

 

Here is Bishop Polycarp’s last prayer (II century, Smyrna), without allusion to the "trinity", with subordinationist view about the celestial Son, named as “servant” and with the concept of the mortal soul “unto resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and of body”. It is very close to the apostolic creed, without any trace of pagan religious philosophy.

 

“O Lord God Almighty, the Father of thy beloved and blessed servant* Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the knowledge of thee, the God of angels and of powers and of the whole creation and of the entire race of the righteous who live in thy presence, I bless thee that thou hast deemed me worthy of this day and hour, that I might receive a portion in the number of the martyrs, in the cup of the anointed, unto resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and of body, in the immortality of the holy spirit.

Among these may I be received before thee this day, in a rich and acceptable sacrifice, as thou, the faithful and true God, hast beforehand prepared and revealed, and hast fulfilled.

Wherefore I praise thee also for everything; I bless thee, I glorify thee, through the eternal, high priest, Jesus Christ (means „the anointed”), thy beloved Son**, through whom, with him, in the holy spirit, be glory unto thee, both now and for the ages to come, Amen.”

From Eusebius “Historia Ecclesia”

* παιδός “servant” in the Greek text

** υiοs “son” in the Greek text

Bishop Polycarp’s last prayer

 

Prayers in the third century, only to the Father

An example, from a third century Christian theologian

 

This is a sermon part from the third century:

"If you have understood what is meant by "prayer", let us not pray to any creature, nor to Christ, only to the only God and Father of the universe, to whom our Savior also prayed, as we explained, what he taught us. In fact, when they asked him to "Teach us to pray" (Luke 11:11), he showed them a prayer not to himself, but to the Father: "Our Father in heaven ... " and so on. (Matthew 6.9). Because, as I have shown elsewhere, in the person and subject the Son is not the Father, and so we should pray either to the Son and not to the Father, or to both, or only to the Father. It would seem impossible or even meaningless to pray to the Son and not to the Father, which would obviously be contrary to all views. If we pray to both, we should do it in the plural (...) From here it is seen that they are inadequate, because it cannot be proven from the Scriptures that they have prayed in this way. So it only remains to pray to God, the Father of all, but not without the High Priest who was sworn in by the Father, in the sense of these words: "He has sworn and he will not be sorry, you are an eternal priest after the order of Melchizedek "(Psalm 110: 4; Hebrews 2:17, etc.)." Note: The high priest of the Hebrews prayed for the people of God, thus mediating and praying to the One to whom the people were praying, but no believer worshiped him, nor prayed to him, only the Creator, the Father. This is the best example. „And I will do whatever you ask (the Father) in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” John 14:13

 (Origen, About prayer and martyrdom)

 

So, to whom do you pray, today?

 

 

PART TWO – God, the Father Almighty

 

Chapter 11

Back to the Bible way about God, the Father Almighty!

 

The real background of the tares doctrine it is not the Bible

 

Did you know that the mainstream view about God in Christianity today is outside the mainstream view about God in the Bible? This is exactly how the wheat and weeds were predicted.

Matthew 13:24Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.

 

This is written in the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel:

"The Platonic Trinity, itself only a rearrangement of the older trinities, dating from earlier peoples, seems to be the rational philosophical trinity of attributes that gave rise to the three hypostases or persons, taught by the Christian churches ... "This conception of the Greek philosopher [Plato, 4th century BC] about the divine Trinity ... can be found in all ancient [pagan] religions." - (Paris, 1865 -1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, vol. 2, pp. 1467.

Here is the ancient tares doctrine about the God in a few words, directly from a primary source:

“The moment I thought about them, behold, the heavens opened, all the creature beneath the sky lit up, and the world shook. I was scared, and here I saw someone sitting next to me in the light. Looking, he seemed to be someone old. Then he changed his appearance to a young man. Not that there were more faces in front of me, but inside the light, there was a face with more faces. These faces were visible to each other, and the face had three faces.”

Apocryphon of John The Secret Book of John, also called the Apocryphon of John, is a second-century forgery, made by the tares.

 

This is the same doctrine in mainstream Christianity today:

Wikipedia: Trinity "Within Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is a single "Being" who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a communion of three persons (personae, prosopa): Father (the Source, the Eternal Majesty); the Son (the eternal Logos or Word, incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth); and the Holy Spirit. Traditionally, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "One God in Three Persons", all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal "persons" or "hypostases", "share a single Divine essence, being, or nature."

 

But, if we can see, this theme is a pagan one.

 

As we see, the doctrine of the trinity was not invented at the Council of Nicaea in 325, but earlier, in the pagan times. We must also mention that the doctrine of the trinity has a shorter form, the binitarian doctrine. This binitarian doctrine excludes the idea that the holy spirit is a part of the Godhead. They claim that only the Father and the Son are part of the Godhead. Therefore they cannot speak of Trinitarianism, but of Binitarianism.

 

Some ancient pagan philosophers who did not know the true God believed that God should be defined by a trinitarian conception, a conception that said that God is a unity of three hypostases. In the Bible, the Holy Scriptures of Christians we do not find such a thing, but we find it formulated in apocryphal books, of heretical tendency as the Apocryphal of John in the second century and the Trimorphic Thought.

 

Some Christians who were weak in the faith believed that God also spoke through pagans — through pagan oracles and pagan religious philosophers — so they dared to import some teachings from this realm.

 

The Oxford Companion to the Bible, on page 561: "Three is generally regarded as a divine number. Many religions have triads of gods. In the biblical faith there is no room for a triad, and the number is seldom related to God."

 

Long before The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra (fourth century) makes it clear that this dogma was taken from the pagan philosophers Hermes and Plato.

 

Let’s see if the observation of Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra (fourth century) that the dogma of the trinity was taken from pagan philosophers stands:

 

The Harper's Bible Dictionary, on page 497, admits, "Three… was already sacred to the early Babylonian religions that worshiped a triad (Anu, Bel, Ea)… as the Egyptians worshiped Isis, Osiris, and Horus."

 

Aristotle, About Heaven, Book I, writes: "For, as the Pythagoreans (followers of the Pythagorean conceptions of Samos) say, the world and all that is in it is determined by the number three, as the beginning and the middle and the end give the number to a “whole,” and the number they give is the trinity [in Greek trias; in English = “trinity.” And so, taking these three from nature as its laws, we continue to use the number three in the worship of the gods."

 

Therefore, at the origin of this strange dogma lies not the revelation of the Bible but rather the taking over of a pattern of thought, of ancient religious philosophy, of pagan nature, "clothed" in biblical names and beautifully wrapped in tin called "mystery”, as it is not just a religious myth.

 

We also sees from the writing of the one who was nicknamed by some "the Doctor of the Church" - the patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, who lived in the fourth century. d.Ch .:

"For Porphyrios says expounding the teaching of Plato: The being of God proceeds from three hypostases and is: God the Most High and Most Good; after Him and the second is the Builder; and the third is the Soul of the world."

"And yet they, the pagan scholars, admit and presuppose three hypostases from the beginning, and they say that it is proper to have the being of God up to three hypostases, and sometimes apply the name of Trinity thus agreeing with the teachings of Christians ... "

"But we will find out that the knowledge of the Holy Trinity is found in the teachings of the pagan Greeks. For they say that these divinities are very close to each other and nothing is interposed between them being united with each other ..."

"(quoting the pagan philosopher Numerius) God who is first in himself is simple in that He is never separated by being self-controlled. And the second and third God is one. ... " (Cyril of Alexandria: Ten books against Julian the Apostate, Anastasia Publishing House, Bucharest, 2000, pp. 64, 422, 424, 426)

 

If the Bible is silent about the formulation of this dogma of the Trinity, and as can be seen from the quotations above, this mysterious "revelation" does not belong to the "primary Church" but to the teachings of the heathen, we wonder why it had to be taken from them and imposed as a standard of faith about God?

 

Conclusion

 

Some learned pagans did not change their old beliefs, but simply turned them into what is now called "orthodoxy in theology." When they became influential bishops, they imposed these elements by the measure of the strength of the power of religious authority and not of a firmly established belief in the Scriptures. As we have shown, renowned reference works recognize the post-biblical origin of the doctrine of the Trinity. If Scripture were to be taught clearly, there would be no need for any authoritarian imposition of the teaching, nor for the great pressure to submit to it, as it was during the diabolical inquisition. So many were disadvantaged when they were pressured by others to conform to the views they adopted without careful research. Dogmatic statements that come from sources that claim to base their arguments on knowledge are often astonishing. Many things could be clarified if people simply read the same text in different translations of the Bible. Thus, we would see that at least there, when it comes to translation differences, dogmatism is a greater proof of ignorance than of learning. This seems to be the case for many who adopt the doctrine of the Trinity. These are just another proof of the fragility of its foundation.

So, back to the Bible way about God, the Father Almighty!

 

Chapter 12

One God, the Father Almighty alone

-      The true monotheism

Proof texts, for one God, the Father Almighty alone

Matthew 4:10: "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the LORD (YHWH) your God, and serve him only."'" (quote from the Old Testament)

 

Who is this LORD?

We see this from Exodus 20 and John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you (the Father Almighty), the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

 

1Corinthians 8:5-6: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

 

1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God (the Father Almighty), and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

 

James 2:19: "You believe that there is one God(the Father Almighty). Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."

 

No "Trinity" here.

 

Be careful „This is eternal life”

 

To know God means first of all to accept that he is only the Father Almighty. This is true monotheism. Monotheism is unchanging, see Revelation chapter 3, 4 and 5. Knowing God and His Son it is very important. According to this is eternal life, without this knowledge is no eternal life (John 17:1-3). Be careful, this is very important.

 

Don't be scared for criticism, from the annals of the Inquisition we learn that many died for this truth, this truth being more important than their life (Matthev 10:28).

Don't be a lazy slave, we learn from written works that many have thoroughly engaged in the research of this subject, in order to convince themselves who is the true and only God. By this they showed that they cared about the truth (Revelation 3:16).

The proclamation of true monotheism is very necessary to counterbalance the effect of the announcement of the tares, which preach against true monotheism (Matthew 13:24,25).

 

The Bible message is:

From love for the human race, God, the Father Almighty sent His only-begotten Son from Heaven (John 3:13,16), who mirrors (reflects) the glory and being (likeness in image and character) of God; and His Son came from Heaven - also from love, not forced by someone, teaching us what the love of God and our fellowmen really means, giving His life as a ransom for us, in order to save us from sin and eternal death, which destroys every one of us (Exodus 21:23, John 1:1anarthrous, Hebrews 1:1-3, John 3:13,16, John 17:1-3, Matthew 20:28).

So God did not die, because He is immortal in the eternal glory of immortality (1Tim. 6:16). Only His beloved Son did this for all of us (John 3:16). Thank you Father, we pray in the wonderful name of your only-begotten Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! Hallelujah, Amen! And thank you Lord Jesus!

 

Educate yourself about who is the Father and who is the Son, and what is that wonderful relationship between them, and God will bless you!

 

Chapter 13

The most important doctrines about God in Christianity today

 

Some important clarifications. Christianity is not united in the doctrine about God. There are four important divisions in current theology about God.

 

When it comes what means the trinity or the threefold doctrine of any kind of trinitarism, many believe that it is only faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And automatically, in this kind of interpretation of this doctrine, they believe that some who does not agree with the trinity or the threefold doctrine, do not believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. No wonder when they refuse any dialogue on this issue, believing that listening to the other party would be a compromise: why listen to heresies? If, however, they accept a so-called dialogue, they do not listen to the other side, they only monologues about their doctrine.

 

Therefore, we must point out from the outset that the doctrine of the trinity does not only mean only faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the irony is that those who think they are Trinitarians are not even Trinitarians, since they do not know the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

The doctrine of the Trinity - and here we refer strictly to the doctrine of the trinity accepted as correct, because there are other Trinitarian doctrines, which are not accepted as correct - clearly says that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one being, that is, of the same being, one being composed of three parts and not three separate beings.

 

Trinitarians who accepted that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were three separate beings and not just one, were considered heretics and were persecuted by others who went beyond this pattern of interpretation. Trinitarians who believed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were three separate heavenly beings were excommunicated and called "tritheists", that is, those who believe in three gods.

 

Trinitarians who believe themselves to be "corret" or accurate believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God made up of three parts, not three separate beings. This doctrinal difference was taken by Trinitarians who believe they are "correct."

 

However, no matter which Trinitarian creed we consider, the difference between what the Bible reveals about the person of God and what the dogma of the Trinity holds about God's "persons" is significant, if only the Father Almighty is the only true God (John 17:1-3).

 

God is not a trinity of any kind. A significant part of theologians support the idea of ​​the concept of "trinity", a divine "unity" consisting of three persons. But this doctrine has been shown to be taken from paganism and clothed in biblical words. This doctrine blatantly violates the concept of patertheist monotheism, which declares Yehowah, the heavenly Father, as the only true God: Exodus 20:1-3, John 17:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:5,6.

 

At present in denominational Christianity there are several conceptions of God, among which the best known are:

1. Classic Trinitarianism - the belief in three substances (called persons) united together in one body: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit who form one God

2. Patripassian Modalism - the belief that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the manifestation of the same person, not being several separate or united persons, but only one, which was revealed in three ways, the Father became the Son and the Son became the Holy Spirit

3. Trinitarian Tritheism - the belief in three distinct and separated persons from each other: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit

4. Patertheism - faith in one God: the Father Almighty.

 

Which is true? The one who can prove that believes in what the Bible says, namely that God the Father Almighty has an only begotten Son (John 3:16), sent from heaven to the earth (John 3:13, John 17:5).

 

In Classic Trinitarianism the concept of the separate Son cannot be applied since the Son is only a part of God and not someone distinct from him. Could we tell our head, for example, that it is the father and our torso is the son or that our limbs are the holy spirit of our body?

 

In Patripassian Modalism the concept of a separate Son cannot be applied, since the Father disappears and transforms into his own Son.

 

In Trinitarian Tritheism, the idea of a separate Son cannot be applied, since the Son is a kind of twin brother to God, the Father. In this conception there would be three twin brothers, triplets.

 

The only concept that would allow the existence of a Son with the Father, who could be sent from heaven to earth, making the Father remain a father and the Son remain a son, is the patertheist concept.

 

Which you choose?

Chapter 14

Answering the plural "US" from Genesis 1:26

 

Some say: The Hebrew word most often used for God is Elohim which is a plural noun, thus denoting the plurality in the Godhead. Also God [Elohim] used plural first-person pronouns as in Genesis 1:26, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness."

 

It is true that in a few verses the first-person plural pronoun is used, but in the vast majority of verses the first-person singular pronoun is used, even though its antecedent is plural! This is a significant grammatical anomaly. To whom might God be talking at Genesis 1:26?

 

If we look at the Gospel after John 1:1-3 we see "Someone" near God, through God made anything. Remember the word "through", this is very important.

 

The heavenly Son was not born learned and could have done nothing if the Father had not educated and taught him how to do point by point all things, so it was the Father behind the ear and at the ear of the Son that taught and inspired him.

 

"Let us make man!" is supreme moment of creation arrived as God created man. The narrative presents God as calling of His only-begotten Son.

 

The rabbinic interpretation that God is speaking to the angels is more attractive for the Jews, for man's creation affects them (Ps. 8:5; 1 C. 6:3), cf. Job 38:7. But there is no suggestion in the Gospels of the big angelic courts cooperation.

 

Everything is reduced to the cooperation of the Son.

 

Notice that after saying, "Let US make man in Our image, after Our likeness," verse 27 says, "So God created man in His [not 'Their'] own image, in the image of God He [not 'They'] created him; male and female He [not 'They'] created them." Notice, too, that Isaiah 45:5 reads, "I am Yehowah, and there is none else, there is no God [Elohim (noun, plural of majesty)] besides Me [singular pronoun]." Therefore the true "mentor" or "engineer" of the whole creation was only the Father, the Son being only the modeler.

 

As we can see, the word Elohim, being plural of majesty in all cases is confused with that word "we" from Genesis 1:26 and other related texts.

 

Many commentators, however, interpret the plural of Elohim as a 'plural of majesty,' indicating dignity and greatness. The plural form of the word for God, Elohim, can be explained in somewhat the same way. Therefore, Elohim, the Hebrew plural for God, is used because the word expresses dignity and majesty. Aaron called the molten calf he made elohim attaching dignity and majesty to it, thereby exciting reverence in the minds of its worshipers. For the same reason, the Philistines called their idol Dagon elohim. Each of the idols Chemosh, Milcom, Baalzebub, and Nizroch is called elohim, though each is singular. Those idol worshipers expressed their particular idol in the plural, because of its supposed dignity, majesty, and excellence. (Exodus 32:4,8; Judges 16:23, 24) Genesis 24:9,10 refers to Abraham as adonim, the plural form of the Hebrew word for lord or master; and Potiphar is called Joseph's master (adonim). In all these places the plural is used for the singular to express dominion, dignity, and greatness. -- Genesis 39:20

 

Professor of Semitic language Wilhelm Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar about the word Elohim:

 

Elohim is not the only Hebrew noun that can be plural in form but singular in meaning. Such Hebrew noun forms are sometimes used for abstract nouns and as intensifiers. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar devotes several pages to this subject. The following list is not exhaustive, but it illustrates the point. The masculine plural ending is im; oth is the feminine plural ending.

 

zequnim — old age (Gen. 21:2, 7; 37:3; 44:20).

 

ne`urim — youth. David was only a boy (na`ar), but Goliath "has been a fighting man from his youth [ne`urim]" (1 Sam. 17:33).

 

chayyim — life. This is used in the song "To life, to life, lechayyim" in Fiddler on the Roof.

 

gebhuroth — strength. The singular form gebhurah is the usual word for strength, but the plural form is used in Job 41:12.

tsedaqoth — righteousness. The singular form tsedaqah is the usual word, but tsedaqoth is used in Isaiah 33:15 — "he who walks righteously [or "in righteousness"]."

 

chokmoth — wisdom. Chokmah is the usual form, but chokmoth is used in Prov. 1:20.

 

'adonim — lord. 'adon means "lord," and 'adonim normally means "lords," but Isa. 19:4 says, "I will hand the Egyptians over to the power of a cruel master ['adonim]."

 

behemoth. This word normally means beasts, but in Job 40:15 it refers to one animal.

 

Specifically discussing elohim, Wilhelm Gesenius observes: "The language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in 'elohim (whenever it denotes one God).... [This] is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute" (such as a singular adjective or verb). For more information on the subject, consult Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, pages 396-401, 1909 edition.

 

This means that this word Elohim looks toward one person, but with multiple and great powers.

 

Old Testament Genesis 1

 

1In the beginning God* created the heaven** and the earth.

 

*title, not a name: Elohim, plural not singular, but defines the plural of the majesty, of the powers in possession, not the numbers of the personnel; if the sentence is constructed in the singular, a literal translation would sound "The Powerful" and not "The Powerful Ones", so is a descriptive plural

 

**dual plural, not singular: some languages also have a dual (denoting exactly two of something), or other systems of number categories; however, in English and many other languages, singular and plural are the only grammatical numbers, except for possible remnants of the dual in pronouns such as both and either; as in the first case, we have to deal with a descriptive plural, it is not about two heavens, but a single heaven with two ends or edges (extremities)(Deut. 4:32). In Deut. 10:14 all this three words appear in the plural „the heaven, and the heaven of heaven”. If we translated them all into the plural, what would we understand? („the heavens, and the heavens of heavens”)

All this disprove that in the word Elohim could be three distinct persons in one-Trinity concept. And so the rabbis can refuse the trinity doctrine. With such theories, Israel will never come in mass to Christianity. This is why the Rabbis could not depart from their Monotheism, not accepting Christianity.

 

According to Christian expectations, Israel must return in the mass to Lord Jesus, before His second coming: "Behold, * thou shalt be left desolate, but I say unto thee, Thou shalt not see Me any more, until thou say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the LORD." Luke 13:35. Such a Trinitarian theory is clearly a brake, which will stop this desire.

Chapter 15

Controversy around the holy spirit of God Almighty

 

A third-century Christian said that in his day there were differing opinions about the holy spirit, and some were in expectation, not knowing what to believe. Some of them believed that the holy spirit was the angel Gabriel, or the third person of the Trinity. A few, in order to justify their opinion, tried to force certain biblical passages, explaining them in such a way that the holy spirit could be seen as a distinct heavenly person. They saw in Acts 5: 9, Acts 8:39  the holy spirit, not an angel of God who guides them as in Acts 8:29, Acts 10:19, Acts 11:12, Acts 16: 9. The spirit of Jesus is unique in all the Bible, we meet this only in Acts 16: 7, and this is not the genuine version.

 

For example, in Acts 16:7 would be four textual variations:

1. πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ „Spirit of Jesus”: Papyrus p74, p72, Codex Sinaiticus (א), Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Alexandrinus (A), corrected Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D), Cyrill of Alexandria, Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions

 

2. „The Spirit of the Lord”: Bohairic Coptic and original Ephraemi Rescriptus) – this means an angel

 

3. „the Holy Spirit” some author

 

4. πνεῦμα „Spirit”: (Textus Receptus, Byzantine Lectionary, Efrem the Syriac, Chrisostom). – this means an angel

 

The holy spirit of God Almighty

 

Here a remember from the first part of the book.

The holy spirit is of God, so "he" (God, the Father Almighty) has a mind, will, emotions and power expressed by or through his holy spirit, is not a

different or third person of God.

Let's see if their argument of Acts 1:5, is a baptism with a "third heavenly

person" or a "divine mind-will-emotions-power"? Compare with Acts 1:8,

Acts 2:17,18,33. This is a good context. The word of God is well able to

speak for God, and no human interpretation is required.

 

Acts 1:5 "for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the

Holy Spirit not many days from now."

Acts 1:8 "But you will receive power when the holy spirit has come

upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea

and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

Acts 2:17,18,33 "“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will

pour out my spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall

prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall

dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those

days I will pour out my spirit, and they shall prophesy.

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received

from the Father the promise of the holy spirit, he [Jesus] has poured out this, that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.”

 

Note, that "my spirit" means "the holy spirit", exactly as the Lord Jesus

said in Matthew 10:20:"For it is not you who speak, but the spirit of your Father speaking through you."

 

[my spirit = the holy spirit = the spirit of your Father = God's spirit]

 

See the entire context of the Bible, that is about God's spirit, yes, God's

spirit wants us, not a "third person":

Romans 8:11 "And if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you; He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his spirit that dwelleth in you."

Again the context:

Rom 8:14 „For whosoever are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

Again:

Rom 8:26 „Likewise the spirit [of God] (not a "3rd person") also helpeth

our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but

the spirit [of God] (not a 3rd person) himself asketh for us with

unspeakable groanings. 27. And he [God] that searcheth the hearts,

knoweth what the spirit [of God] (not a 3rd person) desireth; because he

asketh for the saints according to God.

There is not a „3rd person”.

Yes, God has a spirit. His spirit, the holy spirit.

 

Chapter 16

What means ELOHIM?

 

1 Thessalonians 5:21

but test them all; hold on to what is good,

 

Elohim actually not means a threefold unity.

See what does an expert said.

 

Remember Elohim, by Wilhelm Gesenius

 

Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius (3 February 1786 – 23 October 1842) was a German orientalist, lexicographer, Christian Hebraist, Lutheran theologian, Biblical scholar and critic.

 

Here we have professor of Semitic language Wilhelm Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar about the word Elohim

 

Elohim is not the only Hebrew noun that can be plural in form but singular in meaning. Such Hebrew noun forms are sometimes used for abstract nouns and as intensifiers. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar devotes several pages to this subject. The following list is not exhaustive, but it illustrates the point. The masculine plural ending is im; oth is the feminine plural ending.

 

zequnim — old age (Gen. 21:2, 7; 37:3; 44:20).

ne`urim — youth. David was only a boy (na`ar), but Goliath "has been a fighting man from his youth [ne`urim]" (1 Sam. 17:33).

chayyim — life. This is used in the song "To life, to life, lechayyim" in Fiddler on the Roof.

gebhuroth — strength. The singular form gebhurah is the usual word for strength, but the plural form is used in Job 41:12.

tsedaqoth — righteousness. The singular form tsedaqah is the usual word, but tsedaqoth is used in Isaiah 33:15 — "he who walks righteously [or "in righteousness"]."

chokmoth — wisdom. Chokmah is the usual form, but chokmoth is used in Prov. 1:20.

'adonim — lord. 'adon means "lord," and 'adonim normally means "lords," but Isa. 19:4 says, "I will hand the Egyptians over to the power of a cruel master ['adonim]."

behemoth. This word normally means beasts, but in Job 40:15 it refers to one animal.

Specifically discussing elohim, Wilhelm Gesenius observes: "The language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in 'elohim (whenever it denotes one God).... [This] is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute" (such as a singular adjective or verb). For more information on the subject, consult Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, pages 396-401, 1909 edition.

 

All this disprove that in the word Elohim could be a threefold concept. 

But if Elohim does not mean a numerical plurality, what does mean?

 

Textual Criticism = TC (not to be confused with the criticism of the Bible)

1In the beginning created God* the heaven** and the earth.

TC *Elohim is a title, not a name: this word is a multiple plural in construction, but defines the plural of the majesty, of the powers in possession, not the numbers of the personnel; if the sentence is constructed in the singular, a literal translation would sound "The Powerful" (singular) and not "The Powerful Ones" (plural), so is a descriptive plural.

TC **Also, heaven is a dual plural in construction, but as in the first case, we have to deal with a descriptive plural, it is not about two heavens, but a single heaven with two ends or edges (Deut. 4:32). In Deut. 10:14 all this three words appear in the plural „the heaven, and the heaven of heaven”. If we translated them all into the plural, what would we understand? („the heavens, and the heavens of heavens”)

If we render in the plural, the heavens, could we further justify from the context that God made two heavens, the word being in the dual plural?

 

Chapter 17

The different usage of the word god (Hebrew elohim, Greek theos) in the Bible

 

A problem: In the Bible the word "god" is used in two ways, once for God and once to others: His Son, people in the position of judges and even Satan. In the first case is a title, in the second a quality.

The word "god" in Psalm 82:6 shows a similar situation as in John 1:1, so it describes a quality.

Psalm 82:6 Young's Literal Translation

I -- I have said, 'Gods ye are, And sons of the Most High -- all of you,

 

The word "god" is used in two ways in the Bible, as we see in Psalm 82: 6. So how should that one from John 1:1, which refers to Logos, be applied? As a quality or as a title (as a king, a captain, and so on)?

 

In the book HARD SAYINGS Of The BIBLE Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. wrote in his article on Psalms 82:6: "[God] is addressing the earthly judges and administrators of his law whom he has set up to represent him... But there is no hint of a belief in many gods and goddesses. Nor does God thereby imply they have the divine nature exclusive to the Trinity. It is simply a case where one term, elohim, must do double duty, referring not only to God but also to his special servants appointed for the unique tasks described in these contexts." As can be noted from this quote, Kaiser is a trinitarian, yet he subscribes to the usage of this term in the manner we have utilized.

 

Construction of John 1:1 and it's meaning 

 

In John 1:1, apostle John has to write his message as best as he can and the only way to differentiate God with uppercase G and god with lowercase g is by saying pros ton theon vs theos. Had this been Hebrew or Arabic we would have seen the difference. However because there is no context here to differentiate one from another John did the best he could with what he had to work with.

 

"en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos" John 1:1 in ancient Greek

 

Let's see the original: in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god

 

In John 1:1 we have both terms (title and quality), but in the case of the Logos, the construction emphasizes the nature of the Logos and is not a term for a descriptive title of God.

 

So, John 1:1 shows us that the Logos was not God the Father himself, just has the same nature as his Father. Is not about a second or lesser "god", is about nature, if the Son is a "son" - in what we understand what is a son.

 

Trinitarians, like Adam Clarke, admits, if Lord Jesus is a "son" of God, according to what means "a son" in literal sense, he must be "originated", with beginning, without knowledge, and so on, connected to God through obedience and subordinate to God. This is what we as non-trinitarians strongly believe, and the trinitarians not.

 

They don't understand John 1:1 part c "and god the word was" and they do this because not understand a very simple way of saying. For example Satan is "the god (the same word like in John 1:1 part c) of this age", according to 2Corinthians 4:4. Satan is God, like the Father, or just "god" (title or quality)? Again, Peter was named "satan" by Lord Jesus, according to Matthew 16:23. Was Peter Satan, the Devil in person or just "satan", title or quality?

 

The first man, Adam, after his earthly nature was named "man" (which means a kind of soil), and of course his sons are all named after his nature: man. The sons of Adam have the earthly, Adam-like, Adam-nature, as the heavenly Son of God have the heavenly God-like, Divine-nature. The sons of Adam are not Adam himself, so, the son of God are not God himself.

 

When the Son of God came in this world he put down his God-like nature, and put up the Adam-nature, so, he became a simple man, like the first man, Adam, special, pure and without sin. If we understand right John 1:1 part c, the whole message of John 1:1 is so simple, so wonderful, so true: God have a heavenly Son (son in literal meaning, see please Hebrews 1:3), who have the same nature as his Father. This Son came down from heaven, not God.

 

Proverbs 30:4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!

 

In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his (nick)name is called The Word of God.” (AV; Dy) Note that his nickname is not called “God, the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. Hence John 1:1 must mean, at most, that the Word was of God, not God himself.

 

The same problem arises in another word: Antichrist as title and antichrist as quality.

 

Let's see than the verse of the 2 John 1: 7, in a variety of versions:

 

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Yeshua The Messiah has come in the flesh; such a person is a deceiver and antichrist.

Weymouth New Testament

For many deceivers have gone out into the world--men who do not acknowledge Jesus as Christ who has come in human nature. Such a one is 'the deceiver' and 'the anti-Christ.'

International Standard Version

For many deceivers have gone out into the world. They refuse to acknowledge Jesus the Messiah as having become human. Any such person is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Good News Translation

Many deceivers have gone out over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus Christ came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and the Enemy of Christ.

Berean Study Bible

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

English Standard Version

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

New Living Translation

I say this because many deceivers have gone out into the world. They deny that Jesus Christ came in a real body. Such a person is a deceiver and an antichrist.

New International Version

I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

 

What the text say?

“Many deceivers” (this is a plural) = “Any such person is a deceiver and an antichrist (singular) (quality)”

 

So there is a long line of antichrists (with this quality), which ends with that great Antichrist (and this is a title), the LAST - AND THE GREATEST OF ALL TIMES:

 

2 Thessalonians 2

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

1But we beg of you, my brethren, concerning the arrival of Our Lord Yeshua The Messiah and concerning our assembling unto him, 2That you would not be soon shaken in your minds, neither be troubled, either from word, nor from a spirit, neither from an epistle that is as if from us, namely, that, "Behold, The Day of Our Lord has arrived." 3Let no man deceive you by any means, to the effect that surely no revolt will first come and The Man of Sin, The Son of Destruction, be revealed, 4He who opposes and exalts himself against everything that is called God and religion, just as he will sit in the Temple of God, as God, and will show concerning himself as if he is God. 5Do you not remember that when I was with you, I said these things to you? 6And now you know what controls, that he may be revealed in his time. 7The mystery of evil has even now begun to work within, only if that which now controls will be taken from the midst; 8And then that Evil One will be revealed, whom Our Lord Yeshua will consume with a breath of his mouth, and will destroy him by the revelation of his coming. 9For the coming of that one is in the activity of Satan in all power, signs and false wonders, 10And in all the error of evil which is in the perishing, because they did not receive the love of the truth in which they would have Life. 11Because of this, God sent them the activity of delusion that they would believe lies. 12And all those who believed not the truth, but chose evil, will be judged.

 

These troubled times are before us, we must be careful that we do not fall under the spell of this man, who must come, as it is written in the Holy Scriptures.

 

Chapter 18

Why is Jesus an “Everlasting Father” (“Abi-Ad” in Hebrew), if he is not God, the Father Almighty?

 

Some also use Jesus' being called Everlasting Father in this verse as proof of the trinity doctrine, you know “three persons in one God” or “one God in three persons”. Most, though, clearly distinguish between the persons of the “Trinity God”, as the official trinity doctrine says to do. Then who is the “Father” in the Trinity, the Father of Jesus, or Jesus?

 

A person receives life through his father. Accordingly, Isaiah calls Jesus "Everlasting Father" because it is through him that we receive everlasting life, not because he is God, the Father Almighty.

Isaiah 9:6 in the NKJV:

For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called (...) Everlasting Father  (Abi-Ad in Hebrew) (...)

Everlasting father means ‘a father who lives forever’ and if he can live forever, he can give eternal life, of course from God. Every life comes from the Creator (God) but through different channels. The founding patriarchs of the nation of Israel were called "fathers" for all the people of this nation. So we can better understand why Jesus is called an “Everlasting Father”.

Jesus is our Father (set) Forever, our eternal Patriarch, the "last (second) Adam".

 

“Everlasting Father” is a good translation. As for the "Father of Eternity", it is not a correct translation; "The Father of Eternity" would be "Abi ha-Olamim", or here we do not have the word "eternal = olam" but we have the word "ad" which expresses continuity; here "Abi Ad" means "Our Father (put) Forever" or “Everlasting Father” given to us by God Almighty, which points to an acquired title, from God, his Son being the Eternal Patriarch, the second Adam.

 

“The Last Adam, also given as the Final Adam or the Ultimate Adam, is a title given to Jesus in the New Testament. Similar titles that also refer to Jesus include Second Adam and New Adam.

Twice in the New Testament an explicit comparison is made between Jesus and Adam. In Romans 5:12–21, Paul argues that "just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:19, NIV). In 1 Corinthians 15:22, Paul argues that "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive," while in verse 45 he calls Jesus the "last/ultimate/final Adam".

John Henry Newman used the phrase "Second Adam" in his hymn "Praise to the Holiest in the height", first appearing in The Dream of Gerontius:

O loving wisdom of our God!

When all was sin and shame,

A second Adam to the fight

And to the rescue came.” Wikipedia

 

Cross references

 

1 Corinthians 15:45-49

And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.

 

1 Corinthians 15:21-22

For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

 

Romans 5:12-15

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

 

Romans 5:17

For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

 

As we see, Lord Jesus is not God, the Father Almighty. He is a different person and a different father. Unfortunately, the doctrine of the trinity does not help people, but confuses them.

 

I invite you to believe in the only one True God, namely, the Father Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and the source of all things (John 17:3; Revelation 4:11; Ephesians 4:6; Jude 25); He is the spiritual, supreme, eternal being, who revealed himself as YEHOWAH (translated into English by Jehovah), and who has many divine attributes and qualities (Exodus 3:14,15; John 4:24; 1John 4:8; Deuteronomy 32:4; Isaiah 40:28). God dwells in heaven, but is present through His spirit in creation and in the believers (1 Kings 8:43; Romans 1: 19,20; Ephesians 4: 6; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:16). He loved us so much that He sent His only heavenly Son to be a majestic teacher in spiritual matters, and then to die as an atoning sacrifice for our sins (John 3:13,16). Thus, His Son became the second Adam.

 

John 17 Jesus Prays to Be Glorified

1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

 

Chapter 19

The true relationship between God, the Father Almighty and His Son

 

The relationship between the Father and the Son is equal, or if not, who is greater?

 

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace and we await this wonderful reign of peace and happiness. But how will he do that if he was so mocked that he died cruelly tortured and on a cross?

 

Young's Literal Translation

ye heard that I said to you -- I go away, and I come unto you; if ye did love me, ye would have rejoiced that I said -- I go on to the Father, because my Father is greater than I. John 14:28

 

Yes, the Son of God has a great help, his God and Father Almighty and that gives us a reason to rejoice. Do you rejoice that the Father is greater or you not yet understand this aspect, being rooted in the traditions read and not in the Bible?

 

Someone who is greater than another, who is smaller, can help him, that is, the greater one can help the smallest.

 

Never forget that God, the Father Almighty made his Son a Hero of the ages, and a Prince of peace. Could be the Son a Hero and a Prince of this cruel world, without his Father?

 

Consider this: "Jehovah saith unto my Lord (this is the Messiah His Son), Sit thou at my right hand, UNTIL I MAKE thine enemies thy footstool." Where do we read this promise made by God, the Father Almighty to His Son? In the Psalm 110 according to American Standard Version.

 

So Who make this possible? The Father Almighty, the Most High, the Creator.

Psalm 110 in American Standard Version

God's Faithful Messiah

(Hebrews 5:1-10)

1Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

2Jehovah will send forth the rod of thy strength out of Zion: Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

3Thy people offer themselves willingly In the day of thy power, in holy array: Out of the womb of the morning Thou hast the dew of thy youth.

4Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek.

5The Lord at thy right hand Will strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

6He will judge among the nations, He will fill the places with dead bodies; He will strike through the head in many countries.

7He will drink of the brook in the way: Therefore will he lift up the head.

 

I pray to understand the relationship between the Father and his Son correctly, as they are in the original Hebrew.

 

Lord Jesus Christ is the Hero of ages, the Lion of Juda, but not without the help of his God, the Almighty Father, the Most High!

 

Isaiah 9:6 in the Luthers' Bible - the word God (Gott) is missing

The great reformer translated the original closer, Gibbor being a Hero or a Brave, not God.

Isaiah 9:6 Lutherbibel 1912 Denn uns ist ein Kind geboren, ein Sohn ist uns gegeben, und die Herrschaft ist auf seiner Schulter; er heißt Wunderbar, Rat, Held (with the help of his great Father), Ewig-Vater Friedefürst;

Wonderful, advice, hero (with the help of his great Father), eternal father, prince of peace; - the word "God" is missing

Modernisiert Text Denn uns ist ein Kind geboren, ein Sohn ist uns gegeben, welches HERRSChaft ist auf seiner Schulter; und er heißt Wunderbar, Rat, Kraft, Held (with the help of his great Father), Ewig-Vater, Friedefürst,

Wonderful, advice, strength, hero (with the help of his great Father), eternal father, prince of peace, - the word "God" is missing

So Luther Martin also sees in this text a Hero of God and not the God, the Father Almighty, and yes, Lord Jesus is the Hero of the ages, sent by God the Father Almighty, to save us. Thank you Father, for your great Son! Thank you Jesus! You are our Hero, the Lion of Judah! You are our Lord and Savior, our King and our Mediator-High Priest!

The Luther Bible (German: Lutherbibel) is a German language Bible translation from Hebrew and ancient Greek by Martin Luther. The New Testament was first published in 1522 and the complete Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments with Apocrypha, in 1534. It was the first full translation of the Bible into German based mainly on the original Hebrew and Greek texts and not the Latin Vulgate translation.

 

A dear friend of mine wrote:

"So many points could be clarified if people were simply to read the same text in a variety of translations. They would then at least see that where translation is concerned, dogmatism is greater evidence of ignorance than of learning.  I find this to be the case with many who adopt the Trinity doctrine.

Paul stressed that knowledge has merit only when it is expressive and productive of love, that while knowledge often puffs up, love builds up." Ray Franz

 

Please pay close attention when you reading the translations made by the supporters of some teachings (those who claim that “ho Theos”, “the” God died on the cross). In some very important cases they distort certain words to make them pass (to fit) and and to be able to have a big impact and reason their theology and Christology, in the eyes of those who don't know Hebrew or Greek at all.

 

For example in John 1:3 in KJV , they throw out the traditional view of “through”:

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

The true translation is in the New King James Version:

All things were made (by God) through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. - The words by God added by me for a better understanding.

Young's Literal Translation

all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.

 

The prepositions used by the KJV are “di’” means "through”. The NKJV and some other translations have "through". Many translations we checked translate dia as through. Hence, John does not write that all things were created "by"' Jesus.

 

Dear brothers and sisters, in the future we should avoid such large traps of learning, and perhaps some not even believe in the Bible, but because of the nature of their work, they are clinging to some stereotypes, which have long been unmasked, as being only the word games of translators who were not impartial in their translation work.

Further claiming that God died on the cross, causes the clergy to lose their honesty and credibility in the eyes of the worlds’ scholars, their traditional churches depopulate, die, degrade, and are sold to Muslims or museums and other social places are made. We see here God's punishment is above all those who do such things.

 

The Bible message is:

From love for the human race, God sent His only-begotten Son from Heaven (John 3:13, John 3:16, John 17:5), who mirrors (reflects) the glory and being (likeness in image and character) of God. His Son came from heaven - also from love, not forced by someone, teaching us what the love of God and our fellowmen really means, giving His live as a ransom for us, in order to save us from sin and eternal death, which destroys every one of us (John 1:1, Hebrews 1:1-3, John 3:16, Exodus 21:23, Matthew 20:28).

So God did not died, because He is immortal in the eternal glory of immortality (1Tim. 6:16). Only His beloved Son did this for all of us (John 3:16). Thank you Father, we pray in the wonderful name of your only-begotten Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! Hallelujah, Amen!

 

Chapter 20

Etymology corner, Where does the name Jehovah come from?

 

What is etymology?

 

Etymology is the study of the history of words. By extension, the phrase "the etymology of [some words]" means the origin of the particular word. For place names, there is a specific term, toponymy.

 

Look at this dialogue:

Two Christians meet in a waiting room and talk.

The First Christian: Who is your God?

The Second Christian: Jehovah.

First Christian: So you're a JW’s!

Second Christian: No, I am just a Christian.

First Christian: Isn't Jehovah the God of JW’s?

Second Christian: They just borrowed it.

First Christian: From whom?

Second Christian: From Christians.

First Christian: How do Christians have two Gods, both Jehovah and Jesus?

Second Christian: Because they are of two kinds, wheat and haze.

First Christian: Oh, now I understand, they took Jehovah from the haze.

Second Christian: They borrowed it from the so-called wheat.

First Christian: Do you mean that Jesus is a false god?

Second Christian: No, he is not God at all, neither false nor true.

First Christian: Well, what is he then?

Second Christian: The Son of God.

First Christian: Well, then is not God? God from God?

Second Christian: No, the word God is a title. If I'm a teacher, but my son would be a baker, according to your philosophy, my son had to be born as a teacher too. Is it necessary for the Son of God to be God, if the word God is a title? No, if there is only one God, as we read in the Bible.

First Christian: Sorry, I’m a little bit confused in etymology, between the word god and the word divine. Why then does John 1:1 write that Jesus was God?

Second Christian: In the original it is not so formulated. The order of the words in the final of John 1:1 is: and god was the word (kai theos en ho logos). Because the word "god" is without the article, according to the grammar of the Greek language it is a predicative noun, and the "word" with the article "ho" is the subject. This statement is not intended to identify the "word" with "God, the Father Almighty" but to indicate the divine nature of the "word"; this means the Son is like God, but not God himself. The Greek topic of John 1:1 (the order of words in the sentence) would at most allow a literal translation of the kind: In the beginning was 'the Word', and 'the Word' was with God and 'god' was 'the Word'. He is not God, but someone like God, divine. Do you remember when Lord Jesus said to Peter "satan" in Matthew 16:23? Peter was satan, this meaning like Satan, not „the Satan” himself.

First Christian: Oh, now I see. As you can see I’m confused. So, not JW’s invented Jehovah?

Second Christian: No, this word is very ancient, meaning the divine name of God Almighty in Greek version. JW’s are only from 1931, when a former Baptist, by the name of Joseph Franklin Rutherford, changed the name of his religious movement to that of JW's. Where did Rutherford get this name Jehovah? From the Bible. He didn't invent it. Well, this name appears long before JW’s in both Protestants and Catholics Bibles and church pictures, with small insignificant variations, I would say a dialect matter, which is acceptable. A Greek researcher by the name of M. Kiriakis, studied Greek writings from the 1st to the 3rd centuries and found that it was then the IEUA form, or something similar. If we supplement with consonants, that did not speak, we have IEHUAH very close to Jehovah.

First Christian: So it is not an invention made by either Witnesses, Protestants or Catholics. How did you know, that this Kiriakis is right?

Second Christian: Ok, let’s see where did the Greeks knows the divine name of God? From the Temple in Jerusalem, where the divine name was publicly pronounced on the Day of Atonement, three times that day, a great day for Jews and proselytes; among them were Greeks at the same time, as the Gospel even tells us> "Some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast" (John 12:20). You see now?

When the high priest went out into the courtyard of the Temple to bless the people and their things, on the Day of Atonement, the blessing was used by saying the divine name. Thus the proselytes from Greece heard the divine name.

First Christian: Oh, now I see. Did you know why did this Rutherford changed their name to Jehovah's Witnesses? What was their name before?

Second Christian: Bible Students. But the image of the Bible Students was pretty much shattered, after many unforeseen predictions made by them and their pastor Charles Taze Russell, a former adventist. In 1925 was a great blow, when they began to recognize that they were misled by pastor Russell's predictions. Everyone was laughing at them and not even the newspapers were selling them any more space for advertising, seeing them as insecure. They needed a lot of change. Thus they began to tarnish the land for the name change. Several have been proposed, including two interesting ones: The Servants of Yah and Jehovah's Witnesses. Not understanding about the new name and what changes to make and how, some distinct branches were created,The Servants of Yah, Jehowah’s Withesses and others.

First Christian: Very interesting. Please, tell me more about this Servants of Yah.

Second Christian: The Servants of Yah was one of the Bible Student splinter groups. They believed that the true name of God is Yahweh and not Jehovah which was considered by them a false name, hence the name Servants of Yah, or Servants of Yahweh and not Servants of Jehovah. This was a barrage of Catholic theologians to oppose the Protestants who used Jehovah.

Servants of Yah headquartered in Brooklyn, NY, and were led by C.H. Zook. They said, Rutherford and his company were really the witnesses of Satan. Had branches in Levittown, New York and Vienna, Austria, several in Greece and Australia. This group dwindled to non-existence, but some of their influences are felt in the teaching of certain groups that appeared on the stage of history after 1930, some offshots of Bible Student and Yahwist Christians.

First Christian: What do you think about these names?

Second Christian: If Zook or Rutherford had known the Bible better, should have seen that believers are not only the witnesses of the Father, but also the Son. The pagans where the apostles and the first Christians went on mission, except for the proselytes and their circles, knew neither the Father, nor the Son, so they both had to be proclaimed and confessed:

“and to preach to the Jews and Greeks repentance to God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ”. (Acts 20: 21)

For this two groups The Servants of Yah and Jehovah's Witnesses (SY and JW’s) not a new name needed, but a sincere repentance.

First century believers were only Christians:

“and when he found it, he brought it to Antioch. For a whole year, they attended church meetings and taught many people. For the first time, the disciples were given the name of Christians in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26)

And Agrippa said to Paul, "Soon you will want to induce me to become a Christian!" (Acts 26:28) On the contrary, if he suffers because he is a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but glorify God for that name. (1Peter 4:16)

Do they not mock the beautiful name you bear? (James 2:7)

First Christian: So, no other name was to be sought, than it was, that of Christian.

Second Christian: Yes. After taking the new name, the witnesses made predictions that did not come true. They learned nothing from Russell's failure. Jehovah's Witnesses have made many changes in their teaching, but have never publicly stated that they are sorry for the mistakes they made, in exchange they were excused for receiving a "new light." When it comes to their teaching they are so proud, as if they had reinvented Christianity. Must to mention them, it has been shown that all their teachings are taken over and adapted to their group. CT Russell the real founder of that group clear stated this as follows: We did not invent anything, but we took all our teachings from other Christian groups, as if we had picked a bunch of flowers from several gardens. This is also the case with the name "Jehovah" that existed in many gardens (churches) long before CT Russell and JF Rutherford came.

 

PART THREE – Misunderstood verses

 

Chapter 21

Three ways before apostle John defining the Logos, the Son of God

 

I found these interesting things by searching the internet for information about John 1:1c

 

Somebody specified the following

 

"Apostle John could have done John 1:1c in three ways:

1). kai theon ēn ho logos.

2). kai ton theon ēn ho logos.

3). kai theos ēn ho logos.

 

If John had wanted the text to read (in English) "and the Word was a god" he likely would have used the first option. Putting god in the accusative without the definite article.

 

If John had wanted to say "and the Word was the God", he would have used the 2nd option. Again putting God in the accusative this time with the definite article.

 

However, John chose to use a nominative predicate (3rd option) and it clearly has a meaning other than "and the word was a god" or "and the Word was the God". This leaves the traditional "and the Word was God".

 

I have seen a number of articles on this, people suggesting that either "and the Word was a god." or "and the Word was the God." as being correct.

 

We do not need an in depth analysis of the Greek to understand the correct translation. A simply knowledge of psychology and the linguistic options the author had brings us to the correct conclusion.

The non-trinitarian interpretations are interesting."

 

What is that "other" meaning?

 

This is the best interpretation, according to my understanding

 

Joseph Warren Wells - Coptic expert - about John 1:1b wrote the following:

 

"To answer your questions: On my website I state "Coptic was the first language the New Testament was translated into that has the indefinite article; and the only language with the indefinite article that was produced during the Koine Greek period. "The is of interest because, in Coptic versions, John 1:1b is commonly translated "the word was with God and the word was a God" using the Coptic indefinite article; with some variation in word order. "In the proto-Bohairic version (Papyrus Bodmer III, the text of which was partially reconstructed by Rodolphe Kasser) the first occurrence of "God" in John 1:1 is in the Nomina Sacra form, whereas the second occurrence is spelled out. In John 1:18 the word "God" (which no one has seen) is in the Nomina Sacra form, while the word "God" (only-begotten) is spelled out." So literally, the Sahidic and Bohairic texts say "a god" in the extant mss. In a similar way translations of the Greek "pneuma ho theos" (spirit the god") at John 4:24 usually say either "God is spirit" or "God is a spirit" where both give the same sense of "what" God is, not who he is. Here the Sahidic says literally "a spirit is the God" (P.Palau Rib 183) as does the Proto-Bohairic (Bodmer III). To me, the sense of the passage in John 1 is likewise a description of what the Logos was in relation to God. A rather clumsy reading might be: The Logos was in the beginning. The Logos was with God. The Logos was like God (or godlike, or divine) with the emphasis on his nature; not his person."

 

Cross References

John 1:14

The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

John 8:19

"Where is Your Father?" they asked Him. "You do not know Me or My Father," Jesus answered. "If you knew Me, you would know My Father as well."

 

John 12:45

And whoever sees Me sees the One who sent Me.

 

John 14:9 Jesus said to him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? he that has seen me has seen the Father; and how say you then, Show us the Father?

 

Colossians 1:15

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

 

Hebrews 1:3

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

 

1 John 5:20

And we have know that the Son of God is come and has given us a mind, that we may know Him who is true. And we are in Him who is true by being in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

 

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. 7If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.

 

John 17:1When Jesus had spoken these things, He lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. 2For You granted Him authority over all people, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. 3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only TRUE God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

 

As we see in John 17:1-3, being qualitatively like the Father does not mean that the Son is God himself.

 

What is the message of the apostle John in John 1:1?

 

The question then is who was the Logos, God himself or "a god" separate from him?

 

The author - when formulating this much-disputed phrase - did not think of either variant.

 

New Simplified Bible, although it does not follow the topic, renders the essence of the phrase as follows: NSB (i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like God (God-like). 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him and without him not one thing was made.

 

God-like: is an adjective and means "like God", which resembles God or a god in qualities such as power, intelligence, beauty or goodwill.

 

Which of the following is the proper translation of John 1:1 from the Greek?

 

The one that respects the following statements:

 

1!. To be in accordance with biblical monotheism (Exodus 20), attested as an axiom in John 17:1-3 and throughout the New Testament

 

2!. To be in agreement with the topical and semantic meaning.  Semantics is the study of meaning, reference, or truth.

 

3!. To be found in the testimony of the Son of God, for example: "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father. How do you say, "Show us the Father"? (John 14: 9)

 

Conclusion:

NSB 14 The Word [Jesus] became flesh (a human being) and lived with us. We saw the glory of the only begotten son from the Father. He was full of loving-kindness and truth. 15 John spoke about him and declared: He is the one I said would come after me. He is greater than I am because he lived before me.« 16 Out of the fullness of his undeserved kindness he gives us one blessing after another. 17 The law came through Moses. Loving-kindness and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No man has ever seen God. The only begotten God-like one who is closest to the Father (in the bosom of the Father) tells us about him. (Psalm 8:5)

 

Chapter 22

The true and wrong understanding of the anarthrous construction of John 1:1

 

If we are wrong please correct us!

 

From love for the human race, God sent His only-begotten Son, who mirrors (reflects) the glory and being (likeness in image and character) of God, and His Son came from heaven (John 3:13, 17:5) - also from love, not forced by someone, teaching us what the love of God and our fellowmen really means, giving His life as a ransom for us, in order to save us from sin and eternal death, which destroys every one of us (John 1:1, Hebrews 1:1-3, John 3:16, Exodus 21:23, Matthew 20:28).

 

Not God came as a man on earth, but His Son. To dispel this confusion, I want to highlight the following.

 

In the beginning was the 'Word', and the 'Word' was with God and like God (or God-like) was the 'Word'. (Anarthrous construction in ancient Greek text makes the difference between "the God" and "God".

 

Anarthrous construction of John 1:1 and it's meaning

Capitalization and punctuation are decisions of the translator as the early manuscript writings in most cases did not differentiate in letter size or contain punctuation. So whoever decides in one way or another, makes it in his own way of looking at things.

 

This is what the Greek text in the manuscripts looks like:

in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god (anarthrous construction) was the word - according to the original Greek topic:

"en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos" John 1:1 in ancient Greek

 

About the word anarthrous an·ar·throus (n-ärthrs) adj. 1. Linguistics Occurring without an article. Used especially of Greek nouns. [From Greek anarthros, not articulated : an-, without; see a-1 + arthron, joint; see ar- in Indo-European roots.]

 

Without anarthrous construction we have:

"en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai ho theos en ho logos" and this means "in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the (ho) god (theos) was the (ho) word (logos)"

 

What does this difference mean?

We could understand the anarthrous meaning of John 1:1 through a simple substitution of words. If we substitute a word of a proposition with one of the common ground words, but the closest, the construction of the proposition will be the same.

 

For example: "In my bag I have two apples." "In my bag I have two plums." Apples and plums are fruits.

 

Now, what we will have if we substitute some words from John 1:1?

Remember the original construction: in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and god was the word

 

Let's try and see, comparing now with this substitution: in the beginning was the woman and the woman was with man (human) and man (human) was the woman

 

Technically the substituted proposition shows us some very interesting thing, the nature of woman. So in John 1:1c we have a qualitative description, the nature of the Son.

That is the meaning of the non substituted John 1:1, whether or not we capitalize the word theos (god) from John 1:1c.

 

God and His Son are two distinct biblical personalities.

References: Genesis 1:26; 11:7, Proverbs 30:4, John 3:13,16, John 14:7-11, John 17:1-3,5, Hebrews 1:1-3;

 

The rendering variant "and the Word was a god" is not correct, because it does not respect the topical meaning of the Greek language. Topical or topical meaning is the order of words in a sentence. We see that translators respect the topic of the sentence in John 1:1, except for the last part "kai (and) theós (god) ēn (was) ho logos (the word)". Why? It does not seem fair.

 

The rendering variant "and the Word was a god" is not good because "and the Word was a god" is written as "ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς [ho lógos en theós]"

 

At present, there are five ways of rendering the Greek text "kai (and) theos (god) en (was) ho logos (the word)" "and god was the word". This is how it is in the Greek text.

 

Suggested plays:

1. "and the word was God"

2. "and the word was a god"

3. "and the Word was divine"

4. "and God was the Word"

5. "and like God (or God-like) was the Word"

 

Which of these is the correct translation of John 1:1 from Greek?

The one that follows the following statements:

1!. to be in agreement with biblical monotheism

2!. to agree with the topical meaning

3!. to be found in the testimony of the Son, for example "Jesus said to him," How long have I been with you, and have you not known me, Philip? Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father. How do you say, "Show us the Father"? (John14:9)

 

The word "God" in Greek is "Theos". When this word appears articulated in the form "ho Theos", it becomes "the God".

 

"God" and its derivatives appear in the New Testament as follows:

1. "Theou" 691 times

2. "Theos 309 times

3. Theo 159 times

4. Theon (God: when followed by a preposition that requires Ac: on, to, next to, with, etc.) 148 times

5. Thee (God!) several times.

 

As for the questions regarding theos words, they are the same word, but with difference in suffixes is due to the declension of this word.

In the grammar of the Greek language, the predicative name is used without the article "the". Here is the declension of the word theós in Greek:

Caz | Greek | Translit. | English approximate

---------- + ----------- + ----------- + --------------- -
Nominative | ο Θεός | Theos | the God
Genitive | του Θεού | tou Theou | of God
Dative | τω Θεώ | to Theo | of God
Accusative | τον Θεόν | ton Theon | the God (when followed by a preposition that requires Ac: on, to, next to, etc.)
Vocative | ω Θεέ | ho Thee | God!
When it is theó, without the letter s at the end, then the letter o in Greek is omega, not o micron, and the case is dative. (From a correspondent)

Check it if it spelled correctly.

Attention to point 2! Here's a trace of suspicion. It is possible that the ancient text was modified by an early copyist, removing the word "as (like)" for doctrinal reasons.

When a word or group of words does not harmonize with the context, it is quite likely that there was an error, intentional or not, in the copying process.

But even without this hint, the text is intelligible in the light of other similarly worded texts.

What should know about the word "god" from John 1:1 part c "and god was the word"? People believe in "God's incarnation" or in God's literal words - as God's plan incarnation because they don't understand John 1:1 part c "and god the word was" and they do this because not understand a very simple way of saying. For example Satan is "god" according to 2Corinthians 4:4. Again, Peter was named "satan" by Jesus, according to Matthew.16:23.

In both cases we have to do with a qualitative description and nothing else. This is also the case in John 1: 1c, being a qualitative description.

When in John 1:1 part c our Lord Jesus is named "god" is in this way of saying:

John 10:31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’ (this is a qualitative description of some people, acting as judges in the name of God)? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

 

What is the problem with the word "god" from John 1:1 part c? This word (god) could be used or was used just only in connection with God Almighty? No! I don't know why it is so hard to accept an apart way of saying? In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his (nick)name is called The Word of God.” Note that his nickname is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God”. If here is a distinct person from the Father, in John 1:1c why can't it be?

 

Testimony of Coptic texts

"To answer your questions: On my website I state "Coptic was the first language the New Testament was translated into that has the indefinite article; and the only language with the indefinite article that was produced during the Koine Greek period. "The is of interest because, in Coptic versions, John 1:1b is commonly translated "the word was with God and the word was a God" using the Coptic indefinite article; with some variation in word order. "In the proto-Bohairic version (Papyrus Bodmer III, the text of which was partially reconstructed by Rodolphe Kasser) the first occurrence of "God" in John 1:1 is in the Nomina Sacra form, whereas the second occurrence is spelled out. In John 1:18 the word "God" (which no one has seen) is in the Nomina Sacra form, while the word "God" (only-begotten) is spelled out." So literally, the Sahidic and Bohairic texts say "a god" in the extant mss. In a similar way translations of the Greek "pneuma ho theos" (spirit the god") at John 4:24 usually say either "God is spirit" or "God is a spirit" where both give the same sense of "what" God is, not who he is. Here the Sahidic says literally "a spirit is the God" (P.Palau Rib 183) as does the Proto-Bohairic (Bodmer III). To me, the sense of the passage in John 1 is likewise a description of what the Logos was in relation to God. A rather clumsy reading might be: The Logos was in the beginning. The Logos was with God. The Logos was like God (or godlike, or divine) with the emphasis on his nature; not his person." J. Warren Wells

 

Jesus in not God, nor a second god, but he is divine, he is the Son of God. From love for the human race, God sent His only-begotten Son, who mirrors (reflects) the glory and being (likeness in image and character) of God, and His Son came from heaven. Always was the Son of God, in heaven and on earth, fully divine in the heaven, fully man in the earth, not mixed, half divine, half divine. To be taken away, to be tempted that all men, if they were superior to men, being half divine on earth, was not right from the point of temptation, someone who was half divine, half human, could endure temptation better than humans.

 

Chapter 23

What does the expression "ego eimi" in John 8:24,58 mean?

 

Some people argue that Jesus' use of the divine title "I AM" from Exodus 3:14 [Gk., ego eimi] in John 8, verses 24 and 58 proves his deity.

 

It all depends on the context, that is, what words precede and what words follow after this phrase, the phrase itself cannot be taken out of context, as a pretext to prove something.

 

In Moffatt's version, these verses are as follows:

John 8:24 "So I told you, you would die in your sins; for unless you believe who I am, you will die in your sins."

John 8:58 "Truly, truly I tell you," said Jesus, "I have existed before Abraham was born.""

 

Interestingly, someone other than Jesus uses this exact same Greek phrase only ten verses later. At John 9:9 a man whom Jesus had healed also says "I am." 10 [Gk., ego eimi] 

John 9:9 "Some said, "It is"; others said, "No, but it is like him." He said, "I am [Gk., ego eimi] the man.""

 

Should we conclude that this man is part of a triune God? So the simple statement "I am" does not have to prove deity.

 

At John 8:58 Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Trinitarians relate this statement to the account of Exodus 3:14 where "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' And He said, 'Say this to the people of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you."'" 

Notice that in that context God was not talking to Abraham, the one mentioned in Jesus' statement, but to Moses. In saying "I am" Jesus was simply expressing that he existed before Abraham, as the heavenly Son of God. To draw any conclusion beyond that is unwarranted. Why, then, did the Jews want to stone him for what he said? Jesus' statement was a claim to greater importance in the plan of God than that of Abraham. To the Jews this self-exaltation by someone they considered a "nobody" was a blasphemous degradation of Abraham's position as a prophet, and they wanted to stone him for it. [Compare to the situation at Acts 6:11.]

 

In John 8:24 Jesus proclaimed, "So I told you, you would die in your sins; for unless you believe who I am, you will die in your sins." Was he now alluding to the divine title? No, twelve verses earlier he said, "I am [Gk., ego eimi]  the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (John 8:12). So what Jesus meant in verse 24 was simply, 'If you do not believe that I am [who I claim to be, namely, the light of the world], you shall die in your sins.'

   

Chapter 24

Some say that Lord Jesus shares titles with God, among these are the title "Savior", so he is God. It is true?

 

Some say the Bible calls Jesus our Savior and says that besides God there is no Savior, so he is this God.

 

Moffatt Version of  Acts 5:31  "God lifted him up to his right hand as our pioneer and saviour, in order to grant repentance and remission of sins to Israel."

Isaiah 43:11 Young "I -- I am Jehovah, And besides Me there is no saviour."

 

This parallelism is very dangerous, because thus Satan could be identified with Yehowah, since the Bible calls Satan "God" in 2 Corinthians 4:4 and in Deutoronomy 4:35 says that besides God is no other God. Satanists could argue as well: the Bible calls Satan God and says that besides Yehowah there is no other God, so he is this Yehowah God.  

 

Below I quote from a nontrinitarian work and I sometimes fill in for a clearer understanding: 

 

Daniel, a prophet of God, called Nebuchadnezzar "king of kings." (Daniel 2:37) Does this make Nebuchadnezzar the God of the Bible? One person of a triune God? In ancient empires it was common that the emperor had vassal kings under him. Herod the Great was one of the vassal kings under Caesar. So Caesar was a king of kings. Revelation 20:4 speaks of those who 'reign with Christ.' So wouldn't he be a King of kings? King David of Israel called God his King. So isn't God also a King of kings? Indeed, God was the King over all the kings of Israel and Judah, including that descendant of David, King Jesus Christ. -- Psalm 5:2

   

What about "Lord of lords"? In American English lord has come to have an almost exclusively religious connotation which other languages do not have. Sarah referred to Abraham, her husband, as "lord" and the apostle John called one of the elders in Revelation "my lord." 

 

What we need to understand from all these things is very simple:

Jesus is the one God has made Lord over all others, yet God is Lord above him. -- 1 Peter 3:6; Revelation 7:14; Acts 2:36; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:27.
So Yehowah is the „Despot” over the Son.

 

The apostles knew this difference well, which is why they honored God with the title of "Despota", which the Son also deserve, being also Lord of the lords of the earth.

 

Moffatt Acts 4:24 "and on hearing this the entire company raised their cry to God (Greek "Theon"), "O Sovereign Lord (Greek "Despota"), thou art he who made heaven, earth, and sea, and all that in them is" 

 

2Peter 2:1 "For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old set forth unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master (Greek "Despotes") and Lord, Jesus Christ."

So the Son is the Despot over the world.

 

As for the title Savior notice Nehemiah 9:27, "Therefore You [God] gave them [Israel] into the hand of their enemies, who made them suffer; and in the time of their suffering they cried to You and You heard them from heaven; and according to Your great mercies You gave them saviors who saved them from the hand of their enemies."

 

Should we conclude that these saviors are Yehowah or persons in a multiple Godhead? Or should we understand that God provided freedom through these people? Likewise, Jude 25 (RSV) speaks of "the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord."

 

Trinitarians cross-reference such passages as 1 Peter 2:4,7, 8 with Isaiah 8:13,14. Isaiah speaks of God as "a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over" and Peter speaks of Christ as "a living stone, rejected by men" and "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense." The Jews stumbled over the things Christ taught and the things he did. But notice Jesus' words at John 12:49, "For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has Himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak" and at John 5:19, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever He does, that the Son does likewise." So were the Jews stumbling over the words and works of Christ, or were they in reality stumbling over the words and works of the Father? (Yet, trinitarians do not construe from this that the Son is the Father.)

   

There are, in fact, a number of passages in the Hebrew Scriptures which speak of Yehowah God, yet the passage is recognized to be Messianic. The trinitarian conclusion that Jesus is Yehowah is arrived at because they have failed to comprehend the Hebraic way of thinking, particularly the concept of agency mentioned earlier.

 

But to prove a point let's examine three other passages of Scripture (KJV):

   

"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me... I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:5-7) While keeping this verse in mind; compare 2 Samuel 24:1, "Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." to the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 21:1, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel."

   

In these three passages we find that the LORD creates evil, and that both the LORD and Satan are said to have caused David to number Israel. From this do trinitarians conclude that Satan is one person in a multi-personned LORD?

 

Chapter 25

Answering the argument that “who forgives sins is only God and Christ demonstrated attributes that only God can possess, so he is God”.

God has the right, the authority, and the ability to endow anyone whom He chooses with those attributes that He wants him to have. We have no right to question or challenge His doing of this.

One such attribute is that Christ forgave sins. Interestingly, some wishing to support their claim that Christ could only forgive sins if he were God point to the words of Jesus' enemies who reasoned, "He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:5-7)

 

At John 5:30 Christ said, "I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of Him who sent me." So when Christ forgave sins, was it really he doing the forgiving, or was it actually God? That the Jews who did not oppose Lord Jesus did not conclude he was literally God by his ability to forgive sins is proven in the parallel account at Matthew 9:2-8 which closes with the comment, "they glorified God, who had given such authority to men." Again, if it is within the purposes of God to give this authority to Lord Jesus or anyone else, who are we to question or challenge His way of doing things? We simply cannot!

The same is true when Lord Jesus performed miracles. Peter resurrected Dorcas, was able to read Ananias' heart, and healed a lame man. (Acts 9:36-41; 5:1-5; 3:2, 6, 7) We automatically understand that Peter could not do these things under his own ability. Notice 1 Kings 17:1, "Now Elijah... said to Ahab, 'As Yehowah the God of Israel lives, before whom I stand, there shall be neither dew nor rain these years, except by my word.'" No dew or rain except by Elijah's word! Should we now construe that he, too, is a person in a multiple Godhead? At John 5:19 Jesus is quoted as saying, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever He does, that the Son does likewise." As Peter explained to Cornelius and those assembled with him, Jesus was able to do the things he did because "God was with him." Nothing was said about Jesus' being God . -- Acts 10:38

Another problem to be clarified here is the forgiveness of sins by Christians:
"If you forgive anyone's sins, they will be forgiven. But if you don't

forgive their sins, they will not be forgiven." (John 20:23)

According to the idea that who can forgive sins would be God, any Christian should be God, since they can forgive sins. So the idea falls, as if based on the forgiveness of sins Jesus would be God.

 

The Bible message is clear:

 

John 3:35

The Father loves the Son and has placed all things in His hands.

 

Matthew 11:27

All things have been entrusted to Me by My Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.

 

God, the Father Almighty gave all authority to His Son, both in heaven and on earth. The fact that he was given this great authority from his Almighty Father shows that he is not God, because if he were God, he had no reason to receive what he already had as we see in Matthew 28:18.

 

Modern Translations

New International Version

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

 

New Living Translation

Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth.

 

English Standard Version

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

 

Berean Study Bible

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

 

There is a suspicion that the ancient text had another phrase that the proponents of the idea that the Lord Jesus was God himself, erased.

 

Translations from Aramaic

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

And Yeshua spoke with them and he said to them, “All authority has been given to me in Heaven and in the earth; in the manner in which my Father has sent me, I am sending you.”

 

Lamsa Bible

And Jesus came up and spoke with them, and said to them, All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Just as my Father has sent me I am also sending you.

 

Cross References

 

Isaiah 9:6

For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

Daniel 7:13

In my vision in the night I continued to watch, and I saw One like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence.

 

Matthew 26:64

"You have said it yourself," Jesus answered. "But I say to all of you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

 

Luke 1:33

and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever. His kingdom will never end!"

 

John 3:31

The One who comes from above is above all. The one who is from the earth belongs to the earth and speaks as one from the earth. The One who comes from heaven is above all.

 

Acts 10:36

He has sent this message to the people of Israel, proclaiming the gospel of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

 

Romans 14:9

For this reason Christ died and returned to life, that He might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

 

1 Corinthians 15:27

For "God has put everything under His feet." Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him.

 

Ephesians 1:20

which He exerted in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly realms,

 

Ephesians 1:21

far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.

 

Philippians 2:9

Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names,

 

Colossians 2:10

And you have been made complete in Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.

 

Hebrews 1:2

But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.

 

1 Peter 3:22

who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him.

 

From love for the human race, God sent His only-begotten Son from Heaven to the Earth. He mirrors (reflects) the power, glory and being (likeness in image and character) of God.

 

God, the Father Almighty given all the authority unto him. In Matthew 28:18, literally, all authority was given, the tense used being that in which men speak of something that occurred at a given point of time.

 

From this His Son came from heaven - also from love, not forced by someone, teaching us what the love of God and our fellowmen really means, giving His life as a ransom for us, in order to save us from sin and eternal death, which destroys every one of us (Exodus 21:23, John 1:1- anarthrous, Hebrews 1:1-3, John 3:13,16, John 17:1-5, Matthew 20:28).

 

This authority he has merited by his incarnation, suffering and death (Philippians 2:8-10), which was foretold in the Old Testament, by psalmist (Psalm 2:8) and prophets (Isaiah 53, Daniel 7:13,14), and with which he was indued on the day that he rose victorious from the grave.

It refers to the dotation arranged in God's eternal purpose, and to the actual investiture at the Resurrection. Today, this power is exercised in his mediatorial kingdom, and will continue to be exercised till he hath put all enemies under his feet, and destroyed death itself, then placing it back in the hands of his Father, the authority with which he was invested. (1Corinthians 15:24-28), who’s absolute kingdom is everlastingand his kingdom remains forever and ever.

 

So God did not died, because He is immortal in the eternal glory of immortality (1Tim. 6:16). Only His beloved Son did this for all of us (John 3:16). Thank you Father, for your love and your Son, we pray in the wonderful name of your only-begotten Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! Hallelujah, Amen!

 

Chapter 26

Answering "calling God his own Father, and making himself equal with God, this means that he is God"

 

John 5:18 says, "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill [Jesus because he] ...was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." And at John 10:30,38 Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" and "the Father is in me and I am in the Father." This shows that he is God?

 

John 10:30 have two type of manuscripts, with "my" and without.

For example Freer Gospels, Sinaitic Syriac, Peshitta Syriac have "my".

King James 2000 Bible

I and my Father are one.

American King James Version

I and my Father are one.

Webster's Bible Translation

I and my Father are one.

Geneva Bible of 1587

I and my Father are one.

Bishops' Bible of 1568

I and my father are one.

Tyndale Bible of 1526

And I and my father are one.

Smith's Literal Translation

I and my Father are one.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

"I and my Father, We are One."

Lamsa Bible

I and my Father are one in accord.

Anderson New Testament

I and my Father are one.

Haweis New Testament

I and my Father are one.

Mace New Testament

I and my father are one.

Moffatt

I and my Father are one

It is very interesting John 10:38 in the Lamsa Bible

But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe in me, believe in the works; so that you may know and believe that my Father is with me and I am with my Father.

    

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers:

„(38) But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works.--A higher faith would have believed Him. Had they truly known their own spiritual needs, and truly known the meaning of that great truth He had taught, they would have found in Him the true satisfaction of the mind's cravings, and the faculty of faith would have rested in the object of its existence. For all this the Old Testament had been a preparation; but their minds had not been prepared by it. He will take therefore their own lower ground, and appeal to the sight of those who have not faith. (Comp. Note on John 20:29.) Let them test the works, think of their character, as some of them had already done (John 9:16), and see at least that these are of the Father.

 

That ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me.--The more probable text is, that ye may perceive, and may (permanently) know that the Father is in Me . . . Failing the intuitive faith-knowledge, He appeals to the intellectual perception, which is not immediate, but from which they may ascend to that knowledge, and may then really know that such works can be only of the Father; and that, therefore, the Father is present in Him who does them, and that He who does them is one with the Father John 10:30).”

 

As for Lord Jesus' being in the Father and the Father's being in him and Their being one, consider Lord Jesus' prayer at John 17:20, 21, "I do not pray for these only but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one: even as You, Father, are in me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us." So if John 10:38 means that the Son is God, then John 17:20, 21 means that believers are also persons in that „Godhead”, a conclusion which would contradict Lord Jesus' statement that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3). Being "one" means being in harmony, united in thought and purpose. -- Romans 15:5, 6; 1 Corinthians 1:10

 

But notice who Lord Jesus did claim to be in the context of these verses. John 10:30-36 records: [Jesus said,] "'I and the Father are one.' The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, 'I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?' The Jews answered him, 'It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy because you, being a man, make yourself God.' Jesus answered them, '...do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming," because I said, "I am the Son of God"?'" This would have been the perfect opportunity to declare himself to be God, or God the Son, if he truly were. Did he? No, he claimed to be the Son of God.

By claiming to be God's Son, the Jews understood Lord Jesus to be claiming to be God's heir, and therefore, making a claim to His authority; but they did not construe this to mean that he was literally God.

What some doesn't see, stressing a non-subordinate view, Paul helps us to get the proper sense of this by John 5:18 at Galatians 4:1 where he wrote, "the heir ...is owner of all the estate." Being the Son of God he is the heir, but not God. And God, the Father Almighty who gives the inheritance is greater than the Son who does not have it and is its beneficiary. Without full obedience to the Father, the Son could never have accessed this inheritance. The clear role of subordination of the Son to his Father is clearly seen from the Epistle to the Hebrews chapter 5.

Chapter 27

Understanding of John 20:28 in the right way

 

John 20:28 Berean Study Bible

Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!” (Notice that Lord Jesus don’t said to him, “Yes, Thomas, I am He”.)

 

In this verse, the proponents of “Jesus is God” doctrine claim that we were dealing with a clear identification of Jesus with God Himself. But Lord Jesus does not confirm this hypothesis anywhere in any of the four evangelical accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He does not confirm to Thomas what they would like to hear "I am He.":

Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!” And Jesus said to him, “Yes, Thomas, I am He”.

 

Three verses later the apostle John wrote, "these things have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." and not "these things have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is God." If Thomas or John meant that Lord Jesus was literally God, why didn't John say so here? -- John 20:31.

 

But what did Thomas mean? He knows that is only one Creator and God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and of us, the Creator of heaven and earth, the undisputed sovereign of the entire Universe, who loves us and wants our good (John 3:16, John 17:1-3). He knows that He is Yehowah Elohim, the God of the saints of Israel, the God of the Ten Commandments from the book of Exodus chapter 20.

 

Thomas knew also The Good News (Gospel) and was present when Lord Jesus formulated what is written in John 3:13,16 and John 17:1-5. Would he have been confused to those recorded in John 14:9 "he who saw me saw the Father"? What did the apostles understand from this “saw the Father”?

 

The order of the words in John 1:1c is: and god was the word (kai theos en ho logos). Because the word "god" is without the article, according to the grammar of the Greek language it is a predicative noun, and the "word" with the article "ho" is the subject. This statement is not intended to identify the "word" with "God, the Father" but to indicate the divine nature of the "word", the Son is like God. The Greek topic of John 1:1 (the order of words in the sentence) would at most allow a literal translation of the kind: In the beginning was 'the Word', and 'the Word' was with God and 'god' was 'the Word', in the meaning of Psalms 82:6 - John 10:34, or the following of 2 Corinthians 4:4: Satan is 'god', but not the Almighty God, Matthew 16:23: Peter is 'satan', but not Satan the Devil, John 10: 34: Some people might be 'gods', but of course not the Almighty God, Galatians 4:14: Paul is received as the angel of God, but he was not an angel. In this sense John 1:1 The Word is 'god', but not the Almighty God.

 

What this mean?

A dynamic rendering of the text would sound like this:

John Chapter 1

1. In the beginning was the 'Word', and the 'Word' was with God and like God (or God-like) was the 'Word'. References: Genesis 1:26; 11:7, Proverbs 30:4, John 13:13,16, 14:7-11, 17:5, Hebrews 1:1-3;

It is clear that there is TWO heavenly beings, but not two heavenly Gods, just God, the Father Almighty (John 17:1-3, John 3:16) and the Son of God, the only-begotten (John 1:18) who was like God (John 14:9): strong, wise, righteous, merciful, loving, forgiving, and so on. The apostle does not refer to the function of God, but to his qualities, inherited by his Son; the word 'god' in the final part of the text is a noun qualitatively, given by the topic and the lack of any article, as the apostle John also shows in the gospel presented by him "he who saw me saw the Father" John 14: 9. If God is invisible (John 1:18, 1Timothy 6:16), only His qualities can be visible in someone who represents Him, in the best way.

 

So what could Thomas have thought?

The phrase "my Lord and my God" in John 20:28 is incomplete in itself, so the context as a whole must be considered. Not to be mistaken in the interpretation, how to understand that exclamation of the apostle Thomas:

- as a preaching?: "My Lord and my God really rose from the dead!"

- as a nominative? "You are my Lord and my God who raised from the dead!"

- or as vocative? "My Lord and my God, truly You (that is God the Father) raised Jesus from the dead!"

 

The vocative variant is the correct one, due to the exclusivist context of John 17: 1-3, in which the apostle Thomas was also present. Let us not forget that he was unfaithful to the resurrection, so the unwritten text in his mind speaks of the resurrection, not something else, as some unfortunately understand. His disbelief turned into an exclamation of astonishment toward the Father, who does such wonders.

The Apostle Thomas could not contradict precisely the risen One, who was his mentor: Yes, you said that God is your Father ONLY (John 17: 3), but I want you to be. No! He was faithful! He has been faithful now once and for all!

How could he have the arrogance, in these solemn moments, to contradict such a thing, as we read below?

John 17:1-3

When he had thus spoken, Jesus lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour is at hand.

as thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all those whom thou hast given him.

And eternal life is this: to know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 

 

So when he exclaimed "My Lord and my God" he addressed only the Father.

 

Chapter 28

The name "Emmanuel" means that Jesus was God in person?

 

Some say that the name Emmanuel means that Jesus was God. But wait a minute, many people bore this name, would that be the same for everyone to be God in person? Just because you have this beautiful name does not mean that this automatically makes you God.

But what does it mean then?

The Jews had long hoped for the appearance of the Messiah who would, they thought, deliver them from Gentile domination. Nearly six hundred years before Christ, the Jews lost their Davidic kingdom when they were overrun by Babylon. They were able to return to their homeland after Babylon fell, but the Davidic throne was not restored, nor were they free of their Gentile overlords. About 160 years before Christ, they did temporarily establish their freedom, but the Davidic throne was not restored at that time either. To make matters worse, until John the baptist there had not been a true prophet of God since Malachi, a period of about 400 years. Had God forgotten the Jews? Had God forgotten all the Messianic promises? With the appearance of Jesus Christ the answer to these questions became self-evident, God was still with them! But, how: in person? No. Compare this to Luke 7:16 where the raising of a great prophet is equated to God's visitation. God is present not in person, but through His Son, with the coming of the Son of God on earth (John 3:16).

Darby Bible Translation

And fear seized on all, and they glorified God, saying, A great prophet has been raised up amongst us; and God has visited his people.

English Revised Version

And fear took hold on all: and they glorified God, saying, A great prophet is arisen among us: and, God hath visited his people.

Webster's Bible Translation

And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet hath risen among us; and, That God hath visited his people.

Weymouth New Testament

All were awe-struck, and they gave glory to God--some saying, "A Prophet, a great Prophet, has risen up among us." Others said, "God has not forgotten His People."

World English Bible

Fear took hold of all, and they glorified God, saying, "A great prophet has arisen among us!" and, "God has visited his people!"

Young's Literal Translation

and fear took hold of all, and they were glorifying God, saying -- 'A great prophet hath risen among us,' and -- 'God did look upon His people.'

 

Chapter 29

Who is "Alpha and Omega", the Father or the Son?

 

The ancient Bible manuscripts contain two versions of the book of Revelation in Chapter 1, one shorter than the other. Some preferred the longer version, some preferred the shorter version, and others preferred the square bracket version.

Longer version:

Revelation 1: 8. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord God, "Who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Revelation 1:11. saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

Shorter version:

Revelation 1: 8. "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Certification: "The beginning and the end" are not in the text and "the Lord God" is instead of the Lord, as it appears in certain manuscripts.

Nestle: "Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, λέγει Κύριος, ὁ θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ"

See Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts.

Revelation 1:11. saying, “Write on a scroll what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”

Certification: "I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last" is not included in the text, in addition, "what you see" is also overwritten later.
There is also no "who are in Asia" text as it appears in some manuscripts.

Nestle: λεγούσης (Ὃ βλέπεις) γράψον εἰς βιβλίον (καὶ) πέμψον ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις, εἰς Ἔφεσον καὶ εἰς Σμύρναν

See the Sinaiticus manuscript.

The Revelation of John 21

1The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

4John, To the seven churches in the province of Asia:

Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits a before his throne, 5and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

7“Look, he is coming with the clouds,” b

and “every eye will see him,

even those who pierced him”;

and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” c

So shall it be! Amen.

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

Revelation 22:12. “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

14“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Conclusion:

Except for the interpolation from Revelation 1:11 - which, however, is not proven, being not authentic, in all three cases (Revelation 1:8, 21:6 and 22:13) the texts speak of the Father, who comes with his Son, to honor the faithful with eternal life, wiping away the pains and tears of the past.

Compare John 12:26 If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him. with Revelation 21:6,7: He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and he will be my son.

Chapter 30

Answering "The mighty God", being a wrong playback of "el-gibbor" in Isaiah 9:6 KJV

 

In King James Version and other versions Isaiah 9:6 rendered Lord Jesus as "Mighty God."

 

Compare King James Version with JPS Tanakh 1917 to see the Hebrew word:

Isaiah 9:6 in King James version:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 9:6 JPS Tanakh 1917:

For a child is born unto us, A son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;

 

What the KJV translated into "The mighty God" is actually "el-gibbor" without capitalizing words, "el" means mighty (or strong) and "gibbor" means hero (or brave). This phrase also appears in plural form of "elei gibborim" and yet has not been translated "The mighty gods" in KJV.

 
Why this inconsistency?

 

Ezekiel 32:21 in KJV:

The strong (elei) among the mighty (gibborim) shall speak to him out of the midst of hell with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword.

Ezekiel 32:12 in JPS Tanakh:

The strong (elei) among the mighty (gibborim) shall speak of him out of the midst of the nether-world with them that helped him; they are gone down, they lie still, even the uncircumcised, slain by the sword.

 

In both cases, a mistake is made, "gibbor" being a hero or a brave and not a mighty one, this being the word "el" meaning strong or mighty.

 

Surprisingly for many, new translations of the Bible - made by Christian scholars, appear in our time, which Isaiah 9:6 does not contain the word "God". The controversy arises when the Hebrew text "Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom" is rendered. Why? Because rendering "el-gibbor" by "The mighty God" would force the identical construction of Ezekiel 32:21 found in the plural "elei gibborim" (mighty heroes) to be translated the same as "the mighty Gods"; which would be true also vice versa, the expression "elei gibborim" in the plural would force "El Gibbor" in the singular to become "strong or mighty hero" (compare with Ezekiel 32:11,12).

 

Here is how Isaiah 9:6 plays in The Revised English Bible (REB 1989):
"For a child has been born to us, a son is given to us; he will bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder, and his title will be: Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

 

But not only those of our time have begun to translate in this way, but even the best theologians of the past.

 

Watch the play after Dr. Martin Luther (b. 10 November 1483, Eisleben, Saxony - d. 18 February 1546), great reformer, pastor and doctor of theology. Did you know that even in the translation of Dr. Luther Martin, who knew old Hebrew perfectly, there is no word "God" (GOTT)?

Isaiah 9:6 Lutherbibel 1912 Denn uns ist ein Kind geboren, ein Sohn ist uns gegeben, und die Herrschaft ist auf seiner Schulter; er heißt Wunderbar, Rat, Held (Hero), Ewig-Vater Friedefürst;

Not even the modernized version contains the word God (Gott)

Modernisiert Text Denn uns ist ein Kind geboren, ein Sohn ist uns gegeben, welches HERRSChaft ist auf seiner Schulter; und er heißt Wunderbar, Rat, Kraft (Strong), Held (Hero), Ewig-Vater, Friedefürst,

Textual comparison is a very sensitive area - it also has a strange name in it, which makes it sound bad "textual criticism" and many confuse it with criticizing the Bible. Not at all!

 

James Moffatt, professor of Greek and New Testament history, as well as of Ecclesiastical (Church) history, plays "divine hero":

"For a child is born to us, a child has been given to us; the royal dignity he wears, and this the title bears; A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince."

 

Moffatt Bible, 1926. James Moffatt, A New Translation of the Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments. New York: Doran, 1926. Revised edition, New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1935. Reprinted, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1995.

The Semitic and Biblical Hebrew (Paleo-Hebrew = Old Hebrew) teacher, Wilhelm Gesenius, renders a "mighty hero" for "el-bibbor" - p. 45, Gesenius, "Hebrew-Chaldean Lexicon" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).

 

Are they all wrong or rather the ones at KJV, who then set the tone for the others? Not at all.

 

In understanding Lord Jesus' relationship to God, being his appointed governor Son, it would be incorrect to say he, personally, is God, or that he, literally, is a god. But he is God's spokesperson in a very close, representative sense, being “the mouth, ear an hand of God”, or the “mind, word and power of God”. A ruler can commission a representative with full executive authority, in any time. Pharaoh did this with Joseph; his being given the signet ring was like being given the ability to sign Pharaoh's signature. Nebuchadnezzar did similarly with Daniel (Genesis 1:39-44; Daniel 2:47-49). And God has done this with His Son, according to Isaiah 9:6 and John 1:1-3. This is proven at Matthew 28:18 where Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."7 And this is what is meant at Colossians 2:9 where it says that in Christ "all the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily."

 

The meaning of this verse is best demonstrated by an illustration: Suppose that the President of the United States became temporarily incapacitated so that he could not perform the duties of his office, the presidency. The Vice President would take over those duties and have the full power of the presidency at his disposal. However, when history records the roster of Presidents, the Vice President's name would not be included because he was never actually President. Similarly, Jesus has been granted the full power of Deity, the office of God; but he is not literally God.

 

Under the Jewish concept of agency, one's agent is as oneself. To understand this concept, compare Luke 7:2-10 to Matthew 8:5-13. Luke gives the account as it literally happened. Matthew tells the account as though the centurion himself approached Lord Jesus, but in literal fact he did not. The Jews did not consider such a retelling a lie as their way of thinking allowed this.

 

So as God's foremost representative, able to ‘sign His name’, Lord Jesus can be called "God-like", only by his position of authority but not by title (see John 1:1 in anarthrous construction versus John 17:1-3). But this does not mean that Jesus is literally God, just as Joseph did not take the title of Pharaoh, only his authority.

Go back to our comparison with Joseph and Pharaoh: Joseph was functionally equal to him, but not positionally equal; people had to obey him as if he were Pharaoh, but he was not Pharaoh. Likewise, Lord Jesus is functionally equal to his Father, but not positionally equal, he is not God, the Father Almighty.

 

Consider John 5:23.  that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

 

The Bible message is clear:

From love for the human race, God sent His only-begotten Son, who mirrors (reflects) the glory and being (likeness in image and character) of God. His Son came from heaven (John 3:13,16, John 17:5) - also from love, not forced by someone, teaching us what the love of God and our fellowmen really means, giving His life as a ransom for us, in order to save us from sin and eternal death, which destroys every one of us (Exodus 21:23, John 1:1anarthrous, Hebrews 1:1-3, John 3:13,16, John 17:1-3, Matthew 20:28).

God did not died, because He is immortal in the eternal glory of immortality (1Tim. 6:16). Only His beloved Son did this for all of us (John 3:16). Thank you Father for your love and your Son, we pray in the wonderful name of your only-begotten Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! Hallelujah, Am

 

 

PART FOUR – When the biblical text was altered

 

Chapter 31

When the biblical text was altered?

 

Another problem is that of falsified texts. Comparison of the manuscripts made by scientists, shows that indeed errors were made by negligence, but also three intentional tricks were made.

About the tricks made in the text:

1 words intentionally omitted

2 words added intentionally

3. words intentionally changed

Dr. FH The Scrivener text critic writes: "In the second century, we see too many attempts to change the text of Scripture, some only recklessly, others proven to be dishonest."

Scrivener states that "this is no less true, though it sounds paradoxical that the worst mistakes the New Testament has ever been made were originally made within 100 years after the (New Testament) was made, and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers , and throughout the West, part of the Syrian Church used "inferior manuscripts”.” (FHA Scrivener, Introduction to New Testament Text Criticism).

Dr. FH The Scrivener text critic noted two kind of scribes who altered the text: "recklessly, others proven to be dishonest." Scrivener states that the first 100 years was the WORST TIME of the manuscripts.

Ernest Cadman Colwell, Which is the Best New Testament Text ?, p. 119: "The first two centuries witnessed a large number of (different text) variations known to scholars today. Most (different text) versions of New Testament manuscripts, I believe they did it consciously."

The testimony of Origen, 3rd century: "It is a fact revealed today that there is a GREAT VARIETY among the manuscripts, either because of the carelessness of the scribes, or because of the outrageous daring of the people who write..."

The quotations from Eusebius’ and others Bible "in my name" (Matthew 28:19) fit very well in the context of the other quotations in which baptism is spoken of.

If the Bible he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” why he have quoted instead, “in my name.”? So it appears that the earliest version read “in my name,” and the phrase was later enlarged to reflect the position of an editor.

Below is Matthew 28:19 from the King James Bible:

Matthew 28:19 “Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”

And here are all the scriptures relating to baptism in the New Testament. New converts were all baptized into the name of Jesus Christ only.

Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Acts 8:12 “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”

Acts 8:16 “For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Acts 10:48 “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”

Acts 19:5 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Acts 22:16 “And now why tarriest you? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Romans 6:3 “Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”

1 Corinthians 1:13 “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” [Implied]

Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

So should Matthew 28:19 read “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” or “baptizing them in My name.” And based on your conclusion, which of the following is correct?

Colossians 2:12 “Buried with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in baptism, wherein also you are risen with them through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised them from the dead.”

or

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

Scripture certainly strongly indicates that baptism should be in the name of Christ as all examples reveal.

The reason we are baptized in the name of Christ is because we are baptized “into” Jesus Christ. Baptism is a symbol of His death, burial and resurrection. O Jesus Christ died, was buried and rose again. When we are baptized in the name of Christ we become Christians. Paul argued this point in 1 Corinthians 1:13 when he said, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” The obvious answer to this rhetorical question is, “No. You were baptized in the name of Christ because He was crucified for you.”

Consider also “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;” Mark 16:16

And whose name do we call on to be saved when we are baptized?

“arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the NAME of the LORD.” Acts 22:16

It does not say “calling on the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” now does it? And what is the ONLY name under heaven whereby we can be saved? We do NOT call on the name of the Father or Holy Spirit to be saved in baptism. These verses also reveal Matthew 28:19 as it appears to be incorrect and that it should have said in the name of the Lord only.

“for there is NONE other NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

Whose name did Peter say we were to be baptized in?

“Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST” Acts 2:38

 

Chapter 32

Does Titus 2:13 teach that Jesus is God?

 

From the beginning we must mention that there are two types of manuscripts.  

 

A type of manuscript has a longer form at Titus 3:15b."To Titus of the Cretans assembly First overseer chosen. Written from Nicopolis of Macedonia."

 

This is absent in Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Ethiopic manuscripts, all this copied outside the classic European Greek territory, but as we can see it appears in the manuscripts copied inside the classic Greek territory.

 

This rendering is unusual, but it can be taken into account, because in some cases, certain texts that did not suit certain Christian circles were simply eliminated when copying the manuscripts occurs.

 

At the same time we must be careful because, in some cases, ancient writers also had the habit of adding something, if their interest demanded it.

We can find this out if we look a little at this verse, which I think was the apple of discord at the time: Titus 2:13.

 

Though the Greek text is ambiguous, the content is clear. Grammatically the Greek sentence could be paraphrased loosely in two ways:
- (a) the appearing of two: 1) our great God, and 2) our Savior, Jesus Christ. (two beings) being the same construction like in James 1:1 "Iakōbos, Theou kai Kyriou Iēsou Christou doulos" -  "megalou Theou kai Sōtēros" (Young's Literal Translation "James, of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ servant"

- (b) the appearing of one: our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. (one being) 

So at that time there were two parties that interpreted this text differently. And to solve the problem once and for all, some have resorted to a trick. They made another copy and suggested that it would be the original.

How do we know that copy was not the original?

Because we can expect other forgeries, to justify what they wanted.  

 
Here is the forged text: Titus 3:6 "which He poured upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our God," (only in some continental Greek texts (aka "Byzantine" texts)).

 

Obviously, with such ingenuity, you could beat your theological opponent, if they suffered from credulity and inattention.

 

What does the context say before and after Titus 2:13?

 

Let's note the entire passage of Titus 2:11,12:

"11For the saving grace of God was manifested to all men, 12teaching us, that denying the impiety and the worldly desires, soberly and righteously and piously we may live in the present age,„

Which variant would work then with this context?

 

Titus 2:13 according to Moffatt version "awaiting the blessed hope of the appearance of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus" (two persons)

 

Or

 

Titus 2:13 according to King James: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (one person)

 

Who has appeared "for the salvation of all men"? Not "God" according to John 3:16, but the "only-begotten Son of God". So in this passage Jesus is not being called God.

  
However, if it were the first way, when is God the Father going to appear at Christ’s Second Coming?

 

Young's Literal Translation Psalm 110:1

A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.' 

 

Has this ever happened? No! When will this happen? Obviously at the coming of the Son.  

 

Let's see what the whole context of this important messianic Psalm looks like: 

 

1A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord ("Lord" here means the Messiah!): ‘Sit at My right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.’
2The rod of thy strength doth Jehovah send from Zion, Rule in the midst of thine enemies.

3Thy people [are] free-will gifts in the day of Thy strength, in the honours of holiness, From the womb, from the morning, Thou hast the dew of thy youth.
4Jehovah hath sworn, and doth not repent, ‘Thou [art] a priest to the age, According to the order of Melchizedek.’

5The Lord on thy right hand smote kings In the day of His anger.
6He doth judge among the nations, He hath completed the carcases,

Hath smitten the head over the mighty earth.

7From a brook in the way he drinketh, Therefore he doth lift up the head!

Now let's compare this Psalm with a text from Revelation:

 

Revelation 14: 6And I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having the eternal good news to proclaim to those dwelling upon the earth, and to every nation, and tribe, and tongue, and people, 7saying in a great voice, ‘Fear ye God, and give to Him glory, because come did the hour of His judgment, and bow ye before Him who did make the heaven, and the land, and sea, and fountains of waters.’

 

Notice what the angel says "Fear ye God!" and not "Fear ye Christ!" Why, if the Father stays home?

 

So the Father comes with the Son, only this time the Father is to the right of the Son and not the Son to the right of the Father, the Son being put in front, as in antiquity, the supreme commander of the king went in front of the army and the king in the middle of the army. If the Son comes with all his holy angels, who remains with the Father, if the Father remains alone. Would the Father miss an event so great and wonderful?

 

Therefore the original meaning was not the second way but the first: (a) the appearing of two: 1) our great God, the Father Almighty and 2) our Savior, Jesus Christ, His Son. (two beings)

 

Chapter 33

How did the Apostle Peter call Lord Jesus, as recorded in 2 Peter 1:1? God or Lord?

 

Origene of Alexandria (2nd-3rd centuries) describes the deplorable situation of Christian scribes of the 3rd century:

"It is a fact revealed today that there is a great diversity among the manuscripts, either because of the carelessness of the scribes, or because of the outrageous audacity of the people who straighten the writing, or even because there are some who multiply or push it at their will, arranging corrections with from their power "

As a result of this condition, in the early manuscripts we have two important versions of the text in 2 Peter 1: 1, where some manuscripts describe the Lord Jesus as "God and Savior" and others as "Lord and Savior":

- "Our God (Theou) (hēmōn) and (kai) Savior" (Sōtēros) "

- "Our Lord (Kyriou) (hēmōn) and (kai) Savior" (Sōtēros) "

Which manuscripts contain the original formulation of the apostle Peter?

Let us remember that the apostle Peter participated with Jesus in his last Passover dinner, which was concluded with an impressive prayer, of which John 17: 1-3 only reproduces here, because it is the most obvious part of the subject:

1. After he had thus spoken, Jesus lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee;

2. as thou hast given him power over every creature, to give eternal life to all those whom thou hast given him.

3. And eternal life is this: that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

 

And now an important question: could the Lord Jesus be called "God" by apostle Peter, if he knows that this unique office had already been occupied by his Father? It is impossible that he would have called him God!

 

According to the strict grammatical construction of the passage, "God" and "Saviour" are both predicates of "Jesus Christ", but many of the current translations render this verse thus, without mentioning to the readers, that it would be an important alternative:

"Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith just as precious as ours, through the righteousness of Lord and our Savior Jesus Christ:"

In some ancient codex (ms), as well as in some quotes of some important ancient Christian authors, this verse appears as follows:

"Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith just as precious as ours, through the justice of our (Kyriou) Lord (hēmōn) and (kai) Savior (Sōtēros) Jesus Christ:"

The codes with this rendering are:

- the Sahidic Coptic manuscript from the end of the second century, with the cop sa logo

- the Greek manuscript Codex Sinaiticus from the first part of the fourth century, with the logo of (א)

- the Latin manuscript Vulgata from the 4th century, with the logo vg mss

- the 6th century Aramaic (Philoxenian Syriac) manuscript, with the syr ph logo

Four countries and four languages where the good news (the gospel) entered the fastest: Egypt, Greece, Italy and Syria. This fact shows that, unfortunately, at certain times some verses in the Bible have been "doctrinally stylized", by the Patripassian scribes.

Some argue that in the phrase "Theou hēmōn kai Sōtēros" the apostle Peter actually refers to two persons, first to the Father (Theou hēmōn) and then to the Son (kai Sōtēros).

 

See for example, the German Bibles:

Lutherbibel 1912

Simon Petrus, ein Knecht und Apostel Jesu Christi, denen, die mit uns ebendenselben teuren Glauben überkommen haben in der Gerechtigkeit, die unser Gott gibt und der Heiland Jesus Christus:

 

Modernisiert Text

Simon Petrus, ein Knecht und Apostel Jesu Christi: Denen, die mit uns eben denselbigen teuren Glauben überkommen haben in der Gerechtigkeit, die unser Gott gibt und der Heiland Jesus Christus.

 

But the apostle Peter often uses the phrase "Kyriou hēmōn kai Sōtēros" with reference to the Lord Jesus. Why not use it in 2 Peter 1:1? The Father and his Son, taken together, refers only to verse 2.

To compare with:

"Indeed, in this image you will be given ample entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:11)

The topic (word order in the sentence) is "Kyriou hēmōn kai Sōtēros" and not "Kyriou kai Sōtēros hēmōn". Why I don't see two person here?

"Indeed, if, after they have escaped the rewards of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they become entangled again and are overcome by them, their latter condition becomes worse than the first." (2 Peter 2:20)

The topic (word order in the sentence) is "Kyriou hēmōn kai Sōtēros" and not "Kyriou kai Sōtēros hēmōn". Why I don't see two person here?

"that I may remind you of the things spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of our Lord and Savior, given through your apostles." (2Peter 3:2)

The topic (word order in the sentence) is "Kyriou kai Sōtēros" (without hēmōn) and not "Kyriou kai Sōtēros hēmōn". Why I don't see two person here?

"but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Let Him be glory, now and in the day of eternity. Amen." (2 Peter 3:18)

The topic (word order in the sentence) is "Kyriou hēmōn kai Sōtēros" and not "Kyriou kai Sōtēros hēmōn". Why I don't see two person here?

So they contradict themselves by including two person in the phrase "Theou hēmōn kai Sōtēros". It's no wonder why all the important English translations (YLV, ESV, NIV, NAS, etc.) render "our God and Savior" and not "our God and the Savior". They do not play this because they do not have support. Rather than trying the textual impossible, we must admit that here we are dealing with a corruption of the text, as the nine textual witnesses tell us. According to God's law, two or three witnesses are enough. But we have more than three.

 

List of manuscripts containing the variant "Lord and Savior" in 2 Peter 1:1 (textual "witnesses"): a (א) Ψ 398 442 621 l596 syr ph vg mss cop sa

 

In 2 Peter, what are the manuscript variations with the Textus Receptus, the basis for the KJV?

 

In the Interlinear Bible records variations in approximately 20 words between the Textus Receptus and the majority text. These are in 15 places.

 

The book of 2 Peter has a total of 1,099 Greek words in 61 verses. 2 Peter has an estimated word-for-word accuracy of  96.6%, with 40 words in question. These are in 18 verses (26 places). Of these, 21 are single word, 3 are double word, 1 is four word, and 2 are five word.

 

See which manuscripts support which variants.

 

2 Pet 1:1a "Simeon" (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Byzantine Lectionary, Armenian, Georgian) vs. "Simon" (p72, Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, Ethiopic) "Simeon" is the Aramaic form of "Simon"

 

2 Pet 1:1b "God and" vs. "Lord and" (Sinaiticus, Vulgate, Philoxenian Syriac, Sahidic Coptic) vs. "Lord"

 

2 Pet 1:2a "God and of our Lord Jesus Christ" vs. "God, our Lord Jesus Christ" (p72) (1 word). Here are details of other variants.

 

"The God and Jesus the Lord of us" (literal) Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Wolfenbuttel (6th), some Byzantine Lectionary, later manucripts) vs. "The God Jesus the Lord of us" (p72) vs. "The God and Christ Jesus the Lord of us" (81, 436, 1067, 1409, 2344, Claromontaus Vulgate, a few Bohairic Coptic, Augustine) vs. "The God and Jesus Christ the Lord of us" (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, L, some Byzantine Lectionary, some Vulgate, Palestinian Syriac, Bohairic Coptic, Armenian (Ethiopic), later manuscripts) at least four other small variants.

 

This is according to Aland et al.'s, The Greek New Testament : Fourth Revised Edition and  the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece version 128.

 

2 Pet 1:2b "Jesus (Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Byzantine Lectionary) vs. "Jesus Christ (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Other Byzantine Lectionary, Bohairic Coptic, (Ethiopic), Armenian)

 

Chapter 34

Answering Acts 20:28 KJV "his own blood"

 

Someone argued: If Jesus Christ is not literally God then his death could not save us; no mere human can provide atonement for the sins of another. Also Acts 20:28 speaks of "the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (KJV) The main text of the Revised Standard Version reads, "the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son."

 

See other translations:

NET Bible

Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

Good News Translation

So keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock which the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he made his own through the blood of his Son.

Contemporary English Version

Look after yourselves and everyone the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be like shepherds to God's church. It is the flock he bought with the blood of his own Son.

 

Early Manuscripts of Acts 20:28 have "church of God" or "church of the Lord". Which is the true rendering?

 

The Textus Rreceptus has τοῦ Θεοῦ (of God), but most uncials have τοῦ Κυρίου (of Lord).

 

The external evidence for τοῦ Κυρίου is decisive, and that the internal evidence from the fact that ἐκκλησία τοῦ Κυρίου occurs nowhere else in Paul's writings, is decisive also.

 

Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaitieus (א), the two oldest manuscripts, have Θεοῦ (Θυ). The Vulgate, too, and the Syriac have it;

 

(1) in favor of τοῦ Κυρίου, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bornemann, Lunge, Olshausen, Davidson, Meyer, Hackett, as also Grotius, Griesbaeh (doubtfully), Wetstein, Le Clerc, and others;

 

(2) in favor of τοῦ Θεοῦ, Bengel, Mill, Whitby, Wolf, Scholz, Knapp, Alford, Wordsworth, etc., and the R.T. It should be added that the evidence for τοῦ Θεοῦ has been much strengthened by the publication by Tischendorf, in 1563, of rite Codex Sinaiticus, and in 1867 of the Codex Vaticanus, from his own collation.

 

τοῦ Θεοῦ seems to be the true reading and some translators have difficulty in translating whose blood it is in Acts 20:28, saying that the word "Son" is interpolated. But even without this word the footnote reads, admitting two playback possibilities: "with the blood of his own, or, with his own blood."

 

Manuscripts also differ in rendering Acts 20:28 "with/through the blood of his own" vs. "with/through his own blood".

 

Should one throw away clear statements of Scripture (John 3:13, John 3:16, John 17:5) on the basis of passages where even translators acknowledge dubious translating possibilities?

 

God did not come from heaven, but sent his Son, so God did not shed his own blood, but the Son, who became man, that he might die for us. "with/through his own blood" is certainly a corruption.

 

The original text may have sounded like this: Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God (the Father) that he obtained with the blood of his own (Son).

We must never interpret things out of context. When the Son came from heaven, he became completely human (John 1:14,18, John 3:13,16, John 17:5). Paul knew that, so he drew a correspondence between Adam and Jesus at 1 Corinthians 15:21, "For as by a man came death, by a man has come the resurrection of the dead."

 

Was Adam a God-man, half God and half man? No. Concerning the resurrected and ascended Christ, note what Paul wrote at 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, a man (and not a God-man) Christ Jesus."

 

Why not a God-man?

 

Hebrews 2:14,17 says, "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil. / Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect... to make propitiation for the sins of the people."

 

What means IN EVERY RESPECT?

 

These verses show that the value of Christ's sacrifice lay in his human nature. So to insist that our Lord and Savior Jesus had to be God for his sacrifice to have value, flies in the face of Paul's writings.

 

Isaiah 55:8, 9 tells us, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,' declares Yehowah. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.'" If it is within the purposes of God to provide salvation by His Son (or, for that matter, by anyone or anything that pleases Him), how can we whose thoughts are beneath His thoughts question and challenge His way of doing things?

Consider too, the book of Acts presents nine major sermons to unbelievers, not one of which reveals that God is a trinity or that Jesus is literally God in the flesh. If such a teaching were vital Christian truth and the cornerstone of salvation surely Peter would have mentioned it in his Pentecost sermon and in his sermon to Cornelius and friends. -- Acts 2:14-40; 10:34-43; 3:12-26; 7:2-56; 13:16-41; 17:22-31; 22:1-21; 24:10-21; 26:2-23

The Bible message is clear: From love for the human race, God sent His only-begotten Son, who mirrors (reflects) the glory and being (likeness in image and character) of God, and His Son came from heaven - also from love, not forced by someone. He teaching us what the love of God and our fellowmen really means, giving His life as a ransom for us, in order to save us from sin and eternal death, which destroys every one of us (Exodus 21:23, John 1:1, Hebrews 1:1-3, John 3:16, John 17:1-3, Matthew 20:28).

So God did not die, because He is immortal in the eternal glory of immortality (1Tim. 6:16). Only His beloved Son did this for all of us (John 3:16). Thank you Father, we pray in the wonderful name of your only-begotten Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! Hallelujah, Amen! Thank you Lord Jesus!

 

Chapter 35

King James version of the Bible compared with the Moffatt version of the Bible

 

Moffatt 1 THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine. 2 He was with God in the very beginning: 3 through him all existence came into being, no existence came into being apart from him. 4 In him life lay, and this life was the Light for men: 5 amid the darkness the Light shone, but the darkness did not master it. 6 A man appeared, sent by God, whose name was John: 7 he came for the purpose of witnessing, to bear testimony to the Light, so that all men might believe by means of him. 8 He was not the Light; it was to bear testimony to the Light that he appeared. 9 The real Light, which enlightens every man, was coming then into the world: 10 he entered the world — the world which existed through him — yet the world did not recognize him; 11 he came to what was his own, yet his own folk did not welcome him. 12 On those who have accepted him, however, he has conferred the right of being children of God, that is, on those who believe in his Name, 13 who owe this birth of theirs to God, not to human blood, nor to any impulse of the flesh or of man. 14 So the Logos became flesh and tarried among us; we have seen his glory — glory such as an only son enjoys from his father — seen it to be full of grace and reality. 15 (John testified to him with the cry, 'This was he of whom I said, my successor has taken precedence of me, for he preceded me.') 16 For we have all been receiving grace after grace from his fulness; 17 while the Law was given through Moses, grace and reality are ours through Jesus Christ. 18 Nobody has ever seen God, but God has been unfolded by the divine One, the only Son, who lies upon the Father's breast.

 

KJV 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 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 fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

 

Which version of the Bible it's much cleaner in understanding?

 

Moffatt John 3:13 And yet the Son of man, descended from heaven, is the only one who has ever ascended into heaven.

KJV John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

 

When in libraries are biblical manuscripts that vary in word rendering, how do you decide which is the authentic form?

 

John 8:58

KJV - "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

Moffatt - "Truly, truly I tell you," said Jesus, "I have existed before Abraham was born."

 

1st Timothy 3:16

KJV - "...God was manifest in the flesh..."

Moffatt - "...He who was manifest in the flesh..."

 

1John 5:7

KJV - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Moffatt - Completely removed, the oldest biblical manuscripts do not contain this sentence.

 

Moffatt's translation completely removes the word "Godhead" - see Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; and Colossians 2:9 in the King James Bible, because has no Greek correspondent, being a word invented by the English scribes.

 

Chapter 36

Who appeared in the flesh (gr. "Sarki" - carnal body)? 1 Timothy 3:16

 

This is a continuation for a better understanding of some corrupt verses, still existing in some versions. But thank God, many versions no longer contain them. And let us pray in the name and by the merits of His Son that this may happen soon in other versions, for the forgeries have nothing to do with the Holy Scriptures.

So, who appeared in the flesh (gr. "Sarki" - carnal body)? 1 Timothy 3:16

Unfortunately we have two types of Greek manuscripts, some with "He Who Was Shown in the flesh" versus "God Appeared in the flesh". Which type is correct?

 

The gospel shows that the Son of God came from heaven to earth, being miraculously born by a holy virgin. The Holy Scriptures also show that He was not contaminated by sin and did not commit any sin, thus being worthy to be that pure sacrifice necessary for our salvation.

 

Let's understand his human nature correctly

The Gospel of John clearly shows that after His coming to earth and miraculous conception, He was one hundred percent carnal man, as we are:

John 1:14. And the Word became flesh (in Greek "sarx") and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. -

 

This means that He was tempted in all things as we are, and was as hard as He was in us in temptation, for He was stripped of His heavenly glory and became one hundred percent human, just as we are:

 

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15

 

How could our Lord Jesus understand and feel with us when we fall or stumble into temptation if He did not go through temptations as hard as we do? Obviously He did not fall or stumble, but it was as hard for Him as it was for us, because He was also a man on earth.

 

1 Timothy 2: 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

6. Who gave Himself as a ransom for all; this had to be confirmed in due time,

 

In Greek soma means body, and sarx means flesh.

How beautiful it is written: And the Word became flesh (sarx and not soma, soma was already in heaven, but it was not sarx).

The apostle Paul makes it clear that there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, and that our carnal body will be transformed into a body of glory at the rapture.

Well, this is exactly what happened at the coming of the Son, but in the opposite direction, his body of heavenly glory was transformed into a carnal body, in a miraculous way into the holy virgin Mary.

If he had not stripped himself of his glory, then yes, it would have been much easier for him to fight sin. When we go through severe temptations, let us remember the scene of His horror and agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, which some of the second and third centuries removed from their Bibles, just to prove that the Son was God and still had the heavenly nature of His body or that He had a double nature on earth:

Luke 22:40. On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” 41He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

It is a song that is sung in our congregation "He did not promise only the clear sky." In one of the verses the author writes that He did not promise crosses easier than His. After we sang the song once, a brother stood up — who had been a Jehovah's Witness in the past, and said that this song was not true because the cross of Christ was heavier than ours. I think the brother was wrong and the author of the song is correct.

Peter was crucified upside down. Do you think it was easier for him to suffer, as it was for Christ?

 

Here is the song:

He did not promise

He didn't promise clear skies,

With flowers on the way, no wormwood,

He didn't promise the sun without rain,

Not even joy without needs.

But He promised us His power,

On the way light that will give us,

His rich grace in trials

And comfort in sorrow.

He did not promise painless ways,

No temptation, no pain,

And He didn't even say we would

Easier cross than He could.

He did not promise a wide and easy road

To be able to walk without help,

Nor on the road that there will be no rocks,

That you will not go through deep waters.

These we were talking about, who removed the horror scene from their Bibles, made other changes. Such a change was in 1 Timothy 3:16. The biblical manuscripts include two versions, one of the corrector and one of the Church of God.

1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:

He appeared in the flesh,

was vindicated by the Spirit,

was seen by angels,

was preached among the nations,

was believed on in the world,

was taken up in glory.

1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Greek text after Nestle:

"Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον · Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί (flesh) ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ."

Kaì homologouménōs mega estìn tò tē̂s eusebeías mystḗrion: Hòs ephanerṓthē en sarkí (flesh), edikaiṓthē en pneúmati, ṓphthē angélois, ekērýchthē en éthnesin, episteúthē en kósmōi, anelḗmēth.

Kai homologoumenōs mega estin to tēs eusebeias mystērion; Hos ephanerōthē in sarki (flesh), edikaiōthē in pneumati, ōphthē angelois, ekērychthē in ethnesin, episteuthē in kosmō, anelēmphthē in doxē. SBL

Confirmation:

A fiend studied the case in the available manuscripts. In the image of the Sinaiticus manuscript, the forgery is written above the text by someone - with a different colored ink - as a note "θε", to read "theos" meaning: God. The same happened with the falsification of the Codex Alexandrinus.

This table contains - in chronological order, the variant "The one" which is in the most important early codes.

Coptic Sahidic sec. II AD contains "The one who"

Codex Vaticanus - logo B, about 300 AD, does not have the book of 1 Timothy

Codex Sinaiticus - Aleph logo, circa 350 AD contains "The One"

Gothic sec. IV AD contains "The one who"

Coptic Bohairic contains "The One"

Codex Alexandrinus - logo A, circa 450 AD contains "The One"

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus - logo C, about 450 contains "The One"

Codex Claromontanus - logo D, about 550 contains "The One"

Peshitta sec. VI AD contains "The One"

Ethiopic contains "The One"

Gothic sec. IV AD contains "The one who"

So in 1 Timothy 3:16 we have as the correct text ὃς ἐφανερώθη (the One who appeared) supported by important manuscripts such as Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Claromontanus, Boernerianus, 33, 365, 442, 2127, ℓ 599, Peshitta, Sahidic, Bohairic, Ethiopian, Gothic.

Later the manuscripts began to be corrected or rewritten, introducing the form theos, around the eighth century. We do not know of any important early manuscripts to support the version of THEOS and no early church writers to have used this version. We are clearly facing dogmatic changes, supported by the subsequent falsification of the text with "θεός ἐφανερώθη" (God showed himself).

Instead of the incarnation of "God," 1 Timothy 3:16 speaks only of the incarnation of Christ, the Son of God (John 3:16).

In my previous posts, I have shown you from quotes from ancient Christian writers that the manuscripts of the Church of God were corrected by some. Obviously, "correction" means their falsification. This infamous tradition was followed until the eighth century and even after.

 

Below you can see a list of corrections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_between_codices_Sinaiticus_and_Vaticanus

 

Chapter 37

The three gods of Jehovah's Witnesses New World version

 

Very interesting why some trinitarians prefers the New Word translation of JW's. I have an Adventist friend who told me that there are three Jehovah God, one being the Father Jehovah, one being the Son Jehovah and the other being the Holy Spirit Jehovah. He is an old man and yet he began to write a book to prove it. So, with this book, he wants to prove the Trinity doctrine and convince the Witnesses to go to Adventists.

And guess where he got these things from? From the New World translation of Jehovah's Witnesses, made a gift by some Witnesses.

 

Genesis 18: "1Afterward, Jehovah appeared to him among the big trees of Mamʹre while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent during the hottest part of the day. 2 He looked up and saw three men standing some distance from him. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to meet them, and he bowed down to the ground. 3 Then he said: “Jehovah, if I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant."

 

But I knew what he hadn't come to know. As the Bible of Jehovah's Witnesses has no primary source, the Masoretic Text on which this version is based in particular is not a primary source.

 

So let's see another verse that my Adventist friend relies on so much.

Genesis 18:22 "Then the men left from there and went toward Sodʹom, but Jehovah remained with Abraham."

 

But this is a big problem with this theory, because the New Testament disqualifies it everywhere! In many places in the New Testament it is emphasized that no one saw God!

Why do the New Testament authors always emphasize this? Was this really so important? Yes, because in their time existed this idea that God was seen in the Old Testament period. Yes, this idea appeared precisely in the Jewish Bibles they were reading.

 

But a question arises, if not this idea was forced in later versions of the Jewish Bibles by the Jewish scribes?

It seems so - I will not discuss the reasons here - here I will show the reconstruction of these verses masked by Jewish writers:

Genesis 18:1And the angel of Yehowah appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed down to the earth, 3and said to the angel of Yehowah: If now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.

22And the men turned from thence, and went toward Sodom; but the angel of Yehowah stood yet before Abraham.

Genesis 19:24Then the angel of Yehowah caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yehowah out of heaven;  27And Abraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the angel of Yehowah.

29And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.

 

So simple.

 

But not understanding the theological juggernaut on the ancient text made by the Jewish writers, the translators of this version claim that the three angels who came to Abraham (Genesis 18, Genesis 19), were called "Jehovah", though at that time the name of God was not known, and it was discovered through Moses.

The testimony of the Bible is clear, which says that no one has ever seen God:

Exodus 6: 3 "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as the Almighty (El Shadday); but I was not known by him under my name as "Jehovah."

1Timothy 6:16 "the only one who has immortality, who dwells in a light which you cannot approach, which no man has seen, nor can see, and has eternal honor and power! Amen."

 

Chapter 38

THE COMPROMISE

 

Emperor Constantine and the Erythraean sibyl (pagan oracle)

Letter from Emperor Constantine the Great to Arius, the koryphaios (head speaker) of so called Lucianists (Antipatripassians).

You will see by reading this letter, what a strange belief Constantine had. His faith was a kind of neo-paganism, mixing paganism with Christianity, believing in both pagan oracles and Christian writings. This kind of belief is called in academic terms "syncretism". We will also find that what Arius believed was the most accepted faith in his country of birth Libya, the entire Christian population being on the side of his beliefs. In fact, impartial historians point out that this belief was widespread, but it also had great opponents, the so called "Patripassians" from Pater + passio meaning Father + suffering = "Fathersuffering", meaning God the Father Almighty died on the cross.

 

They believed that the Almighty Father, the Creator of heaven and earth died on the cross, identifying Jesus in the wrong way with the Father. Because they also had many supporters, but somewhat fewer, there was confusion in the minds of many, some of them expecting, not knowing what to believe.

 

So there were three parties: the Antipatripassians, the Patripassians and the confused ones. Constantine was among the last, that is, in the camp of the "confused party".

He collaborated with both sides trying on a mediation and a reunion of the parties. Which succeeded, but to the detriment of the truth. What was done was a compromise of both parties, each party giving up something. The rival parties were not satisfied with the compromise, although the emperor said that everything was OK. Not to upset the emperor a large majority accepted the compromise, but secretly still fought against other. A few "standfasters" or "laststanders" from each camp were excommunicated, even then or later.

In fact, this dispute was not needed either, because it was discussed once by a large synod, in the Antioch Synod in the years 260-270. Then the Patripassianism was condemned forever, as a great heresy and the heresy supporters were excommunicated. And then some have tried to mediate the problem, but it is impossible between truth and myths that are believed as certainties. Those who try this on the basis of compromises, do nothing but create even more confusion.

It is very interesting how emperor Constantine used a pagan oracle in a theological argument against his enemies. At that time, and before that time, some Christians from the Gnostic movement believed that the pagans were also inspired by God.

Constantine was also of this opinion.

This is the letter:

"(18.) Lend your ears and listen a little, impious Arius, and understand your folly. O God, protector of all, may you be well – disposed to what is being said, if it should admit of faith! For I, your man, holding to your propitious providence, from the very ancient Greek and Roman writing (WOW!!!) shall demonstrate clearly Arius’ madness, which has been prophesied and predicted three thousand years ago by the Erythraean sibyl. (19.) For she indeed says: “Woe to you, Libya, situated in maritime regions, for there shall come to you a time, in which with the people and your daughters you must be compelled to undergo a terrible and cruel and very difficult crisis, from which a judgment both of faith and of piety in respect to all persons will be given, but you will decline to extreme ruin, for you have dared to engulf the receptacle of celestial flowers and to mangle it with a bite and you have polluted it with iron teeth.” (20.) What then, knave? Where in the world do you admit that you are now? There, obviously; for I have your letters, which you have scraped with the pen of madness toward me, in which you say that all the Libyan populace is of the same opinion with you – doubtless in regard to salvation. But if you shall deny that this is so, I now call God to witness that truly I send to Alexandria – that you may perish more quickly – the Erythraean Sibyl’s very ancient tablet, composed in the Greek tongue."

Arius view - that the Son of God has a beginning - was well received in his country and the emperor did not contradict this notice "in which you say that all the Libyan populace is of the same opinion with you" but tried to fight this popularity with a pagan oracle.

 

Answering general topics of Arianism

Why this name? What is Arianism?

This theology is conventionally called "Arianism", but not because Arius invented it, but because he was the main speaker, a hard core of the Lucianist party. Remember, in Arianism as a whole there are different forms of theological evolution, but I will refer strictly to the classical form of Arianism, as it was propagated during the hard core Lucianists.

 

The common background of the Arian leaders

The Arian leaders called themselves Lucianists not Arianists, because they all studied together in the Christian Academy of the Antipatripassian bishop Lucian of Antioch.

Arius was a Christian priest (elder) from Libya, who settled in Alexandria, Egypt, but before that he studied in the Christian Academy of the Antipatripassian Bishop Lucian of Antioch. Antioch then had more rival bishops (leader of the elders)because it had more rival parties of Christians in the city, each party having its own bishop.

 

Who were the Antipatripassians and the Patripassians?

The Antipatripassians were an ancient group of Christians lead by bishop Lucian, who opposed the Patripassian Christians who believed that Jesus was the Creator, the heavenly Father, and that the Father himself died on the cross, the word Son, being only a title of God and not something literal. They believed that God did not have a distinct son, but he became his own Son, from Father to Son. Thus the Father died under the title of Son, invisible being and holding the title of Father and visible being and holding the title of Son. From here comes this nickname of "Patripassians”, means “the Fathersuferingers". In order to support this idea, they falsified certain biblical verses, which are followed to this day. It is time to wake up and get out of these scribal errors and falsehoods.

 

The condemnation of the Patripassians

The Patripassians were condemned as heretics and excommunicated by the party of Christians led by the Antipatripassian Bishop Macarius of Edessa. Lucian was part of this Christian party and he studied at Macarius’ Christian Academy. This Council was held in Antioch around 260-270 with the participation of about 50 Antipatripassian bishops.

 

What was the theology of the Antipatripassians? What did they think?

They believed that in heaven is a Creator, who has a Son, who has the role of Archangel, that is, supreme authority over angels. After him the highest in rank being the angel Gabriel. They did not believe that the holy spirit is a third person near the Father and the Son, but that it is the holy creative power and holy intellect  of the Father. So the Arian hierarchy is this: First is the Creator (the Father Almighty), the second is the Archangel Son, that is Michael and the third is, one of the angels, Gabriel. This is the classic Arianism, or Lucianism, or Macarianism.

 

Chapter 39

II-III century Christians discuss the meaning of the „Son of God”: what means this in heaven?

 

In ancient time, some have come to the conclusion that he was God himself or a second god and have modified certain texts in order to support this idea. Thus, we encounter some versions of the Bible, which have suspicious renderings.  For example, is the version of Jehovah's Witnesses having “the only-begotten god” in John 1:18 correct?

In the textual commentary on UBS, the editorial board (Trinitarian) preferred "monogenes theos". It was expected. Of course everyone fires under his pot. This partisanship (manipulation, what's more) was not without effect and was noticed by others (Alan Wikgren, Bart Ehrman) who sought correctness, rather than supporting dogma through these means. They say that playing "monogenes theos" is extremely difficult to be original.

Ancient manuscripts could be easily manipulated (falsified by correction), as certain words were sometimes written in abbreviated form and a letter could be easily erased from the text, for example from the abbreviation of Huios "γς" could easily be abbreviated to Theos "θς" ; “Γς” = abbreviation in the original manuscript from “υίος”; ”Θς” = abbreviation in the original manuscript from “θεός”). At least the "D" decision would have been preferable (ie very uncertain text) ". Bart Ehrman says that (rendering) "theos" / "God" is a "corruption of the original" by semi-Gnostic scribes who proudly claimed the title of "righteous believers" or, as the case may be, "Catholics" in the 2nd century, in order to make this biblical quote clearer to combat their opponents, whom they considered heretics.

There are many proponents of the Majority Byzantine Text (of Antiochian origin) who argue that the rendering "theos" here was introduced by the Egyptian Gnostics or semi-Gnostics or taken over by them from other compromised sources. Proponents of the text "monogenes huios" say that the idea of ​​"only-begotten God" is Gnostic and heretical. That's why they don't think the old Alexandrine variant ("monogenes theos") is the original one.

From the three manuscript renderings in John 1:18: "the only-begotten God" versus the "only-begotten God" versus "the only-begotten son" (2 different words), only "the only-begotten Son" has contextual support.

John 1:18. God (Theon) has never been seen (heōraken pōpote); The only-begotten (monogenēs) Son (Huios), who is (ho ōn) at (eis) the breast (ton kolpon) of the Father (tou Patros), that (ekeinos) made him known (exēgēsato).

This variant is supported by the Byzantine Majority Text (koine), by most Latin manuscripts and manuscripts of another language.

"MONOΓΕNΗC ΘΕOC" (only-begotten God), or "HO MONOΓΕNΗC ΘΕOC" the only-begotten God ", is certainly a more difficult rendering. It is impossible to apply in context, but not in the mind of the Gnostic, who dreamed. “MONOΓΕNΗC Y`IOC” (the only-begotten Son) is in accordance with the use of the apostle John and fits perfectly into the context.

F. Hort says: “MONOΓΕNΗC” (the only-begotten) through his primary meaning directly suggested “Y`IOC” (Son). The inverse / opposite substitution / correction can be explained either by the wrong copy (supported by Alan Wikgren, but less probable) or by intentional, dogmatic crushing (Bart Ehrman, very probable).

 

So what was the Son of God before he came to earth and was born as a man?

 

Some have come to the conclusion that it was not a real being, but only a plan in God's mind, although in John 6:38 it is clearly written "For I am come down from heaven ..." Can it be understood symbolically?

The context is golden.

"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 6:38)

Could someone symbolically go down? Someone who didn't exist? Not!

The combination of other texts is vital: John 1:10. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, but the world did not know Him. - See also John 1: 3

 

How could God do something through someone symbolic who had not yet appeared on the world stage?

 

"Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How, then, does He say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" (John 6:42)

John 3:31. He who comes from heaven is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly, and speaks as of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.

32. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, and yet no one receives his testimony.

 

The Jews of that time could not understand its heavenly origin, and this negative conception has been embraced by others to this day. In their minds, the idea that a heavenly being could become an earthly being could not fit.

 

But John 1:3 clearly points to his activity from creation, as a monogenetic Son, being the craftsman of God:

John 1: 3. All things were made by Him; and nothing that was done was made without him.

In other words, the Son cannot be called "creator" or "co-creator" because the projects were of the Father, the Son only carried them out. We are dealing with an engineer (Father) and a craftsman, master-workman (Son).

 

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man (plural) in our image, after our likeness; let him rule over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, over the cattle, over all the earth, and over all the creeping things that move on the earth."

This shows the memorial statement of the Father (recorded in the Book of Genesis), when he says to the Son, "Let us do." Does the Father speak here with the angels? For it would be the only option of interpretation, if we remove the pre-human existence of the Son from this scene. That is why John 1: 3 does not allow application to angels, but to the pre-existing Son, who clearly says "I came down from heaven":

for I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. (John 6:38)

 

The word "Logos" in John 1: 1 is a nickname. The same word "Logos" appears as a nickname in the book of Revelation. In both cases it refers to the same person, the Son of God. In both cases there is the Son.

John 1:

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God-like was the Word. (Dynamic translation, done by context and topic)

John 1:1 in other words:

John 14: 9. 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.

Revelation 19:13 He was dressed in a coat soaked in blood. His name is: "The Word (ho logos) of God (tou theou)."

If it is accepted that in the Revelation 19:13 is a real person, other than God the Father, in other words "nicknamed" the Word, why wouldn't John 1:1 also be a real person, with the Father Almighty? Impossible or reluctant?

 

If the Son was a real person with the Father in heaven, who was he? What dignity or role did he have?

„Scholar, minister, and missionary, H. R. Boer admits: The very first Christians to really discuss Jesus’ relationship to God in their writings were the Apologists.

 
“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create (God) the world (through him), but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.” - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.

 

Justin Martyr (c. 100 - c. 165) in a dialogue with the Jew Trypho says:
God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an angel, then God {'a god,' anarthrous theos}, and then Lord and Logos .... For He can be called by all those names, since he ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will .... The Word of Wisdom ... speaks by Solomon {Prov. 8:22-30} the following: ‘.... The Lord {‘Jehovah’, original Hebrew manuscripts - cf. ASV} made me the beginning of His ways for His works.’ ANF 1:227-228 (‘Dialogue’).

 

Bernhard Lohse also concedes that Origen taught
that ‘the Son was a creature of the Father, thus strictly subordinating the Son to the Father’ and, ‘Origen is therefore able to designate the Son as a creature created by the Father.’ - pp. 46, 252, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.

For example, Origen writes:

there are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power. - ANF 10:321-322.

Yes, Origen calls the Son of God a created angel, the highest of the angels, the Angel of God. He calls Jesus, the Word:

“the Angel of God who came into the world for the salvation of men”- p. 568, vol. 4, ANF.”

 

Reading these testimonies I am amazed to see that I have a similar opinion. I think the “LOGOS (WORD)” from John 1:1 is a wonderful angel - nicknamed in this way, the highest of the angels of God Almighty, even the Son of God.

See for example Daniel 12:1 in the early Greek version of the Septuagint:

kai kata ten oran ekeinen pareleusetai Michael ho aggelos (angel) ho megas (high) ho estekos epi tous uious tou laou sou ekeine he hemera Thlipseos oia ouk egenethe aph ou egenethesan eos tes hemeras ekeines kai en ekeine te hemera hypsothesetai pas ho laos os an eurethe eggegrammenos en to biblio 2 kai polloi ton katheudonton en to platei tes ges anastesontai oi men eis zoen aionion oi de eis oneidismon oi de eis diasporan kai aischynen aionion.

 

Let's compare two texts, which describe one and the same Angel, but of a different rank (order) from the others:

Exodus 23: 20,21

"Here I send an Angel (means "sent ","messenger" in Hebrew) before you, to protect you on the way and to take you to the place I prepared. be careful in His presence and listen to His voice so that You will not resist Him, for He will not forgive transgressions, for My Name is in Him."

 

Isaiah 63:9

"In all their troubles they were not without help, and the Angel in front of His face saved them, He Himself redeemed them in His love and mercy, and supported them and carried them in the days of old."

What do you think, dear brothers, sisters and friends, is this Angel an angel of common rank or superior rank (order)? Which of the ordinary angels of God is placed in such honor and power? Let's look at three brand qualities, which I don't know ordinary angels would have. If they have it please put me on the topic.

1. Don't forgive the transgressions against of the law

2. He has the name of God in him (that is, he can speak in the name of God)

3. Stand before God always, I mean only the Son of God can stand before His Father all the time.

Who is this High Angel, if not the Son of God?

It's unique!

 

Remember that exist different ranks:

God of gods Deuteronomy 10:17, Psalm 136:2

King of kings Daniel 2:37, Revelation 19:16

Lord of lords Deuteronomy 10:17, Revelation 19:16

In other words the God of gods is the “great God” Deuteronomy 10:17

Paraphrasing, a “high commander” is the commander of commanders, a “high priest” is the priest of priests and a “high angel” is the angel of angels Daniel 12:1:

Young's Literal Translation

'And at that time stand up doth Michael, the great head, who is standing up for the sons of thy people, and there hath been a time of distress, such as hath not been since there hath been a nation till that time, and at that time do thy people escape, every one who is found written in the book.

 

Chapter 40

Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus "was in the form of God", what this means?

 

When certain texts are altered, it is almost certain that they give a different meaning to other texts, which are not altered. But knowing the altered texts, we can avoid the trap of misunderstanding.

Let's see what the context says:

Moffatt version 5Treat one another with the same spirit as you experience in Christ Jesus. 6 Though he was divine by nature, he did not set store upon equality with God 7 but emptied himself by taking the nature of a servant; born in human guise 8 and appearing in human form, he humbly stooped in his obedience even to die, and to die upon the cross. 9 Therefore God raised him high and conferred on him a Name above all names, 10 so that before the Name of Jesus every knee should bend in heaven, on earth, and underneath the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that 'Jesus Christ is Lord,' to the glory of God the Father.

 

What does the word "form" mean?

 

Think of us, as people, we live in a similar, identical body, so we all have "the same form".

Because of this form we are all equal in terms of the body (except for those with disabilities), but this equality refers only to the format, not to what is inside the form.

 

Think well of what I mean: not all of us are kings, not all are presidents, not all are doctors, not all are billionaires.

 

Therefore, a similar form does not prevent anyone from being above others.

 

Do you now understand why the Lord Jesus said that his Father is greater in degree than he?

 

Do you now understand why according to the Bible only the Father can do certain things, which the Son has no authority to do?

 

Understand now, why in the book of Revelation, the Father is presented as one who gives authority and knowledge to his Son?

 

Do you now understand why the doctrine of the Patripassian Gnostics is so myopic and weak, imported by the heretic Thebutis, the Ebionite leader, from the Gnostic sects from (according the Hegesippus, the Christian historian)? This is also dangerous - if we look at the warning of the apostle Paul:

 

"But the Spirit says plainly that in the last times, some will reject the faith, to cling to deceitful spirits and the teachings of the devils." (1Tim. 4: 1)

Answering Ebionites

Ebionites was a "secret teachings" sect of Judaizing Christians who received the doctrines of the Gospel very partially, and denied the incarnation of the Son of God.

 

The Ebionites had a strange doctrine about the Son of God, which was sometimes misunderstood and therefore rendered wrong. Even so it is a false and dangerous doctrine.

 

They do not saw the union of the Son of God with the human nature, a full becoming of the Son, as man.

 

They believed that the Son of God was united with the man Jesus to baptism, only in spirit, but not in the flesh, which he later left on the cross. Therefore the Son of God did not die, only the man Jesus.

Notice that it has certain resonances in the Trinitarian doctrine, which also says that the Son did not die with the soul, but only with the flesh?

From here it is clear that both the Ebionites and Trinitarians have a common origin, so their ancestors were once together.

Where did they get that? They completing the gospel writings with secret writings attributed to a false prophet named "Hidden Power" (Elkhassai).

Who was this man?

It is only known that he was a so called "pious" man, declared himself a great prophet and lived during the time of Emperor Trajan and took refuge in the empire of the Parthians, after Trajan ordered the Christians to be persecuted.

He wrote a book in which he said that a new grace has been given to the people.

He believed himself to be the "Comforter", the one promised by the Lord Jesus.

"When the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, will come, he will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak of Him, but will speak all that is heard and will reveal to you the things to come." (John 16: 13).

This sect had different names and off shots (elchesaites, encratites, doketai, marcionists, manicheans, gnostics, etc.) and spread everywhere, including Rome, where it left some imprints. Thereafter it seems to have submerged into other baptist movements, and in that way survived into present day trinitarian doctrine.

Epiphanius traces the origin of Ebionitism to some Christians who fled to Pella after the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 66 (adv. Hoer. 29:1), where they joined with the teachings of the Gnostic sect of the Essenians and other Jewish and Samaritan sects. According to Hegesippus (Hist. Ecclesiastes 4:22), one Thebutis, at Jerusalem, about the beginning of the second century, "began to corrupt the Church secretly on account of his not being made a bishop."

 

Thebutis could be understand as a former Essene leader and a link or connection of the tares from Essenianism to Christianity. Essenians have a tendency toward polytheism and philosophic paganism. According to Epiphanius' testimony, the Essenes were a sectarian group from Samaria, which is why they are not mentioned in the gospel. From here they have the tendencies towards paganism.

According to a writer, "the characteristic marks of Ebionism in all its forms are, degradation of Christianity to the level of Judaism, the principle of the universal and perpetual validity of the Mosaic law, and enmity to the apostle Paul. But, as there were different sects in Judaism itself, we have also to distinguish at least two branches of Ebionism, related to each other, as Pharisaism and Essenism, or, to use a modern illustration, as the older deistic and the speculative pantheistic rationalism in Germany, or the two schools of Unitarianism in England and America."

The second class of Ebionites, starting with Essenic notions, gave their Judaism a speculative or theosophic stamp, like the errorists of the Epistle to the Colossians. They form the stepping-stone to Gnosticism.

Among these belong the Elkesaites. The pseudo-Clementine homilies teach a speculative form of Ebionism, essentially Judaizing in spirit and aim [ SEE CLEMENTINES, 2, page 383]; and compare Schaff, Ch. History, 1, § 69; Dorner, Person of Christ, Edinb. transl., page 203 sq.).

 

From an Arab source we have some information, and we can reconstruct what the ebionites believed from a former ebionite named Mani, self declared prophet and a so called "true" follower of Elkhassai and his successor in the prophetic office.

Mani claimed that the disciples of Elkhassai had departed from the learning of their prophet and therefore did not understand him properly. And unless you understand Elchassai, you will not understand Jesus either. Here is what the hysterical, demonic reasoning actually does, given the quote of the apostle Paul.

The Cologne Codex as a whole indicates that Elchasaism was more important and widespread than hitherto known today. It confirms and clarifies the patristic records, although it adds little to the general knowledge of the movement and the other movements who were separated from this heretical group.

- ritualistic conception of piety, life “according to the Law” (nomos)

- keeping of the sabbath

- repeated baptisms (violently attacked by Mani)

- “baptism” of food

- ritual preparation and baking of bread, disapproved by Mani

- acknowledgment of the gospels (so also Mani)

- so the ebionites did not actually reject any of the four gospels, although it is still repeatedly ad nausem, that they only accepted the gospel after Matthew, only that they combined all four gospels into one, possible hence the false idea, that they only had the gospel after Matthew, considering that this compilation began with the gospel of Matthew

- rejection of St. Paul, to whom Mani was indebted

- vegetarianism (so Ephiphanius and the Fehrest), implied though not expressly mentioned by the Codex (accepted by Mani)

- cyclic incarnation of the True Apostle (taken over by Mani)

(See Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 5, 1970, pp. 158ff.; A. Henrichs, “Mani and the Babylonian Baptists,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 77, 1973, pp. 47ff.; A. Henrichs and L. Koenien, “Der Kölner Mani-Codex . . . ,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 32, 1978, pp. 183ff.)

From the Arab source:

"The main purpose of the Codex is to demonstrate that Mani was the reformer of the original teaching of Alchasai, who had been violently misunderstood by his followers. This claim, no doubt, is a hagiographic pia fraus, a purely Manichean interpretation. But Mani did learn from the Elchasaites. To the evidences of the continuation or adaptation of Elchasaite ritual theology in Manicheism listed above may be added the intense Manichean missionary activity and the terms used for the various grades of the Manichean priesthood (cf. Samuel N. C. Lieu, The Journal of Theological Studies N.S. 32/1, 1981, p. 158).4. Ebionism has reappeared, since the Reformation, in Socinianism (q.v.), and in the other forms of what is called Unitarianism (q.v.). Some Unitarian writers have undertaken to show that Ebionism was the original form of Christian doctrine, and that the Church doctrine as to the person of Christ was a later development; so Priestley, in his History of the Corruptions of Christianity (Birmingham, 1782). Bishop Horsley replied to Priestley in his Charge to the Clergy of St. Albans (1783), and in other tracts, collected in Tracts in Controversy with Dr. Priestley (Dundee, 1812, 3d ed.). Horsley, in this controversy, made use of Bull's learned treatment of the subject in his reply to Zwicker (see Bull, On the Trinity, Oxford, 1855, 3 vols.: 1:116; 2:376; 3:175 et al. See also Waterland, Works, Oxf. 1843, 6 vols.: 3:554 sq.). A far abler advocate of the Socinian view is Baur, in his Christenthum d. drei erstess Jahrhunderte; Lehre v.d. Dreieinigkeit Gottes; Dogmengeschichte, etc. Baur's position is clearly stated, and refuted by professor Fisher (Am. Presb. and Theolog. Rev. October 1864, art. 1). "Baur agrees with the old Socinians in the statement that the Jewish Christianity of the apostolic age was Ebionite. But, unlike them, he holds that we find within the canon a great departure from, and advance upon, this humanitarian doctrine of Christ's person. He professes to discover in the New Testament the consecutive stages of a progress which, beginning with the Unitarian creed terminates in the doctrine of Christ's proper divinity. There occurred at the end, or before the end, of the apostolic age, a reaction of the Jewish Christianity, which with Baur is identical with the Judaizing or Ebionite element; and this type of Christianity prevailed through the larger part of the second century." (See Fisher, 1. c., for a criticism of this view, and for a brief but luminous sketch of Ebionism. On the other side, see N. Amer. Rev. April, 1864, page 569 sq.).

 

The primary importance of the Cologne Codex is that it convincingly underlines the character of Manicheism as a religion rooted in a Christian (Judeo-Christian/Judeo-GnosticLiterature. — See, besides the works already cited, Irenaeus, Har. 1:26 (Ante-Nicene Library, verse 97); Gieseler, Ueber die Nazarder und Ebioniten, in Archiv fur A.&N. Kircheng., 4:279 sq. (Leipsig, 1820); Mosheim, Comnmentaries, 1:220, 400; Neander, Church Hist. 1:344; 350; Schliemann, Die Clementinen (Hamb. 1844), page 362 sq.; Herzog, Real- Esacyklopadie, 3:621 sq.; Martensen, Dogmatics (Edinburgh, 1866), § 128; Shedd, History of Doctrines, 1:106 sq.; Burton, Ecclesiastes History, Lect. 11; Burton, Bampton Lectures (Oxford, 1829), notes 73-84.

 

References: Epiphanius, adv. Haer. 29, Origen, cont. Celsum, 2, Eusebius Hist. Ecclesiastes in, 27, Tertullian De Praescrip. Haeret. c. 33."

 

Conclusion:

The Ebionites departed from the Gospel by misunderstanding the incarnation of the Son of God, having in fact denied it in the end. They did not reject the heavenly origin of the Son, but His incarnation. They did not see in the Son of God a simple man, as is supposedly wrong, but they tried hard to understand this incarnation, which did not come out, leading them astray.

 

In their opinion, the Son of God, the Archangel Michael only possessed, that is, taught a man by the name of Jesus, how to be virtuous and used him to teach mankind. After the Son of God thus attained his purpose, he left him on the cross. Therefore, the Son of God did not die, but only the man Jesus. Of course, this idea is totally wrong, but it has contributed in certain ways to the formulation of certain concepts in the doctrine of the trinity, such as that Jesus did not die with the soul, only with the flesh. This idea is actually an Ebionite idea, taken over and later adapted by the proto-Trinitarian and Trinitarian modalist groups.

Likewise, the Unitarian Socinians wrongly took the idea from the Ebionites that the man Jesus would not have a heavenly origin. Thus we see that both Trinitarians and Unitarians have a certain share of tares in their doctrine.

 

Now we can see if Paul meant to say that Jesus was God in Philippians 2:6 he could have simply written that Jesus 'was God,' and omitted the phrase 'in the form of.' What did Paul mean by this expression 'in the form of'? Colossians 1:15 makes this even more explicit and calls him "the image of the invisible God."

We all know what that means if we look at people's children, because all of them are the "image" of their parents.

 

The Son of God, Jesus' being an image of the invisible God does not make him one person of a trinity any more than Adam's being made in the image and likeness of God made him part of a triune God. When you look at your image in the mirror, are you actually looking at your body, or are you looking at the reflection of your body? Colossians 3:10-15 shows also that the 'image of God' refers to certain qualities among which are compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, patience, forbearance, the willingness to forgive, and "above all... love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony." Jesus perfectly reflected these qualities of God.

 

At Exodus 4:16 God tells Moses that Aaron "shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God," and at 7:1, "See, I make you as God to Pharaoh." God even gave Moses miraculous powers to prove that He had sent him. The Son of God was sent by God from heaven as His chief representative, one even greater than Moses. He, too, was given miraculous powers, and authority to control the weather and to command legions of angels. So he was "an image" of God while he was on earth; yet, he "emptied himself," that is, he did not use these powers and authority to save himself from degrading treatment by sinners and a horrible death. Having servanted himself to God and to humankind, he glorified his Father and bought salvation for us, even at his own expense. -- Matthew 8:26, 27; 26:53, 54; Philippians 2:7, 8; Matthew 20:28

This is the true meaning of the emptying from the divine nature, being born as a perfect man, without sin, but mortal in everything, both with soul and body, not as the Ebionites believed and then all the others who were inspired by them.

 

Three steps to understand better the only-begotten Son of the Almighty God

 

First step: About the only-begotten Son of God Almighty

 

He was "created or begotten", is the same thing. In the Heaven don't exist sex, that's why the unfaithful angels coming down in Noah's time, to make love with the humans daughters. God, the Father, the Creator was alone in the eternity, without sexual organs or a wife. So the only thing that He have for act, was the act of creation, with his mind and his hand.

 

With his mind he made a plan for a person, like him, and with his hand he made this person. A Son. The first and the greatest and the last. Later God gave a plan to his Son, for other creatures. Not the Son made the plan, God made, but the Son made this plan real, the Son was the first-created master-workman of the Creator, the firstborn of all creation: John 1:3. So, God is the Project engineer, the Son is the the master who worked on the engineer's project.

 

There is only one Creator and God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and of us, the Creator of heaven and earth, the undisputed sovereign of the entire Universe, who loves us and wants only our good (John 3:16, John 17: 1-3). He is Yehowah Elohim, the God of the saints of Israel.

The Good News (Gospel) after the apostle John Chapter I 1. In the beginning was the 'Word', and the 'Word' was with God and like God (or God-like) was the 'Word'.

 

References: Genesis 1:26; 11: 7, Proverbs 30: 4, John 14: 7-11, Hebrews 1: 1-3; it is not about two heavenly Gods, but God and the Son of God, who was like God: strong, wise, righteous, merciful, loving, forgiving, etc., the apostle does not refer to the function of God, but to his qualities, inherited by his Son; the word 'god' in the final part of the text is a noun qualitatively, given by the topic and the lack of any article, as the apostle John also shows in the gospel presented by him "he who saw me saw the Father" John 14: 9.

 

Second step: The only-begotten Son of God was in the beginning with God.

 

References: Genesis 1:26; 11: 7, Proverbs 30: 4) John 1:3. All through Him appeared, and without Him not a single thing appeared from what appeared

References: King Solomon considered Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 11: 7 when he wrote Proverbs 8: 22-30.

 

Why can we render John 1: 1c in this way "like God" (God-like)?

 

Sometimes fragments of texts need to be translated dynamically to clarify their meaning, but this is always done in close relation to the context. John 1: 1c fits this type perfectly, where to understand the apostle correctly, the context is decisive. The dynamic translation of the Greek text "en archē ēn ho lógos kaì ho lógos ēn pròs tòn theón kaì theòs ēn ho lógos", can be contextually rendered as follows: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and like God was the Word. In the present sentence and then in the whole context of the book - as will be seen, the second word theos is a qualitative noun, which describes the first word theos (John 1:18, respectively John 14: 9 “Who saw me he saw the Father. ”), which has the function of nominative noun.

 

Origen of Alexandria, Greek writer of the third century praises the famous apostle John because he knew the "beauty of the Greek language", living for a long time in Ephesus, a city won then inherited by Greek (see hellenism). Source: Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, chapter 2. Monotheist convinced, like his Master, the Heavenly Rabbi Yeshua / Jesus (see John 17: 1-3), the apostle Yohanan / John speaks of the Word not as "Elohim (Theos) in person" or "a second Elohim ( deuteros Theos) of heavenly realm", but being a very close celestial person (a special Son, only-born, see the word" monogenous "in John 3:16) who has the qualitative nature of Elohim / Theos, but not the function of Elohim / Theos . This because the construction of the sentence, the topic in relation to the following evangelical context.

 

Third step: When the apostle John formulated John 1: 1c, he thought of the word of the Lord Jesus later recorded in John 14:1-14. 

The secret to deciphering the text is here. There is only one God, the Almighty Father and the only-begotten Son is like Him in qualities (strong, wise, righteous, merciful, loving, forgiving, etc.), but not in the function of God. When the apostle John formulated John 1: 1c, he did not think of the Son's function (as many do), because he had a clear monotheistic demarcation, having the role of a boundary stone, spoken by the Lord Jesus and recorded later in John 17:1-3. The Father is the only Elohim / Theos / True God. If there were two or more Gods, the others would be false Gods.

The Greek topic in John 1:1 (the order of words in the sentence) would at most allow a literal translation of the kind: In the beginning was 'the Word', and 'the Word' was with God and 'god' was 'the Word', meaning Psalms 82: 6 - John 10:34, or the following: 2 Corinthians 4: 4: Satan is 'god', but not the Almighty God, Matthew 16:23: Peter is 'satan', but not Satan the Devil, John 10: 34: Some people might be 'gods', but of course not the Almighty God, Galatians 4:14: Paul is received as the angel of God, but he was not an angel. In this sense John 1:1 The logos is 'god', but not the Almighty God, he is God-like.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, who came from heaven and anointed (invested) as Teacher (Rabbi = Excellent Teacher, Master), Savior ("Lamb", Sacrifice), Lord (Master), King (Leader - Lawyer), High Priest (Mediator) and Judge (Matthew 28: 18,19); Messiah in Hebrew and Christ in Greek means "the anointed" of God; however, a Christian is a friend of King Jesus Christ, this friendship being conditioned: "You are my friends, if you do what I command you." John 15:14, the mark of identification of true Christians is the Christlike love: “I give you a new commandment: to love one another; as I have loved you, so do you love one another. By this they will all know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

The phrase "my Lord and my God" in John 20:28 is incomplete in itself, so the context as a whole must be considered. Not to be mistaken in the interpretation, how to understand that exclamation of the apostle Thomas:

- as a preaching?: "My Lord and my God really rose from the dead!" - as a nominative? "You are my Lord and my God who raised from the dead!" - or as vocative? "My Lord and my God, truly You (that is God the Father) raised Jesus from the dead!"

The vocative variant is the correct one, due to the exclusivist context of John 17: 1-3, in which the apostle Thomas was also present. Let us not forget that he was unfaithful to the resurrection, so the unwritten text in his mind speaks of the resurrection, not something else, as some unfortunately understand. His disbelief turned into an exclamation of astonishment toward the Father, who does such wonders. The Apostle Thomas could not contradict precisely the risen One, who was his mentor: John 17: 1-3 When he had thus spoken, Jesus lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour is at hand.as thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all those whom thou hast given him. And eternal life is this: to know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 

AMEN!

 

PART FIVE – Conclusion: One God , the Father Almighty

 

Chapter 41

Theology corner: Why choose Patertheism, the doctrine about one God, the Father Almighty?

What is Patertheism and why Patertheism is the best of all?

 

Theology time! Make the difference! 

In the denominational Christianity are several branches of theology (science about God)

1. Patertheism

2. Binitarianism and modalistic binitarianism

3. Trinitarism and modalistic trinitarism

4. Tritheism

 

About the first branch

The Jewish Patertheism

Patertheism (from the Greek Pater for Father, and theos for God): the monotheistic belief that the Father is the only true God. This was the mainstream belief of the Jews. As we can see, the classic Christianity holds also this belief.

The Patertheist doctrine is based on three observation:

1) That the Father is the only true God as Jesus himself stated in John 17:1-3

2) That Jesus is quite literally the heavenly Son of God, born as human on earth John 3:13,16; John 17:5, Luke 1:35; 3:22, not God himself or a second (egual or lesser) god

3) That, in the Hebraic way of thinking, a person's agent can be spoken of as the person himself. -- Compare Luke 10:16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you, rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects The One who sent me.”

 

We as Patertheists consider this, Peter also said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie... How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart?" Because of the parallels in Peter's words here, do trinitarians teach that Satan is Ananias or that Ananias is one person of a triune Satan? -- Acts 5:3, 4 (RSV). No way! Why than, the Son of God must be God if he is filled with Gods’ character?

 

Even if one insists that the Word refers specifically to Jesus in John 1:1c as „God”, no significant change in understanding is necessary. He personally demonstrated God's many qualities during his earthly ministry, and it is in this representative sense that it can be said that he was as God, or God-like, so John 1:1c is a qualifier, not a title as in John 17: 3 „And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”

Compare with John 14:9 „said to him, “All this time I am with you and you have not known me Phillip? Whoever has seen me has seen The Father, and how do you say, 'Show us The Father'?”

Compare also Matthew 12:28 to Luke 11:20.

„And if I am casting out demons by The Spirit of God, the Kingdom of God has come near to you.”

“But if I cast out devils by the finger of God, the Kingdom of God has come near to you.”

See a Hebrew version for Genesis 1:2 and notice thet the word „spirit” is in lowercase, not uppercase.

Genesis 1:2  JPS Tanakh 1917

„Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.”

Again, see this Hebrew version of Jeremiah 32:17

JPS Tanakh 1917

„Ah Lord GOD! behold, Thou hast made the heaven and the earth by Thy great power and by Thy outstretched arm; there is nothing too hard for Thee;”

Take a look: the spirit of God = Thy great power and by Thy outstretched arm

We see „The Spirit of God” from the Gospel = „the finger of God” in the Gospel = „the spirit of God„ in lovercase in OT made by Hebrews = „Thy great power and by Thy outstretched arm”, is not a so called „THIRD PERSON”.

How to interpret the promise of Jesus in John 14:16 Weymouth New Testament

“And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be for ever with you--the Spirit of truth.”

 Luke 24:49“And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Acts 1:8 „But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

another Advocate = the Spirit of truth = power from on high = power = the Holy Spirit

So a third person is just a hypothesis, it would remain to be discussed only about the Father and the Son, if they are the same “God” as the Binitarians say.

 

About the second branch (Part A)

Binitarism

Binitarianism (also called diteism) is the theology of "two Gods in one", as opposed to Patertheist unitarianism supporting one God, and trinitarianism involving "three Gods in one".

 

Traditionally and popularly, binitarianism is understood as "a kind of" monotheism "of a duality?" - that is, God is absolutely one being, although there is a duality in God. Over time this type of monotheism has become "dualism", meaning two beings in one, but the two beings are in perfect mutual agreement, meaning "family of God" consisting of Father and Son.

The Council of Constantinople in 381 accuses the Binitarians of being "semi-Arian". This remark is correct. From here it is clear that the Binitarians did not support the classic form of Arianism (before the compromise, 325 AD), the Patertheism, which was an older, clean and superior form than all the others we will discuss here.

Later, binitarianism was supported by smaller and smaller groups.

 

The Binitarians doctrine is based on a misunderstanding of the anarthrous John 1:1c, this verse is not about a "God" title of the Son, but about the "God-like" nature of the Son, and on some verses that have been proven to be forged, but revealed by Sir Isaac Newton as altered.

I like how the author of the New Simplified Bible version render John 1:1, I recommend:

NSB(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like God (God-like). 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him and without him not one thing was made.

Very interesting how quickly erased this version’s presentation from Wikipedia, in a desperate attempt to stop the correct information.

https://studybible.info/NSB/John

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture by Isaac Newton

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture is a dissertation by the English mathematician and scholar Isaac Newton. This was sent in a letter to John Locke on 14 November 1690 and built upon the textual work of Richard Simon and his own research. The text was first published in English in 1754, 27 years after his death. The account claimed to review all the textual evidence available from ancient sources on two disputed Bible passages: 1John 5:7 and 1Timothy 3:16.

Newton describes this letter as "an account of what the reading has been in all ages, and what steps it has been changed, as far as I can hitherto determine by records", and "a criticism concerning a text of Scripture". He blames "the Roman church" for many abuses in the world and accuses it of "pious frauds". He adds that "the more learned and quick-sighted men, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble their knowledge". Wikipedia

 

The second branch (Part B)

Modalistic binitarism

Other names of that view: Binitarian Patripassianism, Binitarian Modalistic Monarchianism, Binitarian Sabellianism, Binitarian Oneness, The Old Heresy Of Sabellius.

The term Monarchianism (Monarch, Supreme Ruler) derives from the Greek word meaning "a single principle of authority", and monarchians were concerned with defending monotheism, the absolute oneness of God in Christianity. They feared that a misunderstanding of Father and Son, would lead to Bitheism, a frequent and harsh accusation of rabbis from the 1st to the 3rd centuries. Because of these accusations, many Christians returned to Rabbinic Judaism or rejected the Son's coming from heaven, as a real person (called Adoptionists), so this doctrine was born to fight the Rabbis, the Apostate Christians and the so called Adoptionists, but unfortunately in the wrong way.

Because of the accusations of the Rabbis, the Apostates and the Adoptionists, that Christianity is not monotheistic but polytheistic, the Binitarian Modalistic Monarchians considers God to be one and only while working through the different "modes" or "manifestations" of Father and of Son. Following their view, God is understood to have dwelt under the name Jesus Christ from the incarnation. The terms Father and Son are then used to describe only the distinction between the transcendent God and the incarnated God.

Binitarian Modalistic Monarchians believe in the deity of Jesus and understand Jesus to be a manifestation of God, the God of the Old Testament, in the flesh. For this reason they find it suitable to ascribe all worship appropriate to God alone to Jesus also. Hence the name "Patripassians" (Father sufferingers), because in this perspective, God the Father, would have died on the cross, taking the title of "Son".

Concerned with defending the absolute oneness of God, modalists such as Noetus, Praxeas and Sabellius explained the divinity of Jesus Christ as the one God revealing himself in different ways or modes:

God revealed as the creator and lawgiver is called "the Father".

God revealed as the savior in Jesus Christ is called "the Son".

In this way, Father and Son are considered titles pertaining to the one God, not descriptions of distinct individual persons.

By the 4th century, a consensus had developed against this view, when most of the Arians in the Great Compromise at the Council of Nicaea (325) joined with the "Party Of The Confused" orchestrated by the emperor Constantine and modalism was generally considered a heresy. Jerome remarked that the world "awoke with a groan to find itself Arian."

Logos (Word) = The Literal Son of God

Monarchian Patripassians were opposed by true Logos theologians who believed that the Logos is a person distinct from the Father, a literal Son, the Only-begotten of God: Macarius Of Edessa, Dionysius of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, Lucian of Antioch and others, some of them accusing the Patripassians of having even modified the Scriptures, in order to strengthen the theology in the face of the anti-Patripassian accusers. Gradually the the Literal Son of God view gained prominence and was adopted by all the Christianity. Monarchian Patripassianism was generally considered a heresy after the 4th century, by now.

 

Binitarian Patripassian theologians make the same mistakes as their fellow anti-Patripassian Binitarians. Their doctrine is based on a misunderstanding of the anarthrous John 1: 1, this verse is not about a "God" title of the Son, but about the "God-like" nature of the Son, and on some verses that have been proven to be forged, but revealed by Sir Isaac Newton as altered, see the manuscript "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture" by Isaac Newton.

 

About the third branch

Trinitarism (Part A)  and modalistic trinitarism (Part B)

The trinity doctrine

"Within Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is a single "Being" who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a communion of three persons (personae, prosopa): Father (the Source, the Eternal Majesty); the Son (the eternal Logos or Word, incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth); and the Holy Spirit. Traditionally, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "One God in Three Persons," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal "persons" or "hypostases, " share a single Divine essence, being, or nature.

As we can see, the trinity theory is very close to the binitarian (ditheist) theory. Only one element is missing, about the holy spirit. It has the same weaknesses as the binitarian doctrine.

 

All these four, try hardly to reconcile the accusation of the rabbis that Christians would have more gods, than one admitted, and therefore would be polytheists.

 

About the fourth branch

Tritheism

 

Only the Tritheists do not care about this remark of the Rabbis, and they accept with thanks that they worship three distinct deities. And with that I said all about the Tritheists, they worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, like three gods. They where popular after the council of Niceea, for two centuries, but they lost ground because they did not fit into monotheism at all. They were called Aromanians, because they believed in a kind of subordinationalist Trinitarianism, close to Arianism. Maybe they were an Arian group. Today Mormons and Adventists still believe something like this.

This is where the theological corner ends, not before specifying that the only theological position that resists the argument of the Jewish rabbis is Patertheism because the rabbis are Patertheists as well.

See below why the Rabbis could not depart from Patertheism:

Professor of Semitic language Wilhelm Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar about the word Elohim

Elohim is not the only Hebrew noun that can be plural in form but singular in meaning. Such Hebrew noun forms are sometimes used for abstract nouns and as intensifiers. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar devotes several pages to this subject. The following list is not exhaustive, but it illustrates the point. The masculine plural ending is im; oth is the feminine plural ending.

zequnim — old age (Gen. 21:2, 7; 37:3; 44:20).

ne`urim — youth. David was only a boy (na`ar), but Goliath "has been a fighting man from his youth [ne`urim]" (1 Sam. 17:33).

chayyim — life. This is used in the song "To life, to life, lechayyim" in Fiddler on the Roof.

gebhuroth — strength. The singular form gebhurah is the usual word for strength, but the plural form is used in Job 41:12.

tsedaqoth — righteousness. The singular form tsedaqah is the usual word, but tsedaqoth is used in Isaiah 33:15 — "he who walks righteously [or "in righteousness"]."

chokmoth — wisdom. Chokmah is the usual form, but chokmoth is used in Prov. 1:20.

'adonim — lord. 'adon means "lord," and 'adonim normally means "lords," but Isa. 19:4 says, "I will hand the Egyptians over to the power of a cruel master ['adonim]."

behemoth. This word normally means beasts, but in Job 40:15 it refers to one animal.

Specifically discussing elohim, Wilhelm Gesenius observes: "The language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in 'elohim (whenever it denotes one God).... [This] is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute" (such as a singular adjective or verb). For more information on the subject, consult Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, pages 396-401, 1909 edition.

This means that this word Elohim looks toward one person, but with multiple and great powers.

Old Testament Genesis 1

1In the beginning God* created the heaven** and the earth.

*title, not a name: Elohim, plural not singular, but defines the plural of the majesty, of the powers in possession, not the numbers of the personnel; if the sentence is constructed in the singular, a literal translation would sound "The Powerful" and not "The Powerful Ones", so is a descriptive plural

**plural, not singular: dual, some languages also have a dual (denoting exactly two of something), or other systems of number categories; however, in English and many other languages, singular and plural are the only grammatical numbers, except for possible remnants of the dual in pronouns such as both and either; as in the first case, we have to deal with a descriptive plural, it is not about two heavens, but a single heaven with two ends (extremities), from the east and from the west.

 

All this disprove that in the word Elohim could be three distinct persons in one-Trinity concept. And so the rabbis can attack the trinity doctrine with great fervor.

Proof texts of Patertheism, for one God, the Father Almighty

Matthew 4:10: "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the LORD (YHWH) your God, and serve him only."'" (quote from the Old Testament)

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

1Corinthians 8:5-6: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

James 2:19: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."

No "one God in Trinity" here.

Rabbis cannot attack Christian Patertheism because, according to this theory, God is immortal, while the Son, who is not counted as God, is mortal and even died, proving this, so to speak. He is the heavenly, only-begotten Son of our God, the Father Almighty, according to John 3:13, John 3:16, John 17:1-3, John 20:17.

So, how could be God "immortal" but also mortal: Deuteronomy 32:40, Daniel 12:7, Romans 1:23, 1Timothy 1:17, 6:16? This porridge served in such a "bitter" form - from the point of view of their theology embodied in them for centuries, will never convince them.

 

Why is this weak theories needed? For who's satisfactions? Of God? Of His Son? Neither. Of man? Yes. Guess why? Here is the answer: John 5:44 "How can you believe, who seek glory from one another, and seek not the glory that cometh from the one God?"

 

Chapter 42

Discussing Unitarianism

The word unitarianism was firs recorded by the Arians and not by Socinians.

See this document, from Wikipedia:

“The best known in the Anglican Church is William Sherlock, Dean of St. Paul's,[6] whose Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity (London, 1690) against the Socinians, maintaining that with the exception of a mutual consciousness of each other, which no created spirits can have, the three divine persons are "three distinct infinite minds" or "three intelligent beings.", was attacked by Robert South in Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock's Vindication (1693). Sherlock's work is said to have made William Manning a Socinian and Thomas Emlyn an Arian, and the dispute was ridiculed in a skit entitled "The Battle Royal", attributed to William Pittis (1694?), which was translated into Latin at Cambridge.

Thomas Emlyn (1663–1741) was an English nonconformist divine.

Life

Thomas Emlyn

 

Emlyn was born at Stamford, Lincolnshire. He served as chaplain to the presbyterian Letitia, countess of Donegal, the daughter of Sir William Hicks, 1st Baronet who married (1651) and survived Arthur Chichester, 1st Earl of Donegall.

 

Emlyn was then chaplain to Sir Robert Rich, afterwards (1691) becoming colleague to Joseph Boyse, presbyterian minister in Dublin. From this office he was virtually dismissed on his own confession of unitarianism, and for publishing An Humble Inquiry into the Scripture Account of Jesus Christ (1702) was sentenced to a year's imprisonment for blasphemy and a fine of £1000. More than two years later (thanks to the intervention of Boyse), he was released in 1705 on payment of £90.

 

He is said to have been the first English preacher definitely to describe himself as "unitarian," and writes in his diary, "I thank God that He did not call me to this lot of suffering till I had arrived at maturity of judgment and firmness of resolution, arid that He did not desert me when my friends did. He never let me be so cast down as to renounce the truth or to waver in my faith." Of Christ he writes, "We may regard with fervent gratitude so great a benefactor, but our esteem and rational love must ascend higher and not rest till it centre in his God and ours."[1]

 

Emlyn preached a good deal in Paul's Alley, Barbican, in his later years, and died in London in 1741.

 

How then can some deny that the Arians are not Unitarians?

 

PATERTHEISM OR UNITARIANISM

 

At the beginning, theology meant only knowledge about God theo + logia, later the term was extended to many areas.

 

All who admit John 17:1-3 about God, the Father Almighty being God alone, are Patertheists or Unitarians. Patertheism means only the Father Almighty is God, from the Greek Pater + theos.

 

Modalists or Sabellians, although considered Unitarians, do not fit here, since they consider the Son to be a transformation of the Father into man. Thus they believe that the Father was born as a Son on earth.

 

„Unitarianism (from Latin unitas "unity, oneness", from unus "one") is a Christian theological movement named for its belief that the God in Christianity is one person, as opposed to the Trinity (tri- from Latin tres "three") which in most other branches of Christianity defines God as one being in three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Unitarian Christians, therefore, believe that Jesus was inspired by God in his moral teachings, and he is a savior, but he was not a deity or God incarnate. As is typical of dissenters, Unitarianism does not constitute one single Christian denomination, but rather refers to a collection of both existing and extinct Christian groups, whether historically related to each other or not, which share a common theological concept of the oneness nature of God.” Wikipedia

 

Unitarianism has two important branches: Arianism and Socinianism, although the concepts existed even before they were born as groups.

 

"Unitarianism" is about the Patertheist (Pater+theos means only the Father is God) theology, "Arianism" and „Sociniamism” is only about "Christology". So "Arians" are "Unitarian-Arians", and Socinians are "Unitarian-Socinians", who differs in Christology. Arians interpret the Logos of John 1:1 as a real person - unique Son - with God the Father and the Socinians interpret the Logos from this passage as a governing-plan in the mind of God. This two distinct branches of the same Unitarian body, which is called "Patertheism", means only the Father is God.

 

These two branches of Christology were named after two believers, Arius and Socinus.

 

About Arius

Arius (a Libyan from Africa, moved to Alexandria, Egipt) lived in the 3rd and 4th centuries, having as a mentor Lucian of Antioch, a martyr from the third century. Saint Lucian of Antioch (c. 240 – January 7, 312), known as Lucian the Martyr, was a Christian leading presbyter (aka leader priest), theologian and martyr. He was noted for both his scholarship and piety. That is why the Arian leaders called themselves “fellow Lucianists” and not “fellow Arians”, this name being given to them by their ideological opponents. Lucian’s Christology was very popular in the time of Arius. Why? Because Emperor Constantine was not yet involved.

 

Lucian of Antioch tried in the third century to spread the right Christology about the Son of God. He personally taught Arius and the other so called “Arian party” leaders.

 

Many believe that Arius invented the teaching of the so called „Arians”, to fight the other party. But ancient sources show that it was not so. In a letter to his friend Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, who believed like Arius, he calls him "fellow - Lucianist":

"I pray that you fare well in the Lord, remembering our tribulations, fellow-Lucianist, truly-called Eusebius [Eusebius name meaning is „the pious one”]."

This Lucian, was named Lucian of Antioch, a martyr (c. 240 – January 7, 312):

Lucian was born in the Samosata of Syria from pious Christian parents. He goes to Edessa, where his teacher was Macarius of Edessa, famous for the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

Lucian increases in the teaching of the Bible and becomes a leader priest of Antioch. He made a version of the Bible in Greek language, correcting the textual falsifications made by the so called „Patripassians” (who believed that Jesus was God, and God died on the cross) so why this party hated him and his followers so much.

In the year 303, the persecution of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian began against the Christians. Because of the fear of persecutors who arrived in Antioch, Lucian hid with many of the Christians.

But a Patripassian (Sabellian) heretic priest of the counter-party, called Pangratius, showed the persecutors the place where they had hidden. Lucian was imprisoned for many years, suffering martyrdom aroud 312.

 

The Patripassians hated the Arians and their ancestors so much because they were their main opponents.

 

Antioch was the city where Patripassianism was condemned, in a large church council around the year 267, yet their teaching extended further, being reformulated so that it could not be caught in the condemnation of the great Antiochian Christian Council. At the council of Nicaea 325, the new Patripassians raised the same phrase they raised at the Council of Antioch, but now more refined, learning from the failure they suffered at the Council of Antioch.

And this time they won a compromise. Emperor Constantine, who seeks unity by any means, has promised them that he will accept some of their claims, if they also give up some of their claims. Except for a minority, the majority agreed, although they were not fully satisfied, neither one nor the other.

 

God was present in the Council, and made a profecy.

The prophecy of a true (genuine) “Lucianist”.

When was the Council of Niceea (325), the bishop Eusebius of Cesareea, received a clear mandate from the Caesarea assembly and the surrounding area not to subscribe to the formula proposed by the rival party, the Patripassians. But he subscribed. Here's what happened.

After the Council of Nicaea (325), Bishop of Ptolemais Secundus received a revelation from God, a prophecy – he said - which has turned over the traitor:

“You subscribed, Eusebius, in order to escape being sent into banishment. But I place my confidence in a revelation made to me by God, that within a year you too will be sent into exile.”

In fact, within three months after the conclusion of the council, returning to his own original, Eusebius was sent into exile as Secundus had predicted.

This could be an argument, that God was among the genuine Lucianists.

Another leader of the so called Arians was Dionysius of Alexandria 190 – 264.
Some bishops of the Pentapolis of Upper Libya fell into Patripassianism and Dionysius wrote four letters to condemn their error, and sent copies to Pope Sixtus II (257-8). He got the Son is a poíema (something made) and distinct in substance, xénos kat 'oùsian, from the Father, even as the husbandman from the vine, or a shipbuilder from a ship. These words were seized upon by Arians of the fourth century as plain Arianism.

Another Christian leader who criticized  those who believed that Jesus is the God, the Creator and suffered on the cross, was Hippolytus of Rome. Hippolytus knew exactly what these so called Patripassians believed. According to this Patripassians, Jesus of Nazareth was identical with God the Father, the Father being incarnated in Jesus, they claimed that God the Father came into the world and suffered on the cross.

 

About Socinus

Socinus' idea is an ancient teaching of the Ebionites, which was perpetuated by Muslims. Socinus (an Italian) lived in the 16th and 17th centuries, and in that time, behind the scenes of Roman-Catholic Church, a sympathy for Muslim life and Christology flourished, embracing Muslim behavior and beliefs, such as polygamy, religious warfare, shaving mustache, denial of Christ as Savior, and accepting him only as a prophet, some of the Anabaptist antitrinitarians effective moved later to this religion.

 

Because I saw that there is a certain uncertainty about what "Arianism" actually means - some even identifying this term with a nationalist or even racist group, and some confusing the Arians with the Socinians, I recommend a brother's Youtube Channel videos about arian views by Classic Arianism

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoj3K9CAxx62tuLgYu8q2fw and this is an arian webpage, also from that brother

https://classicarianism.wordpress.com/

 

Chapter 43

Our God is an awesome God!

 

Some say there is no God, because if there were, He would do something in this evil world. They don't know that all our problems comes from Satan, the Devil. God will solve all this problems soon. He promised. Until then, God shows us how to solve the problems created by Satan and his demons.

 

But has God not done anything, or rather we do not understand the awesome teachings and works done by Him?

Lord Jesus went so far that he had the extreme courage to give up the goodness of people, saying that only God is good:

 “Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone." Mark 10:18

Jesus was not the only one who could say great things about God.

 

Moses said about God the following:

Deuteronomy 32:4

"He is the Rock; his deeds are perfect.

Everything he does is just and fair.

He is a faithful God who does no wrong;

how just and upright he is!"

He said this because he knew the right laws, for example the

Excellent Laws of Justice and Mercy, that we read in in Exodus 22

1“Do not spread false reports. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness.

2“Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd,

3and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.

4“If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to return it.

5If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help them with it.

6“Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits.

7Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.

8“Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the innocent.

9“Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.

 

God is an awesome God, all the prophets saw and confessed this great things about Him.

 

Today all of us have the great opportunity to read the Bible and believe it. We have the great opportunity to be saved, if will accept God's holy presence in our live, through His Son our Lord Jesus Christ sacrifice and teachings and keep it holy in our life...

 

Dear brothers, sisters and friends, we have an awesome - one God, the Father Almighty, and he have a great, unique only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. All of us could be adopted sons of God, through his Son, and through him, we could have an awesome one God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, who reigns from Heaven above, with great wisdom, mighty power and deep love.

 

Our God and Father is wise:

 

Jeremiah 10:12 "He has made the earth by his power, he has established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding has he stretched out the heavens:"

 

Our God and Father is strong:

 

Isaiah 40:26 "Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."

 

Our God and Father is loving:

 

John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

 

Our God and Father is worthy of praise:

 

Luke 10:21 "In that same hour he (Jesus) rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."

Our God is an awesome God! Our God and Father is a loving God and Father, is strong, wise and righteous, so is very worthy of glory for all what he do! This is his Son also (Hebrews 1:3):

"The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."

 

Let's be like our God and Father, loving, wise, strong and righteous and glorify him!"

 

Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ!" Ephesians 1:2

Amen, amen!

 

In order to achieve his goals, God has always worked harmoniously with the beings he created. He obviously presented the future and his plan to them. The book of Daniel tells us about two heavenly beings who came from God to the earth to direct God's plan. They are called Michael and Gabriel (Daniel 9:21 – see Luke 1:19, 26 and Daniel 10:13).

 

In chapter 10 of the book of the prophet Daniel, the angel Gabriel says something very clear:

JPS Tanakh 1917

Daniel 10:21 Howbeit I will declare unto thee that which is inscribed in the writing of truth; and there is none that holdeth with me against these, except Michael your prince.

World English Bible

But I will tell you that which is inscribed in the writing of truth: and there is none who holds with me against these, but Michael your prince."

Young's Literal Translation

but I declare to thee that which is noted down in the Writing of Truth, and there is not one strengthening himself with me, concerning these, except Michael your head.

 

From this account we see the most important heavenly personalities, who are after God: Michael and Gabriel. Where is the Son of God? If no one can help Gabriel but only Michael, then we have two possibilities:

1. Or the Son of God does not have a pre-human existence as the Muslims and Socinian Unitarians claim

2. Or the Son of God was known in heaven as Michael

 

It is very interesting that the meaning of the name Michael means Who Is Like God. Even if this name is a question, as some suggest, if he is the Son of God, the meaning is clear. He is like God, or God-like, like his Father.

 

Chapter 44

How to worship God, our Father Almighty?

 

"And God spoke: „You shall not make for yourself a graven image" that you can testify to the world how Christian churches were at the beginning of the 4th century, before the time of Emperor Constantine the Great.

 

Pagan Romans trying to find the statue of the God worshiped by Christians at the beginning of the fourth century, only found the Scriptures and set them on fire.

On 24 February was the anniversary of the edict (304 AD) that marked the beginning of the Great Persecution during the Roman Tetrarchy.
From a work of Lactantius, "On the deaths of the persecutors", we know that on February 24, 304 Diocletian published in Nicomedia an edict by which Christians were deprived of honors and dignities and could be subjected to torture. The edict practically deprived them of their freedom and their right to be elected.

On February 23, the prefect of the city of Nicomedia, accompanied by other officials, went to the church and forced the entry, trying to find the statue of the god worshiped by Christians. They only found the Scriptures and set them on fire. The interior was plundered. Share to help other people who don't know the truth.

As the church was located on a high spot, visible from the imperial palace, Diocletian and Galerius were discussing whether to set the building on fire or not. Diocletian had reservations, for reasons easy to understand. An uncontrolled fire could have spread rapidly to the surrounding buildings and to the entire city. The Praetorian guards found a safer solution: using axes and other iron tools, in a few hours they transformed the church into a pile of rubble.

Representation of the Roman Tetrarchy was composed of Diocletian and Galerius (East), respectively Maximian and Constantius Chlorus (West).

 

They found nothing because Christians, like the Jews, did not believe that God should be represented in this way:

 

Exodus 20 American Standard Version

The Ten Commandments

 (Deuteronomy 5:6-21)

1And God spake all these words, saying,

2I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me, 6and showing lovingkindness unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

7Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

 

Acts 17 ASV

Paul Before the Areopagus

 

22And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of Athens, in all things, I perceive that ye are very religious. 23For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you. 24The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation; 27that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us: 28for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man. 30The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent: 31inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

 

OUR FATHER, YEHOWAH

 

What God wants mankind to know about him?

What he wrote to us, about him?

 

He is God, an awesome God, the Father Almighty. He is the Creator of all, from heaven and earth. We are his children.

"Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ!" Ephesians 1:2

 

First of all, he is one.

Proof texts, for one God, the Father Almighty

 

Matthew 4:10: "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the LORD (YHWH) your God, and serve him only."'" (quote from the Old Testament)

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

1Corinthians 8:5-6: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

James 2:19: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."

No "one God in Trinity" here.

 

All of us have a great opportunity to read the Bible and believe it. We have the great opportunity to be saved, if will accept Lord Jesus Christ sacrifice and teachings and keep it holy in our life...

Friends, we have an awesome one God, the Father Almighty, and he have a great, unique only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. All of us could be adopted sons of God, through his Son, and through him, we could have an awesome one God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, who reigns from Heaven above, with great wisdom, mighty power and deep love.

 

Our God and Father is wise:

Jeremiah 10:12 "He has made the earth by his power, he has established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding has he stretched out the heavens:"

Our God and Father is strong:

Isaiah 40:26 "Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."

Our God and Father is just:

Deuteronomy 32:4

"He is the Rock; his deeds are perfect.

Everything he does is just and fair.

He is a faithful God who does no wrong;

how just and upright he is!"

 

Our God and Father is loving:

God’s “love letter” John 3:16

John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Our God and Father is worthy of praise:

Luke 10:21 "In that same hour he (Jesus) rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."

 

Our God and Father is a loving God and Father, is strong, wise and righteous, so is very worthy of glory for all what he do! This is his Son also (Hebrews 1:3):

"The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."

Let's be like our God and Father, loving, wise, strong and righteous and glorify him!

Amen, amen!

 

Chapter 45

Do you understand Isaiah 9:6 correctly?

Isaiah 9: 6 explained in the light of the New Covenant

 

Isaiah 9:6 according to the Lutherbibel

 

The Luther Bible (German: Lutherbibel) is a German language Bible translation from Hebrew and ancient Greek by Martin Luther. The New Testament was first published in 1522 and the complete Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments in 1534. It was the first full translation of the Bible into German based mainly on the original Hebrew and Greek texts and not the Latin Vulgate translation.

The project absorbed Luther's later years. Thanks to the then recently invented printing press, the result was widely disseminated and contributed significantly to the development of today's modern High German language. - Wikipedia

I see that some friends did not respond to my comment about Isaiah 9:6 from Lutherbibel. 

Did you know that even in the translation of Dr. Luther Martin (I think you know who I refer to and do not have to tell you), who knew old Hebrew perfectly, there is no word "God" (GOTT)?

Isaiah 9:6 Lutherbibel 1912 Denn uns ist ein Kind geboren, ein Sohn ist uns gegeben, und die Herrschaft ist auf seiner Schulter; er heißt Wunderbar, Rat, Held (Hero), Ewig-Vater Friedefürst; 

Not even the modernized version contains the word God (Gott) Modernisiert Text 

Denn uns ist ein Kind geboren, ein Sohn ist uns gegeben, welches HERRSChaft ist auf seiner Schulter; und er heißt Wunderbar, Rat, Kraft (Strong), Held (Hero), Ewig-Vater, Friedefürst,

 

Do you understand Isaiah 9:6 correctly?

 

Dear sisters and brothers no matter what group or church you are!

I want to advise you to be careful.

A friend who is gone, said the following: “So many points could be clarified if people were simply to read the same text in a variety of translations. They would then at least see that where translation is concerned, dogmatism is greater evidence of ignorance than of learning. I find this to be the case with many who adopt the Trinity doctrine.”

After studying the subject of Isaiah 9:6 many years day and night, I came to the conclusion that the text cannot be a text in favor of the trinity, on the contrary. Also, I think the text is translated wrong, look how interesting it appears in a translation, I think it's OK with the harmony of the Bible> JPS Tanakh 1917

For a child is born unto us, A son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;

"Pele Joez" would not show that the Son advises the Father, but on the contrary, the Son advises mankind to reconcile with the Father, and how can mankind do this. "El Gibbor" does not mean "Mighty God," but "Mighty Hero" (Wilhelm Gesenius - Semitic language teacher, The Revised English Bible) . "El Gibbor" here does not mean "God Almighty," but "Mighty (El) Hero (Gibbor)," as it appears in the plural in Ezekiel 32:21:"Then the mighty (elei) heroes (gibborim) will talk ..." The text according to the Hebrew meanings:"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the kingdom will be on his shoulder; they will call him," Wonderful Counselor (Pele Joez), Mighty (or Strong) Hero (El Gibbor), Father Forever (Abi Ad - with the meaning of "eternal patriarch", as were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Jesus being "father" in the spiritual sense "the last (second) Adam" 1Corinthians 15:45), Prince of Peace (Sar Shalom). Surprisingly, new translations of the Bible, made by Christian scholars, appear in which Isaiah 9: 6 does not contain the word "God." The controversy arises when the Hebrew text "Pele Joez, El Gibbor, Abi Ad, Sar Shalom" is rendered. The rendering of "El Gibbor" by "Mighty God" would force the identical construction of Ezekiel 32:21 "el gibborim" (mighty heroes) to be translated the same as "the mighty God", which would be true and vice versa, meaning the expression "elei gibborim" in the plural would force "El Gibbor" in the singular to become "Mighty Hero" (compare also with Ezekiel 32: 11,12). Here's how Isaiah 9: 6 plays in The Revised English Bible (REB 1989) - Revised English Bible:"For a child has been born to us, a son is given to us; he will bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder, and his title will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Review Director W.D. McHardy.Reviewers: The Rev. Professor G. W. Anderson; The Very Rev. Professor R. S. Barbour; The Rev. Fr. I. P. M. Brayley, SJ; Dr. S. P. Brock; The Rev. Professor G. B. Caird; The Rev. Dr. P. Ellingworth; Dr. R. P. Gordon; Professor M. D. Hooker; The Rev. A. A. Macintosh; The Rev. Professor W. McKane; The Rev. Professor I. H. Marshall; The Rev. Dr. R. A. Mason; The Rev. Dr. I. Moir; The Rev. Fr. R. Murray, SJ; The Rev. Professor E. W. Nicholson; Dr. C. H. Roberts; Dr. R. B. Salters; Dr. P. C. H. Wernberg-Moller; The Rev. Professor M. F. Wiles.Literary Advisers: M. H. Black, Mrs. M. Caird, J. K. Cordy, Baroness of Ward, The Rev. Dr. I. Gray, Dr. P. Larkin, Miss Doris Martin, Dr. C. H. Roberts, Sir Richard Southern, P. J. Spicer, Dr. J. I. M. Stewart, Mary (Lady) Stewart. http://www.bible-researcher.com/reb.html

The professor of Greek and New Testament history James Moffatt of Ecclesiastical (Church) history, plays "divine hero": "For a child is born to us, a child has been given to us; the royal dignity he wears, and this the title bears: A wonder of a counselor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince" James Moffat is the author of Moffat Translation, New Translation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moffatt,_New_Translation

Don't forget, a better source in competence is the Semitic and Hebrew teacher, Wilhelm Gesenius, renders "mighty hero" - p. 45, Gesenius, "Hebrew-Chaldean Lexicon" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).

 

The name of Isaiah 9:6 explained in the light of the New Covenant (New Testament) books

 

Isaiah 9:6  in JPS Tanakh 1917, an American Jewish translation from 1917

For a child is born unto us, A son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;

 

"Pele Joez = Wonderful Counselor, El Gibbor = Mighty Hero (but not almighty), Abi Ad = Everlasting Father (Our Eternal Patriarch, Second Adam, but not the Father Almighty), Sar Shalom = Peaceful Prince (Ruler, Leader)

“For a Child is born unto us, A Son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called Wonderful Counselor , Mighty Hero, Everlasting Father, Peaceful Prince;”

Why Wonderful Counselor?

Because He came from heaven to give us wonderful counsel, how to please His God and Father!

Why Mighty Hero?

Because who has done such things before, what angel or man has ever fought so hard against sin and defeated death without the right of any appeal?

Why Everlasting Father?

As for the "Father of Eternity", it is not a correct translation; "The Father of Eternity" would be "Abi ha-Olamim", or here we do not have the word "eternal = olam" but we have the word "ad" which expresses continuity, here "Abi Ad" means "Our Father (put) Forever", which points to an acquired title, from God, he being the Eternal Patriarch, the second Adam.

And finally why "Sar Shalom" = "Peaceful Prince"?

On a cuneiform tablet, Prince Nebuchadnezzar, the son of King Nabopolassar - who was a Chaldean wasal monarch of Babylon, and reblled against Assyria - was named "Sar-sarim", meaning Prince of princes or Head of the Heads, being the second ruler (sar), as heir to the throne. He also led the army, being the High Commander in arms, Sar-sarim meaning "Grand Head", the commander of his father's army commanders.

We also have here the word “sar” in Sar-Shalom title, meaning the "Peaceful Prince" (or Prince of Peace), that is, the Son of God as the "inheriting prince" who leads his Father's army of angels, as we see in the book of Revelation chapter 19. Here we see him as the Archangel of God’s Undefeated Great Heavenly Army.

 

Who will fight for eternal peace in the future? Who will defeat and bind the demons and their great prince - Satan - to establish the future Age to Come (Olam Haba) and the Peace of the Ages? None other than the Son of God, the "Peaceful Prince - Prince of Peace"!

 

What means this?

„Literally, the phrase "Olam Haba" means the "World to Come." Western Society understands the "after-life" as two different places: "Heaven" and "Hell." Heaven is where people are rewarded after life, and Hell is where they are punished. However, Judaism does not accept this idea of two different places. Rather, there is one Olam Haba. Its nature, however, depends on one's manner of conduct in this world.”

Source: What is Olam Haba? « Ask The Rabbi « Ohr Somayach

 

Of course there are objections that Jesus could not be an angel. Neither is it. The "archangel Christology" is not an "Angel Christology" in any way. 

 

The archangel is not "a common angel". In Hebrew (hasar hagadol, Daniel 12,1) means "great prince", a "prince" (sar) like in Isaiah 9:6 "sar shalom". He is between God and angels. In the heaven exist three ranks: God, the archangel and the angels.

 

Catholics will defend themselves by saying that this is a Protestant idea, Protestants will defend themselves by saying it is an idea of Bible Student & Jehovah's Witnesses, but Pastor CT Russell officially acknowledged that he brought nothing new, all his teachings being doctrines chosen from other cults existing in his time.

 

The Protestants weren't the first to reason that Jesus is Michael the Archangel:

"In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels of God's inner council, and who is regularly described as "most venerable", "holy", and "glorious". This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas (was the brother of the Bishop of Rome) saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael. Both, for example, are invested with supreme power over the people of God; both pronounce judgment on the faithful; and both hand sinners over to the angel of repentance to reform them. ... " - Early Christian Doctrines, by JND Kelly, pp 94, 95

 
In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, John A. Lees says:
"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl (for a full discussion see Hengstenberg, Offenbarung, I, 611-22, and an interesting survey in English by Dr. Douglas in Fairbairn B{ible} D{ictionary}." (1930, Vol. III), p. 2048.

"ARCHANGEL. This word is only twice used in the Bible, 1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9. In the last passage it is applied to Michael, who, in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish Nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of an angelic army. So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." - Inter-National Bible Dictionary, published by Logos International, Plainfield, New Jersey, p. 35.

John Wesley's Note on the Whole Bible:

 
Daniel Chapter 10

5. A certain man; Very probably Christ, who appeared to Daniel in royal and priestly robes, and in so great brightness and majesty.
13. Withstood me; God suffered the wicked counsels of Cambyses to take place awhile; but Daniel by his prayers, and the angel by his power, overcame him at last: and this very thing laid a foundation of the ruin of the Persian monarchies. Michael; Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ. I remained; To counter-work their designs against the people of God

21. Michael; Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it.

C. H. Spurgeon from "Mornings and Evenings":

"To whom do we owe all this? Let the Lord Jesus Christ be for ever endeared to us, for through Him we are made to sit in heavenly places far above principalities and powers. He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah's presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows."

 

There is no other archangel in heaven, just Michael. Gabriel is not an archangel, he is an angel. And other so called archangel names we don't have in the Bible, were later invented.

 

So, the identification of Michael as Jesus is not a "new" teaching, neither of Russell nor the Protestants. This is a very ancient belief, as Adolf Harnack states in his "History of Dogma". He dates back to the second century AD, but an ancient time scholar named Karim Shahrastani in his book "The Book of Sects and Creeds" stated that this belief existed with 300 years before Arius, so in the first century AD. In his book Shahrastani see a link between this group and Arius, and states that Arius borrowed this doctrine from that period of time. The reason behind this identification is this: If the Son of God have a pre-human existence He have a pre-human name also.

 

What is his (God’s) name, and what is the name of his Son? Surely you know! Now you know!

 

The answer is: Jehovah and Jesus! Jesus is the Michael's renaming. The name change is not new in the world. Rabbi Saul became the apostle Paul.

 

Surely you know! Now you know!

 

 

You know the Proverbs 30:“I am weary, God,
but I can prevail.a
2Surely I am only a brute, not a man;
I do not have human understanding.
3I have not learned wisdom,
nor have I attained to the knowledge of the Holy One.
4Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Whose hands have gathered up the wind?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?

What is his name, and what is the name of his son?

Surely you know!*

*Now you know

 

"This great tree that casts its shadow over plains, and mountains, and all the earth, is the law of God that was given to the whole world; and this law is the Son of God, proclaimed to the ends of the earth; and the people who are under its shadow are they who have heard the proclamation, and have believed upon Him. And the great and glorious angel Michael is he (the Son of God) who has authority over this people, and governs them; for this is he who gave them the law into the hearts of believers: he accordingly superintends them to whom he gave it, to see if they have kept the same."
"The Pastor of Hermas" first half of the second century

 

If we cut the idea of Michael as Jesus we cut also the whole activity of the Son of God from the Old Testament. And I think this is what the some want from us to accept, to could sustain better their views against the Son of God pre-human existence, or other things. As I stated, if the Son of God have a pre-human existence, He have a pre-human name also. Logic: PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE = PRE-HUMAN NAME. The worlds like "logos" "light" etc. are not names, but descriptive titles aka "nicknames". 

 

God bless you and keep you safe from doctrinal errors. In Lord Jesus name, Amen!

 

Chapter 46

Who is Michael the archangel?

 

Dear brothers and sisters, friends

 

First of all, the meaning of the name Mika-El is discussed, some say it means a question "Who is like God?" or according to others a statement "Who is like God".

 

But could there be a person like God? Surprisingly, yes, if we think about the statement of the Lord Jesus: “Whoever saw me saw my Father” John 14:9

 

1.   The heritage of the idea of Michael as the Messiah of Israel

Standing against Christians who had just launched with the idea of "the Son of God coming from heaven" - the rabbinical school of Alexandria supported the following in the first century AD:

"And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to His first-born Word, the eldest of His angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the Authority, and the Name of God, and the Word, and Man according to God's image, and He who sees Israel (allusion to Michael from the book of Daniel 12:1, from the Old Testament)."

P. 247, The Works of the Hebrew Yedidia (aka Philo Judaeus), "On the Confusion of Tongues"

 

We see from this quote from the first century AD, an answer given by the rabbis from Alexandria to the Christians, who saw in the archangel Michael, the Son of God, coming from heaven. Regardless of what is written in the book of Job about angels (Job 1:6), that they are the sons of God, having no other argument, they say that no matter how great someone is, he cannot be called the Son of God. They follow the logic of denial, rather than the logic of questioning the opinion of others. They give us no reason why this would be an impossibility.

 

The identification of Michael coming in human form, as the Messiah the Redeemer of Israel, was made by a group of hermits, who lived in caves in the first century BC (Raoul Vaneigem, quoted the Persian historian Al-Shahrastani – Resistance).

So, the idea that the Messiah would be Michael the Archangel, is not a christian  heritage, but a Jewish one (and later old time Christian), some of the Jews being the first to launch this idea, that Michael will come as the Messiah on earth. Of course not all Jews embraced this view. References: Karin Al Shaharastani, History of religions and religious ideas, Roaul Vaneigem, Resistance to (Against) Christianity, Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma and so on.

Later this idea was included in the religious books of the first and second century Christians, for example in the Pastor of Hermas.

"This great tree that casts its shadow over plains, and mountains, and all the earth, is the law of God that was given to the whole world; and this law is the Son of God, proclaimed to the ends of the earth; and the people who are under its shadow are they who have heard the proclamation, and have believed upon Him. And the great and glorious angel Michael is he who has authority over this people, and governs them; for this is he who gave them the law into the hearts of believers: he accordingly superintends them to whom he gave it, to see if they have kept the same."

"The Pastor of Hermas" II century AD

 

2.Michael “an angel”? But of what kind, just “one of the angels” or much more?

 

Michael is not “an angel”, just as a president of USA is not a company president. Of course with good intentions, but the wrong background in knowledge, some of our dear brothers cling desperately to a text from the Epistle to the Hebrews chapter 1, being rather driven by some pastors and literature of them, than God-driven at it. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says that God did not honor "someone" among the angels. But the question is, was Michael just "one" of the angels?

 

From what historical source do we know in the best way, if he was a common angel or not? The best reference is the Bible, the Book of the Books.

 

The translators of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) ancient version even introduced this view in their version: “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 great counsel; for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to Him.” Isaiah 9:6 Septuagint

 

Daniel 12:1 in the early Greek version of the Septuagint have the same word “aggelos” like in Isaiah 9:6:

 

kai kata ten oran ekeinen pareleusetai Michael ho aggelos (angel) ho megas (high) ho estekos epi tous uious tou laou sou ekeine he hemera Thlipseos oia ouk egenethe aph ou egenethesan eos tes hemeras ekeines kai en ekeine te hemera hypsothesetai pas ho laos os an eurethe eggegrammenos en to biblio 2 kai polloi ton katheudonton en to platei tes ges anastesontai oi men eis zoen aionion oi de eis oneidismon oi de eis diasporan kai aischynen aionion.

 

So the LXX authors make a clear distinction, Michael is not an angel, he is the great angel (aggelos ho megas), as neither a president of the USA is a company president but “The President” of the USA. In this way of thinking Michael is not “an angel”, He is “The Angel” Of Great Counseil” of God’s presence, “One” who occupies the throne next to the throne of glory, in the closest presence of God, at His right hand.

 

He does not advise God as some derogatory say, but Mankind, as we see in the book of Proverbs chapter 8. Where did the most wise man on earth, King Solomon, get this idea? What man or book inspired him? I think Moses and the Book of Genesis, where he saw that God has a significant Companion. Moses, their great spiritual leader, stood in the presence of God and His high court at the height of Mount Sinai. Moses wrote the beginnings of mankind, learning all from God, including the words of God to this special Companion:

 

Genesis 1:26 “Then God said, "Let Us make man...”

Genesis 2:22 “The Lord God said, "Behold, man has become like one of us,...”

Genesis 11:6,7 “And the Lord said, ... Come on! let's get down and tangle their language there...”

 

The objection that can be made here is that either God spoke his thoughts to himself, or to all of the angels, and thus He would not have such a “Companion”.

 

But does this denial - if is wise - resist, on the right weighing of the Bible?

 

This great distinction is "felt" throughout the entire Bible, "Someone" a loving and faithful Companion is God's “mouth, ear, and right hand”, so to speak. Solomon understood how things are. He was not the wisest man among men? Only Lord Jesus surpassed him. And so the interpretation given by Solomon to those ancient texts from Genesis took shape and imposed itself as a point of view, though a minority, in the Jewish society. Only the wise knew it, a minority.

 

Discussing the religious ideas circulating in the world, impartial historians have made it clear that this vision is a Jewish one, then embraced by the early Christian church, especially the Eastern Christians. In some churches, Jesus was painted with wings, a clear allusion to Michael.

This iconography has been preserved for a long time in the east, especially in the former Arian churches, which were confiscated from them and given to the Trinitarians. Impartial historians make it clear that this vision was embraced in mass by the Arian churches.

 

And the so called “Arianism” it was quite popular, as we read in one of Constantine the Great's letter to Arius:

"What then, knave? Where in the world do you admit that you are now? There, obviously; for I have your letters, which you have scraped with the pen of madness toward me, in which you say that all the Libyan populace is of the same opinion with you – doubtless in regard to salvation. But if you shall deny that this is so, I now call God to witness that truly I send to Alexandria – that you may perish more quickly – the Erythraean Sibyl’s very ancient tablet, composed in the Greek tongue."

 

Arius view - that the Son of God has a beginning - was well received in his country (Libya), probably even before Arius and the emperor did not contradict this notice "in which you say that all the Libyan populace is of the same opinion with you" but tried to fight this popularity with a pagan oracle.

When the Arian church was taken out of law and its members formally took refuge in the Trinitarian Churches, they also took this vision with them. That's why this vision existed in the Trinitarian churches to this day. It is not their vision, but of the Arians, who took this view from Lucian of Antioch, who was the mentor of the Arian leaders - and Lucian took it from his predecessors. So we cannot speak of an invention of the Trinitarians, nor of the Arians, but of Jews.

 

But let's also other Biblical texts to speak:

Exodus 23: 20,21

"Here I send an Angel before you, to protect you on the way and to take you to the place I prepared. Be careful in His presence and listen to His voice so that You will not resist Him, for He will not forgive transgressions, for My Name is in Him."

Isaiah 63: 9

"In all their troubles they were not without help, and the Angel in front of His face saved them, He Himself redeemed them in His love and mercy, and supported them and carried them in the days of old."

What do you think, dear brothers, sisters – you are all my dear companion here regardless of opinion, is this Angel “an angel” of common rank or superior rank (order)? Which of the ordinary angels of God is placed in such honor and power? Let's look at three brand qualities, which I don't know ordinary angels would have. If they have it please put me on the topic.

1. Don't forgive the transgressions against of the law

2. He has the name of God in him (that is, he can speak in the name of God)

3. Stand before God always, I mean only the Son of God can stand before His Father all the time.

Who is this High Angel, the Companion of God, if not the Son of God?

It's unique! God Almighty sent us to follow Him! (John 3:16) Amen!

 

Justin Martyr (c. 100 - c. 165) in a dialogue with the Jew Trypho says:
God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God {'a god,' anarthrous theos}, and then Lord and Logos .... For He can be called by all those names, since he ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will .... The Word of Wisdom ... speaks by Solomon {Prov. 8:22-30} the following: ‘.... The Lord {‘Jehovah’, original Hebrew manuscripts - cf. ASV} made me the beginning of His ways for His works.’ ANF 1:227-228 (‘Dialogue’).

 

So, dear brothers and sisters put your mind to the contribution, not only the soul, when you study the Bible and in particular do not let yourself be manipulated, neither by myself, nor by others, nor by yourself - for the heart is deceived and deceitful - writes in the Bible.

 

Of course I have other Bible texts also.

Remember, whether you follow my view or not, our motto is "Love builds". And I would add: "Truth sets us free" and peace creates conditions of love and unity. Let's act in civilized manner and no longer use questionable tactics in the art of dialogue.

 

When two fight, the third wins, so did the Romans in the art of war with the motto> Divide et Impera!

 

Do you know who wins when we "fight" each other? Satan, the devil. So let us not provoke one another, but strive to apply not the art of war, but the noble art of love described in 1 Corinthians chapter 13.

 

I'm glad dear brothers and sisters, because I have the same opinion as the Prince of preachers, if he as the greatest preacher was wrong, it is a honor to be wrong like him :)

But I am confident that neither he nor I failed in the identification I made!

So I join him in glorifying the Son! "He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah's presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows."

C. H. Spurgeon the "Prince of Preachers" Quote from "Mornings and Evenings":

"To whom do we owe all this? Let the Lord Jesus Christ be for ever endeared to us, for through Him we are made to sit in heavenly places far above principalities and powers. He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah's presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows."

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (19 June 1834 – 31 January 1892) was an English Particular Baptist preacher. Spurgeon remains highly influential among Christians of various denominations, among whom he is known as the "Prince of Preachers". He was a strong figure in the Reformed Baptist tradition, defending the Church in agreement with the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith understanding, and opposing the liberal and pragmatic theological tendencies in the Church of his day.

Spurgeon was pastor of the congregation of the New Park Street Chapel (later the Metropolitan Tabernacle) in London for 38 years. He was part of several controversies with the Baptist Union of Great Britain and later he left the denomination over doctrinal convictions. In 1867, he started a charity organisation which is now called Spurgeon's and works globally. He also founded Spurgeon's College, which was named after him posthumously.

Spurgeon authored many types of works including sermons, one autobiography, commentaries, books on prayer, devotionals, magazines, poetry, hymns, and more. Many sermons were transcribed as he spoke and were translated into many languages during his lifetime. He is said to have produced powerful sermons of penetrating thought and precise exposition. His oratory skills are said to have held his listeners spellbound in the Metropolitan Tabernacle and many Christians hold his writings in exceptionally high regard among devotional literature. Wikipedia

Again> Truth is not the monopoly of a group. It is of God.

 

Thank you and God bless you!

 

Chapter 47

How does the Gospel (Good News) sound in a properly rendered biblical context, in a contemporary and simple language?

 

New Simplified Bible

https://studybible.info/NSB

 

John 1

 

NSB(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like God (God-like). 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him and without him not one thing was made. 4 He lived and his life gives light to all people. 5 His light shines through darkness and it cannot be extinguished. 6 God sent a man named John. (Malachi 3:1) 7 He came to tell (witness) (testify) about the light and help people have faith. 8 Not being the light he came to give a witness of it. 9 The true light, which gives light to every man, came into the world. (Isaiah 49:6) 10 The world was made through him. He was in the world and the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to his own. They did not receive him! 12 He gave the right to become children of God to all who received him. Even to those who believe in his name. 13 They were born from God. It was not from blood, or the will of the flesh, or the will of man. 14 The Word [Jesus] became flesh (a human being) and lived with us. We saw the glory of the only begotten son from the Father. He was full of loving-kindness and truth. 15 John spoke about him and declared: He is the one I said would come after me. He is greater than I am because he lived before me.« 16 Out of the fullness of his undeserved kindness he gives us one blessing after another. 17 The law came through Moses. Loving-kindness and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No man has ever seen God. The only begotten God-like one who is closest to the Father (in the bosom of the Father) tells us about him. (Psalm 8:5)

 

John 3

 

NSB(i) 15 »Everyone who has an active faith in him may have everlasting life. 16 »For God loved the world so much, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever has an active faith in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 »God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world. Instead the world should be saved through him. 18 »He who has an active faith in him is not judged. He who does not have an active faith has been judged already for he has not had faith in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 »This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world. People loved the darkness rather than the light for their works were evil. 20 »Every one who does evil hates the light. He does not come to the light because his works would be reproved. 21 »He who practices the truth comes to the light. His works are made known that they are from God.«

 

John 17

 

NSB(i) 1 Jesus spoke these things and lifted up his eyes to heaven. He said: »Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that the son may glorify you. 2 »You have given him authority over all flesh that he may give everlasting life to the ones whom you have given him. 3 »This is everlasting life that they should have *deep, intimate knowledge of you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have commissioned. *(Greek: ginosko: know, perceive, be sure, understand) 4 »I glorified you on the earth. I accomplished the work you gave me to do. 5 »And now, Father, glorify me with you, the glory that I had with you before the world existed. 6 »I taught your name to the men whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours and you gave them to me. They have lived by your word. 7 »Now they know that all things you gave me are from you. 8 »I gave them the words that you gave me. They understood them and knew I came from you. They believed you sent me. 9 »I pray for them. I do not pray for the world. I pray only for those you gave me, for they are yours. 10 »All things that are mine are yours, and yours are mine and I am glorified in them. 11 »I am no more in the world but they are in the world. I come to you Holy Father. Keep them in your name, which you have given to me, that they may be one*, even as we are. *(Greek: heis; united in purpose and love)

 

Revelation 3

 

NSB(i) 1 »To the angel of the congregation in Sardis write: He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars says these things: 'I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, and you are [really] dead. 2 »'Be watchful, and strengthen the things that remain that are at the point of death: for I have not found your works perfect (completed) before God. 3 »'Remember what you received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If you do not stay awake, I will come to you like a thief. You will not know the hour when I will come to you. 4 »'You have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled (defiled) their garments. They will walk with me in white: for they are worthy. 5 »'He who overcomes will be clothed in white garments. I will not blot out his name from the book of life. In fact I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. 6 »'He who can hear let him hear what the Spirit says to the congregations.' 7 »To the angel of the congregation in Philadelphia write: He says these things. He who is holy, he who is true, he who has the key of David, he who opens and no man shuts, and shuts and no man opens. 8 »'I know your works (deeds) (acts). Pay attention, I set before you an open door, and no man can shut it: for you have a little strength, and have kept my word, and have not denied my name. 9 »'I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, for they lie; I will make them come and bow down before your feet. They will know that I have loved you. 10 »'Because you have kept the word of my patience (endurance), I also will keep you from the hour of testing. This will come upon the whole world to test (scrutinize) (discipline) (examine) those who dwell on the earth. 11 »'I come quickly: hold fast what you have so that no one will take your crown. 12 »'I will make the one who overcomes, a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will not go out from it anymore. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is the New Jerusalem. This city comes down out of heaven from my God. I will write my new name on him. 13 »'He who can hear let him hear what the Spirit says to the congregations.' 14 »'To the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation says this: 15 »'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 »'Because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. 17 »'You say, «I am rich and have become wealthy and have need of nothing." You do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked. 18 »'I counsel you to buy gold from me, gold purified by fire, so that you may be rich; and white clothing, so that you may be clothed. In this way the shame of your nakedness will not appear. And anoint your eyes with eye salve, so that you may see. 19 »'I reprove and discipline those whom I love: be zealous therefore, and repent. 20 »'Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hears my voice, and opens the door, I will come in to him, and dine with him, and he with me. 21 »'To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me on my throne, even as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 »'He who can hear let him hear what the Spirit says to the congregations.'«

 

The Bible message is clear:

 

From love for the human race, God sent His only-begotten Son, who mirrors (reflects) the glory and being (likeness in image and character) of God, and His Son came from heaven - also from love, not forced by someone, teaching us what the love of God and our fellowmen really means, giving His live as a ransom for us, in order to save us from sin and eternal death, which destroys every one of us (Exodus 21:23, John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:1-3, John 3:13,16, John 17:1-3,5, Matthew 20:28).

 

So God did not die, because He is immortal in the eternal glory of immortality (1Tim. 6:16). Only His beloved Son did this for all of us (John 3:16). Thank you Father, we pray in the wonderful name of your only-begotten Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! Hallelujah, Amen!

 

Chapter 48

Versions of John 1:1, which is your favorite version and why?

 

From Wikipedia:

John 1:1 in English versions

The traditional rendering in English is:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Translations by James Moffatt, Edgar J. Goodspeed and Hugh J. Schonfield render part of the verse as "...the Word [Logos] was divine". Murray J. Harris writes,

[It] is clear that in the translation "the Word was God", the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, "the Word was God" suggests that "the Word" and "God" are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity … The rendering cannot stand without explanation."[15]

An Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible commentary notes:

This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: "God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father."[16]

Other variations of rendering, both in translation or paraphrase, John 1:1c also exist:

14th century: "and God was the word" – Wycliffe's Bible (translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate)

1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)

1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)

1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)

1864: "the LOGOS was God" – A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)

1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)

1867: "and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)

1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)

1911: "and [a] God was the word" – The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner.[17]

1924: "the Logos was divine" – The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, by James Moffatt.[18]

1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.[19]

1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.[20]

1956: "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation[21]

1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);

1962, 1979: "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" – The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)

1966, 2001: "and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible.

1970, 1989: "and what God was, the Word was" – The New English Bible and The Revised English Bible.

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany

1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin

1985: “So the Word was divine” - The Original New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield.[22]

1993: "The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one." — The Message, by Eugene H. Peterson.[23]

1998: "and what God was the Word also was" – This translation follows Professor Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, ed. Daniel J. Harrington.[24]

2017: “and the Logos was god” - The New Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Hart.[25]

Difficulties

The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy. From the point of view of early church history, heresy develops when a misunderstanding arises concerning Greek articles, the predicate nominative, and grammatical word order. The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, "and the Word was the God." The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, "and the word was a God."

— David A. Reed[26]

 

There are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, 1) theology and 2) proper application of grammatical rules. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the one which is most popular.[27] The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that "... a god" or "... divine" is the proper rendering.[28] Some scholars oppose the translation ...a god,[29][30][31][32] while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.[33][34][35]

John 1:1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

 

My favorite version is the New Simplified Bible version. See why:

 

The word "ho Logos" in John 1:1 is a nickname. The same word "ho Logos" appears as a nickname in the book of Revelation chapter 19. In both cases it refers to the same person, the Son of God. In both cases he exists.

 

John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and like God (or God-like) was the Word. (Dynamic translation, made by context and topic)

 

John 1:1 in other words:

 

John 14: 9. Jesus said to him, "How long have I been with you, and have you not known me, Philip? Who has seen Me, has seen the Father.

 

Revelation 19:13. and he is arrayed with a garment covered with blood, and his name is called, "The Word (ho Logos) of God (tou Theou)."

 

If it is accepted that in Revelation 19:13 it is a real person, other than God the Father, surnamed - otherwise known as "the Word", why wouldn't in John 1:1 be a real person, near God?

Joseph Warren Wells - expert in Coptic language - about John 1: 1b wrote the following:

"To answer your questions: On my website I state "Coptic was the first language the New Testament was translated into that has the indefinite article; and the only language with the indefinite article that was produced during the Koine Greek period. "The is of interest because, in Coptic versions, John 1:1b is commonly translated "the word was with God and the word was a God" using the Coptic indefinite article; with some variation in word order. "In the proto-Bohairic version (Papyrus Bodmer III, the text of which was partially reconstructed by Rodolphe Kasser) the first occurrence of "God" in John 1:1 is in the Nomina Sacra form, whereas the second occurrence is spelled out. In John 1:18 the word "God" (which no one has seen) is in the Nomina Sacra form, while the word "God" (only-begotten) is spelled out." So literally, the Sahidic and Bohairic texts say "a god" in the extant mss. In a similar way translations of the Greek "pneuma ho theos" (spirit the god") at John 4:24 usually say either "God is spirit" or "God is a spirit" where both give the same sense of "what" God is, not who he is. Here the Sahidic says literally "a spirit is the God" (P.Palau Rib 183) as does the Proto-Bohairic (Bodmer III). To me, the sense of the passage in John 1 is likewise a description of what the Logos was in relation to God. A rather clumsy reading might be: The Logos was in the beginning. The Logos was with God. The Logos was like God (or godlike, or divine) with the emphasis on his nature; not his person."

I like how the author of the New Simplified Bible version render John 1:1, I recommend:

NSB(i) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like God (God-like). 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him and without him not one thing was made.

https://studybible.info/NSB/John

I think the “WORD” from John 1:1 is a wonderful archangel - nicknamed in this way, the highest of the angels of God Almighty, even the Son of God. See for example Daniel 12:1 in the early Greek version of the Septuagint: kai kata ten oran ekeinen pareleusetai Michael ho aggelos (angel) ho megas (high) ho estekos epi tous uious tou laou sou ekeine he hemera Thlipseos oia ouk egenethe aph ou egenethesan eos tes hemeras ekeines kai en ekeine te hemera hypsothesetai pas ho laos os an eurethe eggegrammenos en to biblio 2 kai polloi ton katheudonton en to platei tes ges anastesontai oi men eis zoen aionion oi de eis oneidismon oi de eis diasporan kai aischynen aionion. Let's compare two texts, which describe one and the same Angel, but of a different rank (order) from the others - for example a president of a state is in a higher rank that a president of a company, in this sense, the word angel is used in the bible, once in a general sense and once in a special sense:

Exodus 23: 20,21

"Here I send an Angel (simply means "sent ","messenger" in Hebrew) before you, to protect you on the way and to take you to the place I prepared. be careful in His presence and listen to His voice so that You will not resist Him, for He will not forgive transgressions, for My Name is in Him."

Isaiah 63: 9

 

Isaiah 63: 9

"In all their troubles they were not without help, and the Angel in front of His face saved them, He Himself redeemed them in His love and mercy, and supported them and carried them in the days of old."

What do you think, dear brothers, sisters and friends, is this Angel an angel of common rank or superior rank (order)? Which of the ordinary angels of God is placed in such honor and power? Let's look at three brand qualities, which I don't know ordinary angels would have. If they have it please put me on the topic.

1. Don't forgive the transgressions against of the law

2. He has the name of God in him (that is, he can speak in the name of God)

3. Stand before God always, I mean only the Son of God can stand before His Father all the time.

Who is this High Angel, if not the Son of God?

It's unique! God Almighty sent Him! (John 3:16) Follow Him! Amen!

God bless you with truth!

 

Chapter 49

How can we follow Jesus: as God Almighty or as a Savior ordained (anointed, invested) by God Almighty?

 

According to 1 Cor. 11:3 the head of Christ is God. Then how could Jesus be the God of the Bible, the Creator himself?

 

Take a look at the Bible:

Young's Literal Translation

and I wish you to know that of every man the head is the Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God.

 

Some say at John 20:28 that Thomas, one of the twelve apostles, called Jesus "God", so we must follow him as the God of the Bible, the Creator of all, it is true?

 

Imagine yourself as Thomas, a monotheist messianic Jew: you followed a man who taught as no one else had ever taught; you saw miracles take place in abundance, the healing of the sick, the raising of the dead, the casting out of demons, etc.; and you came to the conclusion that this man must be the promised Messiah of the Scriptures, the one expected to liberate Israel from Gentile domination. Then, suddenly, in a period of 24 hours this man is arrested by the Jewish religious authorities, turned over to the very Gentiles from whom you anticipated liberation, and executed! Had you been duped; was this just another false messiah? So, for a monotheist messianic Jew like Thomas, it would have been blasphemous if the Lord Jesus had truly claimed that he is God Almighty.

 
No wonder he withdrew from the disciples' fellowship and did not stay with them until the announcement of the resurrection was announced, but there he went with distrust:

John 20:24And Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came; 25the other disciples, therefore, said to him, ‘We have seen the Lord;’ and he said to them, ‘If I may not see in his hands the mark of the nails, and may put my finger to the mark of the nails, and may put my hand to his side, I will not believe.’

 

Thomas, whose faith in Lord Jesus was shaken by this turn of events, began to have his doubts about Jesus! Upon seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas' faith was restored in his Messiah. Is it any wonder that he exclaimed, "My Lord and my God!"? 

 
But what does this exclamation mean?

What did the Christian Messianic Jews believe about God? Was it Jesus, their teacher?

No, if we look at Jesus' last testimony about God: 

John 17

1These 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: 2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Therefore, is only one Creator and God, the Father Almighty of our Lord Jesus Christ and of us, the Creator of heaven and earth, the undisputed sovereign of the entire Universe, who loves us and wants only our good (John 3:16, John 17:1-3). He is Yehovah Elohim, the God of the saints of Israel.

The Good News (Gospel) after the apostle John Chapter I 1. In the beginning was the 'Word', and the 'Word' was with God and like God was the 'Word'.

References: Genesis 1:26; 11:7, Proverbs 30:4, John 14: 7-11, Hebrews 1: 1-3; it is not about two heavenly Gods, but God and the Son of God, who was like God: strong, wise, righteous, merciful, loving, forgiving, etc., the apostle does not refer to the function of God, but to his qualities, inherited by his Son; the word 'god' in the final part of the text is a noun qualitatively, given by the topic and the lack of any article, as the apostle John also shows in the gospel presented by him "he who saw me saw the Father" John 14: 9. 

The only-begotten Son of God was in the beginning with God. (References: Genesis 1:26; 11:7, Proverbs 30:4)

John 1:3. All through Him appeared, and without Him not a single thing appeared from what appeared (References: King Solomon considered Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 11:7 when he wrote Proverbs 8: 22-30).

See also John 17:5.

 

Why can we render John 1:1c in this way "like God"? Sometimes fragments of texts need to be translated dynamically to clarify their meaning, but this is always done in close relation to the context.

John 1:1c fits this type perfectly, where to understand the apostle correctly, the context is decisive. The dynamic translation of the Greek text "en archē ēn ho lógos kaì ho lógos ēn pròs tòn theón kaì theòs ēn ho lógos", can be contextually rendered as follows:

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and like God was the Word.

In the present sentence and then in the whole context of the book - as will be seen, the second word theos is a qualitative noun, which describes the first word theos (John 1:18, respectively John 14:9 “Who saw me he saw the Father.”), which has the function of nominative noun. Origen of Alexandria, Greek writer of the third century praises the famous apostle John because he knew the "beauty of the Greek language", living for a long time in Ephesus, a city won then inherited by Greek (see hellenism). Source: Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, chapter 2.

Monotheist convinced, like his Master, the Heavenly Rabbi Yeshua / Jesus (see John 17: 1-3), the apostle Yohanan / John speaks of the Word not as "Elohim (Theos) in person" or "a second Elohim (deuteros Theos) of heavenly realm", but being a very close celestial person (a special Son, only-born, see the word" monogenous "in John 3:16) who has the qualitative nature of Elohim / Theos, but not the function of Elohim / Theos . I support this because I see the construction of the sentence, the topic in relation to the following evangelical context. 

When the apostle John formulated John 1:1c, he thought of the word of the Lord Jesus later recorded in John 14:1-14. 

The secret to deciphering the text is here. There is only one God, the Almighty Father and the only-begotten Son is like Him in qualities (strong, wise, righteous, merciful, loving, forgiving, etc.), but not in the function of God. When the apostle John formulated John 1:1c, he did not think of the Son's function (as many do), because he had a clear monotheistic demarcation, having the role of a boundary stone, spoken by the Lord Jesus and recorded later in John 17: 1-3. : The Father Is The Only Elohim / Theos / True God. If there were two or more Gods, the others would be false Gods.

The Greek topic in John 1:1 (the order of words in the sentence) would at most allow a literal translation of the kind: In the beginning was 'the Word', and 'the Word' was with God and 'god' was 'the Word', meaning Psalms 82: 6 - John 10:34, or the following: 2 Corinthians 4: 4: Satan is 'god', but not the Almighty God, Matthew 16:23: Peter is 'satan', but not Satan the Devil, John 10: 34: Some people might be 'gods', but of course not the Almighty God, Galatians 4:14: Paul is received as the angel of God, but he was not an angel. In this sense John 1: 1: The logos is 'god', but not the Almighty God. 

Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, who came from heaven and anointed (invested) as Teacher (Rabbi = Excellent Teacher, Master), Savior ("Lamb", Sacrifice), Lord (Master), King (Leader - Lawyer), High Priest (Mediator) and Judge (Matthew 28: 18,19); Messiah in Hebrew and Christ in Greek means "the anointed" of God; however, a Christian is a friend of King Jesus Christ, this friendship being conditioned: "You are my friends, if you do what I command you." John 15:14, the mark of identification of true Christians is the Christlike love: “I give you a new commandment: to love one another; as I have loved you, so do you love one another. By this they will all know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." 

With all this in front of his eyes, how could Thomas have made such an assertion?
 
The phrase "my Lord and my God" in John 20:28 is incomplete in itself, so the context as a whole must be considered. Not to be mistaken in the interpretation, how to understand that exclamation of the apostle Thomas:

- as a preaching?: "My Lord and my God really rose from the dead!" 

- as a nominative? "You are my Lord and my God who raised from the dead!" 

- or as vocative? "My Lord and my God, truly You (that is God the Father) raised Jesus from the dead!"

 

The vocative variant is the correct one, due to the exclusivist context of John 17:1-3, in which the apostle Thomas was also present. Let us not forget that he was unfaithful to the resurrection, so the unwritten text in his mind speaks of the resurrection, not something else, as some unfortunately understand. His disbelief turned into an exclamation of astonishment toward the Father, who does such wonders. 

The Apostle Thomas could not contradict precisely the risen One, who was his mentor:

John 17: 1-3

When he had thus spoken, Jesus lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour is at hand.

as thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all those whom thou hast given him.

And eternal life is this: to know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 

 

Therefore, the Lord Jesus must be followed as the Savior ordained by God the Father, and many have done so, regardless of the consequences they had to endure.

Here is the story of the song:

I Have Decided to Follow Jesus

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I Have Decided to Follow Jesus is a Christian hymn that originated in Assam, India. According to Dr P. Job, the lyrics are based on the last words of Nokseng, a Garo man, a tribe from Meghalaya which then was in Assam, who along with his family decided to follow Jesus Christ in the middle of the 19th century through the efforts of an American Baptist missionary. Called to renounce his faith by the village chief, the convert declared, "I have decided to follow Jesus." His two children were killed and in response to threats to his wife, he continued, "Though no one join me, still I will follow." His wife was killed, and he was executed while singing, "The world behind me, The cross before me." This display of faith is reported to have led to the conversion of the chief and others in the village. The fierce opposition is possible, as various tribes in that area were formerly renowned for head-hunting.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_Decided_to_Follow_Jesus

 

    I have decided to follow Jesus;
    I have decided to follow Jesus;
    I have decided to follow Jesus;
    No turning back, no turning back.

    The world behind me, the cross before me;
    The world behind me, the cross before me;
    The world behind me, the cross before me;
    No turning back, no turning back.

    Though none go with me, still I will follow;
    Though none go with me, still I will follow;
    Though none go with me, still I will follow;
    No turning back, no turning back.

    My cross I’ll carry, till I see Jesus;
    My cross I’ll carry, till I see Jesus;
    My cross I’ll carry, till I see Jesus;
    No turning back, no turning back.

    Will you decide now to follow Jesus?
    Will you decide now to follow Jesus?
    Will you decide now to follow Jesus?
    No turning back, no turning back.

Chapter 50

Covered and uncovered before God and his Son

 

According to the Bible:

God is the head of Christ.

Christ is the head of all man.

A man is the head of his wife.

1Cor. 11:3

What this mean?

 

From a sister: „I got the feeling that I should cover my head when praying. Why or why not?”

 

The answer

The reason is clearly shown, "because of the angels" (the apostle Paul). In the Israelite tradition it was believed that angels carry the message of our prayers to the Creator. It was believed that because many women are so beautiful and that angels should not be tempted, they are required to cover themselves when they pray. So the woman should not pray naked, not even with her head. Unfortunately, today this beautiful motivation from the ancient Israel is lost, and women are praying not only with their heads uncovered, but also briefly dressed... (1Cor. 11:10)

"Symbol of authority". Interesting but what does it mean? Why because of the angels?

Why because of the angels? It is clear that women were the cause of the temptation of angels from the time before the flood, according to the Genesis book. And the Hebrew believers reading their ancient books felt it was due to protect them somewhat, so they proposed this point of view in the feminine behavior during the prayers, when it was believed that she was facing an invisible angel. Which means a "Symbol of authority"? In ancient peoples time it was a custom that slaves could not cover their heads. The empty head was a symbol that they were slaves. It seems that this custom was also kept during Paul's time, which associated it with the ethics of prayer of male men, they could not pray covered, because they were servants of God, and of Christ. Thus we better understand why men should pray to God with their heads uncovered (1Cor. 11:4).

 

I do not agree with many of the teachings of Muslims, and I do not encourage anyone to become a Muslim, Christianity is clearly superior, but I recommend this video, so you can see how certain problems are posed in the Middle East, where Christianity it has expanded, and the benefit of some rules about which we laugh now, but in ancient times, when the world was much worse and women were mocked and deprived of liberty, such rules were a safer protection for them: Answer to a Christian lady on Muslim Head Scarf and Veil...FUNNY Sh. Ahmed Deedat... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF2TiRMELoY

It's so funny this man, but also awesome in good points. Enjoy it :)

 

 

Answering "God as a compound unity" theory

Read the Bible, Pray, Think!

What some understand:

Proposition # 1: Though Deuteronomy 6:4 says that God is one, one is often used in Scripture for a compound unity. Therefore, the one God must be a multiple in some sense, that being revealed by other passages of Scripture as a Trinity.

Response: The language in which this was originally written was the native tongue of the Jews, yet they do not have, and have never had, the concept of either a multiple or triune God. So, what was their understanding of the one God? The God of Israel was not like the gods of the surrounding nations. They had a god for this and a god for that; but Israel had one God for everything. In this sense we might say He supply the needs of many gods in One; and only in this sense might we say that He is a compound unity for all our needs and still be congruent with historic Jewish beliefs. Notice what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, "You [Samaritans] worship what you do not know; we [Jews] worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." If God were triune when the Jews held no such concept, wouldn't that have made Jesus' statement to the Samaritan woman inaccurate? -- John 4:22

Jesus himself clearly identified who the 'one God' is. In John 17:1-3 Christ is recorded as praying, "Father,... this is eternal life, that they know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." In Greek the pronoun you has both singular and plural forms. Here the singular form is used. Jesus addressed this prayer to his Father, used the singular form of the pronoun, and described this "You" as "the only true God." Thus, according to Jesus, the Father alone is God.1

Doesn't the fact that almost all Christians accept the doctrine of the trinity prove that it is true? Consider, two thousand years ago the vast majority of the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah; did this prove that he was not the Messiah? No, it did not. What is important is what the Bible does --or does not-- say, not what the majority choose to believe. The Bible explicitly states that the Father is the one God; and Jesus explicitly identified his Father as our Father and his God as our God.2 He also explicitly said that the Father is the "only true God."3 Nowhere does the Bible explicitly say that God is a trinity.4

See below why the Rabbis could not depart from their Monotheism, accepting Christianity:

Professor of Semitic language Wilhelm Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar about the word Elohim

Elohim is not the only Hebrew noun that can be plural in form but singular in meaning. Such Hebrew noun forms are sometimes used for abstract nouns and as intensifiers. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar devotes several pages to this subject. The following list is not exhaustive, but it illustrates the point. The masculine plural ending is im; oth is the feminine plural ending.

zequnim — old age (Gen. 21:2, 7; 37:3; 44:20).

ne`urim — youth. David was only a boy (na`ar), but Goliath "has been a fighting man from his youth [ne`urim]" (1 Sam. 17:33).

chayyim — life. This is used in the song "To life, to life, lechayyim" in Fiddler on the Roof.

gebhuroth — strength. The singular form gebhurah is the usual word for strength, but the plural form is used in Job 41:12.

tsedaqoth — righteousness. The singular form tsedaqah is the usual word, but tsedaqoth is used in Isaiah 33:15 — "he who walks righteously [or "in righteousness"]."

chokmoth — wisdom. Chokmah is the usual form, but chokmoth is used in Prov. 1:20.

'adonim — lord. 'adon means "lord," and 'adonim normally means "lords," but Isa. 19:4 says, "I will hand the Egyptians over to the power of a cruel master ['adonim]."

behemoth. This word normally means beasts, but in Job 40:15 it refers to one animal.

Specifically discussing elohim, Wilhelm Gesenius observes: "The language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in 'elohim (whenever it denotes one God).... [This] is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute" (such as a singular adjective or verb). For more information on the subject, consult Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, pages 396-401, 1909 edition.

This means that this word Elohim looks toward one person, but with multiple and great powers.

BBV of Old Testament Genesis 1

1In the beginning God* created the heaven** and the earth.

*title, not a name: Elohim, plural not singular, but defines the plural of the majesty, of the powers in possession, not the numbers of the personnel; if the sentence is constructed in the singular, a literal translation would sound "The Powerful" and not "The Powerful Ones", so is a descriptive plural

**plural, not singular: dual, some languages also have a dual (denoting exactly two of something), or other systems of number categories; however, in English and many other languages, singular and plural are the only grammatical numbers, except for possible remnants of the dual in pronouns such as both and either; as in the first case, we have to deal with a descriptive plural, it is not about two heavens, but a single heaven with two ends (extremities), from the east and from the west

All this disprove that in the word Elohim could be three distinct persons in one-Trinity concept. And so the rabbis can attack the trinity doctrine with great fervor. With such theories, Israel will never come in mass to Christianity.

According to Christian expectations, Israel must return in the mass to Jesus, before His second coming: "Behold, * thou shalt be left desolate, but I say unto thee, Thou shalt not see Me any more, until thou say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Luke 13:35. Whether this expectation is true or not, such a trinitarian theory is clearly a brake, which will stop this desire.

If you are interested in the trinity doctrine - if it is Scriptural or not - we invite you to read more on the Bible.

The Bible message is:

From love for the human race, God sent His only-begotten Son, who mirrors (reflects) the glory and being (likeness in image and character) of God, and His Son came from heaven - also from love, not forced by someone, teaching us what the love of God and our fellowmen really means, giving His live as a ransom for us, in order to save us from sin and eternal death, which destroys every one of us (Exodus 21:23, John 1:1, Hebrews 1:1-3, John 3:13,16, John 17:1-3,5, Matthew 20:28).

So God did not died, because He is immortal in the eternal glory of immortality (1Tim. 6:16). Only His beloved Son did this for all of us (John 3:16). Thank you Father, for your great love and for your beloved Son, we pray in the wonderful name of your only-begotten Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! Hallelujah, Amen!

 

 

PART SIX - Calling to the action: let’s everybody worship God in spirit and truth

 

Chapter 51

The calls that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ makes to us

 

Greetings with 1Corinthians 1:3!

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!

 

This writing supports classical Christianity from the first century AD, founded by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ himself, the Son of God. He makes some calls to us today, addressing this through the pages of the Holy Gospel.

 

Matthew 24 45“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

This theme is rhetorical, a question and not a statement for somebody, so called „anointed” or „leader” by Lord Jesus, the Son of God. He wants to encourage each of us, to be faithful and wise, this is not an express nominative of someone, during this time of grace. Whoever wants to be great must be the servant of all:

but not so shall it be among you, but whoever may will among you to become great, let him be your servant; Mathew 20:26

 

The question is still open: Who is a faithful and wise slave? And it will remain so, until our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God Almighty comes, who will nominate his beloved ones, to the praise and glory of his Father. Hallelujah! Amen!

 

Matthew 25 1‘Then shall the reign of the heavens be likened to ten virgins, who, having taken their lamps, went forth to meet the bridegroom; 2and five of them were prudent, and five foolish; 3they who were foolish having taken their lamps, did not take with themselves oil; 4and the prudent took oil in their vessels, with their lamps. 5‘And the bridegroom tarrying, they all nodded and were sleeping, 6and in the middle of the night a cry was made, Lo, the bridegroom doth come; go ye forth to meet him. 7‘Then rose all those virgins, and trimmed their lamps, 8and the foolish said to the prudent, Give us of your oil, because our lamps are going out; 9and the prudent answered, saying — Lest there may not be sufficient for us and you, go ye rather unto those selling, and buy for yourselves. 10‘And while they are going away to buy, the bridegroom came, and those ready went in with him to the marriage-feasts, and the door was shut; 11and afterwards come also do the rest of the virgins, saying, Sir, sir, open to us; 12and he answering said, Verily I say to you, I have not known you. 13‘Watch therefore, for ye have not known the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man doth come.

 

Our Lord Jesus tells us that when we serve we must do so with oil in the candles. This means that we must have the Holy Spirit in us. Only in this way can we be wise and do a good work. A virgin who is not wise will not enter in the marriage with the Lord Jesus. To be a virgin is to be holy:

Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. Hebrews 12:14

 

Matthew 22 1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2“The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.

4“Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’

5“But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8“Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11“But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless.

13“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

14“For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

 

Lord Jesus says here that everybody being present at a wedding requires appropriate clothing for such an event. You can't come in anyway. And clothes represent our deeds:

and there was given to her that she may be arrayed with fine linen, pure and shining, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.' Revelation 19:8

 

As we see, the Lord Jesus calls us to holy service, wisdom and sanctification, without which no one will be able to see him as His Bridegroom. All this must be done in fraternal unity, in the Church. But if we do not have the same Scripture, we will not have the same unity. We need to see which Scripture is the right one, the one of the non-Trinitarians or the one of the Trinitarians.

 

Chapter 62

What is a Church?

 

According to the Bible, a Church, literally a gathering (assembly) of Christian believers, is a fraternal unity under the leadership of the Lord Jesus, to do the will of his Father, bringing Him glory and full obedience.

All Christians have beliefs, and this are based on their perceptions about what they read and understand from the Bible or traditions, but many traditions are not rooted in the teachings of the early Christians and thus have no connection with classical Christianity.

The Church is God's ambassador on earth, to spread the divine message of salvation all over the world, serving and uniting people of common interest and cause for the advancement and mutual benefit of all, while promoting positive development of their individuality as being in the image of God. The letter of accreditation of the Church is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, the loving and powerful message of God.

A Church, is a local or an international community of people who share in study of the Scripture and other educational resources, seeking to learn about the heavenly Creator and His Son, and to understand His revealed message and purpose for humanity, serving and facilitating a loving and true Christian fellowship among believers in fellowship. Thereby, we must strive to live by the biblical principles and morals, to the best of our understanding, leaving judgement to the One whose right it is in matters of interpretation. Without these necessary steps, a Church cannot be built according to God's will.

Our faith is in one Creator and God (John 17:1-3), the Father of all, who sent His Son, from the heaven, to be born as human on the earth, under the name Jesus, as redeemer of humankind through his sinless life, death and resurrection, as the oldest apostolic believer says. By this, according to His promise, we are justified to have hope of everlasting life in His Kingdom of righteousness, realizing that our relationship with God through His Son is personal, He alone being our Teacher, High Priest-Mediator, Savior, Lord and King according to God's holy will.

For a Biblical Church, the Bible must be sufficient for defining God and His purposes, and therefore we have not embraced any doctrines nor creeds of man apart from the thesis of Scriptures, believing that such empty and useless talk have served only to cause divisions in the Church.

The Bible is our unit of measure, it is our standard of faith. Any teaching, prophecy, or conduct must be verified with the Bible, but carefully, because it can be misinterpreted: 2 Peter 3: 15,16, Revelation 22: 18,19. These misinterpretations often come from the fact that the Bible has been exposed to various scribal errors, either unintentional, negligent, or intentional, as unfortunately we have in many cases, made to serve as the basis for various doctrinal guidelines. Thus, there were many differences between the manuscripts, which are divided into four important families. Regarding these differences, called "textual variations," we must pray to God for guidance, in the name of His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, so that we can deal with differences in the fear of God, wisely and rightly, choosing the correct, even if our opinion will be in the minority, knowing that it is not people's opinions that matter, but God's opinion. Let us not forget that Satan deceives the whole world (Revelation 12: 9), so he can also deceive theologians into choosing the wrong version of textual renderings.

All who profess faith in His saving grace and express their faith by water immersion can enter in fellowship with this Church members. They will grow in knowledge, in peace, through love and the sanctification of their lives through the Word of the Gospel.

We are under the divine commandments of love. To love calls for action of doing good whenever it is in our power and tell the good news from God to everybody (John 3:16).

 

These things become increasingly important seeing that in the future "the Great Apostasy" and the "Great Opression" will come (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Revelation 13:7) and it is possible that our generation will see these events. Until we can work, we must do it with all our devotion, to serve as a testimony to all  around us. Please note that whatever the case may be, the fulfilled prophecies can strengthen believers that the Holy Scripture, the ancient Bible, correctly translated and interpreted, is trustworthy and useful for our completion.

          God solemnly promises that salvation will be granted to all nations of the earth:

Revelation 7: 9 “And I looked, and behold, there was a great multitude, that no one could number, from any nation, from any tribe, from any people, nor from any language, that stood before the throne. and before the Lamb, put on white garments, with branches of the finick in the hands. "
White clothes represent the approval of their faith in the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 7:14), they do not have a "facade" faith, but a real, living, factual faith, so they are saved.

         The key word is "FROM ANY NAMES ...", so not all individuals will be saved, but only individuals repented of by any nations. Therefore, as ambassadors of the Theocracy and the Kingdom of Adonay Yehowah Elohim and of His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ let us call upon the obedience of faith and living repentance from all nations, including us, because only this, this prophecy can be fulfilled.

 

Chapter 53

The Son of God, our ransom and salvation

 

First century Christians view about the ransom and salvation

 

The Son of God died once and for all, as a perfect ransom for all, but this is not generated upon the persons until they believe. Who don't believe lost this favor.

 

A warning!

 

Whoever does not wish to be saved during his life loses this opportunity forever (be careful!): “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36). This verse and other similar verses, are clear messages with reference to this life in which we live, and not to a future one.

 

The message about the Father and His Son Jesus Christ - meaning who they are and the message for us also, about what does the Good News

 

The Father Almighty, is the awesome Creator of Heaven and Earth and the maker of our ransom and salvation through His glorious only-begotten Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who have a loving message to the mankind:

From love for the mankind, God sent His only-begotten Son, who mirrors (reflects) the glory and being (likeness in image and character) of God, and His Son came from heaven - also from love, not forced by someone, teaching us what the love of God and our fellowmen really means, giving his live as a ransom for us, in order to save us from sin and eternal death, which destroys every one of us (Exodus 21:23, John 1:1c in anarthrous meaning, Hebrews 1:1-3, John 3:13, John 3:16, John 17:1-3, Matthew 20:28).

 

Why all of this?

 

A (former) high-ranking rebel angel (cherub) became Satan the Devil, because he rebelled against the Creator, desiring to overthrow Him and to entrench his own reign in the Universe (Revelation 12:9). The time we live in is "his last days", so to speak, figuratively. His reign of terror and suffering will soon end, being removed by the loving reign of the Father and his Son.

Satan the Devil has introduced sin into existence and because of this he is responsible for all the sins that have been committed (John 8:44). The payment of sin is the death, first the common one, the Adamic death and then the second death, which will be applied after the resurrection and the judgment from then on, to those who have consciously practiced sin, as you will see from Hebrews 10:26. For if we sin freely, after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice left for sins, 27. but only a fearful expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire that will consume the rebellious.

This is the terrible fire that consumes to ashes, as we see from Malachi 4:1. For behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven. All the deceivers and all the wicked shall be as a stubble; the day that cometh shall burn them, saith the Yehowah of hosts, and shall leave them neither root nor branch. 2. But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness spring up, and healing shall be under his wings; you will go out and leap like calves from the stable. 3. And thou shalt tread down the wicked: for they shall be ashes under the soles of thy feet in the day that I prepare, saith the Yehowah of hosts.

Unfortunately, we also find in this topic falsified verses, which support the idea of ​​eternal torment and hell, as punishment.

Alfred E. Housman, a text evaluator of classical works, points out that text evaluation (so-called textual criticism) is both a science and an art. This is a science, because different rules govern the assessment of different types of copier errors and readings, but it is also an art, because these rules cannot be strictly applied to all situations.

We are in such a situation regarding Luke 16: 19-31. The Bible is a classic treasure trove of literary art and contains many Gordian knots. We need a great "artist" to untie these knots. And this is God. We need God to "intervene" in our minds to achieve our (correct) goal.

The second-century manuscripts contain 71% of the Gospel of Luke in fragments (818 of 1151 verses, if there were indeed 1151 verses in the original text) and they were mapped and inventoried. No manuscript of this book has been preserved from the first century, as far as I know. These are those passages: Luke 1: 58-59; 1: 52-2: 1; 2: 6-7; 3: 8-4: 2; 4: 29-32; 4: 34-5: 10; 5: 30-7: 32; 7: 35-39,41-43; 7: 46-9: 2; 9: 4-17: 15; 17: 19-18: 18; 22: 4-24: 53. As we can see, chapter 16 exists, but - be very careful - there are also some differences in this chapter, compared to what we have now in the present day versions and we can draw some pertinent conclusions. As far as I know, manuscripts containing the complete Gospel of Luke do not exist until the fourth century.

However, someone reported that there was a complete copy of this second-century gospel in the United States. The manuscript was lost, but someone made photocopies. I don't know where they would be. It is unusual for a manuscript of such importance to be lost in our modern age. But, for some reason this is possible, being hidden somewhere. Priests are masters of secrecy when their dogma is endangered. When I wanted to see a manuscript, they didn’t give me permission, he argued that, I don’t have a degree. In another case, I was looking for a reference in a certain case and a pastor did not give it, although he knew. And in the third case, the files in Wikipedia articles were retaliated. This does not imply textual science or a will to know.

The oldest fragment of the manuscript containing Luke 16 is mss P75, but it is still debated whether the manuscript is from the second or third century. A big question mark is why this passage from Luke 16:19-31 is not quoted in any form by the most important authors of the second century, only by those with Gnostic tendencies (Marcion, Tatian, Clement). Regarding the evaluation and explanation of this passage, three traditions have emerged in Christianity, either as a real story, or as a meaningful story (parable), or the story was not told by our Lord Jesus.

How researchers see this: “Some say that the story is entirely attributed to Jesus (Bauckham 1991, 45; Marshall, 634; Blomberg, 203-5; Jeremias 1972, 186; Fitzmyer 1985, 1127; Hock, Vol. 4, 266). -) 7) while others see it as a pre-Christian story attributed to Jesus (Bultmann 1963, 203), a later apocryphal insertion (the whole story, Cairus 2006, 35-45) or an own edition of the evangelist Luke (Drury , 159-60). Some have been puzzled since antiquity, even if they preferred it as a strong argument in their doctrine, for example Origen, why the story suddenly appears in its current location (Reiling and Swellengrebel, 569-70). Scholar Aecio Cairus argues for the exclusion of passage 16:19-31 from the original Gospel, for a smooth transition from 16:18 to 17:1 (Cairus, 43). He sees verses 19-31 as interrupting the flow of the narrative, "for the same condemnation of the doctrine of the Pharisees introduced in 16: 15-17" (Marshall, 632). References: Daniel Berchie, Samson Dakio, Luke 16:19-31: The Intermediate State of the Soul

For my part, I agree with the opinion of Cairus and other scholars or laymen of the same opinion, and I do not think that this opinion should be anathematized, given the well-founded arguments it brings, for example that this passage is not reflected at all in the apostle's writings.

On the contrary, in the theology of the pastoral or ecumenical epistles of the New Testament is missing: Romans 6:23 New Translation  23 For the wages of sin is death (and not eternal torment), but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And now see what happens at the next judgement (that is, after the resurrection), for the following text speaks of judgment:

The Protestant Bible Hebrews 10:27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and the blaze of a fire that will devour the rebellious.

The Orthodox Version 10:27 But a fearful expectation of judgment and the speed of fire that will devour the adversaries.

Other Bible version 10:27 but only a frightening expectation of judgment and terrible fire that will consume those who oppose God.

But here the Greek text says: "but only a fearful expectation of judgment (kriseos) and fire (kai pyros) zealous (zelos) that will eat (esthiein) the rebellious (tous hypenatious).

Question: "Why will it be a burnout and not a torment in court?"

Answer: For God, who is love, would not act against his own nature.

Hebrews 12:29 because our God is "a consuming fire." The punishment will be great because it is eternal, but the pain of annihilation in this fire will be short, for the fire of God is immense, and its flame strong.

Why doesn't it say that God is a torturous fire? You wouldn't even be able to do that! Our very nature is terrified of such a thing. Karaite scholar Nehemiah Gordon said, "God is not Moloch!" Could a father torment a child forever, no matter how bad he was? I think not. So why do you blame God for that? Is he not the Father of all men? Isn't that what we say in the "Our Father" prayer? So Luke 16:19-31 is a foreign text to God, Jesus, the holy angels and apostles, the Bible, and the gospel.

 

Chapter 54

What expect Christians in the End Time?

 

There will be a great tribulation on earth, and during this time a great number from all the nations will leave the cults of the corrupt religious system, preparing for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 25: 1-13, Revelation chapters 7 and 18). During that time, traditional religions - and here we mean all, including pagans - will not only lose the support of state authorities, but will be abolished by a political decree by the World Government of the New World Order (NWO), which will appears on the stage of the political world (Revelation 17:16), after a World War III, between East and West (NATO). Instead, to fill the void of spiritual needs, the World Government will establish worship at the beast's icon (Revelation 13:15). During this time, what the apostle Paul termed "the denial of faith" and a charismatic political leader named "the man of transgression, the son of perdition" will appear (2 Thessalonians 2: 3).

But soon God will restore His kingdom to earth through his Son, the King appointed for it, who, after preparing it at God's will, destroying any opposition and foe, will surrender all the authority to his Father, that God the Father may be all in all (1 Corinthians 12: 6).

 

As spiritual soldiers in the great army of the Father and His Son, God calls us to be victorious against all kind of lies and carry us in His chariot of victory, until we conquer even the last devil's redoubt, by the truth of the Holy Scripture (John 17:17). This means breaking all relations with unbiblical traditions and reconstructing verses falsified by scribes. Some did it carelessly, but some did it knowingly, and so they manipulated us.

His message is that He loves us and wants our highest good, which is why he urges us to always be on His side. The aim of the commandment is love, because true love builds, but it comes by hearing the truth and maintaining itself in the sphere of peace.

Remember that we are guests of God on Earth, and we must behave as such. The motto of apostle Paul was "Love Builds". But this cannot be done without the love of truth and without peace.

Remember some verses, about our Lord Jesus feelings about those who reject the truth:

But you have this good thing: you hate the actions of the Nicolalites, which I also hate. (Rev. 2:6)

Likewise, you also have some who also hold the teaching of the Nicolaites, which I hate. (Rev. 2: 15)

Reward her as she rewarded you and return twice as much as her deeds. Fold them into the cup where she mixed it! (Rev.18: 6)

This shows that although we love all people, we must not compromise the truth proclaimed by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and we will not make any syncretism with pagan ideas.

Invitation to the mission!

 

If you love the truth, peace and sanctification, you are invited to participate in the service of the Father and his Son. Because it's a lot of work, we want to give this noble service to our  sisters and brothers, but only to those who has made a covenant with our heavenly Father, through the intercession of his Son, our Lord.

 

What we believe

 

To prevent some misunderstandings, here is what we believe, only those who join us in this confession please contact us, for the mission. First of all you must know that we supports classical Christianity from the first century AD, founded by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ himself, the Son of God.

We believe in only one God, the Father Almighty, Yehovah, the Creator of Heaven and Earth and of all things from the Universe and in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord and Savior, who came from Heaven to be born on Earth through Mary, a holy virgin, by the Holy Spirit.

We believe that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Son of our God and Father, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died for our sins and buried, rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the Heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father Almighty.

We believe He will come again, to judge the living and the dead.

We believe in the Holy Spirit of God Almighty, in the grace of God and of His Son, in the holy oneness of the assembly of saints, in the remission of sins, in the resurrection of the death and in the eternal life. Amen! 

 

Don't forget to read the Holy Bible daily, pray daily to God and think about what you read daily and send the Good News to others, to know who God and His Son really are, according to this is eternal life, without this knowledge is no eternal life (John 17:1-3). Be careful, our mission is very important, don't be scared for criticism and don't be a lazy slave (Revelation 3:16).

 

Our work is to invite people in love and responsability to study classical Christianity from the first century AD in the comparison of the modern days doctrine – if this are Scriptural, repent to God and believe truly in Lord Jesus Christ. Love builds, truth make all people free and peace sustains our growth.

 

Remember, the Holy Gospel main message is:

 

From love for the human race, God sent His only-begotten Son, who mirrors (reflects) the glory and being (likeness in image and character) of God, and His Son came from heaven - also from love, not forced by someone, teaching us what the love of God and our fellowmen really means, giving His life as a ransom for us, in order to save us from sin and eternal death, which destroys every one of us (Exodus 21:23, John 1:1anarthrous, Hebrews 1:1-3, John 3:13,16, John 17:1-5, Matthew 20:28).

So God did not died, because He is immortal in the eternal glory of immortality (1Tim. 6:16). Only His beloved Son did this for all of us (John 3:16). Thank you Father, we pray in the wonderful name of your only-begotten Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Join us and help others!

 

God bless you, in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, His Son! Hallelujah!

Amen!

Chapter 55

A few concluding words, a biblical warning and a call to responsible action

 

We have here and you there a blessed time for research! The internet is a big and very informative library. But this freedom will end in the future.

That's why I recommend for further investigation of some doctrines of Ancient Truths.

We need to investigate all the ancient manuscripts, for a better understanding of the variants and to chose the right version.

Comparing biblical texts in virtual manuscript rooms on the internet or other libraries, we still remains Evangelical Christians, because our purpose is a right textual comparison and analysis, for a best understanding of the Bible text, not a speculative one, for hidden anti-biblical reasons.

People with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages and history of the textual transmission are kindly invited to form an unprejudiced, fair-minded and candid group and to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology. God’s people needed a final recension and version of the Bible, the best version.

This time of freedom will end in the near future, so we must take a right decision now, and this is not possible, if we don't search the sources impartially.

God's punishment over the false religion surely will come.

Revelation 17:1

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits by many waters.

16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire.

17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled.

Now is just a matter or time... See why... and from whom.

“New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that “religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.” New Atheism

Sooner or later, all the false religious groups of any kind will disappear. Including us if we will find in the wrong places. A wrong place comes from a wrong Bible version. The doctrine of the trinity is not the only teaching that must be discussed impartially, there are others that have raised great questions.

For example, see the real text of Matthew 10:28

Matt. 10:28 - NIV, NAB - in First Apology of Justin (cc 134 AD)

"Fear not them that kill you, and after that can do no more; but fear Him who after death is able to cast both soul and body into hell."

No allusion for an immortal soul as in KJV and other pro-immortal soul versions.

 

The Bibles’ Creed

 

We believe in the only one God, the Father Almighty, Yehowah, the Creator of Heaven and Earth and of all things from the Universe.

Gen. 1.1, Exodus 20, Mat. 5.45, Rom. 1.20

 

We believe also in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord and Savior, who came from Heaven to be born on Earth through Mary, a holy virgin, by the holy spirit. We believe that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Son of our God and Father, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died for our sins and buried, rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the Heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father Almighty.

We believe He will come again, to judge the living and the dead and to restore the divine order on the Earth.

Matthew 3.17, Luke 1.35, John 19.19-42, 1Peter 3.18, Mathew 6.10

 

We believe in the holy spirit of God Almighty and of Lord Jesus Christ, in the grace of God and of His Son, in the holy oneness of the assembly of saints, in the remission of sins, in the resurrection of the death and in the eternal life in happiness. Amen! 

1Cor. 2.9, Revelation 21:3-5

Hallelujah, Praise Yehowah!

 

Chapter 56

Why did you believe a teaching that is not found in the Bible?

According to the trinity doctrine "the Trinity is the Most Holy God".

"The most sublime mystery of the Christian faith is this: 'God is absolutely one in nature and essence, and relatively three in Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are really distinct from each other." - p. 584, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers, 1976.

Mystery or not, this doctrine is not in the Bible. The word trinity or triad does not appear in any version of the Bible. Weren't Bible writers the most competent and authorized to use this form? And yet they did not. Why not follow their example?

Another problem, “they” are either "really distinct" or "relatively" so? This is a contradiction, but let’s deal with this two face of this doctrine. A misunderstanding is like a snowball: the further you roll it the bigger it becomes. So, who is the real God? A trinity of persons (The Trinity) or just one person, the Father Almighty?

 

1 Thessalonians 5:21

 but test them all; hold on to what is good,

I coming back with the explanation of the Hebrew word ehohim, because some claim that the plural would contain an allusion to the Trinitarian doctrine.

 

Understanding the title Elohim (God)

 

Remember Professor of Semitic language Wilhelm Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar about the word Elohim. He explain:

 

Elohim is not the only Hebrew noun that can be plural in form but singular in meaning. Such Hebrew noun forms are sometimes used for abstract nouns and as intensifiers. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar devotes several pages to this subject. The following list is not exhaustive, but it illustrates the point. The masculine plural ending is im; oth is the feminine plural ending.

zequnim — old age (Gen. 21:2, 7; 37:3; 44:20).

ne`urim — youth. David was only a boy (na`ar), but Goliath "has been a fighting man from his youth [ne`urim]" (1 Sam. 17:33).

chayyim — life. This is used in the song "To life, to life, lechayyim" in Fiddler on the Roof.

gebhuroth — strength. The singular form gebhurah is the usual word for strength, but the plural form is used in Job 41:12.

tsedaqoth — righteousness. The singular form tsedaqah is the usual word, but tsedaqoth is used in Isaiah 33:15 — "he who walks righteously [or "in righteousness"]."

chokmoth — wisdom. Chokmah is the usual form, but chokmoth is used in Prov. 1:20.

'adonim — lord. 'adon means "lord," and 'adonim normally means "lords," but Isa. 19:4 says, "I will hand the Egyptians over to the power of a cruel master ['adonim]."

behemoth. This word normally means beasts, but in Job 40:15 it refers to one animal.

Specifically discussing elohim, Wilhelm Gesenius observes: "The language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in 'elohim (whenever it denotes one God).... [This] is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute" (such as a singular adjective or verb). For more information on the subject, consult Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, pages 396-401, 1909 edition.

 

All this disprove that in the word Elohim could be three distinct persons in one-Trinity concept. 

Proof texts, for one God, the Father Almighty alone

Matthew 4:10: "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the LORD (Jehovah) your God, and serve him only."'" (quote from the Old Testament)

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

1Corinthians 8:5-6: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

James 2:19: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."

 

No "one God in Trinity" here.

If there is neither the word trinity or triad nor the trinity dogmatic formulation in the Bible, it means that we are dealing with a man made Trinity, without the express permission of God. This is dangerous because it is written not to go beyond what is written. The teachings formulated must coincide with what is written, not to create contradictions with what is written in the Bible.

 

Wikipedia:

Trinity

"Within Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is a single "Being" who exists,

simultaneously and eternally, as a communion of three persons (personae, prosopa): Father (the Source,

the Eternal Majesty); the Son (the eternal Logos or Word, incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth); and the Holy Spirit. Traditionally, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "One God in Three Persons," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal "persons" or "hypostases, " share a single Divine essence, being, or nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

One God or three in one concept?

 

If the doctrine of the Trinity is right, and God is relatively three in Persons, the concept being one and Jesus is in fact the same Yehowah under the cover, not being three Yehowah but one, then God Yehowah DIED...

So, how could be God "immortal" according to Deuteronomy 32:40, Daniel 12:7, Romans 1:23, 1Timothy 1:17, 6:16? If Lord Jesus is a dying God? A "Mysterious Part" of "mysterious, not understandable, mystic Trinity"? Or he is the heavenly, only-begotten Son of our God, the Father Almighty, according to John 3:16, John 17:1-3, John 20:17? This is very important because the gospel speaks of the death of the Son of God, but never of the death of God himself.

Think how offended God must be if he is immortal and no one can kill him, and yet some claim that he was killed and died. This may remind us of the folly of Job's friends, who said unjust things about God. Think that if Job had not prayed for their forgiveness, they would have been killed for their wickedness.

Job 42:7After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.

8So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has."

 

If the doctrine of the Trinity is right, and God is “three” under the cover of one concept, and this “three” are really distinct from each other, the concept being one and Jesus is in fact an another Yehowah, being three distinct Yehowah, the it is very important to understand whether God is one or a trinity of three.

IS GOD "ONE" OR "THREE"?

By Mark Heber Miller, a Nazarene Messianic believer (with permission)

No one would know better whether He is one or three than God Himself. Let us assume the Nature of God is three: three persons in One. We may rightly assume God is capable of communicating this idea to His worshippers if He so chose. Let us assume He wishes to convey this Trinitarian or triune idea to people. How could he go about it? He could be plain, simple, and direct for it is not difficult to say: "I am three" or "I am three in One: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit."

On the other hand God may choose to reveal Himself progressively to His chosen people throughout the Old Testament so that by the end of 39 inspired books the Jews would have an intelligent comprehension of the truth that "God is Three."

The first phrase of the Bible is: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." In Hebrew the word God is elohim which literally means "gods." Now, this could be the first hint to a plurality in God’s Nature. However, it would infer "gods" without indicating the number. That the Jews did not understand this to be so is the way they translated the Hebrew to Greek in the Third Century BC. They did not use theoi which means "gods." Rather they used ho theos which means The God in the masculine singular.

In the Bible’s second verse something else is first mentioned: "And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." This word "spirit" is from the Hebrew ruach which means either breath or wind. In Greek this phrase is kai pneuma theou or "the breath of The God." A pneuma or ruach is an invisible force which exerts a pressure like wind. Pneuma or ruach is not a person but is a force. Some translators Actually use "wind" instead of the Old English word ‘spirit."

In a later verse (26) Elohim (or ho theos), The God, speaks to someone else: "And The God said: ‘Let us make man According to our image." Is The God talking to Himself as if He were plural? The Jews did not understand that to be so. They thought these others were angels. (Job 38:4-7) There is no way of knowing, reading from verse 1, who this "us" might include. It is only after thousands of years of retrospection that Trinitarians construct a Trinity out of "God" of verse 1, "spirit" of verse 2, and the "Son" (or, the Spirit and the Son) of verse 26. Of course, there remains only one of these identified as "God" in verses 1 and 26. Nothing in these verses proves the spirit is a person or that the Son is meant in verse 26. These are later ideas imposed on the Genesis text.

What conclusions can we draw from just Genesis chapter one? There is the Creator, The God (ho theos vss 1, 26). There is the wind or breath of The God moving Across the waters. And, there are others implied by "us" and "our" in verse 26. Does it seem fair to conclude that God is not communicating some mysterious three in His nature? If that had been so the Jews would have grasped the meaning right away.

How might God have inspired the verses if He wanted to communicate the plurality of His nature in three persons? It would not have been difficult, with an infinite vocabulary at hand, to have said: "In the beginning the Three Natures of God created ... and the Third Person was moving over the waters. ... And, the plural nature of God said to Himself: ‘Let us .... ‘" This would not have been difficult.

On the other hand, if the truth is "God is One," then Genesis 1:1 would mean there was one God, The God. The godly breath or divine wind of The God moved over the waters. Then, in verse 26, The God (ho theos) spoke to an unknown number of others who shared in His making of man. No matter how many are involved in the words "us" and "our" there is only one God, The God, giving the command to some unidentified other(s).

THE NAME OF GOD -- "ONE" OR "THREE"?

In Genesis 2:4 the Name of God is introduced for the first time. What does this Name mean? Does it convey the idea of a plurality of three or does it infer only One. There is some disagreement on this. However, when the Jews of the Third Century translated the Hebrew YHWH to Greek they gave the meaning ho On which means According to most scholars: "The One Who Is." Does the meaning of the Name convey plurality or oneness? It seems fair to state that ho On conveys only the idea of One?

Had God wanted to reveal his plural nature in three it would not have been difficult to state in some manner something like ho trias -- The Three. Or, ho theos trias -- The God Three, or The Three-God.

IS GOD "ONE" OR "THREE" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?

The Jews never comprehended any threeness in God as the Greek Philosophers or the Egyptian priesthood did. The idea of a triune god, or three gods in one, was right there in the religious cultures of the ancient world. It would not have been a difficult thing to convey this same idea if that is what God wanted to do. Why convey the idea of One when it was in fact Three given all the religions that surrounded Israel who already had trinities?

It is fair to state that nothing in the OT conveys the idea of a Trinity otherwise the Jews would have been the first to comprehend the notion. It is only by looking backwards through Trinitarian filters that triune-obsessed Christian scholars begin to conjure up Trinitarian images in Genesis chapters one and eighteen; or, Isaiah 6:3.

Illustrating this forced interpretation -- looking for three when there is only One -- is the Trinitarian twist to Deuteronomy 6:4 where the Shema declares the LORD to be One. Because the Hebrew echadh may mean one or first of others, it is argued that this verse becomes the "most explicit declaration of the Trinity in the whole Bible"! Even if one were to Accept the quaint Trinitarian notion that the Hebrew word for "one" in some way conveys "one of more" it is only by retrospective Trinitarian filters this can mean three rather than an unknown number.

IS GOD "ONE" OR "THREE" IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?

When we come to the New Testament we could ask this same question: How would God go about revealing He was a plural of Three and not just one person alone? This is not difficult to write: "Our God is three." Nothing even remotely like this occurs.

Jesus the Nazarene has plenty of opportunity to use the number three in some connection with God. Note John 8:16-18: "The father who sent me is with me. Also, in your own Law it is written: ‘The witness of two persons is true.’ (Deuteronomy 19:15) I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness abut me.’" Can anyone deny that abundant opportunity is present here to use the "three" of Deuteronomy 19:15 in revealing the three-fold nature of God. Jesus would have had no difficulty in saying: "As your law states: ‘The witness of three persons is true.’ I am one who bears witness of myself, and the Father bears witness of me, and the Holy Spirit also bears witness.’" Jesus could have Actually used the same phrases in the fake text, 1 John 5:7 had he been a Trinitarian.

Paul is not ignorant of the number three for he uses it at 2 Corinthians 12:2 (tritou), 14 (triton); 13:1 (triton, trion), the later in the context of quoting Deuteronomy 19:15 and a plurality of persons. Paul also quotes Deuteronomy 19:15 but he adds "three" showing Jesus could have done the same.

It seems strange indeed that if Jesus were part of a Trinitarian deity -- he would surely know this -- and miss his opportunity in John 8:17, 18. It is probably fair to state that a real Trinitarian would not have included only two in this case but would have conjured up a 1 John 5:7.

Jesus has another opportunity when he quotes the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 in Mark 12:29: "Jesus answered, ‘The first is "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is one."’" Understanding what Jesus meant, the Jewish scribe says: "You are right, Teacher, you have truly said that ‘he is one, and besides him there is no other.’" To which Jesus says the man is "not far from the Kingdom of God." (Mk 12:29-34 RSV) Jesus could have easily given the Trinitarian explanation of the Hebrew echadh or the Greek heis as indicating three persons. Rather, the Nazarene praises the scribe for his conclusion: "(God) is One, and besides Him there is no other." Something which could not be said if God were Three.

This opportunity to involve three in a formula occurs also at Matthew 11:27: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him." (RSV) Why would the Son omit the Third Person of the Holy Trinity? For surely -- if the Trinity be true -- the Spirit would know the Father and the Son also. It would have been easy to say: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and the Holy Spirit knows both the Son and the Father as He is known by them."

Paul also makes it plain that "God is One" ignoring any opportunity to explain the Mystery of the Trinity. Twice in the contexts of others -- with the opportunity to form some triune plurality -- Paul stress "God is One." First in Galatians 3:20: "Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but The God is only one [ho de theos heis estin]." Paul does this again at 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God [heis gar theos]; there is also one mediator between God and humankind." Just as there is only "one mediator" and not some plural mediator, there is only one God.

In the very context of the plurality of "gods" Paul speaks of only one God: "There is no God except one. ... Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (1 Corinthians 8:4, 6 RSV) Something pops right off the page: the missing Holy Spirit. With full opportunity and a mastery of language, Paul misses the chance to declare: "To us God is three: the Father, the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." It is a simple sentence. Why would God Himself miss this opportunity to inspire Paul to declare a triune Godhead?

Finally, some will immediately want to jump to Ephesians 4:4-6 and what will be declared to be a triune formula. Read it clearly and fairly: "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." (RSV) Only "one" is declared to be God in these verses. Rather than being a triune formula it encompasses seven "ones." It is the "one God" only who is "above all" -- which would include the Christian "body" and the "one Spirit" and the "one Lord."

Had Paul been a Trinitarian and had a Trinitarian God inspired him would he have written Ephesians 4:4-6 in this manner? For he omits the spirit and Jesus from his declaration of "one God" and includes only the Father who is "above all" including the spirit and Jesus.

SUMMARY. The above is presented as a statement of the Biblical truth that "God is One" and not three. It is presented to demonstrate that if "God is Three" the Bible seems to go in another direction. It is assumed God can communicate the simple truth that He is Three and if this is His intent he falls far short of it in the many declarations that "God is One." We ask, then, why the number "Three"?

WHY THE NUMBER "THREE"?

The doctrine of the Trinity teaches there are Three Persons (or, Hypostases) in One God: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Any thoughtful person might ask: Why "Three"? Why not two, or four, or seven? Or, three-hundred million persons in one Divine Community like a celestial bee-hive? Why ... three?

Numbers held great religious power in the ancient world. Three has always been particularly mystical, particularly when squared (nine). Numbers appear often in the Bible. For example, here are the occurrences of the various numerals ---

01 5,624

02 1,054

03 585

04 387

05 389

06 241

07 534

08 113

09 52

10 276

These results are interesting when we consider them from the standpoint of what must be the most sacred (from a Trinitarian standpoint) -- three. One is clearly a premier number in the Bible. Two is second, and three is (?) third. The highly sacred number, the square of three, nine is the least used number in the Bible. The luckiest number in the Asian world, eight (the number who survived the Flood), is also rare.

When we examine the number three and look for its occurrence in some relationship to God -- who is supposed to be Triune in nature -- we find no such occurrence. This seems unusual beyond belief when many pagan religions reveal their trinities in the form of one body with six arms; or, a three-side, or three-faced god. It is not difficult to do or say. For example, the phrase "God is One" occurs several times, but a phrase just as easy to write and say, "God is Three," is completely missing. Why should this be when we might rightfully expect the number "three" to receive premier emphasis in a Bible inspired by a Triune Godhead?

The Oxford Companion to the Bible, page 561, comments on this: "Three is widely regarded as a divine number. Many religions have triads of gods. Biblical faith has no room for a triad, and the number three is rarely connected with God. ... Neither is the doctrine of the Trinity expressed there in so many words."

Harper’s Bible Dictionary, page 497, admits: "Three ... was already sacred to early Babylonian religions, honoring a triad (Anu, Bel, Ea) ... as Egyptians honored Isis, Osiris, and Horus."

When we look at that book of the Bible where numbers figure prominently, Revelation, some interesting observations are made.

01 103

02 14

03 11

04 29

05 3

06 6

07 59

08 2

09 0

10 11

12 23

Again we are surprised by the appearances of "three" for it is only tied with the 6th position in number of occurrences. Surprising, the number "nine" -- the most sacred Babylonian number -- is missing completely! As in the rest of the Bible, the number three is never used in some relationship with God’s nature in the Book of Revelation.

This seems strange for a Book inspired by a Triune Godhead --- to minimize or even ignore three in some combination, particularly squared, as it is in pagan religions. Might there be a reason?

We find the lack of emphasis on the number three -- or nine -- to be evidence against the concept of a Triune Godhead. Why would the Bible do such a thing? Why would this number "three" be so sacred in extra-biblical religions and yet devoid of emphasis in the Bible?

First, we note Aristotle’s own use of the number "three" in relation to God: "For, as the Pythagoreans say, the world and all that is in it is determined by the number three, since beginning and middle and end give the number of an 'all', and the number they give is the trinity [Greek trias; English = "trinity"]. And so, having taken these three from nature as (so to speak) laws of it, we make further use of the number three in the worship of the Gods." (Aristotle, On the Heavens, Book I, 1) There can be no question, based on this one statement by the great Greek philosopher alone, the number three was a number of high magnitude religiously speaking. Again, we ask, Why?

What could be the reason for this selection of the number Three? We wish to suggest a possibility.

Once, there was only One, the Absolute Being. All that existed was only God and God only was all that existed. At some moment -- do not ask, When? For your string with measured knots did not yet exist -- the One Absolute Being thought [ > Mind, Reason, Intellectual Process; the Divine Mind as the Pressure of Consciousness exerting a Force projected by Divine Will -- the holy spirit, or Mind of God] to create a second being, a Son -- a monogenetic. (John 1:18) In the most glorious transcendent moment of all creation -- exceeding the Big Bang by mathematical anomalies -- the Absolute Being begat His Son. Now there were Two -- Father and Son. This one who was Second was to become the only being directly created (monogenetic) by The Absolute Being and therefore First and Last in this matter. (Re 1:17) How long they were together "alone" is an unsolvable philosophical matter. Surely, there was unimaginable intellectual intercourse between the Two as the Second Being, the only-begotten Son, learned from the Divine Mind. (John 17:6; Proverbs 8:22-30)

The purpose of this was to prepare the Son for the creation which was to follow. For the only-begotten Son, called "only-begotten god" by the apostle John (John 1:18 > monogenetic god), was to become the Instrument -- Agency, Channel, Conduit -- for all the rest of creation. (Hebrews 1:2, 3; John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-18; Proverbs 8:22-30) The Son was soon to become the Logos -- the Word, the Spokesman or Mouthpiece -- by means of whom The Absolute Being would make, or bring into existence, all other creatures. (John 1:2, 3) The Father would speak to the Son -- "Let there be" -- and it would become.

First created, the celestialum of other spirit creatures, such as angels, who would become part of one heavenly family of millions of spirit-like persons. (Colossians 1:16; Job 38:4-6) Then, the material creation -- perhaps in a dramatic Big Bang -- which began an evolving process by which the simplest of nuclear particles became the Universe -- the PANTA -- that is today. This included the process revealed in Genesis chapter one when The God speaks to another and commands, "Let there be ... "; and, then, later instructs this Second -- His Son, the Logos: "Let us make man in our image." (Genesis 1:26; Proverbs 8:30 master workman, craftsman, confidant)

This Son as a "confidant" -- or, Master-Worker -- is spoken of as (female) Wisdom [Grk = sophia; compare Colossians 2:3; 1 Corinthians 1:24] in Proverbs 8:22-30: "[Yahweh] created me at the beginning of His course as the first of His works of old. In the distant past I was fashioned, at the beginning. ... I was brought forth. ... I was there when He set the heavens into place. ... When [Yahweh] fixed the foundations of the earth, I was with Him as a confidant [or, Master-worker]." This text was used by many of the so-called "apostolic fathers" of the first and second century and applied to the "Wisdom of God," Christ.

How might the number "three" have come into the picture? When one reflects on it, there are three life-forms: 1) the Absolute Being; 2) the Only-begotten God as the first and last of the Father’s direct creation (the Monogenetic); and, 3) the rest of creation, both celestial and terrestrial. Among the later category there was one who later became known as Satan (Resister) or Devil (Slanderer). (Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:13-17) It is not difficult to imagine the rebellion that followed resulted because Satan wanted to represent the third life form -- general creation. It is easy to imagine Satan’s line of argument -- the Absolute Being represents his own kind; the Son as only-begotten (monogenetic), the only one directly related to the Father, represents his own kind -- but, who will represent Everything else, the PANTA, the All Things of creation, other than the Son?

This idea -- a third as representative of the PANTA, the general creation -- arouses the number Three -- the third place or number Satan craved. Thus, the number Three is the Satanic number -- including its square, nine -- as it is worshipped by the ancient Greeks and modern pagan religions. [The pentagram, an ancient symbol for power is a circle with three triangles overlaid in it.] This explains why the number Three is given no importance or emphasis in the Bible as a whole and never linked in any manner to God the Father or His Son, Jesus Christ. It explains why the Babylonish "nine" is omitted completely from the Book of Revelation.

We wish to apply an analogy here to illustrate the matter: Adam, like God, has another being created from his own substance, Eve -- the first and last woman so made; then, Adam and his second, Eve (like the female Wisdom), begat Cain, the first of their union, but the third of their kind, who then became the manslayer. (John 8:44;1 John 3:12, 15) In like manner, the Absolute Being brought into existence a Second Being -- perhaps from His own substance -- and then in union the Creator used the Son as His agent to create others, perhaps a first of these, a third of many millions to follow. This may have been the angelic being who was to turn himself into a satan or diabolos and tried to install himself as a third.

However, the Father’s purpose triumphs over the Satanic Third. For Jesus rose on the third day, thus indicating a shattering of Satanic influence over mankind. Irrespective of the reason behind the religious significance to the number "three" the grand truth of the Bible remains -- "God is One."

Let us assume God is a plurality of Three Beings and this represents an ultimate and absolute truth. Let us assume this Godhead of Three is also going to reveal Himself gradually over period of 1,500 years. Let us also assume mankind was largely polytheistic during this period of revelation. In other words, mankind is perfectly primed to comprehend a plurality or Three different Beings in One God. Indeed, many "pagan" religions worship trinities of gods so that there is no difficulty in understanding the concept at all. God begins, and continues, to reveal Himself first as a singular Being throughout more than 1,500 years so that His Chosen People -- the very instrument and vehicle for revelation -- do not grasp at all such a revelation of Himself as Three? Indeed, at the full bloom of this progressive revelation He unveils Himself so poorly -- inadequately expressing Himself -- that 2,000 years later many of the very students of this revelation are not sure at all whether God is One or Three?

For example, how difficult for God is it to declare: "We are God alone and there is no other with Us Three. I AM at One the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- Three Beings but One God"? It seems to continue to reveal Himself as "one" and "alone" goes contrary to the very Truth of His existence when, in fact, He is not One but Three?

 

Chapter 57 

A call to study addressed to the Trinitarian brothers: what worshipers God seeks?

 

According to the Bible, we have an awesome one God, the Father Almighty.

"Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ!" Ephesians 1:2

All of us have a great opportunity to read the Bible and believe it. We have the great opportunity to be saved, if will accept Lord Jesus Christ sacrifice and teachings and keep it holy in our life...

Friends, we have an awesome one God, the Father Almighty, and he have a great, unique only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. All of us could be adopted sons of God, through his Son, and through him, we could have an awesome one God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, who reigns from Heaven above, with great wisdom, mighty power and deep love.

Our God and Father is wise:

 

Jeremiah 10:12 "He has made the earth by his power, he has established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding has he stretched out the heavens:"

Our God and Father is strong:

 

Isaiah 40:26 "Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."

Our God and Father is just:

 

Deuteronomy 32:4

 

"He is the Rock; his deeds are perfect.

 

Everything he does is just and fair.

 

He is a faithful God who does no wrong;

 

how just and upright he is!"

Our God and Father is loving:

 

John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Our God and Father is worthy of praise:

 

Luke 10:21 "In that same hour he (Jesus) rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."

Our God and Father is a loving God and Father, is strong, wise and righteous, so is very worthy of glory for all what he do! This is his Son also (Hebrews 1:3):

"The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."

Let's be like our God and Father and His Son, loving, wise, strong and righteous and glorify him in spirit and truth for only worship in spirit and truth is accepted (John 4:24)!

“God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Amen, amen!

 

AN APPEAL TO PIOUS TRINITARIANS

By Nontrinitarian Baptist pastor Henry Grew (c. 1857)

 

DEAR BRETHREN, - We acknowledge our fallibility. Truth will endure the closest investigation. I bear you record that you have a zeal for God. Is it, or is it not according to knowledge? Is it in the holy word, which you declare is the ONLY rule of faith, that you have found the declaration, that the one God is three persons? Have you been taught it by Jesus Christ, or by fallible men?

You admit that it is a subject of vast importance to understand correctly, what person, or being in the universe, has the rightful claim to the supreme worship of all intelligences, and the glory of being, exclusively, the one great and infinite source, "OF whom are all things." If one person rightfully claims this unrivaled glory, it must certainly be an error of no ordinary magnitude to give it to another.

No proposition is to be rejected because it cannot be perfectly comprehended by a finite mind. Yet a revelation to the human mind of anything, necessarily implies some intelligent understanding of it. The first question, however, for our serious consideration, is, Is the doctrine that God exists in three equal and infinite persons, a doctrine of divine revelation, or of human imagination?

Christian brother; can you open your bible and read, God is three; or that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are one God; or any words of equivalent import? Even the interpolation of 1Jo 5:7, does not affirm that the three are one God. What do we read in the Word of the Lord on this important subject? "Hear, O Israel? The LORD our God is ONE LORD." De 6:4. "God is ONE." Ga 3:20. "There is but one God, the Father." 1Co 8:6.

What is the testimony of "The faithful Witness" of the Truth? Addressing his "Father," John 17:1-3, he plainly and positively declares THE FATHER TO BE "THE ONLY TRUE GOD." You believe that the Father is one person. If then you believe that "the only true God" is three persons, does not your faith stand in the wisdom of men," which denies the testimony of Jesus Christ, that ONE person is "the ONLY true God?" Please to consider the testimony of the inspired apostle, 1Co 8:6. It is not only that "there is but one God," but that this one God is "THE FATHER." He plainly distinguishes the Father as the "one God" "or whom are all things." The Father the PRINCIPAL, the Son the AGENT. Now behold the harmony of divine truth. "God created all things BY Jesus Christ." Eph 3:9. "By whom also he made the worlds." Heb 1:2. All his works of love and power, were what "God did BY him." Ac 2:22. "God our Savior" SAVES US BY, or "through, Jesus Christ our Savior." Tit 3:4-6. He "shall raise us up also (from the grave) BY Jesus." 2Co 4:14. "God will judge the world in righteousness BY" him. Ac 17:31. All this the Savior confirms in his own declaration, "I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." John 6:38. The humanity did not come down from heaven. The divine and "only begotten Son of God" came down, and took the body "prepared" for him. Heb 10:5. Does not this prove the inferiority of his highest nature to the supreme God? Does not the supreme God seek to do the will of another rather than his own?

Please to observe in what character our blessed Mediator presented himself to a sinful and dying world as the object of faith. To the healed man he said, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" John 9:35. When he asked his disciples - "Whom say ye that I am?" what did the apostle reply, to whom our "Father in heaven" had revealed the truth one this important subject? Did he reply, thou art the second person in the adorable trinity, or thou art the supreme God? He replied, "Thou are the Christ, the SON of the living God." Mt 16:16,17. Is it a significant fact that our Lord never claimed any higher title than this? When the captious Jews charged him with making himself equal with God, did he not immediately repel the charge by the solemn asseveration, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do?" John 5:19. The omnipotent Jehovah cannot be thus dependent on another. "I live by the Father," John 6:57. "My Father is greater than I", John 14:28. The connection proves that this refers to his highest nature. His prayer, John 17:5, for the glory of his divine nature which he had with the Father "before the world was" proves the dependence of his nature.

The scriptural doctrine of the divine Sonship is essential to the true doctrine of atonement or reconciliation. The inspired testimony on this great doctrine is, that God gave HIS OWN SON to be a "sacrifice" or "propitiation" for the sins of the world. John 3:16,1Jo 2:2 4:10 Ro 3:25, &c. He made the "soul" of his son "an offering for sin." Isa 53. Trinitarianism admits of no such offering. It supposes that the human body only died, and that the union to supreme deity gave efficacy to the sufferings and death of humanity. It should be considered, that it is the dignity of the nature and character of the real sufferer and dying Lamb, as "the first" and "only begotten of the Father," which gives virtue to the offering. "We have a great High Priest, Jesus, THE SON OF GOD." His soul was in sheol [the grave in Hebrew] until "God raised him from the death state," and in sheol" there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge." Ec 9:10, "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." "He offered HIMSELF without spot to God." Heb 9:14. It was not for the death of humanity only, that the sun withdrew its shining, the earth shook to its center, and the curtain of the Holy of Holies in the Temple was rent in twain. "Surely this was the Son of God."

Please to consider candidly, whether or not you can truthfully reconcile his constant declarations of dependence on the Father, with his supposed supreme deity, by referring those declarations to his human nature. If this nature was united to the second infinite person, how could it be dependent on the first? The dependence must necessarily have been on the second person and not on the Father.

You ask, Is not our dear Lord "the Word" which John declares "was with God and was God?" Certainly; but is not the term God, used (like the term Lord,) in different senses in the sacred scriptures? Is it not applied to the rulers of Israel, Ps 82:6?, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Moses was a god to Aaron, Ex 4:16, "And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.". Satan is "the god of this world." 2Co 4:4. The Son of the Blessed is "God over all." Is he God or ruler over all, independently, or by appointment of the Father, "the only true God?" John 17:1-3. Let the holy scriptures answer. 1Co 15:24-28, "God, even the Father-hath put all things under him." This is equivalent to his being "over all;" -"it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (not the Trinity, but "THE FATHER," as verse 24 proves) may be ALL in ALL." Is not this divine testimony fatal to trinitarianism? Our blessed Lord as God, has a GOD. Heb 1:8,9. The Father has no god above him. You believe that the God with whom the Word was, is the supreme God. If then the Word was also supreme God, is it not a truth of divine revelation, that there are two supreme Gods? Scripture is its own best interpreter. See the context (verse 14) where the Word is defined to be "the only begotten (Son) of the Father, full of grace and truth." Mr. Andrew Fuller has well observed, that "the glory of the Word, and the glory of the only begotten of the Father, is one and the same." The Word was "begotten" and not self-existent. Again we read, that he is "the first born of every creature." Col 1:15, which must refer to his pre-existent state; for the apostle argues that he is so, from the fact of all things being "created by him." He is "the beginning of the creating power, that the intelligent universe will ever behold; "being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person." The universe gains nothing, but sustains an inconceivable loss by substituting an infinite person for the matchless Son of God. To infinity you cannot add. One infinite person is equal to any number. The Father is "the alone (monou) God." John 5:44.

It is affirmed, that the same infinite attributes are ascribed to the Son as to the Father. Let us see. Peter said, "Lord, thou knowest all things." John said to his brethren, "ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things," 1Jo 2:20. Let us allow the sacred word to determine the source of the knowledge of our blessed Jesus. "God GIVETH not the Spirit by measure unto him," John 3:34. Will you not allow that, if thee is any thing unknown to the Son, in any nature, that he cannot be omniscient? He himself plainly declares that there is. He affirms that his "Father ONLY knows of the day of his second coming, Mt 24:30-36. He assures us that all the power he has "in heaven and in earth," "over all flesh," for the gracious purpose of giving eternal life to God’s elect, is GIVEN him by the Father, Mt 28:18 John 17:2. I ask, for Jehovah’s honor, if it is not contemning the divine wisdom, and charging God foolishly, if we say that an "given" power is inadequate for this purpose? Is it not the plainly revealed fact that "God our Savior" hath "saved us, through (or by) Jesus Christ our Savior?" Tit 3:4-6. The context of Re 1:8, does not require its application to the Son; it refers to the Father. -"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." See verses 4, 5, "John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; 5: And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood". If the spirit of Paul could be present with his absent brethren in their assembly, 1Co 5:4, cannot the spirit of Jesus Christ be present, in a more effective sense, with "two or three" who assemble in his name?

We have too little conception of the capacity of the Infinite to delegate "treasures of wisdom, and knowledge," and power, as he pleases. Infinite perfections are indeed incommunicable; but what a vast amount may be possessed within this boundary! It pleased the Father that in him (Jesus Christ) should all the fullness dwell," Col 1:19. "I and my Father are one." He did not say one God. He prayed that his disciples may be one with him and his Father," even as" he and the Father "are one," Joh 17:21-23 Php 2:5-11. "Christ Jesus-thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Doddridge and Macknight (both trinitarians) consider the word "equal" an incorrect translation, rendering the Greek word "like," or "as." As an example of humility, the apostle presents to the consideration of his brethren, a real and great change of condition of the pre-existing Son of God, which can never be predicated of immutable deity, being totally incompatible therewith.

John 5:22,23. "The Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father." Observe the ground of this great honor; it is judgment committed to him by the Father. We honor the Father, not on the ground of any thing committed to him by another, but as the independent source of all things, 1Co 8:6. Joseph was honored "even as Pharaoh," Ge 44:18. Yet Pharaoh was greater "in the throne" then Jos#Eph 41:40. So our Saviour affirms, "my Father is greater than I" Isa 6:1-5, compared with Joh 12:41, is supposed to prove that Jesus is Jehovah. In the Hebrew the first word Adonai, and not Jehovah occurs. In the 5th it is Jehovah. Compare this passage with Ps 110:1, and it appears that Isaiah saw both Christ and Jehovah. Now it is declared that "no man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," Joh 1:18. Must we not then understand that Isaiah saw the glory of God "in the face of Jesus Christ," who is "the brightness of the Father’s glory and the express image of his person," see 2Co 4:6. Jesus said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." How? "The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works," Joh 14:10. He doth not say the second person in the Trinity, of my own deity that dwelleth in me, doeth the works; but THE FATHER. In respect to his power to forgive sins, see Joh 20:23, " Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." [Editor: I like the comparison someone used to express this thought: He said, "One cannot look at the sun with his eyes, but one can see the effects of the sun by looking at the world," likewise with God; one cannot look at Jehovah, but one can see the effects of Him by looking at the effects of Jesus.]

Re 5:13. "Blessing and honor and glory and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever." 1Ch 29:20. "And all the congregation worshiped the LORD (Jehovah) and the king," i.e., David. Jehovah is worshipped as "the only true God," Jesus Christ as "his first begotten" Son, as Heb 1:6 proves, and as the Lamb that was slain. Re 5:12. David was worshiped as the King of Israel. Each in his true station. It is in the highest sense only, that we are forbidden to worship any but the Supreme. See Lu 14:10, "But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.".

Mr. MacWhorter of Yale College has published a volume, to prove two things. First, That the Hebrew word Jehovah signifying "I AM," should be Jehovah, signifying, "I will be." Second, that Jehovah is Christ.

To test the correctness of the term Jehovah, he proposes to "substitute the English I AM, as an equivalent for Lord" where "the latter occurs in the Old Testament." "This (he affirms) is a perfectly valid test, and should such a rendering seem unmeaning or unworthy, in any connection in which it is made to stand, this fact of itself, would afford a strong presumption that we have not arrived at the true significance of the term." Page 14.

Let us now apply this "perfectly valid test" to determine, whether or not the learned author is correct, in affirming that Jehovah is Christ, and substitute the word Christ where the word Lord in capitals occurs, which, in the Hebrew, is usually, Jehovah.

Ps 110:1 "The Christ said unto my Lord, (Adonai, i.e., Christ,) sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies they footstool." Here we see the rendering is "unmeaning and unworthy;" and that the Father, and not Christ, is Jehovah. The dying martyr saw Jesus Christ, "on the right hand of God." Ac 7:56. Did he see two Jehovah, or is the Father not Jehovah? Isa 42:6. "I the Christ have called thee in righteousness, -and will give thee (Christ) for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles."

Isa 53:6-10. The Christ hath laid on him (Christ) the iniquities of us all." Ps 40. "I (Christ) have preached righteousness in the great congregation, O Christ thou knowest." Isa 53:10. "It pleased the Christ to bruise him," i.e., Christ. Ps 2:2. "The rulers take counsel against the Christ and against his anointed" (Christ.) See also verse #6, Isa 61:1. "The Christ hath anointed me (Christ) to preach good tidings to the meek," &c. See also Mic 5:4. He of Bethlehem (i.e., Christ) "shall stand and feed in the name of the Christ HIS GOD." See also Isa 55:5, and other passages.

This we see is all "unmeaning and unworthy," according to the learned author’s own "perfectly valid test;" demonstrating that Christ is not Jehovah. Isa 63:16, positively declares; "O Jehovah thou art our Father."

The fallacious impression that we dishonor the Savior, if we withhold from him the highest possible divine nature, presents many from believing his testimony, that the Father is "the only true God." Joh 17:1,3. The writer was, for a tine, the subject of such an impression. Having found at the Cross that deliverance from the guilt and dominion of sin, which reading, prayer, and resolutions had failed to remove; his love abounded towards his precious Redeemer; but not "in all knowledge." Php 1:9. He has since learned, like Peter, that all regard for "the Son of the Blessed," (who delights to honor his Father) which is contrary to truth, will only meet his rebuke. Mt 16:22.

It plainly appears from 1Co 2:11, that "the Spirit of God" is no more a distinct person from God, than the spirit of a man is a distinct person from the man. It would be an anomaly of a most extraordinary character; if there was an infinite intelligent person in the universe, to whom no prophet, priest, apostle, or saint of the sacred Scriptures, ever offered any direct prayer or praise See the true doxology, Re 5:13. The Spirit of God is "poured out" or "shed forth," Ac 2:17,33; terms inapplicable to personality.

For the honor and glory of the ever blessed God, our Father; "the GOD and FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ;" I submit this brief essay to your serious candid consideration.

Finally, "forbearing one another in love;" let our chief concern be to possess the holy, the humble, the benevolent spirit of Him who has loved us and given himself for us, walking daily in his imitable footsteps; "that when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming."

Yours for the truth, in Christian love.

HENRY GREW (Baptist pastor 1857)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR3tDT374cg&feature=emb_logo

 

Chapter 58

What is the name of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19)?

 

The holy spirit does not have a name, because it is not someone, but something.

 

F. C. Conybeare, a FBA (14 September 1856 – 9 January 1924) was a British orientalist, Fellow of University College, Oxford, and Professor of Theology at the University of Oxford. He examined ancient citations of the text and Church history and concluded that this text was forged.

I agree with his conclusion. Honestly, I think this was the authentic text "go and make disciples of all nations, baptize them in my name"

For example, Eusebius of Caesarea quoted a shortened version of Matthew 28.19, but not only him, historians have a few. First of all, Eusebius was an Arian, had written a letter to Alexander, the bishop who excommunicated Arius, demanding he restore Arius. Furthermore, Eusebius called a council in the early 320s at which the gathered bishops vindicated Arius and drafted another letter pressuring Alexander to reinstate him.

 

In what name did the first Christians (first-century apostles and disciples) baptize?

Dear friends,

 

I thought about collaborating against the interpolations made by some ancient scribes for their support in the account of the trinitarian doctrine, against all the evidences; for example there is no proof of the trinity at all according to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Son of God Almighty.

 

Contemporary English Version

Jesus Prays

 

1After Jesus had finished speaking to his disciples, he looked up toward heaven and prayed:

 

Father, the time has come for you to bring glory to your Son, in order that he may bring glory to you. 2And you gave him power over all people, so he would give eternal life to everyone you give him. 3 Eternal life is to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, the one you sent. 4I have brought glory to you here on earth by doing everything you gave me to do. 5Now, Father, give me back the glory I had with you before the world was created. (John 17: 1-5) Nowhere a trinity here.

There has been a controversy for 2000 years, because very early some broke this apostolic tradition, getting their own baptism.
Be careful, then, if you don't know how to handle it. I believe that there is not only a very serious reason, but several for which some scholars or interested people consider Matthew 28:19 altered, meaning that certain parts of the verse are an insertion. The main pillars of this exegesis are, how early Christian baptism was used in practice (Acts 2:38, 8:15, 10:48, 19:5,) here only in the name of Jesus - nowhere is the long wording in Matthew - and a tradition of Christian baptism - written and practiced, which has perpetuated the apostolic model to this day.
Not coincidentally, in the Codex Sinaiticus this section appears between two points, the conscientious scribe showing that in his time this text was controversial (discussed). Someone abolished the original commandment given "in My name (Jesus' name)" with this insertion:
Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them (point) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (point)
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen!

In what name did the first Christians (first-century apostles and disciples) baptize?

In the Codex Sinaiticus this section in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit appears between two points, the conscientious scribe showing that in his time this text was controversial (discussed). Codex Sinaiticus is from the IV century. Historians say that there was such a controversy.

Interestingly - and the question "Why?" Arises - in the Gospel of Matthew, we do not have the last page in the manuscripts older than sec. IV AD, so they do not contain the part with Matthew 28:19. Not in the Arian Bible of Wulfila. Why don't we have the last page? Was it intentional? They stole this page, after these manuscripts came into the hands of scribes who supported the dogma of the trinity?

Here is what a researcher says:

"In the only Codex (version) in which we would have kept an older version, namely the Sinaitic Syriac version and in the oldest Latin manuscript, the pages containing the end of Matthew are gone." (F.C. Conybeare).

The mystery deepens even more, when to certain authors of antiquity, this verse is formulated differently. We even have a Hebrew manuscript from the 14th century AD. (1380, Shem-Tob version), which reads differently in Matthew 28:19: "Go and teach to do all the things which I have commanded you forever."

A hypothesis

It is possible that the Jew Shem Tob ben Shaprut from Tudela copied the text of Nestor, a Jew who was a Roman Catholic priest, but who converted to Judaism. It is assumed that he lived in the sec. VI and either translated a Latin text or had a Hebrew text. If so, then in sec. VI there is still a Latin text compatible with the other texts that speak of the baptism made by the apostles, mentioning only the name of the Lord Jesus.

Since there are two types of manuscripts for the verses in Matthew 28: 19,20, and a clear command to do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, what name should be invoked at baptism? "I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus" or "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit"? Why did the apostles baptize only in the name of the Lord Jesus? Give me at least one verse in which they baptized according to the current "formula" of the Bible.

Colossians 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, and give thanks to God the Father.

The commandment is clear: in the name of the Lord Jesus

God the Father is not removed. We are asked to thank Him for everything, including baptism. Baptism is not done in the name of the Father, but thanks to the baptism of the Father, in the name of the Son, because the Father Himself sent the Son to baptize and make disciples. Baptism comes from the Father through his Son. It is something sublime! They all fit that way.

Jesus therefore said unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak (John 8:28)

Why only in the name of the Son?

Motto: All those who passed through the Red Sea "were baptized" for Moses. I mean, to follow him.

It's simple. We are disciples, which means following the one who is the "Master" of our salvation (Hebrews 12: 2). You do what the Captain does. Jesus was baptized, so we must. But the Father who sent him was not baptized.

A Baptist translator renders Matthew 28:18,19 as follows, justifying in a vast marginal note his position:

18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations in my name;
20. teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And look! I am with you every day until the end of the age. (Amen)

In the Review of the Gospel of Matthew:

18 And Joshua came near, and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name.
20 Teaching them to guard all things
I commanded you! And, behold, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

Marginal note 1

1Eusebius of Caesarea and Aprahates, two bishops present at the Council of Nicaea in 325, quote this verse differently.

Looking at the church historian Eusebius (III-IV centuries) in his writings he quotes from Matthew 28:19 in three different ways:

- First form: "go, make disciples of all nations" (7 times)

- Second form: "go, make disciples of all nations in my name" (17 times)

- The third form: go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (5 times, but after the Council of Nicaea in 325)

But the third form is controversial, it may have been introduced later. The third version contradicts all other statements of Scripture (Acts 4:12, Phil. 2:10, Col. 3:17, Ephesians 5:20), that both teaching and immersion (baptism) were done in the name of the Lord, our Savior Jesus: Acts 2:38, 3: 6, 4:18, 5:40, 8:12, 8:16, 9: 27-29, 25:26, 16:18, 19: 5, 19:13, 21 13, II Thessalonians 3: 6, I John 3:23.

The researchers claim that the 5 places were written either in the books that Eusebius wrote after the Council of Nicaea in 325, or in the time of the copying the books, the one who copied the text inserted the text from Matthew 28:19 which has since become corrupt.

Chapter 59

Love and fire

 

Calling to the action: let’s everybody worship God in spirit and truth

John 4:23,24 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

 

What this mean?

 

This means worshiping in our spirit, as the Father likes it, as he wants it, not as we would think he would like it, or in a form we have invented. Otherwise, although God is love, the consequences of our disobedience will be unpleasant in his eyes.

 

The Trinitarian brethren say that those who do not believe like them, are lost. But this can be true even vice versa. This possibility is also worth analyzing. Think about your relationship with God. If you want to have a sublime relationship with him, then this relationship must be clean and free from errors. If the doctrine of the trinity is based on error, then your relationship with your Heavenly Father is not a pure relationship and you need repentance. You need to harmonize your relationship with God according to the Bible. Here are some evidences, attesting to the Bible truths, that God is love but also fire!

 

God is love

 

"Indescribable love" is  the love of God, it is the greatest love of all types of love, it is the love that is sacrificed for the general interest:

 

"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." (John 3:16) 

 

"Whoever does not love has not known God; because God is love." (1John 4:8)

"And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love; and he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him." (1John 4:16)

 

God is fire

 

But God is also a consuming fire. Below is a presentation of a Trinitarian brother about this. If the doctrine of the trinity is an error, think about how God feels: will be love or fire?

----

KNOW THESE FACTS?

Possible DID'NT TILL NOW

This will curl your toes. How important words, and feelings are.

Death is certain but the Bible speaks about the an untimely death! The second death, the great and last death, after the last judgement!

Revelation 21:7. He who overcomes will inherit these things. I will be his God, and he will be my son.

8. But as for the frightened, the unbelievers, the scoundrels, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the worshipers of idols and all the liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and fire, that is the second death. "

So, make a personal reflection about this.....

Very interesting, read until the end....It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7):

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

Here are some men and women who mocked God:

John Lennon (Singer):

Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:

"Christianity will end, it will disappear. I do not have to argue about that. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, Today we are more famous than Him" (1966).

Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.

Tancredo Neves (President of Brazil):

During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency.

Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died.

 

Cazuza (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet):

During A show in Canecio ( Rio de Janeiro),

while smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said:

"God, that's for you."

He died at the age of 32 of AIDS in a horrible manner.

The man who built the Titanic

After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be.

With an ironic tone he said: "Not even God can sink it"

The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic .

Marilyn Monroe (Actress)

She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show. He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her. After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said: "I don't need your Jesus".

A week later, she was found dead in her apartment.

 

Bon Scott (Singer):

The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang: 

"Don't stop me, 

I'm going down all the way, 

down the highway to hell".

On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit.

 

Campinas (IN 2005):

In Campinas, Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend....

The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:

"My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You.."

She responded: 

"Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, Cause Inside Here.... It's Already Full"

Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died, the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact.

The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken.

 

Christine Hewitt (Jamaican Journalist and entertainer): 

She said the Bible (Word of God)was the worst book ever written.

In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.

Many more important people have forgotten that there is no other name that was given so much authority as the name of Jesus.

Many have died, but only Jesus died and rose again, and he is still alive.

 "Jesus"

This is not a joke, you would have sent it to everyone, to be saved. So are you going to have courage to send this?

I have done my part, Jesus said.........

"If you are embarrassed about me, I will also be embarrassed about you before my father."

If you are a bad kid or adult, don't forget, that exist somebody, who is worst like you: the evil Satan, the fallen celestial cherubim, your first and greatest enemy! You are ready to go in the lake of fire, with him, for eternal destruction, after your trial? Because in the last day a trial of all sinners, all your sins will be opened, before a celestial court... Your life is keep like in a film. You are ready to see your film in that day?

For another information, please contact the Great Creator of all, the Heavenly Father, through His Son, Jesus Christ, the high priest and mediator for all mankind.

Read the Bible daily! Pray!

Think about what you read!

Keep God's will: LOVE! That is: Love builds, so build your relationships with people in love! Let the truth make you free, from all your sins! Live in peace and harmony with all and make you holy! "Pursue peace with all and holiness, without which no one will see God." (Hebrews 12:14)

---

 

Chapter 60

THE FIRE THAT CONSUMES: "Eternal" with Words of Action

 

Understanding right the eternal salvation and punishment (what this mean)

 

"Of the 70 usages of the adjective "eternal" (aionios) in the New Testament, six times the word qualifies nouns signifying acts or processes, as distinct form persons or things. These cases call for special consideration. They are "eternal salvation" (Heb. 5:9), "eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12), "eternal judgement" (Heb. 6:2), "eternal sin" (Mark 3:29), "eternal punishment" (Matt. 25:46) and "eternal destruction (2Thess. 1:9). Three occur in Hebrews; all six have to do with final judgement and its outcome.

 

Here we see again the other-age quality of the "eternal". There is something transcendent, eschatological, divine about this judgement, this sin, this punishment and destruction, this redemption and salvation. They are not merely human, this-age matters, but are of an entirely different nature. On the other hand, something about this judgement, sin, punishment, destruction, redemption and salvation will have no end. If in one sense these things are timeless, they are in another sense without temporal limits. They belong to that Age to Come which is not bound by time and which will never end.

 

"Eternal Judgement" (Heb. 6:2). Among the "elementary teachings" which make up the "foundation" of Christian teaching are "the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement". This is literally the resurrection "of the dead ones" (plural, nekron), seemengly both good and bad, and it is linked to that judgement which is of the Age to Come, not merely a judgement made by man or God in the here and now. That is quality, but what of its duration? How is the last judgement "eternal" in the sense of everlasting?

 

The act of judging will certainly not last forever. But we notice that the text speaks of judgement (kirimatos) and not judging. There will be an act or process of judging, and then it will be over. But the judging results in a judgement - and that will never end. The action itself is one thing; its outcome, its issue, its result, is something else. "Eternal" here speaks of the result of the action, not the action itself. Once the judging is over, the judgement will remain - the eternal, everlasting issue of the once-for-all process of judgement.

 

"Eternal Redemption" (Heb. 9:12). Christ has entered upon His high-priestly service through the greater tabernacle that is not hand-made or a part of this creation. "He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." It is clear that "eternal" here also has a qualitative aspect. These matters are of that order which is not a part of this creation (v. 11). They pertain to the "eternal Spirit" (v. 14), not the flesh. They belong to the new covenant and the "eternal inheritance" (v. 15). By faith these "eternal" things are already operative and even visible (Heb. 11), though they are of an order different from the space-timpe creation of which we are presently a part.

 

This redemption is also "eternal" in the sense of everlasting. Not that the act or process of redeeming continues without end - Christ has accomplished that once for all! Our author specifically makes the point that Christ did not have to suffer "many times since the creation". Rather, "He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. 9:25,26). But this once-for-all act of redeeming, which is finished, will never be repeated and can never be duplicated, issues in a redemption which will never pass away. "Eternal" speaks here again of the result of the action, not the act itself. Once the redeeming has taken place, the redemption remains. And that "eternal" result of the once-for-all action will never pass away.

 

"Eternal Salvation" (Heb. 5:9). Trough reverent submission and perfect obedience, Jesus became "the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him." This salvation partakes of the eternal quality of the new order - that order in which Jesus may be priest like Melchizedek (v. 10). It is already a reality (Heb. 4:15,16), for it partially intersects the present order even while it transcends it. But this salvation is also "eternal" in that it will have no end. Jesus is not forever saving His people; He did that once for all, as we have already seen. This salvation is eternal because it is the everlasting result which issues from once-for-all process or act of saving. The result remains even after the act has ended.

 

The expression "eternal salvation" here may come from Isaiah 45:17. There God promissed that "Israel will be saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation." It is clear from the following words that God has in mind the result He will accomplish rather than the act He will perform. "You will never be put to shame or disgraced, to ages everlasting." Once the saving has taken place, the salvation remains. And that "eternal" outcome of God's finished action will never pass away.

 

"Eternal Sin" (Mark 3:29). In a controversy with some teachers of the law, Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." Mark's next statement tells us what this "eternal sin" was. "He said this because they were saying, 'He has an evil spirit' "(Mark 3:30). This sin of attributing to the demonic the Holy Spirit's power manifested in Jesus had a quality other sins did not. It was "eternal" in that sense because it resisted and contradicted the power of the Age to Come. It stood in opposition to the inbreaking kingdom of God, as Luke points out in the parallel passage (Luke 11:20). Nor will it be forgiven, even in the Age to Come, which for Matthew is equivalent to saying it is an "eternal sin" (Matt. 12:32). The act of sinning does not continue forever; it was committed on that occasion in Jesus' ministry and may possibly never be repeated in exactly the same way. Men are punished in hell for sins committed during this Present Age, not for evil done following the last day (Rom. 2:6-16). This "eternal" sin was committed once. But its result remains for eternity.

 

"Eternal Destruction" (2Thess. 1:9). When Jesus comes, He will punish His enemies who have refused to know God and to obey His gospel. "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of His power."

This destruction clearly partakes of the Age to Come. It belongs to those eschatological realities which are now unseen and mysterious to our Present Age. In that sense it is "eternal" in quality. In keeping with what we have seen already, we suggest that the destruction is also everlasting and unending.

The New International Version uses two verbs to describe what will happen to the wicked on that day. "They will be punished" (with everlasting destruction), and they will be "shut out" from the Lord's presence and power. The second verb is not in Greek but is supplied by the New International Version's  translators to express what they think it means. We will discuss that more later. For now it is important to see that whatever happens will happen "on the day He comes" (v. 10). It will not be happening forever, but when He has brought about their destruction, its result will never end.

In keeping with the rest of the teaching of both Old and New Testaments, to be examined in following chapters, we here suggest that this "eternal destruction" will be extinction of those so sentenced. This retribution will be preceded by penal suffering exactly suited to each degree of quilt by a holy and just God, but that penal suffering within itself is not the ultimate retribution or punishment. There will be an act of destroying, resulting in a destruction that will never end or be reversed. The act of destroying includes penal pains, but they will end. The result of destruction will never be reversed and will never have an end.

"Eternal Punishment" (Matt. 25:46). Jesus concludes His Parable of the Sheep and Goats with the statement that the wicked "will go to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Both the life and the punishment partake of the quality of the Age to Come. We have some experience here and now of life and of punishment. But we cannot know now what the eternal life will be - in its fullness - nor can we know now what the eternal punishment will be - in its actual horror. There is more to either than a timeless extension of what we can now experience. We are acquainted to some extent with the nouns; the adjective tells us they will then be of a quality we do not yet comprehend. There is a clearly a qualitative aspect to "eternal" punishment.

At the same time, the life and the punishment of this passage are never to end. They are "eternal" in the sense of everlasting. But we need to note, as in the five cases above, that "punishment" is an act or process. In each case so far, and indisputably in the firs four, the act or process happens in a fixed period of the time but is followed by a result that lasts forever. In keeping with that scriptural usage, we suggest that the "punishment" here includes whatever penal suffering God justly issues to each person but consists primarily of the total abolition and extinction of the person forever. The punishing continues until the process is completed, and then it stops. But the punishment which will remain forever.

 

Conclusion. This is a powerful argument which conditionalists have pressed with vigor. In all the literature covered by this study, no traditionalist writer has dealt with it at all except perhaps to assert that it is false without giving any reasoning evidence - and that but rarely. Like most of the conditionalistst arguments, this one has simply been ignored. If the traditionalist understanding of hell is to stand, a cogent and persuasive answer must be forthcoming. Since all we want to know is God's truth as revealed in Scripture, no one need be threatened on either side of the discussion. This is a challenge which calls for careful exegesis and prayerful study within a commitment to the final authority of the Word of God."

 

With the kind permission of the author:

Edward William Fudge: The Fire That Consumes, chapter 3, page 44-48

http://edwardfudge.com

The movie: Hell and Mr. Fudge

http://www.hellandmrfudge.com/

 

 

PART SEVEN - Exiting the scribal matrix

 

Chapter 61

Exiting the Gnostic scribal matrix

 

Once we have learned the Gnostic origin of the doctrine of the trinity, we must get out of it. We no longer have to look for excuses, but we have to admit that the Bible of the Trinitarians is falsified, the forgeries in the Trinitarian versions having their origin in Gnosticism.

 

Motto

"A lie is like a snowball: the further you roll it the bigger it becomes."

Martin Luther

 

The mystic Trinity, is made in paganism, this is so clear.

In ancient times, people began to worship the beings they imagined, dressed in the form of animals or even plants. But a transition from the polytheism of shepherds and farmers to the polytheism of pagan philosophers arises.

Around 550 B.C., the rise of the extremely influential Greek philosophy/mystery religions began. Pythagoras (about 550 B.C.) may have been the founder of Greek philosophy and mystery religions. Certainly he was the earliest of the most influential Greek religious philosopher.

Pythagoras spent years studying with Egyptian, Babylonian, and Hindu religionists. When he finally returned to Greece , he formed a religious organization based on his knowledge gained in those foreign lands. He promoted a numerical symbolism in which he taught that God is three in number. More specifically, the Pythagoreans actually worshiped an equilateral triangle composed of dots.

Although it was a secret religious organization whose "mysteries" were to be known only among its members, we have some clues to Pythagoreanism' s deep "mysteries" that were borrowed from the religions of Babylon , India , and Egypt. Medieval numerologists, for example, admitted that they borrowed this 'mysterious' knowledge from Pythagoreanism: The number three stands for "Trinity and extension of Godhead."

Aristotle said over 300 years before Christ:

"All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bound by threes, for the end, and the middle, and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the trinity."

So it appears that this "holy" number three used to "worship the gods" in unity came down from Babylon through Egypt and India , and through the extremely influential Pythagoras to the ancient Greek philosophy/mystery religions and even to Plato himself.

From Pythagoras (550 B. C.) until its decline (about 550 A. D.) the great influence of the Greek philosophy and mystery religions was spread by Pythagoreans, Platonists, Neopythagoreans, and finally Neoplatonists.

NEO-PYTHAGOREANISM appeared during the first century B. C. in Rome, whence it traveled to Alexandria - the sect's chief center - where it flourished until Neo-Platonism absorbed it in the 3rd century A. D.

Neo-Pythagoreanism was mainly the old Pythagoreanism with some borrowing from Plato, Aristotle, and Stoicism.

Pythagoreanism is a term used for the esoteric and metapsihical beliefs held by Phytagoras and his followers, the Pythagoreans, a main inspirational source for Plato and platonism.

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

"For, as the Pythagoreans say, the world and all that is in it is determined by the number three, since beginning and middle and end give the number of an 'all', and the number they give is the trinity [Greek trias; English = "trinity"]. And so, having taken these three from nature as (so to speak) laws of it, we make further use of the number three in the worship of the Gods." ("Holy" Aristotle, On the Heavens, Book I, 1)

"Enclosing the greater area with the smallest perimeter, the triangle, derived from the vesica piscis, the Triad was considered by the Pythagoreans as the most beautiful number, as it is the only number to equal the sum of all the terms below it, and the only number whose sum with those below equals their product."

It is difficult to find any reputable reference work that does not acknowledge the post-Biblical origin of the trinity doctrine. The main problem with the trinity doctrine is the dogmatism and judgementalism that customarily accompanies it. This is another evidence of the fragility of its foundation. Were it clearly taught in Scripture, there would be no need for authoritarian imposition of the teaching and heavy pressure to submit to it.

Who imported and imposed this concept of "mystery" in Christianity? The Gnostics.

Gnosticism (Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) refers to a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge, who is frequently identified with the Abrahamic God.

The demiurge may be depicted as an embodiment of evil, or in other instances as merely imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy permits. This demiurge exists alongside another remote and unknowable Supreme Being that embodies good. In order to free oneself from the inferior material world, one needs gnosis, or esoteric spiritual knowledge available through direct experience or knowledge (gnosis) of (this unknowable) God. Within the sects of gnosticism, however, only the pneumatics or psychics obtain gnosis; the hylic or Somatics, though human, are doomed.

Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered mostly a corruption of Christianity, it now seems clear that traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era. Gnosticism may have been earlier than the First Century, thus predating Jesus Christ. Then continuing in the Mediterranean and Middle East before and during the Second and Third Centuries. Gnosticism became a dualistic heresy to Judaism, Christianity and Hellenic philosophy in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and Arian Goths (see Huneric), and the Persian Empire. Conversion to Islam and the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229) greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the Middle Ages, though a few isolated communities continue to exist to the present. Gnostic ideas became influential in the philosophies of various esoteric mystical movements of the late 19th and 20th Centuries in Europe and North America, including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier Gnostic groups.

In the gnostic book of The First Thought which is in Three Forms (or The Three Forms of the First Thought, in original The Trimorphic Protennoia) appears to have been rewritten at some point to incorporate Sethian gnostic beliefs, when originally it was a treatise from another Gnostic sect. Unusually, the text is in the form of an explanation of the nature of cosmology, creation, and a docetic view of Jesus, in the first person. That is, the text is written as if the writer is God, the three-fold first thought. Like most Gnostic writing, the text is extremely mystical, more so for being in the first person. Like the more familiar gnostic book The Apocryphon of John, to which it is similar, it is thought to be from the mid-second century.

What happened at the Synod (Council) of Antioch from 268?

Before this Synod, some so called Gnostic Christians from the first and second century AD, have tried to translate pagan philosophical ideas such as the Pythagorean-platonic "Trinity" in Christian words. Some proposed a modalistic Trinity (one being in three revelation), others proposed a trimorphic Trinity (three differing forms in one being) and others a mix between this two.

Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra, a supporter of modalistic Trinity (III-IV century) stated: "Valentinus the heresiarch was the first to invented this in his book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato."

Valentinus (also spelled Valentinius; c. AD 100 – c. 160) was the best known and, for a time, most successful early Christian gnostic theologian. He founded his school in Rome. According to Tertullian, Valentinus was a candidate for bishop but started his own group when another was chosen.

Valentinus produced a variety of writings, but only fragments survive, largely those embedded in refuted quotations in the works of his opponents, not enough to reconstruct his system except in broad outline. His doctrine is known only in the developed and modified form given to it by his disciples. He taught that there were three kinds of people, the spiritual, psychical, and material; and that only those of a spiritual nature received the gnosis (knowledge) that allowed them to return to the divine Pleroma, while those of a psychic nature (ordinary Christians) would attain a lesser or uncertain form of salvation, and that those of a material nature were doomed to perish.

Valentinus had a large following, the Valentinians. It later divided into an Eastern and a Western, or Italian, branch. The Marcosians belonged to the Western branch.

Around 268 bishop Paul of Samosate proposed a view which term - were identical to that proposed later around 325 by Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria, supporters of the trimorphic Trinity.

But the Synod of Antioch rejected the word (probably for the context) and deposed the bishop:

"Ironically, the synod that deposed Paul of Samosate would reject the term homoousios (consubstantial) by which he designated the identity of God and the Christ; this was the same quality that the Church would impose in the Fourth Century as the only trinitary truth."

The problem with this word homoousios (consubstantial) is the trinitarian oneness context in which this term was proposed, by the trinitarian fractions. And this context is a non-Biblical view.

In 315 emperor Constantine the so called Great, took with force the Churches of heretics and this act forced their bishops to leave or enter in that party of the Church in which his mother profess. In 316 he started o crusade against those who opposed this party's policy. And this party was Trinitarian and contributed to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity, changing and formulating biblical verses according to the taste of their doctrine. Certainly this doctrine and distorting the meaning of the verses does not come from the Bible, but from foreign sources. Christians who love the truth and the Bible must come out of this matrix once and for all. It is useless and counterproductive to try to prove true monotheism with falsified and distorted verses by Trinitarian scribes. The truth cannot be supported by falsehoods.

 

Chapter 62

Exiting the Masoretic scribal matrix

 

In order to have a clearer picture of the Hebrew text, we must find the Hebrew texts before the Masoretic version.

 

Why this is so important?

 

There is the Severin version.

READINGS CALLED SEVERIN Josephus tells us (Life, § 75) how Titus brought with him from Jerusalem the codices (or manuscripts) that were in the Temple. These were among the prey he took in Rome, and were stored in the royal palace in about 70 AD. Emperor Severus (April 11, 145 - February 4, 211) built a synagogue in Rome, which was named after him, and handed over the Pentateuch codex to the Jewish community. Both the codex and the synagogue have perished, but a list of thirty-two passages is preserved in the Massorah, where this codex differed in letters and words from other manuscripts. There are two existing lists: one (before 1280 AD) in the possession of the Jewish community in Prague, and the other in the National Library in Paris (no. 31, 399a folio.). But there are other (quotes) preserved Severine, which are noted on the edge of this edition. Those that affect the meaning and provide instructions are mentioned in the margin, in the notes from the affected passages. Some of them refer only to spelling, and have no training in them.

(For further information see Ginsburg's Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, pp. 409-20.)

 

We need to find the texts of a Pentateuch brought from Derbend or Derbent (Daghestan), written in 604 of the common era. This manuscript is called the Pentateuch from Derbent, after the city where it was discovered. Derbent is a city in Daghestan. It contains the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) and was copied in 604 AD. The manuscript was discovered in 1843 by a Jewish Karaite and was purchased by the former Tsarist Library in St. Peresburg, where it is now. The text in the manuscript contains no vowels and is older than the text called "Masoretic". Those who have investigated it claim that in some respects it does not agree with either the Masoretic Text or the text of the Septuagint (LXX). The Jewish community that retained it was originally relocated from Persia to Scythia - Derbent being in Old Scythia, after conquered this land by Persians, who brought in Khazari tribes and Jewish settlers to Scythia. So the Jewish colonists brought the manuscript from Persia.

“The Sasanid Empire or the Sasanid Persian Empire ('Ērānshahr' or 'Ērān' in medieval Persia) was the last pre-Islamic Persian empire ruled by the Sassanid dynasty between 224 and 651. In 651, the state of the Sasanians was conquered by the Arabs. The Sasanid Empire, succeeding the Parthian Empire, was a power in Central Asia and the Near East, threatening the Roman-Byzantine border for about 400 years. ”Wikipedia

A note from Massorah (massorah means comments) says that the original text of Genesis 18:22 has been modified. This fact is curious. Where did the Masorets know this? Were there several versions in their time or in the comments of some old books? With this note from Massora, it is to check if this Pentateuch has another rendering here, like "but the angel of the Lord stood before Abraham." This manuscript is in the former tsarist library.

 

For example, how do we know that Exodus 6:3 was not falsified by the scribes?

 

Someone, a brother, asked me the following question, after I presented my opinion, regarding certain texts modified by soferim (Jewish scribes):

"You claim that the above texts were falsified by the scribes, how do we know that Exodus 6: 3 was not falsified by the scribes?

Is one text against five texts? "

I answer this good reply below. Indeed, how do we know which texts have been falsified and which have not, when two or more texts contradict each other?

First of all, in any investigation process, it is not the number of witnesses that matters, but their quality.

Some technical data

Those who copied the Holy Hebrew Scriptures were called soferim, having the meaning of scribes, in the New Testament being rendered grammateis, a term that was rendered "scholars".

Matthew 2: 4 in Young's Literal Translation

and having gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he was inquiring from them where the Christ is born.

Unfortunately, some of them copied and transmitted the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, taking the liberty of modifying the text, a fact noticed by the Masoretes - a late branch of the Jewish scribes. They made notes on the text of their manuscripts to draw attention to the changes made by the drivers. The soferim allowed themselves, for some reason, to exchange certain words for others, such as replacing the name Yehowah with the title of Adonai (Lord) one hundred and thirty-four times and the title of Elohim (God) seventeen times.

Masora (marginal comments made on the text of the Masoretes), indicate these changes. Unfortunately, they did not stop only at changing the words, but also at the meanings in a sentence, and because of this, the text became confusing and contradictory. Among other things, after an annotation of Masora, the soferim are accused of having made at least eighteen changes, being known as amendments (corrections). Masora also mentions thirty-two passages which differ in translation concerning an important codex and which are called (the passages) "Severin". Some of these renderings concern only peculiarities such as spelling, but others denounce the clear intention of the scribes at some points where they became involved in changing the meaning of the verses.

Unfortunately, during this period of the soferim there were certain changes in the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, which were fixed in the Hebrew manuscripts and were fixed as standard text in the second century AD. The Hebrew text we now know from existing manuscripts is a later standardized text and is that of the so-called "Masoretic text," which is the fourth hand from the source of the autograph. It was copied between the sixth and eighth centuries AD.

Because the soferim sometimes have the habit of inserting letters or words that change the original meaning, the impression is created that they are part of the text. In some cases these extra letters or foreign words undermine the authentic text.

Here is an eloquent example:

(Exodus 6: 2-3) “And God (Elohim) spoke to Moses (Moses) and said: I am Yehowah. I appeared to Abram, Isaac, and Jacob as El Sadday (God Almighty), but I was not known to them by My name (ha-shem) as Yehowah.

It is clear from this text that the people before Moses did not know the divine name. But the soferim, for some reason, through their above-mentioned procedure, created the exact opposite, that people knew the divine name even before Moses.

Genesis 22:14

Abraham gave the place its name: “Jehovah will provide. That is why it is said today, "On the mountain where Jehovah will provide."

But the Dead Sea Scrolls, and even certain Hebrew versions, show a different form:

4Q1 Genesis-Exodus

Language: Hebrew

Date: 125-100 B.C.

Location: Qumran Cave 4

Genesis 22:14

Abraham called the name of that place “God Will Provide”. As to this day, "On Yehowah's mountain, it will be provided."

JPS Tanakh 1917 And Abraham called the name of that place Adonai-jireh; as it is said to this day: 'In the mount where the LORD is seen.'

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain two renderings, one that we also find in the Masoretic text and a separate one in scroll no. 4Q1 from cave no. 4. Here, in this scroll, the soferim copied the original form of the text and did not change anything. It is also normal that Abraham called that place Elohim-jireh (God will provide) and not Yehowah-jireh (Yehowah will provide), because he did not know the divine name. According to tradition, the texts are written by Moses, who was given the secret of discovering the divine name. So Moses would not have written that the people before him called on God knowing the name "Yehowah," as it creates the impression of soferim.

In addition, the Masoretic text has another dubious tendency, to reveal to the reader that Abraham saw God.

The Masoretic text: And Abraham called the name of that place Yehowah-jireh; as it is said to this day, "On the mountain where Yehowah is seen."

 

Chapter 63

Exiting forgeries, no matter what is behind the reason of the forgers

 

The Matthew 28:19 controversy

Which is authentic: the longer or the shorter form?

What did apostle Matthew actually write, "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," or "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name"?

In some ancient sources, we find a shorter rendering of the verse in Matthew 28:19. For example, we have the names of Christians in the Middle East such as Bishop Eusebius, Bishop Afraates the Syrian, the monk Annarichus of Maiuma, near Gaza, who quoted this verse differently. We also learn about the dispute between Bishops Cyprian of Carthage and Stephen of Rome about the formulation and validity of baptism in the name of Jesus. And so we learn about Christian communities that have baptized only in this name (for example, the Celtic Church). We also learn that there were Christians (called pejorative and derogatory as pneumao-machi by their opponents) who did not believe that the holy spirit was a person. So they did not believe that the holy spirit would have a name. To them the holy spirit was something, not somebody.

Questioning the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 longer and shorter form is not a matter of determining how easily it can or cannot be explained within the context of established doctrinal views. Rather, it is a matter of discovering the very thoughts of our Christian faith, remembering that His truth, and not our traditions, is eternal.

All this is good to know, about early Christian groups.

“We may infer that the text was not quite fixed when Tertullian was writing early in the third century. In the middle of that century Cyprian could insist on the use of the triple formula as essential in the baptism even of the orthodox. The pope Stephen answered him that the baptisms even of heretics were valid, if the name of Jesus alone was invoked” (However, this decision did not prevent the popes of the seventh century from excommunicating the entire Celtic Church for its adhesion to the old use of invoking the one name). In the last half of the fourth century the text “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost” was used as a battle-cry by the orthodox against the adherents of Macedonius, who were called pneumao-machi or fighters against the Holy Spirit, because they declined to include the Spirit in a Trinity of persons as co-equal, consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and Son. They also stoutly denied that any text of the N.T. authorized such a co-ordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius.” — (--F.C. Conybeare (Hibbert Journal, p. 107)

 

The information presented in ancient sources is extremely relevant to our Christian faith.

The famous Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea, also Bishop, many times fully quoted this passage, without the longer baptismal formula.

For example: ‘They went on their way to all the nations teaching their message in the power of Christ for he had said to them, “Go make disciples of all the nations in my name.’” (H.E. 3.5.2):

Compare with Mark 16:15 says: “Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.”

 

It is true that Eusebius also used the long form, but this can be explained, either by a correction made by the copyist (after his death), or he himself used the forms alternately, but in most cases he used the shorter form, which shows that in his area, this was the "mainstream" version.

 

We also have an echo of those times in the quote of Rabbi Shem Tob of Spain. Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is the oldest extant Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew, with the different text of Matthew 28:19, the shorter form. It was included in the 14th-century work Eben Boḥan (The Touchstone) by the Spanish Jewish Rabbi Shem-Tov ben Isaac ben Shaprut. George Howard, the translator, has argued that Shem Tov's Matthew comes from a much earlier Hebrew text that was later translated into Greek and other languages. A characteristic feature of this Hebrew gospel is the appearance in 20 places of השם (HaShem, "the Name"), in the abbreviated form ה״, where the Gospel of Matthew has Κύριος ("the Lord").

 

In addition to Shem-Tob, two old orthodox Latin and Syriac texts corroborate 28:19 did not have the longer formula. We read in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: “In all extant [Greek] versions the text is found in the traditional form, though it must be remembered that the African old Latin and of the old Syriac versions are defective at this point,” i.e., ‘defective’ meaning this African old Latin and old Syriac omit the longer baptismal formula, the last page missing, as in the Gothic Bible.

 

Is it possible Matthew 28:19 was fraudulently changed to vindicate this controversy which is old from the 2nd century, because very conveniently every surviving Greek text of Matthew 28:19 dates from 340 AD or later? Having no biblical texts to justify themselves, proponents of the long wording of Matthew 28:19 resorted to altering the biblical texts when they copied the text and where the text existed, they tore the last page of the Gospel of Matthew to hide from readers, the old text. It clearly could be modified and no one would be the wiser. Only quotes by the church commentators from an earlier time could betray the truth, as indeed such quotes exist as we see and do so—each one omitting the longer baptismal formula in their direct quotes from Matthew 28:19.

 

Here is a breakdown of Eusebius' works and the form he quotes in each instance:

History of the Church (c. 313 A.D.)

"For the Jews after the ascension of our Saviour, in addition to their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded, and finally James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in the manner already described. But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, 'Go and make disciples of all the nations in my name.'" (Book 3, Chapter 5, Section 2)

The Proof of the Gospel (c. 314-318) - this work originally contained 22 books, of which only 10 remain today.

"Hence, of course, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Son of God, said to His disciples after His Resurrection: 'Go and make disciples of all the nations,' and added: 'Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.'" (Book 1, Chapter 3)

"This law going forth from Sion, different from the law enacted in the desert by Moses on Mount Sinai, what can it be but the word of the Gospel, 'going forth from Sion' through our Saviour Jesus Christ, and going through all the nations? For it is plain that it was in Jerusalem and Mount Sion adjacent thereto, where our Lord and Saviour for the most part lived and taught, that the law of the new covenant began and from thence went forth and shone upon all, according to the commands which He gave his disciples when He said: 'Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.'" (Book 1, Chapter 4)

"Such was the message to all nations given by the word of the new covenant by the teaching of Christ. And the Christ of God bade His disciples teach them to all nations, saying: 'Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all the nations teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you.'" (Book 1, Chapter 6)

"With one word and voice He said to His disciples: 'Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,' and He joined the effect to His Word; and in a little while every race of the Greeks and Barbarians was being brought into discipleship, and laws were spread among all nations opposed to the superstition of the ancients, laws inimical to daemons, and to all the deceits of polytheism, laws that have made Scythians, Persians, and the other barbarians temperate, and revolutionized every lawless and uncivilized custom, laws that have overturned the immemorial habits of the Greeks themselves, and heralded a new and real religion." (Book 3, Chapter 6)

"Whereas He, who conceived nothing human or mortal, see how truly He speaks with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the poorest of the poor: 'Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations.' 'But how,' the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master, 'can we do it? How, pray, can we preach to Romans? How can we argue with Egyptians? We are men bred up to use the Syrian tongue only, what language shall we speak to Greeks? How shall we persuade Persians, Armenians, Chaldrearis, Scythians, Indians, and other barbarous nations to give up their ancestral gods, and worship the Creator of all? What sufficiency of speech have we to trust to in attempting such work as this? And what hope of success can we have if we dare to proclaim laws directly opposed to the laws about their own gods that have been established for ages among all nations? By what power shall we ever survive our daring attempt?' But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph 'In MY NAME.' For He did not bid them simply and indefinitely make disciples of all nations, but with the necessary addition of 'In my Name.'" (Book 3, Chapter 7)

"And the power of His Name being so great, that the apostle says: 'God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,' He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: 'Go, and make disciples of all nations in my Name.' He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: 'For this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations.'" (Book 3, Chapter 7)

"I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man's, and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them: 'Make disciples of all the nations in my Name.'" (Book 3, Chapter 7)

"And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, 'Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name." (Book 9, Chapter 11)

Theophania (c. 313-318 A.D.)

"After his resurrection from the dead, all of them,-- being together as they had been commanded,--went to Galilee, as He had said to them. But, when they saw Him, some worshipped Him, but others doubted. But He drew near to them, spoke with them, and said: 'All power (both) in heaven and earth, is given to me of my Father. Go ye and make Disciples of all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold! I am with you always even to the end of the world.' Observe now, in these things, the consideration and caution evinced by the Disciples: (viz.) that they did not all worship Him when they saw Him. Some of them indeed did this faithfully and devotedly, but others refrained for the present. It was not easily and suddenly, that they gave in to this miracle; but, it was after much investigation and with every caution they were so at last persuaded, that they went out to all mankind. They became too, the Preachers of His Resurrection; because it had prophetically said in the Scriptures of the Prophets, in His Person, 'Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and (for thy) possessions, the uttermost parts of the earth.' Just as the testimony of this prophecy has now been fulfilled in fact, He said to His Disciples; 'All power is given to me, as in heaven, so in earth.' For, He had possessed the sovereignty of the things which are in heaven from eternity; but now, He said was given to Him, by His Father, those upon earth, in conformity with this (viz.) 'Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thy possession.' For, from ancient times,--as Moses attests,-- 'The most High, when dividing the nations, appointed the boundary of the people, according to the number of the angels.' So that the Angels of God were, from ancient times, Rulers over all that was on the earth. But, when mankind had been perverted to the error of many Gods, and the Angels, who were the Rulers, were unable to afford any remedy for this; the common Saviour of all Himself taught, by means of His Divine manifestation, and after His victory over Death, that the empire of the nations upon earth, should no more be given by his Father to the Angels, but to Himself. And on this account, He commanded his Disciples,--not from ancient times--but now, that they should make the circuit, and make Disciples, of all nations. And He necessarily added the mystery of cleansing. For it was necessary to those, who should be converted from among the heathen, that they should be cleansed by His power from every pollution and uncleanness; because they had been defiled by the error of Demons, and had been holden by the worship of Idols, and by uncleanness of every sort, but had now first been changed from that life of abomination, and of lawless practices. These very persons then, did He direct to teach,--after this cleansing, which is by the mystery of His doctrine,--not, that they should observe the precepts of the Jews, nor yet the Law of Moses, but all those which He commanded them to observe. And these are those which the whole of the Disciples,--making severally the circuit of all the nations,--equally delivered to every Church throughout the whole creation. He necessarily therefore, stirred them up, and made them readily to confide,--to undertake the circuit of all nations, and to make Disciples of all races of men, through the promise by which He counselled them, saying: 'Behold, I myself am with you.'" (Book 4, Section 8)

"Our Saviour said to them therefore, after His resurrection, 'Go ye and make Disciples of all nations in my name,' And these things He said, who formerly had commanded: 'In the way of the Gentiles go ye not' but (enjoined) that they should preach to the Jews only. But, when these had abused (their) Inviters, then He dismissed the servants the second time, and said, 'Those that were called were not worthy. Go ye out into the ways and paths, and all that ye find call to the feast.' And this they fulfilled in deed. They went out into the whole creation, and they preached to all nations, the divine and heavenly calling; and 'they collected together as many as they could find, (both) bad and good.' Let no one therefore wonder, that, of those, who are collected into the Church of Christ, all are not good; but, that in the mixture together with the good, the evil will also be collected. Nor did this escape the foreknowledge of our Saviour. And it is accordingly seen to remain in fact, in conformity with that foreknowledge: and, what the end of those will be, who are brought together unworthily in His Church, He Himself shews; for He afterwards teaches these things in the parable, saying, 'And the feast was filled with guests: but, when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man who had not (on) wedding garments. And he said to him, My friend! how earnest thou in hither not having put on wedding garments ? And he was silent. Then the king said to the ministers: Bind him hands and feet, and cast him out into outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are the called, but few the chosen.' He likewise previously rebuked, with these predictive words, those who should conduct themselves unrighteously in His Church." (Book 4, Section 16)

"He (the Saviour) said in one word and announcement to His Disciples, 'Go and make disciples of all nations in my name, and teach ye them every thing that I have commanded you.' And the deed He made to follow the word. For thence, every race of the Greeks and Barbarians became at once, and in a short space of time, (His) Disciples: The laws too of our Saviour were not written in any Book of His; but, without book, were disseminated at His command among all nations; (and) these were opposed to the ancient worship of a plurality of Gods:--laws at enmity with the Demons, and unfriendly to every error of a multitude of Deities :--laws purifying the Scythians, the Persians, and other Barbarians, and converting (them) from every savage, and lawless sort of life:--laws subversive of the customs, which had obtained from ancient times among the Greeks, and teaching the new and genuine worship of God. How then have they dared so (to advance) such things as these, that one should say of Him, that He was probably aided (in) this magic by others,--the ancient magicians,--who were before His times? But, if there was no other person, whom any one could say resembled Him ; neither was there consequently, who could have been the cause of His possessing all this superiority.--It is now time therefore that we should confess, that an extraordinary and Divine Nature came into the world, which first and alone performed the things which had never before been commemorated among men." (Book 5, Section 17)

"But observe of Him, who availed himself of nothing either human or mortal, how, in reality, He again put forth the word of God in the precept, which He gave to these His powerless Disciples, (viz.) 'Go ye and make Disciples of all nations!' It is likely too, His Disciples would thus address their Lord, by way of answer: How can we do this? For, How can we preach to the Romans? And, How can we discourse with the Egyptians? What diction can we use against the Greeks; being brought up in the Syrian language only? How can we persuade the Persians, the Armenians, the Chaldeans, the Scythians, the Hindoos, and other nations called Barbarians, to desert the gods of their forefathers, and to worship the one Creator of all things? And, upon What superiority of words can we rely, that we shall succeed in this? Or. How can we hope, that we shall prevail in the things attempted? (viz.) that we shall legislate for all nations, in direct opposition to the laws laid down from ancient times, (and this) against their gods? And, What power have we upon which to trust, that we shall succeed in this enterprise? These things therefore, the Disciples of our Saviour would either have thought, or said. But He who was their Lord solved, by one additional word, the aggregate of the things of which they doubted, (and) pledged them by saying, 'Ye shall conquer in my name.' For it was not that He commanded them, simply and indiscriminately, to go and make Disciples of all nations; but with this excellent addition which He delivered, (viz): 'In my name.' Since it was by the power of His name that all this came to pass; as the Apostle has said, 'God has given Him a name, which is superior to every name: that, at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow which is in heaven, and which is in earth, and which is beneath the earth.' It is likely therefore, that He would shew forth the excellency of the unseen power, which was hidden from the many, by His name; and, (accordingly) He made the addition, 'In my name.' He thus accurately foretold moreover, something which should come to pass, (when) He said, 'It is expedient that this my Gospel be preached in the whole world, for the testimony of all nations.' Now, this matter was then declared in a corner of the earth, so that those only who were at hand could have heard it. But, How could they have believed Him when He said this, unless they had taken experiment as to the truth of His words, from the other Divine acts which were done by Him? For this, you are compelled to confess when it is considered, that they gave credence to what He said. For, when He gave them the command, not so much as one sought to be excused; but they confided in what He had intimated: and, just as His promises had been, so DID they make Disciples of the whole race of men! They did go forth from their own land into all nations; and, in a short time, His words were seen in effect! His Gospel was therefore shortly preached, throughout the whole creation, for the testimony of all nations, so that the Barbarians and Greeks received the Scriptures, respecting the common Saviour of all, in the handwriting of their Progenitors, and in the words of their spiritual Fathers." (Book 5, Section 46)

"I myself however, investigating for myself with effort, and in the love of truth, this same thing (singly), should perceive not one virtue in it (making it) credible, nor even any thing great, or worthy of faith, nor so persuasive, as adequate to the persuading of even one illiterate person, much less men wise and intellectual. Nevertheless, when again I view its power, and the result of its doings; how the many myriads have given their assent to it, and how Churches of tens of thousands of men have been brought together, by these very deficient and rustic persons; --nor that these were built in obscure places, nor in those which are unknown, but rather in the greatest cities, I say in the Imperial city of Rome itself, in Alexandria, in Antioch, in all Egypt, in Libya, in Europe, in Asia, both in the villages and (other) places, and among all nations; I am again compelled to recur to the question of (its) cause, and to confess, that they (the Disciples) could not otherwise have undertaken this enterprise, than by a Divine power which exceeds that of man, and by the assistance of Him who said to them, 'Go, and make Disciples of all nations in my name.' And, when He had said this to them, He attached to it the promise, by which they should be so encouraged, as readily to give themselves up to the things commanded. For He said to them, 'Behold I am with you always, even to the end of the world.' It is stated, moreover, that He breathed into them the Holy Ghost with the Divine power; (thus) giving them the power to work miracles, saying at one time, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost;' and at another, commanding them, to 'Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, and cast out Demons:---freely ye have received, freely give.'" (Book 5, Section 49)

Commentary on Isaiah (c. 325 A.D.)

"This is what the Savior himself commanded you when he said to you: 'But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,' and: 'Go and make disciples of all nations in my name.'" (On Isaiah 18:2)

"For he who said to them, 'Make disciples of all nations in my name', also forbad them to establish their churches in one and the same place." (On Isaiah 34:16)

Letter on the Council of Nicaea to Caesarea (c. 325 A.D.)

"We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made; Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost: believing each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, 'Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'. Concerning Whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching." (Section 3)

Against Marcellus (c. 335 A.D.)

"But what in the world was this gospel instead of which there was no other one, if not, I suppose, that very gospel that indeed it is recorded that the Savior publicly proclaimed when he was handing it over to his disciples, saying, 'Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'?" (Book 1, Chapter 1)

"Therefore, 'there is one God' and 'one mediator of God' for all creatures, the saving mediation beginning not now, but even before his divine appearance among men, as the statement thus showed. Given that these things have been laid out in brief to the same Galatians from the only letter addressed to them, and that the saving faith provides the mystical regeneration 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,' and that in addition to the divine writings the universal Church of God from one end of the earth to the other confirms the testimonies from the divine Scriptures by its unwritten tradition, now it remains also to examine in detail the statements of Marcellus and to undertake the demonstrations that were promised by us, lest anyone think that the man is unjustly disparaged by us." (Book 1, Chapter 1)

Ecclesiastical Theology (c. 335 A.D.)

"Listen to how [Marcellus] interprets this saying, 'Therefore, in all likelihood, the Master spoke about the birth in the flesh through the prophet Solomon, when he [the latter] said, 'Before the springs abounding with water came forth.'' And he adds, 'For in this sense the Savior spoke to the holy springs, 'Go make disciples of all nations.''" (Book 3, Section 3)

"None of these spirits can be compared with the Comforting Spirit. Therefore this one alone is comprised in the holy and thrice-blessed Trinity, as also our Lord in commanding his disciples to administer baptism to all the nations who would believe in him, did not order them to administer it in any other way than by baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". (Book 3, Section 5).

Commentary on the Psalms (c. 355-339 A.D.)

"It is known to all that neither were the people subjected to the sons of Core, nor were the nations brought under their feet; whence these things are said in the person of the Apostles. For they following the command of the Savior himself to teach all the nations, were filled with his power and went forth to all the nations and penetrated even into the barbarous tribes, and traversed the entire inhabited world." (On Psalm 46:4)

"The Jews are mentioned in the first place, because to them first should the kingdom of God be announced; but after them Christ commanded his disciples to preach the Gospel to all the nations in his name." (On Psalm 59:9)

"Hence we should rejoice in him, who by his power endureth forever. We should understand these words of that saying of Christ: 'All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Going make disciples of all the nations in my name." (On Psalm 65:5-6)

"That Christ's voice was endowed with power is evident from his deeds; for when he said to his disciples: 'Come, follow me, and I shall make you fishers of men', he actually fulfilled this promise by his power; and again when he commanded them saying: 'Going make disciples of all the nations in my name," he manifested his power in very deed". (On Psalm 67:34)

"This passage receives light from his promise to his disciples: 'Going make disciples of all nations in my name', and 'Behold I am with you all days even to the end of the world.' For through out the entire world, invisibly present to his disciples, he traveled on the sea of life, and in the many waters of the nations. This he accomplished by his invisible and hidden power." (On Psalm 76:20)

"To whom must we consider these words addressed, if not to those who later fulfilled them in deed, those namely who announced to all the nations the salvation of God? Who are they that carry out these words by their works? They are the disciples of Jesus, who heard the command: 'Going make disciples of all the nations'". (On Psalm 95:3)

Praise of Constantine (c. 339 A.D.)

"Surely none save our only Saviour has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, 'Go, and make disciples of all nations in my name.' He it was who gave the distinct assurance, that his gospel must be preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and immediately verified his word: for within a little time the world itself was filled with his doctrine." (Chapter 16, Section 8)

Observations of Eusebius' use

These are:

"Go and make disciples of all the nations." (7 times)

"Go and make disciples of all the nations in my name." (17 times)

"Go and make disciples of all the nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (5 times)

 

The amount of information supporting the conclusions presented may seem overwhelming, but for the serious seeker of truth, the search is well worth effort.

Unfortunately, in order to maintain an artificial doctrinal and textual unity, some defend themselves by saying that Eusebius' quotations, in short form, would be a paraphrase. What about Shem Tov's? We could accept this answer if it were not existed the controversy between Bishops Cyprian and Stephen and if it were not the echo of the text in Shem Tov.

The Pope of Rome, Pelagius (VI century), complained that in his time there were still many Christians who were baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus. So we have no good reason to say that everything was a paraphrase, but it is clear that we are dealing with a great textual controversy, which culminated with the falsification of the biblical text in Matthew 28:19.

 

 

I hope that you will allow the facts contained in this article to stir you into action: correct your Bible if you see that it has a falsified text.

 

Chapter 64

Exiting wrong tradition, by looking behind the scenes of this wrong traditions

 

Dating Nisan

Date of Nisan events

Purchase of lambs, Passover - the day of the crucifixion, the Great Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Omer with barley, the three days and three nights in the grave

 

Immediately after the Passover of 14 Nisan, on the 15 Nisan the great Feast of Unleavened Bread began, concurrently with the barley baking. When was barley baked in Israel since the time of Moses? Near the middle of the month Nisan appeared the first ripe barley spikes, which were gathered and put to dry, so that they could be sorted and presented at the Temple in Jerusalem on 16 Nisan.

 

Leviticus 23.10“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest. 11He is to wave the sheaf before the LORD so it will be accepted on your behalf; the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath.

 

Since barley is first baked, it is obvious that barley is mentioned above.
When is the "next day after the Sabbath"? What does the Sabbath refer to? When was this ritual performed?

Let's read the explanation of a Jew from the first century:
"Moses also commanded that, every year, in the month Xanthicos, named by us Nisan, and with which our year begins, on the fourteenth day of the beginning of the month, when the sun is in the constellation of Aries - for this month we were free from the bondage of the Egyptians, to bring the same sacrifice that we performed, as we have said, when we left Egypt. For on the fifteenth day, the Passover is followed by the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which lasts seven days, when nothing but unleavened bread is eaten: two bulls, one ram and seven lambs are stabbed each day. Besides, to which is added a goat as a sacrifice for sin, to serve daily for the priest's glut; on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (so on the sixteenth day), we eat the first part of the new harvest (of which no one has touched before);”

 

Josephus Flavius (of the Jewish priesthood, who lived in the first century AD), Jewish Antiquities, Book 3, Chapter 10.

Note: The sun is in the constellation Aries from March 21 until April 20, so from the above account, it is obvious that the Jews during Joseph Flavius's time were taking the sun, to set the beginning of the new year and not the moon.

So 1 Nisan or the ancient Jewish New Year, started at the spring equinox.

 

After the Passover the barley omer was swinged at the Temple in Jerusalem.

In Talmud, it is mentioned that there were years when the barley was not yet baked at Passover. In order to be able to bring the Omer Barley offering in time to the Temple, they sowed barley on some flat roofs in the Jericho Valley, which would be ready and fit after the Passover. Omer is not a large quantity of cereals.

 

If the solar calendar, the one used by Moses - described in the Dead Sea Scrolls, were reintroduced, this oscillation of the Passover date could be avoided.

 

What important omission exist in some versions?

 

Luke 6:1 New Heart English Bible

Now it happened on the second chief Sabbath that he was going through the grain fields. His disciples plucked the heads of grain, and ate, rubbing them in their hands.

 

Luke 6:1 Young's Literal Translation

And it came to pass, on the second-first sabbath, as he is going through the corn fields, that his disciples were plucking the ears, and were eating, rubbing with the hands,

 

In Luke 6:1 of the Greek text, the word "wheat" does not appear and a technical term, "the second chief Sabbath" (or “on the second-first sabbath), appears, which some manuscripts do not contain, since the copyists misunderstanding the phrase simplified it to "Sabbath." This is not a Sabbath of the seventh day, in which all travel was forbidden, but a “chief” (or first) Sabbath of feast, mentioned in Leviticus chapter 23.

 

This mention is important, to see that in a given week, there may be two Sabbaths, one on the feast and one on the seventh. In Luke 6:1 the Sabbath in question was the Sabbath that closed the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the second "chief (first)" Sabbath of feasting. These feasts were called the Sabbaths, because no work was done on them, see also John 19:31.

 

If we calculate 10 Nisan as being on a Friday, we will have this itinerary: If there were two Sabbaths in the week of the crucifixion, we can reconstruct the thread of events per day.

 

10 Nisan (Friday) - buying the Passover lambs, see Exodus 12:3-6.

 

11 Nisan (Saturday) - the weekly Sabbath, it is the seventh day of the Jewish week.

 

12 Nisan (Sunday) - the second day before the Lord’s Passover night, see Matthew 26:2.

 

13 Nisan (Monday) - the first day before the Lord’s Passover night, see Matthew 26:2.

 

14 Nisan (Tuesday) - the Lord’s Passover night started in the end of this day. This is the night when some of the people and disciples of the Lord and our Savior Jesus Christ prepare the Passover night; Between the calendar used by them and the priests was an one day gap. For Temple officials it was only 13 Nisan. The days were the same, only the date was different, so it was Thursday for both of them.

 

15 Nisan (Wednesday), 14 Nisan for the Temple officials  – it is the day of the crucifixion, it was the day of preparing the Passover lamb night according to the temple officials; not the Sabbath was prepared, but the Passover, that is, the Passover lamb, as it is plainly written in John 19:14. First night in the tomb. This day is the first "chief (first)" Sabbath in the cycle of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the great Sabbath of John 19:31, see Leviticus 23: 5-7, which clearly states that no servant work was done. It was celebrated a day later by Temple officials.

 

16 Nisan (Thursday), 15 Nisan for the Temple officials - Lord Jesus’ first day and second night in the tomb. It is the day of the ceremonial at the Temple, when the barley omer swinged. It was celebrated a day later by Temple officials.

 

17 Nisan (Friday), 16 Nisan for the Temple officials - Lord Jesus’ second day and third night in the tomb.

 

18 Nisan (Saturday), 17 Nisan for the Temple officials - Lord Jesus’ third day in the tomb. The weekly Sabbath, it is the seventh day of the Jewish week.

 

 

19 Nisan - it's the first day of the week of Jews, the day of resurrection.

It is the day when the faithful women visited the tomb and found it empty.

 

This is how the prophecy of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was fulfilled, about the three days and three nights, as long as he was to remain in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40, Matthew 27:63).

 

Nisan, is the first month of the biblical year, the Barley Spice Month: Exodus 12:2

 

It is the first month of the Spring Season, when the sun is in Aries Constellation Sign: Genesis 1:14, Exodus 13:4

 

See the events in that month, according to the Jewish calendar:

     5 12 19 26 First day of the week
     6 13 20 27 Second day of the week
     7 14 21 28 Third day of the week
  1 8 15 22 29 Fourth day of the week
  2 9 16 23 30 Fifth day of the week
  310 17 24     Sixth day of the week
  4 11 18 25    Seventh day of the week

 

Nights in the tomb: 15,16,17

Days in the tomb: 16,17,18

 

This is how the prophecy of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was fulfilled, about the three days and three nights, as long as he was to remain in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40, Matthew 27:63).

 

Chapter 65

Exiting the apocryphal matrix

The Essenes and their extra-biblical manuscripts from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Are they inspired?

 

Apocrypha were considered dangerous and false books, so they were kept secret. Jewish tradition says that they were cursed by the high priest. In the New Testament there are certain quotations that can be attributed, for example, from the book of Enoch. They were also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Because of this, it is possible that the author of this book was an Essene.

 

Is it possible that certain Christian New Testament authors quoted from these books? Or were these quotes later attached to these writings?

 

Who were the Essenes?

 

Epiphanius wrote in his encyclopedia about sects and the origin of sects.

Epiphanius of Salamis (Greek: Ἐπιφάνιος; c. 310–320 – 403) was the bishop of Salamis, Cyprus at the end of the 4th century. He is considered a saint and a Church Father by both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. He gained a reputation as a strong defender of orthodoxy. He is best known for composing the Panarion, a very large compendium of the heresies up to his own time, full of quotations that are often the only surviving fragments of suppressed texts. According to Ernst Kitzinger, he "seems to have been the first cleric to have taken up the matter of Christian religious images as a major issue", and there has been much controversy over how many of the quotations attributed to him by the Byzantine Iconoclasts were actually by him. Regardless of this he was clearly strongly against some contemporary uses of images in the church. - Wikipedia

 

In the Part 10, Epiphanius, a Christian Jew, wrote about the Essenes

1:1 The Samaritans were divided into four sects. These agreed on circumcision, the Sabbath and the other provisions of the Law. But each of the three differed from its fellows—with the sole exception of the Dositheans, in unimportant ways and to a limited extent.

1:2 The Essenes continued their original practice and never went beyond it. After them, the Gorothenes disagreed over a certain small point for a dispute has arisen between them, I mean between the Sebuaeans, Essenes and Gorothenes.

1:3 The nature of the dispute is this. The Law directed the Jews to gather at Jerusalem from all quarters—often, and at three times of the year, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost and Tabernacles.

1:4 There were Jews living here and there within the boundaries of both Judea and Samaria, and they naturally used to cross Samaria on their way to Jerusalem.

1:5 Since (Jews and Samaritans) would meet at one season, (each) with their gathering for the festival, clashes would result. Besides, when Ezra was building Jerusalem after the return from Babylon, and the Samaritans asked if they could contribute aid to the Jews and take part in the building, and were refused by Ezra himself, and by Nehemiah.

 

A Romanian author, Constantin Daniel, has researched this movement in detail.

Here is what the conclusion came to:

 

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls brought great interest to our time; they led to the publication of a huge number of articles, communications and books. However, related to the above manuscripts there are a large number of enigmas, rather obscure problems that could not be solved until now. In the Dead Sea Scrolls the expression "secret", "mystery" appears very often, mentioning the divine secrets known to the divinity, angels and heavenly powers, as well as the "wonderful" secrets that the Essenes or some of them claim to be. they come to know them by revelation. These terminologies were later used in Gnostic, pseudo-Christian literature, which leads us to wonder whether the Essenes or some of them became attached or united with Christians, influencing them in the wrong direction, being that weed or tares predicted by the Lord Jesus.

These "wonderful" secrets seem to be ecstatic experiences ... It has often been said that the discovery of the library of the hermits near the Dead Sea is one of the most disturbing achievements in the field of archeology of our time. We believe that this assertion is justified by the large number of discovered writings - of which only a small part have been published - and by the interest that these texts represent for the history of religions.

Constantin Daniel, Excerpt from the book: The Essenes, living in caves, are very likely that, after days of sensory isolation (lack of visual and auditory perceptions), they had such visual hallucinations - they saw various appearances - or heard voices and sounds, on who regarded them as of divinity, angels, or divine mysteries. On the other hand, it has been shown that prolonged lack of sleep (over three days) is also able to cause such visual hallucinations in subjects who have undergone such experiments of voluntary (and not only medicinal) sleep suppression62 . We will also add that the Essenes of Qumran do not drink wine at the table, but what the translators of the Dead Sea text have very strangely called either "must," or "sweet wine," or "juice." The common word for wine in Hebrew is yayin, and there is another rare word for wine, 'asis, but in the Community Rule, VI, 4-5 it is recorded that another drink called tiros is commonly drunk, translated as top performers. It seems that the drink was an important part of the Essenes' meals, for the meal is often called "the drink of the Numerous." It may be supposed that in this "drink," which was neither wine nor must (for it would not have been preserved in the wilderness), a hallucinogenic substance such as that extracted from claviceps purpurea was introduced by the leaders of the Essenian community. Parasite of the rye bean, from which the current LSD is made), or also a hallucinogenic substance like that of the mushroom amanita muscaria, or maybe it is a mixture of hashish (known and then used on a large scale by a sect Islamic mysticism, hashish), which comes from a species of hemp, cannabis indica. In this way one could explain the visions so frequently described in the Dead Sea Scrolls. We must add that other books written by the Essenes, the so-called pseudoepigraphic Essenian books, often mention the view of divinity, angels and divine mysteries, a doctrine that is completely foreign to traditional Judaism, because, for example, in the Acts of the Apostles ( chapter VII), St. Stephen is killed with stones because he had cried out that he sees the open heavens and the divinity. Or, in the Essene books, it can be read that the "right" Enoch sees the divinity. Likewise in the Book of the Mysteries of Enoch there are numerous theophanies (XXII, 1; XXII, 4-6, etc.) as in the Book of Jubilees (44, 5). ... in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Essenes often call themselves "lot, part of God," and A. Dupont-Sommer notes that the term goral (lot, part) often reappears as a leitmotif in the various texts in Qumran, its frequency corresponding to a dominant idea, that of a rigorous predestination. Or Philo of Alexandria writes, "For behold, he calls his faithful servant, the seer, a group of God" (De plantatione, § 60) and: "Let us not be surprised, therefore, to see thus the exceptional lot of the Supreme Divinity." is, it is said, the community of wise souls which sees in the deepest form, which uses only the blameless and always pure eyes of thought, which always has a clear eye and always keeps its right path "(Deplantatione, §§ 58-59). TABLE OF CONTENTS: I. From the enigmas of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1. THE ORIGIN OF THE ESSENIAN MOVEMENT 2. THE DIVISIONS IN THE ESSENIAN MOVEMENT 3. WHO ARE THE LYING PROPHETS? 4. WHO ARE THE THIEVES? II. Philo of Alexandria and the Essenes III. Two revealing mentions of the Essenes from the Dead Sea IV. An important mention of the Essenes made by Apostle Paul V. "Herodians" - the name of the Essenes in the New Testament VI. Dead Sea Scrolls and Aramaic Jewish Literature THE APOCRYPH OF GENESIS THE BOOK OF ENOCH

Given these findings, it is better to avoid these apocryphal writings than to delve into their study and recommend them to others for study.

 

Chapter 66

Exiting from the pressure of the wrong feelings

 

What is rapture, is this biblical?

Is there a notion of rapture the church to heaven? Yes, according to the Bible it is the transfer of someone from earth to heaven. This is a transport (a believer) from earth to heaven at the Second Coming of Christ.

Is this word making sense? Yes. But you can look for an even better one. Think that if some of the believers are in prisons or in prison camps or mental hospitals, their taking cannot be done only by force alone, if they are guarded. So, yes, this is could be a violent rapture, by force, but for the true church members this is good...

See for example two verses, to make a comparison for the meaning:

My people have long been counted by me as enemies; you will snatch the cloak from the clothes of those who pass quietly and have no taste of war. (Micah 2:8)

Then we which are alive and remain, shall be caught away (harpagēsometha) together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. and so we will always be with the Lord. (1Tes. 4: 17)

Now, we have the word harpagēsometha here.

What this word means?

726 [e]

harpagēsometha

ἁρπαγησόμεθα

will be caught away

V-FIP-1P

Strong's Concordance

harpazó: to seize, catch up, snatch away

Original Word: ἁρπάζω

Part of Speech: Verb

Transliteration: harpazó

Phonetic Spelling: (har-pad'-zo)

Definition: to seize, catch up, snatch away

Usage: I seize, snatch, obtain by robbery.

HELPS Word-studies

726 harpázō – properly, seize by force; snatch up, suddenly and decisively – like someone seizing bounty (spoil, a prize); to take by an open display of force (i.e. not covertly or secretly).

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 726: ἁρπάζω

 

ἁρπάζω; future ἁρπάσω (Veitch, under the word; cf. Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 407); 1 aorist ἥρπασα; passive, 1 aorist ἡρπασθην; 2 aorist ἡρπαγην (2 Corinthians 12:2, 4; Wis. 4:11; cf. Winers Grammar, 83 (80); (Buttmann, 54 (47); WH's Appendix, p. 170)); 2 future ἁρπαγήσομαι; ((Latinrapio; Curtius, § 331); from Homer down); to seize, carry off by force: τί (Matthew 12:29 not R G (see διαρπάζω)); John 10:12; to seize on, claim for oneself eagerly: τήν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Matthew 11:12 (Xenophon, an. 6, 5, 18, etc.); to snatch out or away: τί, Matthew 13:19; τί ἐκ χειρός τίνος, John 10:28f; τινα ἐκ πυρός, proverbial, to rescue from the danger of destruction, Jude 1:23 (Amos 4:11; Zechariah 3:2); τινα, to seize and carry off speedily, John 6:15; Acts 23:10; used of divine power transferring a person marvellously and swiftly from one place to another, to snatch or catch away: Acts 8:39; passive, πρός τόν Θεόν, Revelation 12:5; followed by ἕως with the genitive of place, 2 Corinthians 12:2; εἰς τόν παράδεισον, 2 Corinthians 12:4; εἰς ἀέρα, 1 Thessalonians 4:17. (Compare: διαρπάζω, συναρπάζω.)

 

The rapture or whatever we might call it better is a concept of the first century Christians, consisting of an end-time event when all Christian believers who are alive, along with resurrected believers, will be caught away in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.

In Paul the Apostle's First Epistle to the Thessalonians in the Bible, he uses the Greek word harpazo (Ancient Greek: ἁρπάζω), meaning "to caught away” or “to snatch away",  and explains that believers in Jesus Christ will be snatched away from earth into the air. Rapture has also been used for the union with God and for eternal life in Heaven, in the Lord Jesus Father’s house (John 14:2,3):

Young's Literal Translation

Jesus Comforts the Disciples

1‘Let not your heart be troubled, believe in God, also in me believe; 2in the house of my Father are many mansions; and if not, I would have told you; I go on to prepare a place for you; 3and if I go on and prepare for you a place, again do I come, and will receive you unto myself, that where I am ye also may be; 4and whither I go away ye have known, and the way ye have known.’

I do not understand from the Bible that this rapture, or whatever we might call it better, would be secret, but on the contrary, it will be seen by all who are in the rapture zones.

Why does it need to be such a rapture?

Because the Lord Jesus will rule the world for a thousand years, from heaven, according to His Father’s will, and those who are of his companions are also called to this work, to help him as assistant kings and priests:

Revelation 1:6 Young’s Literal Translation „and did make us kings and priests to his God and Father, to him [is] the glory and the power to the ages of the ages! Amen.”

Another old church tradition holds that fallen angels will be replaced by church members. God will not make other angels in place of the fallen, but will transfer in their place the members of the faithful church. When the equivalent of the fallen angels is realized, then comes the rapture or the transfer.

 

The biblical order of future major END TIME events:

1.   Rapture

2.   Parousia

3.   Judegement

 

1. THE RAPTURE of the church in heaven, in the Lord Jesus Father’s house (John 14:2,3), will be a great event of the future END TIME -  and here I refer only to the faithful, who will have passed the test, who will not fall. Those who will fall remain on earth, but will have one last chance, to repent in the short time they are given. God will give this after the rapture, in a time called the gathering of all the people - that is, of the living only, who have not died yet - for the trial. The world will be warned by the faithful church beforehand, before the rapture, like Moses and Jesus do, that all the evildoers of the world will be judged by some great plagues (compare Matthew 24 with Exodus 9:13-26 and Revelation 15:1-4); those who will be afraid and repent in this great tribulation, will be saved, who will not, will perish, as is written: He said with a loud voice, "Fear God and give Him glory, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of waters!" (Revelation 14:7)

Note that this period will be very short, because it is called a hour, the events from that time will be lightning fast.

 

2. THE PAROUSIA (a Greek word for presentation of somebody) OR in other words THE SECOND COMING OF LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THE GATHERING of all the nations of the earth to be judged - great attention my dear brothers and sisters, this will be done before the millennium, not in the millennium or after the millennium; I say this according to Scripture, please read this important fragment carefully from the Gospel about this judgment, which stands before all the peoples of the earth:

Matthew 25 31. When the Son of man SHALL COME in his glory with all the holy angels, he shall sit upon the throne of his glory. 32. All nations shall be GATHERED before Him. He will separate the others as the shepherd divides the goats; 33. and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on his left. 34. Then the King will say to that of His right hand, "Come you blessed of My Father and inherit the Kingdom that has been prepared for you since the foundation of the world.”

So whoever does not believe the message of warning to the world, according to Revelation 15:1-4, which will be made by true believers before being taken to heaven, will suffer the losing of their lives.

The true church here is very beautifully called the "brethren" of Jesus (Matthew 25:40,45), and their mission on the earth is to testify about the Kingdom, keeping themselves faithful to the great mission with which they were honored (Matthew 24:14), to be kings and priests for 1000 years:

Revelation 5:10 Young's Literal Translation

“and didst make us to our God kings and priests, and we shall reign upon the earth.'”

“Seek peace with all and sanctification, without which no one will see the Lord.” (Hebrews 12:14).

 

3. THE JUDGEMENT AND THE START OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND HIS KING REGIME OF A THOUSAND YEARS or the Messianic millennium. What is this Millennium? A curious asked me why it is so long until the rapture, because here 2000 years have passed and Jesus still does not come. Well, this problem of salvation is not so simple. Salvation does not mean belonging to Christianity and going to church on Sunday. This is formalism or cultural Christianity and most do this, without thinking deeply about what Christianity really means and therefore they are not Christians, only by name, but in their being they are not Christians and will be rejected as inauthentic. To be a Christian is to live according to God's requirements. Whoever does not live like this is not a Christian, can be called any way he wants: pope, bishop, priest, old man, deacon, Christian or anyway he wants. They are like empty words. So that is why it is so long since there were not enough people to achieve this goal. Because as the rich young man in the gospel, seeing that being faithful also means sacrifices not only joys, this did not suit him. They want a talisman-god, when you need something to rub a little the lamp and have it at your command. This means the reduction of God from the sovereign state, to something derisory, to the position of your slave. When the number of believers chosen for heaven will be reached, this great grace, of being with God in heaven, will close forever. Then the period called the judgment of the living or "the great tribulation" will begin, which will choose, so to speak, the world's population. Billions of people will be killed in a relatively short period of time, by the plagues, because they will not take refuge in safe places, although they will be warned, by the true Church. Only those who will understand the message of the true Church and agree with what is going on, will be saved and will enter the millennial kingdom of the earth, letting themselves be governed by God, through Jesus and his companions (the true Church): The Revelation of John 15 1. Then I saw another great and wonderful sign in heaven: seven angels who had seven plagues, the last, because with them the wrath of God was wrought. 2. And I saw a sea of ​​glass mixed with fire; and on the sea of ​​glass, with the instruments of God in hand, were the victors of the beast, of its icon and of the number of its name. 3. They sang the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb. And they said, "Thy works are great and wonderful, O Lord God Almighty! Right and true are Your ways, King of the nations! 4. Who will not fear, O Lord, and who will not glorify your name? For only Thou art holy, and all the nations shall come and worship before Thee, for Thy judgments have been revealed. "

Of course, the kingdom of the earth will be splendid, death will cease, all will live in peace and harmony, will have everything, will be judged righteous, if someone will do something wrong and will be unintentionally, he will be forgiven, if not he will be automatically eliminated, that there will be no prisons, billions of people will be born and educated according to the heavenly laws and then put to the test after the end of a thousand years. Whoever falls will be eliminated, whoever will resist the temptation will be blessed forever. The role of the millennium is for all creatures to see the DIFFERENCE between the rule made by Satan and that of God. In this thousand of years, God will show the future world that His rule is far superior to all rulers inspired and led by the forces of darkness, Satan and his demons. Only those who recognize this and worship Him in obedience will have the right to eternal life.

Why will all this happen? Because a (former) high angel (cherub) became Satan the Devil, because he rebelled against the Creator, desiring to overthrow him and fulfill his own reign in the Universe (Revelation 12: 9). The time we live in is called the "end time", so to speak, the last years of the Devil's reign. His reign of terror and suffering will soon end, being removed from the loving reign of the Father and his Son. Satan the devil has introduced sin into existence and for this reason he is responsible for all the sins that have been committed (John 8:44). The payment of the sin is death, first the common one, the Adamic death and then the second death, which will be applied after the resurrection and the judgment since then, to those who consciously practiced sin. Eternal grief as a payment for sins is not biblically justified, as you will see from Hebrews 10:26. "For if we sin freely, after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice left for sins, 27. but a frightening expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire that will consume the rebels." This is the TERRIBLE FIRE WHICH CONSUMES PEOPLE, AS WE SEE from Malachi 4: 1. For behold, the day cometh, which shall burn as an oven. All the deceivers and all the wicked shall be as stubbornness; the day that cometh shall burn them, saith the LORD of hosts, and shall leave them neither root nor branch. 2. But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise, and healing shall be under his wings; you will go out and jump like the calves in the stable. 3. And thou shalt tread upon the wicked: for they shall be ashes under the soles of thy feet in the day that I shall prepare them, saith the LORD of hosts.

In the last days of the reign of terror and suffering of the Devil, will be a great tribulation on earth and during this time a NUMBER of all nations will leave the cults of the corrupt religious system, preparing for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 25: 1-13, Revelation chapters 7 and 18). At that time, traditional religions - and here we refer to all, including the heathen - will not only lose the support of state authorities, but will be abolished by a political decree of the World Government of the New World Order (NWO), which will appear on the stage of the new political world (Revelation 17:16). Instead, to fill the void of spiritual needs, the World Government will establish worship at the beast's icon (Revelation 13:15). During this period, what the apostle Paul called "denial of faith" will appear, and a VIP, a charismatic political leader called "the man of iron, the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2: 3). But the Antichrist will not rule much, for he will be destroyed at the second coming of the Lord, and God will restore his kingdom to earth through his Son, the King appointed for it, who, after its preparation at God's will, destroying any opposition and enemy, he will surrender all the authority of his Father, that God the Father may be all in all (1 Corinthians 12: 6). As spiritual soldiers in the army of the Father and His Son, God calls us to be conquerors and carry us in His victory chariot, until we conquer even the last devil's redoubt, which is death. God's message is that he loves us and wants our highest good, which is why he urges us to always be on his side. The purpose of the commandment is love, because true love builds, but comes from hearing the truth that makes us free, in the sphere of peace.

May God bless you, in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! Hallelujah, Amen!

 

Chapter 67

What is God's plan for the Earth and for humanity?

 

Answering this question briefly, surely the heavenly Government of God, the Father Almighty, that will be established by God, will do something special, according to the plan made by the Creator (Acts 20:27).
What is God's plan for the Earth and for humanity that fears and love God?

 

     Dear brothers and sisters, friends

      I am pleased to write to you according to the Bible; I consider these posts a great opportunity to communicate with you God’s message to our time. God created us with the need to communicate with both our fellow humans and Himself. "We communicate with God through prayer, and He answers us through the Bible."

I appreciate your interest in the great topics of the Bible. I would like to share the same thoughts. First, we need a translation that uses a modern, simple expression and that accurately conveys the action of biblical accounts and is consistent. Second, for a Hebrew or Greek word a single equivalent should be used consistently whenever the language and context allow, so that the idea is expressed clearly, in every place.

     The Bible is a valuable work. It is lively and urges the reader to reflect and study. It is not the work of followers of human myths, but of believers who have honored God and His Word.

     Regardless of who the translators of the Bible are, we want to read the Bible to know God and to strengthen our faith in him and his promises.

A Bible believer wrote the following:

    “At present, we live in a world alienated from God. Life is stressful and people are confused about the future. Human evil has reached alarming levels. In addition, there are countless worrying news: global warming, epidemics, hunger, etc.. Scientists, human governments prove to be powerless in the face of these problems. All of these make up a picture that tells us that the values ​​of the world are reversed. People no longer differentiate between evil and good. We are living in critical times.
     But many honest people wonder if there is a God and if He is interested in us? It is interesting that influential people, opinion-makers, acknowledge that the situation in the world has become much worse and that only God can save us. But their assertions are often not based on authentic faith.

 People have gotten out of control, so we need real hope to solve our problems. The Bible promises that the problems of mankind will be solved through a heavenly government.

    In the Bible book of Jeremiah 29:11 we find some beautiful promises made by God for His people. I encourage you to read the verse from the Bible itself. Have you noticed from the verse those beautiful promises that God wants us to have? He wants us to have peace, a future and a hope. It's a wonderful hope. Can you imagine a world of peace, without any problems?

   God promises us this wonderful assurance if we manifest an authentic faith in Him, based on His Word. He created the land of love for us. It was created for us humans so that we can enjoy life. This is why God will intervene and eliminate the causes of suffering. He will restore his initial purpose to the earth. It seems an incredible image, but for the Almighty God, nothing is impossible to achieve."

Amen! We waiting a New Heaven and  a New Earth, according to God’s promise:

 

Revelation Book

21:1 And I saw a New Heaven and a New Earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

    I wish you a beautiful day and thank you for the time you spend with us.

God's initial plan for the earth and for humanity is well established in Genesis 1:28. Genesis 3:22 also reveals that God wanted to give eternal life to mankind, and although He suspended His intention for a time, He did not give up His intention to give eternal life to all creatures that love Him, listens to Him and recognizes Him as the Supreme Lord (see John 3:16 and Acts 4:24). Through His heavenly Son He will fulfill this great promise at the right time. His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ  is God’s “Way” to eternal life.

 

God promised to reward the believers and punish the guilty who opposed His plan.

His judgment will be just. God has promised the resurrection (Revelation 21:5) and that the truth will dwell in heaven and on earth forever (2 Peter 3:13). Neither heaven nor the globe itself will be destroyed (Psalm 115:16; Preacher 1: 4), but as in the Great Flood from the Noah’s time, mankind still awaits a terrible judgment when, through the power of God. He purifies the air and face of the earth from all sin and from all men who oppose God and His appointed king (Matthew 24: 21-30; 2 Peter 3: 5-12; Revelation 19: 11-21).

After God removes the wicked from the earth and throws Satan into prison so that he cannot influence anyone (Revelation 20: 1-3), He hands the Earth to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, His heavenly Son, who is chosen by God (Matthew 20: 20-23, Matthew 24). He with his earthly associates (Revelation 14: 1-5), will rule over the earth for a thousand years (Revelation 20: 4-6), over all obedient people who endured the great tribulation and were spared because of their repentance  (Revelation 7: 9-17, (Revelation 16: 13,14), in the day of God's judgment (Revelation 19: 17-21).

 

After the great tribulation, the kingdom of God - that is, the government ordained by God - which is under the rule of Lord Jesus Christ and his associates, will accomplish wonderful things on earth:

1. Eternal peace, harmonious and international coexistence, with the complete elimination of conflicts and wars (Psalm 72: 7,8; ​​Micah 4: 1-5; Psalm 46: 9,10).

2. International security and happiness through justice, with the complete elimination of physical and economic oppression of any kind (Psalm 37: 9-11; Isaiah 65: 20-23; Revelation 7: 15-17).

3. Providing abundant crops throughout the world by eradicating natural disasters and cursing of the ground (Malachi 3: 10,11; Revelation 22: 3; Psalm 72:16)

4. Ecological harmony between humans, animals, and nature (Isaiah 11: 6-9; 65:25).

5. Eradicating disease and aging, stopping death (Isaiah 33:24; 35: 4-10; 65: 20,23) and restoring living conditions as in the Garden of Eden was (Isaiah 35: 1,2,7; 43: 19,20 ).

6. In the millennium, all human beings on earth will live in paradise, listening to the rule of Jesus Christ, worshiping and serving God, the heavenly Father, with happiness (Revelation 21 and 22). During the millennial reign of Jesus Christ, God showed in heaven and on earth that it is in the interest of creatures to accept His righteous and loving rule and to serve and submit only to the Creator forever.

7. At the end of the millennium, Satan will be released from prison to close the debate. All who will be deceived by Satan's final despair will be subject to God's just and eternal punishment (Revelation 20:7-10). After the condemnation of the rebels, the enemy will be destroyed and all power will return to God. — Revelation 20:14; 1 Corinthians 15: 24-28. There will be eternal happiness and eternal life both in heaven and on earth (Revelation 22:1-5).

There will never be any more rebellion or sin, because all creatures have learned who God is. He is the Supreme Being and the Absolute Master who cannot be defeated and whose will always wins. No one will be so crazy and stupid to do his job with him. Madness and folly will be eradicated forever with their inventor, Satan the Devil.

 

Chapter 68

„What did the early Christians believe?"

 

Dear brothers, sisters and friend of the Bible,

 

For those who want to build together the true faith, we invite you to post in this study group, whatever you think is useful about "What did the early Christians believe?"

 

You could be in the glorious Bride of the Messiah!

 

Being Jews, they believed in one God, the Father Almighty, Yehowah, the Creator of Heaven and Earth and all things in the Universe. No other god or one or two more were preached to them with the Father. Genesis 1: 1, Exodus 3: 13-16, 20: 1-3, Matthew 5:45, John 17: 3, 20:17, Mark 12:29, Romans 1:20, Revelation 3: 2,12 They believed in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord and Savior, who came from Heaven to be born on Earth, through Mary, a holy virgin, by a miracle performed by God through the Holy Spirit. Matthew 3:17, Luke 1:35, 2: 1-7, John 3:16, 6:38 They believed that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Son of our God and Father, was crucified during the mandate of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate in Judea. Matthew 27: 2, Mark 15: 1, Luke 3: 1, 23: 1,24, John 19: 31,38 They believed that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins and was buried, being raised from the dead on the third day by God the Father. Whoever believed in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus entered into the New Covenant. Acts 2:24, 3: 13,15, 4:10, 10:40, 13: 30,37, Romans 10: 9, 1 Cor 15:15, Gal 1: 1, Col 2:12, Rom 5: 6, 8, 1Thess 5:10, 1Cor 15: 3,4, Rom 3:25, 1 John 2: 2, 1 John 4:10, Luke 22:20 They believed that He ascended to Heaven and sat in honor at the right hand of the Almighty Father, receiving for a certain period all authority in heaven and on earth, to restore all things according to the will and glory of God his Father, destroying all the works of the Devil and finally the Devil and all who obey him. Matthew 28:19, Acts 6:56, Hebrews 1: 3, 8: 1, Revelation 2:27, Hebrews 2:14, 1 Corinthians 15: 24-28 They believed that He would come again to judge the living and the dead on the basis of human words and deeds. Matthew 12: 36,37, 25: 31-46, Acts 17: 30,31, 1 Peter 4: 5, 2 Corinthians 11:15, Revelation 20:12 They believed in the Holy Spirit of the Almighty Father, sent to all who believe and submit to God through the Lord Jesus Christ, for remembrance, guidance, learning, and comfort. Matthew 10:20, John 7:39, John 14: 16-26 They believed in the wisdom, power, justice, love and grace of God and His Son, in the holy union of the congregation of saints after the model of the fellowship of the Father and his Son, in the power of prayer, vigilance, peace, truth, love, forgiveness and doing good, in repentance, in baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus in the water for the forgiveness of sins, in the resurrection of the dead, in the kingdom of a thousand years, in eternal life, etc .. Amen! Ephesians 2: 8, John 17: 21-23, 1 Peter 5:12, 2 Thessalonians 1:12, Luke 21:36, Hebrews 12:14, John 8:32, 17:17, Matthew 22: 36-40, Mark 12 : 26, Luke 6:35, Matthew 5:44, Matthew 26:28, Acts 2:38, 23: 6, 24:15, Revelation 20: 4, John 3:16 The Son of God speaks of the Father's great love for mankind (John 3:16). How did this love manifest itself? Holy Scripture tells us that the human race has fallen from perfection because of the disobedience of our first parents. Thus we contaminated our genes with them, all inheriting an imperfect nature, subject to sin (Romans 7). Every mistake is a sin and every sin is an iniquity. That's how we all needed forgiveness. People saw their imperfection and offered sacrifices in return. But imperfect sacrifices could not justify eternal forgiveness. It took a little longer. We all needed a perfect sacrifice, an innocent blood, symbolized in antiquity by the blood of an animal. The Son of God offered to be that Lamb who took away the sin of the world. O divine Lamb, what grace have you given us! Oh, divine Lamb, how you saved us! O divine Lamb, how you reconciled us to the Father! You are worthy to receive all that the Father has given you: strength, wealth, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and praise. And we are all called to say, Amen! (Revelation 5: 12,13). God has made him Lord and Savior of all who will believe in Him. We thank the Father for his Son and the Son for the sacrifice made in our behalf. Amen!

 

Please keep in mind two rules of faith: peace and consecration. Be honest with yourself! Are you a man of peace and consecration? Without this no one will see God.

Hebrews 12

14Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. 15See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many.

Peace and consecration do not mean avoiding confrontation with God's truth.

Peace and consecration mean conforming to the truth of God, even if all men are against us. Peace with God and living in holiness with him must come first. People who have no peace andconsecration with God have neither with themselves nor others.

Be blessed!

 

Chapter 69

Why do we need an ante-Nicene version of the Bible?

 

Dear brothers and sisters, dear friends ofthe Bible

 

When we read Trinitarian Bibles, we must be very careful about the legacy they took over from the Patripassian Gnostics. All their wrong translations and trinitarian interpolations could be clarified if we simply read the Hebrew or Greek text in a variety of translations, interlinear sites, or if we compare the ancient manuscripts with each other, from textual critics works notes, like Novum Testamentul Graece et Latine - Nestle Aland or other editions notes. We would then at least see that where translation is concerned, dogmatism is greater evidence of ignorance than of learning.

 In the Classic Christians belifs Lord Jesus is not the Creator, nor the God of the Bible. And through His Son, HE, THE CREATOR - WE MEAN THE FATHER, created all things, teaching his Son how to do things. So, the Son is a maker, not a creator, nor a co-creator, or a second Creator, nor a second God of the Bible. As in a factory, an engineer would teach a worker how to make a product. When we the Nontrinitarians say this, we are based on what he writes in John 5:20. ²⁰ For the Father loves the Son AND SHOWS him all he does. Yes, and he will SHOW HIM even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed.

 

In the second century Apostles’ Creed is stated: Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae, I believe in God The Father All-powerful, Creator of Heaven and Earth. - So, there is no place for the Son to be a second Creator, or co-Creator, nor to be a second God of the Bible. Compare with Matthew 19:4, Marc 10:6, Marc 13:19. Take care, we mean be wise. God bless each of you with wisdom! Amen!

 

The shape of the Ante-Nicene Bible Project - With Notes

 

If we strive, in a few years we will be able to present to the public attention a pilot edition. In order to achieve this goal, we need devoted researchers, biblical textual analysts and historians, having purpose a daring project called the Ante-Nicene Bible. The main purpose of such a version is the READING Of THE BIBLE WITH WISDOM, comparing different translations with the Hebrew and Greek text and evaluating the renderings of the various biblical manuscripts on the specialized sites http://www.csntm.org/manuscript, http://biblehub.com/, http:// www. biblequery.org/, etc., the work is not only a translator work, but an evaluator work also.

The status of the translator team must be pro-Bible, pro-Christian, but a non-denominational, independent team, with the purpose of spiritual edification. The purpose: To evaluate and promote the reading of the Bible's text wisely, for a better understanding of the original text of the Holy Scriptures, which has been modified (rendered differently) by some ancient writers, giving to the public articles and books dedicated to this subject and opening a better horizon of knowledge in this direction.

In order to understand the Bible correctly, we must have first the correct text. If we do not have a correct text, we cannot have a correct understanding of the Bible. The Bible Translation Net states: "Unfortunately, there are no original manuscripts (called" autographs ") of any of the biblical books that have been recovered, and since there are no existing manuscripts that would agree with each other in every detail, textual evaluation is needed to solve the problems of variation. Alfred E. Housman, a textual evaluator of classical works, shows that textual evaluators are based on "common sense and the use of reason." In short, textual evaluation is science and art, which aims to determine the [initial] drafting of a text. It is a science because specific rules regulate the evaluation of different types of copyist errors and readings, but it is also an art, because these rules cannot be rigidly applied in any situation."

Textual evaluation (textual criticism) is a kind of spiritual textual journey behind the ancient scribal scenes, it shows us by what chain the biblical text reached us, the text differences between manuscripts, the modifications operated in them, including the time (century) in which these changes were operated, by writers (copyists).

The teams’ motto: Back to Bible manuscripts!

Biblical philosophy:

1. There is no harmony in the Bible unless WE use the whole Bible.

2. WE will not understand the Bible in depth unless we live it.

3. We will not be forgiven unless WE forgive; WE will not be loved unless WE love first.

4. Understanding and practice must go hand in hand. I had a friend who wanted to understand the whole Bible, being learned in theology and then start living it. He died as a young man, having a heart attack, without starting to do what he intended. The Bible learning and his daily practice must go together, only in this way will we reach the status of a mature man.

5. The Biblical law of God is didactic, preventive and corrective, in order to know our role and place in society. We do not consider it a fence that impedes our freedom, but a fence that protects our freedom. We do not confuse freedom with anarchy. In one word, the Law of God is love, without which mankind cannot be happy or saved. If We want to be happy for a moment, take revenge. If We want to be happy all our life, let’s forgive and love.

 

Dear brothers and sisters, we could cooperate in correcting the KJV and other mainstream but altered versions, by the Gnostic scribal traditions. We could form a team for this mission. This job is too big for one person, to make it alone.

Comparison of the manuscripts made by scientists, shows that indeed errors were made by negligence, but also three intentional tricks were made.

About the tricks made in the text:

1 words intentionally omitted

2 words added intentionally

3. words intentionally changed

Dr. F H The Scrivener text critic writes: "In the second century, we see too many attempts to change the text of Scripture, some only recklessly, others proven to be dishonest." Scrivener states that "this is no less true, though it sounds paradoxical that the worst mistakes the New Testament has ever been made were originally made within 100 years after the (New Testament) was made, and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers , and throughout the West, part of the Syrian Church used "inferior manuscripts. (FHA Scrivener, Introduction to New Testament Text Criticism).
Dr. F H The Scrivener text critic noted two kind of scribes who altered the text: "recklessly, others proven to be dishonest." Scrivener states that the first 100 years was the WORST TIME of the manuscripts.
Ernest Cadman Colwell, Which is the Best New Testament Text ?, p. 119: "The first two centuries witnessed a large number of (different text) variations known to scholars today. Most (different text) versions of New Testament manuscripts, I believe they did it consciously."
The testimony of Origen, 3rd century: "It is a fact revealed today that there is a GREAT VARIETY among the manuscripts, either because of the carelessness of the scribes, or because of the outrageous daring of the people who write..."

This rout was due to the fact that in the second century the Christian rival groups reached about 70 sects, each making his canon and his favorite text.

See an example:  Acts 16: 7 there would be four textual variations:1. πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ Spirit of Jesus: Papyrus p72, Codex Sinaiticus (א), Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Alexandrinus (A), Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) the 6th century concealer, Codex Bezae (D), Cyrill of Alexandria 2. The Spirit of the Lord () 3. the Holy Spirit () 4. πνεῦμα Spirit (Textus Receptus, Efrem the Syriac, Chrisostom).

It is not strange? The right version is just "the spirit" as in Acts 5:9, Acts 8:39, this mean an angel guides them as in Acts 8:29, Acts 10:19, Acts 11:12, Acts 16: 9. The spirit of Jesus is unic in all the Bible, we meet this just in Acts 16:7. It is not genuine.

“Orthodox scribes occasionally changed the NT text to bring it more into conformity with their views."

Daniel Wallace, "How Badly Did the Scribes Corrupt the NT Text?"

 

This version project is an attempt to reconstruct the text of the original Bible, proposing the reconstruction of the words and fragments removed and removing the overlays that overlapped the text of the biblical authors, either for doctrinal reasons or of a different nature. This text which may undergo changes depending on the information that will be accounted for and analyzed by specialists, for a second, better edition.

The advantages of such a version would be for great interest:
In problematic renderings, the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek (LXX) text would be transliterated in Latin characters, accompanied by the closest translation into English, having all the words and the topic of the translated text (the order of the words in the sentence), as much as possible. Thus, the fidelity of the text translated into the English language ​​can be verified. The ANB would include historical notes and exegesis (commentary) of the text, where the text requires it. The textual differences in the manuscripts would also be presented. Readers could leave messages, if they know more details, which, if deemed necessary, will be added in a second ANB edition.

 

The project also aims to purchase the oldest copies of the pre-Massoretic manuscripts, for example the Pentateuch from Derbent.

This manuscript is called the Pentateuch from Derbent, after the city where it was discovered. Derbent is a city in Daghestan. It contains the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) and was copied in 604. The manuscript was discovered in 1843 by a Jewish Karaite and was purchased by the former Tsarist Library in St. Peresburg, where it is now.

The text in the manuscript contains no vowels and is older than the text called "Masoretic". Those who have investigated it claim that in some respects it does not agree with either the Masoretic Text or the text of the Septuagint (LXX). Unfortunately I don't have more information about it. The Jewish community that retained it was originally relocated from Persia to Scythia - Derbent being in Old Scythia, later conquered by the parties and then perished, who brought in Khazari tribes and Jewish settlers to Scythia. So the Jewish colonists brought the manuscript from Persia. “The Sasanid Empire or the Sasanid Persian Empire ('Ērānshahr' or 'Ērān' in medieval Persia) was the last pre-Islamic Persian empire ruled by the Sassanid dynasty between 224 and 651. In 651, the state of the Sasanians was conquered by the Arabs. The Sasanid Empire, succeeding the Parthian Empire, was a power in Central Asia and the Near East, threatening the Roman-Byzantine border for about 400 years.” Wikipedia

A note from Massorah (massorah means „comments”) says that the original text of Genesis 18:22 has been modified. This fact is curious. Where did the Massorets know this? Were there several versions in their time or in the comments of some old books? With this note from Massorah, we check if this Pentateuch has another rendering here, if there is a rendering here "but the angel of the Lord stood before Abraham."

 

Could we make a better new version of the Bible together to correct any mistakes of translators? Technology, History and Textual Criticism can help us enormously.

 

Anyone who wants to be part of this project can contact me. Have a good time! Please contact me here.

 

If this chronology is true, then our generation is near the end of the 6,000 years of human existence on earth.

 

Chapter 70

God’s timeline

Where are we now in the Book of Revelation?

 

Many believers research the Bible chronology and wonder where we are in the book of Revelation?

 

After a thorough study, someone proposed this itinerary of the Biblical Chronology.

 

Before Christ or before Anno Domini

1656 years - FROM ADAM TO THE FLOOD

427 years  - FROM THE FLOOD TO THE COVENANT WITH ABRAAM

430 years - FROM THE LINK WITH ABRAAM TO EXOD

46 years - FROM THE EXODE TO THE DIVISION OF THE CANAAN

349 years - FROM THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE CANAAN TO THE PERIOD OF JUDGES

463 years - FROM THE PERIOD OF JUDGES TO THE PERIOD OF KINGS

587 years  - FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE PERIOD OF KINGS TO THE END OF THE KINGDOM OF ZEDEKIA

----
3958 BC ADAM CREATION

2302 THE END OF THE FLOOD

1875 THE COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM

1445 EXODUS

1399 CANAAN'S DIVISION

1050 THE FIRST YEAR OF SAUL'S DOMAIN

1010 DAVID'S FIRST YEAR

970 THE FIRST YEAR OF SOLOMON'S DOMAIN

966 BEGINNING OF THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE

930 THE BEGINNING OF THE DIVISION OF THE KINGDOM

587 THE END OF THE KINGDOM OF ZEDEKIA

538 BC THE FIRST YEAR OF CIRUS I

2043 AD THE END OF THE 6000 YEARS

3043 AD THE END OF THE 7000 YEARS

 

Many believers believe that we are in the end time and OUR GENERATION IS IN THE END TIME OF THIS WORLD. It is true? Yes, if God decided that this imperfect system would be 7,000 years old. And no, if God has decided to allow a longer time.

If we go on the first option with 7000 years allowed, then our time will be interspersed with time from the prophecies of Revelation. So where are we now in the prophecies of Revelation?

Many assume that we are before the chapter 19 of Revelation, all the chapters before it being fulfilled. But there are many other, who think we are just at the beginning of chapter 6. Many expect certain scenes in these prophecies to be literal, especially after the asteroid Apophis appeared in view.

According to some commentators, Apophis, surnamed the "God of Chaos" might hit the Earth in 2029, 2036 or after and scientists admits they have no defense, yet.

Scientists: "There is a 1 in 100000 chance of collision." The Media: " Massive killer asteroid headed towards Earth, Elon Musk ADMITS WE HAVE NO DEFENSE."

Possible 1 in 100000 is to calm people, mean its atleast 1 in 50k K = 1000, especially after it has been admitted that the asteroid accelerates and therefore does not have a constant speed.

So it is worth investigating whether the asteroid Apophis fits into the prophecies of the book of Revelation and what would happen if it hit the earth?

Some assume that from chapter 6 to chapter 19 of the book of Revelation 7 literal years will pass. If this aspect is true and the biblical chronology really shows the year 2043 as the year 7000, then the major events in the book of Revelation could begin in our time.

 

Certainly the 2029 year will be the year for more and detaliled information about Apophis. Observers will certainly be able to tell us whether in 2036 there will be an impact or not, because in this year this asteroid will be very close to the earth.

News in the international press has long been circulating that the asteroid nicknamed "Destroyer" could hit the ground, although scientists say "There is a 1 in 100,000 chance for a collision." Remember, the media also says that "there is no defense for this."

1 in 100000 means calming people, the real probability can be at least 1 to 50k, or even lower considering the area called "keyhole". 1K = 1000, meaning 50k is actually 50000. In addition, scientists have not yet been able to give a reassuring answer on how this asteroid will behave in the space called "Keyhole", which is related to the asteroid's entry into space of gravity of the earth in 2036.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK-ZmwDpfHY

 

Whatever it is, we must remain calm if we trust in God, doing His will, according to the teaching of His Son.

I look forward to seeing your opinion, which you can detail if you wish.

 

The owner grants permission to any Christian or Christian ministry, church, or organization to reproduce any part of this book.

That is why, our dear fellowship, we invite you to help us in distributing, printing, correcting and possibly expanding these materials, making leaflets, brochures and why not even books, to really educate people about who is the Father and who is the Son, and what is that wonderful relationship between them. Who wants to get involved, please contact us here or in private on Facebook.

You can place your questions and encouragement in the comments section. God bless you, in Lord Jesus Christ name! Be healthy! (Acts 15:29)

 

Thank you and God bless you in Lord Jesus name! Amen!

Grace and peace to you, and a good health.

Open your eyes, clean your heart, prepare your mind!

Be ready for the Paradise!

It's could be closer than some think.

The book is online on Bible Topics Answered

https://bibletopicsa.blogspot.com