THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY (Carte, Teologie, Documentar)

Preface

Motto
"A lie is like a snowball: the further you roll it the bigger it becomes." Martin Luther

Presentation of the book THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

Greetings!

In this way, we announce the interested ones, that intend to publish this great book about some things less known in Christianity at the present time, about the trinity doctrine.

This study of the doctrine of the trinity started since 1991, comparing many translations of the Bible, in several languages, studying at the same time the history of religious dogmas and ideas related to this doctrine. Our disclosures could end the credibility of this doctrine. This will make the Bible much more intelligible, non-contradictory and harmonious, in the monotheistic doctrine of God. So this work is not directed against the Bible, but in the aid of understanding as easily as possible.

This is a must read: THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

Any collaboration on this is welcome and expect those interested to contact us.

We are looking for a sponsor or impresario to print this theological work in order to reach the benefit of as many readers of the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Bible, in other languages also.

Best regards to all, and God bless you!

The co-writer team

THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

A book about: Gnostic-Patripassians, who they were, their school of thought, and the conspiracies they were engaged in.

Chapter 1

The real background of the trinitarian doctrine

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 made sound biblical? This theme is debated in this book.

We wrote this book in order to raise public awareness about the importance of a general revision of the Bible, coming out of the stereotypes that have been worked on so long.

As we see, the doctrine of the trinity was not invented at the Council of Nicaea in 325, but earlier. 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.

Chapter 2

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. Is not a different, third person of God.

Let's see their argument of Acts 1:5, if this 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 Bible explain the Bible without human interpret.

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 has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

Note that "my spirit" means "the holy spirit", exactly as 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 want's 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.

Nowere a 3rd person.

Yes, God has a spirit. His spirit, the holy spirit. Their argument is plausible.

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, about his Son and about His spirit, the holy spirit, however, if we read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, we find the testimony that there is only one God.

Here are some examples:

Exodus 20:1And 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 were a trinity or a binity, we would have expected these texts to specify this clearly. But no mention for a “Trinity” or a “Binity” here.

Reading the Bible in any language, we will find one God and one Creator, no more. The Universe was created by God, 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 engineer and a maker. All those working in factories know very well the difference.

But during the Christmas time, there is an old tradition in the Churces songs, which said that God became man, being born as Jesus. And if God was born, He had to die. The idea is very old, and is not of of present time.

For example, Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170-180), about the death of Christ, he writes thus:

"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! Why the Bible doesn't say that?

John 3:16For 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 15:33At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34And 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, how did some Christians like 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”

Comparing manuscripts and evaluating playback variants, which sometimes occur in certain places (verses), is vital in the work of repositioning the Christian theology on the path followed by the early 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. There is neither 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 we decide? How we will interpret the lack? A learned textual critic wrote that in a cave near the Dead Sea, was found a manuscript in which we have something similar to the some Septuagint, but with polytheistic tendencies: Deuteronomy 32:43 "All the gods shall worship him." Nor did this phrase match. This manuscript near the Dead Sea also contained other texts added, which were not in the Masoretic Text, but neither in the Septuagint.

We have only two possibilities for interpretation:

Possibility A. The ancient Jewish text was measured (corrected in the negative sense) and so this phrase was removed from the text. If someone did so, the question arises, for what reason?

Possibility B. In the original Epistle to the Hebrews there was no verse 6, being added later by a copyist. Asking someone like this begs the question, for what reason?

What the Septuagint says: Septuagint, Deuteronomy 32:43 "Rejoice, ye heavens, with Him, May all the sons of God worship Him! Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with His people, strengthen for him all the angels of God! That He will avenge the blood of His sons and will avenge his enemies with vengeance, and those who hate Him will pay it and the Lord shall cleanse the land of His people "

The Masoretic text, Deuteronomy 32:43 says much less: "Rejoice over his nations, you his people, because he avenges the blood of his servants and he will take vengeance on his enemies. He shall make atonement for his land and for his people. "

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

A little 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.

Questions arise: Why did the Septuagint need so many revisions? And why wasn't it such a good 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 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 so called Masoretic text and the Essenes version of the Death Sea Scrolls.

Other problems: The quotation from Hebrews 1:8,9 does not match the Masoretic Text. Indeed, it partially matches that of the Septuagint (verse 6 of Septuagint Ps 44: 6), but which one to choose? If we go into the hand of the Septuagint, only the verse in Hebrews 1: 8 and not verse 9 could be justified, so the text remains without cover.

The Septuagint, Psalm 44: 6,7 Your chair, God, is in the age of the age, the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom You loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy more than Thy companions.

The Masoretic text, Psalm 45:7,8 (for those who do not know, between LXX (Septuagint) and TM there is a difference of one chapter):

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

A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

8Thou 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 were 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. But because the epistle to the Jews was written to the Christian Jews before the demolition of the temple in Jerusalem (70 AD), this question arises: in what language it was written to them and what version was quoted?

Chapter 5

The second problem

So we have a second problem. The first was with the lack of the phrase in the Masoretic Text: “All the angels of God worship him”.

If the author of the epistle to the Jews was a Hebrew, 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 a 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?

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 and 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 by Luke. 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 from the 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 mentions of two gods, 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:

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

2My heart overfloweth with a goodly matter;

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

My tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

3Thou art fairer than the children of men;

Grace is poured upon thy lips;

Therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.

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

Thy glory and thy majesty.

5And in thy majesty prosper, ride on,

In behalf of truth and meekness and righteousness;

And let thy right hand teach thee tremendous things.

6Thine arrows are sharp—

The peoples fall under thee—

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

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

A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

8Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness;

Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee

With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

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

Out of ivory palaces stringed instruments have made thee glad.

10Kings’ 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;

12So shall the king desire thy beauty;

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

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

Shall entreat thy favour with a gift.’

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

Her raiment is of chequer work inwrought with gold.

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

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

16They shall be led with gladness and rejoicing;

They shall enter into the king’s palace.

17Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons,

Whom thou shalt make princes in all the land.

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

Therefore shall the peoples praise thee for ever and ever.

Let’s compare it with the Brenton version of the Septuagint:

1For 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9with 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17They 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 7, where a second God appears:

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

A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

8Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness;

Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee

With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

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

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

Chapter 6

The great problem

But the big problem is just beginnig, and this is in Hebrews 1:10-12.

This is a quotation from Psalm 102 and if we put them in context, it is clear that they are addressed to YEHOWAH, the God of Israel and not to the Son.

See the context:

Young's Literal Translation

Do Not Hide Your Face From Me

1A 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.

2Hide 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10From Thine indignation and Thy wrath, For Thou hast lifted me up, And dost cast me down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19For He hath looked From the high place of His sanctuary. Jehovah from heaven unto earth looked attentively,

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

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

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

23He hath humbled in the way my power, He hath shortened my days.

24I say, ‘My God, take me not up in the midst of my days,’ Through all generations [are] Thine years.

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

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

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

28The 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 he is not the God and the Creator from the Bible?

Some say that our Lord Jesus is called God at Hebrews 1:8 where it reads, "But of the Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever.'" and the Creator in Hebrews 1:10 where it reads "And, “You, Lord, 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 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.

And they did their best to adjust the Scriptures to their idea.

Let's see how this idea sounds, 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 proto-Trinitarians.

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 that have been worked on so far.

Chapter 7

How did they do that?

After the Patripassian (Sabellian or proto-trinitarian) party loses the battle in the Council of Antioch (267), that is, the Son's deification - because of the Scriptures in some Christian leaders hands were most still unchanged - they began the offensive of bringing the text of the Scriptures on their side, falsifying the text, where it was clearly against their conceptions.

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 write..." Origen, Contra Celsum

This rout was due to the fact that in the second century the 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 reconsideration

Some time ago, a textual critic from Hungary drew my attention, that in fact in Acts 16:7 there would be four textual variations, not three:

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 (unfortunately he did not give the source)

3. the Holy Spirit (unfortunately did not give the source)

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

It is not strange? In my opinion the right version is just "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 unic in all the Bible, we meet this just in Acts 16:7, and this is not the genuine version.

Some is now trying to minimize this facts and even by surprise, 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 today.

The most interesting thing is in the Vatican Codex. In a marginal note, someone scribe wrote on page 1512, next to Hebrews 1: 3, the text contains 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. 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 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, 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.

Variant A: Either the Gnostic proto-trinitarians would have eliminated a connecting phrase, possible this "about God this"

Variant B: Either the Gnostic proto-trinitarians added a text that does not exist in Hebrews chapter I, possible this:

"'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.'

The ancient Hebrews chapter 1 if variant A is the correct one:

"Moffatt 1 Many were the forms and fashions in which God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these days at the end he has spoken to us by a Son — a Son whom he appointed heir of the universe, as it was by him that he created the world. 3 He, reflecting God's bright glory and stamped with God's own character, sustains the universe with his word of power; when he had secured our purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 and thus he is superior to the angels, as he has inherited a Name superior to theirs. 5 For to what angel did God ever say, 'Thou art my son, to-day have I become thy father'? Or again, 'I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me'? 6 And further, when introducing the Firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.' 7 While he says of angels, 'Who makes his angels into winds, his servants into flames of fire,' 8 he says of the Son, 'from God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity: 9 thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades' — 10 and about God this, '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.' 13 To what angel did he ever say, 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'? 14 Are not all angels merely spirits in the divine service, commissioned for the benefit of those who are to inherit salvation?"

The ancient Hebrews chapter 1 if variant B is the correct one:

"Moffatt 1 Many were the forms and fashions in which God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these days at the end he has spoken to us by a Son — a Son whom he appointed heir of the universe, as it was by him that he created the world. 3 He, reflecting God's bright glory and stamped with God's own character, sustains the universe with his word of power; when he had secured our purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 and thus he is superior to the angels, as he has inherited a Name superior to theirs. 5 For to what angel did God ever say, 'Thou art my son, to-day have I become thy father'? Or again, 'I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me'? 6 And further, when introducing the Firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.' 7 While he says of angels, 'Who makes his angels into winds, his servants into flames of fire,' 8 he says of the Son, 'from God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity: 9 thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades' — 10 11 12 13 To what angel did he ever say, 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'? 14 Are not all angels merely spirits in the divine service, commissioned for the benefit of those who are to inherit salvation?"

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. They said that 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.

Chapter 9

Why was this wanted?

Here's what we can find in the annals of history.

In their dispute with early Christians, the rabbis accused them of not being monotheistic, because they have two Gods (the Father and the Son, or even three with the Holy Spirit for some liked this as a third person), so they cannot be true believers.

Monotheist means those who believe in one God, as God commanded to Moses.

As a result of this argument, some of the Christians returned to Judaism.

Others have fallen to the other extreme, in Gnosticism (so called „secret knowledge and teachings”), claiming that the Father and the Son are one person, that is, God the Father, the Creator, became incarnate as the son of Mary and then died on the cross, as we read from Melito's testimony from Sardis.

The Christian leaders at that time opposed this interpretation and excommunicated those who believed this, but the excommunication did not back down but went counter-offensive, trying to bring Scripture to their side, that is, falsifying it. First, convictions were made locally, by the bishops of the assemblies, then when things got worse, a general council was convened, in Antioch in 267, which also condemned this teaching.

They were named „Patripassians” because they believed that the Father (Pater) suffered (passionum) on the cross, being incarnated as the son of Mary. So, they said, the Father was born as a Son, thus being the Son of God, but in fact, the Father and the Son are the same being, in heaven existing as the Father and on earth existing as the Son.

Who was the first exponent of this heretical doctrine? We don't know for sure. Certainly not Melito from Sardes, there were some leaders of this doctrinal group before him. Another leader of this group was Noetus from Smyrna, some said it was the old heresy of Noetus.

Originally from Ephesus, but known as "of Smyrna", he is known for his later residence.

In order to justify this idea, some were inspired by Gnosticism.

In ancient times, people began to worship the beings they imagined, dressed in the form of humans, animals, a mixture between this two, or even plants. But around 550 BC, the rise of the highly influential religion of Greek mystery philosophy began.

Pythagoras (about 550 B.C.) may have been the founder of Greek philosophy and mystery religion. 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.

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 religion and even to Plato himself.

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, elitism 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.

According to Wikipedia, 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.

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. Certainly this doctrine does not come from the Bible, but from foreign sources.

Remember the Gnostic-trinitarian doctrine about God in a few words, directly from a primary source:

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

Chapter 10

The leaders of the Patripassian spiritual rebellion

Some argue that Noetus of Smyrna was the initiator of this teaching around 190 ("called the old heresy of Noetus of Smyrna"). This is wrong, because there is a record in a book by Justin Martyr (who died around 165) that in his years there were people who argued that the Father is also the Son (First apology (63, in Richardson, 1970). : 284) 85)). This may justify the assertion of the second century that this heretical teaching appeared around 115 under the leadership of Cerdo the Syrian, as Tertullian argued in Carthage.

Cerdo the Syrian being from Syria, it seems that the outbreak of this heresy started from there. Through Cerdo, he reached Marcion of Sinope, a merchant, because Marcion of Sinope, was Cerdo's apprentice, and this heretic flooded the Christianity with this teaching.

Of course, later this teaching has already been "cleansed" by the anti-Semitism of Cerdo and Marcion, since in the years leading up to Marcion's death, some of his disciples rebelled against some of his teachings and revised and refined them, but not enough. They still believed that God was born and God died. It is said that even Marcion cooled down before his death and apologized to the church, but in vain because the church refused his request. This happened because although revised, the teaching was still heretical. So Marcion had to build a parallel church, which has expanded greatly and increased in number, negatively influencing the apostolic churches. Noetus and others may have taken the doctrine from this movement.

So the Patripassian party was older than Sabellius, Noetus, Praxeas and Melito and other known leaders of this view - they just promoted it.

The Gnostic origin of the Patripassians

But where did Cerdo Syrian's christology come from? What was the situation of the primary church at the beginning of the second century, in the Middle East? If we read chapters two and three of the Book of Revelation, we see that in some churches, the waters were quite murky. The Christian historian Hegesippus of the century (c. 110 - c. April 7, 180 AD) tells us about the origin of the sectarian groups of the second century, linking them with a certain Thebulis, a former candidate for the office of bishop of Jerusalem. Being elected another, he undermined the authority of the church, teaching his theses, which were taken from the patrimony of the first century Gnostic sects:

“Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching. Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to corrupt her by stealth. He too was connected with the seven sects which existed among the people, like Simon, from whom come the Simoniani; and Cleobius, from whom come the Cleobiani; and Doritheus, from whom come the Dorithiani; and Gorthaeus, from whom come the Gortheani; Masbothaeus, from whom come the Masbothaei. From these men also come the Menandrianists, and the Marcionists, and the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, and the Basilidians, and the Saturnilians.”

(Fragments from His Five Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church.)

So the chain linking Patripassians to the heretical groups of the 1st and 2nd centuries is obvious: Thebulis - Cerdo - Marcion - Noetus – Sabellius.
If Thebulis is the founder of the Ebionites, it means that he was the first to interpret Christology differently than the primary church. The Ebionites - a Judeo-Christian group - were the first heretical sect, excommunicated by the apostolic church around 130, because they were preaching another Christology.

In the opinion of the Ebionites, the Son of God did not come from heaven, but was a man, chosen by God for the virtues he had and who was adopted by God as his son, when he was baptized in the Jordan River. This thesis opened the battle of Christologies: Who was the Son in fact?

All the sects from the 1st to the 2nd century had something in common, that "Someone" became the Son of God. It was Thebulis' thesis. Only he saw in that one a man, while Noetus saw God in that Someone. The root was common, only the branches differed.

What did Noetus' old heresy say?

Christ is nothing more than the revelation of the one God, who proclaimed himself the Father, after which he proclaimed himself as the Son of man, that is the same person, but who declared himself in another form of expression (hence the term "Modalism"). Therefore, according to Noetus, it can also be said that in the Son, the Father himself suffered on the cross because he was the same person, but under a different name (hence "Patripasianism").

In his book "Against Noetus," Hippolytus (c. 203) wrote against Noetus' teachings.

Noetus's excommunication

After the Christian superiors of Smyrna took the doctrines and examined is, he was excommunicated. Noetus said in defense: "What evil I does, because if I glorifies Christ? ... So if it is recognized that Christ is God, He is the Father Himself, yet He is true God, and Christ is a sufferer, being therefore, the Father who suffered, because He was the Father Himself."
The disciple of Noetus, Cleomene, continued the teachings of his master: God is as an invisible figure and as a visible figure, as an invisible figure is the Father and as a visible figure is the Son. Another well-known followers of Patripassianism (Modalism), from the same time is Praxeas from Carthage, and later Sabellius of Pentapolis.

Chapter 14

The difficulty of fighting with the Patripassians

The idea gradually overlapped with the traditional teaching of the Apostolic Primary Church and made it difficult, due to the corruption of texts made by the Gnostics, as we see in the Epistle to Hebrews chapter 1. The Gnostic correctors knows, that without these verses, the Epistle would be an extraordinary source in decomposing the idea that the Son would be God himself, as some of the Gnostics-branches believed.

I am curious how this Gnostic individual will be justified in the resurrection, when he will be confronted with the apostle Paul? It will be a shame and frightening pain, terrible in front of the entire Universe, not only because of the gross self-deception, but also because of his sin so many people were deceived, who, perhaps, would not have embraced that Gnostic illusion about our Lord Jesus as being the Father of Universe, the Creator of heaven and the Earth. It will be terrible for both the self-deceived and the deceived.

The doctrine of the Patripassians although it did not die definitively, nevertheless received a fatal blow at the Council of Antioch. In their history they are known under different names, such as Gnostics, Dokets, Marcionites, Maniheists, Patripassians, Sabellists, Monophysites, Modalists, etc.. The same Marie, but with another hat.

Their doctrine did not die definitively, because of the false texts that the Patripassians managed to sneak into the Holy Scriptures, and showed their arguments based on these falsehoods on other Councils too.

According to some monophysites, Jesus Christ would not have a real human body, but an apparent body. This was the doctrine of the Gnostics, known as Marcionites, after their leader Marcion of Sinope. Although they wanted a victory at the Council of Nicaea, through the leader of the Patripassians, bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, they did not obtain it because of the Arians, who knew the decision of the Council of Antioch, which they held hardly, holding the spiritual battleline. For this reason the Arians are the true heroes of the Council of Niceea and the real losers, they are not, but the patripassian ones. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–298 – 2 May 373) was too young, he did not know the ecclesiastical history, as the Arians knew, whose ancestors fought with this scourge for two centuries.

Chapter 15

Why they need „a crucified God”?

After the council of Nicaea, the anti-Patripassianism of the Council of Antioch actually strengthened, although some theologians still longed for this heresy, as Gregory Nazianzen (died in 390) wrote: „We need a ... crucified God.” Why were they longing? Because the texts introduced in secret by their Gnostic ancestors did not give them peace.

They would have wanted more councils, so that could dilute the christology into their thinking, which relished the idea of a humanized, dead and resurrected God.

Chapter 16

The Great Offensive against the Holy Scriptures

The GNOSTIC-Patripassian Conspiracy against the Holy Scriptures

After the Patripassian (Marcionist - Noetian - Sabellian or proto-trinitarian) party loses the battle in the Council of Antioch (267), that is, the Son's deification - because of the Scriptures in some Christian leaders hands were most still unchanged - they began the great offensive of bringing the text of the Scriptures on their side, falsifying the text, where it was clearly against their conceptions.

Chapter 17

The Patripassian corruption trick or method

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.

See an example: Some time ago, a textual critic from Hungary drew my attention, that in fact in Acts 16: 7 there would be four textual variations, not three:

2. The Spirit of the Lord (unfortunately he did not give the source)

3. the Holy Spirit (unfortunately did not give the source)

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

It is not strange? In my opinion the right version is just "the spirit" or "the Spirit of the Lord" as in Acts 5:9, Acts 8:39, I 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.

Some now trying to minimize the facts and even to my surprise, to reduce the number of variants. When I read some sources, some uncomfortable information disappeared in the meantime. This is how they protect their doctrines today.

The most interesting thing is in the Vatican Codex. In a marginal note, someone wrote on page 1512, next to Hebrews 1: 3, the text contains 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. I don't know if anyone would get so upset if it was just a word change. It might have been more serious.

I suspect his despair came because he saw major change in Chapter I, not just one word.

Chapter 18

The brave Antipatripassian counterparty, the Arians

The longest and strongest opposition to Patripassianism was made by the so-called Arians and their ideological ancestors. That is why the Patripassians hated them very much. They differed not only in the doctrine of God, but also in the content of certain formulations in the Bible. For example, the Arians had another form of baptism, which was done only in the name of the Son. That is why, after the compromise from Nicaea in 325, the first concern of the Patripassians was to collect all the Bibles and the books of those who were not on their side and to burn them.

The origin of the Antipatripassian Arianism

How the first Arians called themselves?

Where they receive their name and faith?

The background of Arian teachings: Lucian of Antioch and Macarius Of Edessa, Dionysius of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, etc..

The Arians believed in the Bible and did not invent anything, but they kept their old teachings, inherited from their ancestors. They believed in God of the Bible, in the Son of God, sent by the heavenly Father through the Holy Spirit of God Almighty, the Most High.

The mentor or teacher of the Arians was Lucian of Antioch a learned one from the third century, not Arius. Arius was just an important speaker, which is why Lucian's disciples were called Arians and not Lucianists.

Many believe that Arius invented the teaching of the Arians, to opossed the Patripassian 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”]."

Chapter 19

Who was Lucian of Antioch?

This Lucian, was named Lucian of Antioch, a martyr (c. 240 – January 7, 312):

Lucian was born in the Samosata of Syria from 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 priest of Antioch. He made a version of the Bible in Greek language, correcting the textual falsifications made by the Patripassians, 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 and remake the text of the Bible, modified grossly by the Gnostic party. But the Council of Nicaea, reconfirmed the version of the Gnostic party (Codex Vaticanus), with which it has deceived everyone to this day. How could this Gnostic corrector decide that the text speaks not of the Father, but of the Son? In this style of interpretation all texts could be attached to the Son.

Chapter 20

The unknown council of the Antipatripassians

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 Antioch. 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.

The big mistake the Arians made was that they listened to Constantine's preface, which he promised to give them justice. In fact Constantine promised this to every party. They did not have to go to church problems in the judgment of a pagan, this being forbidden by the Bible. Constantine was not baptized then, he was a kind of semi-pagan supporter.

If they were wise, the Arians should have shown the decision from Antioch and kept to themselves.

The unknown Council of Antioch, was the cemetery of the Gnostic-Patripassian doctrine.

Din you know about the Council of Antioch in 267? Possible no.

When the Patripassian controversy (another name is Sabellists) spread, an important first battle about the nature of Christ took place in the third century, when the heresy of Sabellius appeared, who argued that if God is like the sun, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like the rays of the sun, having the same nature, being a single person with the Father. This teaching in the third century CE made Christians gathered at the Council of Antioch in 267 CE to reject the thesis, presented by Sabellius, that Jesus is 'homo-ousios' with the Father, that is 'of the same essence, substance or being'. This doctrine was rejected by the Council of Antioch in 267 CE as a heresy, then "the Church declared Jesus to be homoi-ousios," of a substance similar to the Father "(see the book" The Doctrines of Grace "p.88.89 written by the Trinitarian R.C. Sproul). Unfortunately, about this council, most of modern Patripassians and Trinitarians know nothing. But later, this heresy (of an identical nature), considered by the Church and unmasked by the Council of Antioch in 267 AD, was adopted as the official creed of Christianity in the council of Nicaea, where Constantine the Great forced the members of his council accepts the thesis of the indissoluble unity between Jesus and God, meaning that they are: 'homoousios' meaning 'of the same essence, substance or being'. So, in 325 AD the church influenced by Constantine canceled everything the church had decided in 267 AD.

Chapter 21

God's involvement in the Council of Nicaea

An unsuitable man at the wrong place: Constantine.

Emperor Constantine and the Erythraean sibyl (pagan oracle)

Emperor Constantine believed in pagan oracles!

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 pagan oracles and philosophers were also inspired by God.

How can be such a man a right mediator and judge between two Christian groups?

An extract from "Constantine Augustus to Arius and to Arians."

"(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.

After the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a history of Christianity and showed the emperor Constantine the true origin and face of the Patripassians, and how they conspired to falsify the Holy Scriptures for the doctrines held by them. The emperor saw the mistake he made and entered in the Arian party, and later to show clearly his position, was baptized by an Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia.

But God was present in the Council of Nicaea, and made a profecy. We should not be surprised if God got involved in the backstories (behind the scenes) of the Council of Nicaea, showing which party he sympathizes with.

The prophecy of a true (genuine) “Lucianist” received from God:

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.

Chapter 22

Another ancestors and leaders of the Arians

Another Antipatripassian Christian ancestor and leader of the 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 Antipatripassian Christian leader who criticized the Gnostics (those who believed that God the Father, the Creator, suffered on the cross), was Hippolytus of Rome. Hippolytus knew exactly what these so called Gnostics believed. According to this Gnostics 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.

Chapter 23

Answering general topics of Arianism

I have been studying the Bible and the history of Christian teaching since 1991. So I speak in the knowledge of the cause, especially since it is in my interest, being a supporter of classic Arian theology.

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.

What is the background of the Arianism?

Arians have a common background, because the common background of the Arian leaders was „Lucianism”.

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".

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: The Creator, the Archangel Son, that is Michael and the first of the angels, Gabriel. This is the classic Arianism, or Lucianism, or Macarianism.

Chapter 24

The "homoousios" dilemma

Before the Council of Nicaea, some so called Gnostic Christians from the second and third century AD, have tried to translate pagan philosophical ideas such as the platonic "Trinity" in Christian words. Some proposed a modalistic Trinity (one being in three revelation), others propossed a trimorphic Trinity (three differing forms in one beeing), and others proposed the old ebionite version - one of them being Paul de Samosata. The common aspect of all of them is that they used the same word "homoousios", which shows that they had a common origin in Thebulis' heresy. Later part of Thebulis' christology was mixed with elements of Greek religious philosophy, evolving in a different direction than the one proposed by him.

Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra, a supporter of kind of mixed Modalism and ebionitism (III-IV century) stated: "Valentinus the heresiarch was the first to invente 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."

Before 268 bishop Paul of Samosata proposed a view which term "homoousios" - were identical to that proposed later before 325 by Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria, but in a different context.

But the Council of Antioch rejected the word "homoousios" (probably for the context) and deposed the bishop:

"Ironically, the synod that deposed Paul of Samosata 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."

Raoul Vaneigem, Resistance

The problem with this word homoousios (consubstantial) is the context in which this term was proposed, by the Patripassian or other non-Patripassian (ebionite) fractions. And this context is a non-Biblical view.

Chapter 25

The unknown and violent Church-history started – Union with force

In 315-316 emperor Constantine the so called Great, took with force the Churches who were against his mother Helena's Church 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 mainstream Church party's policy. Unfortunately, from here on, all decisions will be enforced.

So, the so-called “right faith” (orthodoxy) came into being not at the Council of Nicaea, but with a years before, after that “crusade” of Constantin. This happened at the Council of Niceea, when the emperor made the decision to reconcile the conflicting parties, giving them a compromise.

Chapter 26

Why is the Gnostic-Patripassian view a heresy?

Why the Son is not the Creator, a co-Creator, or a second Creator?

When you read the Proto-Patripassian (Trinitarian) Bibles, be careful. All their anti-Arian points 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 woks notes, like Novum Testamentul Graece et Latine - Nestle Aland or other editions. We would then at least see that where translation is concerned, dogmatism is greater evidence of ignorance than of learning.

I think in Hebrew 1 exist some of the greatest interpolations, to prove that the Son is the Creator God.

I do not believe that the Son is the Creator, but that it was created by the Father. And through His Son, HE, THE CREATOR - I MEAN THE FATHER, created all things, teaching his Son how to do things. So, the Son is a maker, not the Creator, nor a co-creator, or a second Creator. As in a factory, an engineer would teach a worker how to make a product. When I say this I am based on what he writes in John 5:20. I don't invent this. Should this be true only during the time he was on earth, as the Trinitarians say? I doubt.

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 The Creator, a second Creator, or co-Creator. Compare with Matthew 19:4, Marc 10:6, Marc 13:19. Take care, I mean be wise enough to see behind the scribal scenes.

Who then is the Son, if he is not God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth?

They all said, "But are you the Son of God?" And he answered, "As you say; yes, I am." (Luke 22:70)

Thank you Jesus!

They challenged his heavenly origin, believing him a simple man, not the heavenly Son of God.

The interpretation can be:

The high priest of the Jews rose first this question and after receiving the confirmation from the mouth of Jesus, he tore his clothes, asking others what they believed. The others repeated the question, to which the Lord Jesus confirmed again, and then all the others pronounced the sentence. They did not ask if he was their God, as Melito falsely believed in Sardis, but the Son of this God.

Why didn't they ask if Jesus was God? Because that's not what they heard from Jesus' mouth.

The tragic end of the Patripassian logic

The Patripassians were very attached to the concept that the Son has a substance identical with the Father, which would make him God himself. But let's see a similar case, when Eve was made from the coast of Adam, did she become Adam herself, or did she become a new being with a new identity? Why would be the Son of God, God himself, if God the Father had done the same? Moreover, we cannot know for sure, if God took from his body and made the Son - a wife without having to give birth literally, so it remains a plausible variant of literal creation - or modeled a heavenly substance within reach, just as Adam was created from earth.

Chapter 27

What about the Trinitarian mystery dogma?

Trinitarian said that their dogma is a mystery. The Father is not the Son, even they are both the same God. Here you do not need logic but only absolute / unconditional trust. Like a blank check.

Is a cheque that has no monetary value written in, but is already signed.

But whose signature is it?Of God or other?

Let’s see the signatures:

Trinitarianism (the Catholic-Orthodox doctrine + the cults that have come out and evolved from them) - the faith in three deities: the father, the son and the holy spirit that form a single deity (god). A participant from the council of Nicaea 325, Bishop Marcellus of Ankyra, said that this idea of unity of the deities (gods) was taken over by pagan philosophers, such as Plato and Hermes.

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

Harper's Bible Dictionary, on page 497, admits that: "Three ... were already sacred to the early Babylonian religions who worshiped a triad (Anu, Bel, She) ... just as the Egyptians worshiped Isis, Osiris and Horus."
Aristotle, About the Heavens, Book I, writes that: "For, as the Pythagoreans (adepts of the Pythagoras of Samos) say, the world and everything in it is determined by the number three, before 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 in nature as their laws, we still use number three in worshiping the gods. "

"For Porphyrios says in expounding the teaching of Plato: The being of God proceeds from three hypostases and is: God the exalted and good-natured; after him and the second is the Builder; and the third is the Soul of the world. (...) Yet they, the heathen teachers, admit and presuppose three hypostases from the beginning and they affirm that it is proper to have the being of God up to three hypostases, and sometimes they also apply the name of Trinity in accordance with the teachings of Christians (...) But we will find out that the knowledge of the Holy Trinity is found in the teachings of the heathen Greeks. For they say that these divinities are very close to one another and nothing interposes 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 from being in control of himself. And the second and second God is one. ... "

(Cyril of Alexandria: Ten books against Julian the Apostate, Anastasia Publishing House, Bucharest, 2000, p. 64, 422, 424, 426)
Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel: "The Platonic Trinity, itself just a rearrangement of the older trinities, dating from earlier peoples, seems to be the rational philosophical trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine 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 the ancient [pagan] religions." - (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, vol. 2, p. 1467.

As can be seen „the signature” is of the heathen, not of God.

So the Trinitarianism is not from the Bible, is from the pagans. The true Monotheism is the Patertheism, that is, the belief that only the Father is God, as his Son himself taught us (John 17:1-3). The true Christology is the one who affirms that the Son of God came from heaven and became man, being born that all people, through a woman, the holy virgin Mary. The Son of God was also Son in heaven and has been with the Father since the beginning of creation, inheriting the holy nature of God - but not the attribution of God, the Father - working with God, doing everything the Creator showed him to do. He did nothing by himself, but did everything the Father showed him to do. So he is not the Creator, since the plan of creation was not made by him. He is not the Engineer, but only the Worker.

Chapter 28

The Biblical Creed

The Creator is one God, Yehovah, the Most High Father Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth and of all things from the Universe, visible and invisible.

Jesus Christ is his only begotten Son, our Lord and Savior,
who came from heaven to be born on earth as a man through Mary, a virgin, by the holy spirit (the mind-power of God).

He 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 All-powerful.

He will come again, to judge the living and the dead.
We believe also in the holy spirit, the holy assembly, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the death and in the eternal life. Amen!

Chapter 29

Why choose Patertheism, the doctrine of one God, the Father?

What is Patertheism and why Patertheism is the best of all?

Theology time! Theology corner! Did you know about these branches of theology? Make the difference!

Did you know that 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> Patertheism

Patertheism (from the Greek Pater for Father, and theos for God): the monotheistic belief that the Father is the only true God. 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 Son of God, Luke 1:35; 3:22

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).

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.

Chapter 30

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

Chapter 31

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.

Chapter 32

About the third branch> Trinitarism (Part A) and modalistic trinitarism (Part B)

Part A: Trinitarism

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.

Part B: Modalistic trinitarism

Modalistic trnitarism is very close to the modalistic binitarism, only the doctrine about the Holy Spirit separates them.

Chapter 33

How to reconcile with the accusations of the rabbis?

Should we give lessons to rabbis about monotheism, or should they to us?

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 strange branch of Christianity> The 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 splinter group. Today only Mormons still believe something like this and some mini-churches of Arians, such as the Christian Way group.

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.

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.

Chapter 34

Proof texts of Christian 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 when we have an invincible Christian Patertheism? For who's satisfactions? Of God? Of His Son? Neither. Of man? I think 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 35

The truth behid the scenes

Who were the true Trinitarians of the fourth century?

Patripassianism-Modalism-Sabbelism-Oneness of God was a popular doctrine in Africa, but fought by Tertullian, a true Trinitarian subordinationist who lived in the 2nd-3rd centuries, modalism being supported today by the followers of William Marion Branham - the belief that the father, son and holy spirit are the manifestation of the same person, not about several people, but only about one, which has been revealed in three ways.

Bishop Marcellus of Ankira – was one of the participant from the Council of Nicaea and said that the "Ariomaniacs" were Trinitarians. This was not a genuine Arianism, but an offshot, a compromised one. So the Trinitarians before the council of Nicaea (325) were not like the ones after this council. Keep in mind this. And let's not forget that he should have known the differences between the groups. By the definition of purity in Christianity, something of paganism was introduced, by the Patripassians and by the Arians also, Classical Arianism was beginning to become infected. No party was clean one hundred percent. I mean in the fourth century. And paradoxically, he categorically accuses the Arians of this, though we would have expected to put the adoption (and adaptation) of the tri-unity of God on the account of the Athanasians. It follows that the Arians were subordinate Trinitarians - as Arius also recognizes in Thalia: "Certainly there is a Trinity, and they possess glories of different levels", and the Athanasians were rather modalists, whom Emperor Constantine the Great forced to reconcile with the Arians, each party having to give up something. Thus became the modalists of Athanasius semi-Trinitarians, and the subordinationists of Arius, the semi-modalists, being born the modern form of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is neither horse nor donkey, is a mule, from two rival doctrines a mixed one was made, neither Patripassian, nor Trinitarian (Arian), but a sterile doctrine, which no one understands. That's when you get stuck where you shouldn't must be, under the guise of politicians.

Trinitarians also reject the Patripassian dogma, but they do not know that the doctrines of Trinitarianism are based on the verses modified or introduced by the Patripassians secretly, or some even by the new Trinitarians. And then, what are we talking about?

Chapter 36

The Arch-Angel Christology of the Arians

About the so called angel Christology of Arius, it is clear that it was an Angelic Christology. But of what level? This is interesting. It is Archangel Christology. What this mean?

The "archangel Christology" is not a „common angel Christology". Why? Because the archangel is not "a common angel".

In Hebrew (sar 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.

Let's look at some controversial points:

1.Hebrew heritage, but adapted by Christians from the 1st century

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"

From here until the identification of Michael coming in human form, as the Messiah the Redeemer of Israel, was only one step, and it was made by a group of so called essenians (Raoul Vaneigem – Resistance).

The idea that Jesus would be Michael, is not a Trinitarian 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"

Chapter 37

Michael “a common level angel”?

Michael is not “a common level angel”, just as Trump is not a common level company president. Of course with good intentions, but the wrong background, some of our dear brothers cling desperately to a text from the Epistle to the Hebrews chapter 1, being rather driven by the pastors and literature of the Trinitarians and the Modalists, 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 Trump is a company president but “The President” of the USA - forgive my example. 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? 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 some or 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 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 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 Him! (John 3:16) Follow Him! Amen!

Chapter 38

Evidence from the New Testament

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. But on what evidence is the New Testament Spurgeon based?

Here, by the grace of God, we have reached the final point, where we must consider whether the angel in Exodus 23:20,21 is an ordinary angel, that is, an angel among the other angels or is another Angel of special rank (order), who does not belong to the rest of the angels? Well, what do you mean, some say, can be an angel beyond the rank (order) of ordinary angels? You see my dear friends, there are more special ranks, such as god but also “God of the gods”, king but also "King of kings”, Lord but also “Lord of lords”, saint but also “the Saint of the saints” and so on. So also the archangel Michael, is the “Angel of the angels”, that is, the messenger of God who gives messages to the other messengers of God, whatever comes out of the mouth of God. He is the figurative "Word" of God, just as the Persian satrap (governors) were verified by the "emperor's eyes and ears", that is, by the king's messengers, so named because of the high position of the Persian court. If we make a parenthesis, we can see Melchizedek who, though he was a high priest, was not of the rank (order) of Aaron, but was of a higher rank.

Therefore Exodus 23:20,21 is in full harmony with Isaiah 63:9 and others, which the apostle Paul later built his thesis on, supporting the idea of Christ's presence with the Israelites coming out from Egypt:

"and they all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank of a spiritual rock, and the rock was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10: 4).

Of course, then he was not known under the name of "Christ" (translated the Hebrew Messiah, meaning "The anointed (of God).

But let us return to what the apostle Paul wrote. What does the verse actually look like? The verse shows that the miracles that were done at that time by God, were done through Christ, he being the divine agent, who accompanied the Jews. If we read carefully John 1:3, we should not be surprised that Christ has been involved in all the works God has done. Could he stand aside when it came to God's people? But do we have a clear indication in this regard? Yes, we have and I invite you to consult some verses:

Joshua 5: 14,15

Joshua asks "the man with the sword out" who he is, not knowing who he is:

"And he answered, No, but I am The Captain (not „a” captain) of the armies of the LORD, and now I am come." Joshua fell on his face, worshiped, and said, "What does my Lord say? to his servant? "- In front of whom he bare-footed and worshiped, before the Angel, or before God? I think God, so this Angel is the Angel of His Presence, the High ranking Arch-Angel.

„And The Captain of the army of the LORD said to Joshua, "Take off your shoes, for the place where you stand is holy." And Joshua did so. "

Here we see Someone who presents himself as not only “some captain” from the army of angels, but even The Captain (High Commander) of the army. We again witness the bonding Hebrew word "Sar", which appears both with regard to Michael (Daniel 12:1) and to the Messiah (Isaiah 9:6).

The epistle to the Hebrews has nothing to do with fighting this particular Angel. Christ was never one of the common angels, or the epistle to which they refer. Angel means messenger, envoy, heavenly ambassador. The fact that Christ is so named during the Old Testament period shows that he did not stand with his hands in his breast, but was indeed the redeeming "ruler" of the Hebrews. But if we remove Christ from the equation Michael = Angel of God’s presence = Christ, I ask you what Christ did throughout the Old Testament to the Hebrew people? If he comes out of the equation, it means he did nothing, because everything that was done was done by Michael, the Angel of God’s presence, and the argument of the apostle Paul falls.

Please answer me, how do you explain that he "came to his own" (John 1:11), if we see no involvement in the life of God's Old Testament people?

How can Paul's association with being received with the highest honor as the Angel of God – as Christ Jesus" be explained?

„and my trial that is in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as The Angel of God ye did receive me -- as Christ Jesus;” Galatians 4:14

How can one explain the fact that Christ comes with the Archangel Voice and not with an Archangel next to him?

„For the Lord Himself will come down from Heaven with a loud word of command, and with the archangel's voice and the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.” 1Thessalonians 4:16

In addition, if God has a special angel near him, the Angel of his presence and he is not Christ, why does not this special angel appear in the book of Revelation, when the scene of the great God is presented, being surrounded by all his servants? Revelation chapter 4-6.

Chapter 39

Why is Jesus called "God" in Hebrews 1:8 and the Creator in Hebrew 1:10, if he is not God?

Some say that Jesus is called God at Hebrews 1:8 where it reads, "But of the Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever.'" and the Creator in Hebrews 1:10 where it reads "And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;"

These things would be true, with only one essential condition, to have been thus formulated in the original epistle to the Hebrews.

And they did their best to adjust the Scriptures to their idea.

Let's see again how this idea sounds, 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 proto-Trinitarians.

I wrote this book in order to raise public awareness about the importance of a general revision of the Bible, coming out of the stereotypes that have been worked on so far:

THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

The GNOSTIC-Patripassian Conspiracy against the Holy Scriptures is a must read book for every Bible believer and churchgoer, clery or laymen.

What you need to know and remember is this:

"After the Patripassian (Sabellian or proto-trinitarian) party loses the battle in the Council of Antioch (267), that is, the Son's deification - because of the Scriptures in some Christian leaders hands were most still unchanged - they began the offensive of bringing the text of the Scriptures on their side, falsifying the text, where it was clearly against their conceptions.

What many fail to realize today is that during this period of 267-325, and more before - because the Patripassian party was older than Sabellius, Noetus, Praxeas and Melito - they just promoted it - mostly every single document was edited and revised to confirm the doctrines of the Patripassian Gnostic branches. 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".

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.

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 write..."

See an example: Some time ago, a textual critic from Hungary drew my attention, that in fact in Acts 16:7 there would be four textual variations, not three:

2. The Spirit of the Lord (unfortunately he did not give the source)

3. the Holy Spirit (unfortunately did not give the source)

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

Some is now trying to minimize the facts and even to my surprise, to reduce the number of variants. When I read some sources, some uncomfortable information disappeared in the meantime. This is how they protect their doctrines today.

The most interesting thing is in the Vatican Codex. In a marginal note, someone wrote on page 1512, next to Hebrews 1: 3, the text contains 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. I don't know if anyone would get so upset if it was just a word change. It might have been more serious." - end of the chapter.

Therefore, 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 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'"

And now let's compare with what we have in Moffatt's version:

"Moffatt 1 Many were the forms and fashions in which God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these days at the end he has spoken to us by a Son — a Son whom he appointed heir of the universe, as it was by him that he created the world. 3 He, reflecting God's bright glory and stamped with God's own character, sustains the universe with his word of power; when he had secured our purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 and thus he is superior to the angels, as he has inherited a Name superior to theirs. 5 For to what angel did God ever say, 'Thou art my son, to-day have I become thy father'? Or again, 'I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me'? 6 And further, when introducing the Firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.' 7 While he says of angels, 'Who makes his angels into winds, his servants into flames of fire,' 8 he says of the Son, 'God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity: 9 thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades' — 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.' 13 To what angel did he ever say, 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'? 14 Are not all angels merely spirits in the divine service, commissioned for the benefit of those who are to inherit salvation?"

Moffatt proposes a play that can be considered given that many poems and songs have symbolism: 'God is your throne for ever and ever.

Someone made this characterization to the author:

"The aim of the translator, James Moffatt, a doctor of divinity, was to present the Old and New Testaments in effective, intelligible English. No translation of an ancient classic can be quite intelligible unless the reader is sufficiently acquainted with its environment to understand some of its flying allusions and characteristic metaphors. The translator felt that ought to be done at the present day to offer the unlearned a transcript of the Biblical literature as it lies in the light thrown upon it by modern research. A real translation is in the main an interpretation. To the best of his ability he has tried to be exact and idiomatic."

Even so, it remains open that Jesus is the Creator in the Moffatt version also:
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

If the Trinitarians do not agree that it is addressed to the Father, 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.

Variant A: Either the Proto-Trinitarians would have eliminated a connecting phrase, possible this "about God this"

Variant B: Either the Proto-Trinitarians added a text that does not exist in Hebrews chapter I, this:

The ancient Hebrews chapter 1 if variant A is the correct one:

"Moffatt 1 Many were the forms and fashions in which God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these days at the end he has spoken to us by a Son — a Son whom he appointed heir of the universe, as it was by him that he created the world. 3 He, reflecting God's bright glory and stamped with God's own character, sustains the universe with his word of power; when he had secured our purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 and thus he is superior to the angels, as he has inherited a Name superior to theirs. 5 For to what angel did God ever say, 'Thou art my son, to-day have I become thy father'? Or again, 'I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me'? 6 And further, when introducing the Firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.' 7 While he says of angels, 'Who makes his angels into winds, his servants into flames of fire,' 8 he says of the Son, 'God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity: 9 thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades' — 10 and about God this, '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.' 13 To what angel did he ever say, 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'? 14 Are not all angels merely spirits in the divine service, commissioned for the benefit of those who are to inherit salvation?"

The ancient Hebrews chapter 1 if variant B is the correct one:

"Moffatt 1 Many were the forms and fashions in which God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these days at the end he has spoken to us by a Son — a Son whom he appointed heir of the universe, as it was by him that he created the world. 3 He, reflecting God's bright glory and stamped with God's own character, sustains the universe with his word of power; when he had secured our purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 and thus he is superior to the angels, as he has inherited a Name superior to theirs. 5 For to what angel did God ever say, 'Thou art my son, to-day have I become thy father'? Or again, 'I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me'? 6 And further, when introducing the Firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.' 7 While he says of angels, 'Who makes his angels into winds, his servants into flames of fire,' 8 he says of the Son, 'God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity: 9 thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades' — 10 11 12 13 To what angel did he ever say, 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'? 14 Are not all angels merely spirits in the divine service, commissioned for the benefit of those who are to inherit salvation?"

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.

About me, the author

I worked on this project for several years, the first pages being written before 2017, but the subject started to concern me since 2013. I am a researcher, biblical textual analyst and autodidact Christian historian.

I am waiting for others to join me, in order to be able to correct the stereotypes of the versions we have in our countries. This job is too big for me, to do it alone.

I promote the READING Of THE BIBLE WITH WISDOM, comparing different translations with the interlinear 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 .. I know neither Greek nor Hebrew except by using the links on the website www.biblehub.com, which is why my work is not a translator, but an evaluator work.

My status: I'm pro-Bible, pro-Christian, I'm a member of a non-denominational, independent, non-trinitarian assembly.

I have been reading the Bible since 1991, with the purpose of spiritual edification. My 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. The one who initiated me in the mysteries of textual evaluation, was Vasile Şhandru, a friend from Cluj, after I met him at the library of the Christian Church After the Gospel, around 1996. He had learned old Greek as a self-taught man and had built up a lot in the field of textual evaluation also as a self-taught Christian historian, giving me articles and books dedicated to this subject and opening my 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 detectivism, 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).

My motto: Back to Bible manuscripts, back to the whole Bible! Do not just use the New Testament, use the whole Bible, as it is written "All Scripture is breathed by God and useful to teach, to teach, to correct, to give wisdom in righteousness" (2Timothy 3:16). The apostles and disciples who wrote the books of the New Testament were also inspired, which is why the New Testament was raised by God to the rank of Holy Scripture alongside the books of the Old Testament.

My philosophy: 1. "There is no harmony in the Bible unless you use the whole Bible." 2. “You will not understand the Bible in depth unless you live it. You will not be forgiven unless you forgive; you will not be loved unless you love." 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. 3. "The law of God is didactic, preventive and corrective, in order to know our role and place in society." I do not consider it a fence that impedes my freedom, but a fence that protects my freedom. I do not confuse freedom with anarchy. In one word, the Law of God is love, without which mankind cannot be happy or saved. If you want to be happy for a moment, take revenge. If you want to be happy all your life, forgive and love.

"J.J. Griesbach's Strainer" The famous comparator of ancient manuscripts, J.J. Griesbach, formulated the rule, that the oldest manuscripts are the closest to the autograph text (the author), the old texts acting as a strainer for words modified or introduced later into the text. The rule also has exceptions to be taken into account.In this case, if the text in question does not fall under the "exceptions to the rule" section, the model of the older text, the one in Codex Sinaiticus, would normally be used, given that this copy is older by cc. 50 years to the Codex Vaticanus copy (a fact challenged by Vatican supporters, who say it's vice versa).

Criterion by JJ Griesbach: Use the oldest text

The oldest manuscripts are the closest to the primary source. So the texts of the first century and the first part of the second century (-150) would be the closest (I mean the Christian texts - said the New Testament). Then those of the second part of the second century and the first part of the third century (150-250) and only those of the second part of the third century and the first part of the fourth century (250-350). The texts after 350 fall in the 'authority of the sieve' except those texts that have copied manuscripts before 350, in this section the translations fall in second place, that is, first we take the Greek texts and then the Greek ones translated.

The second criterion would be for the manuscripts to be evaluated as close as possible to the place of writing. For example, a text written by an author from Cluj in sec. XVII will be harder to falsify when copying in this city, given the proximity of the original text, with care it can be confronted. If he were to copy a text at that time in Cluj he would have been sent to London and copied there again, he may have forged it would have been more successful. That is why Eastern texts are considered better than Western texts.

The third criterion is that the texts have not been translated. Untranslated texts are closer to the original meaning.

The fourth criterion is to refer the copyist or translator to the copied or translated text - what the Gaius presbyter from the 20th century said. II - the copyist or translator does not have heretical tendencies towards the text, that is to say that the text does not begin to be corrected, for various reasons.

Given the situation presented above, here is a brief summary of what the Bible writes, about God and his Son:

There is only one 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 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 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) 2. He was in the beginning with God. (References: Genesis 1:26; 11: 7, Proverbs 30: 4) 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 "as 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.

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 rendered contextually 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 Greek city. Source: Origin, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, chapter 2

Monotheus convinced, like his Master, the Heavenly Rabbi Yeshua / Jesus (see John 17: 1-3), that the apostle Yohanan / John speaks of the Word not as "Elohim (Theos) in person" or "a second Elohim ( deuteros Theos) heavenly ", but being a very close celestial person (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 it 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 anointing" 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 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 you from the dead!"
- or as vocative? "My Lord and my God, truly You (that is God the Father) raised you 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 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.

From love for the (all) human race, God sent His only begotten Son, who mirrors (reflects) the glory and being (likeness in character and character) of God, and His Son came from heaven – also from love, unspoken by no one, teaching us what the love of God and our fellowmen really means, giving their life as a ransom for us, in order to save us from sin and eternal death, which destroy every one of us (John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:1-3, John 3:13,16, Exodus 21:23, Matthew 20:28, John 17:1-3).

Samples

KJV is a public domain, no need copyright.

2Peter

2Peter 1

1Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (1):

2Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

3According as his divine power has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who has called us to glory and virtue:

4By which are given unto us exceedingly great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

5And for this reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

6And to knowledge self control; and to self control patience; and to patience godliness;

7And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness love.

8For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that you shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9But he that lacks these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and has forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

10Therefore rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if you do these things, you shall never fall:

11For so an entrance shall be provided unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

12Therefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though you know them, and are established in the present truth.

13Yea, I think it right, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;

14Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ has showed me.

15Moreover I will endeavor that you may be able after my departure to have these things always in remembrance.

16For we have not followed cunningly devised myths, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; to which you do well that you take heed, as unto a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of one's own interpretation.

21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit.

Note 1: „Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” instead of „God and Savior Jesus Christ” appear in some of the ancient manuscripts and Bible verse quotations (Sinaiticus, Aksenaia Aramaic, Sahidic Coptic, Vulgata + catena)

2Peter 2

1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who shall secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2And many shall follow their shameful ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

3And through covetousness shall they with false words exploit you: whose judgment of old now lingers not, and their destruction slumbers not.

4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

5And spared not the ancient world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

6And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them by a catastrophe, making them an example unto those that later should live ungodly;

7And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy behavior of the wicked:

8(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) (2)

9The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

10But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise authority. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of the glorious ones.

11Whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

12But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

13And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. Spots they are and blemishes, reveling themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;

14Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: a heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

15Who have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

16But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb donkey speaking with man's voice restrained the madness of the prophet.

17These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever.

18For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that have just escaped from them who live in error.

19While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

20For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog has turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Note 2: Possibly an interpolated later commentary. Missing from Weymouth New Testament.

2Peter 3

1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2That you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior:

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6By which the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7But the heavens and the earth, which now are, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in all holy conduct and godliness,

12Looking for and hastening unto the coming of the day of God, in which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, in which dwells righteousness.

14Therefore, beloved, seeing that you look for such things, be diligent that you may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him has written unto you;

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable twist, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17You therefore, beloved, seeing you know these things beforehand, beware lest you also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.

18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and of God the Father (3), to whom the glory is now and always, even to the days of eternity. Amen.

Note 3: According to the Aramaic version (see the Aramaic Bible in Plain English)

2 John

1The Elder to the elect lady and her children. Truly I love you all, and not I alone, but also all who know the truth, 2for the sake of the truth which is continually in our hearts and will be with us forever. 3Grace, mercy and peace will be with us from God the Father, and from Jesus Christ the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

4It is an intense joy to me to have found some of your children living true Christian lives, in obedience to the command which we have received from the Father. 5And now, dear lady, I pray you—writing to you, as I do, not a new command, but the one which we have had from the very beginning—let us love one another. 6The love of which I am speaking consists in our living in obedience to God's commands. God's command is that you should live in obedience to what you all heard from the very beginning.

7For many deceivers have gone out into the world—men who do not acknowledge Jesus as Christ who has come in flesh (1). Such a one is 'the deceiver' and 'the anti-Christ.' 8Keep guard over yourselves, so that you may not lose the results of your good deeds, but may receive back a full reward (2).

9No one has God, who instead of remaining true to the teaching of Christ (3), presses on in advance: but he who remains true to that teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone who comes to you does not bring this teaching, do not receive him under your roof nor bid him Farewell. 11He who bids him Farewell is a sharer in his evil deeds.

12I have a great deal to say to you all, but will not write it with paper and ink. Yet I hope to come to see you and speak face to face, so that your happiness may be complete.

13The children of your elect sister send greetings to you. Amen!

Differences of interpretation

Note 1: Greek “sarki” = flesh. In the first century some so called “Gnostic” leaders, reject the testimony of the apostles that Lord Jesus Christ “became flesh” (John 1:14). This verse applies to the first coming of the Lord, not to the second, as some have misunderstood.

Although some force the text with fulfillment in the future, it is formulated in the past, given the context of the letter and the historical framework, which confirms this reality. Those who reject that Christ was in flesh, were the so-called "Illusionists" (dokētaí) - of whom the encyclopedias and apologetics speak, being a heretical branch of first-century Christians (see 1 John 2: 18,19). Trying to explain Christology in dualistic terms, they rejected the birth and death of the Son of God as a human being, saying that matter is evil, being created by an evil god, called the Demiurge, so that he was not born as a man and did not die as man, but only united with a man, a meritorious rabbi named Jesus, whom he instructed / breathed what to say, and then left death on the cross. From their point of view, not the Son of God died on the cross, but only a man, Rabbi Jesus, the two being two distinct persons, who collaborated.

Note 2. Some ancient scribes understand and rendering "You watch over yourself, not to lose what we have worked, but to receive full reward." - assuming that here is a person in question - either the elder who was the leader of the assembly, or another important person - who was a collaborator of the apostle John, or a collaborator, maybe even a woman by the name of Kyria, with whom he planted that gathering (ekklēsia). However, if this hypothesis is not correct, but someone - a copyist - from antiquity has thus perceived the text in question, then we can understand the modification he made to the text, so that his hypothesis can be supported textual.

Note 3. A scribe wanted to emphasize the "teaching of Christ from here", that is, to strengthen the rejection of teaching another Christology that was not specific to that place, but as it is said, was brought from Syria.

Textual differences noticed (differences between manuscripts):

2 John 3 "Jesus" vs. "The Lord Jesus"

2 John 8 "watch over" versus "watch" ("you watch" Irenaeus, Against Heresies p.443)

2 John 8 "don't lose" vs. "let's not lose"

2 John 8 "receive" vs. "to receive"

2 John 8 "did you work" vs. "I worked"

2 John 9 "teaching" vs. "the teaching here"

2 John 12 "yours" vs. "our"

2 John 13 added "Amen" at the end some manuscripts add post scriptum, "John's Second Epistle"

Last revision April 2020 Final Part A

Faceți căutări pe acest blog

Biblioteca Online Creştinism Clasic

THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY (Carte, Teologie, Documentar)

Comentarii

Trimiteți un comentariu

Postări populare de pe acest blog

CE SE SPUNE DESPRE APOPHIS? (Doc. engl roman)

Din dosarul unei secte (Vestitorii Dimineţii)

Habanii, o ramură pacifistă a anabaptiştilor (ramura huterită)

Etichete

Arhivați