The Trinity. Is It Real And Is It Biblical?
Contents—Click on Number to Open
1. What Jesus Taught about God- 2. Where did the godhead/trinity ancient idea come
from?
3. What the "Church Fathers" taught 4."Proof" texts ( including
the John 1:1 controversy )
5. Emperor Constantine 6.Secular Power and the early church's losing its way-
6-7-8. Developement of
un-Christian traditions 7. Conclusion.-
summary 8. References
Contents
1. What Jesus Taught about God-open-
Subheadings
- scriptures required showing separate persons
- is the holy spirit a person?
- showing the
lack of scriptural evidence for trinity.
2. Where did
the godhead/trinity ancient idea come from?
- triads of gods
- pagan dieties
- godhead is a pagan term
- laying
foundation for later thought from church fathers.
3. What the
"Church Fathers" taught
- influenced by
pagan thought
- Neoplatonisms influence
( but not actual model of trinity but an influence )
- Influence of
humanist greek philosophy ( its function as a humanist
religion aka buddhism )
- going beyond
what is written.
4. "Proof" texts ( including the John
1:1 controversy )
- Coptic texts
- how Greek is handled and misunderstood
-
proof texts quoted by trinitarians
- Use of logic to
show trinity doesn’t exist
5. Emperor
Constantine
- Who was he?
- His role in
trinity
- Was he truly christian?
- Did Christainity
become Christendom and thus the new Imperial Cult?
6-7-8. Secular Power and the early
church's losing its way
- Developement of
un-Christian traditions
7.
Conclusion.
- summary
8.
References
A
quick word from the author:
Years
ago I was exposed to christianity for the first time.
And the more I tried to understand about
God,
the muddier the waters seem to get, with doctrines and ideas about God that
seemed to get more
confusing
all the time. So I asked Yahweh, God of the Bible, revealer of secrets, to
guide my
research
to help me understand Him. After all with Yahweh God being a God of order, it
seemed
logical
all things should be easily and well understood about Him.
After
hours of prayerful and solid research, this document is the result of Gods
guidance.
I
was constantly amazed to see things appearing, to help me understand His Word.
The
trinity doctrine is everywhere, so its essential to
determine if it is indeed from God and
in
harmony with Gods word. Because if its not in harmony
with Gods word, then it isn’t from God.
Logically,
a God of order would not have messy bits and pieces hanging off His holy Word.
And
we are instructed to always test and see that things are from God, as Satan will
use
any
opportunity to sneakily direct proper worship due to God, to Satan’s false
time-waster religions,
which
would then stop people really getting to know God and His ways and what He
approves of.
This
is a LONG document, but it requires detail to get our understanding correct.
Thank
you for reading - this is a very important topic to understand.
0.
Background
The majority of
"christian" churches teach the doctrine of the trinity.
The critical question
is this - is the trinity actually Biblical?
And if the the
trinity is Biblical, can it be easily proven from the ultimate decision maker -
Gods Holy Word, the Bible?
Belief in the
Trinity is said to be essential to being christian.
See examples below:
Within the
doctrine of the trinity, God is taught as "God in three
persons/forms/substances" i.e. ( homousian ).
These are :
1 - God is God
Himself
2 - God is God
the Son ( God in the form of Jesus, as God on earth )
3 - God is the
Holy Spirit ( God in the form of the Holy Spirit, i.e.
a spiritual force with a "personality" )
God is taught as
having the 3 persons in the Godhead. But what is the Godhead?
Interestingly,
the "mystery religions" of
the
concept of a pagan godhead.
Surely with such
a supposedly critical doctrine central to being christian,
then this doctrine would be
heavily
supported and underlined in the Bible, with what the perfector of our faith,
Jesus Christ, taught
us
about God while he was on earth. That would be the most logical time to do it
so it was preserved forever
in
the Holy Scriptures ( the Bible ) for all time, for all men to know.
After all, the Son , who was first born of all creation and through whom
all things came to be, would
understand
his Father better than anyone else, correct?
Holding that
thought in our heads, let us move on.
1. What
Jesus Taught about God
- scriptures required showing separate persons
- is the holy spirit a person?
- showing the
lack of scriptural evidence for trinity.
- God is God
alone
(a) Jesus is
separate to God
But he, being full of the Holy
Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus
standing on the right hand of God,
And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing
on the right hand of God. ( Acts 7:55-56 )
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. ( Jhn
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. ( Jhn
"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man,
Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all." ( 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 )
"And when he was come to the other side into the country of the
Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs,
exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. And, behold, they
cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee,
Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to
torment us before the time?" ( Matt 8:28-29 )
"Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching
Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared
greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God." ( Matt
27:54 )
"For us there is one God, the Father, from whom
are all things . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all
things." ( 1 Corinthians 8:6 )
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him,
Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it]
unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. ( Matt
16:15-17)
(b) Is the Holy Spirit a person?
An important question
- what is the thing people call the Holy SSpirit? Is it another part of God as
part of the godhead?
Lets
look at Biblical words and translations of the words used when people refer to
the "holy spirit".
The Greek word
pneuma (as in pneumonia, a breathing disease) means breath or wind – the
movement of air. In other Bible translations, this word is often translated as
spirit or ghost – as in Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. However, spirit is just a
shortened form of the Latin word espiritu, which just means breath in Latin.
And ghost conveys another meaning altogether.
The most common
use of the word pneuma in the Bible is to imply an unseen
force (such as breath or wind). And the problem with translating
it as “spirit” or “ghost” is that many people have started believing that the
unseen force that is called [God’s] Holy Breath herein, is another God-like
person and part of a Divine Trinity. This can’t be true, because the only
scripture that can be used to support this theory (that is, where the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Breath are supposed to be ‘one’) is found at Matthew
28:19, which simply says that baptism should be done ‘in the name of’ (or, in
recognition of) these three, and there is good reason to believe that even
these are spurious and added in the Third Century C.E. And all other scriptures
that are used to prove the Trinity theory fail to mention the Holy Breath as
part of that group.
Notice that the
King James wording of 1 John 5:7 (which was used for years to attempt to prove
the Trinity) is definitely spurious (something that was added to the Bible).
So to prevent
confusion, the Greek word pneuma is usually translated as breath here. The only
exceptions would be in instances where the Bible refers to demons as ‘spirits,’
for translating pneuma as breath in these cases, although correct, might just
be confusing. And there are also instances where we have used the word spirit
to indicate a person’s inward inclinations or feelings.
Another
important use of the word pneuma is in the phrase, ‘Breath of Life.’ This
phrase means more than just breathing, it refers to the entire mechanics of
life itself. It’s the unseen force of life for all creatures… it’s what makes
each cell alive. However, nowhere does the Bible describe the ‘pneuma’ as
immortal, nor is it the same as the soul (a breathing thing), so it can
(figuratively) ‘return to God’ at death,’ because all hope of future life
depends on God and His promise of a resurrection. For more information, see the
attached link, The Powers of God’s Holy Spirit.
We see below the
hebrew lexicon for the Hebrew word "Ruwach" ( in
English "breath" ) - Strongs number H7307.
For completeness,
we have included the root word of "Ruwach" ( H7306
) lexicon , which also means "breath".
You will also see
in section (g) below the usage of H7307 with the Trinity. As the trinity is
based on a man-made church dogma, and not on actual Biblical translation, it is
unsound reasoning to say within a Lexicon that H3707 is part of the trinity.
This is irresponsible reverse-engineering trying to make an unproven man-made
dogma / concept back into the Bible where the evidence does not support it. It
should also be noted that many people who wrote lexicons have allowed their
personal theology into these lexicons.
Lexicon
Results for ruwach (Strong's H7307)
Hebrew
for H7307
רוח
Transliteration
ruwach
Pronunciation
rü'·akh (Key)
Part of Speech
feminine noun
Root Word
(Etymology)
from H7306
TWOT Reference
2131a
Outline of
Biblical Usage
1) wind, breath, mind, spirit
a) breath
b) wind
1) of heaven
2) quarter (of wind), side
3) breath of air
4) air, gas
5) vain, empty thing
c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or
agitation)
1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour
2) courage
3) temper, anger
4) impatience, patience
5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented)
6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or
uncontrollable impulse
7) prophetic spirit
d)
spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and
animals)
1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at death,
disembodied being
e) spirit (as seat of emotion)
1) desire
2) sorrow, trouble
f) spirit
1) as seat or organ of mental acts
2) rarely of the will
3) as seat especially of moral character
g) Spirit of God,
the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with
the Father and the Son
1) as inspiring ecstatic state of prophecy
2) as impelling prophet to utter instruction or warning
3) imparting warlike energy and executive and administrative
power
4) as endowing men with various gifts
5) as energy of life
6) as manifest in the Shekinah glory
7) never referred to as a depersonalised force
Authorized
Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 378
AV — Spirit or
spirit 232, wind 92, breath 27, side 6, mind 5, blast 4, vain 2, air 1, anger
1, cool 1, courage 1, misc 6
Gesenius's
Lexicon (Help)
Lexicon
Results for ruwach (Strong's H7306)
Hebrew for
H7306
ריח
Transliteration
ruwach
Pronunciation
rü'·akh (Key)
Part of Speech
verb
Root Word (Etymology)
a primitive
root
TWOT Reference
2131
Outline of
Biblical Usage
1) (Hiphil) to
smell, scent, perceive odour, accept
a) of horse
b) of delight (metaph)
Authorized
Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 11
AV — smell 8, touch 1, quick understanding 1, accept 1
Gesenius's
Lexicon (Help)
So we can see
that the general usage is "breath", such that the "holy
spirit" is the holy breath of God.
Interstingly is we look at
Genesis and the account of the creation of Adam and Eve we find the following :
And the LORD God formed man [of]
the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and
man became a living soul.
So in this case, Gods' breath
animates / makes alive Adam after he was formed from dust.
Could we also logically then
reason that God has provided his breath to create life?
Yes it would be safe to say
that.
Logically then we could say that
- if Gods breath can bring things to life,, then it can achieve other things.
But do we see Gods breath being
given a "personality" here? no we dont. Gods beath is imperosnal.
It is an active force, which
animated / made alive a living soul through Gods application of His breath to a
pile of dust.
To put things in perspective, do
you give your own breath a name? I have never heard of such a thing. Silly idea isnt it?
God is a God of order. If He
wanted his breath to have a name, we would have been told in the Bible.
We also see at 2 Timothy 3:16,
17,
‘All the Scriptures are inspired by God and are good for teaching, for
correcting, for setting things straight, and for providing righteous
discipline. They qualify a man of God and provide him with whatever he needs to
do all sorts of good work.’
Notice that, although the Greek word
pneuma (Spirit or Breath) wasn’t used in the above scripture, it is found in
the related word TheoPneustos, or God Breathed, which we have translated as
inspired by God. Translating pneustos as inspired is particularly appropriate,
since the word in/spired means breathed in. So, any time we refer to a
particular work, person, or act as inspired, we are really implying that it
came from the Breath of God.
The English word
"inspired" literally means "produced by blowing or breathing
[into]," with the connotation that a deity is doing the breathing!
Given by inspiration of
God" literally means "given by the breath of God".
"In" obviously means "in" or "into";
"spire" comes from the Latin word for breath and is the source of our
word "spirit" (see John 3:8 and 20:22). When your breath exits your
body, you "expire." When it comes back (returns)
into you, you "respire" (usually on a respirator). When you
breathe through your skin, you "perspire." When you get close enough
to someone else that you share his breath, you "conspire." When your
breath travels, something has "transpired." Notice that all of this
can be discovered simply by looking into a dictionary; a lexicon was not
necessary.
From the Dictionary:
in·spire
Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-spahyuhr] Pronunciation Key -
Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -spired, -spir·ing.
–verb (used
with object)
1. to fill with an animating, quickening, or exalting
influence: His courage inspired his followers.
2. to produce or arouse (a feeling, thought, etc.): to inspire
confidence in others.
3. to fill or affect with a specified feeling, thought, etc.:
to inspire a person with distrust.
4. to influence or impel: Competition inspired her to greater
efforts.
5. to animate, as an influence, feeling, thought, or the like,
does: They were inspired by a belief in a better future.
6. to communicate or suggest by a divine or supernatural
influence: writings inspired by God.
7.
to guide or control by divine influence.
8. to prompt or instigate (utterances, acts, etc.) by
influence, without avowal of responsibility.
9. to give rise to, bring about, cause, etc.: a philosophy that
inspired a revolution.
10. to take (air, gases, etc.) into the lungs in breathing;
inhale.
11. Archaic.
a. to infuse
(breath, life, etc.) by breathing (usually fol. by into).
b. to breathe
into or upon.
–verb (used
without object)
12. to give inspiration.
13. to inhale.
Origin:
1300–50; ME inspiren < L inspīrāre to breathe upon or into, equiv.
to in- in-2 + spīrāre to breathe]
Also the root
of "inspire" as a word : inspiration
c.1303,
"immediate influence of God or a god," especially that under which
the holy books were written, from O.Fr. inspiration,
from L.L. inspirationem (nom. inspiratio), from L. inspiratus, pp. of inspirare
"inspire, inflame, blow into," from in-"in" + spirare
"to breathe" (see spirit). Inspire in this sense is c.1340, from
O.Fr. enspirer, from L. inspirare, a loan-transl. of
Gk. pnein in the Bible. General sense of "influence or animate with an
idea or purpose" is from 1390. Inspirational is 1839 as "influenced
by inspiration;" 1884 as "tending to inspire."
A final word-
The words that many Bibles
translate as ‘Spirit’ or ‘Ghost’ are Ruach (in Hebrew) and Pneuma (in Greek),
and both words mean (and should be translated as) Breath or Wind.
However, the Bible also
occasionally uses these words to mean a person’s attitude or leaning, where the
words breath and wind would make no sense in English, so in such places we have
left it translated into the Latin word for Breath, Spirit (espiritu).
From an online Latin dictionary :
spiritus -us, m. breathing,
breath, exhalation; a sigh; the breath of life, life; inspiration; spirit,
disposition; a high spirit, pride.
In Luke
However, if we look at the
original Greek workds, we see the phrase usually translated "holy
ghost" is in fact "breath" as in Gods breath.
English Strong's Greek (Root
form) Tense
(Click on any item below for
Concordance)
|
And [2532] |
kai |
|
the angel [32] |
aggelos |
|
answered [611] |
apokrinomai |
|
and said [2036] |
epo |
|
unto her, [846] |
autos |
|
The Holy [40] |
hagios |
|
Ghost [4151] |
pneuma |
|
shall come [1904] |
eperchomai |
|
upon [1909] |
epi |
|
thee, [4571] |
se |
|
and [2532] |
kai |
|
the power [1411] |
dunamis |
|
of the Highest [5310] |
hupsistos |
|
shall overshadow [1982] |
episkiazo |
|
thee: [4671] |
soi |
|
therefore [1352] |
dio |
|
also [2532] |
kai |
|
that holy thing [40] |
hagios |
|
which shall be born [1080] |
gennao |
|
of [1537] |
ek |
|
thee [4675] |
sou |
|
shall be called [2564] |
kaleo |
|
the Son [5207] |
huios |
|
of
God. [2316] |
theos |
(c) Lack of scriptural evidence
for the the trinity.
Let us ask a simple, logical and
powerful question about the trinity :
(a) God is a God of order, as
revealed in His laws, methods, and the methodical way He created the earth , and;
(b) He is wise, fair and loving,
and;
(c) He sent His son, Jesus
Christ to persoanlly walk the earth to explain Him and His kingdom to all men,
and;
(d) He left His word preserved
in the Bible as declared directly from Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and;
(e) There is NO mention of a
trinity by word or direct teaching , and;
(f ) He
is Truth and cannot lie, and;
(g) He warned
us through Jesus Christ that we should avoid the doctrines of men and test all
we hear to make sure it is scripturally sound
- then how,
in any logical way, with our reasoning based on the Scriptures, expect the
dogma of the trinity to be any part of the Christian faith?
- No where in the Bible is the
word "Trinity" ever mentioned. Not once.
(d) God is God ALONE
"I am Yahweh
your God . . . You shall have no gods except me." (
Exodus 20:2, 3 )
"I am the
Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to
another, nor My praise to graven images." ( Isaiah
42:8 )
"God is
only one." ( Gallatians
"…the
LORD he is God; there is none else beside him…" (Deut. 4:35)
"…I am
the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God…" (Is. 44:6)
"I am
Yahweh, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no
God." (Isaiah 45:5)
"…Is
there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know
not any…" (Is. 44:8)
"Hear, O
Jesus called
God "the only true God." (John 17:3)
Jesus saying:
""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is
good–except God alone." ( Mark
One of the
teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given
them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the
most important?" "The most important one,"
answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O
Love the Lord
your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all
your mind and with all your strength.'
The second is
this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
"Well
said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is
one and there is no other but him. ( Mark 12:28-32 )
[Jesus says,]
How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort
to obtain the praise that comes from the only God? ( john
5:44)
"No one
has ever seen God." ( John
Thou believest
that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. ( James
O the depths
of God’s riches, wisdom, and knowledge! His decisions are mysterious and His
ways can’t be figured out! ‘Who has come to know Jehovah’s mind and who can
give Him advice?’ And, ‘Who has given Him something that has to be repaid?’
Why,
everything is from Him, by Him, and for Him. May He be glorified through the ages. May it be. (
Rom 11:33-36 )
Whether
therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. ( 1 Cor
"To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen" (2 Tim. 4:18b). - no mention of Jesus Christ......
"How can
you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the
glory that is from the one and only God? ( John
"For it is
by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is
the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast." ( Eph 2:8-9 )
".....God
who is the only truly wise One, be the glory through Jesus the Anointed One
through the ages. May it be." (
Rom
2.
Where did the godhead/trinity ancient idea come from?
- triads
of gods
- pagan
dieties
- godhead
is a pagan term
- laying foundation for later
thought from church fathers.
(a) Triads of gods
In many ancient and not so
ancient religions, we have triads of gods. While these are not an actualy
trinity, we can see the influence that would exist.
Some ancient triads of gods:
The "Hecate" goddess
of Greek Mythology - An ancient Fertility goddess, also identified with Persephone,
as Queen of Hades (underworld), and protector of witches.
The "Hecate" or
"Hekate" is characterized as a Trinity, that
existed within pagan mythology as a three faced goddess. The three faces
represented the "Maiden", the "Matron" (or Mother), and "the
Crone".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecate
Irish Catholic St. Brigit - the
goddess of the flame to the ancient Celts, she has survived into our time as
"St. Bridget" in the Irish catholic church. To this day her 'eternal
flame' burns in
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigit for more detailed information.
Brigit is a Christopagan Era
Irish goddess
born 451 AD - died
525 AD
Brigit wasn't turned into a
devil like so many other goddesses. The Irish Celtic people loved this
deity, so that they retained all her characteristics as a pagan-catholic
saint!
They would not have had anything to do with catholicism
(pagan christianity) if they couldn't keep Brigit.
She is a triple goddess.
It is possible his triple aspect
of the goddess is where the idea of exploiting the Trinity concept may have
also emerged. The three-leaf shamrock was originally of "The Three
Mothers", as well as the three phases of the moon being her symbols. She
shares some attributes with the ancient Greek triple goddess Hecate.
There is a Swedish St Bridget
also. Brigit's fame has been far and wide. Even as far as
Imbolc
(Candlemas and Groundhog Day), the Celtic spring festival, honors Brigit. The Druids
called this sacred holiday Oimelc, meaning "ewe's milk". Held on
February 1st or 2nd, it celebrated the birthing and freshening of sheep and
goats. The catholic version of Imbolc (Candlemas), also, involves much
elaborate rituals and feasting, and to this very day, many Irish homes have a
St Brigit's cross for protection, still made from rushes as in days of old.
Hinduism
Idol worship and rituals are at
the heart of Hinduism and have tremendous religious significance. All Hindu
deities are themselves symbols of the abstract Absolute, and point to a
particular aspect of the Brahman.
The Hindu Trinity (Trimurti) is
represented by three members of a godhead :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti
Brahma - the creator,
Vishnu - the protector
Shiva - the
destroyer.
Ancient
In The Creation Story (1902),
the author was spoke merely of two triads,
(a) Anu, Ea, Bel - a triad
consisting of Anu, Bel and Ea, Anu came to be regarded as the father and at
first, king of the gods.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anu
and
(b) Sin, Ramman, Shamash
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramman
While strictly speaking this is
not a true trinity, we see the grouping of dieties into 3's or a loose trinity.
Again we are seeing the building blocks of a trinity basically in place. It was
not until christendom came along , that a formal
christendom trinity was spelled out.
Note we use the word
"Christendom" - Chitendom is the kingdom or "mainstream" or
"popular christianity". Chritendom represents what most people think
of as christianity, but in reality is NOT the
christainity that Jesus and the Apostles taught on how to follow God.
Why 3 gods / triple-gods /
trinity?
As we observe the impact of a
trinity or triple gods or the number "3" flowing from ancient pagan religions,
how many times have we also heard from friends or people in the office
"bad things happen in threes"? Its important
to remember that 3 is a number sacred to pagan folk religions, witchcraft and
ancient pagan cultures, and many of these cultures and religions still
influence Christendom down to this day. While this is a broad statement, it can
be demonstrated through wider reading and is beyond what we are doing here.
(c) What is the Godhead?
The Godhead is a concept central
to the trinity. The trinity teaches that God has 3 features - Father, Son and
Holy Spirit , and all these combine in the godhead.
See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhead
Godhead refers to the view of the
abstract and essential divine nature of God.
Binitarianism - the belief that
the Godhead is composed of two separate beings, Father and the Son, while the
Holy Spirit is the power of God and not a separate being.
Godhead (Christianity) - In
Christendom, the divinity of Trinity is sometimes referred to as the
"Godhead". In some nontrinitarian sects, several divine beings are
referred to collectively as "the Godhead."
Godhead
(Hinduism) - Brahman.
Godhead (Vaishnavism) - The
conception of Godhead according to the Gaudiya Vaishnava
Edward B. Robinson's "The
Godhead" based on Cao Dai teachings
Godhead (Judaism) – In Judaism,
the term "Godhead" is sometimes used to refer to the unknowable
aspect of God which lies beyond His actions or emanations (as it were).
See
http://citypages.com/detail.asp?ArticleID=14819
"To the Gnostics, the
pentacle symbolizes the magic and mystery of the nighttime sky. For the Druids,
it is the godhead."
From a pagan website, we see
that those practising witchcraft believe in a pagan godhead :
"Godhead is one unique and
transcendent wholeness, beyond any limitations or expressions; thus, it is
beyond our human capacity to understand and identify with this principle of
Cosmic Oneness, except as It is revealed to us in terms of It's attributes and
operation."
But where is the godhead
actually found in the Bible?
It is not found anywhere in the
Bible - the Godhead is clearly a man-made pagan idea.
Jesus warned us against
accepting the ideas or doctrines or dogmas or philosophy of men in place of
sound scriptural truths from the Bible. Jesus also said to test everything we hear
and compare it to Gods word in the Bible.
"Howbeit
in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Mark 7:7)
"And
this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. (
"Beware
lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition
of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (
"Which
all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of
men?" (Col. 2:22)
(d) Laying the foundation for
false teaching by the church "Fathers"
Now many people will be upset
that we should label the church "fathers" doing false teaching. By
false we mean teaching wrong things, even if it meant they did it in the best
of intentions. But how could the church "fathers" teach such an
appalling wrong doctrine? Well we for instance take the internet for granted,
but back in the early church, information was limited and not easy to get at.
However, people would still have had access to copies of original scriptures,
and quite clearly if they had read them, it was obvious there was NO TRINITY in
the Bible.
From research, it shows quite
clearly that there has been influence by pagan triads of gods or triple gods or
pagan "saints" on the early church. Many christains would have been
previously pagan so in some ways, to ease the blow of moving into christainity,
some early church bishops etc would have allowed some pagan beliefs to be
brought into the church and re-labelled as christain feats or saints or
beliefs. Obviously this is wrong, but it happened.
Many early church fathers were
involved in or practised Platonism or Philosophy ( like
Augustine of Hippo ) and this influence would have influenced their views of
the world.
But central to all this was the
Nicene Creed - formulated by the political genius Emperor Constantine. The
creed, whether people like the idea or not, was formulated by the Bishops to
unify squabbling bishops, as commanded by
See Page 35-Page 42 "
This is not heresy,
rather this is what is recorded in history. Obviously as
This then makes sense of how
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_imperial_cult for more information.
So we now have a creed come out
of Nicea that was pushed by Emporer Constantine , the
same pagan sun worshipping emporer who unified his religious world so he could
use it for his own purposes. To the Bishops he gave land and power and prestige
- how many could resist? Now also Christiaanity was the official religion of the
land. And constantine, the sly and ever briallian tactician
and politician, had conveniently hooked his empire to the rising Christain
world, and to its God, Yahweh.
"Can two walk together,
except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3).
But while the Bishops got power,
land and prestige, they had to trade some of their integrity before God for
this.
We should also acknowledge that
many bishops had been persecuted prior to this under the previous emporer, so
we are not dealing with people who will sacrifice themselves for their beliefs.
Sadly, early church fathers like
Augustine then built upon this corrupted foundation - the early church traded
its integrity before God for political power and a "quiet life".
We will see in later sections
how Augustine wrote essays on the basis for "a Just War", so giving
his master ( the Emporer ), the "moral"
basis for violating one of the 10 Commandments, and also providing the Emporer
the basis for commanding people into wars , with the churches "moral"
blessing, to suit the Emporers political needs.
And this was the state the early
"christian" church at approx 400AD.
3. What the "Church
Fathers" taught
- influenced by pagan thought
- Neoplatonisms influence ( but not actual model of trinity but a triple/triad -like
influence )
- Influence of humanist greek philosophy
( its function as a humanist religion aka buddhism )
- going beyond what is written.
(a) Influenced by pagan thought
What is a pagan
?
From the
dictionary:
pa·gan
n.
1. One who is
not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2. One who has
no religion.
3. A
non-Christian.
4. A hedonist.
5. A
Neo-Pagan.
adj.
1. Not
Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
2. Professing
no religion; heathen.
3. Neo-Pagan.
From Middle
English, from Late Latin pgnus, from Latin, country-dweller, civilian, from
pgus, country, rural district; see pag- in Indo-European roots.
When Jesus
lived, there was a strong pagan influence, with many temples dedicated to pagan
worship, in particular worship of many gods of the Greeks and Romans, as well
as many local deities. In addition to this, we have seen in previous sections
of this document that many pagan religions and beliefs existed before Jesus
Christ walked the earth.
We should not be surprised then that
paganism would have a large influence on people, especially philosophers and
educated people. We know that many early church "fathers" were
influenced by Neoplatonism, in particular Augustine, and even while Augustine
rejected Neoplatnism, its influence on him can still be seen.
In addition, as we have shown,
many triads of gods from many religions that existed before Christianity, also
influenced the thinkers of the early church. While we list Augustine mostly,
other church "fathers" have also been influenced by paganism, however
since Augistine is well known and had a big impact on the early church and its
theology, we concentrate on him.
So we find that without the
strong influence of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, we find the early church
sliding quickly into man made traditions and influences, especially the
Trinity, and these have their beginnings in pagan thought.
An example of how wide spread
pagan influence was - Apostle Paul had to leave
Act
Act
19:21After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had
passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have
been there, I must also see Rome.
Act
Act
Act
Act
Act
19:26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost
throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people,
saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:
Act
Act
Act
Act
Act
19:31 And certain of the chief of Asia, which were his friends, sent unto him,
desiring [him] that he would not adventure himself into the theatre.
Act
Act
Act
Act
19:35 And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, [Ye] men of
Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians
is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the [image] which fell down
from Jupiter?
Act
Act
Act
Act
Act
Act
Act
20:1 And after the uproar was ceased, Paul called unto
[him] the disciples, and embraced [them], and departed for to go into
So we can see
that the whole of
(b) Neoplatonisms infuence.
Neoplatonism is the teachings of
Plato in later days. Neoplatonism is philosophy , and
philosophy in its purest form is a mystic belief structure whereby philosophers
belive they can rationalise themselves into a state of high conciousness or
spiritual perfection. This is very similar to buddhism, which teaches that self
enlightenment is possible ( i.e God has no place in
your life ) and that you can thinkkyour way to enlightenment/nirvana.
Philosophy was taught amongst the wealthy well educated ancient greeks, and in many respects repeats Nimrods ancient claim
to make men smarter than God - this is Satans claim.
What is worth noticing is the
following structure of what Neoplatonism is:
In Neoplatonism, a Greek
philosophy religion, you hope to become one with the perfect One. The infinite, unknowable, perfect one. This sounds like The
Most High God.
From this perfect One emanates
the nous or pure intelligence. This sounds like Gods active force ( some call this the holy spirit.)
From the nous comes the world
soul. This sounds like Christ. And the world soul is an intermediate between
the nous and the material world. This sounds like Christ as our intermediary.
There are other aspects like
belief in humans having an everlasting/immortal soul, whereas we are told that
the soul can and does die.
But it is this amazing closeness
to the trinity from Neoplatonism that should make us stop right here and look
at it. While we can see that Neoplatonism is not exactly the model of the
trinity, we can see that with previous groups of three gods from pagan
religions, Neoplatonisms influence and many early church "fathers"
having been either past philosophy students or influenced by philosophy, we can
see how it would not have been a difficult jump from pure christianity to
trinity thinking in the space of 3 centuries. Again we also understand from
research that
Tertullian, an Ecclesiastical
writer of the 2nd and 3rd century coined the expression 'trinitas' for Father,
Son and Holy Spirit, and the concepts later expressed as the 'three persons in
one substance'.
In the statement of the Trinity,
Tertullian was a forerunner of the Nicene doctrine, approaching the subject
from the standpoint of the Logos doctrine, though he did not fully state the
immanent Trinity. His use of trinitas (Latin: 'Threeness') emphasised the
manifold character of God. In his treatise against Praxeas, who taught
patripassianism in
"These three are one
substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect
not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance." The very
names "Father" and "Son" indicate the distinction of
personality. The Father is one, the Son is one, and the Spirit is one (Adv.
Praxeam, ix). The question whether the Son was coeternal with the Father
Tertullian does not set forth in full clarity; and though he did not fully
state the doctrine of the immanence of the Trinity, he went a long distance in
the way of approach to it.[3]
Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian
So we can see
that Tertullian who lived 155-230 AD, he started using the concepts of
"substance" and "trinitas". As we know with something like chinese whispers, where something is said on one side of the
room, by the time its whispered to the last person, themeaning has changed
completely. Now add 300 years of this and men attmepting to understand God by
going beyond the Bible and influenced by Platonism and pagan religions - and
you have the basis of the trinity firming up strongly.
Beware
lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the
tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to
Christ ( Collossians 2:8 )
(c) Going beyond what is
written.
God warns us not to exceed what
is written :
"Now
these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for
your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that
no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other." ( 1 Corinthians 4:6 )
When God warns
us about this, He mentions this so we understand that exceeding the word of God
by starting man-made traditions, undermines Gods word because what it really
says is that we don’t think Gods word is enough.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness ( 2 Tim
Notice it doesn’t say "some
scripture" or "which ever bits of scripture you like" - no - it
says
So we have the complete tool kit
for all things in life and all situations.
When we exceed Gods word, we
stray from Gods wisdom.
The wisdom of this world is nonsense in God's sight. That's why Scripture
says, "God catches the wise in their cleverness." (
1 Cor
Consequently, if we truly want
to be humble and follow Gods laws, we need to obey Gods laws. This means not
exceeding what is written.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for
salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed
from faith to faith; as it is written, "But the righteous man shall live
by faith." ( Romans
4. "Proof"
texts ( including the John 1:1 controversy )
- Proof texts quoted by
trinitarians
- Coptic texts
- How Greek is handled and
misunderstood
- Use of logic to show trinity
doesn’t exist
(a) Proof texts quoted by
trinitarians.
Let us look at John 10:30
"I and [my] Father are one."
Does this mean
they are the same person? For starters let us look at the previous verse:
“My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is
able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.” ( John
OK, so here we have Jesus saying
his father is separate to himself. This alone is strong evidence against the
trinity.
“Then
the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good
works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone
me?
The
Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone
thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself
God.
Jesus
answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye
are gods?
If he
called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be
broken;
Say ye
of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou
blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
If I do
not the works of my Father, believe me not.
But if
I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and
believe, that the Father [is] in me, and I in him.” ( John
10:31-38 )
So in John 10:36 we have Jesus
saying "I am the Son of God". That is very clear.
But many people say "Ah,
but in John
Well scripture must hamonise -
so lets look at other scriptures and see what other
evidence we can find.
“These
words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour
is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
As thou
hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as
many as thou hast given him.
And
this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ, whom thou hast sent.
I have
glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to
do.
And
now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had
with thee before the world was.
I have
manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine
they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. “ ( John 17:1-6 )
Ok - so here
Jesus is talking about "they" ( the Apostles
) as referred to in the passage here - they are given to Jesus by God.
Keep this in mind as we read the
rest of the passage :
“Now
they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
For I
have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received
[them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed
that thou didst send me.
I pray
for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me;
for they are thine.
And all
mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified
in them.
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come
to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given
me, that they may be one, as we [are].
While I
was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me
I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of
perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
And now
come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world,
that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they
are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
I pray
not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest
keep them from the evil.
They
are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Sanctify
them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
As thou
hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
And for
their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the
truth.
Neither
pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall
believe on me through their word;
That
they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they
also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent
me.
And the
glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we
are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that
the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast
loved me.
Father,
I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they
may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the
foundation of the world.
O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee,
and these have known that thou hast sent me.” ( John
17:7-25 )
Ok.....so here we have
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee,
that they also may be one in us"
So this logically means that as
God is in Jesus then the apostles must be in God and Jesus.........boy its
getting crowded in that trinity.......
This is
similar to other scriptures like eating Jesus body regards his Last Supper
where Jesus was talking in metaphor/meaning, not literally.
Here in this case we see God is
"in" Jesus IN PURPOSE - a common purpose in preaching
Gods word.
This logically is all it can
mean. It also means that to use this as a "proof text" is grasping at
straws since the context of the passage is totally ignored by trinitarians.
Additionally, we see this
scripture:
“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but
[that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
judgment.” (1 Cor
Now for 1 John
5:7.
1 John 5:7 is a significant
scripture, namely because of its so-called support of the trinity. But does it?
In the KJV we see this text:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” ( 1 John
5:7 -
KJV )
Well on the surface you would
think case closed / its a done deal / all over red
rover - correct?
Well no.
Bear in mind the KJV is but one
translation and as we have seen context of scriptures can influence meaning.
Some Bible texts have also been wrongly translated. This comment of "all
these three are one" is generally recognised by Bible scholars as a
deliberate addition by trinitarians in the middle ages. Most Bibles have
removed this , as rightfully they should.
In context lets
also look at 1 John 5:8
“And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the
water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” ( 1
John 5:8 )
So is spirit, water and blood a
trinity too? No.
But lets
look at what scholars have to say about what the KJV translation is based upon:
"5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8
the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement."
--
Now lets look at this article ( some
of it shown below ) http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1186
“Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma, the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw'/
oujranw'/, oJ pathvr, oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ
trei'" e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ marturou'nte" ejn
th'/ gh'/ ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and
these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that
testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been
known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation.
However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its
authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.1
The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century
Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the
Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text
used by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum)
made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of
pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516),
there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to
defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no
Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by
one
and......
“Significantly, the German translation done by Luther
was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV
translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of
the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’
third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for
the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground
for English-speaking Christians more than for others.”
End of quote.
So we can see historically, the 1 John 5:7 has no leg to
stand on.
The score so far - Common sense 2, trinity 0.
Now lets look at other translations - of these , 4 of 14 are similar to the KJV translation, which
means 10 aren't:
1 John 5:7
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For there are three that testify:
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
There are three witnesses:
King James Bible
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
American Standard Version
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness,
because the Spirit is the truth.
Bible in Basic English
And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit
is true.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And there are three who give testimony in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
Darby Bible Translation
For they that bear witness are three:
English Revised Version
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness,
because the Spirit is the truth.
Tyndale New Testament
(For there are three
which bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the wholy ghost. And
these three are one.)
For there are three that give testimony-- the
Spirit, the water, and the blood;
Webster's Bible Translation
For there are three that bear testimony in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
World English Bible
For there are three who testify
:
Young's Literal Translation
because three
are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;
2001 Translation
So, there are three [things] that testify [about him],
8 the Breath [of God], the water, and the blood, and all three agree.
"The passage (1 John 5:7) is absent from the
manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic,
Arabic, Slavonic) except the Latin; and it is not found in the Old Latin in its
early form, or in the Vulgate as issued by Jerome...The earliest instance of
the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a
fourth century Latin treatise."
-- A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,
2nd Edition, by Bruce M. Metzger, United Bible Societies, 1994, page 648.
As we note above, this verse is not in the Sahidic
Coptic New Testament, nor in any other really ancient version. It is an
unauthorized addition to the Scriptures. It is found in no Greek text earlier
than the 10th century CE, where it is found as a variant reading.
"The passage is quoted by none of the Greek
Fathers, who had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the
Trinitarian controversies."
-- (Metzger, page 648)
"That these words are spurious and have no
right to stand in the New Testament is certain."
-- (Metzger, p. 647)
So........... if 3 people all agree on one thing, does this mean all 3 are
the same person? No. Of course not.
Certainly they are of the same idea or similar
persuasion or think similarly, but the same person? No.
As we have seen so far, history and common sense are
slowly discrediting the trinity as a logically supportable idea.
Given the Bible never ONCE mentions the trinity, why
would a loving God of order create a hard to understand mystery this churches proclaim as "essential to
salvation"?
Heres one scripture that Trinitarians say
"proves" God and Jesus are one and the same.
This being John 8:56-59
"Your father Abraham
rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was
glad." The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years
old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to
them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and
went out of the temple.
Well its obvious that Jesus was around prior to Abraham
as we see at Collossians 1:15 :
“Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love [which ye have] to all the saints,
For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven,
whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
Which is come unto you, as [it is] in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as [it doth] also in
you, since the day ye heard [of it], and knew the grace of God in truth:
As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear
fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ;
Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit.
For this cause we also, since the day we heard
[it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with
the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all
pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of
God;
Strengthened with all might, according to his
glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in
light:
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness,
and hath translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son:
In whom we have redemption through his blood,
[even] the forgiveness of sins:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in
heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be]
thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all
things consist.
And he is the head of the
body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in
all [things] he might have the pre-eminence. ( Collossians
1:4-18 )
So, logically then, being firstborn of every creature
means that "before Abraham, I was/I am "
makes logical sense.
Jesus helped God make the world, and the making of the
world was before Abraham existed, so Jesus was there before Abraham.
Also, if Jesus was the firstborn of all creatures, then if
he had a beginning, he cannot be part of God because God is eternal.
OK, so we see Jesus had a beginning.
So now how do we understand that Abraham saw Jesus day ( the day of his birth )? Obviously Jesus was born some
years after Abraham died.
Let us look at translations of John 8:56
:
(1) From The Complete Biblical
Library (John),
"Jesus' words
indicated that Abraham rejoiced even at the prospect of seeing Jesus' day. 'My day' places the emphasis on 'my.' 'My day' is the
grand and glorious day of Messiah. This was the very time the Jews were
witnessing but rebelling against. The phrase '(Abraham) saw it' refers to the
atoning work Jesus was to accomplish at
(2) From scholar Raymond E. Brown in his commentary on
the Gospel of John (Anchor Bible series, volume 29):
"When he saw
it". If an incident in Abraham's life is meant, it may be the birth of Isaac
which was the initial fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, the first in a
chain of actions that would ultimately lead to the coming of Jesus. This fits
the theme of joy." (page 360)
( Please see
the scripture at Matthew 1:1-16 for the complete linage of Jesus directly back
to Abraham. )
( Please see
the scripture at Gen 12:1-3 where God says all families of the earth will be
blessed ( by Jesus ) through Abraham )
(3) From The
New Testament in the Language of the People, by Charles B. Williams, Sprawls
Educational Publishing,
John
(4) The
John
(5) The New Testament in the Language of Today, by
William F. Beck, Concordia Publishing House, Saint Louis, Missouri, 1964
edition.
John
So we can see that some translations
are either not accurate or plain wrong. The translations above make logical
sense.
(6) Other translations:
GWT: Your father Abraham was pleased to see that
my day was coming. He saw it and was happy."
KJV: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:
and he saw it, and was glad.
BBE: Your father Abraham was full of joy at the
hope of seeing my day: he saw it and was glad.
DBY: Your father Abraham exulted in that he
should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced.
WEY: Abraham your forefather exulted in the hope
of seeing my day: and he saw it, and was glad."
WBS: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:
and he saw it, and was glad.
YLT: Abraham, your father, was glad that he might
see my day; and he saw, and did rejoice.'
We should also consider the greek word often translated
as "see" ( "see" is one of many
translations for the Greek word )
From Strongs Greek Dictionary -
eido (i'-do) (
Strongs number 1492. )
A primary verb; used only in certain past tenses, the others
being borrowed from the equivalent optanomai and horao;
properly, to see
(literally or figuratively); by implication, (in the perfect tense only) to
know, be aware, behold, X can (+ not tell),
consider, (have)
know(-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wish, wot.
So what is translated as
"see" may suit a theology, but in context of what the birth of Isaac
provided was proof of God bringing Jesus Christ as Messiah to the earth.
Consequently, Abraham would have seen/percieved Jesus' day because Issac was
the first step to the coming of Jesus Christ, as God said all nations would be
blessed ( because of Jesus Christ ) from Abrahams seed ( Isaac ).
Now lets look at John 1:1
John 1: 1is the heavy duty so-called proof of the trinity.
This is THE text usually trotted out to "prove" the trinity is rock
solid.
But is it?
Lets look at some
translations
New American Standard Bible - In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
GOD'S WORD® Translation- In the beginning the Word
already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
King James Bible - In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
American Standard Version - In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Bible in Basic English - From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.
Douay-Rheims Bible - IN the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Darby Bible Translation - In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
English Revised Version - In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Tyndale New Testament - In the beginning was that word,
and that word was with god: and god was that word.
Webster's Bible Translation - In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
World English Bible - In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Young's Literal Translation - In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
Now on the surface of it you *could* say "case
closed, Jesus is God".
But hang on - why would Jesus be God, and so be with
himself ( "the Word was with God").
Doesn’t that sound just a bit illogical?
Lets look at this
in the cold hard light of logic.
We have so far demonstrated in scripture that :
(a) Jesus was created as the firstborn of all creation,
so Jesus is an independent and separate to God.
(b) Jesus did his Fathers will.
(c) God has declared Jesus to be His son, of whom God ( his Father ) approves.
(d) Jesus has said his Apostles were given to him by
God.
We have seen that many translations of the bible are based
along theological lines, not necessarily being accurate.
This means if people wanted to prove the trinity
existed, they would translate a bible to support that idea.
Outrageous? No. Many
bible translators have done this ( legal reasons means
I cannot mention which ones )
Consider the following translations of John 1:1 from
other translators:
(1) In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
the God, and a god was the Word. Diaglot 1865
(2) Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine
person"
(3) Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"
(4) Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god
(5) Goodspeed, 1939, "the Word was divine
(6) Torrey, 1947, "the Word was god
(7) New English, 1961, "what God was,the Word was"
(8) Moffatt, 1972, "the Logos was divine
(9) Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a
god"
(10) Simple English Bible, "and the Message was
Deity"
(11) Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command
was"
(12) Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a
God"
(13) Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary)
"[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
(14) Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a
god"
(15) Charles A.L. Totten, 1900, "the Word was
Deistic [=The Word was Godly]
(16) J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"
(17) George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the
word"
(18) Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932, "[A]nd the Word
was of divine nature"
(19)
(20) Philip Harner, 1974, "The Word had the same
nature as God"
(21) Maximilian Zerwich S.J./Mary Grosvenor, 1974,
"The Word was divine"
(22) Siegfried Schulz, 1975, "And a god (or, of a
divine kind) was the Word"
(23) Translator's NT, 1973, "The Word was with God
and shared his nature
(24) Barclay, 1976, "the nature of the Word was the
same as the nature of God"
(25) Schneider, 1978, "and godlike sort was the
Logos
(26) Schonfield, 1985, "the Word was divine
(27) Revised English, 1989, "what God was, the Word
was
(28) Cotton Parch Version, 1970, and the Idea and God
were One
(29) Scholar's Version, 1993, "The Divine word and
wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was
(30) Madsen, 1994, "the Word was <EM>a divine
Being"
(31) Becker, 1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a
God/god was the Logos/logos]
(32) Stage, 1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen
Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being].
(33) Bhmer, 1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden,
ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself
divine Being/being]
(34) Thimme, 1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort"
[God of Kind/kind was the Word/word]
(35) Baumgarten et al, 1920, "Gott (von Art) war
der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
(36) Holzmann, 1926, "ein Gott war der
Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought]
(37) Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das
Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]
(38) Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology), 1945,
"Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind]
(39) Pfaefflin, 1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was
of divine Kind/kind]
(40) Albrecht, 1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das
Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word]
(41) Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig
vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being]
(42) Menge, 1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war
das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the
Word/word)
(43) Haenchen, 1980, "Gott (von Art) war der
Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos]
(44) Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 1982, "r war
bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God]
(45) Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk),
1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the
Logos"
(46) Schultz, 1987, "ein Gott (oder:
Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the
Word/word].
(47) William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933, "And
the Word was divine."
(48) John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631,
"The Word of Speech was a God"
(49) Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983, "the
word was with Allah[God] and the word was a god"
(50) Ervin Edward Stringfellow
(Prof. of NT Language and Literature/Drake University, 1943, "And the Word
was Divine"
(51) Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was
divine (a divine being)----
(52) 21st Century Version of the Christian Scriptures
[NCMM] "In [the] beginning the Word existed, and the Word faced toward The
God, and the Word was divine."
(53) New Simplified Bible "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was like God (God-like)."
(54) 2001 Translation "In an ancient time there was
the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was powerful."
So we have :
12 translations saying Jesus = God
54 translations saying Jesus = Word/Jesus/divine.
Well, you might say, so what? Anyone can translate a
Bible.
Ok, lets look at this : in 200
-300AD ancient Egyptians spoke the Coptic language, and translated the Bible
into their own language. But the Nicene Creed did not appear until 325 AD, some
25-125 years AFTER the Coptic translations of the Bible appeared. The most well
known Coptic text is the Bodmer II P66.
Now - here is a critical point to understand - the
Coptics translated from Koine ( common ) Greek into
Coptic.
In 200-300 AD,
The Coptics would have understood and translated the
MEANING of the scriptures correctly.
In the Sahidic dialect of Coptic we see John 1:1 as
folows: ( all references here refer to Sahidic Coptic
) :
Transliteration
1:1a Hn tehoueite nefshoop nci pshaje
1:1b Auw
pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute
1:1c Auw
neunoute pe pshaje
Now Coptic has an indefinate article "p" ( in English, this is "a" ) so the Coptics could
accurately express complex things.
Translating John 1:1c from Coptic to English we have :
1:1c "and was a god the Word".
auw ne-u-noute pe
pshaje
auw = "and"
ne = verbal
prefix denoting past tense, i.e., "was (being)"
u = Coptic indefinite article,
"a"
noute = "god"
( Note that "penoute" = "God", but we see
"neunoute" here )
pe = Coptic
particle meaning "is" or "this one is"
p = Coptic definite article,
"the"
shaje = "word"
In the book, The Text of the New Testament (Eerdmans,
1987), Kurt and Barbara Aland, editors of critical Greek New Testament texts,
state:
"The Coptic New
Testament is among the primary resources for the history of the New Testament
text. Important as the Latin and Syriac versions may be, it is of far greater
importance to know precisely how the text developed in
The Coptic expression for "was a god,"
ne-u-noute pe, is the same Coptic construction as found above in John 18:40,
where it says of Barabbas that he ne-u-soone pe, "was a robber,"
accurately rendering the Greek original, en de ho barabbas lestes, where the
word for "robber" lestes, is anarthrous: "a robber."
Then cried they all
again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. ( John
So if the same grammatical structure of Coptic is
accepted by trinitarians for John 18:40, and the same structure is used at John
1:1, then logic would say we have a theological issue if people translate John
1:1 one way and John 18:40 another way.
How Greek is mishandled and misunderstood
We see below how Greek can be mis-translated. When we
look at the kindly donated article below on the translation of "was a
god" from Greek, we can see the possible pitfalls, but also how if we
carefully and consistently translate with the same rules all the time, we get
an accurate rendering.
Interestingly, as with comparing John 1:1 and John
John 1:1c
Greek English
Και θεος ην ο λογος
"and"
"deity" "was" "the/this etc." "Word / Divine
Expression"
kai theos nv ho logos
2532 2316 1510 3588 3056
Acts 28:6
Greek English
αυτον ειναι θεον "himself"
"am/was" "a deity"
autos einai theos
846 1511 2316
We see similar grammar structures in John 1:1 & Acts
28:6. If Acts 28:6 is accepted as correct, then logically John 1:1 should be as
well.
Now lets think about this for a
second -
και θεος ην ο λογος
"and" "deity" "was" "the/this/that
etc." "Word"
kai theos nv
ho logos
For "theos" if we put in "a god/
goddess" we get the rendering above. This sounds logical ( although we know Jesus was male,therefore not a goddess ).
But as Jesus was Gods son and was created by God ( and
we know that Jesus is not God Himself ) then yes, technically speaking, Jesus
is "a god", but he is not God Himself.
Interestingly the Greek scriptures were often
written in CAPITAL LETTERS.
So we would read:
Now if we insert each member of the "trinity"
into this scripture we get :
For "theos" if we put in -
" "God the father as part of the trinity" was the
Word" - this sounds odd.
For "theos" if we put in -
" "Christ as part of the trinity" was the Word" -
this also sounds odd
For "theos" if we put in -
" "Holy Spirit as part of the trinity" was the Word
" - this also sounds odd.
The logic in this case is this - trintarians will say in
this case - "Ah but "a god" means God/Jesus/Holy Spirit as all
persons of the trinity Godhead are co-equal and co-eternal." Its kind of
like saying "my car is so small, it can be folded up and stored in its own
boot/trunk". What nonsense.
No wonder people are confused and people are told that
"God is unknowable".
Lets look at the
whole scripture in context, and also decide if it harmonises with the Bible. As
All scripture is inspired of God and useful for
teaching....then all scripture must harmonise. And if God can build a planet
and universe, getting His Word, which is important to Him such that "it
will never pass away " to read in a harmonious
manner should be straight forward for Him to do.
John 1:1c
Typical Common English Translation
In the beginning was the
Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God
Transliterated from Greek
en arche
en logos kai logos en pros ho theos kai logos en theos
Written Greek
εν
αρχη ην ο λογος
και ο λογος ην
προς τον θεον(1)
και θεος(2) ην ο
λογος
Our translation into clear English
IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE
WORD,
Yet here we see the primary usage of the second
"theos" in this passage as "god". But the first usage (1)
is "ho theos" which means "the god" ( or
God Himself). The second usage above (2) is "diety" or "a
god". But hang on - why dont most Bibles say "THE GOD" for
"ho theos"? This would be correct.Which then
means that "theos", which means "DEITY"/"GOD" is
very different to "ho theos" which means
"THE GOD" i.e. "THE GOD" = Yahweh, the one and only God of
all creation.
OK, now since many greek manuscripts WERE WRITTEN IN
CAPITAL LETTERS ( called Unical ), if we connect it
all together and use capital letters, we get :
"IN THE BEGINNING
WAS THE WORD,
( where I have added
"A" in [] brackets to show what would be added by a Greek-English
translator to allow it to make sense to an English speaker)
The sentence in capital letters above now takes on a
whole different meaning. Remember that in the Greek ,
not having an "a" in front of a noun does NOT mean it implies a
definite article. A definite article is "the". So in this case,
"GOD" doesn’t mean "THE GOD" it means "A GOD".
"THE GOD" which refers to Yahweh ( God ) Himself.
"GOD"/"DEITY" is Jesus ( the Word ).
But hang on - what right do I have to say - "[A]
GOD" or "[A] DEITY"?
This is a fair question.
About one page further down you will see references on
which my case is based. Please be patient and keep reading. :-)
Now it is clear from Johns writing that "THE
GOD" is not "GOD"/"DEITY" in this case. This
difference is obviously deliberate. John was making sure that he separated God
and the word / deity / god / Jesus, while making sure people knew Jesus was
divine/a god, but was *not* The God ( Yahweh / Jehovah / YHWH ).
Now because English capitalises important peoples names
or titles, we would write: for THE GOD = "The God" and
"GOD" = "god/deity" - because we would not give a lower
deity ( Jesus ) a capital "G" , because "God" that is Gods
title alone, keeping things correct within the context of the whole of the
scriptures here.
We can also see how Bible translators might become
confused or alter the meaning , through a lack of
understanding of ancient greek etc. And because many Bibles
written in English, if you saw the word "GOD" you would assume YAHWEH
/ JEHOVAH / YHWH.
So lets now look at what would
happen if we included the Divine Name in place of "THE GOD" in the
translation.
"IN THE BEGINNING
WAS THE WORD,
We know that Jesus is The Word, so our translation would
look like this :
"IN THE BEGINNING
WAS JESUS,
This would make sense too - Jesus was with Yahweh and
the beginning of earth. There is nothing to say specifically when Jesus was
created, but we can tell it was prior to the creation of the earth at least.
Jesus would have existed, as Jesus was the first born of all creation, and
Yahweh's only begotten son:
"No man hath seen
God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared [him]."( John
"For God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life." ( John
And we know Jesus was WITH YAHWEH during creation of the
earth, and is Yahwehs firstborn of all creation, and is Yahweh's son, Jesus:
‘In an ancient time, there was the Expression of
a thought. This Expression was with God and the Expression was Powerful. He was
with God long ago. Everything came into existence through him. Life came into
existence through him and the life was the light of men.’ (John 1:1-3 )
‘The only-created god
(gr. monogenes theos), who is the Father’s favorite
[son], has explained him.’ (John
‘I tell
you the truth, I existed before Abraham was born.’
(John
‘And
knowing that the Father had put everything in his hands, and that he came from
God and was returning to God, he got up from the meal and laid his outer
clothing aside.’ (John 13:3, 4 )
‘The
Father cares for you, because you cared for me and you believed that I came as
the Father’s representative. I am from the Father and I came into the world. I
am also leaving the world and returning to the Father.’ (John 16:27, 28 )
So, now Father, glorify me beside You with the glory that I had beside You before there was a
world.’ (John 17:5 )
‘He’s the
image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation (gr. protokos pases
ktiseos – first/taken all creation). Through him, everything in heaven and on
the earth was created, both the things that are visible and those that are
invisible. Everything has been created through him and for him, regardless of
whether they are thrones, or rulerships, or governments, or powers. He was
before everything and everything came into existence through him.’ (Colossians
1:15-17 )
‘And write
this to the messenger of the congregation in
IMPORTANT POINT - The early Christians didn’t view Jesus
as the God - this is supported by the fact that Christians still worshiped at
the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem until shortly before it was destroyed in
70-C.E. (see Acts 3:1-3). This is because Christian Jews didn’t consider
Christianity to be a new religion with a new god, but rather, that it was the
natural outgrowth of the old, and Jesus was the promised ‘Messiah’ or ‘Anointed
One of God’ who was to assume ‘the throne of David his father.'
Comment on Greek manuscripts - many Greek manuscripts
from approx
"The logos ( word/divine
expression ) was with the god ( God Himself ) and a diety ( a god / a divine
being / but not God Himself ) was the logos."
Its worth remembering that angels are divine beings,
Jesus is a divine being, and God Himself is a divine being.
But Jesus is not actually said to be God Himself.
This harmonises with the Bible, as Jesus Christ always
says he is inferior to his Father, Yawheh ( God ), and
went to be in heaven with his father once he was resurrected. Since we know
"16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be
thoroughly equipped for every good work., ( 2 Tim 3:16-17 ).
From Spiros Zodhiates's
book "Complete Word Study New Testament", we find under
"grammatical notations" :
5. Anarthrous (an) refers to a word or group of
words which appear without a definite article ( ho,he,to'[3588],the).
Greek has no indefinite article, "a" or
"an" in English. Sometimes it is best to translate an
anarthrous word by supplying "a" or "an"
before it. In fact, due to reasons of English style or Greek idiom, the word
"the" is even an appropriate translations in
some cases. However, there are many times when supplying an article would be
incorrect. Anarthrous constructions are most often intended to point out the
quality of something: Toigaroun kai hemeis tosouton echontes perikeimenon hemin
"nephos" marturon, " Wherefore, seeing
we also are compassed about with so great "cloud" of witnesses"
(Heb 12:1). See also Notation 24.
The "Definite Article" in Greek is
sometimes translated with the English definite article "the."
However, the function of the two is quite different. In English, the definite
article serves merely to particularize, to refer to a particular object. In
Greek, however, it serves to emphasize, in some way, the person or thing it modifies.
Hence, in most cases, the definite article in Greek serves to identify: di
hupomones trechomen ton prokeimeonon hemin agona, " and
let us run with patience "the" race that is set before us" (Heb
12:1). The term "articular" refers to a word or group of words which
appear with a definite article (ho,he,to [3588], the).
There is perhaps no other part of Greek grammar where the Greek idiom differs
so greatly from the English. For instance, an English grammarian would never
place the definitie article before a proper noun (e.g., the "Thomas"), though in Greek it is very common. Rcognizing the
significance of the presence or absence of the definite article requires the
most intimate knowledge of the Greek language. Contrast the use of articular
constructions with anarthrous constuctions which refers to quality. See also
notation 5
Another article supporting our argument is shown below . TO confirm the content was accurate, I personally
contacted Dr BeDuhn at the University of Northern Arizona via email on
From http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2003-July/025847.html
The following URL (Web page) has a lengthy
statement by Jason Beduhn re: John 1:1. There are some typos (likely by the
person who typed the Web
page), but Beduhn's
name at the end suggests that this entire extract, and not just what was put in
quotes at the beginning, is his comment on
John 1:1. This should give some idea of his
knowledge of or expertise in Greek and his qualifications to make scholarly
statements about
translations and
the Greek text - which is what your query seemed to be about.
http://www.geocities.com/yhwhbible/nwt.htm
What about John 1:1 in the NWT?
Well, I will let Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn from
the Northern Arizona
University answer this one:
"The Greek phrase is theos
en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word."
Greek has only a definite article, like our the,
it does not have an indefeinite article, like our a or
an. If a noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is
indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply
logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as
"a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite
article when we
translate Greek
nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of
English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but
must say "Snoopy is a dog."
Now in English we simply say "God"; we
do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to the one
supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called
"gods," you would have to say "The God": ho theos. Even a monotheistic Christian, who beleives there is
only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The
God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally
do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying
"a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are called noun cases, which
means the nouns change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So,
if you want to say "of
God," which is theou, you don't need the
article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to
have the article.)
So what does John mean by saying "the word
was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings.
There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the
Word "a god," John wants to tell his readers that the Word(which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the
divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word."
We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek.
The subject can be after the verb and the object
before the verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object).
Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun first in a
sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the definite
article, they are telling us that the subject belongs to the class represented
by the object-noun: :"The car is a
Volkswagen." In
English we would accomplish the same thing by
using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" =
"John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was
divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would
translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an
improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more problems,
since to a modern reader it implies polytheism.
No one in John's day would have understood the
phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does not convey that
sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since
that author has just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with
himself, he is
with some
other. John clearly differentiates between God from
the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What
is the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He
starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1.
How