De Trinitatis Erroribus

De Trinitatis Erroribus

The title of this work, De Trinitatis erroribus, is taken from the work by Spanish theologian

Michael Servetus who was burned to death on the morning of October 27, 1553, in part for

writing this book against the doctrine of the Trinity. The Spanish physician’s death was

approved by John Calvin. Perhaps the greatest argument against the doctrine of the Trinity

was the martydom of the discoverer of the circulatory system. For truth cannot beget the

horrors of persecution. (It was Athanasias who slapped Arius!)

Michael Servetus was born in Villanueva de Sijena, Aragon, Spain (c 1511). He studied

medicine and law in Paris and later practiced in several French cities. He is renowned for his

contribution regarding the discovery of the pulmonary-circulation system. Only 20 years old

he published De Trinitatis erroribus (Errors of the Trinity). In his monumental work he wrote

he "will not make use of the word Trinity, which is not to be found in Scripture, and only

seems to perpetuate philosophical error." He said of the Trinity doctrine "that (it) cannot be

understood, that is impossible in the nature of things, and that may even be looked on as

blasphemous!"

During his flight from inquisitional Protestant persecutors Servetus discovered a tiny

congregation of Anabaptists who described themselves as, "The brethren . . . who have

rejected the Trinity." Servetus was to write: "The papistical Trinity ... are the doctrines of

demons." One historican summarized the good doctors attitude toward the Trinity: "In place

of a doctrine whose very terms (Trinity, hypostasis, person, substance, essence) were not

taken from the Bible but invented by philosophers, and whose Christ was little more than a

philosophical abstraction, he wished to get men to put their faith in a living God, in a divine

Christ who had been a historical reality, and in a Holy Spirit forever working in the hearts of

men. ... (the Trinity doctrine) confused his head, and failed to warm his heart or inspire his

will."

Will Durant in his monumental historical work, The Story of Civilization, Volume VI, "The

Reformation," records is observations on this saint of the reformation: "Miguil Serveto

(Micahel Servetus) . . . was in some measure influenced by the literature of the Jews and the

Moslems; he read the Koran, made his way through the rabbinical commentaries, and was

impressed by the Semitic criticism of Christianity . . as polytheistic. . . . At Toulouse, where

he studied law, he saw for the first time a complete Bible, vowed to read it ‘a thousand times,’

and was deeply moved by the visions of the Apocalypse. . . In 1531 and 1532 he published the

first and second edition of his basic work: De Trinitatis erroribus. . . . (It had a) wealth of

Biblical erudition it was an astonishing performance for a lad of twenty. ... (Jesus) was not

equal or co-eternal with the Father. .... Servetus proceeded to take the Semitic view of

Trinitarianism. ‘All those who believe in a Trinity in the essence of God are tritheists.’

"On July 17 the Inquisition at Toulouse issued a warrant for his arrest. He thought of going to

America.

"We do not know when Servetus discovered the pulmonarycirculation of the blood.

"On April 4 Servetus was arrested. Three days later he escaped by leaping over a garden wall.

On June 17 the civil court of Vienne condemned him, if foudn, to be burned by a slow fire.

"(John) Calvin was informed, and ordered his arrest. .... The basi accusations were that

Servetus had rejected the Trinity. ... No member (of the Small Council) dissenting passed

sentence of death on two counts of heresy---Unitarianism and the rejecft of infant baptism. ...

The Counseil voted that Servetus should be burned alive.

"The sentence was carried out the next morning, October 27, 1553. .... He was fastened to a

stake by iron chains, and his last book was boundto his side. When the flames reached his face

he shrieked with agony. l After half an hour of burning he died." (Pages 479-484)

(For more on Michael Servetus, see www.servetus.org)

443 years later one suspects if the Trinitarians had the same power they possessed in the

Sixteenth Century similar torments would be fomented on modern day Unitarians.

Today, at the beginning of the 21st Century, that which caused Michael Servetus’ martydom is

still controversial. Consider these two contrasts: a) Billy Graham: "The Bible teaches that

Jesus Christ is fully God, and in no way is inferior to God the father." b) a Pentecostal

minister said he would pay one million (US) dollars to any who could find the doctrine of the

Trinity in the Bible, calling the Trinity a human philosphy "that is incongruous and

incomprehensible." (The Denver Post)

PURPOSE AND OUTLINE OF THIS WORK

-- Galations 2.4, 5: ‘But because of the sneaky pseudo-brothers sent in as spies on our

Christine liberty, with the hidden agenda to enslave us --- we refused to submit to these

representatives --- not for one hour -- so that the Gospel Truth may remain with

you.’ (NCMM)

What is the seriousness of this one Gospel Truth? ‘I am shocked you parted so suddenly from

The One who invited you by the grace of the Christ to a different form of the Gospel. ... There

are those troublemakers who try to pervert the Gospel of the Christ. But, even if we or some

celestial being preached a Gospel different than the one we preached to you: LET SUCH A

PERSON BE ANATHEMA! ... Am I trying to convince men or a god? Am I trying to please

men? If so, I would not be the slave of the Christ. For I want to make you completely aware

that the Gospel I preached is not of human origin. Nor did I first learn it from any human

source but only by a personal unveiling from Jesus Christ himself.’ (Ga 1.6-12 NR) We

cannot take lightly any Gospel "form" different from the one we find in the Pauline epist les.

However, we have not been appointed the judge of those who choose a triune view of the

Godhead. We wish only to supply the apologia for our own beliefs and to do this with

gentleness and respect and hopefully with a degree of graciousness. (1 Pe 3.15; Co 4.6)

It is our purpose to provide a work for the year 2,000 AD which takes up the banner of

Michael Servetus. It is not our purpose to attack persons but ideas. 2 Corinlthians 10.4, 5 is

our spiritual agenda: ‘For our military weapons are not fleshly but the dynamic power of The

http://www.servetus.org/

God for dismantiling the intellectual strongholds of the logical thinking of the arrogant who

exalt themselves above the knowledge of The God and make these thoughts obedient to the

Christ.’(NR) We believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God and like the Nazarene, we

agree: "Your Word is truth." The sixteen century old doctrine of the Trinity is not part of this

"truth." The Trinity is not of divine origin, cannot be supported by the Holy Scriptures, has its

roots in pagan sources, is absent from the Patristic Fathers, and bears a bloody burden of guilt

for the slaughter of Unitarians over centuries.

This does not mean we condemn or judge our modern Trinitarian brethern as persons. We

have found Unitarians much more readily to forgive doctrinal disagreement than Trinitarians.

Nor do we feel anything we write will change the mind of a staunch Trinitarian. Minutae will

be agrued a thousand years and honest men will get no where. We do feel an obligation,

however, to put down on pages our own feelings (arguments if you will), not for a determined

and entrenched Trinitarian, but for those who ponder the question from a more neutral,

searching view.

BOOK I

WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT "GOD"

I. What the Bible teaches about God

A. The Jewish view in the Hebrew Scriptures

B. The Christian view in the Greek Scriptures

BOOK II

WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT "THE SON OF GOD"

II. What the Bible teaches about the Son of God

A. The Messianic Hebrew Prophecies

B. The Nazarene himself

WHO DID THE NAZARENE BELIEVE GOD TO BE?

When the Nazarene speaks of "Our Heavenly Father" who does he have in mind? Any Jew

would have understood this expression "Father" to mean God as John 8.41 shows, ‘We have

one Father, God.’ The apostle John understood this as he writes, ‘Jesus knew everything had

come from the Father. Jesus knew he had come from God and was to return to The God.’ (Jn

13.3) Jesus himself made it clear that when he spoke of the "Father" he meant God: ‘For (on

the Son of Man) the Father, even The God , put His seal.’ (Jn 6.27)

On many occasions Jesus quoted the sacred Jewish texts. For example, note John 6.44,

45: ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws that one to me. . . In the

prophet (Isaiah) it is written, "And they will all be taught of God.’ If you turn to this quoted

verse from Isaiah 54.13 it reads according to the Hebrew Bible, ‘And your children will be

taught by Yahweh (Yehowah).’ (NJB) Here the sacred Tetragram, or the four letters YHWH

(JHVH), appear in the original and some translations faithfully render it so. It seems clear

when Jesus speaks of God he means the Father who is the same as "Yahweh" (or, Jehovah ) in

the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Nazarene makes other quotes where the divine Name appears about half a dozen times.

(Mt 4.7, 10; 5.33; 22.37, 44; Mk 12.29; Lk 20.42) Let us look at a few of them. In Mark 12.29

Jesus quotes the well-known Shema of Deuteronomy 6.4, 5: ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God

is one (YHWH).’ Generally, this is repeated by the Jews: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is

one," as the anthem of monotheism. Whether the Nazarene would have uttered the Divine

Name (YHWH) (he is not condemned for this by the Jews), or respected the Jewish sensitivity

with regard to the Second Commandment, it demonstrates that Jesus viewed Jehovah of the

Old Testament as "our God."

Again in his reunion with his home synagogue in Nazareth, Jesus boldly quotes from Isaiah

61.1, ‘The spirit of Lord Yahweh is on me for Yahweh has anointed me.’ (NJB; compare also

Lk 4.16) Whether this little town’s scroll of Isaiah would have had a copy of

the Septuagint with the Tetragram or a Hebrew edition, it is likely they both contained

YHWH in these two locations. The Nazarene applies this text to himself from his seat by

inference. Therefore, it was Jehovah who anointed him and made him Messiah (Anointed;

Christ)

DID THE NAZARENE BELIEVE HIMSELF TO BE GOD?

It is appropriate to raise this question here because many have come to believe Jesus taught he

was God in the flesh. While respecting their view and recognizing them as our Christian

brethren, we would politely suggest another view: Jesus was a complete man, the Son of God.

The Nazarene was well aware of what the Hebrew Scriptures said on the subject of this word,

"God," or "gods." For example, he must have known Deuteronomy 10.17 said, ‘Yehowah your

God is God of gods and Lord of lords.’ From this he would have known that there were other

"gods" over whom Yehowah was The God and other "lords" over whom Yehowah was The

Lord. Jesus knew and quoted those texts which applied to him as the Messiah. For example,

he would have known the Messiah would say to Yehowah: ‘You are my Father, my God.’ (Ps

89.26) Also, that Messiah would call out at his death,‘My God, my God!’ (Ps 22.1; Mt 27.46)

He himself quoted Psalm 110.1, ‘Yehowah said to my lord,’ and applied the "my lord" to

himself by inference as the son of David. (Mt 22.43; Mk 12.36; Lk 20.42) Jesus could not be

this "Father," "Yehowah," or "God."

Throughout the Gospels the Nazarene is seen praying to God: at his baptism, in public, at the

Last Passover, in the garden of agony and at his execution. (Lk 3.21; Jn 12.27, 28; 17.1-26;

Lk 22.40-46; Mt 27.46. Compare He 5.7) Jesus used expressions which showed he considered

himself lesser than God: as His servant, the Sent One. Jesus says, ‘The Father is greater than

I.’ (Jn 14.28) The Nazarene exhibited limitations unknown to God: hunger, tiredness and lack

of knowledge. (Jn 14.6 and Is 40.28; Mt 4.2; 21.18; 24.36; Mk 13.32) Also, he s shown being

tempted, something that cannot happen to God. (Mt 4.1 and Js 1.13 KJV)

Further, twice we have the Nazarene’s own answers to the questions of whether he was God

or considered himself equal to God. Both, interestingly, in the Gospel of John. In John 5.18-

47 there is a discussion between Christ and the Jews in which they desire to kill Jesus

because, as John puts it, ‘Jesus called God his own Father, making himself equal to

God.’ Jesus has full opportunity to clarify the matter. The answer Jesus gave makes it easy to

understand he did not consider himself God or God’s equal: ‘The Son can do nothing from

himself.’ May we suggest a paraphrase: "The Son is not the First Cause of anything." It would

be impossible to say, "God can do nothing of himself," otherwise the universe would have no

beginning for God would be incapable of being the First Cause. Jesus continues in verse 30, ‘I

am unable to do anything from myself.’ Such words could never come from God. Jesus Christ

is no Originator or Prime Mover.

Again and again in this section, as well as the three chapters which follow in John, the

Nazarene simply states: ‘I know nothing save what God the Father has taught me.’ (Jn 5.25,

42, 44; 6.27, 33, 46) Jesus made it clear that when he speaks of the Father he means God. In

John 7.16, 17, he says: ‘My teaching is not mine but belongs to the One who sent me. If

anyone wants to do His will, he will know whether this teaching of mine is from The God or

from myself.’The Nazarene’s answer to the Jews regarding any equality with God is, simply,

"No."

On another occasion, the secularized Jews accused Jesus, ‘We stone you, though being a man,

you make yourself God.’ (Jn 10.33) The Nazarene has another opportunity to make the truth

clear: "Are you God?" He gives his answer in verses 34-36, ‘Is it not written (in Ps

82.6), (Yehowah) said, "You are gods"? If He called those (Israelite judges) "gods", do you

say to me, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, "You blaspheme," because I

said, "I am the Son of God?"’ What better way could Jesus choose in answering their false

charge of being God, or a god, by effectively saying, "No!"

Did Christ Declare Himself God After His Resurrection? There is a particular incident when

following the ascension of Jesus the Nazarene to heaven in which he revealed himself, or

made himself visible, to one particular unbeliever, Saul of Tarsus. No where does Paul report

he saw God. Rather, he asks, ‘Have I not seen our Lord?’ (1 Co 9.1; 15.8) In the third

recounting of his experience on the Damascus road, he recounts the Hebrew words he heard

from heaven: ‘I am (ego eimi) Jesus ... I am sending you (Saul) to the nations to open their

eyes, to turn them from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to The God,’ No

where does the glorified and enthroned Lord Jesus ever identify himself as "God." Clarifying

this matter further, Paul references this experience in his epistle to the Galatians: ‘But when

The God ... called me by His grace (He) thought well to reveal His Son ... ‘ (Ga 1.15, 16) Paul

makes clear his own understanding of the words of his glorified Lord: The God (ho theos)

revealed His own Son to the Jewish rabbi. The apostle seems to draw a clear distinction

between -- not the Father and the Son -- the Son who was revealed and The God who revealed

him. Paul does not seem to hold any thought that they were one and the same.

This agrees with the Risen Christ also for when the spirit-Jesus speaks to the Magdelene in

the garden, he says: ‘Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended toward the Father but

approach my brothers and tell them I am ascending toward my Father and your Father and to

my God and your God.’ (Jn 20.17) Is it clear the Father and God are the same and the Risen

Christ is to ascended "toward" (pros) Him? The God of Jesus was the same God of the

disciples.

C. The Apostles

PAUL’S VIEW OF GOD, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.

First, we take a note of the occurences of the word "God," "Jesus," and "holy spirit" in the

pauline epistles, including Hebrews. The word "God" occurs 682 times. The word "Jesus"

occurs 245 times. The phrase "holy spirit" occurs 23 times and not at all in the letters to the

Galatians. Philippians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, and Philemon. This usage by

Paul may indicate the degree of importance of these three subjects. The three are not equal

according to Paul’s use and perspective.

1 Corinthians 8.5, 6. In these verses Paul has an opportunity to develope his theology and

define it. Is it fair to say, if he were of a Trinitarian bent of mind, Paul has a full canvas here

to express his triune idea. The verses read: ‘There is no God (theos) but one. Indeed, even

though here may be so-called gods (theoi) in heaven or on earth --- as in fact there are many

gods and my lords --- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and

for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through

whom we exist.’ (RSV)

Right away we see something is missing: the holy spirit. Is it fair to say no modern Trinitarian

theologion would have composed the inspired verse missing theThird Person of the Trinity in

this manner, for it is too irresistable. Secondly, Paul does not define what he means by the one

God when this opportunity is present. Unless, he views God as truly one and not a

combination of three. If he had embarked on a theological explanation of the Trinity here with

its triune facets of three-gods-yet-one, it would have astounded his readers and contradicted

his argument. Thirdly, he makes it clear that all things came into existence "from God." That,

God the Father is the direct source or origin of everything. He could have stated that the

source of all creation was a Triune Godhead, but he does not. Finally, Paul makes it clear

there was an agent to creation by means of whom, or through whom, God made everything,

the one Lord, Jesus Christ. This agrees with John’s prologue and the prologue of the Letter to

the Hebrews. (Jn 1.1-3, 10; He 1.2, 3) Paul is to state this agency of creation again at

Colossians 1.15-18.

The Missing Ghost. We will discuss the two so-called triune formulas in Paul’s writings later.

At the moment, we note how often Paul omits the holy spirit when he could have just as easily

included it.

For example, Paul uses a fairly consistent salutation as part of the introduction to his letters.

The longest of these introductary words is Romans 1.1-7 which is one sentence in Greek. The

holy spirit makes no appearance in this long sentence. But, verse 7b has his standard

salutation: ‘Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.’ He

could easily include the holy spirit, but he does not. We find the same in the following

locations: 1 Co 1.3; 2 Co 1.2; Ga 1.3; Ep 1.2; Ph 1.2; Co 1.2, 3; 2 Th 1.2; 1 Tm 1.2; 2 Tm 1.2;

Ti 1.4; Ph3. Thus, in eleven of Paul’s fourteen epistles, he omits the holy spirit in his

salutation. We wonder if Paul were a dyed-in-the-wool Trinitarian would he exclude the Holy

Spirit from his formula?

The God of Jesus. There is another factor in a couple of these salutations, however. In a some

Paul actually states that Jesus Christ has a god of his own. This occurs in the phrase: ‘Blessed

be the God . . . of our Lord Jesus. ... The God of our Lord Jesus.’ (Ep 1.3, 17 RSV) Paul never

reverses this formula: "Jesus the God of our Father." Or, "The Holy Ghost the God of the

Father." We doubt a modern Trinitarian would have composed this phrase or idea of the

apostle Paul for it wold have made one of the triune "gods" as the sole focus of worship of the

others.

Jesus himself recognizes, both in his "days in the flesh" as well as the Celestial Christ, that he

has a God for he uses the phrase "my God" twice, once at his death and once after his

resurrection. (Mt 27.46; Mk 15.34; Ps 22.1; Jn 20.17) There is the possibility that we have

two gods in John chapter 20, for if Jesus tells the Magdalene he has not yet ascended to "my

God" and at the same time Thomas addresses the Nazarene as "my God," we have two gods.

That Jesus viewed his Father as his God after his resurrection and ascension, the glorified

Nazarene shows five times in the Book of Revelation. (Re 3.2, 12)

The idea of more than one God is as old as Moses. For he declares in Deuteronomy

10.17: ‘For [YHWH] The God (ho theos) of you, He is God of gods (theon), and Lord of

lords.’ If Jesus viewed viewed as "God" and at the same time states he has his own God, then

one of the gods of whom YHWH is God, is Jesus. This is easier to understand if the word

"lord" is used for it seems to have a wider undersanding in English. Jesus is clearly "lord" and

yet he has his own Lord, thus his Father is Lord of lords, and the Nazarene is one of these

lords.

God is one. Does all of this contradict the modern view of monotheism? Yes, if we allow a

Trinitarian to arbitraily determine this word’s meaning. On the otherhand, if we have a more

realistic view, and as it turns out the historical one, the Jews (and the Christians) believed

there was one absolute God, YHWH. Yet, there were other "gods" of varying degrees of

strength and power, for in Hebrew that is the meaning of elohim.

Yet, again and again both the Hebrew and the Christian Scriptures stress the oneness or

unique of The God, identified in the Old Testament as Yahweh, and in the New Testament as

the Father.

The anthem of Judaism is the Shema of Deuteronomy 6.4. In Hebrew this is (omitting the

vowel points), followed by the Greek LXX: [Heb fonts omitted]

one (is) Yahweh our God Yahweh

YHWH the God our YHWH is one

Originally this read: "Yahweh our God is one Yahweh." It has evolved into: "The Lord our

God is one," or, "The Lord God is one Lord." It is true elohim in the Hebrew is in the plural

number and is literally "gods." Our Trinitarian brethern, seeking any foothold possible, point

to this as proof of the triune Godhead. Thus, they would have it read: "Yahweh our Gods

is/are one Yahweh." It is clear from the Jewish Greek translation of the Third Century BC that

the Jews did not take this plurality of elohim so seriously, beyond the plural of majesty. They

could have easily used theoi (gods) if they wanted to emphasize the plutality of three gods. Of

course, nothing here indicates "three" for it could be two or two million if the plural

of elohim is forced.

This text in Moses is found in the experience of the Nazarene. Jesus is asked by a wise scribe

which commandment is first. Our Lord’s answer is to quote Deuteronomy 6.4. We may

assume this was in the Hebrew of the original, though possibly without using YHWH. The

disciple Mark, possibly the secretary of Peter, translate this exactly as the Septuagint above

has it. No where in Jesus’ reply does he pluralize "God" according to Mark’s translation.

D. The Apostolic Fathers [see notes in the Appendix]

The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "Taken as a whole the writings of the Apostolic Fathers

are more valuable historically than any other Christian literature outside the New Testament."

The Didache. This work is attributed to the apostles and it contains this ("Two Ways"chapter

10): "We thank you, Holy Father, for your holy Name which you have made to dwell in our

hearts; and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known to us

through Jesus your Servant. Glory to you forever! You, Almighty Master, created everything

for your Name's sake . . . And to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink, and

life eternal through Jesus your Servant."

The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity (Edwin Hatch) says regarding this passage

above: "In the original sphere of Christianity there does not appear to have been any great

advance upon these simple conceptions. The doctrine upon which stress was laid was, that

God is, that He is one, that He is almighty and everlasting, that He made the world, that His

mercy is over all His works. There was no taste for metaphysical discussion."

Clement of Rome. (? - c 100 AD) Clement’s language is similar to Paul’s

epistles. First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians: "Grace unto you, and peace, from

Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied. ... The apostles have preached the Gospel

to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent

forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. ... May God, who seeth all things, and who is the

Ruler of all spirits and the Lord of all flesh-who chose our Lord Jesus Christ and us through

Him to be a peculiar people-grant to every soul that calleth upon His glorious and holy Name,

faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering. ... We will beg with earnest prayer and

supplication that the Creator of the universe will keep intact the precise number of his elect in

the whole world, through his beloved Child Jesus Christ. . . . We realize you [God] alone are

'highest among the highest' . . . You alone are the guardian of spirits and the God of all flesh.

... Let all the nations realize that you are the only God, that Jesus Christ is your Child." No

where does Clement go beyond Paul in his theology.

Clement writes regarding an allusion to John 17.3: "To know the eternal God, the giver of

what is eternal, and by knowledge and comprehension to possess God, who is first, and

highest, and one, and good. . . . He then who would live the true life is enjoined first to know

Him 'whom no one knows, except the Son reveal (Him).' (Matt. 11:27) Next is to be learned

the greatness of the Saviour after Him."

(Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? VII, VIII)

Ignatius. Many will point to this early church father as calling Jesus "god" ("God the Word")

in his letters and this is true. In view of the above discussion on the Hebrew and Greek

understanding of elohim and theos (gods/god) it should be clear they had a different view of

the subject than modern Trinitarian scholars who are looking back through a revisionist

history which would correspond to their triune view. In the Roman world a "god" may be an

exalted person or a human elevated to this higher level. Actually, surrounded by multi-god

worshipping Greeks and Romans it is almost a natural thing to address Jesus as "god." John

does this, as we have seen above, in his Prologue. (Jn 1.1, 18) Paul may have done it though

scholars disagree on Romans 9.5 and Titus 2.13 which are discussed later. However, on this

matter of Ignatius, it s good to consider how he makes a clear distinction between the "one

God" and the Son He revealed, even as Paul does. (Ga 1.15, 16)

Ignatius writes of Almighty God "the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the

Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son," indicating a clear difference

between The God and His Son. He writes of "God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. ...

There is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son."

Ignatius writes to the Magnesians (chp. 8 & 13): "There is one God who manifested himself

through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Word which proceeded from silence and in every

respect pleased him [God] who sent him. … Jesus Christ was subject to the Father."

Regarding the Spirit he says in his letter to the Ephesians (chp. 9): "The Holy Spirit does not

speak His own things, but those of Christ, … even as the Lord also announced to us the things

that He received from the Father. For, says He [the Son], 'the word which ye hear is not Mine,

but the Father's, who sent Me.' "

So, though it is true, Ignatius calls the Son "God the Word" by using the word "God" for the

Son he does not necessarily mean equality with Almighty God. The Bible also calls the

Messiah-Son "mighty God" at Isaiah 9:6 and in the Greek of the LXX this may be "a mighty

God" for in the next chapter Yahweh is described as "the Mighty God."

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, (Volume I, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson): "It is now

the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are

spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age . . .

and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries. ... Of the seven Epistles which

are acknowledged by Eusebius . . . , we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer.

. . . Although the shorter form . . . had been generally accepted in preference to the longer,

there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars, that even it could not be regarded as

absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity."

Polycarp. (c69-155 AD) He writes: "May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and

Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, . . . build you up in faith and truth. ... Peace from

God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour." His salutation echoes Paul’s

manner.

Hermas. In his Shepherd, or Pastor: "Nor when man wishes the spirit to speak does the Holy

Spirit speak, but it speaks only when God wishes it to speak. . . . God planted the vineyard,

that is to say, He created the people, and gave them to His Son; and the Son appointed His

angels over them to keep them. ... The Son of God is older than all his creation."

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines: "In a number of passages we read of an angel who

is superior to the six angels forming God's inner council, and who is regularly described as

'most venerable', 'holy', and 'glorious'. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the

conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with

the archangel Michael. ... There is evidence also . . . of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of

supreme angel . . . Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign."

Papias. (c 140) [[Papias is also said to have known the apostle John. Likely he wrote early in

the second century, but only fragments of his writings exist today. In them he says nothing

about a Trinity doctrine.]]

Irenaeus, Elder at Lyons. (? c170-200) Irenaeus writes: "(There is) one God, the Father

Almighty, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the seas, and all that is in them, and in

one Christ Jesus, the son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation. ... Christ must be a

man, like us, if he would redeem us from corruption and make us perfect. As sin and death

came into the world by a man, so they could be blotted out legitimately and to our advantage

only by a man; though, of course, not by one who should be a mere descendant of Adam, and

thus himself stand in need of redemption, but by a second Adam, supernaturally begotten, a

new progenitor of our race."

APOLOGISTS

The next important group of writings on Christianity came later in the second century. These

were the works of churchmen who are called apologists.

Justin Martyr. (110-165 AD) Dr. H. R. Boer, A Short History of the Early Church: "Justin

[Martyr] taught that before the creation of the world God was alone and that there was no

Son. . . . When God desired to create the world, . . . he begot another divine being to create the

world for him. This divine being was called . . . Son because he was born; he was called

Logos because he was taken from the Reason or Mind of God. . . . Justin and the other

Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature

powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship

of the Son to the Father is called subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary

to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. The Apologists were subordinationists."

[[ Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit was an 'influence or

mode of operation of the Deity']]

The Pre-Necine Aplogists in General. The Formation of Christian Dogma, Dr. Martin Werner: "That relationship was understood

unequivocally as being one of 'subordination',i.e. in the sense of the subordination of Christ to God. Wherever in the New Testament the

relationship of Jesus to God, the Father, is brought into consideration, . . . it is conceived of and represented categorical ly as subordination.

And the most decisive Subordinationist of the New Testament, according to the Synoptic record, was Jesus himself . . . This original

position, firm and manifest as it was, was able to maintain itself for a long time. 'All the great pre-Nicene theologians represented the

subordination of the Logos to God.'"

R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: "There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the

outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father."

Dr. Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The inferiority of the Son was generally, if not uniformly, asserted by the

ante-Nicene Fathers . . . That they viewed the Son as distinct from the Father is evident from the circumstance that they plainly assert his

inferiority. . . . They considered him distinct and subordinate."

Gods and the One God (Robert M. Grant) "The Christology of the apologies, like that of the New Testament, is essentially subordinationist.

The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of the Old Testament. . . . What we find in these early authors, then, is not a

doctrine of the Trinity . . . Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinationist."

The Formation of Christian Dogma: "In the Primitive Christian era there was no sign of any kind of Trinitarian problem or controversy, such

as later produced violent conflicts in the Church. The reason for this undoubtedly lay in the fact that, for Primitive Christianity, Christ was . .

. a being of the high celestial angel-world, who was created and chosen by God for the task of bringing in, at the end of the ages, . . . the

Kingdom of God."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: "In the earliest thinking of the Church the tendency when speaking of God the Father is to

conceive of Him first, not as the Father of Jesus Christ, but as the source of all being. Hence God the Father is, as it were, God par

excellence. To Him belong such descriptions as unoriginate, immortal, immutable, ineffable, invisible, and ingenerate. It is He who has made

all things, including the very stuff of creation, out of nothing. . . . This might seem to suggest that the Father alone is properly God and the

Son and Spirit are only secondarily so. Many early statements appear to support this."

Consider the words of famed Catholic theologian John Henry Cardinal Newman: "Let us allow that the whole circle of doctrines, of which

our Lord is the subject, was consistently and uniformly confessed by the Primitive Church . . . But it surely is otherwise with the Catholic

doctrine of the Trinity. I do not see in what sense it can be said that there is a consensus of primitive [church authorities] in its favour . . . The

Creeds of that early day make no mention . . . of the [Trinity] at all. They make mention indeed of a Three; but that there is any mystery in

the doctrine, that the Three are One, that They are coequal, coeternal, all increate, all omnipotent, all incomprehensible, i s not stated, and

never could be gathered from them."

Dialogue With Trypho (discussing Pr 8.22-30): "The Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things

created; and that that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit."

First Apology: "The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God."

Dialogue With Trypho: "There is . . . another God and Lord [the prehuman Jesus] subject to the Maker of all things [Almighty God]; who

[the Son] is also called an Angel, because He [the Son] announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other

God-wishes to announce to them. . . .

[The Son] is distinct from Him who made all things,-numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will."

First Apology, chapter 6: "Both Him [God], and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good

angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore."

Translating the above, Bernhard Lohse, writes: "As if it were not enough that in this enumeration angels are mentioned as beings which are

honored and worshiped by Christians, Justin does not hesitate to mention angels before naming the Holy

Spirit." (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)

Lamson's Church of the First Three Centuries: "Justin regarded the Son as distinct from God, and inferior to him: distinct, not, in the modern

sense, as forming one of three hypostases, or persons, . . . but distinct in essence and nature; having a real, substantial, individual subsistence,

separate from God, from whom he derived all his powers and titles; being constituted under him, and subject in all things to his will. The

Father is supreme; the Son is subordinate: the Father is the source of power; the Son the recipient: the Father originates; the Son, as his

minister or instrument, executes. They are two in number, but agree, or are one, in will; the Father's will always prevailing with the Son."

The Church of the First Three Centuries: "We might quote numerous passages from Clement in which the inferiority of the Son is distinctly

asserted. ...

We are astonished that any one can read Clement with ordinary attention, and imagine for a single moment that he regarded the Son as

numerically identical-one-with the Father. His dependent and inferior nature, as it seems to us, is everywhere recognized. Clement believed

God and the Son to be numerically distinct; in other words, two beings,-the one supreme, the other subordinate."

Tertullian (c. 160 to 230 C.E.). Henry Chadwick: (Tertullian) is the first to suggest God is "one substance consisting in three persons."

Consider Against Hermogenes: "We should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. . . .

How can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten

and first-begotten Word? . . . That [God] which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [the

Son] which had an author to bring it into being."

Against Praxeas: "The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: 'My

Father is greater than I.' . . . Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He

who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through

whom the thing is made is another."

Regarding Against Hermogenes, Cardinal Newman writes: "Tertullian must be considered heterodox [believing unorthodox doctrines] on the

doctrine of our Lord's eternal generation." Also, Lamson observes: "This reason, or Logos, as it was called by the Greeks, was afterwards, as

Tertullian believed, converted into the Word, or Son, that is, a real being, having existed from eternity only as an attribute of the Father.

Tertullian assigned to him, however, a rank subordinate to the Father . . . Judged according to any received explanation of the Trinity at t he

present day, the attempt to save Tertullian from condemnation [as a heretic] would be hopeless. He could not stand the test a moment."

The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin: and

this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It

is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and prophetic or holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in

any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact. The doctrine of the Trinity, as explained by these Fathers, was

essentially different from the modern doctrine. This we state as a fact as susceptible of proof as any fact in the history of human opinions."

BOOK III

WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT

THE HOLY SPIRIT

III. What the Bible teaches about the Holy Spirit

A. The Jewish view in the Hebrew Scriptures

B. The Christian view in the Greek Scriptures

Regarding the masculine gender PARAKLETO(S, N) [Paraclete, Comforter, Helper] --- The

dictionary defines "personify" as, "to think or speak of a thing has having life or personality ...

as, we personify a ship by referring to it as ‘she’." This personification of abstractions or

powers is shown from Genesis 4.7 The New English Bible (NE) says: "Sin is a demon

crouching at the door." Proverbs chs 1 and 8 compare Wisdom (SOPHIA) to a woman. Jesus

says: "Wisdom is vindicated by all her children." (Lk 7.35 RSV) Paul has "sin" and "death" as

kings who "rule" and possess "desires." (Ro 5.14, 21; 6.12) He has the "higher powers" as

"she." (Ro 13.3, 4)

Unlike English many languages have verbs with gender. Though PARAKLETOS is

masculine, PNEUMA (Spirit) is not, it is neuter, or "it." This is seen in Romans 8.16 where

the United Bible Societies’ interlinear renders: "Itself (AUTO) the spirit witnesses with the

spirit of us," or, "the spirit itself bears witness." The Catholic New American Bible admits this

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.'"

Other abstractions are given personality. Note the Nazarene at John 3.8: "The wind

[PNEUMA, neuter "spirit"] blows where it chooses [wishes, wills, pleases]." Compare 1 John

5.6-8: "There are three that testify [Jn 15.26] the spirit, and the water and the blood."

When Jesus speaks of the neuter PNEUMA as a masculine PARAKLETOS is he using a

"metaphor" (RIEU), "similitude" (UBSint), "figure of speech" (NASB), "proverbs" (KJV),

"parables" (KNX), or "comparisons" (NWT) and not literally? (Jn 16.25, 29)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The O[ld] T[estament] clearly does not envisage God's

spirit as a person . . . God's spirit is simply God's power. If it is sometimes represented as

being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly. ... The majority of

N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen

in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God. ... On the whole, the New

Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power. ... Nowhere in the

Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person."

Catholic theologian Edmund Fortman: "The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is

there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. . . . The Holy Spirit is

usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power. ...

Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred

writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct

person." (The Triune God)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal

God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the

spirit and the power of God." (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: "The Apologists [Greek

Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of

anticipation, one might say too impersonally."-Vol. XIV, p. 296.

REGARDING THE HOLY SPIRIT: Do you agree with the Nazarene? Is the Sender "greater"

than the one sent? "A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth greater

than the one that sent him." (Jn 13.16) Is the Holy Spirit "sent" or not? (Jn 14.26)

Paul quotes Isaiah 40.13 from the LXX at 1 Cor 2.16 using the exact phrasing: "’For who has

come to know the mind [Grk = noun] of the Lord?’ But we have the mind [noun] of Christ."

The Hebrew version uses not "mind" but "Spirit [ruwach]." (Compare KJV, NAS, NIV, etc)

Would this not indicate, in harmony with Paul, that the Jews in rendering the Hebrew to

Greek thought the Spirit to be "mind"? In Isaiah the context of Yahweh’s creative power (i.e.

the Spirit) is explained (verse 26): "Who brings out their host by number? By greatness of His

Might, for that He is strong in power [dynamic energy]." In Hebrew here the word "power" is

from KOWACH meaning "force." (Strongs # 3581) Since this is unseen it is an "invisible

force" like wind or breath emanating from the Mind of The God.

The words of church historian Neander --- of whom McClintock and

Strong's Cyclopædia describes as, "Universally conceded to be by far the greatest of

ecclesiastical historians" --- wrote: "In A.D. 380, great indistinctness prevailed among the

different parties respecting this dogma so that a contemporary could say, 'Some of our

theologians regard the holy spirit simply as a mode of divine operation; others as a creature of

God; others as God himself; others again, say that they know not which of the opinions to

accept from their reverence for Holy Writ, which says nothing upon the subject.'"






REGARDING THE HOLY SPIRIT AS THE "FINGER OF (the) GOD" --- Mt 12.24-29; Lk

12.15-23)

THE DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY (Vol 3, pp. 689-701) -- "Spirit ...

denotes dynamic movement of the air. ... ‘Holy Spirit’ denotes supernatural POWER. ... This

is nowhere more clearly evident than in Acts where the Spirit is presented as an almost

tangible FORCE, visible if not in itself, certainly in its affects. ... For the first Christians, the

Spirit was most characteristically a divine POWER manifesting itself in inspired utterance. ...

The Spirit was evidently experienced as a numinous POWER pervading the early community

and giving its early leadership an aura of authority which could not be withstood. (Acts 5.1-

10) ... It is important to realize that for Paul too the Spirit is a divine POWER."

"The Holy Spirit is a DYNAMIS [power] and is expressly so called in Lk (24.49) ["Look, I

am sending forth upon you that which is promised by my Father. You, though, abide in the

city until you beocme clothed with power from on high."] and DYNAMIS HYPSISTOU, Lk

(1.35) ["Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will over shadow

you."]. ... In some pass. the Holy Spirit is rhetorically represented as a Person." (Thayer’s

Greek Lexicon, page 522) (Compare Ac 1.11; 5.11, 55)

Theological Workbook of the Old Testament, Vol 2, page 836-7: "The basic idea of RUAH

(Grk pneuma) is ‘air in motion.’ ... "’The RUAH spirit of God is in my nostrils.’ (Job 27.3) ...

The ‘breath’ of God may be a strong wind. (Is 40.7) ... His ‘spirit’ may indicate no more than

active power. (Is 40.13)"

Regarding the holy spirit speaking in Acts 13.1-4:

Note the context, for the first verse mentions "prophets and teachers" in the Antioch ecclesia.

Then following this it states: "The holy spirit said: 'Separate to me Barnabas and Paul.'" Does

it not seem that the one who really spoke would be one of the prophets? So "the God of our

Lord" used His own power and influence (the holy spirit) to speak through such prophet? The

work THE PEOPLE'S NEW TESTAMENT WITH NOTES (B. W. Johnson), page 470,

footnote #2: "The Holy Spirit said. By an inspiration given to some one of these prophets."

This is consistent with examples in the OT where the NT says the spirit said something when

it was the prophet. Note Jer 31.31-33 and Heb 10.15, 16: "Moreover the holy spirit also bears

witness to us, for after it has said: 'This is the covenant ... '"

Regarding the English word "spirit" --- THE ROOTS OF ENGLISH, page 229: "[Latin

SPIRARE, to breathe." Thus it equals both the Hebrew (RUACH) and Greek (PNEUMA) for

"breath." Thus, "spirit of God" is reasonably rendered "Breath of God" or "Wind of God." The

word "spirit" has taken on a corporeal tone like the word "ghost." Likely, if the word

PNEUMA had been rendered "breath" or "wind" in English the Holy Spirit would not have

developed so strongly in English as a Person separate from God. Some translators actually do

render RUACH as "wind" in Genesis 1.2. (NJB: a divine wind)

Note the parallels between spirit and breath (wind) in poetic verses. Psalm 18.10, "Yea, he did

fly upon the wings of the wind (RUACH/PNEUMA)." (KJV, ASV, JPS, NEB) Psalm 33.6:

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath

(RUACH/PNEUMA) of his mouth." (KJV, NJB) Psalm 104.30: "Thou sendest forth thy spirit

(RUACH/PNEUMA), they are created." [NJB: you give breath]

What "the spirit of God" is can be understood by comparing it to the "spirit of man." Many

score times does the Bible speak of man’s inner attributes of mind which may be vented by

his breath such as in anger. This "spirit" is not another person but part and parcel of the person

himself. Thus, the "spirit of God" is also that inner attribute of the Divine Mind which the

Creator can project from Himself to accomplish His will. The two cannot be separated. Thus,

if a person sin against the spirit of God it is the same as sinning against God. (Nu 12.1-16; Ac

5.1-4) If one blaspheme the spirit of God it is the same as blaspheming God, but not

necessarily the Son. (Mt 12.31, 32)

BOOK IV

THE ORIGINS OF TRIUNE GODS

INTRODUCTION.

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine

as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict

the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). .

. . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . .

. By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has

maintained ever since."-(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not

solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of

faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim

to the title theTrinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even

remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism

was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. 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."-(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to 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.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: "The trinity of persons within the

unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k 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."-(New York, 1965), p. 899.

"The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan."-The Paganism in Our Christianity.

A. Babylonian

B. Egyptian

C. Greek

D. Contemporary

"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion . . .

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy

Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.' In this Trinity . . . the Persons are

co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent."-The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Our Orthodox Christian Faith, the same church declares: "God is triune. . . . The Father is

totally God. The Son is totally God. The Holy Spirit is totally God."

Monsignor Eugene Clark: "God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in

creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it." Cardinal John O'Connor: "We know

that it is a very profound mystery, which we don't begin to understand." Pope John Paul II:

"the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity."

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge: "Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how

it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves."

New Catholic Encyclopedia: "There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman

Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, 'But

how does one preach the Trinity?' And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part

of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their

professors."

What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: "Priests who with considerable effort learned . . .

the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the

pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday. . . . Why should one bore people with something that in the

end they wouldn't properly understand anyway? ... The Trinity is a matter of formal belief, but

it has little or no [effect] in day-to-day Christian life and worship."

Catholic theologian Hans Küng (Christianity and the World Religions): "Even well-informed

Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of

the Trinity. . . . The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and

three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by

theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game. . . .

Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God's oneness and uniqueness that

can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?"

Theological Dictionary: "The Trinity is a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . , which could not

be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible."

BOOK V

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

OF THE TRINITY

V. The Historical development of the Trinity

CONSTANTINE.

Henry Chadwick (The Early Church): "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the

Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of

grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very

clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians."

Encyclopædia Britannica: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions,

and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the

creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor,

the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their

inclination."

"Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being

asked in Greek theology," says A Short History of ChristianDoctrine.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED: "The Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in

Trinity and Trinity in Unity. . . . So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is

God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God."

BOOK VI

THE HISTORY OF TRINITARIANS

VI. The History of Trinitarians

BOOK VII

WHAT DO REFERENCES SAY

ABOUT THE TRINITY?

RESPECTED COMMENTARIES. Note the following statements regarding the absence of

the Trinity in the Holy Scriptures.

The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as

such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the

Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . .

The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . .

By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has

maintained ever since."-(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by

which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the

Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . .

Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly

established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior

to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the

title the Trinitariandogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even

remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly

Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. 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."-

(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

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.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible: "The trinity of persons within the unity of

nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k 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."-(New York, 1965), p. 899.

The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Metzger and Coogan), pages 782-3: "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 partnersin the

Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of

the [Bible] canon. ... It is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not

appear."

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Colin Brown, editor), Volume

2, page 84: "The Trinity. The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. ‘The

Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal

essence and therefore in an equal sense God himself.. And the other express declarations is

also lacking, that God is God thus and only thus, i.e., as The Father, the Son, and the Holy

Spirit. These two express declarations, which go beyond the witness of the Bible, are the

twofold content of lthe Church doctrine of the Trinity.’ (Karl Barth, CD, I, 1, 437). It also

lacks such terms as trinity (Lat. trinitas which was coined by Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 3;

11; 12 etc.) and homoousias which feature in the Creed of Nicea (325) to denote Christ was

the same substance as the Father."

"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology

of the church till the 4th century." (The IllustratedBible Dictionary)

The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew

Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." And theNew Catholic Encyclopedia also

says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]."

The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman: "The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly

or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . .

. There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within

the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the "Old Testament"] suggestions or foreshadowings or

'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred

writers."

The Encyclopedia of Religion: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not

contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."

Jesuit Fortman: "The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of

the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . .

Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and

activity in the same Godhead."

The New Encyclopædia Britannica observes: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit

doctrine appears in the New Testament."

Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine: "As far as the New Testament is

concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: "The N[ew] T[estament] does

not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. 'The Bible lacks the express declaration that

the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence' [said Protestant theologian Karl

Barth]."

Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the

trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it."-

Origin and Evolution of Religion.

Historian Arthur Weigall: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in

the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church

three hundred years after the death of our Lord."-The Paganism in Our Christianity.

"Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was

subsequently elaborated in the creeds."-

The New InternationalDictionary of New Testament Theology.

"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their

own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God,

and they recognised the . . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an

actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One."-The Paganism in Our Christianity.

"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-

apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings."-

Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully

assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . .

. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a

mentality or perspective."-New Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Formation of Christian Dogma (An Hisjtorical Study of its Problems), by Martin Werner,

professor ordinarious in the University of Bern: "The significance of the Angel-Christology

for the Post-Apostolic period, from the point of view of doctrinal history, lies in the fact that it

stood in the way of lthe developement of a homoousian doctrine of the Trinity in the later

rthodox Nicene sense, owing to its fundamentally Subordinationist character. Angel-

Christiology and the Trinitarian dogma of Nicaea were in this respect absolutely

incompatiable. (137) Arianism [editor: unitarianism] was doomed. It had indeed, with its

reference to Scriptures and the old tradition of the Church, good arguments as its disposal. ...

Modalism had criticised the accepted Trinitarian doctrin of the Churchas a doctrine of three

gods. (160)

"Every significant theologian of the Church in the pre-Nicene period, had actually represented

aSubordinationist Christology. (234)

"Consequently one now began to talk of a divine ‘Trinity’. In the Nicene confession-formula

of A.D. 325 this concept had been, significantly, lacking.‘Tinitas’ = Trias did not signify a

kind of ‘unity of three’, but simply ‘threeness.’ (252)

"By means of the union of the Logos with a complete human being, the three Persons of the

Trinity were increased by a fourth, a human Person. From being a Trias it became a Tetras. ...

It was seen from Phil. ii, 6 ff. that the Apostle Pul in no way taught in terms of a scheme

which differentiated the Two Natures." (266)

"The course of the age-long dctrinal conflicts of the Early Church shows, for example, that

the Trinitarian and Christological problems were by no means effectively settled by the

doctrinal decrees of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (451).

APOSTOLIC, OR CHURCH FATHERS.

Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is

"other than the God who made all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never

did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say."

Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence

from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only

God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other."

Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a

creature" but called God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the

Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.

Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father

is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him

who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent." He also said: "There was a

time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone."

Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is "the one God, the first and the only

One, the Maker and Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he

was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before," such

as the created prehuman Jesus.

Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that "the Father and Son are two substances . . . two

things as to their essence," and that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small

light."

Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: "The modern popular

doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this

observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for

three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and . . . holy

Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense

now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact."

"There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within

the Godhead."-The Triune God

BOOK VIII

MODERN TRINITARIAN APOLOGETICS

VII. Modern Defences of the Trinity

A. The Trinity of three persons in one God

TRUINE FORMULAS.

Mathew 28.19 --- THE TRINITARIAN FORMULA

[[McClintock and

Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating

the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: "This text, however, taken

by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or

their equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552) Regarding other texts that also

mention the three together, this Cyclopedia admits that, taken by themselves, they are

"insufficient" to prove the Trinity. (Compare 1 Timothy 5:21, where God and Christ and the

angels are mentioned together.)]]

2 Corinthians 13.14 --- PAUL’S TRIUNE FORMULA. This closing verse of Second

Corinthians is generally included among certain triune formulas. The verse reads: ‘The Grace

of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of The God and the communion of the holy spirit be with

all of you.’ Is it fair to ask how many gods are in this verse? is there but one here? The God

(tou theou) is distinguished from the grace of Jesus and the sharing in the holy spirit. Is there

anything in the phrase "sharing (communion) of the holy spirit) which would necessarily

mean it was a person? Persons may share water, food or a source of energy without such

things being persons. This "formula" is far removed from what a Trinitarian would write, or

rewrite, if he had the authority: "The Grace of God the Son and the love of God the Father and

the communion of God the Holy Ghost be with you."

Ephesians 4.4 --- One God. A similar formula is constructed by some in this verse of Paul: ‘ ...

one spirit ... one Lord ... one God.’ Though it appears tempting at first, does the verse identify

more than "one God"? This is clearly the Father as the whole expression shows. Paul has

already written that the "one Lord" has a God in 1.3, 17: ‘the God and Father of our Lord ...

the God of our Lord.’ Paul does not seem to understand that these are the same God or

Person. This "Lord" is one of the "many lords" over which Yahweh is both God and Lord as

Moses taught. (De 10.17; 1 Co 8.5, 6)

Paul uses other abstractions in this same verse: body, hope, faith, and baptism which are not a

person. Neither must the phrase "one spirit" be forced into such a third Person in the holy

Trinity.

Irenaeus of the Second Century paraphrases this verse in Ephsians: "And thus one God the

Father is declared, who is above all, and through all, and in all. The Father is indeed above all,

and He is the Head of Christ."-Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 18.2.

B. The diety of Jesus and "proof texts"

Introduction. The late Anglican bishop John Robinson wrote in Honest to God: "In practice

popular preaching and teaching presents a supranaturalistic view of Christ which cannot be

substantiated from the New Testament. It says simply that Jesus was God, in such a way that

the terms 'Christ' and 'God' are interchangeable. But nowhere in Biblical usage is this so. The

New Testament says that Jesus was the Word of God, it says that God was in Christ, it says

that Jesus is the Son of God; but it does not say that Jesus was God, simply like that."

Despite what learned scholars have said on this subject of the divinity of Christ -- both pro

and con -- many Trinitarians insist there are as many as 600 "proof texts" regarding the deity

of Jesus. We cannot consider all these supposed evidences but we will examine those used

most often. If they fail to prove the matter then it may be assumed the remaining hundreds are

less so.

JOHN 1.1 --- DOES THIS VERSE PROVE THE TRINITY? DOES IT PROVE JESUS IS

GOD ALMIGHTY?

THE GREEK TEXT: [fonts omitted in email version]

εν αρτη746

ην ο λογος3056

και ο λογος ην προς4314

In beginning was the word and the word was toward

τον θεον2316

και θεος2316

ην ο λογος αστος3778

ην

the god and god was the word the same was

εν αρτη προς τον θεον

in beginning toward the god

The 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures:

1.1-3a AS (A) GOD THE WORD WAS AN AGENCY OF CREATION

1.1 In the beginning the Word existed, and the Word existed with The God and the Word was

(a) god.

1.2 This (god) existed in the beginning with The God.

1.3 Everything came into existence by means of (this god’s) agency and without (that god)

nothing came into existence.

This prologue of the Beloved most be among the premier texts qouted to prove the Trinity.

Not, of course, by scholars, even Trinitarian ones, for obviously the Third Person is absent. It

is often, though, resorted to by new Christians who have been erroneously told somewhere it

proves the Trinity. The volumes of dissertations on this verse alone would fill the oceans of

the world. So, we wish to be as simple as possible so we do not increase the depths of the

oceans of ink.

There is one word we are unable to find in any translation we have examined. There may be

some which contain this missing word and n doubt we will locate it some day. The original

First Century Greek copies would have read, using English, something like this:

INBEGINNINGTHEWORDWASANDTHEWORDWASWITHTHEGODANDGODWAST

HEWORD.

Can you find the word missing in your own translation? Take a minute and read slowly. You

will find it. It is the word "the" --- in Greek ton before the first occurrence of "god" --- that is,

"the god." Now centuries of Christian monotheism, and later the Trinitarian filter, has

rendered "the god" as "God." Now, this is fair enough if one clearly understands what is going

in this verse. The 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures chooses to add the article

"the" and make the phrase "The God" because there were so many "gods" (1 Co 8.4-8) in the

ancient Greek and Roman world John wants to make clear he has The God in mind. So, "the

Word was with The God." A particular, singular, and absolute "God."

Mohammed did something similar when faced with a world filled with pagan gods, and with

the Trinity popular among the powerful Roman Christian world. He describes the Creator

as Allah which literally means the same as ton theon --- The God. In the modern Western

world with its Judaeo-Christian and Moslem backgrounds need only see the word captilozed,

God, to know this is different from "god." One way to do this in Greek is use the only article

the Greeks had in the alphabet, "the."

Some scholars believe ho theos is never used of Christ whereas theos is on rare occasions.

These will be discussed later.

Do you think it fair for lany translation to omit an important word from the original Greek of

the Christian Bible? Well, what does this mean? The Word was with someone, and this

someone was The God. Now, at the same time "the Word was god." But, this "god" lacks the

article "the" and so cannot be the same "The God" with whom the Word was. Now, modern

trinitarian monotheists (something of a contradiciton) will howl "polytheism!" Because that is

what results from reading lthe verse literally in Greek: there are two gods in verse one: The

God and another "god." How can this be? We in the Twenieth Century, looking backward

through centuries of trinitarian filters and straw-man definitions, do not share the same views

that John’s readers did. So, we must first understand how Jews, Greeks and Romans would

have viewed the word theos or "god." Few English-speaking persons can state the root

meaning and sources for the word "god" let alone the Greek theos of the Hebrew elohim.

Regarding John 1.1, a professor Werner writes: "This problem was one which had not hitherto

existed for Christianity. Now for the first time, owing to the new doctrine of Redemption,

Christ becomes tantamount to ‘another God,’ (Justin) or, rather, the God ‘in the second place,’

‘the second rank’ after the Creator-God (Justin), the ‘second God’ (Origen), the ‘second God

after the Father.’ (Hippolytus)

"That there should be a second God with or after the first and only God the Father constituted,

inevitably, for Chritian monotheism a great problem. ... This Prologue (John i, 1 ff.) became

in increasing measure for the theology of the folowig eriod both the point of departure and the

object of a discussion which grew evermore intense. The fact that discussed centred here, and

not primarily on the Synoptic and Pauline statements, is significant. For it reveals the

instinctive feeling that a problem was involved here which had not existed in the Apostolic

Age and which the Post-Apostolic Church had itself created." (The Formation of Christian

Dogma, Martin Werner, pp 216, 217)

On the matter of monotheism and polytheism, who is authorized to determine what the

definitions of these words must mean. If they are arbitrarily defined as "worship of one God"

as opposed to "belief in one God" interesting conflicts result. What was the truth of the

Hebrew and Greek worlds? Anyone can study lexicons and discover for themselves that both

Jews and Christians believed that though there was only one God, there were others who were

called "gods" both in celestial patheons and terrestial emperors, heros, idols, and noteworthy

persons, such as judges. (1 Co 8.5, 6; Ps 82.1-6)

That John has two gods in mind is shown by verse 18 of this same chapter, present in Greek

with Strong’s numerical codes and a literally interlinear:

[Greek fonts omitted]

THEON(2316) OUDEIS(3762) EORAKEN(3708) POPOTE(4415)

god no one has seen ever

MONOGENES THEOS HO ON(5607) EIS(1519) TON KOLPON(3859) TOU

only-begotten god the one in the bosom of the

PATROS(3962) EKEINOS(1565) EXEGESATO(1834)

father that one explained (Him)

This reads: ‘No one has ever seen God. The only-begotten god, the one in the bosom of the

Father, that one explained Him.’ Is it fair to say that in this verse there are two gods: the

invisible one, and, the only-begotten one. The former is not only invisible and never begotten;

the later, holds the favored position with the Father and is the mono+genes of the Father. This

word monogenes is like saying this son is the only one who has the DNA of the Father or the

only one genetically related to the Father.

John 1.18 also explains what the essential meaning of John’s word logos means by his use

of exegesato, that is an Exegete, which is someone who explains complex religious matters.

The Logos is the Exegete of the Creator and it is by means of His Word, the Logos, that God

Almighty utters creative words as well as revelations of spiritual illumination.

There are some similarities between the relationship of The God and the Word which are

illustrated with Moses and Aaron. Exodus 4.15, 16 records this God-arranged

relationship: ‘And you (Moses) shall speak to (Aaron) and put words in his mouth. ... (Aaron)

shall speak for you (Moses) to the people, and (Aaron) shall be a mouth for you,and you shall

be to (Aaron) as God.’ (RSV) And, again, later: ‘And the LORD said to Moses, "See, I make

you as God to Pharoah; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.’ (Ex 7.1 RSV) We

leave the footnotes to explain details of what is going on in these verses.

However, we might paraphrase thes verses this way: "In the beginning Aaron was, and Aaron

as with the God Moses, and Aaron was God." Yahweh himself describes Aaron as "mouth"

and "prophet" in that the brother of Moses spoke for him who had God speaking directly to

him. Some versions use "Spokesman" instead of "mouth." The Jewish Greek (LXX) version

uses laon for "words" in which logos is rooted. But, there is something that pops off the page

in the Septuagint.

It is the Greek pros ton theon which occurs in Exodus 4.16 (LXX) which is exactly the same

phrase occuring in John 1.1 when it states "the Word was with The God." Would this not

confirm the relationship of Aaron to Moses is compared to John’s Logos or Word? Moses

was, in affect, The God, and Aaron was his "mouth" or "spokesman" or "prophet" and spoke

for him.

Pros is regularly translated "toward" when it indicates someone facing another as if to receive

instructions with the purpose of carrying them out; or, approaching and going toward another.

In just chapter three of John’s Gospel alone, note these: 3.2, (Nicodemas) came toward (pros)

Jesus by night’; 3.4, Nicodemas said (legei = logos) toward (pros) (Jesus; 3.20, he does not

approach (pros) the light; 3.21, toward (pros) the light; 3.26,they came toward (pros)

John ... and all are going (erchontai) toward him. If the Word is "toward" (pros) The God it

is unlikely, if not unreasonable, that at the same time he is that God.

It is the Nazarene who makes it clear himself that what he speaks is not his own but what The

God told him to speak. Jesus does this several times: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you the Son can do

nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. ... I can do nothing on my

own authority; as I hear, I judge. ... My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me; if any

man’s will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from [The] God or whether

I am speaking on my own authority. ... I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the

Father taught me.’ (Jn 5.19, 30; 7.16-18; 8.28 RSV) These are words Aaron could have used

if asked where his words came from.

Some renderings are: 1808: "and the word was a

god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's

NewTranslation: With a Corrected Text. 1864: "and a god was the

word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson. 1928: "and the Word

was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible-AnAmerican Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and

E. J. Goodspeed. 1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig

Thimme. 1950: "and the Word was a

god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. 1958: "and the Word was a

God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek. 1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was

the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes

Schneider.

The reason the New English Bible opted for a completely different rendering of John 1.1

("When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God

was, the Word was.") is explained: (Professor C. H. Dodd) "A possible translation . . . would

be, 'The Word was a god'. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted. ... The reason

why ("the Word was God") is inacceptable 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, Volume 28, January 1977)

Ernst Haenchen (Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar) (1984). "John 1:1: ‘In the

beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity]

was the Logos. ... "In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here

that the·os' and ho the·os' ('god, divine' and 'the God') were not the same thing in this period.

Philo has therefore written: the Logos means only theos ('divine') and not ho theos('God')

since the logos is not God in the strict sense. . . . In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets:

the Evangelist does not say that the logos is 'God,' but only that the logos is 'divine.' In fact,

for the author of the hymn [in John 1:1], as for the Evangelist, only the Father was 'God' (ho

theos)Joh17:3); 'the Son' was subordinate to him (cf. Joh 14.28). But that is only hinted at in

this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other. ... It was

quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed

alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that

passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ. . . . Thus,

in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-

one, but of a personal union of two entities."-Pages 109, 110.

"-John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, pages 108-10, translated by

Robert W. Funk.]

Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique: "The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this prologue

[John 1:1-18]."

Professor B. F. Westcott: "[the Word was God]" describes "the nature of the Word and does

not identify His Person."

Journal of Biblical Literature (Volume 92, 1973), Philip P. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could

be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.'"

Encyclopædia Britannica (1974 edition, Micropædia, Vol. VI, p. 302): "The identification of

Jesus with the logos, which is implicitly stated in various places in the New Testament but

very specifically in the Fourth Gospel, was further developed in the early church

but more on the basis of Greekphilosophical ideas than on Old Testament motifs."

Westcott: "It is necessarily without the article [the·ós not ho the·ós] inasmuch as it describes

the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person." (Quoted from page 116

of An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by Professor C. F. D. Moule, 1963 reprint.)

WHO IS "THE GOD" (TON THEON) IN JOHN 1.1?

The word existed originally, before creation as described in Genesis 1.1, and the word was

wth The God. Who is ton theon here? What will a trinitarian say? The Father? Or, does ton

theos always mean the Godhead of the Trinity itself?

If ton theos is the Father then should it read: "the word was with the Father and the word was

the Father"? We note the holy spirit is missing in the prologue.

If ton theos is the Trinity, then would it read: "the word was with the Trinity and the word was

the Trinity"?

Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner: "In St. John's First Epistle [ho theos] ["the God"] so

often certainly means the Father that it must be understood of the Father throughout the

Epistle." (Compare Bible du Centenaire)

The Anchor Bible: "To preserve in English the different nuance of theos [god] with and

without the article, some (Moffatt) would translate 'The Word was divine.'"

"Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst goettlichen Wesens," The New Testament, by

Rudolf Boehmer, 1910.

"Das Wort war selbst goettlichen Wesens," The New Testament, by Curt Stage, 1907.

"Und Gott (=goettlichen Wesens) war das Wort," The Holy Scriptures, by D. Dr. Hermann

Menge, twelfth edition, 1951.

"Und war von goettlicher Wucht," The New Testament, by Friedrich Pfaefflin, 1949.

"Und Gott von Art war das Wort," The New Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1919.

WHAT WAS JOHN’S PURPOSE IN WRITING HIS GOSPEL?

"That you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." (Jn 20.31). If John had another

agenda, a Trinitarian one, would he have written the same? Would he, as many Trinitarians

do, render this phrase, "God the Son"?

John 2.19 --- DID JESUS RESURRECT HIMSELF?

This text is sometimes used in an effort to prove Jesus is God Himself because they assert that

here the Nazarene foretells he will resurrect himself. The text reads: ‘Destroy this temple, and

in three days I will raise it up.’ (RSV) The misunderstand his statement and this becomes a

source of accusation years later. John himself explains in verse 21: ‘But he was speaking of

the temple of his body.’ No where else is this parabolic phrase of the Nazarene used to

indicate Jesus would raise or resurrect himself. Rather, each time this subject is discussed it is

The God who resurrects Jesus from Hades.

There are more than two dozen texts which show The God (ho theos) raising the Son from the

dead. There is not a single case where Jesus is described as raising himself. (Ac 3.15; 4.10;

5.30; 10.40; 13.30, 37; Ro 4.24, 25; 6.4, 9; 7.4; 8.11, 24; 10.9; 1 Co 6.14; 15.4, 15; 2 Co 4.14;

Ga 1.1; Ep 1.20; 2.12; 1 Th 1.10; 1 Pe 1.21) These would seem to making it clear there is a

distinct difference between The God the Father and Jesus his Son who did not resurrect

himself, but was raised by The God. If Jesus had raised himself it would seem someone would

have noted this and mentioned it.

Is it fair that the Nazarene’s phrase in John 2.19 is couched in parabolic or metaphorical

language? He uses the Temple (naos) illustrative of his body. In what way could he mean

metamorphically that "he would raise his body in three days"? The Beloved Apostle is to be

unique in recording the answer to this in later verses. Compare John 10.15, 18: ‘And I lay

down my life for the sheep. ... No one takes (my life) from me, but I lay it down of my own

accord. I have power to lay (my life) down, and I have power to take (my life) up again. I have

received this command from my Father.’(RSV) Here the subject is the "life" of the Son.

Though he can lay it down and take it up again, he can do this only as he is given authority

from the Father. By his own course of integrity and self-sacrifice, the Nazarene may of his

own free will give up his body or life for the sake of the sheep. By this obedient course, he, in

affect, takes up his own life again, just as the Father promised. (Is ch 53; Ph 2.5-9)

Jesus says something similar to his own disciples. Luke 21.19 has the Nazarene teaching, ‘In

your own endurance you will gain your souls.’ Our life as a soul or living being is to some

extent within our own power, for we may choose of ourselves whether to lose our soul or gain

it. (Mt 10.39) Do this degree our own future existence is in our own hands. We understand

Jesus’ words to the Jews at John 2.19 to reflect a similar idea.

John 2.19 may be viewed as typical of a representative's authority granted by the higher one

he represents. We have a similar sense in Biblical Hebrew at Deuteronomy 30.19, 20.

Robert Young's Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation comes to mind which not only

answers to this statement, but also numerous others that are supposed to support the Trinity:

"# 8. What a SERVANT says or does is ascribed to the master. " He then quotes Matthew

19.4, 5 showing how the "he" (ho = the [one]) says, though sounding as if YHWH literaly

said it, the context in Genesis 2 shows it to be an interpretaion by the writer of Genisis.

Compare also Genesis 31.11-13 where the messenger (angel) of the LORD becomes YHWH

himself.

Also Young’s Hint # 68 (PHROPHET) applies : "one who [ professedly ] announces the will

or celebrates the works of God. ... Jesus being The Prophet, could be considered to be in a

constant Prophetic mode - the things I speak are not of my own originality as I hear The

Father speak I speak (Jn 14.10) - this is typical of a representative's authority to speak as if he

/ she were the Authority themselves; it is a Oriental Grammatical device as can be noted in Dt

30.19, 20.

JOHN 8.58 -- DID THE NAZARENE APPLY EXODUS 3.14 TO HIMSELF?

We have before us a text, John 8.58, which a sincere Christian friend with strong faith in the

Trinity sugests proves the divinity of Christ. In Greek the later part of this verse reads: PRIN

ABRAAM GENESTHAI EGO EIMI. This text reads in English in the Greek-English

Interlinear New Testament as:‘Before Abraham came into being, I AM.’ We note the "I AM"

is capitalized. When we check other translations we note they tend to also capitalize this "I

AM." We note first that these same translations do not do this in 8.28 where Jesus also said, "I

am." This has us puzzled at first.

Our good friend has suggested that the "I AM" in verse 58 is a quote from Exodus 3.14 and so

he believes with great fervor Jesus is making himself the Yahweh of the Burning Bush

account where the Almighty God declares His Name. We turn to some translations and they

do, indeed, have Exodus 3.14 as ‘I am that I AM.’ (KJV) Since some capitalize both "I AM"

in John and Exodus it would seem our friend’s idea has some validity on cursurary

examination. How are we to know whether the Nazarene is lifting the "I AM" of Exodus 3.14

and applying this title to himself in John 8.58? What can this mean?

First, our rule is to ceck the context. One could go all the way back to 8.1 (or, 8.12 in some

versions) and check this dialogue between the Nazarene and the Jewish scribes and Pharisees,

but we note the immediate question at hand. Verse 58 begins, ‘Jesus said to them,’ so he must

be responding to a question. Sure enough, we note in the previous verse (57) these godly Jews

asked, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?’ To which Jesus answers

in verse 58, ‘Before Abraham existed, I am.’

We discover that the English "am" is similar to the Greek eimi which, according to Bauer,

Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 222, means "as a

predicate to be -- 1. be, exist." As in Shakespeare, "to be or not to be, that is the question." It

would seem to a fair mind that the subject is, "How could you possibly have known

Abraham?" To which the Nazarene simply answers, ‘Before Abraham existed, I existed,’ or, ‘I

existed before Abraham existed.’ The pre-existence of Christ is something stressed only in the

Gospel of John and it seems that thisis what is being done here. It seems a strange way to go

about claiming one is the Yahweh, or El’Shad-dai’ of Exodus 3.14.

We remember that the Nazarene has already used the whole Greek expression ego eimi in

8.18, 23, 28 and the Jews did not seem to think Jesus was laying claim to being Yahweh there.

We note first 8.17, 18 where Jesus does quote from Moses (De 19.15) using the rule of ‘the

testimony of twn men is true.’ When checking out this verse in Moses we note it actually

says, ‘two or three’! If Jesus believed in a truine view, or any other concept of "three," this

would have provided an outstanding Trinitarian opportunity. However, instead of applying

"three men" and their testimony, he only makes application of "two" when he goes on to

say: ‘I am (ego eimi) the one testifying about myself.’ Now, that makes "one person." Then

Jesus adds, and the One having sent me, the Father, testifies about me.’ That makes, by Jesus’

own addition, "two." He either misses this opportunity to make some statement about "three,"

as Deuteronomy 19.15 would allow, or he has no such thought about "three."

Here, in 8.17, 18, when the Nazarene used "I am" (ego eimi) there was no confusion among

the Jews: Jesus was some one other than the Father, who was another. That the Jews

understood the Father to be God is shown in 8.41 and 8.54. So could not 8.17, 18 read: "I am

the one testifying about myself and God who sent me testifies about me"? Jesus equals "one"

and God equals "one" which adds up to "two witnesses" with no mention of a third.

The other occurrence of ego eimi is at 8.28 where Jesus says, ‘When you lift up the Son of

Man then you will know that I am.’ This comes in answer to the question in verse 25, ‘Who

are you?’ Is it fair to say the Nazarene’s answer is, "the Son of Man"? This is an expression

from Daniel 7.13 and had always been applied by the Jews to the Messiah or Christ. Here in

verses 26-29 Jesus make a cler distinction between himself and the God who sent him, the

Father. This designation from Daniel 7.13 is a true quote or allusion where the Messiah

is ascending to the one called "the Ancent of Days."

Now, it seems to usthat Jesus had clear opportunity to identify himself with "three persons"

using Deuteronomy 19.15, but he does not. He has another opportunity when he is directly

asked about his identity, but here his answer is, "the Son of Man."

IS JOHN 8.58 A QUOTE? We are now wondering whether 8.58 and its ego eimi is a quote or

allusion at all. First, we check Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece which faithfully

identfies source words or quotes and to our surprise this excellent work does not list Exodus

3.14. We also check the New Jerusalem Bible which we have found to be reliable in its cross

references to quotes and allusions. Even this work does not show Exodus 3.14 as a source of

Jesus’ "I am."

How can we know if the ego eimi in John 8.58 is a quote or strong allusion to Exodus 3.14?

We turn to Exodus 3.14, 15 in the Jewish GreekSeptuagint. There, in answer to Moses’

question of God at the burning bush, El’Shad-dai’ reveals to Moses His sacred name.

Rendering this in English at the point of our interest, it reads: ‘And the God spoke to Moses,

saying, ( = ego eimi ho on; I AM THE BEING, LXX); and He said, Thus shall ye say to the

children of Israel, ho On (= The Being) has sent me to you. ... This is my name for

ever.’ Which part of the whole phrase ego eimi ho On does God take to be His name? Is it

not ho On and not ego eimi. Here in Exodus 3.14 ego eimi is emphatic, meaning "I am . . .

somebody."

Now, we rememberthat there is something interesting here in the account about the burning

bush. The Nazarene alludes to it at matthew 22.32 (see also Mark 12.18-27 and Luke 20.20-

26) where Jesus seems to be referring to someone other than himself when he mentions, He is

the God (not "I am God"), not of the dead, but of the living.’ Additionally, Peter alludes to

Exodus 3.14 at Acts 3.13 and he seems to draw a clear distinction between ‘The God of

Abraham ( = Yahweh) . . . and His Servant-boy, Jesus.’

We also remember that the dear apostle John himself in the Apocalypse uses ho On and

applies it to someone other than the Lamb. Note Revelation 4.8 and ho On is the "Lord God

Almighty" (the El’Shad-dai’ of Ex 3.14) who sits upon the Throne and to whom the Lamb

approaches to receive the Little Bible.

We also note in the process of checking the ego eimi of Exodus 3.14 (LXX) that the Greek is

slightly different from the ego eimi of John 8.58. In Exodus it is emphatic and in John it is

not. Our good Christian friend has stressed the emphatic "I am" and we note that ego eimi is

often used in such cases as "I am the Vine." Note the emphatic ego eimi Iesous ("I am Jesus")

at Acts 26.15. Or, in the case of the blind man who uses the emphatic "I am ... " at John 9.9.

That is, "I am . . . someone (a blind man)." The Greek ego eimi is not emphatic in John 8.58,

though it is in Exodus 3.14.

HOW DO TRANSLATORS RENDER JOHN 8.58?

In John 8.58 there is no suggestion of "I am . . . someone." It is simply, "I am." Though this is

difficult torender in English, judging from what has been noted above, if Jesus were quoting

Exodus 3.14 (in Greek) he would not have said ego eimi but rather ho On. If Jesus had

respond to the question of the Jews, ‘Before Abraham existed ho On’ a plausible argument

might be presented that this is the Nazarene’s quote of Exodus 3.14.

Since it is not, the suggested way to translate this unique case of ego eimi is admitted by A

Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John (printed by the United Bible Societies): "In

many languages it is impossible to preserve the expression I am in this type of context, for the

present tense of the verb ‘to be’ would be meaningless. To make sense, one must say, ‘Befor

Abraham existed, I existed.’" This being the case we checked other translations: Lamsa: I

was; Moffatt: I have existed before Abraham; Beck: I was before Abraham; Williams: I

existed before Abraham was born; New World: before Abraham came into existence, I have

been. So, it seems many translators do not render ego eimi as I AM but in harmony with the

context show Jesus’ reply had to do with his confession of pre-existece, not his divinity.

How do some scholars render the I AM of John 8.58? Compare more than a dozen.

1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes. 1935:

"I existed before Abraham was born!" The Bible-AnAmerican Translation, by J. M. P. Smith

and E. J. Goodspeed. 1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I

am." Das NeueTestament, by Jörg Zink. 1981: "I was alive before Abraham was

born!" The Simple English Bible. Moffatt: "I have existed before Abraham was

born."Schonfield and An American Translation: "I existed before Abraham was

born." Stage (German): "Before Abraham came to be, I was." Pfaefflin(German): "Before

there was an Abraham, I was already there!" George M. Lamsa, translating from the Syriac

Peshitta, says: "Before Abraham was born, I was." Dr. James Murdock, also translating from

the Syriac Peshitto Version, says: "Before Abraham existed, I was." The

Brazilian Sacred Biblepublished by the Catholic Bible Center of São Paulo says: "Before

Abraham existed, I was existing."-2nd edition, of 1960, Bíblia Sagrada, Editora "AVE

MARIA" Ltda.

Remember, also, that when Jesus spoke to those Jews, he spoke to them in the Hebrew of his

day, not in Greek. How Jesus said John 8:58 to the Jews is therefore presented to us in the

modern translations by Hebrew scholars who translated the Greek into the Bible Hebrew, as

follows: Dr. Franz Delitzsch: "Before Abraham was, I have been." Isaac Salkinson and David

Ginsburg: "I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham." In both of these Hebrew

translations the translators use for the expression "I have been" two Hebrew words, both a

pronoun and a verb, namely, aníhayíthi; they do not use the one Hebrew word: Ehyéh.

BUT, WHAT ABOUT THE STONING?

Now, our friend has made much of verse 59, ‘Therefore, they picked up stones to hurl them at

him, but Jesus hid.’ Our friend feels that this stoning was in response to Jesus laying claim to

the title "I AM." But, we have seen this ego eimi has already been used three times (8.18, 24,

28) without any objection on the part of the Jews. We note the Jews have been seeking to kill

Jesus as early as John 5.18 (note also 7.1, 19, 20, 25, 32, 44, 45)where they were already

stirred to stoning. So, it is not the Nazarene’s remark in verse 58 which aoruses their hatred.

They were of this mind much earlier. Jesus has alrady given their reason in verse 40: ‘But now

you are seeking to kill me, a man (!!) that has told you the truth that I heard from The

God.’ In this verse there is "a man" and The God (tou theou) consistent with the "two

persons" of verse 17.

Finally, we check a Greek grammar, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of

Historical Research by A. T. Robertson: "The verb (ei-mi) . . . Sometimes it does

express existence as a predicate like any other verb,as in (e-go’ ei-mi’) Jo 8.58."

Our friend is extremely sincere and not for a moment do we doubt his undying faith in our

Lord. We are quite willing to accept whatever identity the Bible places on Jesus the Nazarene.

On the other hand, we cannot see John 8.58 anything other than Jesus stating his pre-existence

before Abraham, something an angel could do also. We hope our friend does not judge (Jn

8.15; 12.47) us for believing Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah sent from The God above.

We both rejoice at the indwelling Christ in the lives of all the Nazarene Saints!

Abbé Drioux edition of the Holy Bible: "Before Abraham was, I am, in fact God eternal,

before Abraham was born."

Moffatt: "I have existed before Abraham was

born." Schonfield and An American Translation: "I existed before Abraham was

born." Stage (German): "Before Abraham came to be, I was." Pfaefflin (German): "Before

there was an Abraham, I was already there!" George M. Lamsa, translating from the Syriac

Peshitta, says: "Before Abraham was born, I was." Dr. James Murdock, also translating from

the Syriac Peshitto Version, says: "Before Abraham existed, I was." The

Brazilian Sacred Bible published by the Catholic Bible Center of São Paulo says: "Before

Abraham existed, I was existing."-2nd edition, of 1960, Bíblia Sagrada, Editora "AVE

MARIA" Ltda.

JN 8.58 --- We must remember, also, that when Jesus spoke to those Jews, he spoke to them

in the Hebrew of his day, not in Greek. How Jesus said John 8:58 to the Jews is therefore

presented to us in the modern translations by Hebrew scholars who translated the Greek into

the Bible Hebrew, as follows: Dr. Franz Delitzsch: "Before Abraham was, I have been." Isaac

Salkinson and David Ginsburg: "I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham." In

both of these Hebrew translations the translators use for the expression "I have been" two

Hebrew words, both a pronoun and a verb, namely, aní hayíthi; they do not use the one

Hebrew word: Ehyéh. So they do not make out that in John 8:58 Jesus was trying to imitate

Jehovah God and give us the impression that he himself was Jehovah, the I AM.

John 10.30 --- IS JESUS EQUAL TO GOD?

We have this text before us, John 10.33, which a good Christian friend tell us proves that

Jesus the Nazarene was equal to God when he walked the roads of Judea durng "the days of

his flesh." (He 5.7) This text reads: ‘Because you (Jesus) being a man make yourself

God.’ We note right away that it is the Jews who drew this conclusion and make the charge. It

is not a statement which comes from Jesus. Now, this is about as trustworthy as your average

Pharisee when it came to attitudes toward the Nazarene. However, we are more interested in

Jesus’ own response to this accusation from his religious oppossers. There is a fine

opportunity for Jesus to clear up matters. If Jes believed himself to be God, equal to God, or

part of a triune Godhead, how we to suppose he might answer their question. Surely, he must

be honest, and say, "Yes," or, "I am he," or something of the sort? How did Jesus answer the

Jews?

John 10.24, 35 has the Nazarene’s answer: ‘Is it not written in your law (at Psalm 82.6), "I

said, ‘You are gods.’ If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ -- and the

scripture cannot be annulled -- can you say that the one whom the Father sent in to the world

is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?" Is it strange that the Nazarene seeks the

authority of Psalm 82.6 where Yahweh refers to the Israelite judges as "gods"? Does not

Jesus’ own use of the Bible show there are other "gods" or degrees of being "god"? How can

one argue that Jesus thought himself The God when he only claims to the "the Son of God"?

We note there is no article before the theon in 10.33 so this could be translated "a god." The

Jews said, "because you being a man make yourself a god." Compare the New English Bible:

"You, a mere man, claim to be a god." This translation is more consistent with Jesus’ own

response and use of Psalm 82.6.

Jesus has already confronted the Jews on the question of equality with God in chapter five

of John. John 5.18 records the charge: ‘Because (Jesus) was not only breaking the sabbath,

but was calling God hiswn Father, thereby making himself equal to The God.’ We note this is

a conlcusion the Jews draw which is explained by John, and not the Nazarene himself. But,

we are interested in Jesus’ answer to this. Here he has an opportunity to clear up the matter of

his identity. If Jesus were indeed God or even equal to God, how would he answer this charge

by the Jews? His answer is recorded beginning with 5.19, ‘The Son can do nothing of his

own.’ The United Bible Societies Interlinear edition puts this literally: "The Son is unable to

do antyhing from himself." Now, if we replace "the Son" with "God" we would have, "God is

unable to do antyhing from Himself." This is shocking for the nGod could not create or do

anything on his own initiative. It would be ludicrous to state that God is unable to do anything

of his own self!

We note in the words which follow the Nazarene backs up this original proposition for other

statements regarding either his limitations or the source of his authorit or appointments. 1)

The Father shows the Son what He is doing. The Son does not know this naturally, but the

father must reveal it to him. (5.20) 2) The Father has granted the Son also to have life in

himself. (5.26) The Son does not naturally possess this life within himself, it is "granted" him

by the Father. 3)The Father has given the Son authority to execute judgment. (5.27) The Son

receives this authority from the Father. What does this mean but the Son does not have this

authority on his ow. He must receive it from the source of all power and authority. 4) The Son

can do nothing on his own. (5.30) Imagine saying, "God can do nothing on His own"? The

idea boggles the mind. If that were true nothing would now exist for God would be incapable

of making it happen as the First Cause of the Prime Mover. 5)The Son seeks not his own will

but that of the Father. (5.30) The Son seeks the will of the Father. In this regard, the Son has

no will of his own otherthan what the Father directs. 6) The father sent the Son. (5.37) The

Son does not come of his own accord, but he is sent forth by the Father. We note in all of this

the Nazarene makes no mention of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus concludes his response to the carge of making himself equal to God with, ‘You have

never heard (the Father’s) voice or seen His form.’ (5.38) If Jesus were God would they not

be hearing His voice and seeing His form right there in the Son?

What else would Jesus have to show that he was not equal with God and made no such claim?

Try as we may we cannot seen anything here but the Christ’s denial he was equal to God.

Novatian (c. 200-258 C.E.) writes regarding this oneness: "Since He said 'one' thing, let the

heretics understand that He did not say 'one' person. Forone placed in the neuter, intimates the

social concord, not the personal unity. . . . Moreover, that He says one, has reference to the

agreement, and to the identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself, as reasonably

the Father and Son are one in agreement, in love, and in affection."

(Treatise Concerning the Trinity, chapter 27)

Though our dear friend asserts Jesus was God on earth, we do not fault him for his faith in

Christ. Like Christ, "(We) judge no man at all." We believe we will rise inthe resurrection

with our friend and stand before the Judgment-seat of hrist. It isthen the Lord will judge us.

We believe the Judge will be looking for two primary things: faith and love. (1 Jn 3.23) These

are friend has in abudnance. We only ask that our friend reserve judgment until "the Lord

arrives." (1 Co 4.1-5)

WHO CAN FORGIVE SIN?

In several Gospel accounts the Jews ask this question in a setting where the Nazarene has

said, "Your sins are forgiven." This has often been jumped upon to prove Jesus is God

himself. Usually a Trinitarian who is smart enough will use Luke 7.47-49, for a very good

reason as we shall see. There Jesus gives a most wonderful parable about forgiveness to a

rabbi with a local woman who is known as the town sinner. Jesus tells her: "You sins are

forgiven." The response is: "Who is this man who even forgives sin?" However, who are

authorized to forgive sins?

The Synoptic accounts of the bed-ridden paralytic who was lowered through the roof to reach

Jesus each contain this phrase, "Your sins are forgiven." (Mt 9.2; Mk 2.5; Lk 5.20) In each

case it is the Jews who make the assertion that only God can forgive sins. Is it fair to base a

Trinitarian argument on what the Nazarene’s opposers claim? In all of these Gospel accounts

Jesus answers the same: ‘So that you will know the Son of Man has authority on earth to

forgive sins ... ‘ Note Jesus does not claim to be God as the Jews would assert but rather he

has "authority" to forgive sins. Would God need authority from someone else to do this? It

does not take much reasoning to understand that this authority comes from the God of Jesus,

his Father.

Can anyone else forgive sins? Jesus symbolically breathes holy spirit on his apostles and then

tells them: ‘If you forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if you retain

those of any persons, they stand retained.’ (Jn 20.23 NWT) Just as the Son of Man was

authorized to forgive sins on earth, Christ gave such authority to his personally chosen

apostles. All Christians can forgive those sins committed against them. (Mt 18.21, 35; Lk

17.3, 4)

This whole example of a Trinitarian argument illustrates the extent some must go to find an

argument for the deity of Jesus in the Gospels.

John 14.9 --- WAS JESUS THE FATHER?

‘The one who has seen me has seen the Father.’ This phrase of the Nazarene has been used to

prove Trinity, though it clearly does not mention three persons; or, the deity of Christ, though

the verse does not really say this either. What does the Trinitarian mean we he reads these

words so literally: Jesus was the Father? The Father was Jesus? The Father and Jesus are one

and the same? This could not be for then the Trinity would vanish without the person of Jesus,

God the Son, leaving only the Father and the Holy Spirit.

In the previous context of this lengthy discussion with his disciples, the Nazarene has made

many references to the Father and to himself as two different people just as he had made clear

in John 8.17, 18 in the case of the "two witnesses." If Jesus and the Father are the same then

there are not two witnesses and his argument in chapter eight makes him deceitful. Is it fair to

ask an honest person to read this Passover evening discourse of Jesus to his disciples recorded

in chapters thirteen to seventeen and note the numerous distinctgions he makes between

himself and his Father? Compare some of the following.

John himself introduces this portion with the words: ‘His hour had come so that he might

transfer out of this world toward the Father ... knowing that the Father had given him

everything into his hands -- and that he came from God and was going toward The God -- ...

‘ (Jn 13.1, 3) Does John, writing his Gospel decades later, understand Jesus words in 14.9 to

mean Jesus and the Father were the same person? John describes Jesus as about to move in a

direction toward the Father and then he amplifies this further by adding that Jesus had come

from God and was not returning to The God, thus making it clear the Father and ho theos are

the same. Without elaborate explanation this makes no sense at all if Jesus is the Father.

There are a variety of phrases in chapter fourteen which make it seem obvious the Father is

such and the Son is such and they are two distinctly different persons. Compare these

phrases: ‘Believe in The God and believe in me. ... I am going toward the Father. ... we shall

come and make our home beside him. ... The word you hear is not mine but of the Father who

sent me. ... My Father is greater than me. ... I am doing as the Father has given me command.

... When the helper arrives which I will send from the Father, the spirit of the truth. ... They

will do these things because they knew not the Father nor me. ... I came out of the Father . . . I

am leaving the world and I am going toward the Father. ... Father, glorify your Son. ... The

only true God and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus. ... Father, glorify me beside yourself

with the glory I had before the world existed. ... I am coming toward you, Holy Father. ...

Father, I wish that where I am these may be with me, so they may behold my own glory which

you gave to me, because you loved me before the founding of the world.’ (Jn 14.1, 11, 12, 23,

24, 28, 31; 15.26; 16.3, 28; 17.1, 3, 5, 11, 24) What kind of language or what combination of

words would make it clearer that Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not Jesus?

Returning to 14.9, 10, what is the Son’s answer to Philip’s question? Jesus explains this

‘seeing the Father as seeing the Son’ in this way: ‘Are you not believing that I am in the

Father and the Father in me. These sayings I speak are not from myself but the Father

remaining within me is performing His own works.’ The Nazarene takes no credit for his

teachings or works. It is the endwelling Father which resides in the heart of the Nazarene who

receives all the credit. The words of this answer are similar to Jesus’ prayer regarding his

disciples: ‘ So that everyone may be one -- you, Father, in me and I in you so they may be in

us. ... I in them and You (Father) in me so they may be perfected into one.’ (Jn 17.21, 23) Just

as one may look upon Jesus and see the Father, so one could look upon these disciples and see

Jesus and the Father. (Mt 5.48; 1 Co 11.1; 2 Co 3.18; Ro 13.14)

John 20.28 --- THE GOD OF THOMAS

One might wonder if any words from Doubting Thomas ought to be the basis of a Trinitarian

"proof text" but such is the case with John 20.28. The apostle Thomas had missed an earlier

manifestation of the Lord following his resurrection. Now upon seeing the proof he

demanded, the Doubter burst forth in ecstacy: ‘My Lord and my God!’ Scholars are divided

whether he addresses this to Jesus or The God of Jesus as the Greek is vocative. The phrase

may be an exclamation addressed wholly to the Father, or, the "my Lord" part to Jesus and the

"my God" part to the Father. On the other hand, there is nothing preventing both parts of the

remark from applying to Jesus as the messianic Mighty God of Isaiah 9.6 now that he had

been glorified. Once upon his throne King Messiah may also be addressed as the "God" of

Psalm 45.7 whose own God annointed him.

The phrase, "and my God," may have been one Thomas had already heard when Mary

Magelene came with the message to Jesus’ brothers: ‘I am ascending to my Father and your

Father and to my God and your God.’ (Jn 20.17) We note Thomas did not say "my Father" in

his exclamation. There are variety of ways this expression from Thomas may be viewed, none

of them meeting with universal agreement. We see nothing out of harmony with the messianic

prophecies which refer to the King as "god" (elohim; theos) had Thomas been aware of this.

However, it is viewed as an excited exclamation by many and would therefore be wholly

directed to God or divided between the Lord (Jesus) and The God, the Father and God of

Jesus. (Ep 1.3, 17; Re 3.12)

Acts 20.28 --- WHOSE BLOOD?

In the King James Version this verse reads, ‘ ... the church of God which he purchased with

his own blood.’ (Compare also JB, DY, NAB)This rendering might give the impression in

was the literal blood of God himself and therefore Jesus was God. This would be a rare

statement for Paul. Some render this differently: (RHM) which he acquired through means of

the blood of his own, implying something like "the blood of His Own" and thus indicating the

only-begotten Son. (Compare also TEV, DA, RSV1971

)

Here we provide a commentary from the Kingdom Interlinear appendix:

1903 "with the blood of His own Son" The Holy Bible in Modern English, by

F. Fenton, London.

1950 "with the blood of his own [Son]" New World Translation

of the Christian Greek

Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1966 "through the death of his own Son" Today's English

Version, American Bible

Society, New York.

Grammatically, this passage could be translated as in

the King James Version and Douay Version, "with his own blood." That has been a difficult

thought for many. That is doubtless why ACDSyh (followed by Moffatt's translation) read

"the congregation of the Lord," instead of "the congregation of God." When the text reads that

way it furnishes no difficulty for the reading, "with his own blood." However, BVg read

"God" (articulate), and the usual translation would be 'God's blood.'

The Greek words tou i·di'ou follow the phrase "with the blood." The entire expression could

be translated "with the blood of his own." A noun in the singular number would be understood

after "his own," most likely God's closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this

point J. H. Moulton in A Grammarof New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed.,

p. 90, says: "Before leaving [i'di·os] something should be said about the use of [ho i'di·os]

without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1.11; 13.1; Ac 4.23; 24.23. In the papyri we find

the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . InExpos. VI. iii. 277 I

ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would

translate Acts 2028

'the blood of one who was his own.'"

Alternately, in The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol., 2,

London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: "it is by no means impossible that

[hui·ou', "of the Son"] dropped out after tou i·di'ou, "of his own"] at some very early

transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from

difficulty of any kind."

The New World Translation renders the passage literally, adding "Son" in brackets

after idiou to read: "with the blood of his own [Son]." [KIT App p 1160]

Regarding the above choices which would agree with 1 John 1.7: ‘The blood of Jesus (God’s)

Son cleanses us from all sin.’ (See Re 1.4-6l Jn 3.16)

Romans 9.5 --- Is Jesus the "blessed God"?

Paul uses the word "God" over 160 times in his letter to the Romans and never confuses Jesus

with ho theos. However, 9.5 is often a verse pointed to by Trinitarians as proof that Paul

considered Jesus to be God. The King James version and others render this verse: ‘Christ

came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.’ Since no punctuation existed in the

original it becomes a matter of theological choice where to end the sentence with the word

"all" and start a new one addressing God in a doxology. Translators vary in this distinction.

Some of those who begin a new sentence regarding God alone are MOF, RSV, NEB, LB,

TEV, NAB; and some who give the impression the "God" is referring to Christ are: WEY,

ALF, KNX, MON. Is it fair to argue that a verse which may be questioned by punctuation

ought not be the basis for a doctrine like the Trinity? Or, is the trinitarian evidence so slim one

must resort to these quesionable methods?

We may examine those occurrences of "God" and "Christ" in the same breath and note Paul

always distinguish between the two, most often excluding the holy spirit in the same context.

For example, 1.7 reads: ‘Grace and peace to you from God our Father and (the) Lord Jesus

Christ.’ Note those verses previous to 9.5 in which a clear distinction is made between The

God (ho theos) and Christ: 2.16; 5.1, 8, 10, 11, 15; 6.11, 23; 7.25; 8.3, 17, 34, 39. If suddenly

now with 9.5 Paul declares the Christ is God he has done so without any clarification or

previous explanation. To Roman Jews reading his epistle this would have been received,

whether or Christian or not, with extreme agitation unless the ground-work had been solidly

laid somewhere else.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: "Rom. 9:5 is disputed. . . . It

would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse

would then read, 'Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' Even so, Christ would

not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the

word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a

doxology directed to God."-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976, translated from German, Vol. 2, p.

80) This later comment would allow the rendering "Christ who is a god over all" if one

wished to bring Trinitarian wrath upon themselves.

Philippians 2.6 --- WAS JESUS "EQUAL" TO GOD?

We have before us a text, Philippians 2.6, which a dear friend has suggested proves the

divinity of Jesus Christ. It reads: ‘(Christ Jesus), who, though he was in the form of God, did

not regard equality with God as something to be exploited.’ (RSV) This later word is rendered

by others: MON: forcibly retained; KNX: coveted; PME: cling to; TCNT: clung to. Of course,

if some of these are correct, then Jesus was not equal to God when he walked the beaches of

Galilee for he did not retain, cling to, or retain such equality when he ce to earth. This text is

admitted by some schyolars to be difficult to translate. Therefore, renderings of some ofthe

Greek words vary widely.

For example, the King James Version has it: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not

robbery to be equal with God." If this be corect, then we ask: Who or what is "God" in this

verse? The Father? The Trinity? The KJV would suggest the celesltial "Jesus" did not think it

"robbery to be equal with God." This would imply Jesus was equal with God. If someone is in

the "form of" of someone else, then that someone is not the other in whose form he is.

Is "God" in this verse limited to the Father? Or, is "God" in this verse the triune Godhead? So,

that "Jesus" was equal to or in the form of the Trinity and thus a fourth person? Would a

Trinitarian help us with this?

Let us suppose for a moment the King James is correct. What does it prove? It may prove that

Christ in heaven was "equal to God" before he came to the earth. But, our friend is trying to

prove the man who walked the dusty roads of Judea was "God." So, this verse, if rendered

correclty, would only show that Christ was divine or God before he came to earth. For he next

verse (7) says Christ "emptied himself having taken the form of a slave." Of what did he

"empty himself"? His form or eqality with God? Additionally, verse 9 has The God (ho

theos) ‘highly exalting’ Christ after his death and resurrection. "Highly exlated" above what

Christ was on earth? If that be "God", how could Christ be exalted more? If that be "God" as

in verse 5, after which Christ had been formed, how could he be exalted more than what he

was previously, if he was equal to God?

We suspect something is amiss in this translation. Let us be honest: this text and others have

been put through Trinitarian filters for hundreds of years. When a Trinitarian renders this

verse the bias is there to make it lean toward the King James. When a modernist, who may

even doubt the reality of the Nazarene as a historical person, renders the verse there is a

different bias. We want to go into this area of the actual Greek wording and what meaning

may be there.

However, before considering the Greek words at issue, we ponder 2.6 and its context. We

note that Paul has beem making a singular appeal from 2.1 against vain-glory and for

lowlimindedness. The former rabbi urges a certain "mind" or attitude: that of looking after the

interests of others and not self. Then, with verse 5 he draws upon an illustration or

example: ‘Let this mind/thinking be in you which was also in Christ Jesus . . . ‘ And, then

(??), he launches into verse 6 where Christ "thought it not robery to be equal with God"!

Something seems wrong to us. So, we check some other translations before we examine the

actual Greek words.

The United Bible Societies interlinear renders the verse: "Who in the form of God existing did

not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." This would seem to mean Christ was in

God’s form but did not "grasp" equality with God; and, therefore, was not equal to God

though in His form.

The Watchtower Society’s Benjamin Wilson Diaglott reads: "Who, though being in God’s

form, yet did not meditate a Usurpation to be like God." This phrasing reminds us of two

cases: Satan’s offer to Eve at Genesis 3.5, and the case of Lucifer at Isaiah 14.14. Some

scholars also note this similarity and suggest Paul is playing on these as Christ’s contrasting

example.

The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible: "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality

with God something to be grasped." Would this rule out completely any equality with God,

before or after becoming a man?

The Amplified, of course, amplifies: "Who, although being essentially one with God and in

the form of God (possessing the fulness of the attributes which make God God), did not think

this equality with God was a thing to be grasped/retained." We suspect a strong Trinitarian

filter here but that is fair enough. This would also prove Christ did not "retain" his equality

when he became a man.

The New American Standard renders the verse: "Who, although He existed in the form of

God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." This rendering capitlizes "He"

indicating a Trinitarian filter. But, this also indicates equality with God was something "not . .

. to be grasped." Was it beyond his reach?

The popular New International Version: "Who, being in very nature (or, in the form of) did

not consider equality with God something to be grasped." Well, we would expect such a

Trinitarian filter. The later phrase, however, is like others and its places "equality with God"

beyond the "grasp" of Christ.

Well, that suffices, though there are many others which give a slightly diffrerent reading .

Was there a problem in thetranslations? Could another translation fit the context and flow of

Paul’s thought better? We decided to check the key Greek words and look for a better

possibility. It did not take long to see that many scholars note some difficulty with Phillipians

2.6. (We understand this when such a verse is being forced through the Trinitarian filter.) The

critical word at issue is harpagmon. According to B.A.G. the context would have to determine

whether the meaing is grasp, rob, snatch violently, hold to the breast, and retain. We will let

others do the research onthis rate Greek word and they will see some of the difficulties

involved.

We thought: now Paul is showing that Christ is leaving one place and going to another. He is

leaving one form for another. He is departing he celestial for the terrestial. No without

argument, the celestial form is superior to the terrestial. Might their be the tendency on the

part of any celestial being a certain reticense in leaving his life form for a lessor one? Say, for

the purposes of illustration, you are asked to leave your human form to take on the form of a

"worm"? Might you pause for a moment and want to "retain" or "grasp to your breast" what

you are already? We suggest no one would volunteer to do thisunless either God commanded

it, or the reason was so overpowering a selfless person would be willing to do this. Indeed,

celestial beings might line up for the honor. This act of perfect and absolute selflessness

would become the arch-type of humility, obedience, and self-sacrifice. Does such a model

lend itself to Paul’s appeal in 2.1-4?

Permit us to print out the literal Greek of Philippians 2.6, 7 with a literal rendering and the

Strong’s numerical system: [Greek fonts omitted]

OS(3729 EN(1722) MORPHE(3444) THEOU(2316) OUKH(3756)

who in a/the form of (a) god not

HARPAGMON(725) EGESATO(2233) TO EINAI(1511) ISA(2470) THEO(2316)

snatching he considered the to be equal to/with (a) god

ALLA(235) EAUTON(1438) EKENOSEN(2758) MORPHE(3444) DOULOU(1401)

but himself he emptied a/the form of (a) slave

LABON(2983) EN HOMOIOMATI(3667) ANTHROPON(444)

having taken in likeness of men

GENOMENOS(1096)

having become

The word haragmon means literally to "snatch" or "grab." (The New Englishman’s Greek

Condordance and Lexicon, page 726: "a thing to cling to, a prize, booty"; 2 Co 12.2, 4; 1 Th

4.16; Jude 23) Now why does someone sntach or grab something. It can be to steal something

not his own. Or, it could be, as some translators feel, to "retain" or "to cling" to something

already dear to oneself. With the thought of "retain" in focus, we looked anew at thise verse.

Christ pre-existed in a heavenly or celestial life-form (divine, some would put it, in a limited

fashion) and rather than clinging (grasping to his breast) his existence in this heavenly form,

rather than trying to retain his personal glory there in the spiitual realms above, as if he was

not willing to give it up, our Lord gladly "emptied" himself of this god-like form. He took

upon himself the "form of a slave." This fits the context perfectly for it shows Christ not

seeking his own self-interest but that of others even if it meant becoming a "worm." He

willingly, of his own free will, let go of his celestial and divine "form" in all humility with

only the interests of mankind at heart.

There is another word which throws a wrinkle into all of this. It is the word theo which, can,

according to BAG " . . . serve as an adjective for ‘divine’." An example of this is Acts 7.20

where some translate theo as "divinely". If these be so, then the critical phrase in 2.6 might

read: "he existed in a divine form." This would be like saying, "the food is divine." We do not

believe it is god but of a marvelous charactestic. We began to wonder if this verse ought to rea

quite differently. Since it has been uniquely exposed to hundreds of years of scrutinty,

notwithout some trinitarian bias, perhaps a fresh look might be in order. We admit this would

be through a Unitarian filter, for we have our own freedom to do so without fear of being

burned at the stake by our Trinitarian brethren.

The Expositor's Greek Testament: "We cannot find any passage where [har·pa'zo] or any of

its derivatives [including har·pag·mon'] has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It

seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the

true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'"-(Grand Rapids, Mich.;

1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

With this in mind we remembered some footnotes suggesting 2.5-9 was part of an early

Christian hymn. There is some good sense in this claim for there is something of a ryhme or

metre. We note the phrase morphen doulou, which means literally "a/the form of a slave"

(adding the articles where it seems necessary). We wondered why this was no also done with

the earlier phrase which seems to rhyme with this one, morphe theou, which can be rendered,

"a/the form of a god."

We are well aware of the prejudiced squeals which will result from such a suggestion.

However, "the form of a slave" would seem to require an equal parallel in "the form of a god."

Really, more like, "a form of a god" into "a form of a slave." Lierated from athousand years of

Trinitarian bias we dare think this entrie section may read correctly:

‘This be the mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus who was existing in a form of a god

(but) thought not equality with the divine as something to cling to but he emptied himself

taking a form of a slave having been born in likeness of men and having been found in fashion

as a man becoming obedient he humbled himself unto death (but death of a stake). And thus,

also, The God exalted him and gave him the name above every name that in the name of Jesus

every knee should bend --- those in heaven and on earth and underground --- and every

tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.’

Verse 9 has the Greek literally ho theos which means "the god" or "The God," much as the

Moslems say Allah, the God. Now, this ho theos (the God) "exalted him." Verse 6 had not

used ho theos. We would ask, Who is this ho theos that exalts another? Who is the one ho

theos exalted? And, how can ho theos exalt someone who is already equal to Him? Now, we

remember in Eusebeias and his Preparation of the Gospel that Athanasias refused to discuss

2.9 in his debate with Arias. Now we can understand why.

We reviewed the entire letter of Philippians and everywhere there is "God" and there is

"Christ" and no where does Paul confuse or combine the two. (1.2, 8, 11; 2.9, 11; 3.14; 4.7,

19)

Now, here, we supply some comments on Philippians 2.5-11 as provided in The Formation of

Christian Dogma by Martin Werner, D. D., Professor Ordinarious in the University of Bern,

Germany: "The Pauline portrait of Christ coresponds in many respects to the apocalyptic

concept of the heavenly Messiah as Prince of the Angels and an angelic being. ... The pre-

existent Christ did indeed exist in ‘divine form’ (Phil ii, 6). ... (Paul) carefully expressed

himself in the following manner: the super-terrestrial pre-existent Christ had divested himself

of his ‘divine’ (i.e. heavenly) ‘form’ (morphe) he ‘substituted’ it for the ‘form of a slave . . .

i.e. he appeared in a form like that of a man, he had ‘in his whole manner (schema) resembled

a man’. . . (Phil ii,6 ff). (Paul) had consequently limited himself to the statement that Christ

had simply divested himself of his heavenly ‘form’ in order to exchange it for the (external)

‘form’ of a man. ... Paul ‘s statement in Phil ii, 7 ‘as a man’ means the actual fleshly material

of a human body. ... In this connection Phil. ii, 5-11 constituted for the Arians an important

instance of scriptural evidence, which caused Athanasius considerable embarrassment. For

(Athanasius), owing to the fact that he had to reject the transformation-thessi, could neither

recognize a kenosis nor an exaltation of the Heavenly Christ in the Pauline sense . . . "

We conclude the above comments to our good friend to show that we are not alone in viewing

the statement in 2.6, "the form of God," to simply mean, a "divine form" or "heavenly form."

Our sincere friendis a saint indeed and we do not for a moment question his amazing faith in

Jesus Christ. If he wishes to exalt Christ to the status of "God" in the sense of a triune

participant, then we onlyh behold what might be called an over-zealous faith. We do not judge

him in this matter. On the otherhand, we pray our good friend sees why we view 2.6

differently and at the same time hold Jesus Christ to be our Lord with all the intensity our

friend has.

1869: "who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an

equality with God." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1965: "He-truly of divine nature!-never self-confidently made himself equal to

God." Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.

1968: "who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to

greedily make his own." La Bibbia Concordata.

1976: "He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to

become equal with God." Today's English Version.

1984: "who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure,

namely, that he should be equal to God." New World Translation ofthe Holy Scriptures.

1985: "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be

grasped." The New Jerusalem Bible.

COLOSSIANS 2.9 --- IS JESUS PART OF A GODHEAD?

We have before us a text, Colossians 2.9, which a genuine Christian friend has suggested

offers proof ofthe divinity of Jesus Christ. The text reads: ‘Because in (Christ Jesus) dwells

all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.’ (RSV) In Greek this phrase is:

OTI EN AUTO KATOIKEI PAN TO PLEROMA TES THEOTETOS(2320)

because in him dwells all the fulness of the god(ship/head)

SOMATIKO(4985)

bodily

We are not completely sure what our believing friend thinks this verse means. But, we pause

at this word "Godhead." It is one of those words which can give pause for thought. So, we

check a simple dictionary: "godhead. n. Goodhead; divinity. "Godhead" n. The essential

nature of God." Right away we are in a quandary. Colossians 2.9 could read, "in him dwells

all the fulness of the essential nature of God." Or, "in him dwells all the fulness of divinity."

At best, it seems at first, this text proves the exalted celestial Christ at the time of Paul’s

writing, was divine, or, embodies divine-like qualities and attributes. This is something we

have no argument with as Unitarians. Certainly, the text does not prove the divinity of the

Nazarene when he walked the earth "in the days of his flesh."

We wonder what the text as translated above means. Does it mean that all the fullness of the

Godhed dwells or resides bodily in Christ? Does this mean Christ is the only one in whom

"all" this "Godhead" fully resides? If it all resides in Christ what is left for others. There are

several texts which have either Christ or God residing or dwelling in believers. We decide to

compare the context and other translations of this verse.

Colossians 2.2 mentions ‘the knowledge ofthe mystery of The God, namely Christ.’ And, in

Christ ‘are all the treasures of the hidden wisdom and knowledge.’Paul warns in 2.8 that ‘no

one takes you captive through philosphy and empty deceit, according to human tradition ...

and not according to Christ.’ We noted Paul’s earlier discussion describes the relationship

between God and Christ in 1.15, 19, 20: ‘(Christ) is THE IMAGE OF the invivislbe God, THE

FIRSTBORN OF all creation. ... that(Christ) might be holding first place in everything,

because (the God) was pleased for all the fulness to dwell in (Christ).’ Now, Christ is

identified by Paul as the "image of" something and the image of something is not that thing

itself. Also, the Christ is "the firstborfn of all creation" and therefore belongs to creation as a

type or class. (A "creature" as the KJV has it.) It "pleased God" for "all the fulness to

dwell/reside in Christ." It had not always resided in Christ and now because of God’s good

pleasure it does reside in him. How far would Paul have to go to establish the different natures

between The God and Christ? How can they b co-equal or co-eternal after such a description?

What, precisely,would this "fulness" include which was to reside in Christ? Wisdom, Paul

states. As all says elsewhere, "the wisdom of God."

We decide to check the critical word in 2.9, theotetos. (S # 2320) According to Liddell and

Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, theotes (the nominative for, from which the-o’te-tos is

derived) means ‘divinity, divine nature.’" (p 792) Also BAG (p 359) has it, "deity, divinity,

used as abstract noun for theos ... the fulness of deity Col 2:9."

Thus, various translation render this: UBSInt

: "for in him the whole fullness of deity dwells

bodily"; NJB: "in him, in bodily form, lives divinity in all its fulness"; DIA: "For in him

dwells all the ullness of the deity bodily."

Now, may we be so bold as to suggest another rendering which might just as well reflect

Paul’s meaning: ‘For Christ is the full and complete embodiment of divine

attributes.’ Or, ‘For embodied in Christ is the complete fulfillment of the divine quality

(wisdom).’ The later consistent with Paul’stheme on worldly wisdom contrasted with godly

wisdom. Weymouth seems to lean toward this bias: ‘For it is in Christ that the fulness of

God’s nature dwells embodied.’ What is God’s "nature"? We may state firmly: love, justice,

power and wisdom. Here Paul has focused particularly on the later attribute.

Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, the·o'tes (the nominative form, from

which the·o'te·tos is derived) means "divinity, divine nature." (Oxford, 1968, p. 792)

Our friend and we agree that the exalted heavenly Christ is "divine." We do not see

Colossians 2.9 as an argument that Christ in the flesh was divine as part of a triune Godhead.

Our friend has perhaps a loftier view of Christ than either the Scriptures or God warrants, for

it is God who was pleased to have "all the fulness" reside in Christ. We do not criticize our

friend, nor do we judge him, for having this heightened view of Christ. He is welcome,

without hindrance, to what faith has called him. We are confident that his higher Christology

will lead him to a pure and righteous course in his chosen lifestyle. We pray we both stand

before the judgment of the Christ without any embarrassment, ble to spreak freely regarding

our Christian course.

Parkhurst's A Greek and English Lexicon (1845) defines theiótes as "Godhead" (page 261)

and theótes as "Deity, godhead, divine nature" (page 264). Note the definition "divine nature"

as well as "Godhead."

Liddell and Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon, in its new ninth edition, completed in 1940 and

reprinted in 1948, Volume I, defines the two terms in the light of ancient usages apart from

the Scriptures. Theiótes it defines as "divine nature, divinity" (page 788). Theótes it defines in

exactly the same way, as "divinity, divine nature," and then cites as an example Colossians

2:9. In this connection it shows that the similar Greek expression, dia theóteta, means "for

religious reasons" (page 792).

WHO CAN FORGIVE SIN?

In several Gospel accounts the Jews ask this question in a setting where the Nazarene has

said, "Your sins are forgiven." This has often been jumped upon to prove Jesus is God

himself. Usually a Trinitarian who is smart enough will use Luke 7.47-49, for a very good

reason as we shall see. There Jesus gives a most wonderful parable about forgiveness to a

rabbi with a local woman who is known as the town sinner. Jesus tells her: "You sins are

forgiven." The response is: "Who is this man who even forgives sin?" However, who are

authorized to forgive sins?

The Synoptic accounts of the bed-ridden paralytic who was lowered through the roof to reach

Jesus each contain this phrase, "Your sins are forgiven." (Mt 9.2; Mk 2.5; Lk 5.20) In each

case it is the Jews who make the assertion that only God can forgive sins. Is it fair to base a

Trinitarian argument on what the Nazarene’s opposers claim? In all of these Gospel accounts

Jesus answers the same: ‘So that you will know the Son of Man has authority on earth to

forgive sins ... ‘ Note Jesus does not claim to be God as the Jews would assert but rather he

has "authority" to forgive sins. Would God need authority from someone else to do this? It

does not take much reasoning to understand that this authority comes from the God of Jesus,

his Father.

Can anyone else forgive sins? Jesus symbolically breathes holy spirit on his apostles and then

tells them: ‘If you forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if you retain

those of any persons, they stand retained.’ (Jn 20.23 NWT) Just as the Son of Man was

authorized to forgive sins on earth, Christ gave such authority to his personally chosen

apostles. All Christians can forgive those sins committed against them. (Mt 18.21, 35; Lk

17.3, 4)

This whole example of a Trinitarian argument illustrates the extent some must go to find an

argument for the deity of Jesus in the Gospels.

John 14.9 --- WAS JESUS THE FATHER?

‘The one who has seen me has seen the Father.’ This phrase of the Nazarene has been used to

prove Trinity, though it clearly does not mention three persons; or, the deity of Christ, though

the verse does not really say this either. What does the Trinitarian mean we he reads these

words so literally: Jesus was the Father? The Father was Jesus? The Father and Jesus are one

and the same? This could not be for then the Trinity would vanish without the person of Jesus,

God the Son, leaving only the Father and the Holy Spirit.

In the previous context of this lengthy discussion with his disciples, the Nazarene has made

many references to the Father and to himself as two different people just as he had made clear

in John 8.17, 18 in the case of the "two witnesses." If Jesus and the Father are the same then

there are not two witnesses and his argument in chapter eight makes him deceitful. Is it fair to

ask an honest person to read this Passover evening discourse of Jesus to his disciples recorded

in chapters thirteen to seventeen and note the numerous distinctgions he makes between

himself and his Father? Compare some of the following.

John himself introduces this portion with the words: ‘His hour had come so that he might

transfer out of this world toward the Father ... knowing that the Father had given him

everything into his hands -- and that he came from God and was going toward The God -- ...

‘ (Jn 13.1, 3) Does John, writing his Gospel decades later, understand Jesus words in 14.9 to

mean Jesus and the Father were the same person? John describes Jesus as about to move in a

direction toward the Father and then he amplifies this further by adding that Jesus had come

from God and was not returning to The God, thus making it clear the Father and ho theos are

the same. Without elaborate explanation this makes no sense at all if Jesus is the Father.

There are a variety of phrases in chapter fourteen which make it seem obvious the Father is

such and the Son is such and they are two distinctly different persons. Compare these

phrases: ‘Believe in The God and believe in me. ... I am going toward the Father. ... we shall

come and make our home beside him. ... The word you hear is not mine but of the Father who

sent me. ... My Father is greater than me. ... I am doing as the Father has given me command.

... When the helper arrives which I will send from the Father, the spirit of the truth. ... They

will do these things because they knew not the Father nor me. ... I came out of the Father . . . I

am leaving the world and I am going toward the Father. ... Father, glorify your Son. ... The

only true God and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus. ... Father, glorify me beside yourself

with the glory I had before the world existed. ... I am coming toward you, Holy Father. ...

Father, I wish that where I am these may be with me, so they may behold my own glory which

you gave to me, because you loved me before the founding of the world.’ (Jn 14.1, 11, 12, 23,

24, 28, 31; 15.26; 16.3, 28; 17.1, 3, 5, 11, 24) What kind of language or what combination of

words would make it clearer that Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not Jesus?

Returning to 14.9, 10, what is the Son’s answer to Philip’s question? Jesus explains this

‘seeing the Father as seeing the Son’ in this way: ‘Are you not believing that I am in the

Father and the Father in me. These sayings I speak are not from myself but the Father

remaining within me is performing His own works.’ The Nazarene takes no credit for his

teachings or works. It is the endwelling Father which resides in the heart of the Nazarene who

receives all the credit. The words of this answer are similar to Jesus’ prayer regarding his

disciples: ‘ So that everyone may be one -- you, Father, in me and I in you so they may be in

us. ... I in them and You (Father) in me so they may be perfected into one.’ (Jn 17.21, 23) Just

as one may look upon Jesus and see the Father, so one could look upon these disciples and see

Jesus and the Father. (Mt 5.48; 1 Co 11.1; 2 Co 3.18; Ro 13.14)

John 20.28 --- THE GOD OF THOMAS

One might wonder if any words from Doubting Thomas ought to be the basis of a Trinitarian

"proof text" but such is the case with John 20.28. The apostle Thomas had missed an earlier

manifestation of the Lord following his resurrection. Now upon seeing the proof he

demanded, the Doubter burst forth in ecstacy: ‘My Lord and my God!’ Scholars are divided

whether he addresses this to Jesus or The God of Jesus as the Greek is vocative. The phrase

may be an exclamation addressed wholly to the Father, or, the "my Lord" part to Jesus and the

"my God" part to the Father. On the other hand, there is nothing preventing both parts of the

remark from applying to Jesus as the messianic Mighty God of Isaiah 9.6 now that he had

been glorified. Once upon his throne King Messiah may also be addressed as the "God" of

Psalm 45.7 whose own God annointed him.

The phrase, "and my God," may have been one Thomas had already heard when Mary

Magelene came with the message to Jesus’ brothers: ‘I am ascending to my Father and your

Father and to my God and your God.’ (Jn 20.17) We note Thomas did not say "my Father" in

his exclamation. There are variety of ways this expression from Thomas may be viewed, none

of them meeting with universal agreement. We see nothing out of harmony with the messianic

prophecies which refer to the King as "god" (elohim; theos) had Thomas been aware of this.

However, it is viewed as an excited exclamation by many and would therefore be wholly

directed to God or divided between the Lord (Jesus) and The God, the Father and God of

Jesus. (Ep 1.3, 17; Re 3.12)

Acts 20.28 --- WHOSE BLOOD?

In the King James Version this verse reads, ‘ ... the church of God which he purchased with

his own blood.’ (Compare also JB, DY, NAB)This rendering might give the impression in

was the literal blood of God himself and therefore Jesus was God. This would be a rare

statement for Paul. Some render this differently: (RHM) which he acquired through means of

the blood of his own, implying something like "the blood of His Own" and thus indicating the

only-begotten Son. (Compare also TEV, DA, RSV1971

)

Here we provide a commentary from the Kingdom Interlinear appendix:

1903 "with the blood of His own Son" The Holy Bible in Modern English, by

F. Fenton, London.

1950 "with the blood of his own [Son]" New World Translation

of the Christian Greek

Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1966 "through the death of his own Son" Today's English

Version, American Bible

Society, New York.

Grammatically, this passage could be translated as in

the King James Version and Douay Version, "with his own blood." That has been a difficult

thought for many. That is doubtless why ACDSyh (followed by Moffatt's translation) read

"the congregation of the Lord," instead of "the congregation of God." When the text reads that

way it furnishes no difficulty for the reading, "with his own blood." However, BVg read

"God" (articulate), and the usual translation would be 'God's blood.'

he Greek words tou i·di'ou follow the phrase "with the blood." The entire expression could be

translated "with the blood of his own." A noun in the singular number would be understood

after "his own," most likely God's closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this

point J. H. Moulton in A Grammarof New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed.,

p. 90, says: "Before leaving [i'di·os] something should be said about the use of [ho i'di·os]

without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1.11; 13.1; Ac 4.23; 24.23. In the papyri we find

the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . InExpos. VI. iii. 277 I

ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would

translate Acts 2028

'the blood of one who was his own.'"

Alternately, in The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol., 2,

London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: "it is by no means impossible that

[hui·ou', "of the Son"] dropped out after tou i·di'ou, "of his own"] at some very early

transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from

difficulty of any kind."

The New World Translation renders the passage literally, adding "Son" in brackets

after idiou to read: "with the blood of his own [Son]." [KIT App p 1160]

Regarding the above choices which would agree with 1 John 1.7: ‘The blood of Jesus (God’s)

Son cleanses us from all sin.’ (See Re 1.4-6l Jn 3.16)

Romans 9.5 --- Is Jesus the "blessed God"?

Paul uses the word "God" over 160 times in his letter to the Romans and never confuses Jesus

with ho theos. However, 9.5 is often a verse pointed to by Trinitarians as proof that Paul

considered Jesus to be God. The King James version and others render this verse: ‘Christ

came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.’ Since no punctuation existed in the

original it becomes a matter of theological choice where to end the sentence with the word

"all" and start a new one addressing God in a doxology. Translators vary in this distinction.

Some of those who begin a new sentence regarding God alone are MOF, RSV, NEB, LB,

TEV, NAB; and some who give the impression the "God" is referring to Christ are: WEY,

ALF, KNX, MON. Is it fair to argue that a verse which may be questioned by punctuation

ought not be the basis for a doctrine like the Trinity? Or, is the trinitarian evidence so slim one

must resort to these quesionable methods?

We may examine those occurrences of "God" and "Christ" in the same breath and note Paul

always distinguish between the two, most often excluding the holy spirit in the same context.

For example, 1.7 reads: ‘Grace and peace to you from God our Father and (the) Lord Jesus

Christ.’ Note those verses previous to 9.5 in which a clear distinction is made between The

God (ho theos) and Christ: 2.16; 5.1, 8, 10, 11, 15; 6.11, 23; 7.25; 8.3, 17, 34, 39. If suddenly

now with 9.5 Paul declares the Christ is God he has done so without any clarification or

previous explanation. To Roman Jews reading his epistle this would have been received,

whether or Christian or not, with extreme agitation unless the ground-work had been solidly

laid somewhere else.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: "Rom. 9:5 is disputed. . . . It

would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse

would then read, 'Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' Even so, Christ would

not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the

word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a

doxology directed to God."-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976, translated from German, Vol. 2, p.

80) This later comment would allow the rendering "Christ who is a god over all" if one

wished to bring Trinitarian wrath upon themselves.

Philippians 2.6 --- WAS JESUS "EQUAL" TO GOD?

We have before us a text, Philippians 2.6, which a dear friend has suggested proves the

divinity of Jesus Christ. It reads: ‘(Christ Jesus), who, though he was in the form of God, did

not regard equality with God as something to be exploited.’ (RSV) This later word is rendered

by others: MON: forcibly retained; KNX: coveted; PME: cling to; TCNT: clung to. Of course,

if some of these are correct, then Jesus was not equal to God when he walked the beaches of

Galilee for he did not retain, cling to, or retain such equality when he ce to earth. This text is

admitted by some schyolars to be difficult to translate. Therefore, renderings of some ofthe

Greek words vary widely.

For example, the King James Version has it: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not

robbery to be equal with God." If this be corect, then we ask: Who or what is "God" in this

verse? The Father? The Trinity? The KJV would suggest the celesltial "Jesus" did not think it

"robbery to be equal with God." This would imply Jesus was equal with God. If someone is in

the "form of" of someone else, then that someone is not the other in whose form he is.

Is "God" in this verse limited to the Father? Or, is "God" in this verse the triune Godhead? So,

that "Jesus" was equal to or in the form of the Trinity and thus a fourth person? Would a

Trinitarian help us with this?

Let us suppose for a moment the King James is correct. What does it prove? It may prove that

Christ in heaven was "equal to God" before he came to the earth. But, our friend is trying to

prove the man who walked the dusty roads of Judea was "God." So, this verse, if rendered

correclty, would only show that Christ was divine or God before he came to earth. For he next

verse (7) says Christ "emptied himself having taken the form of a slave." Of what did he

"empty himself"? His form or eqality with God? Additionally, verse 9 has The God (ho

theos) ‘highly exalting’ Christ after his death and resurrection. "Highly exlated" above what

Christ was on earth? If that be "God", how could Christ be exalted more? If that be "God" as

in verse 5, after which Christ had been formed, how could he be exalted more than what he

was previously, if he was equal to God?

We suspect something is amiss in this translation. Let us be honest: this text and others have

been put through Trinitarian filters for hundreds of years. When a Trinitarian renders this

verse the bias is there to make it lean toward the King James. When a modernist, who may

even doubt the reality of the Nazarene as a historical person, renders the verse there is a

different bias. We want to go into this area of the actual Greek wording and what meaning

may be there.

However, before considering the Greek words at issue, we ponder 2.6 and its context. We

note that Paul has beem making a singular appeal from 2.1 against vain-glory and for

lowlimindedness. The former rabbi urges a certain "mind" or attitude: that of looking after the

interests of others and not self. Then, with verse 5 he draws upon an illustration or

example: ‘Let this mind/thinking be in you which was also in Christ Jesus . . . ‘ And, then

(??), he launches into verse 6 where Christ "thought it not robery to be equal with God"!

Something seems wrong to us. So, we check some other translations before we examine the

actual Greek words.

The United Bible Societies interlinear renders the verse: "Who in the form of God existing did

not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." This would seem to mean Christ was in

God’s form but did not "grasp" equality with God; and, therefore, was not equal to God

though in His form.

The Watchtower Society’s Benjamin Wilson Diaglott reads: "Who, though being in God’s

form, yet did not meditate a Usurpation to be like God." This phrasing reminds us of two

cases: Satan’s offer to Eve at Genesis 3.5, and the case of Lucifer at Isaiah 14.14. Some

scholars also note this similarity and suggest Paul is playing on these as Christ’s contrasting

example.

The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible: "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality

with God something to be grasped." Would this rule out completely any equality with God,

before or after becoming a man?

The Amplified, of course, amplifies: "Who, although being essentially one with God and in

the form of God (possessing the fulness of the attributes which make God God), did not think

this equality with God was a thing to be grasped/retained." We suspect a strong Trinitarian

filter here but that is fair enough. This would also prove Christ did not "retain" his equality

when he became a man.

The New American Standard renders the verse: "Who, although He existed in the form of

God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." This rendering capitlizes "He"

indicating a Trinitarian filter. But, this also indicates equality with God was something "not . .

. to be grasped." Was it beyond his reach?

The popular New International Version: "Who, being in very nature (or, in the form of) did

not consider equality with God something to be grasped." Well, we would expect such a

Trinitarian filter. The later phrase, however, is like others and its places "equality with God"

beyond the "grasp" of Christ.

Well, that suffices, though there are many others which give a slightly diffrerent reading .

Was there a problem in thetranslations? Could another translation fit the context and flow of

Paul’s thought better? We decided to check the key Greek words and look for a better

possibility. It did not take long to see that many scholars note some difficulty with Phillipians

2.6. (We understand this when such a verse is being forced through the Trinitarian filter.) The

critical word at issue is harpagmon. According to B.A.G. the context would have to determine

whether the meaing is grasp, rob, snatch violently, hold to the breast, and retain. We will let

others do the research onthis rate Greek word and they will see some of the difficulties

involved.

We thought: now Paul is showing that Christ is leaving one place and going to another. He is

leaving one form for another. He is departing he celestial for the terrestial. No without

argument, the celestial form is superior to the terrestial. Might their be the tendency on the

part of any celestial being a certain reticense in leaving his life form for a lessor one? Say, for

the purposes of illustration, you are asked to leave your human form to take on the form of a

"worm"? Might you pause for a moment and want to "retain" or "grasp to your breast" what

you are already? We suggest no one would volunteer to do thisunless either God commanded

it, or the reason was so overpowering a selfless person would be willing to do this. Indeed,

celestial beings might line up for the honor. This act of perfect and absolute selflessness

would become the arch-type of humility, obedience, and self-sacrifice. Does such a model

lend itself to Paul’s appeal in 2.1-4?

Permit us to print out the literal Greek of Philippians 2.6, 7 with a literal rendering and the

Strong’s numerical system: [Greek fonts omitted]

OS(3729 EN(1722) MORPHE(3444) THEOU(2316) OUKH(3756)

who in a/the form of (a) god not

HARPAGMON(725) EGESATO(2233) TO EINAI(1511) ISA(2470) THEO(2316)

snatching he considered the to be equal to/with (a) god

ALLA(235) EAUTON(1438) EKENOSEN(2758) MORPHE(3444) DOULOU(1401)

but himself he emptied a/the form of (a) slave

LABON(2983) EN HOMOIOMATI(3667) ANTHROPON(444)

having taken in likeness of men

GENOMENOS(1096)

having become

The word haragmon means literally to "snatch" or "grab." (The New Englishman’s Greek

Condordance and Lexicon, page 726: "a thing to cling to, a prize, booty"; 2 Co 12.2, 4; 1 Th

4.16; Jude 23) Now why does someone sntach or grab something. It can be to steal something

not his own. Or, it could be, as some translators feel, to "retain" or "to cling" to something

already dear to oneself. With the thought of "retain" in focus, we looked anew at thise verse.

Christ pre-existed in a heavenly or celestial life-form (divine, some would put it, in a limited

fashion) and rather than clinging (grasping to his breast) his existence in this heavenly form,

rather than trying to retain his personal glory there in the spiitual realms above, as if he was

not willing to give it up, our Lord gladly "emptied" himself of this god-like form. He took

upon himself the "form of a slave." This fits the context perfectly for it shows Christ not

seeking his own self-interest but that of others even if it meant becoming a "worm." He

willingly, of his own free will, let go of his celestial and divine "form" in all humility with

only the interests of mankind at heart.

There is another word which throws a wrinkle into all of this. It is the word theo which, can,

according to BAG " . . . serve as an adjective for ‘divine’." An example of this is Acts 7.20

where some translate theo as "divinely". If these be so, then the critical phrase in 2.6 might

read: "he existed in a divine form." This would be like saying, "the food is divine." We do not

believe it is god but of a marvelous charactestic. We began to wonder if this verse ought to rea

quite differently. Since it has been uniquely exposed to hundreds of years of scrutinty,

notwithout some trinitarian bias, perhaps a fresh look might be in order. We admit this would

be through a Unitarian filter, for we have our own freedom to do so without fear of being

burned at the stake by our Trinitarian brethren.

The Expositor's Greek Testament: "We cannot find any passage where [har·pa'zo] or any of

its derivatives [including har·pag·mon'] has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It

seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the

true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'"-(Grand Rapids, Mich.;

1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

With this in mind we remembered some footnotes suggesting 2.5-9 was part of an early

Christian hymn. There is some good sense in this claim for there is something of a ryhme or

metre. We note the phrase morphen doulou, which means literally "a/the form of a slave"

(adding the articles where it seems necessary). We wondered why this was no also done with

the earlier phrase which seems to rhyme with this one, morphe theou, which can be rendered,

"a/the form of a god."

We are well aware of the prejudiced squeals which will result from such a suggestion.

However, "the form of a slave" would seem to require an equal parallel in "the form of a god."

Really, more like, "a form of a god" into "a form of a slave." Lierated from athousand years of

Trinitarian bias we dare think this entrie section may read correctly:

‘This be the mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus who was existing in a form of a god

(but) thought not equality with the divine as something to cling to but he emptied himself

taking a form of a slave having been born in likeness of men and having been found in fashion

as a man becoming obedient he humbled himself unto death (but death of a stake). And thus,

also, The God exalted him and gave him the name above every name that in the name of Jesus

every knee should bend --- those in heaven and on earth and underground --- and every

tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.’

Verse 9 has the Greek literally ho theos which means "the god" or "The God," much as the

Moslems say Allah, the God. Now, this ho theos (the God) "exalted him." Verse 6 had not

used ho theos. We would ask, Who is this ho theos that exalts another? Who is the one ho

theos exalted? And, how can ho theos exalt someone who is already equal to Him? Now, we

remember in Eusebeias and his Preparation of the Gospel that Athanasias refused to discuss

2.9 in his debate with Arias. Now we can understand why.

We reviewed the entire letter of Philippians and everywhere there is "God" and there is

"Christ" and no where does Paul confuse or combine the two. (1.2, 8, 11; 2.9, 11; 3.14; 4.7,

19)

Now, here, we supply some comments on Philippians 2.5-11 as provided in The Formation of

Christian Dogma by Martin Werner, D. D., Professor Ordinarious in the University of Bern,

Germany: "The Pauline portrait of Christ coresponds in many respects to the apocalyptic

concept of the heavenly Messiah as Prince of the Angels and an angelic being. ... The pre-

existent Christ did indeed exist in ‘divine form’ (Phil ii, 6). ... (Paul) carefully expressed

himself in the following manner: the super-terrestrial pre-existent Christ had divested himself

of his ‘divine’ (i.e. heavenly) ‘form’ (morphe) he ‘substituted’ it for the ‘form of a slave . . .

i.e. he appeared in a form like that of a man, he had ‘in his whole manner (schema) resembled

a man’. . . (Phil ii,6 ff). (Paul) had consequently limited himself to the statement that Christ

had simply divested himself of his heavenly ‘form’ in order to exchange it for the (external)

‘form’ of a man. ... Paul ‘s statement in Phil ii, 7 ‘as a man’ means the actual fleshly material

of a human body. ... In this connection Phil. ii, 5-11 constituted for the Arians an important

instance of scriptural evidence, which caused Athanasius considerable embarrassment. For

(Athanasius), owing to the fact that he had to reject the transformation-thessi, could neither

recognize a kenosis nor an exaltation of the Heavenly Christ in the Pauline sense . . . "

We conclude the above comments to our good friend to show that we are not alone in viewing

the statement in 2.6, "the form of God," to simply mean, a "divine form" or "heavenly form."

Our sincere friendis a saint indeed and we do not for a moment question his amazing faith in

Jesus Christ. If he wishes to exalt Christ to the status of "God" in the sense of a triune

participant, then we onlyh behold what might be called an over-zealous faith. We do not judge

him in this matter. On the otherhand, we pray our good friend sees why we view 2.6

differently and at the same time hold Jesus Christ to be our Lord with all the intensity our

friend has.

1869: "who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an

equality with God." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1965: "He-truly of divine nature!-never self-confidently made himself equal to

God." Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.

1968: "who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to

greedily make his own." La Bibbia Concordata.

1976: "He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to

become equal with God." Today's English Version.

1984: "who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure,

namely, that he should be equal to God." New World Translation ofthe Holy Scriptures.

1985: "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be

grasped." The New Jerusalem Bible.

COLOSSIANS 2.9 --- IS JESUS PART OF A GODHEAD?

We have before us a text, Colossians 2.9, which a genuine Christian friend has suggested

offers proof ofthe divinity of Jesus Christ. The text reads: ‘Because in (Christ Jesus) dwells

all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.’ (RSV) In Greek this phrase is:

OTI EN AUTO KATOIKEI PAN TO PLEROMA TES THEOTETOS(2320)

because in him dwells all the fulness of the god(ship/head)

SOMATIKO(4985)

bodily

We are not completely sure what our believing friend thinks this verse means. But, we pause

at this word "Godhead." It is one of those words which can give pause for thought. So, we

check a simple dictionary: "godhead. n. Goodhead; divinity. "Godhead" n. The essential

nature of God." Right away we are in a quandary. Colossians 2.9 could read, "in him dwells

all the fulness of the essential nature of God." Or, "in him dwells all the fulness of divinity."

At best, it seems at first, this text proves the exalted celestial Christ at the time of Paul’s

writing, was divine, or, embodies divine-like qualities and attributes. This is something we

have no argument with as Unitarians. Certainly, the text does not prove the divinity of the

Nazarene when he walked the earth "in the days of his flesh."

We wonder what the text as translated above means. Does it mean that all the fullness of the

Godhed dwells or resides bodily in Christ? Does this mean Christ is the only one in whom

"all" this "Godhead" fully resides? If it all resides in Christ what is left for others. There are

several texts which have either Christ or God residing or dwelling in believers. We decide to

compare the context and other translations of this verse.

Colossians 2.2 mentions ‘the knowledge ofthe mystery of The God, namely Christ.’ And, in

Christ ‘are all the treasures of the hidden wisdom and knowledge.’Paul warns in 2.8 that ‘no

one takes you captive through philosphy and empty deceit, according to human tradition ...

and not according to Christ.’ We noted Paul’s earlier discussion describes the relationship

between God and Christ in 1.15, 19, 20: ‘(Christ) is THE IMAGE OF the invivislbe God, THE

FIRSTBORN OF all creation. ... that(Christ) might be holding first place in everything,

because (the God) was pleased for all the fulness to dwell in (Christ).’ Now, Christ is

identified by Paul as the "image of" something and the image of something is not that thing

itself. Also, the Christ is "the firstborfn of all creation" and therefore belongs to creation as a

type or class. (A "creature" as the KJV has it.) It "pleased God" for "all the fulness to

dwell/reside in Christ." It had not always resided in Christ and now because of God’s good

pleasure it does reside in him. How far would Paul have to go to establish the different natures

between The God and Christ? How can they b co-equal or co-eternal after such a description?

What, precisely,would this "fulness" include which was to reside in Christ? Wisdom, Paul

states. As all says elsewhere, "the wisdom of God."

We decide to check the critical word in 2.9, theotetos. (S # 2320) According to Liddell and

Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, theotes (the nominative for, from which the-o’te-tos is

derived) means ‘divinity, divine nature.’" (p 792) Also BAG (p 359) has it, "deity, divinity,

used as abstract noun for theos ... the fulness of deity Col 2:9."

Thus, various translation render this: UBSInt

: "for in him the whole fullness of deity dwells

bodily"; NJB: "in him, in bodily form, lives divinity in all its fulness"; DIA: "For in him

dwells all the ullness of the deity bodily."

Now, may we be so bold as to suggest another rendering which might just as well reflect

Paul’s meaning: ‘For Christ is the full and complete embodiment of divine

attributes.’ Or, ‘For embodied in Christ is the complete fulfillment of the divine quality

(wisdom).’ The later consistent with Paul’stheme on worldly wisdom contrasted with godly

wisdom. Weymouth seems to lean toward this bias: ‘For it is in Christ that the fulness of

God’s nature dwells embodied.’ What is God’s "nature"? We may state firmly: love, justice,

power and wisdom. Here Paul has focused particularly on the later attribute.

Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, the·o'tes (the nominative form, from

which the·o'te·tos is derived) means "divinity, divine nature." (Oxford, 1968, p. 792)

Our friend and we agree that the exalted heavenly Christ is "divine." We do not see

Colossians 2.9 as an argument that Christ in the flesh was divine as part of a triune Godhead.

Our friend has perhaps a loftier view of Christ than either the Scriptures or God warrants, for

it is God who was pleased to have "all the fulness" reside in Christ. We do not criticize our

friend, nor do we judge him, for having this heightened view of Christ. He is welcome,

without hindrance, to what faith has called him. We are confident that his higher Christology

will lead him to a pure and righteous course in his chosen lifestyle. We pray we both stand

before the judgment of the Christ without any embarrassment, ble to spreak freely regarding

our Christian course.

Parkhurst's A Greek and English Lexicon (1845) defines theiótes as "Godhead" (page 261)

and theótes as "Deity, godhead, divine nature" (page 264). Note the definition "divine nature"

as well as "Godhead."

Liddell and Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon, in its new ninth edition, completed in 1940 and

reprinted in 1948, Volume I, defines the two terms in the light of ancient usages apart from

the Scriptures. Theiótes it defines as "divine nature, divinity" (page 788). Theótes it defines in

exactly the same way, as "divinity, divine nature," and then cites as an example Colossians

2:9. In this connection it shows that the similar Greek expression, dia theóteta, means "for

religious reasons" (page 792).

New Catholic Encyclopedia: "There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman

Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, 'But

how does one preach the Trinity?' And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part

of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their

professors."

HOLY SPIRIT

Gregory of Nazianzus: "Some assume that [the holy spirit] is a power (energeia), some a

creature, some that he is God, some cannot decide which of these."

New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The O[ld] T[estament] clearly does not envisage God's spirit as

a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God's spirit is

simply God's power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because

the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly. ... The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's

spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit

and the power of God."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume 14, page 299: "The formulation 'one God in

three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life

and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic

Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

The Story of Civilization: Part III, page 595: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it

adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity."

Joan of Arc was burned to death in England in 1550. The Encyclopædia Britannica (1964):

"She was condemned for open blasphemy in denying the Trinity, the one offense which all the

church had regarded as unforgivable ever since the struggle with Arianism."

New Catholic Encyclopedia: "But how does one preach the Trinity?" ... "If the question is

symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of

similar confusion on the part of their professors. If 'the Trinity' here means Trinitarian

theology, the best answer would be that one does not preach it at all . . . because the sermon,

and especially the Biblical homily, is the place for the word of God, not its theological

elaboration."

Professor Norton: "It appears, then, that while other questions of far less difficulty (for

instance, the circumcision of the Gentile converts) were subjects of such doubt and

controversy that even the authority of the Apostles was barely sufficient to establish the truth,

this doctrine [the Trinity], so extraordinary, so obnoxious, and so hard to be understood, was

introduced in silence, and received without hesitation, dislike, opposition, or

misapprehension."

The History of Christianity, by Peter Eckler: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is

equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first

Christians, (who differed from their fellow Jews only in the belief that Jesus was the promised

Messiah,) 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."

Oxford University Professor J. N. D. Kelly: "During the first three centuries of its existence,

the Christian Church had first to emerge from the [monotheistic] Jewish environment that had

cradled it and then come to terms with the predominantly Hellenistic (Greek) culture

surrounding it. ... "Most of them exploited current philosophical conceptions. . . . They have

been accused of Hellenizing Christianity (making it Greek in form and method), but they were

in fact attempting to formulate it in intellectual categories congenial [suited] to their age. In a

real sense they were the first Christian theologians."

French encyclopedia Alpha: "Most religious traditions or philosophical systems set forth

ternary [threefold] groups or triads that correspond to primeval forces or to aspects of the

supreme God."

"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

conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."-

Dictionnaire Lachatre.

Encyclopædia Britannica (1976, Macropædia): "Such a Hellenization did, to a large extent,

take place. The definition of the Christian faith as contained in the creeds of the ecumenical

synods of the early church indicate that unbiblical categories of Neoplatonic philosophy were

used in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity."

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: "Perhaps recollection of the many triads of the

surrounding polytheistic world contributed to the formation of these threefold formulae."

Encyclopædia Britannica: "The question as to how to reconcile the encounter with God in this

threefold figure with faith in the oneness of God, which was the Jews' and Christ ians'

characteristic mark of distinction over against paganism, agitated the piety of ancient

Christendom in the deepest way. It also provided the strongest impetus for a speculative

theology-an impetus that inspired Western metaphysics [philosophy] throughout the

centuries."

Historian J. N. D. Kelly: "The evidence to be collected from the Apostolic Fathers is meagre,

and tantalizingly inconclusive. . . . Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of

course no sign. ... What the Apologists had to say about the Holy Spirit was much more

meagre . . . [They] appear to have been extremely vague as to the exact status and role of the

Spirit. . . . There can be no doubt that the Apologists' thought was highly confused; they were

very far from having worked the threefold pattern of the Church's faith into a coherent

scheme. .. The evidence to be collected from the Apostolic Fathers is meagre, and

tantalizingly inconclusive. . . . Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course

no sign."-Oxford Professor J. N. D. Kelly Early ChristianDoctrines.

"The Trinitarians and the Unitarians continued to confront each other, the latter at the

beginning of the 3rd century still forming the large majority." (Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th

edition)

"The Christian Bible, including the New Testament, has no trinitarian statements or

speculations concerning a trinitary deity."-Encyclopædia Britannica

"Perhaps recollection of the many triads of the surrounding polytheistic world contributed to

the formation of these threefold formulae."-Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion-the

truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons. . . . Thus, in the words of the

Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet

there are not three Gods but one God.' . . . This, the Church teaches, is the revelation

regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the

world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system."-

The Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not

find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century . . . Although Scripture

does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the elements out of which

theology has constructed the doctrine."

The Catholic Encyclopedia: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three

Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a

translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it

appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."

Encyclopædia Britannica: "Christian theology took the Neoplatonic metaphysics [philosophy]

of substance as well as its doctrine of hypostases [essence, or nature] as the departure point

for interpreting the relationship of the 'Father' to the 'Son.'"

Britannica: "From the outset, the controversy between both parties [at Nicaea] took place

upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the

New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the

metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New

Testament."

The 15-volume Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique: "It seems unquestionable that the

revelation of the mystery of the Trinity was not made to the Jews."

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary: "It must be remembered that the O[ld] T[estament] was

written before the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly given."

Oxford scholar R. B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament: "Many critics, however, of

unimpeachable [Trinitarian] orthodoxy, think it wiser to rest where such divines as Cajetan [a

theologian] in the Church of Rome and Calvin among Protestants were content to stand, and

to take the plural form as aplural of majesty."

The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that

the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself."

Cyclopædia by M'Clintock and Strong: "Thus it appears that none of the passages cited from

the Old Test[ament] in proof of the Trinity are conclusive . . . We do not find in the Old

Test[ament] clear or decided proof upon this subject."

M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopædia (re Matthew 28:19): "The connection of these three

subjects does not prove their personality or equality."

Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: "The N[ew] T[estament] does not

actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the NT."

ROMANS 9.5 -- IS CHRIST "GOD"?

A Catholic Dictionary: "The strongest statement of Christ's divinity in St. Paul, and, indeed,

in the N[ew] T[estament] [is Romans 9:5]."

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology acknowledges that even if a

Trinitarian rendering of the Greek were accurate, "Christ would not be equated absolutely

with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos [God] has no

article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more

probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology [praise] directed to God."

A Catholic Dictionary: "There is no reason in grammar or in the context which forbids us to

translate 'God, who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen.'"

Professor Johannes Schneider, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:

"All this underlines the point that primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of

the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church."

HOLY SPIRIT

The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication

of a Third Person."

A Catholic Dictionary: "On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit

as a divine energy or power."

The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "The emergence of Trinitarian speculations in early

church theology led to great difficulties in the article about the Holy Spirit. For the being-as-

person of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the New Testament as divine power . . . could

not be clearly grasped. . . . The Holy Spirit was viewed not as a personal figure but

rather as a power. ... Nevertheless, with Athanasius (died 373) the idea of the

complete homoousia (essence) of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son was achieved."

A Catholic Dictionary: "The true divinity of the third Person was asserted at a Council of

Alexandria in 362, . . . and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381."

A Catholic Dictionary: "Most of these places furnish no cogent proof of personality. . . . We

must not forget that the N[ew] T[estament] personifies mere attributes such as love (1 Cor.

xiii. 4), and sin (Rom. vii. 11), nay, even abstract and lifeless things, such as the law (Rom. iii.

19), the water and the blood (1 Jo 5:8; 1 Jn. v. 8)."

"Nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by

the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord; and the origin of the conception is

entirely pagan." (The Paganism in Our Christianity, by Arthur Weigall)

Volume 2 of The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (1976): "A few

N[ew] T[estament] texts [that] raise the question whether the Son of God is also called God.

... Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of God. His oneness with the Father does not mean

absolute identity of being. Although the Son of God in his pre-existent being was in the form

of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). In his earthly existence he

was obedient to God, even unto death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). He is the mediator, but not the

originator, of salvation (2 Cor. 5:19; Col. 1:20; Heb. 9:15), the lamb of God who bears the

sins of the world (Jn. 1:36). After the completion of his work on earth he has indeed been

raised to the right hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) and invested with the honour of the

heavenly Kyrios, Lord (Phil. 2:9 f.). But he is still not made equal to God. Although

completely coordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him. (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28). This is

true also of his position as eternal high priest in the heavenly sanctuary according to Heb.

(Heb. 9:24; 10:12 f.; cf. Ps. 110:1). He represents us before God (cf. also Rom. 8:34). If in

Rev. 1:13 ff. the appearance of the heavenly son of man is described with features from the

picture of the 'Ancient of Days' (God) of Dan. 7, this is not to say that Christ is equal with

God. In Rev. a distinction is always made between God and the 'Lamb'."

Switzerland, Vocabulaire biblique (1954, p. 72): "No New Testament writings supply explicit

assurance of a triune God."

Ian Henderson, University of Glasgow, Encyclopedia International (1969):

"The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the apostles' preaching, as this is reported in

the New Testament." (page 226)

London Observer December 3, 1978: "One of Britain's leading Anglican theologians, the Rev.

Dr Geoffrey Lampe, . . . has come out with a strong challenge to the historic Christian

doctrine of the Trinity. . . . He said the Trinity doctrine-God consisting of three 'Persons'-has

'not much' future."

Berlin, Germany, Doctor of Theology J. Schneider: "Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of

God. His oneness with the Father does not mean absolute identity of being. Although the Son

of God in his preexistent being was in the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal

with God (Phil. 2:6). . . . Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate

to him." (Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament (1965), Vol. 2, p. 606.

Journal of Biblical Literature: "In many passages where the persons of God and Christ were

clearly distinguishable, the removal of the Tetragram must have created considerable

ambiguity. . . . Once the confusion was caused by the change in the divine name in the

quotations, the same confusion spread to other parts of the NT where quotations were not

involved at all. ... Did such restructuring of the text give rise to the later christological [about

the nature of Christ] controversies within the church, and were the NT passages involved in

these controversies identical with those which in the NT era apparently created no problems at

all? . . . Are [current christological] studies based on the NT text as it appeared in the first

century, or are they based on an altered text which represents a time in church history when

the difference between God and Christ was confused in the text and blurred in the minds of

churchmen?"

Alvan Lamson, D.D: "For the original and distinctive features of the doctrine of the Logos, as

held by the learned Fathers of the second and third centuries, we must look, not to the Jewish

Scriptures, nor to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, but to Philo [the Jewish philosopher

of the first century C.E.] and the Alexandrine Platonists. In consistency with this view, we

maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that

it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures;

that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing

Fathers; that in the time of Justin [c. 100-165 C.E.], and long after, the distinct nature and

inferiority of the Son were universally taught; and that only the first shadowy outline of the

Trinity had then become visible."-The Church of the First Three Centuries, p. 34.

"The Myth of God Incarnate" (John Hick): "There is actually nothing new about the central

themes of this book ... That the historical Jesus did not present Himself as God incarnate is

accepted by all [theologians] . . . Christian laymen today are not fully aware of it. ... (Jesus)

did not teach the doctrine of the trinity."

RE 3.14

Albert Barnes re the Greek word translated "beginning" or "origin": "The word properly refers

to the commencement of a thing, not its authorship, and denotes properly primacy in time, and

primacy in rank, but not primacy in the sense of causing anything to exist. . . . The word is

not, therefore, found in the sense ofauthorship, as denoting that one is the beginning of

anything in the sense that he caused it to have an existence. ... If it were demonstrated from

other sources that Christ was, in fact, a created being, and the first that God had made, it

cannot be denied that this language would appropriately express that

fact." (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, p. 1569.)

N. Leroy Norquist, The Lutheran: "The men who framed [the Trinity] designed it as a tool to

be used against heretics. In fighting heresy, they experimented with words, sharpened phrases,

until they had defined the relation of the three 'persons' of the Trinity."

Catholic theologian Walter Farrell: "The mystery of the Trinity, as God has told it to us, is the

mystery of three divine persons, really distinct, in one and the same divine nature: coequal,

coeternal, consubstantial, one God. Of these persons, the Second proceeds from the First by

an eternal generation; the Third proceeds from the First and the Second by an eternal

spiration. . . . The Trinity is a mystery; no doubt about it. Unless we had been told of its

existence, we would never have suspected such a thing. Moreover, now that we know that

there is a Trinity, we cannot understand it. The man who attempts to unravel the mystery is in

the position of a near-sighted man straining his eyes from the Eastern Shore of Maryland for a

glimpse of Spain."

New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the

last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true."

MT 28.19

Greek scholar A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. I, p. 245): "The use

of name ([Greek] onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or

authority."

The Oxford Companion to the Bible: "Because the Trinity is such an important part of later

Christian doctrine, it is striking thatg the term does not appear in the NT. Likewise, the

developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal

formulations cannot be clearly detected with the confines of the canon. ... (Mt 28.19) ...

Matthew records a special connection between God the Father and Jesus the Son but he falls

short of claiming that Jesus is equal with God. ... it is important to avoid reading the Trinity

into places here it does not appear." (pages 782-3) The Dictionary of New Testament

Theology: "The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. ‘The Bible lacks

the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence and

there in an equal sense God himself. ... These two express declarations, which go beyond the

witness of the Bible.’ (Karl Barth)" (Vol 2, page 84)

"In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: 'All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us

use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all

things are bound by threes, for the end, the middle, and the beginning have this number in

everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity.'" (Arthur Weigall, in his

book The Paganism in Our Christianity, p. 198)

The Expository Times, Theologian Vincent Taylor: "The Gospels clearly show that the

knowledge of Jesus was limited, that He asked questions for the sake of information . . . that

He challenged the rich ruler who addressed Him as 'Good Master' with the question, 'Why do

you call me good? No one is good except God alone.' [Mark 10:18] These issues have

constantly caused embarrassment and must continue to do so if without qualification Jesus is

described as God."

The New Bible Dictionary: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and, though used by

Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology

of the Church till the 4th century."

Theologian G. H. Boobyer: "Do we not find the orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ a

source of much perplexity to enquiring non-christians and to many a christian believer under

instruction? 'True God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father'

and 'the selfsame perfect in Godhead, the selfsame perfect in manhood, truly God and truly

man'-thus runs the familiar language . . . Must it not be conceded that to many intelligent lay

folk it seems sheer mystification?" (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Spring 1968, page

248.)

Professor E. Washburn Hopkins, Origin and Evolution of Religion, page 336: "To Jesus and

Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; at any rate, they say nothing about

it."

Episcopal professor of church history James Arthur Muller: "This lack of a formulated

doctrine of the Trinity reflects the theological thought of the second century. In the works of

Justin Martyr, who wrote in about 150 A.D., the preexistence of the Son is stressed, yet in

relation to the Father He is spoken of as 'in the second place.'" (Creeds and Loyalty, page 9.)

The Faith of Christendom, edited by B. A. Gerrish: "So far, then, from being composed by the

Apostles in person, we have no reason to assume that the Creed which bears their title

appeared less than five hundred years after their time. ... (p 61) ... The attribution of the Creed

to Athanasius was exposed in the seventeenth century by the Dutch scholar G. J. Voss. It has

been argued on internal evidence that the document may be dated to the period between A.D.

381 and 428."

John J. Moment: "Athanasius had been dead for five hundred years when it appeared. ... Its

stereotyped definitions have continued to be accepted in Protestantism, more or less

consciously, as the norm of orthodoxy." (We Believe, page 118)

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967 edition, Vol. XIV, pp. 306, 304): "The doctrine of the Holy

Trinity is not taught in the OT [Old Testament] ... It is not, as already seen, directly and

immediately the word of God. ... The formulation 'one God in three persons' was not solidly

established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior

to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the

titlethe Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even

remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

"Whatever may have been the true character of Constantine's conversion to the Christian faith,

its consequences were of vast importance both to the empire and to the Church of Christ. It

opened the way for the unobstructed propagation of the Gospel to a wider extent than at any

former period of its history. All impediments to an open profession of Christianity were

removed, and it became the established religion of the empire. Numerous, however, in various

points of view, as were the advantages accruing to it from this change, it soon began to suffer

from being brought into close contact with the fostering influence of secular power. The

simplicity of the Gospel was corrupted; pompous rites and ceremonies were introduced;

worldly honours and emoluments were conferred on the teachers of Christianity, and the

kingdom of Christ in a good measure converted into a kingdom of this world."-

Theological Dictionary, by Henderson and Buck. See also M'Clintock and

Strong's Cyclopædia, Volume 2, page 488a; and

Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 1, pages 454ff.

H. G. Wells, God the Invisible King: "The writer is of opinion that the Council of Nicaea,

which forcibly crystallised the controversies of two centuries and formulated the creed upon

which all the existing Christian churches are based, was one of the most disastrous and one of

the least venerable of all religious gatherings. ... The systematic destruction by the orthodox

of all heretical writings, had about it none of that quality of honest conviction which comes to

those who have a real knowledge of God; it was a bawling down of dissensions that, left to

work themselves out, would have spoiled good business. ... A large majority of those who

possess and repeat the Christian creeds have come into the practice so insensibly from

unthinking childhood that only in the slightest way do they realise the nature of the statements

to which they subscribe. They will speak and think of both Christ and God in ways flatly

incompatible with the doctrine of the Triune deity upon which, theoretically, the entire fabric

of all the churches rests. ... By faith we said of that stuffed scarecrow of divinity, that

incoherent accumulation of antique theological notions, the Nicene deity, 'This is certainly no

God.'"

New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld]

T[estament]. . . . The mystery of the Holy Trinity was not revealed to the Chosen People of

the OT." "One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious

qualification." In fact, this authority dates the dogma of "one God in three Persons" to the last

quarter of the fourth century. "Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even

remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."-Vol. XIV, pp. 306, 295, 299.

Theologian G. H. Boobyer: "Do we not find the orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ a

source of much perplexity to enquiring non-christians and to many a christian believer under

instruction? 'True God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father'

and 'the selfsame perfect in Godhead, the selfsame perfect in manhood, truly God and truly

man'-thus runs the familiar language . . . Must it not be conceded that to many intelligent lay

folk it seems sheer mystification?"-Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Spring 1968, page

248.

CREEDS ---

Episcopal professor of church history James Arthur Muller: "This lack of a formulated

doctrine of the Trinity reflects the theological thought of the second century. In the works of

Justin Martyr, who wrote in about 150 A.D., the preexistence of the Son is stressed, yet in

relation to the Father He is spoken of as 'in the second place.'"-Creeds and Loyalty, page 9.

John Henry Newman, who was made a cardinal by Pope Leo III in 1879, in his book entitled

"Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," published in 1878: "Confiding then in the

power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to transmute the very instruments and

appendages of demon worship to an evangelical use, and feeling also that these usages had

originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature, though they had

been corrupted; and that they must invent what they needed, if they did not use what they

found; and that they were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism

attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the

occasion arise, to adopt, to imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace,

as well as the philosophy of the educated class. The use of temples, and these dedicated to

particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and

candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and

seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the

tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the

ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their

adoption into the Church.-Pages 355, 371, 373, edition of 1881

Cardinal Hosius (quoted): "We believe the doctrine of a triune God, because we have received

it by tradition, though not mentioned at all in Scripture." (Conf.Cathol. Fidei, Chap. XXVI)

Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a

phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear." He says the

idea of a coequal trinity "was only adopted by the [Roman Catholic] Church three hundred

years after the death of our Lord; and the origin of the conception is entirely pagan." (Page

198) "In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: 'All things are three, and thrice is all: and

let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and

all things are bound by threes, for the end, the middle, and the beginning have this number in

everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity.' The ancient Egyptians, whose

influence on early religious thought was profound, usually arranged their gods or goddesses in

trinities: there was the trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, the trinity of Amen, Mut, and Khonsu,

the trinity of Khnum, Satis, and Anukis, and so forth. The Hindu trinity of Brahman, Siva, and

Vishnu is another of the many and widespread instances of this theological conception. The

early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the idea to their own faith. They

paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they

recognized the mysterious and undefined existence of the Holy Spirit; but there was no

thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One, and the Apostles'

Creed, which is the earliest of the formulated articles of Christian faith, does not mention it."

Act passed April 21, 1649, in the state of Maryland, or rather the colony of Maryland: "By

this Law, (1) Blasphemy against God, denying our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the Son of God,

or denying the Holy Trinity, or the Godhead of any of the three persons, etc., was to be

punished with death, and confiscation of lands and goods to the Lord Proprietary."

"The recognition of a trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the world."-

The Two Babylons, Hislop.

"The word triad, or trinity, was borrowed from the pagan schools of philosophy and

introduced into the theology of Christians of the middle second century by Theophilus,

Bishop of Antioch."-Bibliotheque Ecclesiastique, Dupin.

"Trinity is a very marked feature in Hindooism, and is discernible in Persian, Egyptian,

Roman, Japanese, Indian and the most ancient Grecian mythologies."-

Religious Dictionary, Abbott.

Scholar Jakób Jocz: "It is at this point that the gulf between the Church and the Synagogue

opens before us in all its depth and significance. . . . The teaching of the divinity of Jesus

Christ is an unpardonable offence in the eyes of Judaism."-

The Jewish People and Jesus Christ.

Dr. J. H. Hertz, a rabbi: "This sublime pronouncement of absolute monotheism was a

declaration of war against all polytheism . . . In the same way, the Shema

excludes the trinity of the Christian creed as a violation of the Unity of God."

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 conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all

the ancient [pagan] religions."-Volume 2, page 1467.

MOSLEMS, A Qur´anic: "The People of the Book went wrong: The Jews in breaking their

Covenant, and slandering Mary and Jesus . . . and the Christians in raising Jesus the Apostle

to equality with God" by means of the Trinity doctrine.-Surah 4:153-176, AYA.

"There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a

constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism

in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel

recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does

speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to,

say, the last quadrant of the 4th century."-New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIV, p.

295.

"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's] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."-

Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p.

1467.[6]

From Eusebeias, PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL, Vol 2, pages 535-537)

Plato (Epistle to Dionysus) -- "I must explain it to you then in riddles, that if the tablet suffer

any harm in the remote parts of sea or land, the reader may learn nothing. For the matter is

thus: Around the King of the Universe are all things, and all are for His sake, and that is the

cause of all things beautiful: and around the Second are the secondary things, and around the

Third the tertiary."

How was this understood by Platonic disciples?

Eusebeias -- "These statements are referred, by those who attempt to explain Plato, to the First

God, and to the Second Cause, and thirdly to the Soul of the Universe, defining it also as a

third God."

Numenius (Of the Good) -- "(Eusebias) This is what Plotinus says. ‘This is the reason also of

Plato’s TRINITIES: for he says that around the King of all are all the primaries, and around

the second the secondaries, and around the third the TERTIARIES.’ And Numenius highly

commending Plato’s doctrines in his treatise OF THE GOOD gives his own interpretation of

the Second Cause as follows: ‘The First God being in Himself, is simple, because, being

united throughout with Himself, He can never be divided. God however the Second and the

Third is one."

THE FORMATION OF CHRISTIAN DOGMA (Prof Martin Werner, Bern) -- "The earliest

Church authors, however, did not apparently take over their Logos doctrine from Gnosticism.

(page 225) ... Thus in the great Gnostic systems, as later in Neoplatonism, the Nous held the

place within the Church in its doctrine assigned to the Logos. ... Sometimes Philo is clearly

the source of inspiration, sometimes Prov. viii, 22 ff., sometimes it is a question of an attempt

at a compromise between this key passage of the Old Testament and John i, I. (226) ... With

Justin and Irenaeus the process of de-eschatologising the Primitive Christian conception of

Christ, assisted by the Logos doctrine, was able even to achieve the transformation of the

apocalyptic Christ into the Platonic World-Soul." (228)

EB CD-ROM, under "Trinity- history of the doctrine" -- "The diversity in interpretation of

the Trinity was conditioned especially through the understanding of the figure of Jesus

Christ.According to the theology of the Gospel According to John, the divinity of Jesus Christ

constituted the departure point for understanding his person and efficacy. The Gospel

According to Mark, however, did not proceed from a theology of incarnation but instead

understood the baptism of Jesus Christ as the adoption of the man Jesus Christ into the

Sonship of God, accomplished through the descent of the Holy Spirit. The situation became

further aggravated by the conceptions of the special personal character of the manifestation of

God developed by way of the historical figure of Jesus Christ; the Holy Spirit was viewed not

as a personal figure but rather as a power and appeared graphically only in the form of the

dove and thus receded, to a large extent, in the Trinitarian speculation."

Regarding the masculine gender PARAKLETO(S, N) [Paraclete, Comforter, Helper] --- The

dictionary defines "personify" as, "to think or speak of a thing has having life or personality ...

as, we personify a ship by referring to it as ‘she’." This personification of abstractions or

powers is shown from Genesis 4.7 TheNew English Bible (NE) says: "Sin is a demon

crouching at the door." Proverbs chs 1 and 8 compare Wisdom (SOPHIA) to a woman. Jesus

says: "Wisdom is vindicated by all her children." (Lk 7.35 RSV) Paul has "sin" and "death" as

kings who "rule" and possess "desires." (Ro 5.14, 21; 6.12) He has the "higher powers" as

"she." (Ro 13.3, 4)

Unlike English many languages have verbs with gender. Though PARAKLETOS is

masculine, PNEUMA (Spirit) is not, it is neuter, or "it." This is seen in Romans 8.16 where

the United Bible Societies’ interlinear renders: "Itself (AUTO) the spirit witnesses with the

spirit of us," or, "the spirit itself bears witness." The Catholic New American Bible admits this

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.'"

Other abstractions are given personality. Note the Nazarene at John 3.8: "The wind

[PNEUMA, neuter "spirit"] blows where it chooses [wishes, wills, pleases]." Compare 1 John

5.6-8: "There are three that testify [Jn 15.26] the spirit, and the water and the blood."

When Jesus speaks of the neuter PNEUMA as a masculine PARAKLETOS is he using a

"metaphor" (RIEU), "similitude" (UBSint), "figure of speech" (NASB), "proverbs" (KJV),

"parables" (KNX), or "comparisons" (NWT) and not literally? (Jn 16.25, 29)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The O[ld] T[estament] clearly does not envisage God's

spirit as a person . . . God's spirit is simply God's power. If it is sometimes represented as

being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly. ... The majority of

N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen

in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God. ... On the whole, the New

Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power. ... Nowhere in the

Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person."

Catholic theologian Edmund Fortman: "The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is

there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. . . . The Holy Spirit is

usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power. ...

Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred

writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct

person." (TheTriune God)






REGARDING THE HOLY SPIRIT: Do you agree with the Nazarene? Is the Sender

"greater" than the one sent? "A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth

greater than the one that sent him." (Jn 13.16) Is the Holy Spirit "sent" or not? (Jn 14.26)

Paul quotes Isaiah 40.13 from the LXX at 1 Cor 2.16 using the exact phrasing: "’For who has

come to know the mind [Grk = noun] of the Lord?’ But we have the mind [noun] of Christ."

The Hebrew version uses not "mind" but "Spirit [ruwach]." (Compare KJV, NAS, NIV, etc)

Would this not indicate, in harmony with Paul, that the Jews in rendering the Hebrew to

Greek thought the Spirit to be "mind"? In Isaiah the context of Yahweh’s creative power (i.e.

the Spirit) is explained (verse 26): "Who brings out their host by number? By greatness of His

Might, for that He is strong in power [dynamic energy]." In Hebrew here the word "power" is

from KOWACH meaning "force." (Strongs # 3581) Since this is unseen it is an "invisible

force" like wind or breath emanating from the Mind of The God.

The words of church historian Neander --- of whom McClintock and

Strong's Cyclopædia describes as, "Universally conceded to be by far the greatest of

ecclesiastical historians" --- wrote: "In A.D. 380, great indistinctness prevailed among the

different parties respecting this dogma so that a contemporary could say, 'Some of our

theologians regard the holy spirit simply as a mode of divine operation; others as a creature of

God; others as God himself; others again, say that they know not which of the opinions to

accept from their reverence for Holy Writ, which says nothing upon the subject.'"






REGARDING THE HOLY SPIRIT AS THE "FINGER OF (the) GOD" --- Mt 12.24-29; Lk

12.15-23)

THE DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY (Vol 3, pp. 689-701) -- "Spirit ...

denotes dynamic movement of the air. ... ‘Holy Spirit’ denotes supernatural POWER. ... This

is nowhere more clearly evident than in Acts where the Spirit is presented as an almost

tangible FORCE, visible if not in itself, certainly in its affects. ... For the first Christians, the

Spirit was most characteristically a divine POWER manifesting itself in inspired utterance. ...

The Spirit was evidently experienced as a numinous POWER pervading the early community

and giving its early leadership an aura of authority which could not be withstood. (Acts 5.1-

10) ... It is important to realize that for Paul too the Spirit is a divine POWER."

"The Holy Spirit is a DYNAMIS [power] and is expressly so called in Lk (24.49) ["Look, I

am sending forth upon you that which is promised by my Father. You, though, abide in the

city until you beocme clothed with power from on high."] and DYNAMIS HYPSISTOU, Lk

(1.35) ["Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will over shadow

you."]. ... In some pass. the Holy Spirit is rhetorically represented as a Person." (Thayer’s

Greek Lexicon, page 522) (Compare Ac 1.11; 5.11, 55)

Theological Workbook of the Old Testament, Vol 2, page 836-7: "The basic idea of RUAH

(Grk pneuma) is ‘air in motion.’ ... "’The RUAH spirit of God is in my nostrils.’ (Job 27.3) ...

The ‘breath’ of God may be a strong wind. (Is 40.7) ... His ‘spirit’ may indicate no more than

active power. (Is 40.13)"

Regarding the holy spirit speaking in Acts 13.1-4:

Note the context, for the first verse mentions "prophets and teachers" in the Antioch ecclesia.

Then following this it states: "The holy spirit said: 'Separate to me Barnabas and Paul.'" Does

it not seem that the one who really spoke would be one of the prophets? So "the God of our

Lord" used His own power and influence (the holy spirit) to speak through such prophet? The

work THE PEOPLE'S NEW TESTAMENT WITH NOTES (B. W. Johnson), page 470,

footnote #2: "The Holy Spirit said. By an inspiration given to some one of these prophets."

This is consistent with examples in the OT where the NT says the spirit said something when

it was the prophet. Note Jer 31.31-33 and Heb 10.15, 16: "Moreover the holy spirit also bears

witness to us, for after it has said: 'This is the covenant ... '"

Regarding the English word "spirit" --- THE ROOTS OF ENGLISH, page 229: "[Latin

SPIRARE, to breathe." Thus it equals both the Hebrew (RUACH) and Greek (PNEUMA) for

"breath." Thus, "spirit of God" is reasonably rendered "Breath of God" or "Wind of God." The

word "spirit" has taken on a corporeal tone like the word "ghost." Likely, if the word

PNEUMA had been rendered "breath" or "wind" in English the Holy Spirit would not have

developed so strongly in English as a Person separate from God. Some translators actually do

render RUACH as "wind" in Genesis 1.2. (NJB: a divine wind)

Note the parallels between spirit and breath (wind) in poetic verses. Psalm 18.10, "Yea, he did

fly upon the wings of the wind (RUACH/PNEUMA)." (KJV, ASV, JPS, NEB) Psalm 33.6:

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath

(RUACH/PNEUMA) of his mouth." (KJV, NJB) Psalm 104.30: "Thou sendest forth thy spirit

(RUACH/PNEUMA), they are created." [NJB: you give breath]

What "the spirit of God" is can be understood by comparing it to the "spirit of man." Many

score times does the Bible speak of man’s inner attributes of mind which may be vented by

his breath such as in anger. This "spirit" is not another person but part and parcel of the person

himself. Thus, the "spirit of God" is also that inner attribute of the Divine Mind which the

Creator can project from Himself to accomplish His will. The two cannot be separated. Thus,

if a person sin against the spirit of God it is the same as sinning against God. (Nu 12.1-16; Ac

5.1-4) If one blaspheme the spirit of God it is the same as blaspheming God, but not

necessarily the Son. (Mt 12.31, 32)

REGARDING THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS: Some use the words of the Pharisees to

prove Jesus is God when they quote them: "No one can forgive sins but God." Is this

statement by the religious hierarchy of the day accurate? How did Jesus respond to it and did

this prove he thought he was God?

Matthew 9.1-8 reads: "So, boarding the boat, he proceeded across and went into his own

city. 2 And, look! they were bringing him a paralyzed man lying on a bed. On seeing their

faith Jesus said to the paralytic: "Take courage, child; your sins are forgiven." 3 And, look!

certain of the scribes [Lk - and Pharisees] said to themselves: "This fellow is blaspheming.

[Mk 2.7 -- Who but God can forgive sins?]" 4 And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: "Why

are YOU thinking wicked things in YOUR hearts? 5 For instance, which is easier, to say,

Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up and walk? 6 However, in order for YOU to know

that the Son of man HAS AUTHORITY on earth to forgive sins-" then he said to the

paralytic: "Get up, pick up your bed, and go to your home." 7 And he got up and went off to

his home. 8 At the sight of this the crowds were struck with fear, and they glorified [The]

GOD, WHO GAVE SUCH AUTHORITY TO MEN." Who gave the Son this authority?

Is Jesus the only one who could forgive sins? Note what Jesus says to Peter and the apostles:

"And after he said this he blew upon them and said to them: "Receive holy spirit. 23 If YOU

FORGIVE THE SINS of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if YOU retain those of any

persons, they stand retained." (Jn 20.22, 23)

Is it fair to state that this argument about who can forgive sins as proof of Jesus’ deity is

misused? Is it fair to say that the idea originated with the enemies of Jesus?

De Trinitatis Erroribus

Documents

la bibbia

nouveau dictionnaire

great indistinctness

denotes dynamic

early transcription

passover evening

de trinitatis

actual fleshly