Page 3


Diocletian and Maximian, now supported by two deputy caesars Galerius and Constantius .
It was the son of the least of them – Constantine – who set his sights on restoring absolute and undivided power.


Diocletian – Son of a Slave Makes Good
Diocletian was the product of merit and of the social mobility which was possible in the late third century.
Diocletian ruled the Roman world for over twenty years. Neither mad nor debauched, he (uniquely) retired from power and famously boasted of growing cabbages "with his own hand" in retirement.
Diocletian had recognised that the empire was too vast for one man's autocratic rule and had sensibly divided absolute power between four monarchs. At the same time he put in place a mechanism for orderly succession, with the junior Caesars stepping up to the rank of Augustus and appointing deputy Caesars in turn. Moreover, Diocletian had had the wisdom to chose colleagues and successors on the basis of ability and loyalty, not blood-ties. The tetrarchy provided orderly succession for a generation. The provinces themselves were grouped into a dozen Dioceses, each ruled by a Vicar.

Constantine – Pampered Prince Enters the Ring
As caesar of Britain and Gaul, Constantine's father – Constantius – had been chosen for the most junior post in the tetrarchy. Constantine himself had been obliged to spend his youth at Nicomedia – as 'hostage' in the court of Diocletian.
When the ailing Diocletian stepped down as Augustus after twenty years in 305, Constantine was dismayed that he had been passed over for the position of caesar. Galerius became senior Augustus in the east. Frustrated, and fearful for his life, Constantine fled to Gaul to join his father, and together they campaigned in northern Britain.
Constantius – nicknamed 'Chlorus' because of his pale and sickly complexion – died at Eburacum (York) the following year and Constantine was 'proclaimed' Augustus by the troops in what was the most marginal of frontier provinces. The ambitious prince was now vulnerable to a charge of usurping imperial authority. His unauthorized promotion was a blow against the Tetrarchy which had stabilized the Roman world. The empire had almost collapsed during the 3rd century because of military rebellions and only a generation before, Aurelian had brought to an end fifteen years of secession by the western provinces. Subsequently, Constantine's own father had invaded Britain precisely to end a decade of separate imperium in the province under the rebel emperors Carausius and Allectus.
Constantine immediately left Britain and the legionary fortress where he had been acclaimed to establish a firmer base with the legions of the Rhineland. He moved quickly to establish a court in the northern city of Augusta Treverorum (Trier) – often a secessionist capital – but his sights were on a far bigger prize.
Like his father before him, Constantine abandoned a concubine (the mother of his child) to make a politically useful marriage into the family of the senior Augustus (and rival), Maximian, Diocletian's original colleague, who had returned to imperial politics from an unwelcome retirement. Soon after, Maximian was dead, almost certainly on the orders of his new son-in-law. In the eastern capital an unhappy Galerius reluctantly acknowledged Constantine as a caesar but appointed his own nominee – Severus – as supreme ruler for the west.
In the meantime, Maxentius (son of Maximian and now Constantine's brother-in-law!) had been proclaimed Augustus in Rome by the praetorian guard. Severus lost his life in an unsuccessful attempt to remove the usurper.

Conversion? My Enemy's Enemy is My Friend
In Constantine's day, the eastern provinces were by far the richest and most populous of the Roman world. Some of its cities – Pergamon, Symrna, Antioch and so on – had existed for almost a millennium and had accumulated vast wealth from international trade and venerated cult centres. Through its numerous cities passed Roman gold going east in exchange for imports from Persia, India and Arabia. Flowing west with those exotic imports came exotic 'mystery religions' to titillate and enthrall Roman appetites.
In contrast, the western provinces now ruled by Constantine were more recently colonized and less developed. Its cities were small 'new towns', its hinterland still barbarian. During the crisis decades of the 3rd century many provincial Romans in the west had been carried off into slavery by Germanic raiders and their cities burned. The province of Britain and part of northern Gaul had actually seceded from the empire in the late third century – and had been ruled by its own 'emperors' (Carausius, Allectus) with the help of Frankish mercenaries (286-297).
Constantine had no power-base in the east from which to mount a bid for the throne – but he had been at Nicomedia in 303 when Diocletian had decided to purge the Roman state of the disloyal Christian element. He had also served under Galerius on the Danube and witnessed at first-hand how the favoured Galerius – designated heir and rival – in particular despised the cult of Christ.
The ambitious and ruthless prince, from his base in Trier, immediately proclaimed himself 'protector of the Christians.' But it was not the handful of Jesus worshippers in the west that Constantine had in mind – there had not, after all, been any persecution in the west – but the far more numerous congregation in the east. They constituted a tiny minority within the total population (perhaps as few as 2%) but the eastern Christians were an organised force of fanatics, in many cities holding important positions in state administration. Some held posts even within the imperial entourage.
By championing the cause of the Christians Constantine put himself at the head of a 'fifth column' in the east, of a state within a state.

That Fabulous Fable
At first, Constantine honoured the tetrarchy which had stabilized the empire for a generation but Galerius himself died in 311 and Constantine saw his opportunity. In the spring of 312, in the first of his civil wars, Constantine moved against the ill-fated Maxentius to seize control of Italy and Africa, in the process almost annihilating a Roman army near Turin, and another outside of Rome.
A nonsense repeated ad nauseam is the fable of the ‘writing above the sun’ which advised Constantine of his divine destiny. In its worst form, the legend has it that the words ‘In this sign, you shall conquer’ and the sign of the cross were visible to Constantine and his entire army. The words would have been, perhaps, Latin ‘In Hoc Signo Victor Seris’, a bizarre cloud formation unique in the annuls of meteorological observation.
On the other hand, more than one author (e.g. S. Angus, The Mystery Religions, p236) says that the words were in Greek ('En Touto Nika'), which would have left them unintelligible to the bulk of the army. Then, again, perhaps they were in both Latin and Greek, a complete occluded front of cumulus cloud!
Digging below the legend however we discover that the vision was in fact a dream reported some years later by Constantine to his secretary Lactantius (On the Death of the Persecutors, chapter xliv; ANF. vii, 318.) The fable was later embellished by the emperor's ‘minister of propaganda’, Bishop Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine (1.xxvi-xxxi). The ‘sign of the cross’ was an even later interpolation (the cross was not a Christian symbol at the time of the battle – nor would be until the 6th century!). Any ‘good luck emblem’ at this date would have been the chi-rho – ambiguously the first two letters of the word Christos, the Greek word for ‘auspicious’ and also Chronos, god of time and a popular embodiment of Mithras!
What is perhaps most significant about this ‘origins’ fantasy is that ‘lucky charms’ had entered the parlance of Christianity. Constantine did not need to be a Christian; invoking its symbols was sufficient to win divine patronage. But did he invoke its symbols? Coins issued at the time celebrating his victory showed only Sol Invictus: his triumphant arch, still standing, refers only to ‘the gods’. In truth, Constantine was not a particularly pious man. Famously, he delayed his baptism until he was close to death for fear of further sinning – with good reason: among his many murders was that of his first wife Fausta (boiled alive) and eldest son Crispus (strangled).
…
Constantine's desire to impose upon the Empire a religion that would identify obsequiousness to the deity with loyalty to the emperor found its perfect partner in Christianity – or at least in the Christianity he was to patronize.
In the century before the ignoble alliance of one particular faction with the imperium many christianities had contended. Before Constantine, Christ had, for most Christians, been the ‘good shepherd’, just like Mithras and Apollo, not a celestial monarch or an imperial judge. Nor did the Christian sects dwell on the crucifixion scene:
‘They shrink from the recollection of the servile and degrading death inflicted on their lord, and conceive salvation in the gentle terms of the friendship of Christ, not in the panoply of imperial triumphs.’ (Oxford History, p14)

But with Constantine's absolute monarchy, Christianity acquired its 'panoply of imperial triumphs.' The leading Churchman and propagandist Eusebius hailed the autocrat as a new Moses, a new Abraham. Constantine saw himself, more modestly, as the thirteenth apostle, a saint-in-waiting. At the time, perhaps five per cent of the empire’s population was nominally ‘Christian.’ With imperial encouragement, support, funds and force the Universal Church set about the task of gathering in its flock.
In a number of provinces a serious breach had opened within the Christian churches between those who had 'apostatised' during Diocletian's brief persecution and those who had suffered penalties for their fanaticism. Some churches already had a 'nationalistic' bent, serving as a focus for opposition to the emperor.
Constantine, vexed by all such discord, called for an inclusive 'universal' or catholic faith. Of course all factions regarded themselves as that universal 'orthodox' faith and manoeuvred for preferment. It was inevitable that an autocrat like Constantine would identify with and adopt a church which modelled its organisation not merely upon the Roman State but upon its most authoritarian aspect: the imperial army.
In the Constantinian Church, bishops would rule districts corresponding with military dioceses, would control appointments and impose discipline. Lesser clerics would report through a chain of command up to the local pontiff. ‘Staff officers’, in the guise of deacons and presbyters, would control funds and allocations.
Just as well that in Christian morality there was no place for democracy, only for absolute monarchs, chosen by God. In Christianity there were no human rights (for example, of a slave to his freedom), only obligations (thus a slave should be honest and faithful to his master, because, of course, all would be judged on the day of reckoning).
Sources:
Edward Gibbon, The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire (Penguin, 1960)
Michael Grant, The Roman Emperors (Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985)
Michael Grant, The Emperor Constantine (Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985)
Arthur Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire (Thames & Hudson, 1986)
Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew (Harper Collins,1992)
Arther Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire (Thames & Hudson, 1986)
Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988)
Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain - A History of the Jews (Harper Collins, 1994)
Friedrich Heer, The Fires of Faith (Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1970)
H. A. Drake, Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance (John Hopkins, 2000)
[source - retrieved from  Constantine – Pagan thug makes Christian emperor, http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Constantine.htm on  9/14/2010]

[5]  “Emperor Constantine Was the First Pope!!


This exposé is under construction.
Caesar is Pope!!
Click on images to enlarge.

And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. (Revelation 6:2-3).
This is a description of the 1st of the 4 deadly horseman of the Apocalypse. It is a description of Emperor Constantine going forth to conquer the entire Roman world.
All the great prophecies in the Book of Revelation began to be fulfilled with the reign of Emperor Constantine. Before the battle of the Milvian Bridge outside Rome in 312 A.D., Constantine claimed to have seen a cross in the sky with this inscription: IN HOC SIGNO VINCES or IN THIS SIGN CONQUER. He immediately had the Roman eagle replaced by the cross on his battle standards.

IN HOC SIGNO VINCES or IN THIS SIGN CONQUER.
Constantine claimed to have seen a cross in the sky with the words: IN HOC SIGNO VINCES or IN THIS SIGN CONQUER.
The cross and the words IN HOC SIGNO VINCES or IHS became the battle standard of the Papal Roman Empire.
Constantine's division of the Empire into 2 halves was the fulfillment of King Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel chapter 2.

The cross is the one indispensable MARK of the Papal Roman Empire.
Emperor Constantine began to fulfill Bible prophecy when he founded a new capital for the Roman Empire in Constantinople.
Pagan Rome ended and Papal Rome began with the CROSS!!
Imperial Rome became PAPAL Rome on October 28, 312 A.D., when Constantine exchanged the eagle for the cross:
And not only so, but he (Constantine) also caused the sign of the salutary trophy to be impressed on the very shields of his soldiers; and commanded that his embattled forces should be preceded in their march, not by golden eagles, as heretofore, but only by the standard of the cross. (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, p. 545).
He would have been much better off if he had kept the eagle, because God is referred to as an eagle in the Old Testament, but you will never find the word CROSS in the Hebrew Old Testament . . . or the Greek New Testament.
Emperor Constantine was the first Pope!!
Emperor Constantine was a GIANT whose iron legs bestrode the vast Roman Empire from east to west....By founding a new capital at Constantinople, he divided the Empire into 2 halves, and actually fulfilled the prophecy in Daniel chapter 2 of the division of the Empire into East and West.

…

Emperor Constantine "rescued" the Christians from persecution!!
The idea of a Roman Emperor "rescuing" Christians from persecution seems incongruous but that is exactly what happened. Emperor Constantine defeated his rival Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and proclaimed religious toleration for all.
Constantine was always very ambiguous when he mentioned the divinity that he served....This was done to gain favor and acceptance with pagans and Christians in order to unite then with his new ecumenical religion whose sign or symbol was the cross.

Battle of Milvian Bridge outside Rome in 312 A.D.
With the defeat of Maxentius—Roman Emperor in the West—Constantine began to merge Christianity with paganism.
His triumphal arch mentions The Divinity as giving him victory . . . it says nothing about JESUS!!

Arch of Constantine in Rome.
Here are the words on his triumphal arch in Rome translated from Latin:
To the Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus, the greatest, pious, and blessed Augustus: because he, inspired by the divine, and by the greatness of his mind, has delivered the state from the tyrant and all of his followers at the same time, with his army and just force of arms, the Senate and People of Rome have dedicated this arch, decorated with triumphs.
With the defeat of Maxentius, Constantine was master of the entire Western Roman Empire and he began to fix his gave eastward....The Emperor of the East was named Licinius, and Constantine was determine to eliminate his rival and be sole master of the Roman world.

4 world empires of Daniel chapter 2.
The king of Babylon had a dream in which he saw all of world history from his day to the end of time.
Daniel the Prophet interpreted the dream for him, as a colossal statue composed of 4 different metals, representing 4 successive world empires.
The legs of iron represented the divided Roman Empire.

4 metals statue of Daniel chapter 2.
King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had a terrifying nightmare but when he awoke he couldn't remember the dream.
None of his astrologers or "wise men" could be of any help because they were all charlatans and fakes.
Daniel the Jewish prophet, who was a captive in Babylon, came to the rescue and told the king his forgotten dream . . . and its interpretation:
Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. (Daniel 2:37-40).
Notice that the 4 empires follow one another in SUCCESSION and there is no gap or break between them.
The MYTH of the Fall of the Roman Empire!!
The Holy Bible is the only book in the world where the future is given in ADVANCE....None of the founders of the major world religions dared make any prophecies about what will come to pass in the future, because they were all charlatans and fakes, like the "wise men" of Babylon.
Most children in school are told that the Western Roman Empire fell to the barbarians in 476 A.D., and that the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine) fell in 1453 A.D. It is a DOGMA that is held as firmly as the moving earth.
A British author named Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), greatly perpetuated this myth in his massive tome entitled: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Gibbon ended the Western Empire in 476 and the Eastern Empire in 1453.
It is a MYTH and falsehood because it contradicts the infallible Word of God.

Pope Julius I (337-352).
Emperor Julius I was the next to assume the purple after Constantine.
His palace was the basilica of St. John Lateran built by the order of Constantine himself.

Basilica of St. John Lateran.
The highest office in the pagan pantheon was that of Pontifex Maximus or Supreme Pontiff....This was held by the Roman Caesars. The last Caesar to hold that title was Emperor Gratian who conferred it upon Pope Damascus.

Emperor Gratian (359 - 383).
(Reigned from 375 to 383).
Empeor Gratian conferred the title and the office of Pontifex Maximus on Pope Damasus.
This shows the unbroken continuity between pagan and Papal Rome.
With the total destruction of Christian history, it was easy to associate the Papacy with St. Peter.

Pope Damasus I (305 -384).
Reigned from 366 to 383.
About 12 "Emperors" ruled from Rome until the last one, Romulus Augustulus, abdicated in 476. However, these "Emperors" were merely figureheads or puppets who answered to the Papal dynasty.
There were several barbarian invasions of Rome, but the Papal dynasty continued to rule the Western or Latin Empire right down to our own time....Even the Roman Catholics admit that Rome never fell when they claim an unbroken succession of pontiffs right back to St. Peter.
Moscow is the successor of Constantinople!!
According to the prophecy in Daniel chapter 2, the Roman Empire would be divided into 2 halves, and both halves would continue unbroken until the end of time.
Constantinople—headquarters of the Eastern Empire—fell to the Turks in 1453, but the Orthodox church found a new home in Moscow.
The Eastern Empire is derisively referred to as the BYZANTINE Empire meaning shady or characterized by intrigue; scheming or devious. As Old Rome's main rival, we know who was the author of that appellation.

References
Alföldi, Andreas (Andrew). The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome. Oxford, 1948 and 1969.
Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (in 6 volumes). Methuen & Co., London, 1909.
Eusebius Pamphili, (260 — 340), Preparation for the Gospel, Proof of the Gospel, Ecclesiastical History, Life of Constantine, Oration to Constantine, etc., etc. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1981.
Baynes, Norman, H. Constantine the Great and the Christian Church. London, 1934.
Burckhardt, Jacob.The Age of Constantine the Great. Pantheon Books Inc., New York, 1949.
Halsberghe, Gaston, H.The Cult of Sol Invictus. E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1972.
Kee, Alistair. Constantine Versus Christ: The Triumph of Ideology. SCM Press, London, 1982.
MacMullen, Ramsey. Constantine. The Dial Press, New York, 1969.
Norwich, John Julius. A Short History of Byzantium. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1997.

[source - retrieved from http://www.reformation.org/pope-constantine.html on  9/14/2010]

[6]  Emperor Constantine - Was He Really a Christian?
Feb 11th, 2009 by VincentSummers
An article that considers the fruits of Constantine's life, and how they demonstrate that, baptized or not, Constantine was not a true Christian.
A Controversy
There is some controversy about the man, Constantine. Some maintain he was a sincere convert to Christianity and that he had a lot to do with the modern-day development of worship. There are others who say otherwise. How to know which, if either, is correct? Was Constantine really a Christian?
Was Constantine Really Is a Christian?
The Scriptures tell us the answer. Jesus' words (for who would know what constitutes Christianity better than the Christ himself?) at Matthew 7:15-23 read according to the King James Version:
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
Throughout the Inspired Scriptures, people are often likened to trees. Thus that the faithful and the unfaithful are likened to fruit trees should be of no surprise to us. Jesus is telling us that we can judge if a man is faithful or unfaithful by the kind of fruits or works he produces throughout his life.
So what kind of fruits did Emperor Constantine produce during his lifetime?
As I said, he was emperor, and as such had both military and political authority, things which are not part of Biblical Christianity. Constantine claimed to be Christian by the age of 40, but he maintained his title of Pontifex Maximus, meaning he was head of the pagan priesthood. This belies his being a Christian in itself. In fact, such actions demonstrate Constantine was a practicer of interfaith, something condemned in the Bible.
It is claimed by some that Constantine was never baptized as a Christian. If that is the case, by definition he could not have been a Christian, no matter what his works. But his works included, long after his claim to Christianity, murder and other sins. These are not the works of a Christian.
If Not Christian, What?
In reality, Constantine was a military genius who knew how to use religion to his own ends. The apostasy prophesied in the Bible had already taken a toll on the Christian Congregation long before Constantine appeared on the scene, and he merely helped it along to greater depths of error. He mixed the pagan with the Christian. The Sun God became God the Son. Here is a coin image of Constantine with Sol Invictus, the Sun God.
True Christianity is to be identified by love. Constantine's version of Christianity became what is commonly called Christendom, is characterized by inquisitions and "holy" wars.
Constantine did not produce "fine fruit," and thus was not a Christian.
Matthew 26:52, John 6:15, 15:19.
Peter Brown, The Rise of Christendom 2nd edition (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2003) p. 61
1 Corinthians 10:21
2 Corinthians 6:14-18
Revelation 21:8
John 13:35


Read more: http://www.bukisa.com/articles/32261_emperor-constantine-was-he-really-a-christian#ixzz0zoJHr3lL
[source - retrieved from  http://www.bukisa.com/articles/32261_emperor-constantine-was-he-really-a-christian on  9/14/2010]

[7]  “"The Sun"
And . . . to whom does "The Sun" refer? . . . Apollo the Sun god! And on which day of the week is Apollos' day of worship?
you guessed it . . . Sunday !
And . . . which day of the week did the Universal Roman church by their own authority choose to inforce as their official day of worship?
you guessed it . . . Sunday !
Coincidence? No Way! As you will see, there are far too many coincidences for the coincidence theory to hold up.
[source - retrieved from  http://www.sabbatarian.com/Paganism/Constantine.html  on  9/14/2010]

    + 2 – Details on the Council of Nicea

Let's take a look at what happened at the Council of Nicea of 325 A.D., and the fact that the pagan Emperor, Constantine, was after religious unity and cared not with whether it was in agreement with the Bible and the sound teachings of the apostles. And at how the pagan doctrine worked its way into a Christian church that went apostate from a time line chronological view.

FIRST, What happened from an apologist view, not a true Christian view,


Question: "What occurred at the Council of Nicea?"

Answer: The Council of Nicea took place in 325 A.D. by the order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicea was located in Asia Minor, east of Constantinople. At the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine presided over a group of Church bishops and leaders with the purpose of defining the true God for all of Christianity and to eliminate all the confusion, controversy, and contention within Christ's church. The Council of Nicea affirmed the deity of Jesus Christ and established an official definition of the Trinity - the deity of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit under one Godhead, having three co-equal and co-eternal Persona.

Constantine, a converted Christian (debatably), called for a council meeting to be held in Nicea with the bishop's of the Christian church to resolve escalating quarrels and controversy mounting to a bitter degree of disunity amongst the church leadership and congregates concerning theological issues. The failing Roman Empire, now under Constantine's rule, could not withstand the division caused by years of hard fought, "out of hand" arguing over doctrinal differences. He saw it not only as a threat to Christianity but as a threat to society as well. Therefore, at the Council of Nicea, Constantine demanded that the Christians settle their internal disagreements and become Christ-like agents who could bring new life into a troubled, beaten down empire. Constantine felt "called" to use his authority to help bring about the unity, peace, and love, all for which Christ stands. He and the bishops had reason to worry about the future survival of Christianity within the Roman world empire, let alone the survival of his world empire as well. The Council of Nicea, led by Emperor Constantine, was the meeting to settle differences, to become like minded, all to the glory of Christ.

The main theological issue and focus had always been about Christ. Since the ending of the Apostolic Age and beginning of the Church Age saints began questioning, debating, fighting, and separating over, "Who is the Christ?" Is He more "divine than human" or more "human than divine?" Was Jesus created / made or begotten? Being the Son of God, is He co-equal and co-eternal with Father God or less and lower in status than? Is the Father the One and only True God or is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit the One true God? "True God of True God", "One Being, Three Persons", a tri-unity called "Trinity"? Jesus said, "Who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15).

Constantine demanded once the Nicea Council meeting was underway that the 300 bishops make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. Constantine commanded them to create a "creed" doctrine that all of Christianity would follow and obey, a doctrine that would be called the "Nicene Creed" upheld by the Church and enforced by the Emperor. The bishops voted to make the fully deity of Christ the accepted position for the church. The Council of Nicea voted to make the Trinity the official doctrine of the church. However, the Council of Nicea did not invent these doctrines. Rather, it only recognized what the Bible taught, and systematized the doctrines.

The New Testament taught that Jesus the Messiah, should be worshipped and trusted which was/is to say He is co-equally God and man. The New Testament forbids the worship of angles (Colossians 2.18; Revelation 22.8,9) but commands worship of Jesus. Apostle Paul says about Jesus that, "in him the fullness of Deity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2.9; cf. 1.19). Paul declares Jesus as Lord and the One to whom a person must pray for salvation just as one calls on Jehovah, Yahweh (Joel 2.32; Romans 10.9-13). "Jesus is God overall" (Romans 9.5). Our God and Savior (Titus 2.13). Faith in Jesus' Deity is basic to Paul's testimony and theology.

Apostle John's Gospel declares Jesus being the Devine eternal Logo's, agent of creation and source of life and light (John 1. 1-5, 9). That Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14.6), an advocate with heavenly Father (1 John 2.1-2), that He is sovereign (Revelation 1.5), the Rider on white horse (Revelation 19.11-16), and the totality of the Son of God from the beginning to the end (Revelation 22.13). The author of Hebrews reveals the full deity of Jesus thru His perfection as the most high priest, Melchizedek (Hebrews 1.1,3,6,8,-12;7.3), and the full humanity (Hebrews chapter 2). The Divine-human Savior being the Christians object of faith, hope, and love.

The Council of Nicea did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea affirmed the Apostles teaching of who Christ is as the One true God in Deity and Trinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Amen. [source - What occurred at the Council of Nicea?]


Now a chronological time line study of a false doctrine adopted at the Council of Nicea of 325 AD to give Constantine, a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, 'Sol Invictus,' what he wanted to assist him in uniting his empire religiously and politically.


SATAN'S TRICK - FALSE DOCTRINE EVOLUTION:

Now do most mainstream religions through the ages have anything 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).


And, the Encyclopedia Britannica confirms his need to try and establish unity and that he was NO Christian,


Council of Nicaea

(325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now Iznik, Tur.). It was called by the emperor topic?idxStructId=133873&typeId=13Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by topic?idxStructId=34124&typeId=13Arianism, a heresy first proposed by topic?idxStructId=34795&typeId=13Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates.

The council condemned Arius and, with reluctance on the part of some, incorporated the nonscriptural word topic?idxStructId=270595&typeId=13homoousios ("of one substance") into a creed (the Nicene Creed) to signify the absolute equality of the Son with the Father. The emperor then exiled Arius, an act that, while manifesting a solidarity of church and state, underscored the importance of secular patronage in ecclesiastical affairs.

The council also attempted but failed to establish a uniform date for Easter. But it issued decrees on many other matters, including the proper method of consecrating bishops, a condemnation of lending money at interest by clerics, and a refusal to allow bishops, priests, and deacons to move from one church to another. topic?idxStructId=551945&typeId=13Socrates Scholasticus, a 5th-century Byzantine historian, said that the council intended to make a canon enforcing celibacy of the clergy, but it failed to do so when some objected. It also confirmed the primacy of Alexandria and Jerusalem over other sees in their respective areas.[source - Encyclopedia Britannica]

    + 3 – The Great Debate

FIRST, As was said,

An incident surrounding an attempt to impose celibacy on the clergy also took place. The proposal it seems was to forbid those who were married at the time of ordination from having intercourse with their wives, it being assumed that clergy would not marry after ordination.

is quite interesting as it would be one of the first indicators and/or signs the  so called church (RC) was going apostate and defying clear Bible requirements as found at 1 Timothy 3:1-5, " This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" (Authorized King James Bible; AV); and 1 Timothy 4:1-3, " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." (AV).

See Part 4

Part 5

In summary, It is the Creator's (YHWH's) force for getting things accomplished, 1 Corinthians 2:10, " And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:" (Ephesians 6:17; AV), " But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." (AV).  This is made even clearer as the Bible shows that God (YHWH) pours out his active force onto his followers, Joel 2:28-29, "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29  And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit." (AV), and also caused inspired individuals to, 2 Peter 1:21, " For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (AV).  Clearly then the Trinity is just a myth as defined as follows in the Westminister Confession, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity;" since Jesus (Yeshua) is NOT COEQUAL with his Father, Almighty God (YHWH), NOR is the Holy Spirit, since this is not an individual, but clearly the power and/or force of God (YHWH).  Note, in ancient Koine Greek, the Spirit is always grammatically of the neutral gender, the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used, the neuter pronoun "it" is properly employed.   This fact is conveniently over looked or hidden by most Trinitarian translators as admitted in the  "New American Bible Catholic Bible,"  regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'"   So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa•ra'kle•tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine.   It is now clear beyond question that the Trinity is just false doctrine warned against at Titus 2:1, ""But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" (AV); this means we must reject myths being put forth as doctrine.


Commentary on Galatians 4:6 all 'Sola Scriptura."

Galatians 4:6   And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.  (American Standard Version; ASV)

Let's first look at the scriptures immediately proceeding this to gain an understanding of the contest of this scripture, Galatians 4:1-5, "But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant though he is lord of all; 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the day appointed of the father. 3 So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world: 4 but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (ASV).   Here is shown God's (YHWH's) purpose for sending his only begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to the earth and this is clarified at Romans 5:12, "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (The Kingdom Interlinear Lexicon).   So he was sent by his Father (YHWH) to redeem mankind of inherited sin, 1 John 4:14, "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." (Authorized King James Bible, AV); Thus clearly showing his Father (YHWH), as the superior one, sent his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to the world clearly showing a superior subordinate relationship and not one of coequality.

Now let's look at the scriptures immediately after this to gain an even better understanding of the contest of Galatians 4:6, see Galatians 4:7-11, "So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. Howbeit at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them that by nature are no gods: 9 but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain." (ASV).  So God (YHWH) sent his Spirit, Romans 8:16, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (AV); And this Spirit of God (YHWH), 1 John 3:24, "And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him.  And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." (AV); And the drelling of his active force or spirit in us is affirmed at 1 John 4:13, "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (AV).  And 1 John 3:230-24 shows, "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another as he gave us commandment.  24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him.   And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the spirit which he hath given." (AV).

Now exactly what is the Spirit of God (YHWH) which is also called the Comforter?  It is God's (YHWH's)active force or power that he uses to accomplish his will as shown by John 14:26, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (AV); And this is reaffirmed at John 14:16-17, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17  Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (AV).  And Romans 5:5 shows God (YHWH) gives true Christians a part of his power or holy spirit, "And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." (Authorized King James Bible;" (AV); and this is reaffirmed at Mark 14:33-36, "And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.  35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.  36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt." (AV).  Here Jesus was praying to his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) and acknowledging him as the superior one contrary to the untruths put forth by man such as in the Westminister Confession which clearly contradicts the Word of God by stating of one substance and power; whereas, God (YHWH) has been shown by the scriptures to be the superior one that even his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) prays to.   It is time for all to disgard myths such as the Trinity put forth as supposed truth by misguided documents such as the Westminster Confession which are the product of hermeneutic methodology used by those who seek to hide the truth of the scriptures instead of letting the scriptures speak for themselves as they do in true 'Sola Scripture' comments on the Word of God; This per 2 Peter 1:20, "This, then, you must understand first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation." (The Confraternity Edition of The New Testament by John C. Winston Co. -Catholic).

<CONCLUSION>

Unfortunately, the clever deceiver and twister of the scripture who was one of the best masters with respect using hermeneutic methodology to deceive unwary ones into false doctrine and mythology, Cornelius Burges, Assessor to the Westminster Assembly, was only one of many; but more polished in the art of deception than most.

As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions evoked by the Church's expansion. (*2)



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." (*2).


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" (*1).

The moral of this discourse is accept the Word of God, reject the clever twisting of the Word of God by deceitful men in keeping with Titus 2:1, ", "But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" (AV); this means we must reject myths being put forth as doctrine as does the Westminister Confession and similar deceptive documents by others.

REFERENCES:

*1 the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, volume 4, page 3012-3014, "The term 'Trinity' is not a Biblical term and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture.
   "...the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated doctrine, but in fragmentary allusions.
   "The doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason.
   "Triads of divinities, no doubt, occur in nearly all polytheistic religions, formed under very various influences. Sometimes, as in the Egyptian triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus, it is the analogy of the human family with its father, mother and son which lies at their basis. Sometimes they are the effect of mere syncretism, three deities worshipped in different localities being brought together in the common worship of all.
   "Sometimes they are the result apparently of nothing more than odd human tendency to think in threes, which has given the number three wide-spread standing as a sacred number.
   "It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
   "As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His Trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him. Many attempts have, nevertheless, been made to construct a rational proof of the Trinity of the Godhead.
   "Certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament. It is a plain matter of fact that none who have depended on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever attained to the doctrine of the Trinity.
   "It would seem clear that we must recognize in the Old Testament doctrine of the relation of God to His revelation by the creative Word and the Spirit, at least the germ of the distinctions in the Godhead afterward fully made known in the Christian revelation."
*2 - 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.

APPENDIX:

(1) Jamieson, Fausett and Brown, volume 6, page 643, regarding I John 5:7
"The only Greek manuscripts, in any form which support the words 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth...' are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the 15th century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All old versions omit the words."
(2) Sacred Origins of Profound Things, by Charles Panati, pages 302-306
   "Among the three great monotheistic religions, only Christianity embraces the Trinitarian Creed: the coexistence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in a single Godhead, distinctly different, yet one and the same."
   "One might ask - as Jews and Muslims repeatedly have - isn't it cheating for a religion to be monotheistic if it recognizes three distinctly different Gods? Three Gods; three different names; three different functions: the Creator, the Redeemer, the Sanctifier. Should, Muslims suggested, this not be called 'tritheism'?
   "Significantly, the Christian books of the Bible - the Gospels, Acts, Epistles (or letters), Revelation, and the Apocrypha ('things that are hidden') - make no explicit reference to a three-fold Godhead.
   "Nor did Jesus, a Jew, perhaps with rabbinic training, violate the Judaic motto - 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' - in his teachings.
   "God the Father does mention God the Son in the New Testament, and the Son in turn mentions the Father and the Holy Spirit. The outline of a trinity is there, but it is never clearly delineated
   "Early in the fourth century, the Trinitarian controversy heated to the high point of heresy, pitting two theologians, Athanasius and Arius, against each other and drawing concern from the Roman emperor Constantine himself who had warmed up to Christianity and would eventually convert.
   "Today, Arius' name is a byword for heresy: the Arian Heresy.
   "Back in 320, Arius, who knew Scripture inside and out - and was a skilled propagandist and musician - insisted that Christ, the Word, Logos could only be a creature like ourselves, created by God. When he put his ideas to music and sang songs of Christ's second-rank status to God, thousands of ordinary Christians, once content in their monotheism, became aware of the passionate debate raging among bishops.
   "Christian bishops gathered at Nicaea on May 20, 325, convening the Council of Nicaea, which, after much acrimonious contention, decided upon the crucial formula for the Trinitarian doctrine, setting it forth in a credo, the Nicaean Creed. The Son, it declared, is 'of the same essence as the Father.' The creed said troublingly little about the Holy Spirit.
   "In fact, the entire lengthy creed, as first written, wrestles with logic and common sense to equate Father and Son, giving nod to the Holy Spirit only in the last passing line: 'And we believe in the Holy Ghost.'
   "The controversy raged on for some years. Later the Nicaean Creed was revised under the leadership of Basil, bishop of Caesarea. It was altered to end 'We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father'.
   "Thus, the concept of the Trinity did not take its present form until some 400 years after Christ's death."
(3) Peakes Commentary on the Bible, page 1038
"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in the RSV, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the Logos and the Holy Spirit, but it is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek manuscript contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the New Testament of Erasmus."
(4) The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M Metzger and Michael D Coogan, page 782
   "Trinity: Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.
   "Later believers systematized the diverse references to God, Jesus and the Spirit found in the New Testament in order to fight against heretical tendencies of how the three are related. Elaboration on the concept of a Trinity also serves to defend the church against charges of di- or tritheism. Since the Christians have come to worship Jesus as god (Pliny, Epistles 96.7), how can they claim to be continuing the monotheistic tradition of the God of Israel? Various answers are suggested, debated, and rejected as heretical, but the idea of a Trinity - one God subsisting in three persons and one substance - ultimately prevails.
   "While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do.
   "The earliest New Testament evidence for a tripartite formula comes in 2 Corinthians 13:14, where Paul wishes that 'the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit' be with the people of Corinth. It is possible that this three-part formula derives from later liturgical usage and was added to the text of 2 Corinthians as it was copied. In support of the authenticity of the passage, however, it must be said that the phrasing is much closer to Paul's understandings of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit than to a more fully developed concept of the Trinity. Jesus, referred to not as Son, but as Lord and Christ, is mentioned first and is connected with the central Pauline theme of grace. God is referred to as a source of love, not as father, and the Spirit promotes sharing within the community. The word 'holy' does not appear before 'spirit' in the earliest manuscript evidence for this passage."
(5) The Lion Encyclopedia of the Bible, page 158
   "Trinity - this word is not used in the Bible. It is the name given to the statements about God in the creeds drawn up in the early centuries of the church to explain what is meant by saying that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament as a whole. From earliest times it was stated at every Christian baptism.
   "The Jewish teaching was that there is only one God. No one and nothing must compromise that belief. Yet the New Testament writers clearly show God as the Father who created and sustained everything in his love and power, as the Son who came into this world, and as the Spirit who worked in their own lives.
   "After the end of the New Testament period the church found it necessary to work out carefully worded statements about three persons in one God, in order to uphold the truth of the New Testament against false beliefs."
(6) Francis David's Tower, Strength through Peace, by Todd F. Eklof (06-16-02)
Yet his extraordinary life becomes even more meaningful if we find in it relevance for the circumstances of our own day. As we shall see, Francis David, the 16th Century son of a Saxon shoemaker, helped lay the foundation for a new sort of tower that may at last provide humanity with an enduring refuge.

The problem with most towers, that is, with the ideological constructs we adopt to make us feel safe, is that they are maintained by force. For example, when the Roman Emperor Constantine became a Christian, he wanted to rule a unified Christian empire. 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. 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.
(7) The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine by Cher-El L. Hagensick]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 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' (Hislop 14); 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.1 
(8) Durant, Will. , Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.- note, I believe this author was Catholic   With this background, let's look at the growth and evolution of the Trinity. As previous stated, the Bible does not mention the trinity. Harnack affirms that the early church view of Jesus was as Messiah. After his resurrection he was "raised to the right hand of God" - but not considered as God. (78) Lonergan concurs that the educated Christians of the early centuries believed in one, supreme God. (119). As for the Holy Spirit, McGiffert tells us that "They [early Christians] thought of [the Holy Spirit] not as an individual being or person but simply as the divine power working in the world and particularly in the Church." (111) Durant summarizes Apostolic Christianity thus: "In Christ and Peter Christianity was Jewish; in Paul it became half Greek; in Catholicism it became half Roman." [
(9) 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.   As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions evoked by the Church's expansion. The writers of these "Apologies" are known to us now as "Apologists". Pelikan states that "it was at least partly in response to pagan criticism of the stories in the Bible that the Christian apologists... took over and adapted the methods and even vocabulary of pagan allegorism."   
(10) Dictionary Of The Bible 1995 John L. Mckenzie
"The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."
(11) The Encyclopedia Americana 1956
"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."
(12) The Church of the First Three Centuries 1865 Alvan Lamson
" . . . The modern doctrine of the Trinity is not found in any document or relic belonging to the Church of the first three centuries. . . so far as any remains or any record of them are preserved, coming down from early times, are, as regards this doctrine an absolute blank. They testify, so far as they testify at all, to the supremacy of the father, the only true God; and to the inferior and derived nature of the Son. There is nowhere among these remains a coequal trinity. . . but no un-divided three, -- coequal, infinite, self-existent, and eternal. This was a conception to which the age had not arrived. It was of later origin."
"The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official. The subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . . Finally, cart-loads of saints raised to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, it was the most polytheistic religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This untenable contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt with by accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. "
(13) The Doubter's Companion (John Ralston Saul)   "The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages." -
(14) Colliers Encyclopedia    "In brief, the ante-Nicene Fathers taught the real distinction and divinity of the three persons . . . but in their attempts at a philosophical interpretation of the Dogma, the ante-Nicene Fathers used certain expressions which would favor sudordinationism. In the late 17th century, the Socinians cited these expressions that the ante-Nicene tradition agreed rather with Arius than with Athanasius . . . Catholic theologians commonly defend the orthodoxy of these early Fathers, while admitting that certain of their expressions were inaccurate and eventually dangerous."
(15) The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." -- (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
(16) Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, S.J. p. 899    "The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature: which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as "essense" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."
(17) Quoting Bruce L. Shelley, a writer for Christian History, we read:
"The Council of Nicea, (was) summoned by Emperor Constantine and held in the imperial palace under his auspices. Constantine viewed the Arian teachings-that Jesus was a created being subordinate to God-as an 'insignificant' theological matter. But he wanted peace in the empire he had just united through force. When diplomatic letters failed to solve the dispute, he convened around 220 bishops, who met for two months to hammer out a universally acceptable definition of Jesus Christ.
"The expression homo ousion, 'one substance,' was probably introduced by Bishop Hosius of Cordova (in today's Spain). Since he had great influence with Constantine, the imperial weight was thrown to that side of the scales. . . . As it turned out, however, Nicea alone settled little. For the next century the Nicene and the Arian views of Christ battled for supremacy. First Constantine and then his successors stepped in again and again to banish this churchman or exile that one. Control of church offices too often depended on control of the emperor's favor." [Christian History, Bruce L. Shelley, "The First Council of Nicea," Issue 28 (Vol. IX, No. 4), 1990, p. 11. ]
(18) Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, The Council of Nice, Isaac Boyle, p. 27.]    Furthermore, John 1:1 could not be a proof of the Trinity, for no mention is made of the holy Spirit. That is most embarrassing when the key scripture to the whole Trinity concept omits one-third of the Trinity. Therefore, whatever John 1:1 proves, it does not mention the holy Spirit, and it fails to provide the third part necessary to support the Trinity. Trinitarians have combed through the Bible using every possible text to prove their point. In the overwhelming majority of texts used, you find them doing the same thing as in John 1:1, using arguments that God and Jesus are one, hoping we will not notice that none of their proof verses include the third part necessary - the holy Spirit. The idea is to get people so involved in the discussion that they will forget the holy Spirit is not mentioned. Therefore, the debate lacks the third part needed for rational proof. In order to prove the Trinity doctrine, it is necessary to find Biblical statements of the oneness of being of Father, Son and holy Spirit. Even if we could prove the Father and Son were one being, would it give us a Trinity?   When the Nicean Council ended on August 25, 325 A.D., Emperor Constantine delayed the festivities of his twentieth anniversary until the close of this council. We quote the following:
"A magnificent entertainment was provided by that prince, 'for the ministers of God' . . . No one of the bishops was absent from the imperial banquet, which was more admirably conducted than can possibly be described. The guards and soldiers, disposed in a circle, were stationed at the entrance of the palace with drawn swords. The men of God passed through the midst of them without fear, and went into the most private apartments of the royal edifice. Some of them were then admitted to the table of the emperor, and others took the places assigned them on either side. It was a lively image of the kingdom of Christ(?), and appeared more like a dream than a reality."
(19) Edward Gibbon says, in his preface to History of Christianity: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."8 [History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, preface. ]  Note: Gibbon is an historian's historian. He would not speak so forthrightly without an enormous basis for his evaluations.
(20) Outline of History, H. G. Wells, p. 421.   Commenting on the state of affairs in the early Church, H. G. Wells writes: "We shall see presently how, later on, all Christendom was torn by disputes about the Trinity. There is no clear evidence that the apostles of Jesus entertained that doctrine."


6 – Three Scriptures That Utterly Destroy The False Doctrine Of The Trinity:

The commonly believed myth or false doctrine of the Trinity brought into so called Christianity by the largest cult on earth that has permeated through so many groups because of the baggage carried by many who left/escaped this cult that could not for one reason or the other cut lose of the false doctrines of the cult have contaminated most of Christendom. However, the Bible truths from just three scriptures destroy it as follows:

FIRST:
John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (New English Translation; NEB)
John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (American Standard Version; ASV)
Neither mention in any way more than two beings, yet a trinity of anything requires three similar things.

SECOND:
John 1:2, "The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, "(New English Translation; NEB)
John 1:2, "The same was in the beginning with God." (American Standard Version; ASV)
Clearly states that the word, Jesus (Yeshua) was with God (YHWH) in the beginning, referring back to Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (ASV) when he and his Son started to create the earth and all on it.

THIRD:
John 14:28, "Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I."

Jesus (Yeshua) clearly stated, "for the Father is greater than I." Showing the Father (YHWH) was greater as we all know Jesus (Yeshua) would not lie.

So we can NOW all see this myth is just that and actually just false doctrine baggage from the world's largest cult and those believing it are thoroughly deluded.

The persons believing this myth post false hate literature against those exposing their 'pet' myth, so be ye not surprised at ones using this evil tactic.

To learn more and get the facts which you should check with your own Bible in keeping with Acts 17:11, " Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).


7 - Belief In The Trinity A Distinguishing Feature Between Apostate And Genuine Christians:

At present there are over 2 billion individuals that call them selves Christian, but are they all really true foot step followers of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ?   He said his true followers would be few in number, First let's consider both Luke 13:24 and Matthew 7:13-14, it is in both of these that the road followed by true believers would be narrow and cramped, Luke 13:24, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." (Authorized King James Bible: AV); And Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, abroad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (AV); thereby, clearly showing few would be entering the narrow gate "which leadeth unto life." In reality, it will be difficult for even true Christians to enter as testified to at 1 Peter 4:18, "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear." (AV). In order to enter, we must have the right sort of guide, Luke 1:79, "To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." (AV). Now, if one picks the wrong group, just because it is popular or the so called 'one to belong to in a community' and not because of Bible Truths, there is an important warning given at Matthew 15:14, "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." (AV). In fact, being with the wrong group can mean you are NOT having fellowship with the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) as testified to at 1 John 1:6, "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not [have] the truth." (AV). This danger is made abundantly clear at Luke 12:32 when Jesus (Yeshua) spoke of his true followers as a little flock and not a large one, "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." (AV). Simply stated, his true followers will be relatively few in number which should cause all sincere individuals to question whether mainstream religion with its vast membership is heading for the narrow gate!

THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENCES, BUT LET'S UNDERSTAND THE TWO PATHS OF CHRISTIANITY:

Most religions of the world take a two part single path as they have some good and some bad.   However, so called Christianity did NOT follow in the mold of other religions such as the Hindus, Islam, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, etc.   Instead, so called Christianity took two different paths.    These two paths are as follows:

[1] In 325 AD the greater part of the so called Christian faith went apostate to when the good favor of a pagan emperor, a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun. And this branch of apostate Christians went on to commit many atrocities such as the rape of Goa, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the burning of individuals at the stake for disagreeing with them including one Bruno for simply saying that the earth revolved around the sun; whereas, they said the sun revolved around the earth.

[2] A second and much smaller group of Christians that remained genuine Christians and did NOT go apostate, but followed in the footsteps of Christ their leader and savior. These did NOT commit any atrocities.

Thus, as can be readily seen,  Christianity did not take the same path as most other religions that of having some good and some bad, but instead had a bad large group, and a much smaller good group. The colonial powers, however, brought the bad group to India, Pakistan, the New World [most of South America and North America], and many of the islands of the sea; and they went on committing atrocities in all of these places.    This was because the apostate Christians were actually doing Satan the Devils' work per 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (Authorized King James Bible; AV); and John 5:19, "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." (AV).

MAJOR DIFFERENCE - THE TRINITY:

There are many distinguishing features between apostate (counterfeit) Christians and genuine (true) Christians, but let's concentrate of the feature that made the vast majority of so called Christians apostate.  What does apostate mean?  It is defined by the dictionary as,

Apostate-NOUN: One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause.[source - The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.]

Now accepting a pagan doctrine as a creedal Christian doctrine would of course be going apostate per 2 Corinthians 4:4, " In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (AV).  A Bible dictionary gives this explanation,

It may properly be said that God's Adversary was the first apostate, as is indicated by the name Satan. He caused the first human pair to apostatize. (Ge 3:1-15; Joh 8:44) Following the Flood, there was a rebellion against the words of the God of Noah. (Ge 11:1-9) Job later found it necessary to defend himself against the charge of apostasy on the part of his three supposed comforters. (Job 8:13; 15:34; 20:5) In his defense Job showed that God grants no audience to the apostate (Job 13:16), and he also showed the hopeless state of one cut off in apostasy. (Job 27:8; compare also Elihu's statement at ?Job ?34:30; 36:13.) In these cases the Hebrew noun cha•neph' is used, meaning "[one] alienated from God," that is, an apostate. The related verb cha•neph' means "be inclined away from the right relation to God," or "pollute, lead to apostasy."-Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Leiden, 1958, p. 317.(*1)

Now let's look at how one path of Christianity became apostate by accepting a pagan belief to gain favor with a pagan Roman Emperor, Constantine, a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, 'Sol Invictus,' with respect to his goal of uniting his empire religiously to strengthen it.

COMMONALITY OF PAGAN BELIEFS:

Now do most mainstream religions through the ages have anything 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).

CONCLUSION:

The fact is there can be no doubt that in the pagan world a multitude of gods was the norm.  Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad. (*32).

But in writing on this, one must be very careful to have is facts very correct.  Why?  Let's consider the fact that those who are not careful may be in violation of Matthew 18:6, " But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (AV); and Mark 9:32, "And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." (AV); and Luke 17:2, "It were well for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, rather than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble." (AV).

Therefore, I was very careful in writing this article to careful to post only facts, whether you like them or not is not the question, and or should not be. The question should be only accuracy which of course is proven by good backing which I provide.  I have cited renown works and reliable sources as should any honest and diligent writer on important topics. However, of course some will take objections due to their false God (YHWH) dishonoring false beliefs, but that is their problem and NOT mine as I only put forth the facts.

Now here is a list of the reference works and their number key used in producing this research product or article:

*1 - Insight on the Bible, Volume 1.
*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).

See Part 6

Part 7

Further quotes from Bratcher's speech were printed in the Baptist Press report written by Dan Martin, news editor, and printed in the Baptist Courier:
"Often in the past and still too often in the present to affirm that the Bible is the Word of God implies that the words of the Bible are the words of God. Such simplistic and absolute terms divest the Bible altogether of its humanity and remove it from the relativism of the historical process. No one seriously claims all the words of the Bible are the very words of God. If someone does so it is only because that person is not willing thoroughly to explore its implications. ...
"The Word of God is not words; it is a human being, a human life ... Quoting what the Bible says in the context of its history and culture is not necessarily relevant or helpful--and may be a hindrance in trying to meet and solve the problems we face. ..
"We are not bound by the letter of Scripture, but by the spirit. Even words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic in the thirties of the first century and preserved in writing in Greek, 35 to 50 years later, do not necessarily wield compelling authority over us today. The focus of scriptural authority is not the words themselves. It is Jesus Christ as the Word of God who is the authority for us to be and to do.
"As a biblical scholar, I view with dismay the misuse of scriptures by fundamentalists; as ... Christians we listen with alarm to the simpleminded diagnoses and the simplistic panaceas proposed with smug selfassurance by Moral Majority people intent on curing the evils of this age." (The Baptist Courier, Apr. 2, 1981; the Courier is the South Carolina SBC state paper.)
In conclusion he said;
"We are given authority by the Lord the Spirit to speak and to act, but we can never know in advance that we are doing the will of God. It is the height of presumption and arrogance to say, `I know this is God's will, and I am doing it.' No greater responsibility; no higher privilege is given to us than to hear and obey."
These statements caused quite a stir among conservative Christians, so much so that the American Bible Society began losing financial support.
Then there is the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version (again, reading "the Word was God), both of which come under considerable influence from Bruce Metzger.
The same Bruce Metzger that cut out 40% of inspired scripture to give us the Readers Digest Condensed Bible.
The same Bruce Metzger who said of Deuteronomy: "It's compilation is generally assigned to the seventh century B.C., though it rests upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses' time."
The same Bruce Metzger who said of Daniel: "Most scholars hold that the book was compiled during the persecutions (168-165 B.C.) of the Jewish people by Antiochus Epiphanes."
The same Bruce Metzger who said of John: "Whether the book was written directly by John, or indirectly (his teachings may have been edited by another), the church has accepted it as an authoritative supplement to the story of Jesus' ministry given by the other evangelists."
The same Bruce Metzger who said of James: "Tradition ascribes the letter to James, the Lord's brother, writing about A.D. 45, but modern opinion is uncertain, and differs widely on both origin and date."
The same Bruce Metzger who said of the Old Testament:
"The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. ... The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form. ... The process by which the Jews became 'the people of the Book' was gradual, and the development is shrouded in the mists of history and tradition. ... The date of the final compilation of the Pentateuch or Law, which was the first corpus or larger body of literature that came to be regarded by the Jews as authoritative Scripture, is uncertain, although some have conservatively dated it at the time of the Exile in the sixth century. ... Before the adoption of the Pentateuch as the Law of Moses, there had been compiled and edited in the spirit and diction of the Deuteronomic 'school' the group of books consisting of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in much their present form. ... Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long period of time."
There is much more that could be added on Metzger, but this should suffice, except for the fact that you, James White, had also used his research for your book, The King James Only Controversy, while obviously differing on some views.
The RSV is considered by many to be a "Liberal" version, which is why they had public burnings of it in the early 50's (see In Discordance of Scripture).
Martin Luther was an evil person, ( http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html) but no one is complaining about his rendering of John 1:1!
The American Standard Version is hailed as probably one of the most accurate versions of the Bible, yet there were Unitarians involved in its translation (Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot). Should we discard it?
Even the King James Version comes under attack, as some believe the translators were influenced by the Socinians (Unitarians) because of their referring to the holy spirit as an "it" (John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; I Peter 1:11). See Emery H. Bancroft, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961; revised edition], pp. 147-8)
J.B. Phillips (whose version certainlly does not shy away from the deity of Christ), as I am told by KJV advocates, has an autobiography detailing his necromancy and communication with the dead.
Did you see that I make mention of the KJVO people. You have written a good book on the King James Only debate, yet you employ their tactics to make your point.
I am now going to take some of your words, and use them properly. Most of the time a translation that differs from the NWT
"is just as valid and reliable as the one found in the AV itself, and frequently, it is more clear and understandable. When differences are examined in a context of seeking to understand the reasons for the differences, rather than in one of fear and emotion, we learn more about the Word and the original intents of the authors. This is how Christian dialogue and discussion should take place. Whenever you encounter a supposed "change" in the Bible's text take the time to look carefully at the available information. You will discover that there are reasons for the differences, and that there is no rationale at all for running to theories of conspiracies or evil intentions..." The King James Only Controversy, James White, p. 146
There is much available information out there, and the conclusion is that the NWT rendering has much going for it. Consider:
Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"
Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god
Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god"
Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was"
Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"
Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
"In a beginning was the [Marshal] [Word] and the [Marshal] [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal] [Word] was a god." John 1:1 21st Century NT Literal
Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god†
Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god"
J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"
George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"
James L. Tomanec, 1958, [T]he Word was a God"
Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"
Madsen, 1994, "the Word was <EM>a divine Being"
Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos]
Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].
Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being]
Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]
Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]
Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]
Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word].
John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"
Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"
Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"
Jesuit John L. McKenzie, 1965, wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should
rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'
Joseph Priestley, LL.D., F.R.S. "a God"
Lant Carpenter, LL.D "a God"
Andrews Norton, D.D. "a god"
Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church "a God"
Couple this with others who have chosen an alternative rendering focusing on the quality of the Logos, and we have a very strong case:
Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine
Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god
New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"
Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine
International English Bible, 2001, "the Word was God*[ftn. or Deity, Divine, which is a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before this Greek
word]
Simple English Bible, "and the Message was Deity"
Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was Deistic [=The Word was Godly]
International Bible Translators N.T. 1981
“In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity.†
Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word was of divine nature"
Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same nature as God"
Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974, "The Word was divine"
Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature
Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"
Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the Logos
Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine
Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word was
Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God were One
Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it
was what God was
Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the
Word was of divine kind]
Pffflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind]
Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the
Word/word]
Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being)
was the Word/word)
Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the
Logos/logos]
Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He
was with God and in all like God]
Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos"
William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And the Word was divine."
Ervin Edward Stringfellow (Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University,
1943, "And the Word was Divine"
For a fuller expanded list of various translations of John 1:1 click here.
Do I agree with the 100 % world-views of all the above translators? No! Just like I do not agree completely with the world-view of the translators of the other Bibles the WTS prints and distributes, like the ASV, KJV, Byington, NEB, JB, NAB, TEV or others like the RSV or Phillips...but I could never in good conscience tell people to stop using them.
White: We've also found German scholars who try to differentiate between the Father and the Son by coming up with unusual translations of John 1.1, though none of these would identify Jesus as some kind of created being like Michael the Archangel -
Reply: That is because John 1:1 was not written to support such a view. But let us take a look at what some have written:
Methodist Adam Clarke: And the Word was God.] Or, God was the Logos: therefore no subordinate being, no second to the Most High, but the supreme eternal Jehovah.
But regarding the occurence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10, he remarks:
"By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume commentary -- not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon Press, vol. 6, page 952).
John Wesley in his version also translates, "the Word was God," but notice what he says:
Chapter XII
A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.
Wesley on Daniel 10:21
Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes
of the earth desert or oppose it.
The Geneva Bible also follows the traditional rendering of John 1:1, but note what it says at Da 12:1
"And at that {a} time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since
there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
(a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel."
You: Hopefully you will be able to share these life-changing truths with the next follower of the Watchtower Society who knocks at your door.
Reply: And therein lies the rub. You have to wait for me to knock on YOUR door because your lazy and re-active theology bars you from knocking on mine. Can you imagine if Jesus only sat and waited for someone to call on him!
"Be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." 2 Tim 4:5 NASB
If I may, I am going to employ your words in closing, but suit them to fit the NWT, rather than the KJV:
*The anti-NWT movement is a human tradition. It has no basis in history. It has no foundation in fact. It is internally inconsistent, utilizing circular reasoning at its core, and involves the use of more double standards than almost any system of thought I have ever encountered.*
I like you, also "fully believe the Word of God is inerrant," but arguing against the NWT contradicts your claim. Like Professor Duthie says, "It is no more 'full of heresies' than any other translation." [p. 103, Bible Translations And How To Choose Between Them, The Paternoster Press]
Until you realize this Mr. White, then you are only providing fodder for atheists who also argue for the corruption of the Bible.


http://www.riverpower.org/John/C01v01-3.htm

The Word refers to Jesus the Christ. This is clarified in verse 14:
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John referred to Jesus as the "Word" in two other Bible books that he wrote:
1 John 1:1,2 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us--
Rev 19:13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Word is an expression of deity. To the Jews of John’s day, Word summed up all the Old Testament law and prophets. To the Greeks, Word expressed deity in symbolizing that Jesus revealed God the Father to mankind. As words express the thoughts of a person, Jesus, the Word, expressed the nature of God. God revealed Himself through Jesus Christ:



I am not Jehovah's Witness, but if I can bring to your attention 2 scriptures other than Col 1:15.
First is john 3:16 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.
second John 1:1-3
4. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
5. The same was in the beginning with God.
6. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
I will do this backwards. Second to First. If you find the word with God and the word was God
Who was with god in the beginning. The word was God Should actually be the word was a God
For how could God make the mistake of saying he was with himself in the beginning.
And then later you actually find out that the word became flesh.
Now to the first (HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON). There are many references through out the old testament that there are many sons of God, "JOB 1" and Genesis 6. However there is only one that shows the only one created through God was in fact Jesus.

http://www.slsoftware.com/study/KJV/1John.html

1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may

be full.

http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/John%2011.htm
JOHN 1:1
Perhaps the translation that has stirred the most controversy in the NWT is John 1:1 The New World Translation reads here:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god."
Most are familiar with the KJV's: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
The latter is followed by most, but not all, modern translations, such as:
The Revised Standard Version
The New Revised Standard Version
The Modern Language Bible
The New Testament in Modern English
The New Testament in the Language of the People
The New American Standard Version
New American Bible
The Twentieth Century New Testament
The New International
VersionThe Jerusalem Bible
The 3 translations by Moffatt, Schonfield and Goodspeed(An American Translation)has: "...and the Word was divine."
Todays English Version reads:"...and he was the same as God."
The Revised English Bible reads:"...and what God was,the Word was."
Reflecting an understanding of Jn 1:1with the New World Translation's:"and the Word was a god." we have:
The New Testament in an Improved Version(1808)
The New Testament in Greek and English(A.Kneeland, 1822.)
A Literal Translation Of The New Testament.(H.Heinfetter, 1863)
Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible(R.Young, 1885)
The Coptic Version of the N.T.(G.W.Horner, 1911)
Das Evangelium nach Johannes(J.Becker, 1979)
The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed(J.L.Tomanec, 1958)
The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists(J.S.Thompson, 1829)
Das Evangelium nach Johannes(S.Schulz, 1975)
Others from each 'group' could be cited.
So from the incept we can see that "and the Word was God," is only ONE possible rendering of John 1:1. However, the rendering as found in the New World Translation has come under severe criticism. One late well known critic even saying that such a rendering as, "and the Word was a god," is "grammatically impossible." One website says, after listing 18 translations that read at Jn 1:1 as "the Word was God," and 8 others such as the New English Bible and Todays English Bible,:
"Out of all the existing translations of the Holy Bible, taken from the original languages, ONLY those published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society deny that Jesus is God."
Clearly, this is not the case, as the above lists shows. Unless of course the writer of the above thinks the WTB&TS published those others that say,"a g/God. from the "original languages!"
"Evidence of abysmal ignorance," "not held by any reputable Greek scholar," "is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholar," "rejected by all recognised scholars of Greek language," "obsolete and incorrect," "neither scholarly nor reasonable," "pernicious," "reprehensible," "monstrous," "intellectually dishonest," "totally indefensible."(to check up on the credibility of such remarks made go to Is The New World Translation Biased page.)
The above are some of the strong language used by some towards the NWT's rendering of "theos en ho logos." Well, if the above is anything to go by I might as well throw the towel in right now! But let us see. You can judge for yourselves dear reader whether the case is closed already because of such comments by scholars of 'repute.'
Firstly, is the translation of "theos en ho logos," as "the Word was a god," grammatically impossible?
("grammatically impossible," so said Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."-An Ancient heresy in Modern Dress, Expository Times, 65, Oct.1957.)
Robert H. Gundry-Westmont College, Ca, USA,-wrote me: "As to the translation of John 1:1,"and the Word was a god" is grammatically possible but not grammatically favoured."
D.Moody Smith Jnr,George Washington Ivey Professor of N.T. wrote me: "As to John 1:1 the translation "a god" is possible, but in the context* clearly not what is intended. "Divine" is better, but John clearly wants to say Jesus was theos°..."(*- on 'context'see below.°-exactly,again,see below)
Notice that these two scholars are honest enough to say that the rendering of John 1:1c as found in the NWT IS grammatically possible! Of course, they both reject such a translation but on grounds other than grammar. So a question does come to one's mind here. Who exactly is being "intellectually dishonest?" Has it been the NWT Translation Committee or the above late scholar?
Also, Murray J. Harris:
"According, from the point of view of grammar alone,[theos en ho logos]could be rendered "the Word was a god."-Jesus As God,1992,pp.60. (Again, Harris rejects this translation on grounds other than grammar.)
C.H.Dodd has also written:
"If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [theos en ho logos]; would be "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted, and to pagan Greeks who heard early Christian language,[theos en ho logos]might have seemed a perfectly sensible statement, in that sense["signifying one of a class of beings regarded as divine"-Dodd, ibed).....The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole."-Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No.1, January 1977.(emphasis/italics ours)
Again, note "possible translation" and "cannot be faulted."
So the following from Walter Martin's "The Kingdom of the Cults" is wholly erroneous when he states: "Contrary to the translations of The Emphatic Diaglott and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the Greek grammatical construction leaves no doubt whatsoever that this is the only possible rendering of the text."
One has to wonder how many persons has this late author has managed to mislead?
C.H.Dodd's rejection of the translation, "the Word was a god," are on grounds other than grammar. Jehovah's Witnesses, indeed others, would contend with him on that. Interestingly, James Parkinson has written: "
"It is difficult to find objectivity in the translation of John 1:1. If Colwell's rule is correct (that the definite predicate nominative does not take the article) then "the Word was God" would be allowable. This translation is rejected on two sides. Because the indefinite predicate nominative would also not take the definite article, "the Word was a god" should be no less allowable. Still others think the Greek theos here implies a quality and translate it as "the Word was divine." Rejecting all three, the New English Bible says, "What God was the Word was." The ancient reading of John 1:18 mentioned above will impact the translation of verse 1. C. H. Dodd, driving force of the NEB, acknowledges of the Word was a god--"As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." He rejects it, saying, "The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johanine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole" (as though theological acceptability should be a criterion!) Paralleling with John 4:24 ("God is [a] spirit"), Dodd rejects also the AV rendering of John 1:1 in favor of that of the NEB. As for the original text of John 1:18, he dismisses it as "grammatically exceptional, if not eccentric.(Actually the Greek from here is not identical to that of John 4:24, but to that of I Timothy 6:10)."
Note the astute remark by Parkinson,"It is difficult to find objectivity in the translation of John 1:1." He is aware of the problem of Dodd's stance given above by commenting,"as though theological acceptability should be a criterion!".Quite! But on this and whether the Trinity should influence a translator's choice of rendering John 1:1, see the book, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation by R.Furuli, Chapter 4, 'The Trinity Doctrine as a Translation Problem', pp 109-140.
Some have claimed that it is on the "mere lack of the article," that the New World Translation came by it's translation.(For instance, I have read on the wwww "Just because a noun is not preceded by the article does not automatically justify the insertion of the English indefinite "a". This is a gross over-simplification of the facts, a practice unfortunately common amongst those who are not properly trained in the Greek language. I am aware that this is a serious charge, however,the facts reveal that the WTB&TS has consistently refused to name any of it's NWT translators...". This person has accused the NWT of practicing something it does not practice-a straw man has been created. It is a serious charge. Not least because it's a false one but it also impugns the scholarship of others such as those I have quoted herein.To bolster this charge he trys to show that the anonimity of those behind the NWT indicates something unscholarly about their work. An ad hominem. Although the NWT thought that the omission was important it is not "merely" because, in the phrase "kai theos en ho logos" the word "theos" lacks the article that it so translated. Any one reading what the NWTTC has said(and critics as the above should have done!)will be able to see this. For instance, they have said:
"While the Greek langauge has no indefinite article corresponding to the English "a," it does have the definite article ho, often rendered into English as "the."...Frequently, though, nouns occur in Greek without the article.Grammarians refer to these nouns as "anarthrous," meaning "used without the article." Interestingly, in the final part of John 1:1, the Greek word for "god," theos, does not have the article ho before it. How do translators render such anarthrous Greek nouns into English?
"Often they add the English indefinite article "a" to give the proper sense to the passage.....This does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the Greek text it should appear in English with the indefinite article. Translators render these nouns variously, at times even with a "the," understanding them as definite, though the definite article is missing."-The Watchtower, 1975, p.702.
So, in this case before us, Why did the NWT choose to use the English "a" in John 1:1c? Let them answer:
"The New World Bible Translation Commitee chose to insert the indefinite article "a" there. This helps to distinguish "the Word," Jesus Christ, as a god, or divine person with vast power, from the God whom he was "with, "Jehovah, the Almighty....Alfred Marshall explains why he used the indefinite article in his interlinear translation of all the verses mentioned in the two previous paragraphs[Jn.4:19;6:70;8:34,44;10:1,13;18:26,37.],and in many more: "The use of it in translation is a matter of individual judgement....We have inserted 'a' or 'an' as a matter of course where it seems called for." Of course, neither Colwell(as noted above)nor Marshall felt that an "a" before "god" at John 1:1 was called for. But this was not because of any inflexible rule of grammar" It was "individual judgement" which scholars and translators have a right to express. The New World Bible Translation Committee expressed a different judgement in this place by the translation "a god."...The translation "a god" at John 1:1 does no injustice to Greek grammar. Nor does it conflict with the worship of the One whom the resurrected Jesus Christ called "my God" and to whom Jesus himself is subject-John 20:17; Rev.3:2,12; 1 Cor.11:3; 15:28."-ibed
So the NWT rendering was due to (1)The lack of the article in the phrase,"kai theos en ho logos." (2)Context;the Word was "with" the God[ho theos in John 1:1,2] and (3)What the rest of the Bible says about Jesus.
On (1) and (2),The Translator's New Testament says: "There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific.In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that it's omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos(God)so that the phrase means 'The Word was divine.'"
Vincent Taylor says:
"Here, in the Prologue[of John's Gospel]the Word is said to be God, but as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not used(in the final clause). For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine'(Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the absolute sense of the name. The New English Bible neatly paraphrases the phrase in the words 'and what God was,the Word was',....In neither passage[including 1:18]is Jesus unequivocally called God...."- Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?, Expository Times, 73, No.4(Jan.1962), p.118.
This nicely leads us into this,which I have recently come across, on a site critical of the NWT's John 1:1:
"Merrill C. Tenney comments further, "To say the absence of the article bespeaks of the non-absolute deity of the Word is sheer folly. There are many places in this Gospel where the anarthrous theos appears (e.g. 1:6,12,13,18), and not once is the implication that this is referring to just "a god" (Tenney, Merrill. "The Gospel of John" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Regency, 1981,p.30). The NWT renders the first three anarthrous appearances of theos Tenney mentions as "God," and the last as "god" (no "a"). But if the WT were consistent in the application of its own Greek "rules" each of these should read, "a god."."
(I have read also, "If one is to dogmatically assert that any anarthrous noun must be indefinite and translated with an indefinite article, one must be able to do the same with the 282 other times theos appears anarthrously...". One has to wonder who has ever "dogmatically asserted" that any anarthrous noun must be indefinite! Not the NWT Translation Committee at any rate!)
Dr Jason BeDuhn shows the ignorance of the above by saying:
"In fact the KIT[Appendix 2A, p.1139]explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject. He[one particular critic who said the same as above]goes on to insist that the NWT is inconsistent because other uses of THEOS without the article in John 1 are not translated the same way (a charge repeated by Countess, as mentioned in the Stafford book, from the same ignorance.) He fails to note that not only that the constructs are different, but that these other uses are not nominative (THEOS) but genitive (THEOU); the latter form is governed by totally different rules. The genitive form of the noun does not require the article to be definite, whereas the nominative form normally does. It's that simple."
( The above clearly shows that this "ignorance" is consistently repeated.Notice the following example where the writer gives Countess as his source.We may have here a case of the blind leading the blind!: "The word "God" appears 282 times in the Greek without the article (anarthrous) in the New Testament. In order to be consistent with their "a god" translation, the New World Translation (NWT) should translate all anarthrous verses "a god." But this is not what we find. Instead, the NWT translates it "God" a whopping 266 times and god, a god, gods, and godly only 16 times! (The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament, Robert H. Countess, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1982, pp. 54-55). This proves the NWT deliberately changed John 1:1 to fit their theology. The verse is correctly translated, "The Word was God."
7. The New World Translation overlooks Colwell's rule in Greek which says, "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb." Simply stated, the word "God" doesn't need an article in John 1:1 because in Greek it precedes the verb.
8. In The New World Translation "God" is capitalized in John 1:6, 12, 13, and verse 18 (twice), yet all are without the articles! This proves once again, the committee that translated the NWT deliberately changed John 1:1 to "a god.")
We will look later whether the NWT "overlooks" Colwell's rule.The 2nd point made above shows an ignorance of basic Greek! However:
Those who have looked into the construction we find in John 1:1c: "theos [the predicate]was[the verb]the logos[articular subject]say:
"At a number of points in this study we have seen that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may be primarily qualitative in force yet may also have some connotation of definiteness. The categories of qualitativeness and definiteness, that is, are not mutually exclusive, and frequently it is a delicate exegetical issue for the interpreter to decide which emphasis a Greek writer had in mind. As Colwell called attention to the possibility that such nouns may be definite, the present sudy has focused on their qualitative force. In Mark 15:39 I would regard the qualitative emphasis as primary, although there may also be some connotation of definiteness.In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."-P.Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol.92.1, 1973, pp.85,87.(About Harner and the NWT editors quotation of him here, see below.)
This scotch's the arguement that the definite article was not needed but would be understood, because of the word order of the phrase, so that the phrase should read,"and the Word was God." In the translation of John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," the reader would not be aware that in the Greek text the first occurrence of "God," has the article, and the second has not. Yet, if the omission in the second case is "significant," then this should be brought out in translation.
So,what is the best way, even the correct way, to translate; "kai theos en ho logos?"
First of all, whenever we come across the indefinite "a" or "an" in an English translation these words are an insertion by the translator to bring out the correct thought inherent in the Greek. When the article is used it identifies a particular noun, so that when we say,"the man," we have a particular man in mind. When we use the indefinite article "a man," we are describing one of a group/class, so that "a man," means "one of mankind." Or, it could be describing the characteristics or qualities of that noun, so that "a man" means "man-like," "is manly." So, in Greek a noun can be definite, indefinite or qualitative, or a combination of them. We have just seen that the predicate noun "theos," in "theos en ho logos," cannot be considered definite. So that must mean it is either indefinite or qualitative or a combination of both indefinite/qualitative.
How have translator's translated singular anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb as we find in John 1:1c? Often they have used the English indefinite article. The New World Translation, Reference Edition(1984) has an appendix that lists of 11 instances of this syntax in Mark and John showing how they have been translated in 6 different Bible translations- 5 of whom come from the group above that translate the singular anarthrous predicate "theos" in John 1:1c as definite. In all instances they have, of course, translated them using the English indefinite article. The appendix says, in part:
"In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous [theos] in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read " a god." The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering."-Appendix 6A,p1579.
Does this mean that the NWT Translation Committee regarded the anarthrous predicate "theos" in John 1:1c as purely "indefinite".The 1950 1st edtion of the NWT contained an appendix that discussed John 1:1. Therein we read after citing both Goodspeed's and Moffatt's translation:"and the Word was divine":
"Every honest person will have to admit that John's saying that the Word or Logos "was divine" is not saying that he was the God with whom he was. It merely tells of a certain quality about the Word or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same God.....Careful translators recognise that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality,whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone".
This is exactly what one scholar wrote:
"An Exegetical Grammer Of The Greek New Testament, William D Chamberlain
page 57
d. A qualitative force is often expressed by the absence of the article: en tois propsetais (Heb. 1:1), 'in the prophets,' calls attention to a particular group, while en uio (Heb. 1:2), 'in son,' calls attention to the rank of the Son as a 'spokesman' for God. The ARV in trying to bring out the force of this phrase translates it, 'in his Son,' italicizing 'his.'
The predicate of a sentence may be recognized by the absence of the article: theos en ho logos(Jn. 1:1), the Word was God; kai ho logos sarz egento (Jn. 1:14), 'And the Word became flesh'; esontai oi eschatoi protoi (Mt. 20 :16), 'the last shall be first.' The article with each of these predicate nouns would equate them and make them interchangeable, e. g., ho theos en ho logos would make God and the Word identical. The effect of this can be seen in ho theos agape estin (1 Jn. 4 :8), 'God is love.' As the sentence now stands 'love' describes a primary quality of God; the article he with agape would make God and love equivalents, e. g., God would possess no qualities not subsumed under love.
"Summary
"The primary function of the article is to make something definite. It may point out something new to the discussion, or something already mentioned.
"Theos en ho logos" is describing the quality of the Logos-Word in that he possessed divine or divinity as the only begotten son of God who was a spirit being like God but not identical to Jehovah God."
William D.Chamberlain was professor of New Testament language and literature at the Louisville Presbyterian Seminary.It is a text book on Greek grammar that has been recommended by Bruce Metzger.
So we can see that the NWT Translation Committee recognized that the noun "theos" was primarily qualitative ,as well as being indefinite.It was considered primarily qualitative because of the Greek word order.If the verb,a form of 'I am',comes before the anarthrous predicate nominative then,as a rule,it would be considered primarily indefinite.If after,primarily qualitative.What would this mean to our understanding of John 1:1c? Well,the meaning of "and the Word was a god," would then be that the Word was "godlike"-divine,holy,powerful.Not just "a god," in the sense he was just one of many "gods," The Word was a "divine one." Or, as one German translator puts it: "and godlike sort was the Logos."-Das Evangelium nach Johannes,1978,by Johannes Schneider.
However, the NWT Translation Committee chose to use the indefinite article "a" to so render as it did and not like Moffatt and Goodspeed, because of two factors.One, it's avowed principle of being as "literal as possible" and second, the context*, from the Greek,shows a contrast between two that are "theos" but only one is "ho theos," "the God." As the Word was with "the God," he could not be that "God," and, yet, he was "theos"(°-cp. Moody-Smith's comment above,)so the Word must be distinguished from "God" by literally translating "theos." One way to do that is saying that the Word was "a god." A higher case 'G' is rightly used for the One said to be "THE" theos, and hence a lower case used for the Word said to be with this "God," "ho theos,"-the Almighty God. Can the use of the indefinite article bring out the qualitativeness of a noun though?(* re context-cp.D.Moody Smith's comment quoted above.)
In the book Jehovah's Witnesses Defended,An Answer to Scholars and Critics,the author,Greg Stafford, a Jehovah's Witness himself, cites and discusses three examples where he believes that "a qualitative/indefinite aspect is evident." One of these is Acts 28:4 where it is said of Paul, "the man is a murderer," from the Greek "phoneus estin ho anthropos." I can do no better here than quote Stafford:
"In translations of this verse the qualitative/indefinite aspect of the noun is usually brought out by means of the indefinite article.The indefinite aspect seems clear enough, and the qualitative nuance naturally follows from the noun used to describe Paul. How can he be a murderer without owning the qualities of a murderer? This text provides an exact parallel to John 1:1c, where we have an anarthrous preverbal nominative followed by an articulated subject."
Agreeing with the above are the comments, on this and Stafford's position here,i s Dr Jason BeDuhn who has written:
"The Jehovah's Witness editors, in explaining this verse, say that they are trying to convey that the word has qualitative sense--that is, that the word belongs to the class of divine beings. This is correct. In fact, it seems clear to me that the word theos is in this verse a predicate adjective. I would translate as Moffatt and Goodspeed (two excellent scholars of Greek) have: "And the Word was divine."
For the reason why this preference of translation of John 1:1c by Dr. Beduhn does _not_ undermine this site's 'use' of him re the New World Translation click here.
".....I have already told you that "the Word was divine" is a very simple and accurate way to convey the qualitative sense of this construct, and I am pleased to see that Stafford comes to the same conclusion. Towards the end of the chapter, Stafford cites Acts 28:4, which is a perfect choice, and shows how this qualitative sense for the anarthrous predicate nominative before the verb works."
(Another "exact parallel" is 1 Kings 18:27LXX.It has the same sentence structure as John 1:1. It says: "Call at the top of your voice, for he is a god"; "a god" is the natural translation of the Greek "theos estin", or "god he is." Stafford gives two other examples of qualitative/indefinite nouns;John 14:19 and from The Martyrdom of Polycarp,12:1)
There is no doubt then that the use of the English indefinite article can be used to bring out both the qualitative aspect of a Greek noun and the indefiniteness derived from it's context.
How might this little discussion be ended. Surely, anyone should be able to agree that the NWT's translation here is justifable at least. It breaks no 'rule' of grammar. It properly distinguishes between the one who is "Ho theos," and the Word as "theos." It fits in with the context better than the popular rendition.The context shows two individuals, one who is said to be "with" the other and so therefore they cannot be identical. True, "ho theos," is the Father, but John is not only distinguishing between the Father and the Word, but between two beings, one as an articulated "theos" and one who is an anarthrous "theos." A translation should do so aswell. Such translations such as "and the Word was God," certainly do not. Jehovah's Witnesses will say that the NWT's translation "a god," agrees with the rest of scriptures that portray Jesus not as "God," "the God," "God Almighty," whose name is, in English,Jehovah, but as his Son,who was sent to do his Father's will and remained subordinate to Him even after his resurrection, and who he called his God(Rev.3:12), the One he too worships and directs all worshippers to(Luke 4:8).(see "Jesus as Theos.")
So what is the real issue involved here in the severe criticism that such a rendering,"and the Word was a god," has been met with.In short, it's all to do with theology. Jehovah's Witness deny the trinity and indeed speak out 'against' it. I recommend the Awake 1972, May 22nd, pp.27-28 on this: Is it Grammar or Interpretation?
Lastly, it might be pointed out. Such scholars as Bruce Metzger and the late William Barclay's strong condemnation of the New World Translation here was based on Colwell's rule. At least their condemnation was, back then, in the 1960's, The NWT Translation Committee rejected such a 'rule' here, back then, and still do. They have been joined by others. Who has been proven right? These 'reputable' scholars or the anonymous persons, who were and are still, much maligned and their scholarship brought into question from all quarters? Do I need to tell you?
*Harner-Although he understands that 'theos' in John 1:1c is not definite that does not mean that he believes that "and the Word was a god" is correct. He had written, "Perhaps the clause[John 1:1c]could be translated "the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos." So BeDuhn is right about Harners "religous commitments." The NWT might agree that "theos" here is qualitative but would then disagree with Harner in believing that the Word was equal to the one called "God" here. The NWT editors cite Harner simply because he says that the anarthrous theos is not definite. Scholars, such as Metzger, had argued strongly in the past against such a translation as "...a god," from the belief that theos here WAS definite.As Stafford points out,"..to use Harners article in support of this view[that the anarthrous theos is not definite but qualitative]is certainly appropriate,since that is one of the primary purposes of his article!" It is quite clear that the belief that Jesus is part of a tri-une God-head has 'influenced' Harner's view of what the qualitative force of theos here indicates about the Word. It is the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses that to do this is erroneous, not least because the Trinity is, in it's full conception, a 4th century doctrine and should have no place in deciding what John was saying at the end of the 1st. In defending John 1:1c as proof of Jesus' deity in the sense he was "God," I have read,"The WT is ignoring the distinction between "Person" and "essence." The Word is not the same PERSON as God the Father, but it does not then follow He is not of the same ESSENCE as Him." Here we have a prime example of importing a term,"essence," used by later 'theologians' from after the 1st century into John's Gospel. The Bible does not contain that word or the idea that Trinitarians mean by it. It is wholly erroneous to import such a 3rd/4th century word and idea into a discussion of John 1:1. Also, John is not distinguishing the two beings here in terms of person but as two which are "theos." So, what John 1:1 is saying, rather than just "The Word is not the same PERSON as God the Father," it is saying that the "Word" is not the same "theos" as the one with whom he was with. Translations such as "and the Word was God" make out he was the "God" he was "with"! Even Trinitarians disagree with that, for that would mean that the Word was the Father! So we have translations that apparently recognise the confusion inherent in the "Word was God" translations and paraphrase the sentence to read "and he was the same as God."-Today's English Version(1976) Notice the 'addition' of the words "same as." It could be interpreted as saying he, the Word, although "with and the same as" "God" makes him other than "God." I see nothing wrong with this translation despite what the translator's think it is intended to mean. I can be with someone,a particular "man" and be the same as them,"man", a "man," myself. But if I said that to anyone would they think I was that particular man? No, they would rightly conclude I was "like" him but not actually him. Nor, then, was the Word "God" in John 1:1.

Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott as published by Fowler & Wells NY.,1883, You may notice that in Wilson's interlinear reading of John 1:1 he literally translates John 1:1c "kai theos en ho Logos" as "and a god was the Word." He shows that the Word or "Logos" is not the same "theos" as the one he was with by translating it in his main translation as "and the LOGOS was God." Note that it is "God" in lower case than the other occurrence which he has as "GOD."

Re scholars such as Metzger and Barclay. Any remarks I have said about them above does not take away the fact that they ARE excellent scholars in their field and I do not wish to be understood as saying otherwise. These two have contributed much over the years which to those who are interested have much benefited. But thier remarks do highlight tha fact that what credentials you have, whatever qualifications you may have gained, a person's theology can 'get in the way' of an objective approach to Bible translation and understanding.
I have read the following: "...if you are going to insist on a translation,you must be prepared to defend it in such a way as to provide a way for the author to have expressed the alternate translation.In other words ,if theos en ho logos is "a god," how could John have said "the Word was God?"
Good question--which can be answered.
Greg Stafford, after quoting Wallace where the latter says, "The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father,"(Greek Grammar,note 31,),writes,"However,there is a more concise way John could have communicated the precise distinction Wallace makes, had he simply written,[[ho logos en pros ho patera[or,pros theos patera],kai theos[or,ho theos]en ho logos("the Word was with the Father[or,'with God the Father],and the Word was God").If John had wanted to state that the Word was God but distinct from the Father, then the above, or some variation thereof, is all he need have written. Had he done so, there would be some justification for distinguishing the two in terms of "person," although not necessarily in the later Trinitarian sense in which the Father and Son are distinguished as "persons" in the "Godhead." However, as John 1:1 stands in our Greek texts today, a distinction can only be made in terms of theos, without reading later theology into the text. We agree that ho theos is the Father, but since John is careful to distinguish the being of the Father(ho theos) from that of the Word,we must also do so in our translations of this passage."-Jehovah's Witnesses Defended. 1st edition, p.219-220.(2nd edition now available)
So; "In the beginning the Word was,and the Word was with God and the Word was a god.This one was in the beginning with God."-NWT
In the 1950 edition of the New World Translation an appendix at the back discusses the reasons why the NWTTC choose to render John 1:1 as they did. Therein they quoted from A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey which remarks on p.148, paragraph (3): "The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4;6, [lit., "market was the place] and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1[kai theos en ho logos], and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with [theos]." The said NWT(1950) appendix went on to say about this remark by the above Grammarians: "Instead of translating John 1:1, and the word was deity, this Grammar could have translated it, and the word was a god, to run more parallel with Xenophon's statement, and the place was a market." Mantey has charged that the NWT appendix has misused his remarks as quoted above. A letter he wrote to a certain individual has been re-produced in various books that are critical of Jehovah's Witness and the New World Translation. However,despite what Mantey has said in that letter what his Grammar does say in regard to John 1:1 and Xenophon 1:4:6,t hat is, they are "parallel" in their sentence construction: both are examples where the predicate nominative is anarthrous and precede the verb and the subject is after the verb and has the article. There is no getting away from it that Dana and Mantey, although not intending to, has given the basis or allowance of the translation of 'kai theos en ho logos' as "and the word was a god." For a deeper discussion of this, between a Jehovah's Witness and a Trinitarian, re Dana and Mantey's Manual Grammar, the NWT(1950)appendix, John 1:1, the letter to Mantey here alluded to and Mantey's response, which has had wide publicity, go to Debatelog/Hommel

http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/John%2011.htm

(1 John 1:1 NKJV) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life;
(1 John 1:2 NKJV) the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us;
(1 John 1:3 NKJV) that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

http://www.seekgod.org/bible/chapters/1john1.html 


http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.2.6.html  [a Muslim Greek translator]

Another verse quoted in defense of the "Trinity" is the verse of John 1:1 :
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
When I first learned of this verse it appeared to me that I had finally found my elusive goal. However, after substantial research into Christian theological literature, I would later come to learn that this verse too can not be interpreted to justify a "triune" God. My own experience has shown that this verse is the one most popularly quoted by most Christians in defense of the Trinity. For this reason I shall spend a little more time in it's analysis than in the analysis of the other verses.
First of all, it is quite obvious from simply reading the above verse that even in the very best case, this verse speaks only of a "Duality" not a "Trinity." Even the most resolute conservative Christian will never claim to find in this verse any mention whatsoever of a "merging" of a Holy Ghost with God and "the Word." So even if we were to accept this verse at face value and just have faith, even then, we find ourselves commanded to believe in a "Duality" and not a "Trinity." But let us see if this verse does in fact even command us to believe in a "Duality." To do this we need to notice the following points:

1) Mistranslation of the text:
In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).
Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse is honestly presented as
"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."
The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173
And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of "God" we read
"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"
The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317
In yet another Bible we read:
"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"
The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt
Please also see "The Authentic New Testament" by Hugh J. Schonfield and many others.
If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to describe the devil, however, now the system of translation has been changed:
"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."
According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the Devil should also have been written as "The God" with a capital "G." If Paul was inspired to use the exact same words to describe the Devil, then why should we change it? Why is "The God" translated as simply "the god" when referring to the devil, while "divine" is translated as the almighty "God" when referring to "The Word"? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?
Well, what is the difference between saying "the word was God," and between saying "the word was a god (divine)"? Are they not the same? Far from it! Let us read the bible:
"I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of the most High"
Psalms 82:6:
"And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh"
Exodus 7:1
"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."
2 Corinthians 4:4
What does all of this mean? Let me explain.
In the West, it is common when one wishes to praise someone to say "You are a prince," or "You are an angel" ..etc. When someone says this do they mean that that person is the son of the King of England, or a divine spiritual being? There is a very slight grammatical difference between saying "You are a prince" and between saying "You are THE prince," however, the difference in meaning is quite dramatic.
Further, it is necessary when translating a verse to also take into account the meaning as understood by the people of that age who spoke that language. One of the biggest problems with the Bible as it stands today is that it forces us to look at ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called "original" manuscripts of the NT available today are written in Greek or Latin. The Jews had no trouble reading such verses as Psalms 82:6, and Exodus 7:1, while still affirming that there is only one God in existence and vehemently denying the divinity of all but God Almighty. It is the continuous filtration of these manuscripts through different languages and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church's extensive efforts to completely destroy all of the original Hebrew Gospels (see last quarter of this chapter) which has led to this misunderstanding of the verses.
The Americans have a saying: "Hit the road men." It means "It is time for you to leave." However, if a non-American were to receive this command without any explanation then it is quite possible that we would find him beating the road with a stick. Did he understand the words? Yes! Did he understand the meaning? No!
In the Christian church we would be hard pressed to find a single priest or nun who does not address their followers as "my children." They would say: "Come here my children", or "Be wary of evil my children" ... etc. What do they mean?
A fact that many people do not realize is that around 200AD spoken Hebrew had virtually disappeared from everyday use as a spoken language. It was not until the 1880s that a conscious effort was made by Eliezer Ben-Yehudah to revive the dead language. Only about a third of current spoken Hebrew and basic grammatical structures come from biblical and Mishnaic sources. The rest was introduced in the revival and includes elements of other languages and cultures including the Greek and Arabic languages.
Even worse than these two examples are cases when translation into a different languages can result in a reversal of the meaning. For example, in the West, when someone loves something they say "It warmed my heart." In the Middle East, the same expression of joy would be conveyed with the words: "It froze my heart." If an Mideasterner were to greet a Westerner with the words: "It froze my heart to see you," then obviously this statement would not be greeted with a whole lot of enthusiasm from that Westerner, and vice versa. This is indeed one of the major reasons why the Muslims have been so much more successful in the preservation of their holy text than the Christians or the Jews; because the language of the Qur'an has remained from the time of Muhammad (pbuh) to the present day a living language, the book itself has always been in the hands of the people (and not the "elite"), and the text of the book remains in the original language of Muhammad (pbuh). For this reason, a translator must not and should not "translate" in a vacuum while disregarding the culture and traditions of the people who wrote these words. As we have just seen, it was indeed quite common among the Jews to use the word "god" (divine) to convey a sense of supreme power or authority to human beings. This system, however, was never popularly adopted by them to mean that these individuals were in any way omnipotent, superhuman, or equal to the Almighty.
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.2.6.html     Muslim-SA@acsu.buffalo.edu


See Page 8

Part 9

Thus you can easily see there is something very wrong with this translation and it could IN NO WAY be the thoughts of the original writer, and of course you would be correct. But now what were the thoughts of the original writer? The New English Bible (NEB) captures the thoughts of the original writer as follows for John 1:1-3, "When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was. The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him." (The New English Bible; NEB) or in the translation by the renown American translator, An American Translation," by Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed - transltr, J. M. Powis Smith - transltr. Publisher: University of Chicago Press, "IN THE beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine. It was he that was with God in the beginning. Everything came into existence through him, and apart from him nothing came to be." (An American Translation; AAT). Both clearly showing that he was what his father was a diety or divine; but clearly not on the same level with his Father (YHWH) since as he himself said at John 14:28, " You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come unto you. If you loved me you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I." (DRCB); thus no violation of Exodus 20:3 against polytheism, "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me." (DRCB). And as God's (YHWH's) he showed where worship should be directed in Matthew 4:10 when he was giving an answer to the Devil on worship and to whom it should be given, "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (American Standard Version; ASV), and this is in keeping with Isaiah 42:8, "I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images." (ASV). Jesus (Yeshua) even showed that his own glory was subordinate to his Father's (YHWH's) and dependent on his Father (YHWH) at John 17:1-5, "These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: 2 even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. 3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, [even] Jesus Christ. 4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (ASV). So we can clearly see that Jesus (Yeshua) and His Father (YHWH) must be two separate and distinct individuals as there is NO POSSIBLE WAY THEY COULD BE ONE INDIVIDUAL, since one is dependent on the other for his power, this being the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) who is dependent on his Father (YHWH) who is greater than he is.


10 - Digital Book On The Bibles Use Of Alpha and Omega – An Explanation:

The Bible’s use of the terms Alpha and Omega at various places is one of the most misunderstood items in the Bible.  This short digital book deals with each one of its usages in the Bible and attempts to clear up its meaning for all.  Each separated segment/article deals with one specific occurrence in the Bible of Alpha and Omega and/or a subject bearing on this usage.

Discourse on Revelation 22:12-13:

INTRODUCTION:

Let’s first look at the two scriptures in several different Bible versions/translations:

“12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.† (Revelation 22:12-13 AV – Authorized King James Version)

“12 Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is.
13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.† .† (Revelation 22:12-13 ASV – American Standard Version of 1901)

“12 Lo! I come speedily, and my reward is with me, to render unto each one as, his, work is.
13 I, am the A and the Z, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.† (Revelation 22:12-13 Rothrham)

BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA ON REVELATION 22:12-13:

The International Standard Encyclopedia of the Bible says:

ALPHA AND OMEGA

al'-fa, o'-me-ga, o-me'-ga (Alpha and Omega = A and O):

The first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, hence, symbolically, "beginning and end"; in Revelation "The Eternal One" in Revelation 1:8 of the Father, in Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13 of the Son. Compare Theodoret, Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, iv. 8:

"We used alpha down to omega, i.e. all." A similar expression is found in Latin (Martial, v.26). Compare Aretas (Cramer's Catenae Graecae in New Testament) on Revelation 1:8 and Tertullian (Monog, 5): "So also two Greek letters, the first and last, did the Lord put on Himself, symbols of the beginning and the end meeting in Him, in order that just as alpha rolls on to omega and omega returns again to alpha, so He might show that both the evolution of the beginning to the end is in Him and again the return of the end to the beginning." Cyprian, Testim, ii.1; vi.22, iii.100, Paulinus of Nola Carm. xix.645; xxx.89; Prudentius, Cathem., ix.10-12. In Patristic and later literature the phrase is regularly applied to the Son. God blesses Israel from 'aleph to taw (Leviticus 26:3-13), but curses from waw to mem (Leviticus 26:14-43). So Abraham observed the whole law from 'aleph to taw. Consequently, "Alpha and Omega" may be a Greek rendering of the Hebrew phrase, which expressed among the later Jews the whole extent of a thing.

CONCLUSION:

In these two scriptures we are dealing with the symbolic meaning to the use of the first letter of the Koine Greek alphabet, Alpha, and the last letter, omega. As the International Bible Dictionary of the Bible states, it means the '‘beginning and end’ and shows how in Revelation 1:8 this phase is applied to the Father (YHWH) “6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.† (Revelation 1:6-8 AV). Here we note it says, “6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father† clearly here referring to two individuals, God the Father (YHWH), and his God the Son (Yeshua or YHWH saves) . The term Alpha and Omega in “8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.† Which is made clearer in the Rothrham Bible as “8 I, am, the A, and, the Z, saith the Lord,—the, God who Is, and who Was, and who is Coming, The Almighty.â€
Clearly showing he has no beginning in keeping with “2 Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.† (Revelation 1:8 ASV), which is quite different from how this same phrase is later used at Revelation 21:6 and 22:13 to apply to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) who had a beginning as shown by “ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;† (Revelation 3:14 AV); he was the first created thing with regard to all that was created.

To get a clear understanding of Revelation 22:13, we need to look at it in contest as follows:

“9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and sleepermongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.† (Revelation 22:9-16 AV)

We note that Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) or one of his angels is quoted by the Apostle John as saying, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.† [these being the Angels he was given authority over to carry out his assignment at 1 Corinthians 15:27-28.]. Since Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) had a beginning as shown “ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;† (Revelation 3:14 AV) and “15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;† (1 Colossians 1:15-19 AV). Clearly Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is separate individual from his Father (YHWH) as the scripture states, “. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;† which makes plain that his Father (YHWH) was pleased that “all fulness dwell† in his faithful Son. Also, the scripture brings out in what manner Alpha and Omega properly applies to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) when it states, “15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.† Where it shows that after his creation by his Father (YHWH), he, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) worked along with his Father in creating all of the remainder of creation in the entire universe. His, the Son’s Alpha and Omega symbolic application is further made clear in “17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.† Thus he is the Alpha in the sense he helped create all else except himself and the Omega as his Father (YHWH) has given him immortality for being faithful, and this is made certain by “. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.â€

So here we see a faithful Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) had been given authority over all by his Father (YHWH) with the “, it is manifest that he is excepted† exception of himself. This subjection to his Father (YHWH) is clearly shown by the faithful Son’s statements, “ Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.† (John 5:19 AV) and “ Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.† (John 14:28 AV).

Those denying that Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is not the faithful only begotten Son of Almighty God (YHWH) and not God (YHWH) are thus clearly committing blasphemy.

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

By a Jewish scholar on Revelation 1:8:


I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

I decided to clarify this passage since so many forget what Yehoshua said in John 14:8-10. But first let’s look at another passage.

Revelation 1:1 The revelation of Yehoshua Moshiach, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

In the beginning of the Book of Revelation we read that God gave Yehoshua Ha’Moshiach a Revelation which Yehoshua gave to John. So we understand that Yehoshua is giving and telling John what God told Yehoshua, to get a better understanding of this read John 12:49.

So why did Yehoshua say “I am the Alpha and Omega†? Well let me ask you how do you know it was Yehoshua who said it and not The Father who said it through Yehoshua?

John 14:8-10 Philip said to him, Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied. Yehoshua said to him, Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

I mad it in red where the Father speaks “through† the Son, and yet the Apostles would have thoughts Yehoshua said it if he wouldn’t tell them that The Father spoke “through† him, for the Father is in Yehoshua.

But look it says in Revelation 1:8 that “Lord God† said it. Oh yea? Well look in John where I made it in blue, it says “Yehoshua said† also, but yet the Father spoke “through† him. And how do you know Yehoshua was not repeating what The Father (The Only True God according to Yehoshua; John 17:3) told him to say?

What was said in Revelation 1:8 goes for everywhere else in the book of Revelation, the Father speaks through the Son, and the Son speaks for himself, it’s hard to understand what is going on in the book of Revelation since we were not there to see it for ourselves, and remember it was a vision.

Now since we are on this topic, let’s look at some other scriptures in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 3:2 Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of the God of me.

Some of you may be puzzled why it does not say what it says above in your English Bible, that is because the translators are scared of what it says in the Greek, look for yourself by clicking here.

Notice that Yehoshua says “the God of me† in Revelation 3:2, The True God does not have a True God, people wake up.

Revelation 3:12 He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Yerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.



Here we see Yehoshua speak of his God four times while in heaven in his glorified body.

You think this is the first time Yehoshua talks about his God? If you do then let’s look at another scripture.

John 20:17 Yehoshua said to her, Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

Here we see Yehoshua tell us that his God is our God and his Father is our Father, also read Hebrews 2:11-13. I have seen many Idolaters (those who claim Ha’Moshiach is God in flesh) say that Yehoshua said it because he was in the flesh. HELLO? What difference does it make if he said it in the flesh or in the spirit of if his flesh spoke by itself by some magical power or if his spirit spoke through the flesh? He said it, so OBEY IT!

Let’s look at what else Yehoshua said, and the reason I am going to give the two following scriptures is because Idolaters don’t have God and they will see death according to what Yehoshua and Apostle John said.

John 8:51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death.

How many Idolaters (those who claim Ha’Moshiach is God in flesh) keep what Yehoshua said in John 17:3 and in John 20:17?

2nd John 9-11 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Moshiach does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work.

How many Idolaters (those who claim Ha’Moshaich is God in flesh) keep what Yehoshua said in John 17:3 and in John 20:17?

I hope we now understand how dangerous it is to twist scriptures and to claim what the scriptures do not teach.

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

DISCOURSE ON ISAIAH 44:6:

INTRODUCTION:

Isaiah 44:6 has been one of the scriptures that the preachers of false doctrines such as the Trinity, Mol dualism, and Oneness have twisted the most to try and show support for their none Biblical doctrines, but in reality it supports the Truth of the Bible and not the false reasonings and doctrines of men. But before seeing why this is so, let's look at the scripture in several different Bibles to get a better perspective of it before discussing it - Isaiah 44:6:

"And who, as I, can proclaim--let him declare it, and set it in order for Me--since I appointed the ancient people? And the things that are coming, and that shall come to pass, let them declare". [Jewish Publication Society 1917 OT]

"kh-`mr yhvh mlk-ysr`l vg`lv yhvh &b`vt `ny r`svn v`ny `xrvn vmbljdy `yn `lhym". [Hebrew Transliteration Bible][[so as to give all some feel for how it looks in Hebrew, but with English Characters]]

"Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God." [American Standard Version, ASV]

"Thus saith the Lord the king of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. " [Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB]

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." [Authorized King James Bible; AV]

"Thus says the LORD, the King of Yisra'el, and his Redeemer, the LORD of Hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God" [Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible]

"Thus said Jehovah, king of Israel, And his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: `I [am] the first, and I the last, And besides Me there is no God." [Youngs Literal Translation]

"Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I [am] the first, and I [am] the last, and beside me there is no God." [The Darby Translation]

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and besides me [there is] no God." [The Noah Webster Bible; NWB]

TRANSLATION COMPARISON:

Now that we have the opportunity to look at the translation constructs in various Bibles with respect Isaiah 44:6, let's start considering its significance and meaning. As can readily be seen from the Youngs Literal Translation, The Darby Translation, American Standard Version, and Jewish Publication Society 1917 OT [note, the Jews are strict monotheist and well know the 1 Commandment at Exodus 20:3 that would rule out any three-in-one god] clearly show that this scripture applies solely to God Almighty (YHWH). The Youngs Literal Translation clearly says, "And his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts," leaving no doubt that it is referring to God (YHWH) and not to his Son, Jesus (Yeshua). However, some supporters of the Trinity claim the son is just a different manifestation of God (YHWH), but many scriptures show them as two distinct beings, such as, John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me." (ASV); and John 14:28, "Ye have heard that I said to you, I go away, and come [again] to you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go to the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (NWB). In fact their false contention is actually is just a different manifestation of God (YHWH) is part of three false doctrines with the first being Modulism which many religious dictionaries state is, "The belief that God is a single entity who has appeared in different modes at different times. This is the same as "SABELLIANISM THEOLOGY-- God is three only in relation to the world, in so many "manifestations" or "modes." The unity and identity of God are such that the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) did not exist before the incarnation; because the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) are thus one, the Father (YHWH) suffered with the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) in his passion and death.

AN ALL ANSWERING ARTICLE ON ISAIAH 44:6 - USED WITH PERMISSION:

In fact the Restoration Light Bible Study Services, P.O. Box 2360, Philadelphia, PA , has already dealt with this question in an answer to one of these believers in false doctrine. Their answer is as follows, "We have shown that Jesus is a created being (See Did Jesus Have a Beginning?), thus the question has arisen concerning the various uses of the scripture regarding alpha and omega, as this title, as well as some others, seem to be applied to both.

In Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12 we find the expression "first and last" used of Yahweh. From Isaiah 44:6,7 this expression, "first and last" appears to mean that which is begun is carried through to completion, something which the false gods of the heathen cannot do. However, most of our trinitarian and oneness neighbors appear to read into this expression 'from eternity past to the eternal future,' although there is nothing in the scritpures to warrant this meaning.

In the last book of the Bible, we again find this expression "first and last". At least twice it is applied to Jesus in Revelation 1:17 and Revelation 2:8.Thus our trinitarian and oneness neighbors would have us accept this as proof that Jesus is Yahweh, since the phrase is applied to both Yahweh and Jesus. The phrase appears also in Revelation 22:13, where Yahweh applies it to himself.

Another similar phrase found in Revelation 21:6 and 22:13 is "beginning and the end". These scriptures apply to Yahweh; thus this phrase is not applied to Jesus . Still another phrase used in the book of Revelation is "alpha and omega." We find this phrase in Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 22:13 -- all three of which refer to Yahweh. This phrase is therefore not used of Jesus.

Let us go into more detail to support the above applications of these terms. Looking at Revelation 1:1, we note that the Revelation is from God who gave it to Jesus. (This should be enough to prove that Jesus is not God.) The message is delivered through an angel to John. In Revelation 1:4 John says the message is from the Father, Yahweh, who is and who was and who is to come. Then in verse 5, John says: "and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood." Thus John identifies two individuals which the messages are from, the Father, Yahweh, and Jesus, God's Son. Then in verse 8 we find the quote: "'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End', says the Lord God, 'the being who was and who is to come -- the Almighty.'"
"The Lord" in this verse is Yahweh, not Jesus, as shown from Revelation 1:4. The phrase "Lord God" is based on the later Septuagint usage of substituting Kurios for Yahweh. The Hebrew phrase is Yahweh Elohim. The later Septuagint has substituted Yahweh with Kurios [Lord] and Elohim with Theos [God]. This can be seen by comparing Acts 3:22; 7:37 with the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 18:15. In all instances where the phrase occurs in the NT, it is in reference to Yahweh, the Father of our Lord Jesus. -- Luke 1:32; 1 Peter 3:10-15; Revelation 11:17,19; 15:3; 16:7; 18:8; 21:11; 22:6. See Divine Name .

Likewise, with the phrases "the Lord our God" and "the Lord your God". These phrases are always used in reference to Yahweh, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. -- Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Deuteronomy 6:13; 10:20); Matthew 22:37 (Deuteronomy 6:5); Mark 12:29 (Deuteronomy 6:4); etc.
However, many of the Christian translators in the past must have thought that this was Yahweh speaking, for in their translations into Hebrew, they inserted the tetragrammaton into this verse. The following are some Hebrew translations that contain the tetragrammaton in Revelation 1:8: NT, by W. Robertson, 1661; NT, by J. C. Reichardt, 1846; NT, by J. C. Reichardt & J. H. R. Biesenthal, 1866; NT, by F. Delitzsch, 1981 edition; NT, by I. Salkinson & C. D. Ginsburg, 1891.

The fact that the NT copies we have give a substitute for God's name does not take away the fact that it is Yahweh, not his Son Jesus, who is speaking in Revelation 1:8. In verses 9 and 10 John refers to himself when he heard a loud voice, as of a trumpet, (verse 11) saying, "Write what you see... This quote is from Jesus, not Yahweh, as described in the following verses. In verse 18 Jesus says: "I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore." Jesus was actually dead and not alive anywhere, if this is to make any sense at all, for he contrasts his being dead with being alive forevermore. Now we know that God cannot die, so Jesus is thus by this verse proved to not be God Almighty.

Many translations have the words added in verse 11, before the word "Write": "I am the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last." However, this sentence does not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts and therefore does not appear in many Bible translations, and thus we do not include them as part of our discussion.
Revelation 22:12-16: "See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone's work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. "It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

The angel delivering the message recorded Revelation 22:13 is quoting Yahweh, the Father of Jesus, who comes to judge the world, not only with and by means of Jesus, but also the saints. -- Malachi 3:1-6; Psalm 96:13; 98:9; Daniel 7:18,22; Isaiah 40:10,11; Micah 1:3; Zechariah 14:5; Acts 17:31; 2 Peter 3:7,8; 1 Corinthians 6:2; Psalm 90:4; Revelaton 1:1; 20:4,11-13; 22:6.

Earlier, John says that the angel spoke these words, which he states are from Yahweh. (verse 6) In verse 7 the angel is evidently quoting Jesus. In verse 8 John is the one speaking, and the angel rebukes him in verse 9. In verse 10 John begins to quote the angel again, but in verse 12, the angel is delivering the words of Yahweh (see verse 6) -- it is evident that the angel is not referring to himself. Verses 14 and 15 could be either Jesus or the angel speaking. In verse 16, it is evident that the angel is quoting Jesus, and then in verse 17 the angel is prophetically quoting the spirit and the bride. In verses 18-19, the angel is again speaking (although he could be quoting Jesus), but in verse 20 he quotes Jesus, while the last part of verse 20 and all of verse 21 is John himself speaking.

But let us assume that Jesus is the one speaking in Revelation 22:12,13, as many have claimed. All this would mean is that these titles or phrases applied to Yahweh are also applied to Jesus. Does this mean that Jesus is Yahweh, the God who is identified also as the Father and God of Jesus? Absolutely not!
First we note that none of the passages say that the Father is the Son, or even that the Son equals the Father. Nor do any of these passages directly say anything about the non-creation of either the Father or the Son.
One must admit that just because the same title is applied to individuals, this does not make these two individuals one individual. Else every ruler who has ever used the title "king" would have to be the same individual as every other ruler who has used the title "king." Each ruler who uses this title, however, uses it with respect to his peculiar realm of domain and time. Thus just because the same titles are given to both the Father and the Son does not mean they are the same being.
That Jesus has not always existed throughout eternity can be seen from our earlier discussion, "Did Jesus Have a Beginning?". Thus these titles applied to him must not mean that he existed throughout eternity.
Nor can they refer especially to the Father's being from eternity (which, as a matter of fact, he is), since that would be incompatible with their being used of the Son, who is not from eternity.

Likewise, we have shown elsewhere that the word "beginning" does not mean eternity, but rather a point when something begins, or a person or thing at the start of something. Additionally the word "first" does not mean eternity but a person or thing at the start of something. Similarly can be said concerning the words "last" and "end": neither of these denote eternity, but rather, just as it says, the last or end of something. The Alpha and Omega symbolism only emphasizes the same thing, since Alpha is the first or start of the Greek alphabet, and Omega is the last or end of the Greek alphabet.

How, then, do these terms apply to both the Father and the Son within the domain of each? We have already pointed out that these expressions seem to carry the thought of that which is begun is carried through to completion: Isaiah 44:6,7. This would apply both to Yahweh as originator of his divine plan and the one who designed it from beginning to the completed end, and to the Son as the one who carries out the divine plan by means of his death, resurrection and the coming day of judgment. Some have noted that Jesus is the first human to be raised to life without end by Yahweh his Father, thus he is called the "firstborn of the dead". (Colossians 1:18) He is also the last to be so resurrected since all others who eventually receive such a resurrection will be through Jesus, not by Yahweh directly. (John 5:21,22; 6:39,44; 11:25) Thus there appears to be a connection between his statements that he became dead was now alive forever and ever. His holding the keys of death and Hades (Revelation 1:18) shows the authority given to him by his God of releasing all who are in death and hades. -- John 5:27-29 (New American Standard); Revelation 20:11-13
However, there is also another application that could be meant. Each -- both Jesus and Yahweh -- is the first and the last of his peculiar kind: Yahweh is the first and the last of his peculiar kind, in that he is the first and the last one to be increate, that is, never to have been created. No one was before Yahweh in this sense and no one will be after him in this sense. The Son is the first and the last of his peculiar kind, in that he is the first and the last to have been directly created by God, all other creatures having been indirectly created by God, that is, through the agency of the Logos. Thus the Father and the Son are both unique -- which is the meaning of these three expressions -- but each of them is unique in a different sense: The Father is unique in that he is the only -- the first and the last -- being never created; the Son is unique in that he is the only -- the first and the last -- being ever directly created by Yahweh without the assistance of an agent, which creative assistance by the Logos occurred in the case of all the rest of creation -- the Logos himself being excepted. (John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 15:27; See Question: John 1:1) Thus Yahweh is the first and the last, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end of increation -- the only being who never was created. The Logos is the first and the last, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end of God's direct creation. These terms used with reference to the Son are equivalent to his being called: "the only begotten of the Father." (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9) Their use with reference to the Father implies that he is from eternity, though not directly teaching it, the direct teaching being his uniqueness in that he never was created or begotten, as was the Son.

Answers to Objections
Some have replied that there can only be one first and last, although their reasons for saying this are vague, to say the least. It seems they wish demand a restricted application of the term so that it could only apply to God Almighty. It is true that there can only be on who is first and last as God Almighty. But we have no reason to restrict the term in application to God Almighty, except to satisfy the whims of those who wish to use it thus to prove that Jesus is Yahweh, which, in effect, would make the whole argument circular, that is, 'we believe that Jesus is Yahweh, thus we believe that the expression first and last must be used in application to God Almighty only, and thus this proves that Jesus is Yahweh.'

We have already shown above that there can be more than one first and last, depending on what is being spoken of and its application. We can also provide the following illustrations: Suppose Brother A goes to a Bible study in SW Philadelphia, and Brother B goes to a Bible study in South Philadelphia. Brother A is the first arrive at the Bible study and SW Philadelphia, and Brother B is the first to arrive at the study in South Philadelphia. Likewise Brother A is the last one to leave the study in SW. Philadelphia, and Brother B. is the last to leave the study in South Philadelphia. You have two who are first and two who are last. Additionally the first and the last line of one book is not the same as the first and last line of another book. Likewise, both Yahweh and Jesus are first and last in their respective applications of that term. Regardless, our trinitarian neighbors will have to agree that there are two persons who are referred to as 'first and last', both God the Father and His Son." [This document is presented by Restoration Light Bible Study Services, P.O. Box 2360, Philadelphia, PA 19142. Permission is given to duplicate this document in its entirety, including this statement, for not-for-profit usage in Bible studies and general distribution.]

It is not our object in this list of scriptures to refute all the arguments used by many who try to prove that Jesus is Yahweh. We simply present some of the scriptures that most definitely show that the Father is Yahweh and that Jesus is not Yahweh [his Father]:

Jesus was sent by Yahweh, speaks for Yahweh, represents Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh [who is the Father] whom he represents and speaks for.
Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1
Jesus receives his inheritance and dominion (power) from Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh [the Father] who gives him this dominion.

Psalm 2:7,8; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; Luke 1:32; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; Hebrews 1:2,6.
Jesus is son of the Most High Yahweh. He is not the Most High Yahweh.
Genesis 14:22; Psalm 7:17; 83:18; 92:1; Luke 1:32; John 13:16.
Jesus is anointed [made christ, the anointed one] by Yahweh. He is not Yahweh who thus anoints him.
Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36.
Yahweh speaks to Jesus. Jesus is not Yahweh who speaks to him.
Psalm 2:7,8; 110:1; Matthew 22:41-45.
Jesus is the servant of Yahweh; he is not Yahweh whom he serves.
Isaiah 42:1; 53:11; Matthew 12:18; John 13:16; Acts 4:27,30
Jesus is given the power of life in himself from Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh who gives him this power.
1 Samuel 2:6; Psalm 36:9; John 5:21,25-29.
Yahweh [the Father] is the only Most High. Jesus is not the Most High Yahweh who is his Father.
Deuteronomy 4:35,39; Psalm 2:7; 83:18; Luke 1:32; John 10:29; 17:1,3; Hebrews 1:5; Revelation 5:7
Yahweh appoints and gives Jesus authority as judge and to judge in his [Yahweh's] stead. Jesus is not Yahweh who gives this authority to him.
Isaiah 11:1-4; 42:1; John 5:22,23,27-30; Acts 17:31.
Jesus is never described as the father of Jesus, and Yahweh is never described as the son of Yahweh. The term "everlasting father" refers to Jesus' role toward mankind that he purchased, and of whom he has become father as the second or "last Adam." (Romans 5:15-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22,45,47; Psalm 45:16). Jesus came in the name of Yahweh his Father. (Deuteronomy 18:15,18; Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1) Yahweh never came in the name of any other than himself, thus since there is none higher, he swore by himself. -- Hebrews 6:13
Jesus' role as Mighty EL refers to the power and authority given to him by the Mighty EL that is mightier than he, the only true Supreme Being, Yahweh. -- Psalm 2:2,7,8; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; 61:1; Luke 1:32; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; John 17:1,3; Acts 2:36; Hebrews 1:2,6.
No scripture says that Jesus was God Almighty in the flesh, although possessing the mighty power of Yahweh as did Moses, he could be referred to as God (ELOHIM, THEOS) in a manner similar to Moses. (Exodus 7:1; Deuteronomy 18:15,18; Acts 3:18-22) Neither in the case of Moses nor Jesus does this make either of them into God Almighty who gives them their power and authority.
[This document is presented by Restoration Light Bible Study Services, P.O. Box 2360, Philadelphia, PA 19142. Permission is given to duplicate this document in its entirety, including this statement, for not-for-profit usage in Bible studies and general distribution.][[Special note, Much of Restoration Light Bible Study Service for this article came from, Paul S. L. Johnson's book, Creation, pages 51-53. Now a brief Background of Paul S. L. Johnson: Paul S. L. Johnson graduated from from Capital University in Columbus, OH on May 25, 1898. He won the valedictory and also the highest honors ever given in the history of that university. He also graduated from the Theological Seminary of the Ohio Synod of the Lutheran Church. He was thoroughly educated in both Hebrew and Greek; this gave him the skills necessary to understand the Bible from the original languages. He had been taught in the seminary the doctrine of eternal torture of those not saved; through his studies of the Bible itself he came to understand that a God of perfect, wisdom, justice, power and love, would not, could not, punish his enemies with such a punishment as eternal roasting. He also came to see the Hebraic viewpoint of God, as opposed to the trinitarian or oneness views.]][[[Restoration's article was used as no reason to go to Johnson's works and re-invent the wheel]]]

COMMENTARIES ON ISAIAH 44:6 BY RENOWN SCHOLARS:

By Theodore Beza:

44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; f I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and besides me [there is] no God.

(f) I am always like myself, that is, merciful toward my Church, and most able to maintain it, as in (Isaiah 41:4,48:12; Revelation 1:17,22:13). [Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Isaiah 44". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible", 1600-1645.]

By A.R. Faussett, A.M.:.

6. Here follows an argument for Jehovah, as the only God, and against the idols, as vanity [Fausset, A. R., A.M. "Commentary on Isaiah 44". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible", 1871]
By Matthew Henry:


Chapter 44
God, by the prophet, goes on in this chapter, as before, I. To encourage his people with the assurance of great blessings he had in store for them at their return out of captivity, and those typical of much greater which the gospel church, his spiritual Israel, should partake of in the days of the Messiah; and hereby he proves himself to be God alone against all pretenders (v. 1-8). II. To expose the sottishness and amazing folly of idol-makers and idol-worshippers (v. 9-20). III. To ratify and confirm the assurances he had given to his people of those great blessings, and to raise their joyful and believing expectations of them (v. 21-28).

Verses 1-8 Two great truths are abundantly made out in these verses:- I. That the people of God are a happy people, especially upon account of the covenant that is between them and God. The people of Israel were so as a figure of the gospel Israel. Three things complete their happiness:- 1. The covenant-relations wherein they stand to God, v. 1, 2. Israel is here called Jeshurun-the upright one; for those only, like Nathanael, are Israelites indeed, in whom is no guile, and those only shall have the everlasting benefit of these promises. Jacob and Israel had been represented, in the close of the foregoing chapter, as very provoking and obnoxious to God's wrath, and already given to the curse and to reproaches; but, as if God's bowels yearned towards him and his repentings were kindled together, mercy steps in with a non-obstante-notwithstanding, to all these quarrels: "Yet now, hear, O Jacob my servant! thou and I will be friends again for all this.'' God had said (ch. 43:25), I am he that blotteth out thy transgression, which is the only thing that creates this distance; and when that is taken away the streams of mercy run again in their former channel. The pardon of sin is the inlet of all the other blessings of the covenant. So and so I will do for them, says God (Heb. 8:12), for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. Therefore hear, O Jacob! hear these comfortable words; therefore fear not, O Jacob! fear not thy troubles, for by the pardon of sin the property of them too is altered. Now the relations wherein they stand to him are very encouraging. (1.) They are his servants; and those that serve him he will own and stand by and see that they be not wronged. (2.) They are his chosen, and he will abide by his choice; he knows those that are his, and those whom he has chosen he takes under special protection. (3.) They are his creatures. He made them, and brought them into being; he formed them, and cast them into shape; he began betimes with them, for he formed them from the womb; and therefore he will help them over their difficulties and help them in their services. 2. The covenant-blessings which he has secured to them and theirs, v. 3, 4. (1.) Those that are sensible of their spiritual wants, and the insufficiency of the creature to supply them, shall have abundant satisfaction in God: I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, that thirsts after righteousness; he shall be filled. Water shall be poured out to those who truly desire spiritual blessings above all the delights of sense. (2.) Those that are barren as the dry ground shall be watered with the grace of God, with floods of that grace, and God will himself give the increase. If the ground be ever so dry, God has floods of grace to water it with. (3.) The water God will pour out is his Spirit (Jn. 7:39), which God will pour out without measure upon the seed, that is, Christ (Gal. 3:16), and by measure upon all the seed of the faithful, upon all the praying wrestling seed of Jacob, Lu. 11:13. This is the great New-Testament promise, that God, having sent his servant Christ, and upheld him, will send his Spirit to uphold us. (4.) This gift of the Holy Ghost is the great blessing God had reserved the plentiful effusion of for the latter days: I will pour my Spirit, that is, my blessing; for where God gives his Spirit he will give all other blessings. (5.) This is reserved for the seed and offspring of the church; for so the covenant of grace runs: I will be a God to thee and to thy seed. To all who are thus made to partake of the privileges of adoption God will give the spirit of adoption. (6.) Hereby there shall be a great increase of the church. Thus it shall be spread to distant places. Thus it shall be propagated and perpetuated to after-times: They shall spring up and grow as fast as willows by the watercourses, and in every thing that is virtuous and praiseworthy shall be eminent and excel all about them, as the willows overtop the grass among which they grow, v. 4. Note, It is a great happiness to the church, and a great pleasure to good men, to see the rising generation hopeful and promising. And it will be so if God pour his Spirit upon them, that blessing, that blessing of blessings. 3. The consent they cheerfully give to their part of the covenant, v. 5. When the Jews returned out of captivity they renewed their covenant with God (Jer. 50:5), particularly that they would have no more to do with idols, Hos. 14:2, 3, 8. Backsliders must thus repent and do their first works. Many of those that were without did at that time join themselves to them, invited by that glorious appearance of God for them, Zec. 8:23; Esth. 8:17. And they say, We are the Lord's and call themselves by the name of Jacob; for there was one law, one covenant, for the stranger and for those that were born in the land. And doubtless it looks further yet, to the conversion of the Gentiles, and the multitudes of them who, upon the effusion of the Spirit, after Christ's ascension, should be joined to the Lord and added to the church. These converts are one and another, very many, of different ranks and nations, and all welcome to God, Col. 3:11. When one does it another shall by his example be invited to do it, and then another; thus the zeal of one may provoke many. (1.) They shall resign themselves to God: not one in the name of the rest, but every one for himself shall say, "I am the Lord's; he has an incontestable right to rule me, and I submit to him, to all his commands, to all his disposal. I am, and will be, his only, his wholly, his for ever, will be for his interests, will be for his praise; living and dying I will be his.'' (2.) They shall incorporate themselves with the people of God, call themselves by the name of Jacob, forgetting their own people and their fathers' house, and desirous to wear the character and livery of God's family. They shall love all God's people, shall associate with them, give them the right hand of fellowship, espouse their cause, seek the good of the church in general and of all the particular members of it, and be willing to take their lot with them in all conditions. (3.) They shall do this very solemnly. Some of them shall subscribe with their hand unto the Lord, as, for the confirming of a bargain, a man sets his hand to it, and delivers it as his act and deed. The more express we are in our covenanting with God the better, Ex. 24:7; Jos. 24:26, 27; Neh. 9:38. Fast bind, fast find. II. That, as the Israel of God are a happy people, so the God of Israel is a great God, and he is God alone. This also, as the former, speaks abundant satisfaction to all that trust in him, v. 6-8. Observe here, to God's glory and our comfort, 1. That the God we trust in is a God of incontestable sovereignty and irresistible power. He is the Lord, Jehovah, self-existent and self-sufficient; and he is the Lord of hosts, of all the hosts of heaven and earth, of angels and men. 2. That he stands in relation to, and has a particular concern for, his church. He is the King of Israel and his Redeemer; therefore his Redeemer because his King; and those that take God for their King shall have him for their Redeemer. When God would assert himself God alone he proclaims himself Israel's God, that his people may be encouraged both to adhere to him and to triumph in him. 3. That he is eternal- the first and the last. He is God from everlasting, before the worlds were, and will be so to everlasting, when the world shall be no more. If there were not a God to create, nothing would ever have been; and, if there were not a God to uphold, all would soon come to nothing again. He is all in all, is the first cause, from whom are all things, and the last end, to and for whom are all things (Rom. 11:36), the Alpha and the Omega, Rev. 1:11. 4. That he is God alone (v. 6): Besides me there is no God. Is there a God besides me? v. 8. We will appeal to the greatest scholars. Did they ever in all their reading meet with any other? To those that have had the largest acquaintance with the world. Did they ever meet with any other? There are gods many (1 Co. 8:5, 6), called gods, and counterfeit gods: but is there any besides our God that is infinite and eternal, any besides him that is the creator of the world and the protector and benefactor of the whole creation, any besides him that can do that for their worshippers which he can and will do for his? "You are my witnesses. I have been a nonsuch to you. You have tried other gods; have you found any of them all-sufficient to you, or any of them like me? Yea, there is no god,'' no rock (so the word is), none besides Jehovah that can be a rock for a foundation to build on, a rock for shelter to flee to. God is the rock, and their rock is not as ours, Deu. 32:4, 31. I know not any; as if he had said, "I never met with any that offered to stand in competition with me, or that durst bring their pretensions to a fair trial; if I did know of any that could befriend you better than I can, I would recommend you to them; but I know not any.'' There is no God besides Jehovah. He is infinite, and therefore there can be no other; he is all-sufficient, and therefore there needs no other. This is designed for the confirming of the hopes of God's people in the promise of their deliverance out of Babylon, and, in order to that, for the curing of them of their idolatry; when the affliction had done its work it should be removed. They are reminded of the first and great article of their creed, that the Lord their God is one Lord, Deu. 6:4. And therefore, (1.) They needed not to hope in any other god. Those on whom the sun shines need neither moon nor stars, nor the light of their own fire. (2.) They needed not to fear any other god. Their own God was more able to do them good than all the false and counterfeit gods of their enemies were to do them hurt. 5. That none besides could foretel these things to come, which God now by his prophet gave notice of to the world, above 200 years before they came to pass (v. 7): "Who, as I, shall call, shall call Cyrus to Babylon? Is there any but God that can call effectually, and has every creature, every heart, at his beck? Who shall declare it, how it shall be, and by whom, as I do?'' Nay, God goes further; he not only sees it in order, as having the foreknowledge of it, but sets it in order, as having the sole management and direction of it. Can any other pretend to this? He has always set things in order according to the counsel of his own will, ever since he appointed the ancient people, the people of Israel, who could give a truer and fuller account of the antiquities of their own nation than any other kingdom in the world could give of theirs. Ever since he appointed that people to be his peculiar people his providence was particularly conversant about them, and he told them beforehand the events that should occur respecting them-their bondage in Egypt, their deliverance from it, and their settlement in Canaan. All was set in order in the divine predictions as well as in the divine purposes. Could any other have done so? Would any other have been so far concerned for them? He challenges the pretenders to show the things that shall come hereafter: "Let them, if they can, tell us the name of the man that shall destroy Babylon ad deliver Israel? Nay, if they cannot pretend to tell us the things that shall come hereafter, let them tell us the things that are coming, that are nigh at hand and at the door. Let them tell us what shall come to pass to-morrow; but they cannot do that; fear them not therefore, nor be afraid of them. What harm can they do you? What hindrance can they give to your deliverance, when I have told thee it shall be accomplished in its season, and I have solemnly declared it?'' Note, Those who have the word of God's promise to depend upon need not be afraid of any adverse powers or policies whatsoever. [Henry, Matthew. "Commentary on Isaiah 44". "Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole," 1706]

By Reverand R.A. Torrey:


Torrey's Topical Textbook under God

None beside him Deuteronomy 4:35; Isaiah 44:6. [Torrey, R.A., Reverand. "Entry for 'God'". "The New Topical Text Book", 1897]

Easton's Bible Dictionary by M.G. Easton, M.A., D.D."

God [N] [T] [b] [s]
(A.S. and Dutch God; Dan. Gud; Ger. Gott), the name of the Divine Being. It is the rendering (1) of the Hebrew 'El , from a word meaning to be strong; (2) of 'Eloah_, plural _'Elohim . The singular form, Eloah , is used only in poetry. The plural form is more commonly used in all parts of the Bible, The Hebrew word Jehovah (q.v.), the only other word generally employed to denote the Supreme Being, is uniformly rendered in the Authorized Version by "LORD," printed in small capitals. The existence of God is taken for granted in the Bible. There is nowhere any argument to prove it. He who disbelieves this truth is spoken of as one devoid of understanding (Psalms 14:1).


The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of the being of God are:
? The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason.
? The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are,
(a) The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause.
(b) The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature.
(c) The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God. Conscience and human history testify that "verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth."
The attributes of God are set forth in order by Moses in Exodus 34:6,7. (see also Deuteronomy 6:4; 10:17; Numbers 16:22; Exodus 15:11; 33:19; Isaiah 44:6; Habakkuk 3:6; Psalms 102:26; Job 34:12.) They are also systematically classified in Revelation 5:12 and 7:12. [M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, 1897.]

CONCLUSION:

As can readily be seen from the foregoing, Isaiah 44:6 applies to God (YHWH) alone and not to his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) who acts as his agent and has after his assertion been given authority over all except his Father (YHWH) as clearly testified to at 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." (ASV). Especially note verse 27, "For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. " which clearly shows the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) as two distinct beings, with one being subject to the other; hence no co-equality. Therefore, no Trinity, Duality, or Modulism; ther are thus proved to be false doctrines of men

in keeping with 2 Corinthians 4:4, "in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn [upon them]." (ASV)

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

See Part 10