The State of Theology (Carte, Teologie, Istorie ecclesiastica)

 

The State of Theology

(2021)

Part I

One God or three (one person or three persons)?

 

 

Introduction

 

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

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

 

1. A Trinity versus the Father Almighty?

 

Who is (the real) God? A trinity of persons (The Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit) or just one person, the Father Almighty?

Be on the right side!

1 Thessalonians 5:21New International Version (NIV)

²¹ but test them all; hold on to what is good,

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

2. How many persons under the title of Elohim (God)?

 

Elohim, by Wilhelm Gesenius

 

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

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, plural (Gen. 21:2, 7; 37:3; 44:20).

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

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

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

tsedaqoth — righteousness, plural. 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, plural. Chokmah is the usual form, but chokmoth is used in Prov. 1:20 as a singular in meaning.

'adonim — lord, plural. '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, plural. This word normally means beasts, but in Job 40:15 it refers to one animal.

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

 

All this disprove that in the word Elohim could be three distinct persons in one-Trinity concept. 

3. One God, the Father Almighty alone

Proof texts, for one God, the Father Almighty alone

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

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."

No "Trinity" here. Only the Father, alone.

4. About the man made, strange god, the Trinity: who is in fact behind the scenes?

 

Wikipedia:

Trinity

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

 

Where is it in the Bible? If exist "One God", as the Bible say (1 Timothy 2:5), how could be three in one?

 

If the doctrine of the Trinity is right, and Jesus is in fact God, as trinitarians believe, then GOD DIED...

So, how could be God "immortal" as the Bible say Deuteronomy 32:40, Daniel 12:7, Romans 1:23, 1Timothy 1:17, 6:16?

 

If Lord Jesus is a "Dying God", a "Mysterious Part" of "mysterious, not understandable, mystic Trinity", how could we know him (John 17:3)?  But, if he is the heavenly, only-begotten Son of God, the Father Almighty, according to John 3:16, John 17:1-3, John 20:17, this is very clear.

Why this man made "trinity mystery"? For who's satisfactions? Of God? Or of his Son? Or of man? Guess... who is behind this view? Isn't it the Devil, as it is written? “You have the father of the devil; and you want to fulfill your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning; and it is not true, because there is no truth in it. Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks from his own, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44)

 

5. IS GOD "ONE" OR "TRINITARIAN?

IS GOD "ONE BEING" OR A"THREEFOLD BEING"?

 

The Lord Jesus in John 3:16 says: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ also said that the Father is "the only true God" John 17: 1-3.

Is there any among you who does not agree with our Lord and thinks he is wiser?

No one would know better if He is one or a third than God Himself. Suppose the being of God is threefold: three persons in one nature. We can rightly assume that God is able to communicate this idea to His worshipers if He has chosen to do so. Suppose He wants to convey to the people this Trinitarian or triune idea: how would He do it? He could be clear, simple, and direct because it is not difficult to say, "I am three" or "I am three in one: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit."

On the other hand, God can choose to progressively reveal Himself to His chosen people throughout the Old Testament, so that by the end of the 39 inspired books the Jews will have an intelligent understanding of the truth that "God is Triune." But he didn't! He didn't even leave the problem in suspense, saying "Guess what, am I one or more people?", Because then he wouldn't have formulated it like this: Don't have other gods besides Me (singular). (Exod.20: 3). If He had been triune, He would have said, "Thou shalt have no other gods before us (plural)."

The first phrase of the Bible is: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In Hebrew, there is no word god in the singular, there is no word goddess at all, and the word for God is Elohim, a plural, which depending on the context can be used either as a plural or as a singular. It is like in Romanian your word, which depending on the context can be used as singular or as plural.

How did the ancient Jews view the word elohim in Genesis 1: 1? If their God had been a plurality of people, here they would have had the strongest reason to translate "In the beginning the gods made the heavens and the earth."

Here could have been the first indication of a plurality in the nature of God, if such a thing had existed. However, the 72 Jewish scholars selected from all the tribes of Israel to translate the Holy Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek did not infer that the text here sounds like "god," indicating more than one. The way these Jewish translators translated the text of Genesis 1: 1 from Hebrew into Greek — in the third century BC — speaks for itself. They did not use theoi which means "gods". Rather they used ho theos which means God, in the masculine singular (Septuagint or LXX).

 

How, then, is John 1: 1 understood?

This text has a qualitative wording, and is best reflected in John 14: 9. Jesus said to him, "I have been with you for so long, and you did not know me, Philip. He who has seen me has seen the Father. you, but, "Show us the Father"?

Here is why John 1: 1 can be reproduced as follows:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and as God was the Word. - this verse does not show the function of God and does not say that the Son was in a function of God (see John 17:1-3), but tells us that the Son has the spiritual qualities of God, He is full of grace and truth, He is loving, righteous and holy, as is his heavenly Father. This is why He can say the following: “Whoever has seen me has seen The Father" (John 14: 9)

 

6. What is the Spirit of God?

 

Genesis 1YLT

1In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth — 2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

 

In the Bible’s second verse something important is first mentioned: "and the Spirit of God fluttered upon the face of the waters." Some ask why the Spirit fluttered and not God? This word "spirit" is from the Hebrew "ruach" which means wind. In Greek this phrase is pneuma theou or "the spirit of God." Wind can also be created by man if a piece of cardboard is held in his hand, for example to make the fire burn better. Many such examples can be given. So, pneuma or ruach is an invisible force which exerts a pressure like wind. And from this it can be seen that pneuma or ruach is not a person but is a force.

By the Spirit, God can give someone special intelligence or power, as it is written:

Acts 1:8 Young's Literal Translation

but ye shall receive power at the coming of the Holy Spirit upon you, and ye shall be witnesses to me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the end of the earth.'

Acts 7:9 and the patriarchs, having been moved with jealousy, sold Joseph to Egypt, and God was with him, 10 and did deliver him out of all his tribulations, and gave him favour and wisdom before Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he did set him — governor over Egypt and all his house.

 

7. What is the meaning of “us” and “our” in Genesis 1:26?

 

In Genesis 1:26 Elohim (or ho theos), the God of Creation, speaks to someone else:

"And God said: ‘Let us make man according to our image."

Is God talking to Himself as if He were plural?

Apostle John did not understand that to be so. He thought this other was the Son of God (John 1:1-3, John 3:13,16, John 17:5).

This link is a way of knowing, reading from Genesis 1:26, who this "us" might include: the heavenly Father and His heavenly Son.

After a long time of that event from Genesis 1:26 Trinitarians construct a "Trinity God" from verse 1, 2, and 26 from Genesis 1. Of course, there remains only one of these identified as "God" in verses 1 and 26. Nothing in these verses proves the spirit of God is a person or that the Son is meant like a second God, after God the Father in verse 26. These are later ideas imposed on the Genesis text. The Jews did not have such an understanding on this chapter.

What conclusions can we draw from just Genesis chapter one? There is the Creator, God (ho theos vss 1, 26). There is the spirit of God fluttering across the waters. And, there are another being implied, as shown in the words "us" and "our" in verse 26.

Here God is not communicating that He is three in one. If that had been so the Jews would have grasped the meaning right away.

How might God have inspired the verses if He wanted to communicate the plurality of His nature in three persons? It would not have been difficult, with an infinite vocabulary at hand, to have said: "In the beginning the Three Persons of God created ... and the Third Person was fluttering over the waters. ... And, the Three Persons (of God), said to one another: ‘Let us make .... ‘". This would not have been difficult.

On the other hand, if the truth is "God is One," then Genesis 1:1 would mean there was one God, The God. The spirit of God fluttered over the waters. Then, in verse 26, God (ho theos) spoke to  His heavenly Son. No matter who is involved in the words "us" and "our" there is only one God, God the Father, giving the command.

 

8. How many names has God? And what does this look like?

 

Lord Jesus, the Son of God, said to pray in this way:

Matthew 6:9 “This, then, is how you should pray:

“ ‘Our Father in heaven,

hallowed be your name,

10your kingdom come,

your will be done,

on earth as it is in heaven.”

Who bears this name, and why does the Lord Jesus describe it in the singular?

Because only his Father wears it!

If God were more than one person, the prayer should be said in this way:

"Our fathers who are in heaven,

Hallowed be your names.

Yours (plural) kingdom come,

Yours (plural) will be done,

on earth as it is in heaven.”

In Genesis 2:4 (Cornilescu 2:5), God's name is introduced for the first time: "In the day that YEHOWAH ELOHIM made the earth and the heavens ..."

Does it convey the idea of a plurality of three or does it infer only one? There is disagreement on the part of the Trinitarians.

However, if we look at a site with an interlinear, we see that under the word YEHOWAH it appears that this name is a noun - proper - masculine singular. Not to mention the plural! Which confirms the phrase in Jesus' prayer, "Hallowed be your name" and not "Hallowed be your names."

It is said that when the Jews of the third century BC made the Septuagint version, translating the Bible from Hebrew into Greek, they were asked to explain the meaning of the divine name. They gave the meaning of "Ho On" to the name YEHOWAH, which means, according to most scholars, "He who is." Does the meaning of the Divine Name explained from Hebrew to Greek convey plurality or uniqueness? Isn't it fair to say that "Ho On" only conveys the idea of One? If God had a plural nature, three in one, it would not have been difficult for His Name to reflect this threefold state. It wasn't hard to say they were Ho Trias - The Three. Or, Ho Theos Trias - the God of the Trinity.

We find nothing in this regard in the Bible.

 

9. Is God "One" or "Trinitarian" in the Old Testament?

 

The first commandment of the Decalogue (The Ten Commandments) reads as follows:

Exodus 20: 1. Then God (Elohim) uttered all these words and said:

2. "I am the Lord (Yehowah) your God (Eloheka) who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

If God were a Trinity of Gods, we would expect Exodus 20: 1-3 to sound like this:

Exodus 20: 1. Then the three gods spoke all these words and said:

2. "We are the three Yehowah, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3. Thou shalt have no other gods before us.

The Oxford Companion to the Bible, on page 561, states: "Three is generally regarded as a divine number. Many religions have triads of gods."

The Jews never understood a trinity of God, as did the Greek philosophers or the Egyptian priesthood. There is no historical record that the patriarchs or the Jewish people believed in a Trinitarian God (trimorph or tripartite), which has three parts; or consists of three parts (persons). The idea of ​​a trimorphic god, or three entities in one, was right there in the pagan religious cultures of the ancient world.

The Jews could best understand if their God was the same. But they did not understand. It would not have been difficult to pass on the same idea to us in the Old Testament if God had wanted to do it. But it was not transmitted.

In the books of the Old Testament there is no place for a Trinity or Triad of gods, here there is only One.

In Deuteronomy 6: 4 (Shema Israel! Listen Israel!) It is stated that the Lord (in Hebrew YEHOWAH) is One (Echad). It is the most explicit statement against a plurality or trinity of gods in the entire Bible! If it were otherwise, here it would be appropriate to say, "God is a Trinity!" But it was not said!

Why convey the idea of ​​One, when in fact God was Trinitarian (Trimorf), given all the religions surrounding Israel that already had trinities?

Nothing in the books of the Old Testament conveys the idea of ​​a Trinity, otherwise the Jews would have been the first to understand the notion.

Beyond the clear words spoken in Deuteronomy 6: 4 about God's Oneness, we have a scene from heaven, where God is One:

Isaiah 6: 1 In the year of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord (in Hebrew Yehowah) sitting on a very high throne, and the feet of His mantle filled the Temple.

2. And the seraphims were upon him, and they had six wings: and the two covered his face, and his two feet covered;

3. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts (in Hebrew Yehowah Tsebaoth): the whole earth is full of his glory.

If it were otherwise, and he had seen a Trinity, he would have written, "The whole earth is full of their glory!"

That is why there is only one True God, namely, the Father, the Creator, and the source of all things (John 17: 3; Revelation 4:11; Ephesians 4: 6; Jude 25); God is a spiritual, supreme, eternal Being, revealed in the name of YEHOWAH (rendered in English by Jehovah), and who has innumerable divine attributes and qualities (Exodus 3: 14,15; John 4:24; 1 John 4: 8 ; Deuteronomy 32: 4; Isaiah 40:28). God dwells in heaven, but he is present by His spirit in creation and in believers (1 Kings 8:43; Romans 1: 19,20; Ephesians 4: 6; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:16).

 

10. IS GOD "ONE" OR "TRINITARIAN" IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?

FROM WHOM DID A TEACHING ABOUT A TRINITY COME FROM?

 

As we read the New Testament, we might ask: How could God reveal that He is a plural of Three and not just one person? It is not difficult to write, "Our God is a trinity." No one says that in the books of the New Testament.

Lord Jesus would have had many opportunities to say that. For example, when he quotes the Shema Israel from Deuteronomy 6: 4 in Mark 12:29, Jesus answered, "The first is this: 'Listen Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord ";

Understanding what the Master meant, the Jewish scribe says, "You are right, Master, you have truly said that He is one, and apart from Him there is no other." In which the Lord Jesus Christ says that this man is not far from the Kingdom of God (Mark 12: 29-34). Jesus could easily have given a Trinitarian explanation, but he did not. Rather, he praises the scholar for his conclusion, "God is One, and apart from Him there is no other." Something that could not be said if God were a Trinity.

On another occasion, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ clearly states that the Father is the only true God, which again would have been the blatant disregard of a truth if God were a Trinity:

John 17

1. When Jesus had thus spoken, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2. As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

- How is it then explained that in spite of these clear records, another teaching came into existence, not taught by the Lord Jesus, which states that God is a trinity, a union of three persons?

In Christianity we find the formulation of the trinity only in apocryphal books such as the Apocryphal John and the Trimorphic Thought of the second century.

The Secret Book of John, also called the Apocrypha of John or The Secret Revelation of John, is a pseudo-Christian text of the second century Gnostic setian orientation, from the long list of secret, heretical teachings.

Trimorphic Thinking: The name of the book means the first thought which is in three forms (or the three forms of the first thought).

The Trinitarian dogma set forth in these books is not found in the Bible, but in the philosophers of the pagan world, as we learn from many sources.

For example, Bishop Marcellus of Ankyra (fourth century) clearly states that this dogma was taken from the pagan philosophers Hermes and Plato and shows by whom.

Testimony of Bishop Marcellus of Ankyra

In the fourth century AD, Bishop Marcellus of Ankyra was one of the participants in the Council of Nicaea (325). This bishop wrote that the idea of ​​a God existing in three persons and hypostases came from Hermes and Plato, through the teachings of Valentinus, considered to be a chief of heretics: "Valentinus, the chief heretic, inventing the first in his book entitled "On the Three Natures." Because he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and he is found to have been stolen from Hermes and Plato. "

Source: A.H.B. Logan, "Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church'": Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. "Journal of Theological Studies, New Series, 51.1, April 2000: 95.

Valentinus, referred to by Bishop Marcellus - also written Valentinius, lived between 100 and 160 AD and was the leader of a Gnostic party. He founded his school in Rome. According to Tertullian, Valentinus was a candidate for the diocese of Rome, but he started his own group when another was elected, and he was also disappointed that he was shipwrecked. These two events, which marked him, led to his renunciation of apostolic Christianity and the initiation of a cult that mixed Christianity with foreign ideas.

Here, then, is the true ideologue of the introduction of the pagan doctrine of the trinity into Christianity: Valentinus.

 

11. Who is the Son of God (Matthew 16: 13-16)?

 

He is the most important being in the universe, after the Father. In order to properly understand this aspect of his personality, we must adhere strictly to his teaching. We must not make it bigger or smaller than it has been, is and always will be.

To understand what the Bible says about the Son, we must be united with his teaching, not take it left or right.

That's the true faith: hold fast to what he said.

John 8:31 And he said unto the Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

32. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. "

If the Son of God has made it clear that he has come down from heaven, how can some come and deny this, but still boast that they are Christians?

John 6:38 38. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

He was, is, and always will be, the most important being in the universe, after the Father.

He made it clear that the Father is greater than the Son. How can some come and deny this, but still boast that they are Christians?

John 14:28. You have heard that I said to you, 'I am going away, and I will return to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I said to you, "I am going to the Father"; for the Father is greater than I am.

Whoever does not believe this is not true.

Whoever misinterprets these two truths will misinterpret the other.

Both Trinitarianism, which comes from Valentinius (lived between 100 and 160 AD) and claims that the Father is not greater than the Son, and Islam, which comes from Muhammad (lived between 570 and 632 AD) and to claim that the Son did not exist in heaven and did not come down from heaven as a being is wrong.

God calls us to true faith. Either we believe everything, or we let it go. God only accepts true faith.

The Bible tells us concretely who the Son of God is.

The Son is the firstborn of God, who has a beginning through his birth from the being of God the Father.

Before any beginning, before they were angels and the universe, God brought His Son into existence from His being.

Biblical evidence in this regard

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Colossians 1:15

- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and as God was the Word.

He was with God in the beginning.

All things were made by him; and nothing that was done was made without him. John 1: 1-3 NSB

- And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. John 1:14

- He, who is the mirror of His glory and the imprint of His Being, and who keeps all things by the word of His power, has cleansed sins and sat at the right hand of the Most High in the highest places, Hebrews 1: 3.

The Son Himself confessed that He has a God, His Father.

"Don't touch me," said Jesus, "for I have not yet ascended to my Father."

But go to My brethren and tell them that I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God. John 20:17

This is the true identity of the Son, who came down from heaven as the Messenger of the Father.

John 3:13. No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven, that is, the Son of man who is in heaven.

16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 17: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Yes, the Son is unique, being between God the Father and angels. No angel has been, is not, and will never be like him.

 

12. Why didn't know the apostle Paul about a Trinity, if God was a trinity of persons?

 

When it comes to New Testament writers, we might ask the same question: How would these writers reveal that God is a plural of three and not just one person? It is not difficult to write, "Our God is three." Nothing like this happens in their writings.

It seems strange that if the Lord Jesus were part of a Trinitarian deity and they knew for sure - why would he miss this opportunity all the time, if God is more than one person? Wouldn't a true Trinitarian have included three people in this case?

Paul has many opportunities to use the number three in some connection with God.

I would like to highlight the issue as follows:

Why does the Gentiles’ apostle Paul repeatedly explain that "God is One," ignoring any opportunity to explain the so-called "Mystery of the Trinity," if it really existed? He repeats the same thing twice - and instead of emphasizing a plurality of triplets, Paul emphasizes that "God is One." . ”

First in Galatians 3:20 "But the mediator is not a mediator of one part, but God is one. [Ho de theos heis estin]."

And Paul does this again in 1 Timothy 2: 5: "For there is one God [heis gar theos] and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ."

Just as there is only "a mediator" as a person (the Son of God) and not a mediator in the plural, there is only one God as a person and that is only the Father.

In another context, when he speaks of other “gods,” Paul also speaks of one God: “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, 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.” (1Corinthians 8:4-6)

The apostle Paul has a full opportunity, yet he misses the immense opportunity to declare, "For us God is a trinity: the Father, the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." It is a simple but very necessary sentence if God were a trinity. Why would God himself miss this opportunity to inspire Paul to declare a Trinitarian Deity? Because that was not the case, He was not a trinity of persons.

The apostle Paul does not even mention a third person. And as we see in all the beginnings of his letters, when he greets the Christian congregations of former pagans, he does so only on behalf of the Father and the Son. Why, if there were a third important person in the universe, after God the Father and his Son?

Here is an example from the beginning of a letter that begins: “to all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Romans 1:7

Something immediately stands out: the mention of the Holy Spirit is missing! How would this person feel if he existed, seeing that he was omitted from the greeting?

Although the Ephesians 4:4-6 also mentions the Spirit, the apostle Paul does not declare a triune formula of God here: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

Although the mention of the Son as Lord and also of the Spirit appears, only "one" is declared here to be God in these verses: the Father. Read it clearly and correctly! Instead of a triune formula, it contains seven "one".

No matter what each of the seven means "one," only "one God" is "above all" - and this is clearly shown to be only the Father.

If Paul had been a Trinitarian, and if a Trinitarian God had inspired him, would he have written Ephesians 4: 4-6 in this way? For he omits the Son and the Spirit from his statement about "one God."

He did not do it because he knew no other God but the Father. And Paul is not alone. No apostle preached a God other than the Father, because the Lord Jesus did not teach them that, but there is only one true God, the Father (John 17: 1-3).

 

SUMMARY

The above is presented as a statement of biblical truth that "God is One" and not Three. They are presented to show that if "God is Three" the Bible should be categorically focused on this statement and go in a different direction from beginning to end. God could communicate the very simple truth that He is Three, and if that were His intention, He would not have made the numerous statements that "God is One."

 

13. WHY DID THE PAGAN PHILOSOPHERS CHOOSE THE NUMBER OF "THREE" IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR GODS?

SHOULD WE FOLLOW THEM OR GOD, WHO TELLS US THAT HE IS ONE?

 

When we examine the number three in the Bible and look for its appearance in a triune relationship or a triune description of God, we do not find such a number.

Do Trinitarians pay attention to what the apostle Paul says about learning resources?

Colossians 2:8

Young's Literal Translation

See that no one shall be carrying you away as spoil through the philosophy and vain deceit, according to the deliverance of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ,

If we don't do research, we can't know. But if we do, we see that the dogma of the Trinity is from the Bible or from pagan philosophy.

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the term "Trinity" is not a biblical term, and we do not use biblical language to use it. Vol. IV, pp. 3012, Eerdmans, 1984.

Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 630, Bethany House Publishers, 1982, and the Easton's Bible Dictionary also acknowledge that this word does not appear in the Bible, but only in the description of the dogma of Tinity.

The doctrine of the Trinity teaches us that there are three persons (or hypostases) in one God: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

But if such a word does not appear in the Bible, referring to God, why "Three"? Why not two, or over three?

Well, from ancient sources we find that numbers had a great religious power in the ancient pagan world, because mystical numerology was practiced, that is, a so-called magic of numbers, believing that certain numbers have magical powers. In these spiritistic practices, three has always been particularly mystical and has been linked to the description of the supreme gods.

Many pagan religions reveal their trinities in the form of a single six-armed body; or, a god with three sides or three faces. But why a Trinity?

Here is the answer given by a pagan philosopher, Aristotle, about why the number “three” was chosen in relation to God: "For, as the Pythagoreans say, the world and all that is in it is determined by the number three, since beginning and middle and end give the number of an 'all', and the number they give is the trinity [Greek trias; English = "trinity"]. And so, having taken these three from nature as (so to speak) laws of it, we make further use of the number three in the worship of the Gods." (Aristotle, On the Heavens, Book I, 1)

Would the apostle Paul have been pleased with such a definition of God? No, otherwise he would have used it, being very popular in his time.

The Oxford Companion to the Bible, page 561, comments: “Three is widely regarded as a divine number. Many religions have triads of gods. Biblical faith does not take place for a triad, and the number three is rarely related to God. ... Nor is the doctrine of the Trinity expressed there in so many words. ”

The Harper's Bible Dictionary, page 497, states: "Three ... was already sacred to the early Babylonian religions, honoring a triad (Anu, Bel, Ea) ... just as the Egyptians honored Isis, Osiris, and Horus."

This is strange: to find trinities in the paganism, but not in the God-inspired Book, and yet to believe in a Trinity.

 

14. Biblical principles of non-Trinitarian theology

Non-Trinitarian opinion formers

 

What is non-Trinitarianism, also known as anti-Trinitarianism?

A few clarifications to dispel confusion, misunderstandings and misinformation.

Non-Trinitarians believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth, believe in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the only Son of God sent from heaven to earth for our salvation, and believe in the Holy Spirit as the spirit of God, not as a the third person distinct from the heavenly Father and His Son, but as a creative power and divine intellect that is immeasurably present in His Son (John 3:34) and works in believers according to the grace given to each one (1 Corinthians 12: 6, Ephesians). 4: 6).

When we say that we do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, it does not mean that we do not believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We simply believe differently than this dogma states.

 

The best known non-Trinitarian (but not the first) was Arius of Africa, a citizen of the Roman Empire, which is why non-Trinitarianism was also called Arianism, although Arius did not invent this theology. Arius was only one of the many non-Trinitarians of his time who rose above all in his vast mission to preach and defend the biblical truth that God is One, the Father Almighty. That is why the Aryans at first were not even known as Aryans, but called themselves "Lucians", after the name of an important leader of theirs, Lucian of Antioch.

Lucian of Antioch (c. 240 - January 7, 312), known as Lucian the Martyr, was a Christian presbyter, theologian, and martyr. He was noted for both his knowledge and his piety. According to the encyclopedia of Suidas (10th century), Lucian was born in Samosata, Kommagene, Syria, to Christian parents and was educated in the neighboring city of Edessa, Mesopotamia, at Macarius' school. It is possible, therefore, that Macarius himself was another prominent leader of the non-Trinitarians of that time.

Arriving in Antioch, Lucian was ordained a priest. Eusebius of Caesarea notes his theological knowledge, and in his work "The Life of Lucian" (composed after 327) he relates that he founded a Didaskaleion, an academy school for theologians. According to the scholar Adolf von Harnack, he was the first head of the Antioch School, having close ties with later theologians Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia and others in Africa. Other interesting notes on Arianism and other early beliefs are given by Shahrastani's encyclopedia (1086–1153), entitled The Book of Sects and Beliefs.

There is no conclusive evidence that Arius invented anything "new," but he preached what he had learned at Lucian's theological academy.

Arius was of Libyan (North African) descent, born in Cyrenaica, Libya, and was a Christian elder in Alexandria, Egypt. He was instructed in the theological academy of Lucian of Antioch, with fellow students Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, Theognis of Nicaea, and Leontius of Antioch. After completing his studies, he went to Alexandria, Egypt, where he was ordained deacon by Bishop Peter, then priest by Bishop Achilles, receiving the position of pastor at Baucalis Church, the largest of the nine churches in Alexandria.

Arius was reported to the bishop of Alexandria and was excommunicated by him because of "subordinationism." He left Egypt for Palestine at Eusebius of Caesarea. From here he went to Nicomedia, to his former classmate, Eusebius of Nicomedia. Then the Council of Nicaea (325) is convened, where non-Trinitarian and Trinitarian theology is debated in a tense atmosphere.

 

ARIUS'S BELIEF (250 - 336), OR THE CREDIT OF THE LUCIANISTS

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty.

And in the Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, who was begotten of Him before all ages, the Divine Word, by whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth; who came here and was made flesh, and suffered, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, and will come again to judge the living and the dead;

And in the Holy Spirit; and in the resurrection of the body; and in the life of the world to come; and in a kingdom of heaven; and in one Universal Church of God from the beginning to the end of the earth.

 

(If you think there is something wrong with it, please show us where.)

 

15. God's answer at the end of the Council of Nicaea

 

The "Arian Controversy" (discussions of Who is the Son) did not begin at the Council of Nicaea (325). It started long before. After the verdict was pronounced at the Council of Nicaea and those who did not sign the creed were condemned to exile, as heretics, church activity and their writings being forbidden, God also pronounced. As non-Trinitarians, we would have expected to teach a lesson to Trinitarians (although we can take into account the fact that the pope-patriarch of Alexandria, Alexander, who was directly involved, died five months after the Council), yet God called a traitor to the report. There were many traitors, but God chose to address one whom he loved most. From here we see His love for His people, for He disciplines us when we err. Yes, God educates and disciplines us through suffering, just like of His Son:

Hebrews 5: 7,8 He is the One who, in the days of His earthly life, brings prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the One who could deliver Him from death, and being obeyed because of His godliness,

even though he was a Son, he learned to listen through the things he suffered.

Sozomen (400-450) was a Roman lawyer and historian of the Christian Church. He notes: “Shortly thereafter, the Synod of Nicaea was held, at which Bishop Basil of Amasea and Meletius of Sevastopol were present among the other high priests of God. Philostorgius also relates that all the bishops agreed to the definition of the faith produced at Nicaea, except for Secundus, the bishop of Ptolemy, who was followed by Theonas, the bishop of Marmarica. But the rest of the group of Aryan bishops, such as Eusebius of Nicomedia (whom Philostorgius deifies as the Great), Theognis of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon, and the rest of the group changed their battle plan for the Synod, albeit deceptively (as Philostorgius acknowledges) for homoiousios hidden under homoousios, although they did indeed submit to the decision of the council, when Constantine, the emperor's sister, gave them this advice. Philostorgus adds that Secundus, going into exile, said to Eusebius: “You have subscribed, Eusebius, to escape being sent into exile. But I put my trust in a revelation that God made to me, that in a year you will also be sent into exile ”. In fact, within three months of the end of the synod, returning to his own original and manifest impiety, Eusebius was sent into exile, as Secundus had predicted. ... ”

We see that it was not their inner determination, but their fear that led the traitors to do so.

The dispute at Nicaea (325) was in fact a continuation of the dispute that began in Antioch (267), which was fought between the Patripassians and the Antipatripassians, two rival Christian groups. Unfortunately, most Trinitarians know nothing about this council. The dispute is mentioned by the Trinitarian R.C. Sproul in the book "Doctrines of Grace" p.88,89 and by an atheist philosopher, Raoul Vaneigem, the author of an anti-Christian work "Resistance against Christianity", on the history and beliefs of ancient sects in Christianity.

Who were the anti-Patripassians and the Patripassians?

The Anti-Patripassians were an ancient group of Christians led by Bishop Macarius of Edessa, the mentor of Lucian of Antioch. The group led by Macarius opposed the Patripassian Christians who believed that before the incarnation Jesus was God the Creator, the heavenly Father, and that this Creator God 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 Son distinct from Him, but became His own Son, being born as a man, becoming from Father to Son. Thus the Father died under the title of Son. Hence the nickname "Patripassians," which literally means "Those who believe that the Father has suffered." To support this idea, they have falsified certain Bible verses, some of which have been corrected, some of which have been followed to this day. Lucian of Antioch, known as Lucian the Martyr, was a Christian presbyter, theologian, and martyr who made a version of the Bible, from which he eliminated the errors added by the Patripassians. Unfortunately, this version has been lost, leaving only certain echoes of it in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, when he quotes the wording of the baptism.

Condemnation of the Patripassians

The Patripassians were condemned as heretics and excommunicated by the Christian party led by the anti-Patripassian bishop Macarius of Edessa, with the consent of about 50 anti-Patripassian bishops.

Lucian the Martyr was part of this Christian party and studied at the Christian Academy of Macarius.

 

16. Why were the Aryans right at the Council of Nicaea? Yet where did they go wrong?

 

For those who don't know, the Council of Antioch and the Council of Nicaea discussed the same word. The first council rejected it, the second accepted it. Which council was right?

Wikipedia shows us the following about the first board:

Council of Antioch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was tagged in October 2007

"The first major battle over the nature of Christ took place in the third century AD, when the heresy of Sabelius appeared, who claimed that if God is like the sun, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like the rays of the sun, having the same nature, being. This teaching, which took place in the third century CE, led Christians gathered at the Council of Antioch in 267 AD to reject Sabellius' thesis that Jesus is' homo-ousios' with the Father: the same essence, substance, or being. 'This doctrine was rejected by the Council of Antioch in 267 as a heresy', see the book The doctrines of grace, p.88,89 written by the Trinitarian RC Sproul. Unfortunately, most Trinitarians know nothing about this council. But later, this heresy (of an identical nature), considered by the Church and unmasked by the Council of Antioch in 267 en, was adopted as the official creed of Christianity at the Council of Nicaea, in which Constantine the Great forced the members of the council to accept the thesis of the indissoluble unity between Jesus and God, that is, that they are: 'homoousios' meaning' of the same essence, substance or being '. So in 325 e.n. the church influenced by Constantine, annulled everything that the church had decided in 267 AD. "

The stakes were high. If the word ‘homo-ousios’ is accepted in Nicaea, the proponents of this word could say that God himself became man and died on the cross, exactly as the Patripassians condemned to Antioch in 267 said.

The proposed expression meant "homo-ousios" "same being" could have several meanings, depending on the angle of interpretation you explained. One of these meanings was that the Son was the seen being of the Father, in human form, so it could be said that the Father and the Son were in fact "the same God." But not all of them understood in this way, just that the Son, though he was not God himself, had the nature of the Father. This confused some who were called semi-Arians, understanding something other than the case. The Arians were the only ones who were vigilant and foresaw the danger of accepting the word. When someone offers you a word, you have to see why they offer it to you. The Semi-Arians did not realize - as the Council of Antioch did - that the others would not interpret it as they did.

From the point of view of the place where it should not be used, the Arians were right, but to defend this point of view they made a mistake, claiming that the Son came into being out of nothing (impossible thing, because there is always something, in science not there is the word nothing).

Both non-Trinitarian branches, both Arian and Semi-Arian, agreed and said that before the creation began, God the Creator was alone. Then the first being brought into existence was the Son of God, the Arians saying that out of nothing (ex-nihilo), and the Semi-Arians saying that of the nature of the Father. So, no matter what you looked at, Arian or Semi-Arian, the Son had a beginning, while the Creator did not. Trinitarians did not want to accept this view, claiming that if the Son is God, then He is eternal.

The Trinitarian point of view creates strong anomalies, for example, if a father and a son has same age, equality makes a twin brother and not a son. This Gordian knot of Trinitarian theology has been called the "mystery of the Trinity." What if this so-called mystery is just a kind of blank check, but no cover?

The Nontrinitarian point of view has a logical cover and tells us that the One Being gave birth to His Son. Now there were Two Beings: the Father and the Son. He who was the second was to become the only being brought into existence directly by the Creator, and therefore the First and Last in this stage of coming into existence (Revelation 1:17). We are not told how long they stayed together "alone" and when the other angels came into existence. We are only told that in the beginning the heavens and the earth were created. We are not told that this beginning was the beginning of the first day of the week - as some understand it, but at the beginning. Genesis chapter 1 describes only the creation on the surface or crust of the earth and the stars, which lasted six days, not what was created before it, that is, the creation of angels. Putting the creation of angels at the beginning of the first day of the week of earthly creation has no biblical cover. Certainly, there was an unimaginable intellectual contact in time between the Two, so that the second Being, the only begotten Son, could learn from the Supreme Mind (John 17: 6; Proverbs 8: 22-30).

The purpose of this was to prepare the Son for the creation that was to be made. For the only begotten Son of the Creator (John 1:18), Unique in all respects, would become the Truth, the Life, the Light, the Instrument, the Agency, the Channel and the Way, or the Conduct to follow - for the rest of the creation to come (Hebrews 1: 2, 3; John 1: 3; Colossians 1: 15-18; Proverbs 8: 22-30). The Son of the Creator would soon become the Logos — the Word, or the Word of the Creator's Praise of the Creator Father — through whom the Almighty Being, God the Father, would make or bring into existence all other creatures and things (John 1: 2, 3).  The Father spoke to the Son - "Let it be" - and He executed.

First, the heavenly spirit creatures were created, that is, angels, who would become part of the Father's great heavenly family (Colossians 1:16; Job 38: 4-6). Then followed the process revealed in Genesis, chapter one, when God speaks to this Son and commands, "Let there be light ..."; and then, "Let us make man in our own image" (Genesis 1:26; Proverbs 8:30).

This Working Son - Heir - is described as the Wisdom of the Creator, materialized in the Son [Grk = sophia; compare Colossians 2: 3; 1 Corinthians 1:24] For in Proverbs 8: 22-30 we are told: “[Yehowah] created me in the beginning of his ways, as the first of his works. In the distant past, I was modeled, in the beginning ... I was born ... I was there when He put the heavens in their place ... When [Yehowah] fixed the foundations of the earth, I was with Him as a confidant."

How could a "third" have appeared in the image so that there could be a Trinity? Not at all. The Bible does not indicate that he was a third important person next to the Father and the Son. Only they are the most important Beings in the Universe. When one reflects on the process of the Creator's work, he will see that there are three categories of beings: 1) The Almighty Being, who is God the Father; 2) the only Son of God as the first and last in the direct line of the Father (Monogenetic); 3) The rest of creation, both celestial and terrestrial. Among the next category was one who later became known as Satan (Enemy) or Devil (Slanderer) (Isaiah 14: 12-14; Ezekiel 28: 13-17).

 

The State of Theology

(2021)

Part II

The anomalies of the doctrine of the trinity

 

 

1. Why has Arianism regained so much ground in the Churches?

 

In the Part I I presented a new survey from Ligonier Ministries titled “The State of Theology” (2020), that revealed two interesting things:

- nearly 70% of Catholics believe “Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God,”

- while 57% of Catholics believe “Jesus was a great teacher, but he was not God.”

Discussing this survey, some bishops were greatly surprised that these statements reflect the so called “Nontrinitarianism” (or “Arianism”). But others were already on the subject and they knew. As early as 2015, some Catholic leaders have been alerted to the repositioning of Nontrinitarian doctrine in traditional churches and other groups.

For example, in 2006 a movement called Arian Catholicism was formed, an internet Church that claims that true Christianity is Nontrinitarian. There was also a radio station in the United States, which covered the opinions of Nontrinitarian Arian Catholics.

That is why a former Protestant who converted to Catholicism, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, a Catholic speaker, Catholic priest and Catholic author, called for a new battle against Arianism.

In an article from Sept. 30 2015 "This Is Arianism All Over Again, and We Must Fight It" - By Fr. Dwight Longenecker, this author states the following:

-  the modern Catholic Church is experiencing Arianism all over again and don't believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate.

- they lead Catholic seminaries, monasteries, rectories and presbyteries as a dominant party

What is the situation of lay believers and pastors in other non-Catholic denominations? It seems that here, too, the principles of the Arian non-Trinitarian faith are gaining ground. Although some leaders of neo-Protestant churches disagree with Arianism, they have become more tolerant that churches should not be divided. I have encountered such cases. I came across a case of non-Trinitarian Arian Pentecostal believers in the faith of Lord Jesus Christ who, before joining a large Pentecostal church, told the pastor clearly that they were coming on one condition, that they would not agree to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. And the pastor agreed. There would be many examples to tell, but even these few are relevant.

So the question is:

Why has Nontrinitarian Arianism regained so much ground in the Churches?

 

First of all, because people have access to their own Bible and can compare the translated texts with the Greek and Hebrew interlinears of the Bible. Thus, they can see for themselves where a text is being translated correctly or incorrectly. Then they have more information about past church events and can interpret them differently than through glasses worn by church officials.

Some have learned that their ancestors were persecuted Nontrinitarians and forcibly converted to Catholicism. They wanted to investigate their origins. For example, some have found that not only the Germanic peoples were of Nontrinitarian Arian theology, but also the Celtic churches, which were persecuted because of this. The Celtic Church and even some of the ancient Catholics have long practiced non-Trinitarian baptism, which was done only in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Others learned that their churches were of non-Trinitarian theology and wanted to investigate why they switched to Trinitarianism (SDA, SDB, WCG and others).

Thus, they began to sympathize again with what their ancestors once believed.

And finally, the anomalies of the trinity doctrine discouraged many from believing in it.

For example, the father of a Baptist pastor from Australia, who was also an Adventist pastor, asked his son to procure a classic book that explains the doctrine of the trinity. He bought a classic book from the so-called Cappadocian Fathers writer and gave it to him as a gift.

After reading the book, the old father, who was about 70 years old, was deeply surprised by the inconsistency of the arguments and the anomalies created by this presentation. Indignant, he said: If this means the doctrine of the trinity, then I do not want it.

There are many such examples. Some were convinced quickly, as in this related example, others more difficult. A former Adventist preacher from Europe, who is now based in the United States, needed four years of intensive study before he could make an informed decision. After these four years of study, he stated the following: The doctrine of the Trinity is the greatest error of Christendom.

The Trinitarian point of view creates strong anomalies, which we will present in detail.

 

2. Some ask: Is it so important to know or waste our time discussing matters concerning the doctrine of the trinity?

 

We will find out the answer if we learn exactly what a Church is.

So what is a Church (Assembly) and whose is it? Of men or of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ?

 

First, the Church is the House of God (1 Timothy 3: 15a), and in this House is order and peace (1 Corinthians 14:33, Ephesians 4: 3, Hebrews 12:14). If the congregation is God's house, then all the brotherly churches (congregations) belong to God the Father (1 Corinthians 11:16, 2 Thessalonians 1: 4) and to His Son (Romans 16:16).

 

Because it is the House of God the Father, the Church (Church) of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ must be faithful to God the Father in all things, through the teaching given by his Son sent from heaven (John 7:16, John 6:29, John 3). : 13.16). God the Father has thus determined that the Lord Jesus Christ will be the Head of this Assembly, and no one should be a head or a substitute for him, for He is alive forever and ever and is present in the life of the Assembly led by Him (Colossians 1:18). , Matthew 18:20).

 

Second, God determined this Assembly to be the pillar and foundation of the truth in all the world, and it was given to its Head all authority in heaven and on earth (1 Timothy 3: 15b, Matthew 28:18). Therefore, in this Assembly you can learn and practice nothing but Christian teachings and practices, and those in charge of overseeing the Assembly cannot tolerate teachings and practices that contradict what our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ preached (John 14: 6, 2 John 1). : 9, Revelation 2:20).

 

God foretold that His people would become captives in a great Babylonian religious system. God, though long-suffering and loving, warns us in the Scriptures that the activity of this religious system will culminate in serious sins, and therefore will not be tolerated indefinitely. That is why His people must leave this very fallen and corrupt system before it can be destroyed, otherwise those who remain there will perish along with this disapproved religious system. (Revelation 18: 4,5).

We all know that God loves us so much (John 3:16) and wants us to be saved (2 Peter 3: 9). The word "beloved" charms us. But how many of us remember the word "perish." The same God who loves so much says he lets you perish so easily. For the same God has warned you so much. When God warns you for so many years, as He did through Daniel's prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and Judea, He lets you perish so easily and unhappily. Through the Bible, which the prophecies clearly certify be called "Holy Scripture", God also warned us of the coming catastrophic events that Jesus called "the end" (Matthew 24:14)! For 2,000 years, God has been warning us in the Bible, and He urges us to flee from the wrath to come, as He warned the Jews (John 3:36) and to be heroes of the faith, saving us and saving others! If not, we will be a generation of sacrifice, as were those besieged and killed by Roman imperial troops. But some say carelessly, more to hide their unbelief, saving appearances: “We will not reach those times! Who knows when they will be there? ” Will it be so hard for us to discern the times?

 

3. The mystery of the Trinity: absolutely one God, but really distinct in three persons

 

How is the doctrine of the Trinity explained?

"THE Roman Catholic Church states: "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion . . . Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.' In this Trinity . . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent."— The Catholic Encyclopedia.

"Nearly all other churches in Christendom agree. For example, the Greek Orthodox Church also calls the Trinity "the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, " even saying: "Christians are those who accept Christ as God." In the book Our Orthodox Christian Faith, the same church declares: "God is triune. . . . The Father is totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God."

"Trinity. The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature." - p. 899, Dictionary of the Bible, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1965.

Encyclopedia Britannica Online:

"Holy Trinity" In Christian doctrine, the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God in three persons."

Encyclopedia Americana (1957):

Trinity Doctrine

The most accepted definition by orthodox Christians and which "fairly claims the merit of the fullest harmony and most comprehensive consistency with the various statements of Scripture" is "that there are in the Godhead three persons, one in substance, coeternal, equal in power, the Father, Son and

Holy Ghost." - p. 69, Vol. 27.

 

Merely quotes from trinitarian sources. Christendom's trinitarian apologetic sources teach that this is the 'orthodox' or right view on the trinity doctrine, which is a mystery.

"The most sublime mystery of the Christian faith is this: 'God is absolutely one in nature and essence, and relatively three in Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are really distinct from each other."

- p. 584, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers, 1976.

 

Thus, the Trinity is considered to be "one God in three Persons." Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for eternity. Each is said to be almighty, with each neither greater nor lesser than the others. But how can three person be "truly distinct" yet "relatively"? Why try to convince people that a contradiction or anomaly like this can be true?

 

4. How could be three distinct persons one being?

 

According to the trinity doctrine, how many separate beings are there in the three persons, three beings, or just one being?

Encyclopedia International (1966):

"TRINITY, THE HOLY, Christian doctrine that in the one substance of the Godhead there are three persons equal in status, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." - p. 226, Vol. 18, Grolier.

 

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001-05:

Trinity, doctrine in Christianity

 [Lat.,= threefoldness], fundamental doctrine in Christianity, by which God is considered as existing in three persons.

 

Encarta Encyclopedia:

"Trinity (theology)

"Trinity (theology), in Christian theology, doctrine that God exists as three persons"

 

Encyclopedia.com:

"1. Trinity TRINITY [Trinity] [Lat. threefoldness], fundamental doctrine in Christianity, by which God is considered as existing in three persons."

 

Allaboutgod.com:

"The Trinity Doctrine is the One God revealed through three distinct Persons as the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit." 

"Trinity Doctrine - Foundation of the Christian Faith

"What is the Trinity Doctrine? In a nutshell, there is one God, eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit. The three persons of the Godhead are coequal and co-eternal"

 

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.

 

As we have seen, the doctrine of the trinity states that the three persons are in fact one being, being composed or united in three parts. Christendom's trinitarian apologetic sources teach that this is the 'orthodox' or right view on the trinity doctrine, which is a mystery.

 

It is true that many in Christendom see in the three persons three beings and not just one being, but this view is not considered orthodox. Between the 3th and 7th centuries AD, there was much discussion about whether the three persons were three separate beings or just one united being of three parts. Eventually, those who called themselves Orthodox rejected the opinion of those who considered the three persons to be in fact three separate beings and called them heretics who had nothing to do with the Christian church. They called this "heretical" doctrine as "tritheism," the belief in three gods, not in one god.

The accusation of “tritheism” being a “herecy” was especially popular between the 3rd and 7th centuries AD and this has tipped the balance of many toward the doctrine of the trinity. But often, those who express an opposition belief in their preferred terms such as “This is tritheism!” do not mean that the opposition believes the same way, in every term, detail or description. If you kill a cat and throw it in your neighbor's garden, it doesn't mean he killed the cat. The Trinitarians built a theological trap, called it tritheism, and then threw their opponents into it. To say that if there were three separate beings, there would actually be three gods, is not correct if the party you are talking to does not believe that. No one can force me to relate to what he thinks about what I think. For example, it would not be a contradiction or anomaly to believe that of the three persons proposed by the Trinitarians to be considered persons, only two would actually be real persons: the Father and the Son. And it would not be a contradiction or anomaly to believe that of these two persons, only one is God, the Father, not the Son (John 17:1-3). If we consider that the "theos" in John 1:1 part c is just a "nickname" that Moses (Exodus 7:1) and Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4) have, any contradiction or anomaly falls.

 

What immediately stands out as a contradiction or anomaly is that if there were three different person in heaven, and each had the status of a god, they would have to be three separate beings, not one being, as the doctrine of the trinity says. Here are those who shouted to others that "You are Tritheists!" they may in fact fall under the same charge, if the doctrine of the trinity is not a mystery, but a falsehood excused by the use of the word mystery. If a theologian names a mistake a "true mystery," it does not mean that God will do the same. So pay close attention to what you are referring to, to the Holy Scriptures, or to the opinion of men.  

 

5. Who is bigger in knowledge, stronger in power and more glorious like the Son?

 

Athanasian Creed:

"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater or less than others; but the whole three persons are co- eternal together; and co-equal. So that in all things as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity,

and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

"HE THEREFORE THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE TRINITY." 

 

"The Athanasian Creed follows, according to Schaff's work:

26. But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped.

28. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity."

 

Lutheran, Missouri Synod

"Chief Articles of Faith

"Article I: Of God.

"1] Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting;

2] that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and

3] yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term "person"

4] they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself."

 

Christendom's trinitarian apologetic sources teach that this is the 'orthodox' or right view on the trinity doctrine, which is a mystery.

The Son stated in certain circumstances that he did not know certain things and could not do certain things and at the same time limited the undue glory given to him:

No one knows about that day or that hour: neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matt. 24:36)

He said to them, "You will indeed drink my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with, but to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it is for whom it has been prepared by my Father." (Matt. 20:23)

And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. (Mark 10:18)

As we see, the problem is that the Bible does not have such a hierarchical scale of co-equality in all things, but it shows that the Father is greater than all beings that exist, in all things, including his Son: My Father, which gave them to me, is greater than all; and no man can pluck them out of my Father's hand. (John 10:29)

You have heard that I said to you, "I am going away, and I will return to you." If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I said to you, "I am going to the Father"; for the Father is greater than I am. (John 14:28)

Trinitarian apologists contradict this statement, saying that this was only true as long as Lord Jesus lived on earth.

However, the Bible does not show such a possibility, even indicating that important things that were given to the Son for a time - and over which the Son had autonomy,  would be returned to the Father:

1 Corinthians 15:28

English Standard Version

When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. This is so clearly stated that it can only be the subject of a contradiction or anomaly of the doctrine of the trinity, which makes this doctrine untrue in what it states. Why would we believe a doctrine that contradicts the clear statements of the Holy Scriptures?

 

6. How could be a Son equal  in age with his Father (co-eternal)?

CARM:

"The Trinity is the teaching that there exists only one God in all the universe, none before and none after Him (Isaiah 44:6,8) and that God consists of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." – According to this position, the three Persons are one Being, as we see in Answering Islam, by Arlandson:

What does this [trinity] doctrine teach?

"This doctrine teaches that God exists in three persons who share the same essence or being."

 

Accordingto The Athanasian Trinitarian Creed “the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal”.

What means to be co-eternal? Existing together eternally with somebody, without a beginning. But how could be the Son of God named “onlybegotten Son” (John 3:16), if he is not originated? How could be an onlybegotten Son "co-eternal", with his Father? In this case he is not a "Son", he is a “Siamese-Brother” of God.

 

Siamese twins are identical twins that are united in the womb. They have certain parts of the body in common. It is a rare phenomenon that occurs with a frequency of 1 to 50,000 births to 1 to 200,000 births. Their name comes from a couple known to such twins in the 19th century in Siam (modern-day Thailand). So, according to the doctrine of the trinity, if all that three Persons of God are co-eternal together and co-equal one being, this is a Siamese trio of three brothers.

 

In this “co-eternal case”, the second Siamese brother cannot be considered a Son, but a brother of God, which is contrary to the statements of the Holy Scriptures:

            Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16)

 

As we see, the most controversial contradiction or anomaly is taking a co-eternal position of the Son in the doctrine of the trinity, to make him a Siamese – Brother of the Father. This is the annulment of the position of Son, by the fact that he is made co-eternal with the Father. A son cannot be in the same age as his father. Those of the same age and being are Siamese twins or brothers. The Bible does not say that. You cannot believe that the Son is the Son of God, saying things that make him a brother of the Father. Why would we believe such a contradiction or anomaly from the doctrine the trinity?

 

7. How do trinitarian theologians explain that the doctrine of the Trinity has no basis in the Bible but is found in many pagan religious cultures?

 

In the book "Contra Julianum" by Cyril of Alexandria (376 – 444, was the Patriarch of Alexandria from 412 to 444), also known as the “Ten Books Against Julian the Apostate”, the author argues that like the Christians the pagan Greeks also knows the doctrine of the trinity, and this doctrine is true. What would God have said about such an opinion?

 

Many critics of the Trinity Doctrine say that this doctrine is only an adaptation of a pagan religious mythology, rearranged under the words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

 

For example, the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel states the following: "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.

 

See another example:

"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)

About the pagan trinitarian Pythagoras and his followers we will find this information:

Pythagoreanism

"Pythagoreanism is a term used for the esoteric and metapsihical beliefs held by Phytagoras and his followers, the Pythagoreans, who were much influenced by mathematics and probably a main inspirational source for Plato and platonism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism

Triad
"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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triad_%28symbol%29

Now, we will compare this things with the following descriptions, about the Christendoms’ Trinity:

 

The Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus:

"trinity /trinitee/ n. (pl. -ties) 1 state of being three. 2 group of three. 3 (Trinity or Holy Trinity) Theol. the three persons of the Christian Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)." - Oxford University Press (Berkley Books), 1997

 

Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

"trinity"• noun (pl. trinities) 1 (the Trinity or the Holy Trinity) the three persons of the Christian Godhead; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 2 a group of three people or things.

" — ORIGIN Latin trinitas `triad', from trinus `threefold'.

 

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

"Trinity" Main Entry: Trin·i·ty

"Pronunciation: 'tri-n&-tE

"Function: noun

"Etymology: Middle English trinite, from Old French trinité, from Late Latin trinitat-, trinitas state of being threefold, from Latin trinus threefold

"1 : the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma

"2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or things" 

 

Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

trinity

noun [C usually singular] LITERARY

a group of three things or people:

British culture now appears to revolve around the unholy trinity of sport, shopping and sex.

Above all Amenabar worships the trinity of Hitchcock, Kubrick and Spielberg.

the (Holy) Trinity noun [S] LITERARY

in Christianity, the existence of one God in three forms, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

"trinity

"SYLLABICATION: trin·i·ty

"NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. trin·i·ties

1. A group consisting of three closely related members. Also called triunity.

2. Trinity Theology In most Christian faiths, the union of three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one God. Also called Trine."

 

Webster Dictionary, 1913:

"Trinity (Page: 1540)

"Trin"i*ty (?), n. [OE. trinitee, F. trinité, L. trinitas, fr. trini three each. See Trinal.]

"1. (Christian Theol.) The union of three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three persons as to individuality.

"2. Any union of three in one; three units treated as one; a triad, as the Hindoo trinity, or Trimurti."

 

No matter how hard we search, we will not find such a word by word trinity doctrine description in the Bible, nor the word "trinity". If the most important word from the trinitarian theology and the doctrine of Christendom, is not find in the Bible, but all around in paganism, this is not a contradiction or anomaly of the makers of this teaching? Why should we believe a pagan doctrine, now disguised as the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Does this disguise make this pagan doctrine more credible?

8. "A unique kind of monotheism" or a dysfunctional monotheism?

 

Why is this question important?

Because dysfunction in one or more theological views leads to religious instability, which is harmful.

 

Between the 3rd and 8th centuries AD, numerous debates took place to clarify the so-called "monotheistic" doctrine of the trinity. And this is proof of its weakness, which does not frame it as monotheism. True monotheism should not have been clarified so much. The truth speaks for itself, it does not need to be clarified.

 

Trinity Defender, Robert M. Bowman defines the Trinity:

"The simplest way to define the Trinity is to say that it is one God in three persons. Thus the Athasian Creed speaks of the Trinity as both "one God" and "three Persons." - p. 11, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Baker Book House, 1993.

The Trinity [Lat., threefoldnes], is the fundamental doctrine in Christianity, by which God is considered as existing in three persons. Christendom's trinitarian apologetic sources teach that this is the 'orthodox' or right view on the monotheist doctrine. Monotheism is the belief that there is one God.

 

Religionfacts.com states the following: "However, Christian monotheism is a unique kind of monotheism. It holds that God is One, but thatthree distinct "persons" constitute the one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This unique threefold God of Christian belief is referred to as the Trinity (from Latin trinitas, 'three')."

Being unique does not necessarily mean that it is true or that it does not create problems. And this is exactly what happened around the Trinitarian doctrine, many did not consider it true and that is why many problems were created around it. If the doctrine of the trinity is not true, then this "unique kind of monotheism" is in fact a "dysfunctional monotheism", which does not work, not being true monotheism.

 

It is hard to believe in the monotheism but also to consider this monotheism an expression of a Tri-Unity of God – this “monotheism” or one God being identified as Three Distinct Person.

Where in the Old or New Testament a monotheist God revealed such kind of truth about Himself, being three distinct persons in the one God?

Where do we find such "monotheist" evidence written in black and white in the Holy Scriptures as below?

"God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God." (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p 226).

"In the one Divine Nature, there are three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Fathers is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost is not the Father: no one of the Persons is either of the others. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God. There are not three Gods but one God." (F. J. Sheed, God: Unity and Trinity (1955), p. 56)

"There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia)... In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit..." - Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1984 ed.), pp. 87-89.

"Trinity: One God in three Persons: Father, Son, Spirit.

1. God is one in his essential being but in this being there are three persons.

(a) Though there are three persons they do not compete with each other.

(b) They are three modes or forms in which the divine being manifests himself to us. .... " - R. T. Kendall, Understanding Theology, p. 29

 

No matter how many and how often they are repeated, they cannot be clearly included in the monotheism practiced by the writers of the Holy Scriptures. The apostle Paul would surely weep over such a dysfunctional monotheism. If the fundamental truth about God is about the monotheism of the Father (Exodus 20, John 17:3) and the most important theology and the doctrine of Christendom is not, but about Three Distinct Persons, this is not a contradiction or anomaly of the doctrine of the trinity? Would then - in the resurrection time - accept the writers of the Holy Scriptures such kind a monotheism? Or would they rather not accept such a faith, which they did not preach?

 

9. What does the predicted end-time situation look like? If you are captive, will you break free?

 

According to Lord Jesus, the Son of God, our Teacher and Savior, the truth will not be popular:

Matthew 7:13 Young's Literal Translation

Go ye in through the strait gate, because wide is the gate, and broad the way that is leading to the destruction, and many are those going in through it;

 

Now compare Matthew 7:13 with this statistic:

"Trinitarianism. Most denominations within Christianity are Trinitarian, and regard belief in the Trinity as a mark of Christian orthodoxy" 

Churches which teach (or at least state that they believe in) the trinity:

Roman Catholic

"The Catholic Church is the largest Christian church, made up of one Western or Latin and Eastern Catholic autonomous particular churches that comprise 2,782 jurisdictional areas around the world. Representing over half of all Christians and one sixth of the world's population,"  

Russian Orthodox

Greek Orthodox

"Based on the numbers of adherents, Eastern Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian communion in the world after the Roman Catholic Church. The most common estimates of the number of Eastern Orthodox Christians worldwide 150–350 million individuals" 

Anglican/Episcopal

"With over seventy-seven million members, the Anglican Communion is the third largest religious communion in the world, after the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches." 

Lutheran

"Today, nearly 70 million Christians belong to Lutheran churches worldwide" 

Nearly all Baptist Churches

"The Baptists number over 36 million worldwide in more than 170,000 congregations, and considered the largest world communion of evangelical Protestants, with an estimated 22 million members in the North America " 

Methodism

Presbyterianism

Nearly all Seventh-day Adventist Churches

Most other Protestant Churches

Then, according to a prophecy, this negative situation shown at Matthew 7:13 will change surprisingly during the end, when God's people will be delivered from Babylon the Great.

Revelation 18:4

Then I heard another voice from heaven say:

“Come out of her, My people,d

so that you will not share in her sins

or contract any of her plagues.

5For her sins are piled up to heaven,

and God has remembered her iniquities.

If the doctrine of the trinity and the churches that support it were pure, we would not have such a warning prophecy.

Will people fulfill the voice of prophecy? Yes, although not all, certainly many: Revelation 7:9 After this I looked and saw a multitude too large to count, from every nation and tribe and people and tongue, standing before the throne and before the Lamb... 13Then one of the elders addressed me: “These in white robes,” he asked, “who are they, and where have they come from?”

14“Sir,” I answered, “you know.”

So he replied, “These are the ones who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

As we see during the great tribulation, a great number of people will be freed from all the falsehoods of the religious system called Babylon the Great. If the teaching about the trinity and all the doctrinal falsehoods associated with it were true, there would be no need for such deliverance as that foretold in Revelation 18.

That is why it would be good for all supporters of the doctrine of the trinity to repent, leaving aside all its contradictions or anomalies.

 

10. Branches of theological interpretation (other anomalies)

 

Having been a very active reader of the various beliefs in the Christendom for many years, from 1991, I have witnessed differing views on how people in the churches view God an each other view. Some treat them as fellow Christians, yet others won't consider them as fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus. Some believe that those who don't hold to the same view are lost. I've seen believers state that other believers don't even know the Son at all.

 

In Christianity there are some different interpretive visions of who God is:

1.Nontrinitarians

2.Trinitarians

3.Oneness

4.Tritheists

5.Binitarians

 

This is a great spiritual battle or argumentation between ONENESS VS TRINITY VS TRITHEISTS VS BINITARIANS VS NONTRINITARIANS

 

NONTRINITARIANS BELIEVE

There is no God but the Father, he is Almighty alone (Exodus 20, John 17:3).

TRINITARIANS BELIEVE

Encarta Dictionary "Trin·i·ty, noun,

Definitions: God in three forms: in Christianity, God seen in three ways as the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit."

ONENESS BELIEVE

According to the United Pentecostal Church:

“Is God one, manifesting himself in three ways, or is God one, yet three persons?”

“The United Pentecostal Church (UPC) teaches that God is one, manifesting himself in three ways. They believe that Jesus is not only the Son, but also the Father and the Holy Spirit.”

"This belief has been referred to as 'oneness' or 'Jesus only'. In contrast, the majority of Christian churches teach a trinitarian concept.”

TRITHEISTS BELIEVE

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distict beings.

Joseph Bingham, author of the "Antiquities", preached at Oxford in 1695[6] a sermon which was considered to represent the Fathers as tritheists, and it was condemned by the Hebdomadal Council as falsa, impia et haeretica, the scholar being driven from Oxford. Source: Chapman, John (1912). "Tritheists" Archived 2012-06-15 at the Wayback Machine. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company (public domain). Retrieved October 17, 2012.

Though members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would probably not self-identify as tritheist, some critics of Mormonism claim that it is tritheistic or polytheistic because it teaches that the Godhead is a council of three distinct deities perfectly one in purpose, unity and mission, but nevertheless separate and distinct beings.

Source:

b777 (2008-12-15). "Tritheism|What is Tritheism?". carm.org. Retrieved 2020-05-02.

"The Trinity: Mormonism's Rejection of God's Highest Revelation (Part 4 of 4) | Mormon Coffee". Retrieved 2020-05-02.

Some have suggested that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has embraced a tritheistic view of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as it does not see their singularity as a Godhead consisting in one being but rather as three separate beings in a single group.

Source:

 "Does Seventh-day Adventism Teach the Trinity?" (PDF). CultOrChristian.com.

BINITARIANS BELIEVE

Historically, it wasn't until 381 A.D. that the trinity idea was fully developed and enforced as essential knowledge for the world church at that time. It officially began in 325 A.D. when a minority of bishops (with the overwhelming support and power of the non-Christian Roman Emperor) declared the one God to be TWO equal persons: God the Son and God the Father. And any who disagreed were to be cursed (and persecuted severely).

But that emperor later decided he didn't agree with the trinitarians and expelled them from Rome and brought back those who believed God was the Father alone. These Bishops were in charge of the church for about 50 years and the emperor was even baptized by one of them on his deathbed.

But after Theodosius (a strong trinitarian supporter) became Emperor of Rome, he convened another Council in 381 and declared that the one God was THREE equal, always-existent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This has been the stated belief of the Roman Church (the largest and most powerful 'Christian' church in the world) for over 1600 years. It is also the stated belief of the vast majority of other 'daughter' churches, including Orthodox, Anglican, and most Protestant and independent churches (most of which accept the first Councils of the Roman Church - 325 and 381 A.D.).

 

So, many of this nontrinitarian believers consider those who believe in the trinity or other doctrine to be in danger of losing eternal life. And most trinitarians believe the same about other believers. And they both believe that those relatively few others who believe God is and always has been the Father alone, and that the Son has never been an almighty God with the Father (or as the Father) are doomed to eternal destruction.

And yet, scripturally, God has always existed as Father who was, is and always will be the same.

 

Strangely, the nontrinitarian, oneness, binitarian and tritheist idea was examined by early Church Councils between the III-VIII century AD and pronounced to be as 'heretical'. However, not the Church - declared official or unofficial by certain emperors, but God and the Bible has the final word. As in the original Bible wrote, God is one person (the Father alone) and this is the true teaching, alone.

So, even though the vast majority of professed Christians condemn those who believe God is and always has been the Father alone, it is they who are in danger by missguiding people (John 17:1,3; 2Thess. 1:7,8).

And, because of the danger to them because of their scriptural ignorance of the only true God and the One whom He has sent, it is a necessary Christian act to attempt to reveal the essential scriptural knowledge of God and His Son to them.

In view of this bizarre situation in the theology of Christendom, we must be alert to all its contradictions or anomalies and reject wisely, sticking to what is written in the Holy Scriptures about one God, the Father Almighty.

11. "ONE God"! The Father ONLY! VS the “The Trinity” of the Church Fathers

 

Now compare with what the Bible not contains about God.

 

It is not not written:

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

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, 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, Son and Holy Spirit 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."

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

James 2:19: "You believe that there is one God: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."

 

The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church were ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers who established (sometimes wrong) the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity. The historical period in which they worked became known as the Patristic Era and spans approximately from the late 1st to mid 8th centuries, flourishing in particular during the 4th and 5th centuries, when Christianity was in the process of establishing itself as the state church of the Roman Empire.

 

The ideea of a trinity is a pagan idea about leading gods, not a Christian mystery. We will find from history, that some of what are called “Church Fathers”, have often simply transformed - and not rejected - their previous pagan beliefs in what is known as “orthodoxy.” Orthodoxy undoubtedly contains its measure of paganism, in special in the doctrine of the trinity and in the cult of the saints, when the pagan gods were given Christian names, so to speak, and were still worshiped in this disguise. Seeing that they were losing control of the pagan population, pagan theologians also changed their tactics in order to survive. We do not see in this a love of truth, but a love of traditions and personal interests.

 

That's how the weed came about.The Parable of the Tares or Weeds (KJV: tares, WNT: darnel, DRB: cockle) is a parable of Jesus which appears in Matthew 13:24–43. The parable relates how servants eager to pull up weeds were warned that in so doing they would root out the wheat as well and were told to let both grow together until the harvest. Later in Matthew, the weeds are identified with "the children of the evil one", the wheat with "the children of the Kingdom", and the harvest with "the end of the age".

 

That’s why, the Weeds theology contains elements that are the result of imposition of religious authority, rather than belief clearly set forth in Scripture. That’s why, it is so difficult, for example, to find any reputable reference work that does not acknowledge the post-Biblical origin of the trinity doctrine. Many feels that the main problem with the trinity doctrine is the pagan origin of this dogma - clothed or renewed in Christian words and the lack of Biblical evidence that customarily accompanies it. That is a clear 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, by emperors and the law of the state.

So many Church members are at a disadvantage when pressured by their leaders ans staff to conform to views these have adopted, not from Bible, but the Councils of this so called Church Fathers. Dogmatic assertions from sources that claim to base their arguments on knowledge of Biblical texts — has no power, if they were previously awed by claims of a similar texts from the paganism. So many points could be clarified if people were simply to read the Bible and not the decision of this Councils lead by pagans clothed in Christians. They would then at least see that where tradition is concerned, dogmatism is greater evidence of ignorance than of Biblical learning. This to be the case with many who adopt the Trinity doctrine, from the Neo-Pagan Councils. Would it not be a contradiction or an anomaly to follow the Councils of the so-called Fathers of the Church and not the Holy Scriptures?

 

12. Why should we beware of pagan ideas?

 

“Because they did not seek to keep God in their knowledge, God left them to the will of their damned minds to do unreasonable things.” (Romans 1:28)

The pagans went so far as to worship people, the dead, the stars, the mountains, the rivers, the fire, the water, the earth, numbers, animals, trees, and even plants such as onions. How could we believe that in this madness of their minds, the very mystical numerology of a holy trinity — which would make up one God — would be true?

 

Regarding the pagan origin of the trinity doctrine, this is clear.

In some ancient pagan pictures and modern religious Christian pictures appear a triangle and an eye inside that triangle. Guess why use Christians such a pagans concept, if the doctrine of the trinity is not a pagan concept?

Here we have the link:

"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."

No wonder, when those who were inspired by paganism came to a deplorable logic.

Somebody summed this up, making a joke about this situation:

“We Christians have ONE God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and ONE mediator between man and God: Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary and the Saints. Please do not try to count! It's a secret!”

 

A warning by Jeremiah, the prophet of God Almighty: Stop listening the pagans!

Jeremiah 10

 
Young's Literal Translation

The Sovereignty of God

1Hear ye the word, O house of Israel, That Jehovah hath spoken for you.
2Thus said Jehovah: Unto the way of the nations accustom not yourselves, And by the signs of the heavens be not affrighted, For the nations are affrighted by them.
3For the statutes of the peoples are vanity, For a tree from a forest hath one cut, Work of the hands of an artificer, with an axe,

4With silver and with gold they beautify it, With nails and with hammers they fix it, And it doth not stumble.

5As a palm they [are] stiff, and they speak not, They are surely borne, for they step not, Be not afraid of them, for they do no evil, Yea, also to do good is not in them.
6Because there is none like Thee, O Jehovah, Great [art] Thou, and great Thy name in might.

7Who doth not fear Thee, king of the nations? For to Thee it is becoming, For among all the wise of the nations, And in all their kingdom there is none like Thee.

8And in one they are brutish and foolish, An instruction of vanities [is] the tree itself.
9Spread-out silver from Tarshish is brought, And gold from Uphaz, Work of an artizan, and of the hands of a refiner, Blue and purple [is] their clothing, Work of the skilful — all of them.

10And Jehovah [is] a God of truth, He [is] a living God, and a king age-during, From His wrath shake doth the earth, And nations endure not His indignation.
11Thus do ye say to them, The gods Who the heavens and earth have not made, They do perish from the earth, And from under these heavens.
12The maker of the earth by His power, The establisher of the world by His wisdom, Who, by His understanding, stretched forth the heavens,

13At the voice He giveth forth, A multitude of waters [is] in the heavens, And He causeth vapours to come up from the end of the earth, Lightnings for rain He hath made, And bringeth out wind from His treasures.

14Brutish is every man by knowledge, Put to shame is every refiner by a graven image, For false [is] his molten image. And there is no breath in them.
15Vanity [are] they, work of erring ones, In the time of their inspection they perish.
16Not like these [is] the Portion of Jacob, For framer of all things [is] He, And Israel [is] the rod of His inheritance, Jehovah of Hosts [is] His name.

 

Would it not be a contradiction or an anomaly to follow the pagans and their ideas, who worship anything even the onion, and not the Father, our Creator, who left them to the will of their damned minds to do unreasonable things?

13. What happened at the Synod (Council) of Antioch from 268 AD?

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 platonic "Trinity" in Christian words. Some proposed a modalistic Trinity (one beeing in three revelation), others propossed a trimorphic Trinity (three differing forms in one beeing).

To defend themselves, Christians in the second century AD wrote the following in their creed:

 "I believe in God, the Father Almighty"

THE APOSTLES' CREED.

Cc. 124 - 135 AD from Rome, in Greek language

"The Apostles' Creed" is a Christian statement of faith. 

The idea of Trinity, of Catholic Church and of endless, literal torment is not hinted. 

"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, 

and in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord, 

who was born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost, 

was crucified under Pontius Pilate, 

buried*, rose from the dead on the third day, 

ascended to the heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father,

whence he will come, to judge the living and the dead;

and in the Holy Spirit, the holy church, the remission of sins, 

and the resurrection of the body."

*In Gaul, in the fifth century, the phrase "he descended into hell" came into the creed. And later were added other things.

No Trinity here. What do you believe, why?

 

Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra, a supporter of modalistic Trinity (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."

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 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." (Raoul Vaneigem)

The problem with this word homoousios (consubstantial) is the context in which this term was proposed, by the trinitarian fraction. And this context is a non-Biblical view.

 

In 315 emperor Constantine the so called Great, took with force the Churches of the oposition 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 in 325 he ordered a creed against the statament of the Council of Antioch (268). But, would it not be a contradiction or an anomaly to throw out a Christian statement from 268, to worship a pagan concept, clothed in Christian words?

 

14. If God is a plurality of persons, why do we not find statements in this regard?

 

If God were a plurality of persons, we would expect the following verses to sound like this in the plural:

Jeremiah 10:12 "They has made the earth by their power, they has established the world by their wisdom, and by their understanding has they stretched out the heavens:"

 

Isaiah 40:26 "Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? They who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of their great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."

 

Deutoronomy 32:4

"They are the Rock; their deeds are perfect.

Everything they does is just and fair.

They are a faithful God who does no wrong;

how just and upright are they!"

 

John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave their one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

He is worthy of praise:

Luke 10:21 "In that same hour he (Jesus) rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for such was their gracious will."

If this was the revelation of the Holy Scriptures, then the glorification must be brought to the plural:

Our God is an awesome God,

They reigns from Heaven above,

With wisdom, power and love, 

Our God is an awesome God!

But it would be strange to say amen to such a concept. This is not a contradiction or an anomaly?

 

Just if we hold the Scripture as it is, we will find this wonderful truth about an awesome one God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth:

He is the most wise:

Jeremiah 10:12 "He has made the earth by his power, he has established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding has he stretched out the heavens:"

He is the most strong:

Isaiah 40:26 "Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."

He is the most just:

Deutoronomy 32:4

"He is the Rock; his deeds are perfect.

Everything he does is just and fair.

He is a faithful God who does no wrong;

how just and upright he is!"

He is the most loving:

John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

He is the most worthy of praise:

Luke 10:21 "In that same hour he (Jesus) rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."

 

He is the best:

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus said to him. "No one is good but God alone. (Mark 10:18)

     "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good but God alone. (Luke 18:19)

 

Let's glorify the most good Person, above all!

Our God is an awesome God,

He reigns from Heaven above,

With wisdom, power and love, 

Our God is an awesome God!

Amen X Amen

 

15. The Inquisition sustains the doctrine of the Trinity: Does it matter?

 

Let's the true love and knowledge of God arise and open your eyes!

For a good understanding of God, the Father and Creator of heaven and earth read: Matthew 22:39,40, Luke 6:31, Romans 13:8-10, 1Corinthians 13:1-13, James 2:8-13, 1John 3:10-24, 1John 4:7-21, 1Thessalonians 5:22,23.

Now, compare this verses with the ideea of the “Christian-Inquisition”. Can be the concept of Inquisition in Christianity? And now think, if this concept does not take place in Christianity, how much harm it could do to the truth? The Inquisition hunted down and destroyed all those who did not believe in the doctrine of the trinity. Thus the idea of the Trinity was imposed by force and cruelty throughout Christendom. By the work of this Inquisition, for many Christians, God is a "Trinity", and this "Trinity" is a "mystery". Of course, it is! But the question is: What kind of mystery? A pagan mystery.

Remember what say some sources about the old time pagan faith: The Trinity concept is a pagan mystery, a pagan way of thinking.

The Triad is a Pythagorean title for the number three. According to Priya Hemenway they considered it 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 the product of them and itself.

Pytagoras imported this "ancient mystery" from Asia and Egypt.

According to the work "History of the 'Christian' Trinity":

"....Then, about 550 B. C., the rise of the extremely influential Greek philosophy/mystery religions began. Pythagoras (about 550 B.C.) may have been the founder of Greek philosophy and mystery religions. Certainly he was the earliest of the most influential Greek philosopher/ religionists.

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 number. More specifically, the Pythagoreans actually worshiped an equilateral triangle composed of dots. [44-50]

Although it was a secret religious organization whose "mysteries" were to be known only among its members, we have some clues to Pythagoreanism' s deep "mysteries" that were borrowed from the religions of Babylon , India , and Egypt . Medieval numerologists, for example, admitted that they borrowed this 'mysterious' knowledge from Pythagoreanism: The number three stands for "Trinity and extension of Godhead." [51]

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."[52]

So it appears that this "holy" number three used to "worship the gods" in unity came down from Babylon through Egypt and India , and through the extremely influential Pythagoras to the ancient Greek philosophy/mystery religions and even to Plato himself.[53-56a]

From Pythagoras (550 B. C.) until its decline (about 550 A. D.) the great influence of the Greek philosophy/mystery religions was spread by Pythagoreans, Platonists, Neopythagoreans, and finally Neoplatonists.

"NEO-PYTHAGOREANISM ...appeared during the first century B. C. [the faithful Jews were still clinging to their faith in a single one-person God, Jehovah the Father] in Rome, whence it traveled to Alexandria (the sect's chief center) where it flourished until Neo-Platonism absorbed it in the 3rd century A. D." [57]

Neo-Pythagoreanism was mainly the old Pythagoreanism with some borrowing from Plato, Aristotle, and Stoicism.

Pythagoreanism is a term used for the esoteric and metapsihical beliefs held by Phytagoras and his followers, the Pythagoreans, who were much influenced by mathematics and probably a main inspirational source for Plato and platonism. 

 

Now compare from the Bible whether the Lord Jesus has such a way of thinking. No! Lord Jesus, the founder of Christian faith, by the will of God Almighty, have a single heavenly Father as a single God: John 3:1, John 17:1-3, John 20:17. If we are His disciples, we must keep His way of thinking - Matthew 7:13,14. Many people don't understand and don't know who is God, because they don't love God, truly. How could they love the invisible God, if they don't love their neighbors? The way of life, for the born again children of God, is the way of love and sacrifice. All who love truly, are open-eyed, calm and patient Christians, who love and forgive, and who don't have enemy, who love the enemy, who pray for the enemy. Our enemy is in the sky, and he is Satan, and his demons. Unfortunately, in the past, many religious people missed all of this Christian values. This is how the Inquisition came about.

If you look at the pictures of the Inquisition and the torment of heretics and then read the Gospel, you can tell if it was inspired by the teachings of the Lord Jesus, or by Satan.

Satan and the demons defend what is theirs (from them):

1Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

It would be an anomaly to believe that Satan or the demons support the true monotheism preached by the Lord Jesus, that only the Father is God.

Through the Inquisition, Satan and the demons fought against this very concept of the Lord Jesus.

 

16. To whom do the first Christians pray, why and how?

Bishop Polycarp's last prayer (II century, Smyrna), addressed only to the Father, as God Almighty:

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

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

Wherefore I praise thee also for everything; I bless thee, I glorify thee, through the eternal high priest, Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son**, through whom, with him, in the Holy Spirit, be glory unto thee, both now and for the ages to come, Amen."
From Eusebius "Historia Ecclesia"

* παιδός "servant" in the Greek text

** υiοs "son" in the Greek text

No Trinity allusion here. So, who is God, if He is not a Trinity? 

According to the Holy Scriptures, given to Moses and to the prophets:

He is Yehowah, the God of creation. He is the Lord God Almighty.

He is the Eternal Rock of Ages. He is the great “I Am”, of all the times, the God of Abraham, the God of peace and the God of war against all kind of evil. He is the God of Israel, the Everlasting One.

According to the Holy Scriptures, given by Lord Jesus and His apostles:
He is our Father and Provider, God of salvation and God of Messiah; He sent His only-begotten and heavenly Son and testified of him. He is the Father, the God that healeth us, from sin and destruction of death.

 

But the theologians of the trinity doctrine have invented another alibi to defend their view. This time they came up with the idea that if the Son is not co-eternal, the atonement would not be perfect, as we see in the biography of Adam Clarke, a trinitarian theologian:

"Perhaps his most controversial position regarded the eternal Sonship of Jesus. Clarke did not believe it Biblically faithful to affirm this doctrine, maintaining that prior to the Incarnation, Jesus was "unoriginated." Otherwise, according to Clarke, he would be subordinate to God and therefore not fully divine. This was important to Clarke because he felt that Jesus' divinity was crucial to understanding the atonement."

 

But was Adam God? If not, why should God die for us? We don't see any logic. Logic says that a perfect man sinned and a perfect man had to die in his place, thus acquiring the role of savior-mediator: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all (people). This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. (1Tim. 2:5,6).

 

Could be the doctrine of the trinity a blind error?

 

God moves in a mysterious way

His wonders to perform;

He plants His footsteps in the sea

And rides upon the storm.

Deep in unfathomable mines

Of never failing skill

He treasures up His bright designs

And works His sovereign will.

Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;

The clouds ye so much dread

Are big with mercy and shall break

In blessings on your head.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,

But trust Him for His grace;

Behind a frowning providence

He hides a smiling face.

His purposes will ripen fast,

Unfolding every hour;

The bud may have a bitter taste,

But sweet will be the flower.

Blind unbelief is sure to err

And scan His work in vain;

God is His own interpreter,

And He will make it plain.

 

Having learned all these things, both from the Bible and from history, would it not be a futile task to look for evidence to further support the doctrine of the trinity?

 

The State of Theology

(2021)

Part III

The way of "trinity" in to Christianity: Who imported this concept of "mystery" from pagans in to Christianity?

1. First step: The Gnostics (neo-pagan syncretist and philosophical speculators) like Valentinus (c. AD 100 – c. 160) and others.

 

These Gnostic leaders rejected the official teaching of the Apostolic Church, believing that they were better informed in the mysteries of salvation. They usually rejected both Old Testament and New Testament writings, making their own Gnostic texts, drawing inspiration from various pagan writings.

According to Wikipedia:

“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.”

“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.[1] Within the sects of gnosticism, however, only the pneumatics or psychics obtain gnosis; the hylic or Somatics, though human[2], are doomed[3]. Jesus of Nazareth is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the earth. In others (e.g. the Notzrim and Mandaeans) he is considered a mšiha kdaba "false messiah" who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John the Baptist.[4]”

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. [5] Gnosticism may have been earlier than the First Century, thus predating Jesus Christ.[6] Then continuing in the Mediterranean and Middle East before and during the Second and Third Centuries.”

2. Second step: Neo-Gnostic leaders, like Clement, Origen and their contribution in the Paganization of Christianity.

 

These people did not reject the Holy Scriptures, either from the Old or the New Testament, but gave them a touch of allegorical interpretation of their own origin, mixed with pagan sources.

 

About Clement, according to Wikipedia "They appear to have regarded Pythagoras as a divine being [founders of religions tend to `develop' into a divinity or deity for that religion after a period of time] a status which he shared with certain numbers also, particularly one, three, and ten." "Neo-Pythagoreanism' s importance consists chiefly in its influence on Neoplatonism ... and on Christian [?] Theology by Clement of Alexandria (150-220 A. D.)."[57-58]

"Saint Clement of Alexandria (born Titus Flavius Clemens) (c.150 - 211/216), was the first notable member of the Church of Alexandria, and one of its most distinguished teachers. He was born about the middle of the 2nd century, and died between 211 and 216. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine and valued gnosis that with communion for all people could be held by common Christians specially chosen by God. He used the term "gnostic" for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching of the Logos.[1] He developed a Christian Platonism.[2] He presented the goal of Christian life as deification, identified both as Platonism's assimilation into God and the biblical imitation of God.[1]

Like Origen, he arose from Alexandria's Catechetical School and was well versed in pagan literature.[2] Origen succeeded Clement as head of the school.[2] Alexandria had a major Christian community in early Christianity, noted for its scholarship and its high-quality copies of Scripture.

Clement is counted as one of the early Church Fathers." His disciple was Origen "the last gnostic" (or speculator)

About Origen, according to Wikipedia

"Origen (Greek: Ὠριγένης Ōrigénēs, or Origen Adamantius, ca. 185–ca. 254) was an early Christian scholar, theologian, and one of the most distinguished of the early fathers of the Christian Church. According to tradition, he is held to have been an Egyptian[1] who taught in Alexandria, reviving the Catechetical School of Alexandria where Clement of Alexandria had taught. The patriarch of Alexandria at first supported Origen but later expelled him for being ordained without the patriarch's permission. He relocated to Caesarea Maritima and died there[2] after being tortured during a persecution.

Using his knowledge of Hebrew, he produced a corrected Septuagint.[3] He wrote commentaries on all the books of the Bible.[3] In De principiis (On First Principles), he articulated the first philosophical exposition of Christian doctrine.[3] He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist.[3] Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God.[3] He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him.[3] His views of a hierarchical structure in the Trinity, the temporality of matter, "the fabulous preexistence of souls," and "the monstrous restoration which follows from it" were declared anathema in the 6th century.[4]"

3. Third step: Marcion and  his forgery, the Hellenization of God

"Despite two centuries and an accusation of heresy that separated him from the State religion, Marcion might well pass for the true father of the Catholic Church, a father maladroitly abandoned to the world, a runt that only his enemies brought to maturity.

Missionary zeal; the eagerness to found communities; the hope for divine authority, the investment of which he would receive in Rome; the monarchal organization of the ekklesiai; virulent anti-Semitism; the conception of a Christianity purified of its Judaism; a theology inspired by Greek thought: these compose a great many of the fundamental traits of the future Catholic Church." Raoul Vaneigem

Another problem is that of falsified texts. Comparison of the manuscripts made by scientists, shows that indeed errors were made by negligence, but also three intentional tricks were made, in special in the works of Marcion of Sinope (c.85 – c. 160).

About the tricks made in the text of the New Testament by Marcion and others:

1 words intentionally omitted

2 words added intentionally

3. words intentionally changed

Dr. FH The Scrivener text critic writes: "In the second century, we see too many attempts to change the text of Scripture, some only recklessly, others proven to be dishonest."

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

Dr. FH The Scrivener text critic noted two kind of scribes who altered the text: "recklessly, others proven to be dishonest." Scrivener states that the first 100 years was the WORST TIME of the manuscripts.

Ernest Cadman Colwell, Which is the Best New Testament Text ?, p. 119: "The first two centuries witnessed a large number of (different text) variations known to scholars today. Most (different text) versions of New Testament manuscripts, I believe they did it consciously."

For example, in the earliest known version of the Epistle of Jude, in verse 5 the text says that God brought the people out of Egypt. Later, it was changed into Lord and Jesus, making a hellenistic God from the Son of God.

4. The last great Neo-Gnostic" (speculator) Origen as a theological influencer, arbitrator and leader of a sect

 

Origen write a lot and travelled extensively as theological influencer spreading worldwide his views and in some occasions was invited as a theological arbitrator.

 

This role of "judge" was between Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians, but also in other matters. According to Origen and other Gnostic or Neognostic leaders, the ancient concept of pagan philosophical "trinity" was compatible with the Christian faith, because they believed that pagan philosophers were also inspired by God. He believes in a kind of "trinity" in which he sees subordination between the persons of the Trinity.

His followers were called the "Sect of the Origenists." Let's take a lesser-known page on the history of the Orthodox Church, the fate of the Origenists: The Origenist Massacre.

Not only the Paulicians (843/844), the Huguenots, and the Jews had a Holocaust of their own. One of the bloodiest pages in history, which is probably unknown to many, is the "Holocaust of the Origenists."

Who were the "Origenists"?

A Christian sect within Christianity. As their name suggests, they were followers of Origen's theology (2nd-3rd centuries), and because of their mentor, they were so named in Egypt and around. Following the example of Origen, their teacher, they interpreted the Bible in an allegorical sense and lived as monks. They were tolerated for a while and then met with furious opposition from Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt.

World-renowned historian Edward Gibbon describes Theophilus as “an eternal enemy of peace and virtue — who stands out in this; an evil man whose hands were alternately contaminated with gold and blood ”(The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire)

About 10,000 of these sectarian monks were killed at the urging of Patriarch Theophilus in Alexandria and elsewhere.

These unfortunates were universalists, that is, they believed in the salvation of all people, so they wanted to unify Christianity, or rather the elements of Christianity, with pagan religious philosophy about salvation. That is why they insisted so much on allegorizing the Bible and studyed it through the glasses of the the pagan philosophers.

In the second half of his career, Theophilus wrote a series of works - and campaigned - against "Origenism" because he was against such a mixed Christian-Pagan opinion about salvation. Theophilus died on October 15, 412, after more than twenty-seven years of "pastoral care." The Coptic Church in Alexandria considers him a saint. Earlier, he turned against the teachings of Origen and his supporters. In 401 he succeeded in presenting Origenism as a heresy at the synod convened in Alexandria. Leading a corps of armed soldiers and servants, Theophilus attacked the Nitritan monks — Nitria was the headquarters city of the Origenists — and set fire to their homes and books, then massacred the captured monks.

As a result, the surviving Origenists, frightened, quickly restructured the works of Origen (184-254), constantly renewing and rewriting his works, trying to remove from them the ideas that were officially categorized as heretical.

 

Other views about Origen

Origen (185-254 A.D.) was "probably the most accomplished Biblical scholar produced by the early Church" (Universal Standard Encyclopedia) and "the greatest scholar and most prolific author of the early church. ... not only a profound thinker but also deeply spiritual and a loyal churchman." (The History of Christianity, a Lion Book). "Origen, the greatest and most influential Christian thinker of his age" - p. 89, A History of the Christian Church, 4th ed., Williston Walker, Scribners, 1985. "The character of Origen is singularly pure and noble; for his moral qualities are as remarkable as his intellectual gifts." - p. 229, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. IV, Eerdmans.

Origen's Commentary on John is "the first great work of Christian interpretation. " Origen was certainly the most knowledgeable about NT (koine) Greek of any scholar. He studied it from early childhood and even taught it professionally from his teens onward.- and this was during a time when it was a living language and, of course, well understood! - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, pp. 291-294, vol. X, Eerdmans Publ., 1990 printing.

Origen loved to speculate about numerous things in scripture (as did others at this time), but when it came to discussing the actual NT Greek itself he was without peer.

Origen continued in his "Commentary on John" by actually discussing the grammar of John 1:1. He wrote: 

"We next notice John's use of the article [`the' or ho in the Greek in this case] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. [Origen, himself, as noted, was an expert in this language and even taught it as a professional. So if anyone would ever have been aware of any special grammatical `rules' or effects for John 1:1c, it would certainly have been Origen!] In some cases he [John] uses the article [`the' in English or ho in NT Greek] and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos [ho logos or `the Word'], but to [theos: `god' or `God'] he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [ho] when [theos] refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos [Word] is named [theos]. .... the God who is over all is God with the article [ho theos] not without it [theos] …. and so the Saviour says in his prayer to the Father, `That they may know thee the only true God [Jn 17:1, 3];' but that all beyond the Very God [ho theos] is made [theos] by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article [ho theos]), but rather [theos] (without the article). And thus the first-born of all creation [Jesus, Col. 1:15], who is the first to be with God, and to attract to himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods [angels] beside him, of whom God [ho theos, the Father only] is the God [Rev. 3:2, 12; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 17, etc.], as it is written, `the God of gods...' [Ps. 49:1, Septuagint; Ps. 136:2; Deut. 10:17] …. The true God [the Father alone, Jn 17:1, 3], then, is [`the god,' ho theos], and those who are formed after him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype." - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. X, p. 323, "Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John", Book 2, part 2, Eerdmans, 1990 printing

 

5. The way of the trinity doctrine in Christendom

 

Remember how old is the trinity controversy and how was it introduced in the Christendom.

From historical sources we could reconstruct the steps.

 

Summary

First step: From paganism (Hermes, Plato and others) to Gnosticism by the Gnostic (heretic) leader Valentinus an others. According to a bishop from III-IV century, who attended the Council of Nicaea, Marcellus of Ancyra: "Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the 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."

Second step: From Valentinus "the heresiarch" and from the "Valentinian Theodotus” who was the student and pupil of Valentinus to the Neo-Gnostic philosophers, like Clement and Origen from Alexandria. According to the book Resistance to Christianity, by Raoul Vaneigem, the Neo-Gnostic leaders of Christendom, adapted this doctrine in the Christian words: "... If he (Theophilus of Antioch) adapted the trinitarian conception - Father - Son and Pneuma (Spirit), it would then triumph at Nicaea -- from the Valentinian Theodotus, ..." Then, through the sect of the Origenists, the doctrine of the trinity spread all around inside of Christendom.

Third step: Forgery of the Holy Scriptures, by Marcion and others so that the doctrine of the trinity could be preached. From the Valentinian Theodotus, the Gnostic spread to the early apologists (Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, others) and to the Origenist sect. These apologists and the sect of Origenists will "adapt" this doctrine in Christian words and in this way, they will give to the Christendom a neo-pagan or neo-gnostic doctrine. At this time the quarrels about the correct interpretation of the doctrine of the trinity begin. According to the book "Resistance": "If he (Theophilus of Antioch) adapted the trinitarian conception - Father - Son and Pneuma (Spirit), it would then triumph at Nicaea -- from the Valentinian Theodotus, Bardesane was opposed to Marcion and he rejected the Demiurgical creation. According to Bardesane, the world was the work of a Good God, because, despite its imperfections, salvation enters into mankind's possibilities." (...)

"Ironically, the synod (in 268 at the Synod (Council) of Antioch) 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 (as parts of one trimorphic God)." (through the emperor Constantine The Great, a neo-pagan thinker...) ---

Strange... yes, this is so strange...

In this time was the Bible modified for the purpose of the trinitarian doctrine.

Is it not also strange that Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis? Was this absence accidental or intentional?

A must read in English:

http://www.godfire.net/baptizing_in_the_name.htm

http://www.trinitytruth.org/matthew28_19addedtext.html

 

For all who know Hungarian, a "must read":

About the one God 

Az egy Istenről 

http://aupv.blogspot.ro/2012/08/az-istenrol.html

 

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

The doctrine of the trinity could be a snowball that will melts.

 

6. How Marcion's lies influenced the rendering of the New Testament text

 

Early Christian apologetic sources show that the Gnostic Marcion was the greatest forger of the New Testament. His example was soon followed by others. But why did he do that?

 

According to Bishop Irenaeus, during the time his fellow Syrian Anicetus was Bishop of Rome, Bishop Polycarp visited Rome to discuss differences in the practices of the churches of Asia and Rome and give a helping hand against the heretics. Thus Irenaeus claims that during his visit to Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna refuted and converted many Marcionites, Valentinians, and other Gnostics.

 

Marcion (or Markion) in the ancient writings

 

Marcion was son of the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus. He is described as a wealty nautes, nauclerus, a ship owner, by Rhodon and Tertullian, who wrote about a generation after his death. Epiphanius (Haeres., XLII, ii) relates that Marcion in his youth professed to lead a life of chastity and asceticism, but, in spite of his professions, fell into sin with a young maiden. In consequence his father, the bishop, cast him out of the Church. He besought his father for reconciliation, i.e. to be admitted to ecclesiastical penance, but the bishop stood firm in his refusal. Not being able to bear with the laughter and contempt of his fellow townsmen, he secretly left Sinope.

Other sources say that in the middle it was a heresy, which led to heretical behavior. Unfortunately, he does not stop his heretical activity, but on the contrary, he becomes even more active, traveling everywhere and coming into contact with churches everywhere. Everywhere he goes - possibly as an undercover imperial agent (spy in charge of the authorities), he collects Old Testament writings and burns them, and New Testament texts fraudulently correct them so that they have nothing to do with the burned ones.

The historical context was favorable for such an activity, because after a long confrontation with the Jewish rebels, both in Judea and in the diaspora, the Roman authorities decided to outlaw the Jewish religion, Jewish practices and keeping the books of the Old Testament. Whoever was caught holding the books of the Old Testament was burned at the stake together like these books.

After hearing that the bishop of Rome had died, he presented himself there and became involved in the affairs of the church, holding disputes and wishing to be elected bishop. He threatens that if he is not elected bishop of Rome, he will create a conflict among Christians that will last forever.

 

“Moreover, it is obvious that Marcion was already a consecrated bishop. A layman could not have disputed on Scripture with the presbyters as he did, nor have threatened shortly after his arrival: "I will divide your Church and cause within her a division, which will last forever", as Marcion is said to have done; a layman could not have founded a vast and worldwide institution, of which the main characteristic was that it was episcopalian; a layman would not have been proudly referred to for centuries by his disciples as their first bishop, a claim not disputed by any of their adversaries, though many and extensive works were written against them; a layman would not have been permanently cast out of the Church without hope of reconciliation by his own father, notwithstanding his entreaties, for a sin of fornication, nor thereafter have become an object of laughter to his heathen fellow townsmen, if we accept the story of Epiphanius. A layman would not have been disappointed that he was not made bishop shortly after his arrival in a city whose see was vacant, as Marcion is said to have been on his arrival at Rome after the death of Hyginus." Catholic Encyclopedia

 

“We can take it for granted then, that Marcion was a bishop, probably an assistant or suffragan of his father at Sinope. Having fallen out with his father he travels to Rome, where, being a seafarer or shipowner and a great traveler, he already may have been known and where his wealth obtains him influence and position. If Tertullian supposes him to have been admitted to the Roman Church and Epiphanius says that he was refused admittance, the two statements can easily be reconciled if we understand the former of mere membership or communion, the latter of the acceptance of his claims. His episcopal dignity has received mention at least in two early writers, who speak of him as having "from bishop become an apostate" (Optatus of Mileve, IV, v), and of his followers as being surnamed after a bishop instead of being called Christians after Christ (Adamantius, "Dial.", I, ed. Sande Bakhuysen). Marcion is said to have asked the Roman presbyters the explanation of Matthew 9:16-17, which he evidently wished to understand as expressing the incompatibility of the New Testament with the Old, but which they interpreted in an orthodox sense. His final breach with the Roman Church occurred in the autumn of 144, for the Marcionites counted 115 years and 6 months from the time of Christ to the beginning of their sect. Tertullian roughly speaks of a hundred years and more. Marcion seems to have made common cause with Cerdo (q.v.), the Syrian Gnostic, who was at the time in Rome; that his doctrine was actually derived from that Gnostic seems unlikely. Irenaeus relates (Against Heresies III.3) that St. Polycarp, meeting Marcion in Rome was asked by him: Dost thou recognize us? and gave answer: I recognize thee as the first born of Satan. This meeting must have happened in 154, by which time Marcion had displayed a great and successful activity, for St. Justin Martyr in his first Apology (written about 150), describes Marcion's heresy as spread everywhere. These half a dozen years seem to many too short a time for such prodigious success and they believe that Marcion was active in Asia Minor long before he came to Rome. Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VII.7.106) calls him the older contemporary of Basilides and Valentinus, but if so, he must have been a middle-aged man when he came to Rome, and as previous propaganda in the East is not impossible. That the Chronicle of Edessa places the beginning of Marcionism in 138, strongly favors this view. Tertullian relates in 207 (the date of his Adv. Marc., IV, iv) that Marcion professed penitence and accepted as condition of his readmittance into the Church that he should bring back to the fold those whom he had led astray, but death prevented his carrying this out. The precise date of his death is not known." Catholic Enciclopedia

 

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

 

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

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

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

Gnostic party:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Comparison of the manuscripts made by scientists, shows that indeed

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

made.

 

About the tricks made in the text:

1 words intentionally omitted

2 words added intentionally

3. words intentionally changed

 

Dr. F H The Scrivener text critic writes:

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

 

7. The great similarity between Marcion's gospel and the Trinitarian gospel

 

When Christmas comes around, there is an old tradition in the Church songs; and these songs reveal that God became man, being born as Jesus.

Marcion's gospel began with the words; "In the fifteenth year of the Emperor Tiberius God descended in Capharnaum and taught on the Sabbaths" (Luke 3:1, 4:31).

We see a great resemblance here, although not in detail, but in general.

It is not surprising, because it is said that the Marcionite Church was the most numerous after the Apostolic Church and in some places even surpassed it in number. Then, in the year 316, the emperor Constantine the Great confiscated the patrimony of all the heretical churches and donated them to the Church fraction supported by him. During this time many heretics integrated into the state church, bringing with them their own theological concepts. It is possible that Marcion's version of the gospel continued in one form or another, being then adapted to the new requirements of the church of the empire.

 

Marcion's Gospel has been reconstructed from quotes taken from the works of others, with Tertullian contributing the most quotes and Epiphanius being the second most important source of text.

Luke: O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken (24:25) - Marcion: O foolish and hard of heart to believe in all that I have told you

Luke: They began to accuse him, saying, 'We found this man perverting our nation' (23:2) - Marcion: They began to accuse him, saying, 'We found this man perverting our nation [...] and destroying the law and the prophets.'

Luke: I thank Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth (10:21) - Marcion: I thank Thee, Heavenly Father...

As we can see, Marcion falsified the Gospel of Luke.

There are many other interesting forgeries, such as Galatians 1:1

The original: Paul, an apostle -- not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who did raise him out of the dead --

Marcion: Paul, an apostle, not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, who raised himself from the dead;

 

In both Marcion's and Trinity's doctrines, there are no two separate beings, the Father and His Son, but an ambiguous concept of a being that seems to have three parts, and one part of that being is called the Son.

 

And now let's see the beauty of biblical truth, compressed into a song. How plausible it sounds, compared to the speculations in Marcion's doctrine and the Trinitarian doctrine.

 

He Is Jehovah

 
1. He is Jehovah, God of creation.

He is Jehovah, Lord God Almighty.

The Balm of Gilead, the Rock of Ages.

He is Jehovah, the God that healeth thee.  

 

Chorus:
Sing Hallelujah, sing Hallelujah,

Sing Hallelujah, sing Hallelujah.

He is Jehovah, Lord God Almighty.

He is Jehovah, the God that healeth thee.

2.
He is the great I Am, the God of Abraham,

Jehovah Shalom, the God peace I am.

The God of Israel, the Everlasting One.

He is Jehovah, the God that healeth thee.

3.
He’s your Provider, Jehovah Jireh;

God of salvation, God of Messiah;

The Son he sent to you, and testified of him.

He is Jehovah, the God that healeth thee.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eDTFRZeHIA  

 

8. Why don't we have the divine name in the New Testament?

 

Why do the Jews forbid the utterance of God's name, and the name is hidden?

After the revolt of Bar Kochba (132–136 CE), the Roman authorities decided to completely ban any Jewish religious practice, punishing those who were caught reading the Holy Scriptures by burning at the stake. Those caught were severely punished, one being rabbi Haninah ben Teradion or Hananiah ben Teradion, who was a teacher in the third Tannaitic generation (2nd century). He was one of the Ten Martyrs murdered by the Romans for ignoring the ban on teaching Torah. Rabbi Chanina Ben Teradion using also God's divine name.

Here is some interesting things about this rabbi: "Lived in Eretz Israel: 1st & 2nd century AD. Rabbi Chanina was a third generation Tana. He lived in Sichnin, in the Lower Galilee. His colleague was R' Chalafta. He was one of the Ten Martyrs (Asarah Harugei Malchut).

He was the rosh yeshivah and head of the beit din in Sichnin.

R' Chanina was punished for pronouncing the Tetragrammaton in public, and his wife was punished to death for not preventing him for doing so. His daughter was punished also, being sold to be a prostituate, because she did not report it to the authorities, as required by the roman law.

Rabbi Chanina was sentenced to death by the Romans, for teaching Torah and holding public gatherings despite the government's prohibition against it. He was burnt at the stake on the 27 of Sivan, wrapped in the Torah scroll that he had been holding when he was arrested. Tufts of wool soaked in water were placed over his heart so that his death should be prolonged. His daughter Beruriah cried out, "Father, that I should see you like this!" Encyclopedia Judaica, Tzadikim

So, Rabbi Chanina was sentenced to death by the Romans, for using God's divine name in public speech, teaching Torah and holding public gatherings despite the government's prohibition against it:

1. No Jewish God

2. No Jewish Scriptures

3. No Jewish Assemblies

The ban lasted until the time of Emperor Severus (145-221), who built a synagogue for the Jews in Rome and gave them back the Holy Scriptures, captured by General Titus in 70, in Jerusalem.

During this period, the Jews used coded language in order to be able to communicate in such a way as not to attract attention. Thus, the divine name Jehovah was simply given the name "Hashem," meaning "Name," a tradition that remains even after the ban is lifted.

 

After the interdiction given by the Roman authorities, the heretical and roman agent-spy Marcion traveled all over the empire to confiscate the Hebrew writings in the Christian congregations. During this period, Marcionism flourished, which was not persecuted at all by the Roman authorities, considering it a pagan religion of theirs. And indeed, there has been such a view since the third century BC among Greek philosophers, who believed that their god was greater than the God of the Jews, exactly what Marcion preached.

 

During this time, Christians also renounced any use of the divine name in the New Testament, so as not to fall under the decree, which forbade any use of Jehovah's name.

 

The name of God in Greek biblical texts (Septuagint), it is a clear proof that the Christians of the first century knew the divine name, it being written in Hebrew in the text of the Septuagint.

http://www.eliyah.com/lxx.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint_manuscripts#Greek_Septuagint_manuscripts_with_Hebrew_YHWH

 https://www.google.ro/search?q=Septuaginta+yhwh+name&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=VnyrVJ6kHeahyAPstIDoCA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=917&gws_rd=cr

9. What is the pronunciation and meaning of the divine name?

 

The meaning of God's holy name according to an early Christian source, heard from the Jews of that time:

"That mystic name which is called the Tetragrammaton, ... means, Who is, and Who shall be" (Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, cites Clement of Alexandria's Stromata, Book V. Chapter 6:34, 2nd Century A.D. From The Catena On the Pentateuch, published in Latin by Francis Zephyrus, p. 146).

 

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, notice:

    “Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated the Tetragrammaton YHVH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters in the Greek text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the Old Testament in the first centuries A.D.” (Volume 2, p. 512).

 

Professor George Howard, of the University of Georgia, makes this comment: “When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations” (Biblical Archaeology Review, March 1978, p. 14). Why would they have had to do otherwise? Only then did they give up when listened to roman agent-spy Marcion of Sinope, being were frightened by the Roman ban, which forbade worship of Jehovah, the God of Israel.

 

"Another factor in dropping the Tetragrammaton from the Bible texts is that the Gentile “Christians” did not want to appear Jewish. From 66 A.D. to 135 A.D. there were several Jewish revolts that resulted in severe persecution by Roman authorities upon any who appeared Jewish. Most of the Jewish Christians were killed by the Romans, leaving mostly “Gentile” Christians. These Gentile Christians wanted to appease the Roman authorities and gain approval amongst Romans in general. To accomplish this they began to discard almost anything that made them look in the least bit Jewish. The Greek philosophies were placed on a par with the Scriptures (see 2 Timothy 6:20-21). Under these circumstances all scriptures containing the Divine Name were destroyed, leaving only copies that contained the substitutes, kyrios or theos."

The True Pronunciation of the Sacred Name – By John D. Keyser

 

The Name of Elohim (God): Yehowah or Yehovah?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uaZ4NgLk0

 

„36 Reasons the NAME of the GOD of Israel is YEHOWAH.wmv

By Ariel Yehosef Yehuda

This video shows 36 reasons why YEHOWAH is the NAME of the ONE TRUE GOD and why yahweh and yahuwah can not be the NAME. These reasons are easy to understand. You don't have to be an expert in Hebrew. For example, there are 19 names that start with the prefix YEHO and 14 names that start with YO. Both are short for YEHOWAH.Together these names make 33 reasons. You will have to watch the video for the remaining 3 reasons.

As I have watched this video I see where I have made several mistakes in pronounciation and I used Yehudi instead of Yehudim. Please look at the big picture. After all, I am a carpenter and not a scholar.

Yehowah said HIS people would know HIS NAME Isa.52:6 and that we would be called by it. 2 Chron. 7:14 Ari”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEvdqPMvccY

 

10. How accurate is the Yahweh pronunciation?

 

Some argue that this pronunciation is true because it is found in the expression "Hallelujah." This would be correct if the syllable Yah in the word Hallelujah "Praise ye Jah"  were not a contraction of the name.

 

Based on this assumption, that Jah is the first part of the divine name and not a contraction of it, the Yahwist movement was formed, creating more ideas about what the end of our Heavenly Father's name should sound like, with: -weh, -owa, -uah, etc. (Yah-weh, Yah-owa, Yah-uah).

Yahwist Groups:

Assemblies of YHWHHOSHUA

Assemblies of Yah

Assemblies of Yahvah

Assemblies of Yahweh Bethel, PA.

Assemblies of the Called Out Ones of Yah

Assembly of Yahweh Easton Rapids, MI.

Bible Study Association

Church of God (Jerusalem)

Missionary Dispensary Bible Research

New Life Fellowship

Scripture Research Association

Workers Together with Elohim

Yahweh's Assembly of Messiah

Yah Servants

Servants of Yahweh

 

But if Jah is a contraction - and contains the first and the last letter of the divine name and not the compact first part of the name, the Yahwist movement missed the right point.

A contraction is a shortened version of the spoken and written forms of a word, syllable, or word group, created by omission of internal letters and sounds.

There is still a linquistic "battlefield" if Yah is or not a contraction of the tetragrammaton's so called "matres lectionis" YHWH, because in some cases it appears together with the long form of the name: "Yah Yehowah". But this can be a poetic game of expression, as we meet today in many cases, even on Facebook profiles: Vio Violeta, Emi Emilia, Ralu Raluca, and many others.

 

Another problem is the problem of syllables. The bisyllabic YH-WH broke the natural form of the verb HW. So the divine name is thisyllabic in meaning: Y-HW-H

"If one understands that the four Hebrew letters represent four vowels, rather than four consonants, then the Name is best represented by the four sounds I-A-U-E or ee-ah-oo-eh. If you pronounce these rapidly you will get the combined sound in English. This appears to agree with Josephus [1st-century Jewish historian], with the Greek transliterations, and the 500 BC Murashu text. It would be written in English as YAHUEH, not strictly YAHWEH, which is the consonantal form. The problem with this proposal is the question of MEANING! These four sounds appear to mean NOTHING in Hebrew, and they lose their connection with the verb hayah, "to be," upon which the Divine Name appears to be based. Hebrew names are supposed to carry meaning, how much more the case with the very Name of God! (...)

"The combination YE-HO-AH makes better grammatical sense. In Hebrew "YE" represents the future or imperfect of the verb "to be," "HO" represents the present, while "AH" represents the past. In other words, this form of the Name would have specific meaning and not be merely a repetition of vowel sounds. Quite literally YEHOAH means "shall/is/was" -- that is, the Eternal, the Ever-living One who will be, is and always was. This is WHY I prefer the pronunciation YEHOAH, or even the more popular form, YEHOVAH, since it clearly reflects this profound meaning. YAH would then be the contracted, or shortened form, of this full Name, taking the first and last sounds together" (Restoring Abrahamic Faith, Genesis 2000, Charlotte, NC. 28256. 1993, p. 11).

 

Problem with the „E” letter?

If you considered a problem the fact that all three Semitic languages (Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic) were written originally without vowels.

I put this question to understand that is not a problem, even if the Hebrew alphabet does not have a letter ‘E’. It is clear that this „E” letter is a composed letter with other letters, like LHM or EL+OH+IM.

11. Yahshua or Yeshua?

 

The name Yeshua is a theophoric name, from Ye + shua, Ye means a shorter form of the divine name "YHWH" and shua "will save". In Hebrew Scripture, there are three shorter variants of the divine name: Ye and Yo at the beginning of the word as a prefix, and yah at the end as the suffix of the word. Can it be Yah + shua?

I took the synthesis from Wikipedia.

”Yahshua is a proposed transliteration of ישוע‎, the original Hebrew name of Jesus. The pronunciation Yahshua is philologically impossible in the original Hebrew and has no support in archeological findings, such as the Dead Sea scrolls or inscriptions, nor in rabbinical texts as a form of Joshua. Scholarship generally considers the original form of Jesus to be Yeshua, a Hebrew Bible form of Joshua.

The pronunciation of the older, longer name as Yehoshua is attested to since ancient times. In Hebrew (which normally writes only consonants), Yehoshua starts with the same two letters as Yahweh. The new pronunciation was produced by incorporating the pronunciation of the first syllable of Yahweh into Yehoshua, producing Yah-shua.

The pronunciation of Yahshua is impossible on a number of levels. It violates basic Hebrew phonology, as Hebrew linguistics do not allow the waw (ו), as in יהושע (Yehoshua), to be silent. The pronunciation Yahshua likewise cannot be found with that spelling anywhere in history, in writings in Hebrew or otherwise, prior to the 1900s.

 

Hebrew scholar Michael Brown emphatically denies that "Yahshua" was the Hebrew name of Jesus:

 

    The original Hebrew-Aramaic name of Jesus is yeshu'a, which is short for yehōshu'a (Joshua), just as Mike is short for Michael... Why then do some people refer to Jesus as Yahshua? There is absolutely no support for this pronunciation — none at all — and I say this as someone holding a Ph.D. in Semitic languages. My educated guess is that some zealous but linguistically ignorant people thought that Yahweh's name must have been a more overt part of our Savior's name, hence YAHshua rather than Yeshua — but again, there is no support of any kind for this theory... The original form of the name Jesus is yeshu'a, and there is no such name as yahshu'a (or, yahushua or the like).

 

    So, for the record, once again, THERE IS NO SUCH NAME AS YAHSHUA. It didn't exist in biblical times and it has not existed as a genuine Hebrew name in history — until people who really didn't understand Hebrew made it up, thinking that it somehow restored the "Yah" element (from "Yahweh") into the Savior's name... there's no such either as Yahushua — Joshua was pronounced ye-ho-shu-ah.”

No comment!

 

12. About the ancient battle lead by Gnostic leaders and their followers against God's divine name

 

If we compare many Christian Bible translations with the ancient Hebrew biblical manuscripts, we will see that God's divine name - YHWH - was removed from this Bibles, being replaced with the Lord. WHY and HOW was this possible?

See the route.

Plato (427 BC - 347 BC) was a philosopher of ancient Greece and the founder of the Academy of Athens. He claimed that God is so great that he cannot be described by name, so he cannot have a personal name. He received this idea from the Pythagoreans, according to Hippolytus of Rome.

Pythagoreans originated in the 6th century BC, based on the teachings and beliefs held by Pythagoras, who mixed religion with mathematics, creating the theology of numbers (mystical numerology) - for whom the first existing thing was the Monad, which begat the Dyad, which begat the Numbers, which begat the Point, Begetting lines, and so on. Pythagoras established the first Pythagorean community in Crotone, Greek Italy and soon Pythagorean communities spread throughout Magna Graecia.

Pythagoras, however, called the first God name Monad.

The Monad in Gnosticism is an adaptation of concepts of the Monad in Greek philosophy to Christian gnostic belief systems.

The term monad comes from the Greek feminine noun monas (nominative singular, μονάς), "one unit," where the ending -s in the nominative form resolves to the ending -d in declension.

In some gnostic systems, the Supreme Being is known as the Trimorphic Monad or Trinity (Apocryphon of John, written c. 180). The Gnostics believed that this Monad was far superior to the God Yehowah of the Jews, with whom they did not want to associate.

Unfortunately, this current of thought was also propelled in the Christian circles of Rome, by Justin Martyr, a controversial philosopher from the Christian sect of the Encratites.

Gnostics and semi-Gnostics or neo-Gnostics infiltrated into Christianity did not settle for open or disguised sermons in allegories against Christianity, but resorted to falsifying the Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to bring the text to their side. The greatest forger of all time was the spy agent of the Roman authorities, Marcion of Sinope.

Unfortunately, to this day most Christians follow the Gnostics and their leader, Marcion, unwilling to associate with the Jewish name of God. Can't God really have a name for himself? Why should we go endlessly on the Gnostic chain of renouncing the divine name? Should We Be Ashamed of Our Heavenly Father's Name?

 

13. The history of Bible forgery

 

The falsification of the Old Testament began in the Hellenistic period. It seems that a rival party, the Samaritans, made their own version and got into conflicting disputes with Jewish theologians from Jerusalem. The issue reached the king's table in Alexandria and summoned two prominent Samaritan theologians to a debate with theologians from Jerusalem. Defeated in the debate, the two Samaritan theologians were sentenced to death by the king.

But in addition to the Samaritan party, two more parties appeared and each made its own text: the Hellenistic party and the Ascetic (Essene) party.

Apart from these, there were also versions made by various intellectuals from the Greek world.

In one of these versions at Genesis 1:1 it was said that a god named "the Beginning" made the God who made the heavens and the earth. In another version opposed to this idea, texts that were formulated in the plural, such as "Let us make man in our image ..." (Genesis 1:26) were made to sound in the singular "Let I make man, in my image". We see here the attempt to expound their doctrines in Scriptural form.

In another version, this time of the ascetics, it was said that there is a greater god to whom all the lesser gods must worship.

After rival parties made their own versions, the problem of a correct version came back to the Greek king of Alexandria. Thus came a standard translation, approved by the king, but disliked in Jerusalem. It was called the Septuagint.

In order to reconcile, the leaders of the three factions were summoned to Jerusalem and it was proposed to them to make a common version, on which there would be no quarrels. Thus appeared a standard Hebrew version, approved by the authorities and parties in Jerusalem. And, in the courtyard of the second temple, a room was set up to correct manuscripts that had errors inside, and not seems like the official text.

 

But what is the history of the forgery of the New Testament?

The oldest Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus, contains the full version of the New Testament and was written in Greek between 330 and 350 AD on cowhide, and was kept by the monks of St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai. But this text is not the oldest. There are much older texts. And unfortunately there are significant differences between them, which show that some of the texts have been falsified.

Let's read some statements regarding sthis very important thing regarding falsification:

Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener: "In the second century we have seen too many instances of attempts to tamper with the text of Scripture, some merely injudicious, others positively dishonest".

G.D. Kilpatrick: "Deliberate changes in all text types appear to antedate A.D. 200... Tatian is the last author to make deliberate changes. The vast majority of deliberate changes were older then A.D. 200. They came into being in the period A.D. 50-200"

Ernest Cadman Colwell: "The first two centuries witnessed the creations of the large number of variations known to scholars today. In the manuscripts of the New Testament most variations, I believe, were made deliberately."

From the description we see that Tatian is not the first forger, but the last. So there were others before him, with similar concerns. Marcion of Sinope, who was the spy agent of the pagan, Roman authorities, is considered the greatest forger of all time.

Who was this "last" author Tatian who make deliberate changes in the New Testament's manuscripts, and who were that before him?

Tatian was the pupil and student of Justin Martyr. Justin was a pagan philosopher, from I-II century, who became a Christian, but still remain a philosopher, who join in the sect of encratites. Unfortunately after his conversion to Christianity, he holds some strange views, believing that God is a nameless God, who has no name and can not have a name. From where was this belief? From Pytagora and Plato via the movement of the Gnostics, who rejected Yehowah, the God of the Old Testament.

But does the New Testament show anything about these gnostics? Yes.

If we read 1John 2:19 and 1 John 4:5 we will see that in the last part of the first century, some believers left the apostolic assemblies and teach distorted things about some Christian teachings. They became known under the name the Gnostics. Wanting to be popular in the worlds eyes, they stated to mix Christianity, with pagan concepts, taken from pagan philosophers (Hermes, Plato, etc.).

We have also a very interesting statement from an early so called "Church Father" Dionysius:

"When my fellow Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles (plural) 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".

Please remember what he wrote about this very evil people: "taking away some things and adding others", a very complex thing.

Tatian's, II century "Diatessaron" was so corrupted (eliminating the genealogies and all passages referring to Lord Jesus's Jewish descent) that in later years a bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies.

So, they created a so confusion in the biblical texts, that F.C. Kenyon must wrote:

"At the first each book had its single original text, which it is now the object of criticism to recover, but in the first two centuries this original Greek text disappeared under a mass of variants, created by errors, by conscious alterations, and by attempts to remedy the uncertainties thus created."

Let’s see a famous example of corruption: Codex Sinaiticus, Syriacus, Sahidicus and other witnesses that in 2Peter 1:1 the text says Lord (in nomina sacra on CSin) and Savior, not God and Savior.

So, no wonder WHY and HOW they have succeeded to change what they want an even to delete the divine name of God, from the New Testament, in order not to fall under the criminal incidence of the Roman law, which took Yehowah God and the writings about Him out of the law. But time always tells the truth!

Unfortunately, these forgeries were standardized by the immense neo-Gnostic activity of the neo-Gnostic school of Alexandria, and especially of Origen and his sect. Thus we come to the Council of Antioch (267, 268), which proposes to the scholar Lucian of Antioch to compile a complete version of the Bible, without these forgeries. Unfortunately, this Bible has been lost, but we find quotations from it in the historian Eusebius of Caesarea, who quotes Matthew 28:19 differently.

 

14. Questions about God's Name, regarding the New Testament

 

Should be the divine name used in the New Testament? Opinions are divided and some are very opposed. For example, a Baptist translator made a New Testament in which - in some places - he put the divine name. This fact aroused so much the indignation of his superiors, that they threatened him with exclusion, if he did not make another edition in which to remove this name from the pages of the New Testament.

They said: "You have not shown any single statement of Jesus in which the word YHVH will fit! Jesus is not recorded as using the YHVH word ever. That has no meaning for you apparently. Why not follow Jesus? Why is this so difficult?"

So the brother turned back and removed the divine name from his translation.

Why do some desperately try to stop the restoration of the divine name in the New Testament? They say there is no evidence.

Is there really no evidence? Or they do not know about this?

Whose voice is in Revelation 19:5 compared with Revelation 3:21? Father's or Son's voice? And if that Person - who have this voice - agrees or not to use the divine name in worship, compare with Revelation 19:6?

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Revelation 3:21

"And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great." Revelation 19:5

"And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Hallelu-Yah! For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." Revelation 19:6

Now, here we see that Alleluia – Halleluyah in Hebrew, means "Praise ye Jah" – a shorther form Yehowah, is a prominent part in this thanksgiving.

Now, why does this Person on the throne - who is King Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior - not stop them? “Stop, stop, good people! Do not use the divine name! Just tell him Lord, God, Father, Almighty etc ...! Only the divine name does not! It's too holy! Is prohibited!"

However, the argument that Lord Jesus never used the divine name is uncertain because we do not have the original manuscripts. So this is just hypothetical.

 

Because we have no early copies of Greek texts of the New Testaments with God's divine name inside, this could be a sure proof that in the Lord Jesus time, the divine name was forgotten - as some say? No. This could be just an argument for a hypothetis, but not a proof.

After World War II, the leadership of a Christian group make a request of their head associates to look for evidence if there was a manuscript containing the divine name. They found the Hebrew Shem Tov version, which had the substitution "hashem" meaning "the name" instead of Adonay - Lord. Then came the Hebrew versions of DuTillet, Munster and that of the former Catholic priest Nestor and a form discussed "Maryah" in the Aramaic version. All this can be brought as clues.

In a Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew, the Lord Jesus makes a blessing when he meets his female supporters: Matthew 28: 9 And behold, Jesus greeted them, saying, "Hashem (Jehovah) save you."  ... Shem Tob Version.

Professor George Howard - who translated this version - claims that it contains the oldest form of the gospel, although over time two scribes have modified the original text in some places. One of the scribes introduced heresies into the text, and the other Europeanized the text.

Was the divine name pronounced during the time of our Lord Jesus?

Could Lord Jesus have used the phrase "Hashem (Jehovah) save you." Or was the text edited by a copyist?

Yes, it would have been possible to say a blessing, as a form of greeting, because it was a practice among the Jews, for the greetings to begin with a blessing.

"Any benediction in which the DIVINE NAME is not mentioned is no benediction." Talmud - Berachoth 40b

How could this be possible if the divine name was not known?

Some say that an allusion was made to the divine name, as in Shem Tob's version: May the Name bless you!

"In the temple they pronounced the DIVINE NAME as it is written, but in the country by its substitute." Mishna - Tamid 7:2, Talmud - Tamid 33b

"During the Second Temple period the TETRAGRAMMATON was pronounced during the ceremony of blessing the people by the priests and in other prayers, but only in the Temple. Outside of it the substitution Adonai (Lord) was used." The Classic Midrash - Tannaitic Commentary On The Bible, Reuven Hammer, Paulist Press, p 168

But even if some had done so, would Lord Jesus have used such a such substitute?

These texts clearly show that the divine name was used in the Temple, IN PUBLIC, so people would have known about it:

"Our Rabbis taught: Ten times did the high priest pronounce the NAME on that day: Three times at the first confession, thrice at the second confession, thrice in connection with the he-goat to be sent away, and once in connection with the lots." Talmud - Yoma 39b

This is why a critic of those who refused to accept that the divine name was in use in the first century AD wrote the following: „There are many other references, but these few demonstrate that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced during and before the times of Jesus. Thus, the assertion that "the Tetragrammaton was not pronounced at all" is pure myth - an habitual occurrence in modern biblical scholarship - yet, it is a myth that is unfortunately perpetuated ad nauseam, in spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary." (Restoring Abrahamic Faith, Genesis 2000, Charlotte, NC. 28256. 1993).

What arguments can some make against this clear evidence that the divine name was known in public? Very weak. They say that it was not heard because the blessing was sung and the priests deliberately made a great noise so that the divine name would not be heard, because they did not want the people to know it.

WELL, IF THE NOISE WAS SO GREAT, HOW COULD ANYONE KNOW  HOW MANY TIMES THE HIGH PRIEST SAYS THE DIVINE NAME IN ONE DAY?

“Our rabbis taught us: ten times the high priest pronounced the NAME (of God) that day: three times at the first confession, three times at the second confession, three times about the goat to be sent, and once in connection with the plots (cultivated land). "Talmud - Yoma 39b

And even if that were the case, would Lord Jesus have done the same, hiding the divine name from the public? Let us remember that his mother was from the priestly family, so from Aaron's family. Certainly in this priestly class the divine name and its pronunciation were known.

An important note!

"but only in the Temple" is not fully correct. Exist others who pronounced it also outside the Temple. There is evidence that rabbis did not fully obey the ban. In a ritual - spoken in a whisper - the disciples were initiated by the rabbis into the mystery of the use of the divine name.

See a great example:

Rabbi Chanina was punished for pronouncing the Tetragrammaton in public gatherings, reading the Torah in public, and his wife and his daughter was punished for not preventing him for doing so. This was in the second century, after the Jewish revolt ended in 135 (according to the book Aboda Zara).

He was sentenced to death in the fire by the Romans, for teaching Torah and holding public gatherings despite the pagan Roman government's prohibition against  the Jewish God, against the Jewish Holy Scriptures and against the Jewish Holy Assemblies.

 

15. Is this excuse well-founded?

 

Some claim that they do not want to use the Divine Name because its pronunciation is uncertain, and they do not want to defame God. However, they are not so strict about the name of the Lord Jesus. The name Jesus has many variants or dialects: Jeshua, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Isa, etc. Does this mean that someone will be rejected by the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? I do not believe. Why then would Heavenly Father do otherwise, for a letter or two said differently than in the original?

 

Presentation of some technical data for YHWH, the Divine Name's letters

Latin differs from the Hebrew alphabet and has a special player. The "official" Hebrew alphabet has only consonants, 22 in number. However, these consonants are a kind of group of letters, and they have the voice itself, such as groups of letters from Romanian: ce, ci, ge, gi, che, chi, ghe, ghi. Each letter in Hebrew has a triple meaning: a graphic sign representing a sound, a number and an idea.

Here are the Hebrew alphabet letters:

alef, bet, ghimel, dalet, he, waw, zain, het, tet, iod, kaf, lamed, mem, nun, sameh, ain, pe, ţadi, kof, reş, şin, taw

Sometimes the Hebrew consonants, may take the form of vowels only!

These are: א aleph, ה he, ו waw and י yod

Everywhere we read the divine name (Tetragramma) it is composed of "four consonants". Some write Tetragramma as YHWH and others YHVH. Which form then is correct? In terms of the old Hebrew, Biblical Hebrew, YHWH form would be appropriate, because the consonant V does not exist in ancient Hebrew. But considering that in modern Hebrew there is a consonant V (e.g. „Hava nagila ve-nismeha" means „Let's rejoice and be happy"), thus YHVH is correct too. But are these letters really consonants? Apparently, "yes", but in terms of pronunciation "no." Let's see why ...

Josephus Flavius, the great Jewish historian of the first century, wrote that the divine name was composed of four vowels! Reading over all, the divine name is composed of four consonants, I wondered whether it may have been a wrong rendering of a copyist, perhaps he copied something wrong from that book of Josephus ... But, one evening, reading some documentary in Hungarian -- about the old and contemporary Hebrew grammar - it was confirmed that Josephus wrote truth. So there is no wrong translation of a copyist, as I wondered, because Josephus' testimony is in harmony with the linguists. And as a big surprise, the testimony of Josephus is in harmony with the pagan priest Sanchuniathon of Beirut (IX century BC), which was informed by a priest named Jerubbaal, a Hebrew. Sanchuniathon (via Eusebius [104] (c. 315)) wrote; that the name of the God of the Hebrews was Ieuō: - So, only vowels, as Josephus writes.

The question is whether Sanchuniaton properly transliterated the divine name or not? However, what he wrote, confirms Josephus.

Josephus had to know, for he was from the nation of priests. So the divine name YHWH not contains „consonants and vowels", only just vowels, called "matres lectionis", meaning "mothers of reading".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_lectionis

Besides these two witnesses (Sanchuniathon and Josephus), we have other early witnesses who „witness" that the divine name has vowels only:

ֹIouō, Koine: Pistis Sophia (2nd cent.)

ֹIeou, Koine: Pistis Sophia (2nd cent.)

ֹIe-ee-ōoua: Pistis Sophia (2nd cent.)

ֹIeōa Hellenistic magical texts [105] (2nd-3rd Centuries), collected by M. Kyriakakes (2000)

I put these examples not because I support magic, we do not recommend using the divine name in this matter. These are simply resources. Besides, using (black/dark) magic is an abomination in the eyes of God.

All these early "witnesses" (Sanchuniathon, Josephus and Hellenistic magical texts) "confess" that the construction of the divine name's phonetics have vowels only in speech.

Deci, am putea scrie intr-adevar IEHOWAH, YEHOWAH or YEHOVAH, dar sa pronuntam IEOUA, or IEOA, or IEUA, or IEHOVAH, IEHOWAH. I don't think God would reject us for a letter or two said a little differently.

That's why I don't think the excuse is justified. I rather suspect that they have theological subterfuges, dressed in this way. The divine name is not intended to be written or pronounced, as it would facilitate the adoption of non-Trinitarian ideas in churches. Would people better understand who God is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or only the Father?

 

16. Final words:

A message for all Christians everywhere, regardless of denomination

 

We must not underestimate or exaggerate the role of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. His Father is greater then he.

John 10:29

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.

John 14:28

“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Jesus is the Son of God, who came from heaven to make us children of God and to share in the blessings of God's congregation (John 3:16, John 17: 1-3).

What is a Church (Assembly) of God and the Lord Jesus Christ?

First, the Church is the House of God (1 Timothy 3: 15a), and in this House is order and peace (1 Corinthians 14:33, Ephesians 4: 3, Hebrews 12:14). If the congregation is the house of God, then all the churches (congregations) belong to God the Father (1 Corinthians 11:16, 2 Thessalonians 1: 4) and to His Son (Romans 16:16).

Because it is the House of God the Father, the Church (Assembly) of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ must be faithful to God the Father in all things, through the teaching given by his Son sent from heaven (John 7:16, John 6:29, John 3:13,16). God the Father has thus determined that the Lord Jesus Christ will be the Head of this Assembly, and no one should be a head or a substitute for him, for He lives forever and ever and is present in the life of the Church led by Him (Colossians 1:18). , Matthew 18:20).

Second, God determined this Assembly to be the pillar and foundation of truth, and it was given to its Head all authority in heaven and on earth (1 Timothy 3:15b, Matthew 28:18). Therefore, in this Assembly you can learn and practice nothing but Christian teachings and practices, and those in charge of overseeing the Assembly cannot tolerate teachings and practices that contradict what our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ preached (John 14: 6, 2 John 9, Revelation 2:20).

What is the role of the members of the Church of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Its members are disciples and servants of the Lord Jesus (Acts 11:26), saints (1 Corinthians 1: 2), brothers (Matthew 12:50), children, and servants of God (John 1: 12,13; 1 Peter 2:16). ), witnesses of the Lord Jesus (Acts 1: 8; 2:32), witnesses of God (1 Corinthians 15:15 - compare Isaiah 43: 10-12), having the great honor of being considered God's chosen ones for salvation (Colossians 3:12).

What were the first Christians called?

If they are based solely on the Word of God (1 Corinthians 4: 6), they are not a new denomination or religious organization guided by the faith or ambitions of a founder, but an assembly (church) in the biblical (classical) sense of the word - founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and approved by God. That is why the brothers and sisters in the congregation should be content with the biblical, New Testament names. Thus, according to the Holy Scriptures, they are "the assembly of God" (1 Corinthians 1: 2), but also the "assembly of Christ" (Romans 16:16; see also Matthew 16:18), or the "assembly" which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ '(1 Thessalonians 1: 1), or' the gathering of God in Christ Jesus' (1 Thessalonians 2:14), or 'the gathering of the saints' (1 Corinthians 14:33).

All their ordinances, teachings, and practices must be fully based on the Word of God (one hundred percent) and in every action be guided by the spirit of God (2 Timothy 3: 16,17; John 14:26). That is why they should not neglect the Word of God, but should study it thoroughly on the principle of "do not go over what is written" (1 Corinthians 4: 6).

Given that there are currently several versions of the Bible, which sometimes differ in very important detail, the question is which version should be chosen by Christians who want to be biblical (classics)?

In the book "Dilemmas of Faithfulness," Dr. Emanuel Conţac, a lecturer at the Faculty of Pentecostal Theology, outlines an interesting factor to study, namely the legacy by which you read and translate the Bible, if you are a translator.

From the presentation of the book: "This approach starts from the premise that every researcher of Scripture approaches the text of Scripture with a grid of prior interpretation. This hermeneutic grid or lens predisposes the researcher to a certain interpretation and, therefore, to a certain translation. "Because the interpretation grid functions as a true Procustian bed, the writer of Scripture has a duty to examine his own assumptions, constantly interacting with the views expressed by researchers who do not share his hermeneutic grid." Stephanus Publishing

How can Christians with deep biblical aspirations avoid this trap of the pre-interpretation (hence partisan) grid inherited from various translators?

Only if they love the truth. He who loves the truth will know it as Lord Jesus presents it (John 17:17).

 

Read more about God:

A must read in Hungarian

For all who know Hungarian, a "must read":

  About the „one” God 

Az egy Istenről 

http://aupv.blogspot.ro/2012/08/az-istenrol.html  

In the service of God and His Son,

Old Christian

2022