Part 2



Did the Magi do PROSKYNEO to the babe Jesus as to one born a King or as God Almighty? Surely it was the former. The word at Matthew 2:11 has the same sense of "worship" or "obeisance" that the Canaanites recieved from Abraham(Gen 23:7, 12.LXX),or that Esau recieved from his brother Jacob(Gen.33:3, 6, 7.LXX) and toward Daniel from King Nebuchadnezzar(Daniel 2:46,LXX). When we "bow down to," or do "worship"(PROSKYNEO) towards one that is not Jehovah God then that "worship" is different from that which we give to Him. But in the Bible the same word is used whether such "worship" is that directed toward God, or men, or angels(creatures). The New World Translation is no more inconsistent in it's treatment of this word than the Revised English Bible.

Whilst the REV has "bowed down"[PROSKYNEO] at Matthew 2:11 in respect of the Magi towards Jesus, it renders PROSKYNEO at John 4:23,24 as "worship" when Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that :
"God is spirit,and those who worship[PROSKYNEO] him must worship[PROSKYNEO] in spirit and truth."
At Revelation 3:9 Jesus says, according to the King James Version:
"Behold, I will make them of the synogogue of Satan....behold, I will make them to come down and worship[PROSKYNEO] before thy feet."

Did Jesus mean to contradict himself here when earlier he had said that only God should be worshipped? (Matthew 4:10.) Of course not. It is simply that PROSKYNEO can be, as has already been shown, to have the sense of "bowing down" as to a superior or the giving of honour, respect. Hence, most modern Bible versions i.e. NIV, TEV, REB do not so render PROSKYNEO here, Rev.3:9, as "worship".

Therefore, at this point, we should be able to see that it would _not_ be inconsistent to render PROSKYNEO at times as "to do obeisance," or at times "worship".
The English word "worship" to a reader or the Bible _might_ lead them to think that that in itself is 'proof' that Jesus is God for only God should be "worshipped". They might consider when coming across "worship" toward Jesus(in any translation that does so)as "adoration paid to God."-The New Universal Dictionary. That is the first definition given. But not the only one. This same dictionary also defines the English word "worship" as "the quality of being worthy; honour, respect, reverence...submissive respect." Hence, even though a translator would choose to always translate PROSKYNEO as "worship" this would be no proof that Jesus is God and hence, consequently, the converse would also be true: That to render PROSKYNEO as "obeisance" when given to Jesus would not be "remov[ing] every reference to Jesus' being worshiped." What this means is that we must not read too much into translations that choose to translate PROSKYNEO as "worship" in reference to Jesus as if that then shows that Jesus, the Son, must be God. The Greek word itself does not show this. Hence, the translator's theology has a rightful role to play in the choice of the English rendering of PROSKYNEO.

Some would object to the New World Translation's position here because they believe that Jesus is God. But it has first to be accepted that the word PROSKYNEO can be rendered the way the NWT, and indeed others, have so done. And that it is wholly incorrect to call it a "NWT adaptation" or an "inconsistency"! But the question remains:

Why has the NWT rendered it as "obeisance" when it is used in reference to Jesus?
It would be best here to let The Watchtower magazine of November 15th, 1970 answer. It says, partly:
" While some translators use the word "worship" in the majority of cases where proskyneo describes persons' actions toward Jesus, the evidence does not warrant one's reading too much into this rendering. Rather, the circumstances that evoked the obeisance correspond very closely with those producing obeisance to the earlier prophets and kings. (Compare Matthew 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20 with 1 Samuel 25:23, 24; 2 Samuel 14:4-7; 1 Kings 1:16; 2 Kings 4:36, 37.)

"The very expressions of those involved often reveal that, while they clearly recognized Jesus as God's representative, they rendered obeisance to him, not as to God or a deity, but as "God's Son," the foretold "Son of man," the Messiah with divine authority.- Matt. 14:32, 33; 28:5-10, 16-18; Luke 24:50-52; John 9:35, 38. While earlier prophets and also angels had accepted obeisance, Peter stopped Cornelius from rendering such to him. And the angel (or angels) of John's vision twice stopped John from doing so, referring to himself as a "fellow slave"and concluding with the exhortation to "worship God."-Acts 10:25, 26; Rev. 19:10; 22:8, 9.

"Evidently Christ's coming had brought in new relationships affecting standards of conduct toward others of God's servants. He taught his disciples that "one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers . . . your Leader is one, the Christ." (Matt. 23:8-12) For it was in him that the prophetic figures and types found their fulfillment, even as the angel told John that "the bearing witness to Jesus is what inspires prophesying." (Rev. 19:10) Jesus was David's Lord, the greater than Solomon, the prophet greater than Moses. (Luke 20:41-43; Matt. 12:42; Acts 3:19-24) The obeisance rendered those men prefigured that due Christ. Peter therefore rightly refused to let Cornelius make too much of him. So, too, John, by virtue of having been declared righteous or justified by God as an anointed Christian, called to be a heavenly son of God and a member of his Son's kingdom, was in a different relationship to the angel(s) of the revelation than were the Israelites to whom angels earlier appeared. As the apostle Paul had written: "Do you not know that we shall judge angels?" (1 Cor. 6:3) The angel(s) evidently recognized this change of relationship when rejecting John's obeisance. On the other hand, Christ Jesus has been exalted by his Father to a position second only to God, so that "in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."- Phil. 2:9-11; compare Daniel 7:13, 14, 27."
One Catholic critic has recently stated:

"The point is that legitimate bibles use the word[proskyneo]consistently, and let the reader interpret its meaning - which can mean either our traditional use of the word today - being 'adoration' or simply just 'obeisance'. My point is that the NWT should not impose its theology by dicing up 'proskuneo' between obeisance and worship - one to apply to Jesus and other creatures and the other to God. Translate the Greek word consistently, and then try and explain passages that appear to go against your interpretation. The Watchtower does the exact opposite. It imposes its theology on 'proskuneo' to take the 'difficulty' out of the interpretation. To me, that is an abomination"

He said this after quoting the Jerusalem Bible in passages in Matthew where proskyneo is used toward Jesus. But if this gentleman had checked this up with another Catholic translation the New American Bible of 1986 he might have been more restrained in his comments toward the WTB&TS and the New World Translation. In actual fact the New American Bible is not as consistent as he probably would like. Though the NAB does translate proskyneo as "homage" at Matthew 2:2,8,11; 8:2; 9:18: 14:33; 15:25; 18:26; 20:20; 28:9 it does not do so at Matthew 28:17. Would this critic call the NAB here at this place "an abomination" because of failing to be "consistent" with the other places it translates the word as "homage"? The Revised English Bible has done exactly the same. Another Bible translation that was also not "consistent" at Matthew 28:17 because it rendered proskyneo differently than the other places cited above? See also Barclay's translation. But going back to the New American Translation. If one looks up in how it has translated proskneo at Mark 5:6; Luke 24:52; John 9:38 we can see that it does not measure up to this critic level of consistency for in those places in Mark and Luke it is rendered as "prostrated" and "homage" respectively yet in John 9:38 as "worship." So when the critic says "The point is that legitimate bibles use the word[proskyneo]consistently, and let the reader interpret its meaning" has he not charged the Catholic New American Bible as one that is not "legitimate"? Does he feel that same way toward the New American Bible as he does toward the New World Translation : "To me, that is an abomination." Yet the New American Bible has the nihil obstat and imprimatuer of the Catholic Church. Has he not called an "abomination" that which has the witness of his own Catholic Church that it is a faithful translation of the Holy Word? Of course, neither the New World Translation or any other Bible translation including the New American Bible "dices" up "'proskuneo' between "obeisance" and "worship." Any glance at a good Greek lexicon as can be seen above will make that charge a lie.(See also Hebrews 1:6)

From another source: [basically Hebrew translators and scholars]

Since Mitchell Gray asked the question about "obeisance" and Heb 1:6, I found a specific article on the subject and am posting it for consideration.

Mark Johnson
CERTAIN translations of Hebrews 1:6 say: "Let all the angels of God worship him [Jesus]." (King James Version; The Jerusalem Bible) The apostle Paul evidently quoted the Septuagint, which says at Psalm 97:7: "Worship Him [God] all ye His angels."-C. Thomson. (or, Deut. 32:43 in some Hebrew MSS)

The Greek word proskyneo, rendered "worship" at Hebrews 1:6, is used at Psalm 97:7 in the Septuagint for a Hebrew term, shachah, meaning "to bow down." This can be an acceptable act of respect for humans. (Genesis 23:7; 1 Samuel 24:8; 2 Kings 2:15) Or it can relate to worship of the true God or that wrongly directed to false gods.-Exodus 23:24; 24:1; 34:14; Deuteronomy 8:19. Usually proskyneo given to Jesus corresponds with obeisance to kings and others. (Compare Matthew 2:2, 8; 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20 with 1 Samuel 25:23, 24; 2 Samuel 14:4-7; 1 Kings 1:16; 2 Kings 4:36, 37.) Often it is clear that obeisance is rendered to Jesus not as God but as "God's Son" or the Messianic "Son of man."-Matthew 14:32, 33; Luke 24:50-52; John 9:35, 38. Hebrews 1:6 relates to Jesus' position under God. (Philippians 2:9-11) Here some versions render proskyneo "pay . . . homage" (The New English Bible), "do obeisance to" (New World Translation), or "bow before" (An American Translation). If one prefers the rendering "worship," such worship is relative, for Jesus told Satan: "It is Jehovah your God you must worship [form of proskyneo], and it is to him alone you must render sacred service."-Matthew 4:8-10. Though Psalm 97:7, which speaks about worshiping God, was applied to Christ at Hebrews 1:6, Paul had shown in context that the resurrected Jesus is "the reflection of [God's] glory and the exact representation of his very being." (Hebrews 1:1-3) So any "worship" the angels give God's Son is relative and is directed through him to Jehovah.

Now what exactly does the Koine Greek word proskyneo mean in English:

The act of bowing, kneeling, prostrating the body, or making some other gesture to betoken submission; or simply the paying of respect. It adequately translates the Hebrew hish•ta•chawah' and the Greek pro•sky•ne'o in many cases.

Hish•ta•chawah' means, basically, "bow down." (Ge 18:2) Such bowing might be done as an act of respect or deference toward another human, as to a king (1Sa 24:8; 2Sa 24:20; Ps 45:11), the high priest (1Sa 2:36), a prophet (2Ki 2:15), or other person of authority (Ge 37:9, 10; 42:6; Ru 2:8-10), to an elder relative (Ge 33:1-6; 48:11, 12; Ex 18:7; 1Ki 2:19), or even to strangers as an expression of courteous regard (Ge 19:1, 2). Abraham bowed down to the Canaanite sons of Heth from whom he sought to buy a burial place. (Ge 23:7) Isaac's blessing on Jacob called for national groups and Jacob's own "brothers" to bow down to him. (Ge 27:29; compare 49:8.) When men started to bow down before David's son Absalom, he grabbed them and kissed them, evidently to further his political ambitions by making a show of putting himself on a level with them. (2Sa 15:5, 6) Mordecai refused to prostrate himself before Haman, not because he viewed the practice as wrong in itself, but doubtless because this high Persian official was an accursed Amalekite by descent.-Es 3:1-6.

From the above examples it is clear that this Hebrew term of itself does not necessarily have a religious sense or signify worship. Nevertheless, in a large number of cases it is used in connection with worship, either of the true God (Ex 24:1; Ps 95:6; Isa 27:13; 66:23) or of false gods. (De 4:19; 8:19; 11:16) Persons might bow down in prayer to God (Ex 34:8; Job 1:20, 21) and often prostrated themselves upon receiving some revelation from God or some expression or evidence of his favor, thereby showing their gratitude, reverence, and humble submission to his will.-Ge 24:23-26, 50-52; Ex 4:31; 12:27, 28; 2Ch 7:3; 20:14-19; compare 1Co 14:25; Re 19:1-4.

Bowing down to humans as an act of respect was admissible, but bowing to anyone other than God (YHWH) as a deity was prohibited by God. (Ex 23:24; 34:14) Similarly, the worshipful bowing down to religious images or to any created thing was positively condemned. (Ex 20:4, 5; Le 26:1; De 4:15-19; Isa 2:8, 9, 20, 21) Thus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, when certain of God (YHWH)'s servants prostrated themselves before angels, they only did so to show they recognized that these were God's representatives, not to render obeisance to them as deities.-Jos 5:13-15; Ge 18:1-3.

Obeisance in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The Greek pro•sky•ne'o corresponds closely to the Hebrew hish•ta•chawah' as to conveying the thought of both obeisance to creatures and worship to God or a deity. The manner of expressing the obeisance is perhaps not so prominent in pro•sky•ne'o as in hish•ta•chawah', where the Hebrew term graphically conveys the thought of prostration or bowing down. Scholars derive the Greek term from the verb ky•ne'o, "kiss." The usage of the word in the Christian Greek Scriptures (as also in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) shows that persons to whose actions the term is applied prostrated themselves or bowed down.-Mt 2:11; 18:26; 28:9.

As with the Hebrew term, the context must be considered to determine whether pro•sky•ne'o refers to obeisance solely in the form of deep respect or obeisance in the form of religious worship. Where reference is directly to God (Joh 4:20-24; 1Co 14:25; Re 4:10) or to false gods and their idols (Ac 7:43; Re 9:20), it is evident that the obeisance goes beyond that acceptably or customarily rendered to men and enters the field of worship. So, too, where the object of the obeisance is left unstated, its being directed to God is understood. (Joh 12:20; Ac 8:27; 24:11; Heb 11:21; Re 11:1) On the other hand, the action of those of "the synagogue of Satan" who are made to "come and do obeisance" before the feet of Christians is clearly not worship.-Re 3:9.

Obeisance to a human king is found in Jesus' illustration at Matthew 18:26. It is evident that this was the kind of obeisance that the astrologers rendered to the child Jesus, "born king of the Jews," that Herod professed interest in expressing, and that the soldiers mockingly rendered to Jesus before his impalement. They clearly did not view Jesus as God or as a deity. (Mt 2:2, 8; Mr 15:19) While some translators use the word "worship" in the majority of cases where pro•sky•ne'o describes persons' actions toward Jesus, the evidence does not warrant one's reading too much into this rendering. Rather, the circumstances that evoked the obeisance correspond very closely to those producing obeisance to the earlier prophets and kings. (Compare Mt 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20 with 1Sa 25:23, 24; 2Sa 14:4-7; 1Ki 1:16; 2Ki 4:36, 37.) The very expressions of those involved often reveal that, while they clearly recognized Jesus as God's representative, they rendered obeisance to him, not as to God or a deity, but as "God's Son," the foretold "Son of man," the Messiah with divine authority. On many occasions their obeisance expressed a gratitude for divine revelation or evidence of favor like that expressed in earlier times.-Mt 14:32, 33; 28:5-10, 16-18; Lu 24:50-52; Joh 9:35, 38.

While earlier prophets and also angels had accepted obeisance, Peter stopped Cornelius from rendering such to him, and the angel or angels of John's vision twice stopped John from doing so, referring to himself as "a fellow slave" and concluding with the exhortation to "worship God [toi The•oi' pro•sky'ne•son]." (Ac 10:25, 26; Re 19:10; 22:8, 9) Evidently Christ's coming had brought in new relationships affecting standards of conduct toward others of God's servants. He taught his disciples that "one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers . . . your Leader is one, the Christ" (Mt 23:8-12), for it was in him that the prophetic figures and types found their fulfillment, even as the angel told John that "the bearing witness to Jesus is what inspires prophesying." (Re 19:10) Jesus was David's Lord, the greater than Solomon, the prophet greater than Moses. (Lu 20:41-43; Mt 12:42; Ac 3:19-24) The obeisance rendered those men prefigured that due Christ. Peter therefore rightly refused to let Cornelius make too much of him.

So, too, John, by virtue of having been declared righteous or justified by God as an anointed Christian, called to be a heavenly son of God and a member of the Kingdom, was in a different relationship to the angel(s) of Revelation than were the Israelites to the angels that had earlier appeared to them. The angel(s) evidently recognized this change of relationship when rejecting John's obeisance.-Compare 1Co 6:3; see DECLARE RIGHTEOUS.

Obeisance to the glorified Jesus Christ. On the other hand, Christ Jesus has been exalted by his Father to a position second only to God, so that "in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Php 2:9-11; compare Da 7:13, 14, 27.) Hebrews 1:6 also shows that even the angels render obeisance to the resurrected Jesus Christ. Many translations of this text here render pro•sky•ne'o as "worship," while some render it by such expressions as "bow before" (AT; Yg) and 'pay homage' (NE). No matter what English term is used, the original Greek remains the same and the understanding of what it is that the angels render to Christ must accord with the rest of the Scriptures. Jesus himself emphatically stated to Satan that "it is God (YHWH) your God you must worship [form of pro•sky•ne'o], and it is to him alone you must render sacred service." (Mt 4:8-10; Lu 4:7, Similarly, the angel(s) told John to "worship God" (Re 19:10; 22:9), and this injunction came after Jesus' resurrection and exaltation, showing that matters had not changed in this regard. True, Psalm 97, which the apostle evidently quotes at Hebrews 1:6, refers to God (YHWH) God as the object of the 'bowing down,' and still this text was applied to Christ Jesus. (Ps 97:1, 7) However, the apostle previously had shown that the resurrected Christ is "the reflection of [God's] glory and the exact representation of his very being." (Heb 1:1-3) Hence, if what we understand as "worship" is apparently directed to the Son by angels, it is in reality being directed through him to God (YHWH) God, the Sovereign Ruler, "the One who made the heaven and the earth and sea and fountains of waters." (Re 14:7; 4:10, 11; 7:11, 12; 11:16, 17; compare 1Ch 29:20; Re 5:13, 14; 21:22.) On the other hand, the renderings "bow before" and 'pay homage' (instead of "worship") are in no way out of harmony with the original language, either the Hebrew of Psalm 97:7 or the Greek of Hebrews 1:6, for such translations convey the basic sense of both hish•ta•chawah' and pro•sky•ne'o.

(2) The bible reveals that many worship false gods without knowing it due to failure to check what they are really worshiping. See:

1 Corinthians 10:20, "No; but I say that what the Gentiles sacrifice, 'they sacrifice to devils and not to God'; and I would not have you become associates of devils." (The Confracternity Edition of The New Testament)

Habakkuk 2:18, "What doth the graven thing avail, because the maker thereof hath graven it, a molten, and a false image? Because the forger thereof hath trusted in a thing of his own forging, to make dumb idols." (DRCB).

(3) Let's see what most mainstream religions through the ages have in common be they so called Christian or pagan? Absolutely, history shows that one mainstream religion evolved into another one while maintaining many of the beliefs of the one before it, but simply changing the name of the God(s). No where is this more self evident than with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity. In has been with us since at least the time of ancient Sumeria as shown by The historian H. W. F. Saggs explains that the Babylonian triad consisted of three gods of roughly equal rank. Their "inter-relationship is of the essence of their natures." Is this positive proof that the Christian trinity descended from the ancient Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian triads? (*1). No. However, Hislop furthers the comparison: "In the unity of that One, Only God of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize that doctrine of the trinity they employed...the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day." (*2).

Yes, the concept of a trinity has been a prevailing belief for a very, very long time perhaps longer than most Christians would imagine. While worshipping innumerable minor deities, triads of gods appeared in all the ancient cultures of Sumer, Babylonia, Egypt, India, Greece and finally Rome. The "mysteries" of the first universal civilization, Babylonia, were transported down in time. The names of the gods changed. The details of ancient incomprehensible religions changed, but the essential ideas were the same. The Sumerians worshipped Anu (the Father), Enlil (the god of earth) and Enki (the lord of wisdom). The Egyptians worshipped Amun who was really three gods in one: Re was his face; Ptah his body and Amun his hidden identity "combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." (*4 - page 201).

Now with respect the next evolution of mainstream religion, the Egyptian, Egypt's history is nearly as old as Sumeria's. In his Egyptian Myths, George Hart shows how Egypt also believed in a "transcendental, above creation, and preexisting" one, the god Amun. Amun was really three gods in one. Re was his face; Ptah his body; and Amun his hidden identity (*3). The well-known historian Will Durant concurs: "In later days Ra [sic], Amon [sic], and Ptah were combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." (*4). A hymn to Amun written in the 14th century BC distinguishes the Egyptian trinity: "All Gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah: they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re before [men], and his body is Ptah." (*5). Certainly is not this positive indicator that the Christian trinity descended from the ancient Egyptian triads? However, Durant submits that "from Egypt came the idea of a divine trinity..." (*6). Laing agrees when he says that "it is probable that the worship of the Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus helped to familiarize the ancients with the idea of a triune God and was not without influence in the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity as set forth in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds." (*7). And The Encyclopedia of Religions goes even farther when it states that as Christianity "came in contact with the triune gods of Egypt and the Near East, it developed a trinity of its own." (* .

The next evolution or more correctly one concurrent with the Egyptian but originating also from the early Sumeria was the Babylonian. A very important evolution of spread originated from the Babylonian trinity that ultimately spread to Rome by way of the Etrusans. The Etruscans were a group that all indicators indicate as having originated in Babylon. As they slowly passed through Greece and went on to Rome, they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva (*9). This trinity was a "new idea to the Romans," and yet it became so "typical of Rome [that] it was imitated in the capitolia of Italy. . . (*7 - page 26)" Even the names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry. Is this positive proof that the Christian trinity descended from the Etruscan and Roman triads? No, but an extremely significant indicator of this fact. However, Dr. Gordon Laing convincingly devotes his entire book Survivals of the Roman Gods to the comparison of Roman Paganism and the Roman Catholic Church. (*7). Pelikan adds to Laing's work when he states that the early church fathers used and cited the Roman Sibylline Oracles so much that these were called "Sibyllists" by the 2nd century critic Celsus. (*10). There was even a medieval hymn, "Dies irae" which prophesied the coming of the day of wrath on the "dual authority of David and the Sibyl." (*10 - page 64-65).

Now let's consider the ancient Grecian world; And in order to fully understand it, we need to digress to gaining an understanding of the origins of the word Trinity and the two types that existed in the ancient world and evolved into the Trinity of mainstream so called Christian religions. First, the word trinity comes from the kemetic language. It consist actually of two words: hemt (three) and neter (which carries the concepts of gods). Therefore, Trinity defines a concept of three gods.

Ths pantheon of Gods is composed of two categories of Gods. We have the creator and self-created Gods on one side and the creator gods that are non autogenic on the other. The creator Gods that are self-created are those who form the first group of trinities. The gods that are not self-created then form the second group of trinities. The Gods of the second trinity exist only in the context of a group of Gods composed of a God-father, a Goddess-mother, and a God-son. They are somehow considered very close to the human nature. The original second group of trinities came from a story known as the holy drama, and is composed by a God-father called Wsr (Osiris) and a goddess-mother Aishat (Isthar or Isis) and the God-son Heru (Horus). It is the second group of trinities that taught humanity the concept of a family, giving a man and woman the idea of a spiritual union with the goal of procreation. We should observe that the importance of the trinities is such that they became a serious problem for the monotheistic religions that are stubbornly talking about the creation of the world by one single god while they are still maintaining the concept of a trinity.

The ancient Trinities of the Greek's were composed of the God-son Perseus, born from Zeus and Danae; Hercules born from Zeus and Alcmene; Apollo born from Zeus and Leto; Dionysos born from Zeus and Semele; Minos born from Zeus and Europe; Aesculapius born from Apollo and Coronis. (*11).

It if from an evolutionary merging of ancient Greek trinities and Roman trinities that in themselves partially evolved from the Greek, but with a precedence being taken by the Etruscans' of their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva. (*9). This trinity as previously mentioned, became the ancient Roman Trinity of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, which was campaigned by the mainstream religions of the empire of that era. Even the names of the gods in this Trinity reflect from whence it came. (*7). This one is of extreme importance to us of the modern era as it evolved into the Trinity of the mainstream so called Christian religions of today. This Trinity consisted of Jesus born from Yahweh and Mary. However, this new concept of trinities that is presented by the new Christian authorities only comes to add on the contradictions that were undermining the psychological stability of the human of the modern society. The Trinity of the modern time that the religions want us to accept is composed of a God-father, a God-son and a mother that is purely human and considered virgin. (*11).

However since the mother, the Virgin Mary, she is a human, she cannot be classified as a Goddess, and that will not complete the concept of trinity. In this evolution, the religious authorities had to use a little creativity to overcome this; the concept of personalizing the power or force of the supreme God (YHWH), Yahweh. To do this, something new had to enter the equation. What was this?

Whereas, the Gods of the first trinities stayed really far away from the philosophical and political arguments of the society, but the leaders used that fact to kind of drown them in the collective memory of the society. The world has been created in stages. The Gods of the first trinity are recognized by the fact that the first two of them have created the four elements (fire, air, water and matter) and the third God has used them to fashion and create everything that exists. The gods of the first trinity do not intervene in our daily lives, but they guarantee the harmony of the universe. They some-how occupy a very important place in the spiritual essence of anything that exists. By recognizing their exist-ence, we are illuminating the universal conscious on the makers of this world that we are trying to redefine. (*11).

At this point, we need to pause and regress a little. One may ask, How do we know these trinities are not just misrepresentations of the real threeness of God? (After all there were "flood stories" in every culture too reminiscent of the Genesis account.) Assyrian clay tablets now available have most strikingly confirmed the narrative of Scripture which give us revealing insight into our questions (*12). Where did the idea of a three-in-one God originate? After the flood, Nimrod a descendent of Noah's son Ham settled in Asia: "And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel out of that land went forth Asshur [mar., "he went out into Assyria"] and builded Nineveh" (Genesis 10:8-11). "Mighty hunter" was the title given to the great conquering warrior-monarchs of the time. In rebellion of God's command to disburse and people the earth, Nimrod built the Tower of Babel, became very powerful and was even worshipped. We now know the ancient Babylonians worshipped the first person in the Godhead, the Great Invisible, also the Spirit of God incarnate in the human mother and also the Divine Son. Nimrod was this "Son," the first king of Babel, Babylon. And so in this the first notion of a triune God was born. (*7).

In the immediate centuries before the advent of Jesus Christ, we see Plato even in his deeply philosophical mode proposing a trinity of sorts. ("The Supreme Reality appears in the trinitarian form of the Good, the Intelligence, and the World-Soul"). Through all cultures, this perversion of the truth about God was handed down. (*7).

One God (YHWH), One culture, however, escaped this corruption of truth. From the line of Shem, Noah's other son, Abraham was called out of "Ur of the Chaldees" (Genesis 11:31; 12:1,2), the ancient Babylonian empire. His descendants were given the revelation of God by Moses from Mount Sinai. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" (Deuteronomy 6:4). No Hebrew scripture supports the idea of a trinity god. Some verses have been pressed into use by Trinitarians, but without success. For example, in the creation account, Genesis says, "God [elohim, plural.] created the heavens and the earth" (1:1). However, the plural does not have to do with number; it is "plentitude of might" (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, The Soncino Press). In any case, the verb "created" is singular, and would not indicate two gods, let alone three. Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament (Vol. XIV, 306). And the world renown "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" says, under the article on the Trinity in it, "The term 'Trinity' is NOT a biblical term....In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine...As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason." (*14).

While he walked the earth, Jesus clearly acknowledged, "My Father is greater than I" (*15) and that it was his Father who sent him, "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me" (*16). He consistently acknowledged God as the source of power for his miracles and finally implored his Father, "yet not my will but thine be done." (*17) he be the one sent and also the Sender and why would he pray to himself that not his will but His other will be done? It seems the Trinitarians only answer, "It's a mystery"?

If the trinity is supposed to be an unexplainable "mystery," why do the apostles always talk about revealing mysteries to Christians? "I would not have you ignorant of this mystery [about Jewish blindness] (*1 the revelation of the mystery (*19) the mystery hidden God hath revealed (*20 1 Corinthians 2:7) Behold I show you a mystery (*21) "having made known the mystery of his will" (*22) "to make known the mystery of Christ" (*23) "make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (*24), etc. So how did the Christian Church accept a mystery of a trinity? This will be shown in the next part.

HISTORY OF POLITICAL INTRIGUE AND DECEIT THAT EVOLVED THE TRINITY INTO SO CALLED CHRISTIANITY:

To understand how the Trinity wormed its way into so called Christianity we need to know the political and social climate of the first three centuries after the passing of Jesus (Yeshua) and his apostles, and why true faith deteriorated into compromise; and then total acceptance by the mainstream so called Christian groups, not withstanding its violation of the Word of God, the Holy Bible. Now let's look at that period and try an insert ourselves mentally into it.

In the early church the apostles needed to refute another rising belief system gnosticism. It considered matter to be evil and sought salvation through knowledge. Gnosticism also focused on the "mysteries" meant only for the intellectuals to understand. Christ, the gnostics said, entered Jesus at baptism and left just before he died on the cross. The Apostle John particularly addressed this budding heresy: "Many false prophets, have gone forth into the world, You gain knowledge of the inspired expression from God by this: Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the anti-christ's [inspired expression] which you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world." (*25). Jesus' humanity was repulsive to gnostics. After the Apostles died, Christians responded to gnosticism by claiming not only did Jesus Christ come in the flesh as the Son of God.

By the third and fourth centuries, Christians were weary of Pagan persecution. The temptation was to compromise. Besides, the Pagan emperor Constantine needed Christians to salvage his shaky empire. Constantine embraced; howbeit only on his deathbed. However, he saw Christianity as a tool he could use to firm up his shaky empire. To this opportunity for political intrigue, and happy blend of politics and people was the chief triumvirate of Roman gods Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Jupiter was the principal deity of Roman mythology and Juno was the next highest divinity. Minerva, the "offspring of the brain of Jupiter" was regarded as the "personification of divine thought, the plan of the material universe of which Jupiter was the creator and Juno the representative" (26). Many Pagan ideas, in fact, were incorporated into Christianity. "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it" (*26).

Roman Emperor Constantine needed to make his subjects feel secure if he were to maintain control of the empire; he wanted to rule a unified empire, be it pagan and/or Christian. But first he would have to find a way to end the dispute over the divinity of Jesus-was he a man or God? So he ordered his Christian bishops to meet at Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle the matter once and for all. To do this, "he made himself the head of the church, and thus the problems of the church became his responsibilities. As a whole the Western Empire with its Roman influence, with some exceptions, had accepted Tertullian and his new theory of the Trinity in the early part of the previous century, but in the East the church adhered more closely to the older formula of baptism in the name of Jesus, or Jesus the Christ. Especially was this true with the Armenians, who specified that baptism "into the death of Christ" was that which alone was essential (*28) .

Now let's see how Constantine got the Trinity. As previously shown, The Roman Empire at this time was being torn apart by religious differences between pagans, mostly Sun God worshippers, and Christianity. Constantine the Emporer was a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, but he was a very pragmatic individual and saw the need to bring religious unity to his empire. The central doctrine of the pagans was the dogma of a Trinity that they had received from earlier pagans in Babylon (Chaldea). In this, the pagan Emperor, Constantine, saw a possibility for unifying his empire if he could only lead the majority of the Christians to accept a Trinity or a Duality. He knew however that he had to make them think it was their own idea. To this end, he, the Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea, about 300, but even though it was the emperor's direction, only a fraction actually attended.

This council went on for a very long time and the emperor worked behind the scene to get support for a Trinity or a Duality. This effort was not completely successful, but finally he got a majority and declared under imperial degree
that this hence forth would be the central doctrinal pillar of the Christian church, which by this time was apostate. Even with this declaration by the emperor himself not all bishops signed the creed. (*29).

So is was the political product of an apostate church, an apostate church that allowed a pagan Roman Emporer, Constantine, to tell it which dogma to accept at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., and then have it rammed down their throats as blessed dogma by another Roman Emporer, Theodosius, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. This in direct violation of God's (YHWH's) word found in the Bible " Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4 AV), " If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19 AV).
Their solution was to create a creed making it illegal for anyone to believe Jesus was not the same as God by inventing the notion of a Trinity. This intellectual tower remained in full force for well over a thousand years, until the Reformation. (*29).

Contrary to popular belief, it was not Constantine's fourth century Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 that formalized the "Doctrine of the Trinity." The Athanasian Creed in the fifth century finally included the three, "the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost...the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal So likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God." Furthermore, this creed added that belief in the trinity "is necessary to everlasting salvation." Strong belief led to action. "Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years ([A.D.]342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome." (*30).


The fact is Christianity never conquered paganism--paganism conquered Christianity. (*31).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION OF DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:


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

As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions evoked by the Church's expansion. (*10)
The most famous of these Apologists was Justin Martyr (c.107-166 AD). He was born a pagan, became a pagan philosopher, then a Christian. He believed that Christianity and Greek Philosophy were related. According to McGiffert, "Justin insisted that Christ came from God; he did not identify him with God. . . [He] conceiv[ed] of God as a transcendent being, who could not possibly come into contact with the world of men and things." (*10).

An exhaustive review of Scripture and history reveals the simple fact that the Trinity teaching was unknown to the early New Testament Christians. That the doctrine of the Trinity is a "borrowed doctrine" and foreign to the Scriptures is supported by many authorities. Under the article Trinity we read, "The term 'Trinity' is not a biblical term...In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine...As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason" (*14).


As can readily be seen from the foregoing, even the concept of the Trinity came from the pagan world, and the Bible shows " In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (*33) is trying to keep out the glorious gospel of Christ. Satan the Devil is slipping false dogma in its place. Do not be trapped by him, reject false dogma of the Trinity.

REFERENCES:

*1 - Saggs,H. W. F. "The Greatness that was Babylon: A Sketch of the Ancient Civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley." New York: New American Library. 1968.
*2 - Hislop, Alexander. "The Two Babylons: Or, the Papal Worship." 1853. 2nd American ed. Neptune: Loizeaux. 1959.
*3 - Hart, George. "Egyptian Myths." Austin: U of Texas. 1990.
*4 - Durant, Will. "Our Oriental Heritage". New York: Simon. 1935. Vol. 1 of The Story of Civilization.11 vols. 1935-75. (page 201)
*5 - Hornung, Erik. "Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many." Trans. John Baines. Ithaca: Cornell UP. 1982.
*6 - Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75. (page 595)
*7 - Laing, Gordon Jennings. "Survivals of Roman Religion.". New York: Cooper Square Publishers. 1963.
*8 - The Encyclopedia of Religions.
*9 - Carter, Jesse Benedict. "The Religious Life of Ancient Rome: A Study in the Development of Religious Consciousness, from the Foundation of the City Until the Death of Gregory the Great." New York: Cooper Square Publishers. 1972. (page 16-19).
*10 - Pelikan, Jaroslav. "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition" (100-600). Chicago: U of Chicago P. 1971. Vol. 1 of "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine." 5 vols.
*11 -
*11 - Morodenibig, Naba Lamoussa. "Light From the Trinities."
*12 - Edersheim Bible History (page 59-62).
*13 - New Catholic Encyclopedia, (Vol. XIV, 306).
*14 - International Encyclopedia of the Bible," Vol. 5, (page 3012).
*15 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 116 in NT, John 14:29)
*16 - The Holy Bible (King James Bible), American Bible Society, NY (page 10 in NT, Matthew 10:40).
*17 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 109 in NT, St. Luke 22:42).
*18 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 205 in NT, Romans 11:25).
*19 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 210 in NT, Romans 16:25)
*20 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 213 in NT, 1 Corinthians 2:7).
*21 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 227 in NT,1 Corinthians 15:51).
*22 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 202 in NT, Ephesians 1:9).
*23 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 206 in NT, Ephesians 6:19).
*24 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 210 in NT, Colossians 1:27).
*25 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 revision, (pages 1517 and 1519, 1 John 7; also 1 John 4:1-3).
*26 - McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 6
*27 - Lamson, Newton & Durant, Will, "Caesar and Christ," cited from Charles Redeker Caesar and Christ, W. Duran (page 595).
*28 - ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366).
*29 - Payne, Robert, "The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957); BETHUNE-BAKER, J,F. "An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine". Methuen; 5th Ed., 1933 and ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366); David, Francis and Blandrata, Georgio, "De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti cognitone" [Latin](The False and True Knowledge of the Unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy spirit), 1566 A.D.; Eklof, Todd F., "David's Francis Tower, Strength through Peace," (06-16-02); The New Encyclopedia Britannica: " Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976); Parkes, James, "The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity," 1960; Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.
*30 - Durant, Will, "Age of Faith,"
*31 - Jonas, Hans, "The Gnostic religion: the message of the alien God and the beginnings of Christianity," 2nd ed., 1963.
*32 - Hagensick, Cher-El L, "The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine."
*33 - The Holy Bible (King James Bible), American Bible Society, NY (page 185, 2 Corinthians 4:4).

      Now to know the truth, go to:
1) http://religioustruths.forumsland.com/
2) http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/
3) http://religioustruths.lefora.com/
4) http://religioustruths.boardhost.com/
5) http://religious-truths.forums.com/
6) http://religioustruthsbyiris.createmybb3.com/
7) http://religioustruths.forumotion.com/
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today, and go to http://www.jw.org!