Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Who is the One Jehovah? (response)

In response to email from the owner of a site:

The questions are asked:

Who is the single person Lord God who directly appears to and covenants with God's people in the entire Bible? Who is the single person being called upon, prayed to, worshipped  and served by the people of God in the entire Bible from the Old Testament to the New Testament unto the heavens and unto the new creation in eternity?

An outline was sent to us which, we suppose, is designed  to allegedly give answers the above questions, as provided by Mario I. Quitoriano, evidently of "The Trinitarian All for Jesus Ekklesia Of the Lord God." The outline appears to be addressed to "oneness" believers, rather than those who believe in the Hebraic application to John 1:1, and other scriptures in which the words for "God" may be seen to apply to Jesus. We are of the latter (Hebraic) class, and while we believe in the Biblical oneness of Jesus and his God, we do not believe that Jesus is his God.
We first ask our readers to study the scriptures presented at:

Under "The Trinitarian Teaching of the Bible", we actually do not find any scriptures that present "the trinitarian teaching of the Bible", since in reality there is no "trinitarian teaching of the Bible." What we are provided with are scriptures where the imaginations of men are added with assumptions by which the reader is expected to filter the scriptures so that the reader may assume, add to, and read into those scriptures the extra-Biblical doctrine of men. Not one scripture is presented in which the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is presented as being more than one person, or three persons, although that thought is being read into a lot of scriptures.
In our discussion here, we will not be giving any detailed discussion on the scriptures presented, but we will provide links to where one may find more information concerning the scriptures.
The Plurality of Elohim
We are evidently being asked to believe with our imagination that the plural form ELOHIM denotes that God is three persons; the plurality of ELOHIM doesn't means "persons" -- it means "gods". Like several words in the Hebrew, the plural forms of EL are often used in a singular setting to denote superiority or the superlative. This is called the plural intensive. It means that a plural form is used in a singular sense, but that the meaning is intensified so as to denote either the superior or superlative.
We are presented with the following scriptures to allegedly support the erroneous idea that in some imagined way ELOHIM is supposed to mean the three alleged "persons" of the only true God; we present the scriptures with links to further discussion.
Genesis 1:26
Genesis 3:2211:6,7
Jesus is indeed depicted in the New Testament as the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of God's creatures (Colossians 1:15); Jesus is not depicted as the "only true God" who sent Jesus. (John 17:1,3) Yes, no human has ever seen the only true God (Yahweh / Jehovah) at any time, and Jesus, being fully obedient to the only true God, is figuratively in the bosom of the only true God; however, humans have seen Jesus in terrestrial, human glory, thus Jesus is not the only true God whom no man has seen (John 1:14,18; 1 Corinthians 15:40; Hebrews 2:9) -- the son of the only true God (Luke 1:32,35; John 10:36), Jesus, declared to men the words of Yahweh (Jehovah), the only true God. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 11:27,28; John 1:18; 3:34; 14:10; 17:1,3,4.
John 1:1 with is presented with trinitarian assumptions added. See:
and
Jesus is indeed the only begotten of the only true God. (John 1:14; 16:28; 17:1,3) Before becoming flesh, Jesus did indeed have the celestial glory alongside the only true God whom he was with, which glory he did not have while in the days of his flesh. -- John 1:1,2; 17:1,3,5; 1 Corinthians 15:40; Hebrews 5:7.
Having sacrificed once for all time his terrestrial glory (Hebrews 2:9; 10:10) as a human being, the only true God raised up Jesus' soul from the Bible hell (Acts 2:24,25,27,32; Psalm 16:8-10), and Jesus was made alive, not in the flesh, but in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18), and now again enjoys the celestial glory, having sit down at the right hand of the only true God, Yahweh (Jehovah). (Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:34; Ephesians 1:20-22;  Hebrews 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22; Revelation 3:21) None of this means that Jesus is Yahweh (Jehovah), at whose right hand Jesus now sits.
Yahweh willing, we will be adding more to this in response to the rest of the scriptures and points presented by Mr. Quitoriano in the study sent to us.
Coming (Yahweh willing):
Did Jesus Teach a Plurality of his God, making himself a person of his God?
The Everlasting Covenant & the Alleged Plurality of God
The One Yahweh Who spoke to Moses (and to Israel through Moses.)
Yahweh and the Three Men Who Appeared to Abraham
The Hebrew Word Echad
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php/topic,137.0.html
Jesus and Ehyeh
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?action=search2

Sunday, September 4, 2016

John 8:1-11 and the New World Translation

One, evidently mistaking the owner of this site as being with the JWs, demanded that I respond to the claim to the New World Translation and what Jesus wrote on the ground. Many sites have statements that appear to fault the NWT for "removing" parts of the Bible regarding John 7 and 8. Here are a few:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99LBdNmwOYE
http://avoidjw.org/2015/02/missing-verses/



My response:

I am not with the JWs, and rarely use the NWT, mostly due to the prejudice so many seem to have against it. At any rate, I consider it one of the more accurate translations, although I do agree that in some cases it appears to arbitraly word some verses in such a way so as to support their doctrine. Nevertheless, I don't know of any translation out there that does not do the same thing.

The site linked to mentions that John 8:1-11 has been removed. Of course, if those verses were not originally part of what John wrote, then in actuality, those translations that contain the verses actually join wth the adding of those verses to the Bible. I do notice that several Bible versions leave out those verses, put these verses in brackets, or otherwise note that the verse as probably being spurious; thus, this not just something involving the JWs NWT. The verses in question actually begin with John 7:53 through and including John 8:11. The NWT gives a footnote explaining that the Sinaitic, Vatican 1209, and evidently the Syriac Peshitta do not have these verses.

James Parkinson, in his "Corrected" Version, states:

|--97 Vss. 7:53-8:11 are not added by p66,75 B? LT copsa,pbo,ach2 sys,c geo. Twelve verses (about a woman taken in adultery and uncondemned by Jesus) are added here by 892 and a majority of lesser Gk. mss., ite vg. Vss. 8:3-11 alone are added by other lesser Gk. mss. after Lk 21:38, 24:53, Jo 7:36, or 21:25, sometimes marked as of doubtful authenticity. It is evident these verses were not written by the Apostle John or any other New Testament writer, whether their account is true or not.--|


A. T. Robertson, Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament, on John 7:53, states:

|--This [John 7:53] verse and through John 8:12 (the passage concerning the woman taken in adultery) is certainly not a genuine part of John's Gospel. The oldest and best MSS. (Aleph A B C L W) do not have it. It first appears in Codex Bezae. Some MSS. put it at the close of John's Gospel and some place it in Luke. It is probably a true story for it is like Jesus, but it does not belong to John's Gospel. The Canterbury Version on which we are commenting puts the passage in brackets. Westcott and Hort place it at the end of the Gospel. --|

Charlest John Elliott (Elliott's Commentary for English Readers), under John 7:53, states:

|--The section which follows (John 7:53 to John 8:11) is one of the most striking instances of an undoubted addition to the original text of the Gospel narratives. We shall find reason to believe that it belongs to the Apostolic age, and preserves to us the record of an incident in the life of our Lord, but that it has not come to us from the pen of St. John. (Comp. Excursus B: Some Variations in the Text of St. John’s Gospel.) While, therefore, it is printed in the text here, our text being a reprint of the Authorised version, without addition or alteration, the reader will observe that it is an insertion which breaks the order of the discourse, and in working out the line of thought will bear this in mind.--|

Adam Clarke states under John 7:53:

|--This verse and the first eleven verses of the following chapter are wanting in several MSS. Some of those which retain the paragraph mark it with obelisks, as a proof of spuriousness. Those which do retain it have it with such a variety of reading as is no where else found in the sacred writings. Professor Griesbach leaves the whole paragraph in the text with notes of doubtfulness. Most of the modern critics consider it as resting on no solid authority.--|

I could probably find more quotes from scholars, but I would like to point out that if the above quoted scholars are correct, then the NWT did not remove those verses, but they simply did not add those verses. This would mean that translations that contain those verses are based on adding those verses to the Bible.

I do not, however, believe that the translators of the NWT had any doctrinal bias for not including those verses.

-------
Addendum:

It is not for me to say that John did not write the verses being questioned; nor would I claim that John did write the verses. I do believe that more than likely John did write the verses in question, but probably not in the place where they are found in the Textus Receptus. I do not, at the present time, have my 1971 edition of the NWT with me, but it does usually add footnotes explaining differences in the manuscripts.

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Regarding "No Other Name", "I am" in John 8:58, OT Testifies of Jesus, and more...

From comments in response to the study: Jesus is Not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

ResLight
There is not other name given among men whereby you must be saved.
Yes, the only true Supreme Being has not given any other name except that of His Son as the means by which we may be saved.
Jesus said, before Abraham was, I am.
Jesus’ declaration of his existence before Abraham existed does not mean that we need to imagine and assume that Jesus is Jehovah.
For Related Studies
New page:
http://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/ehjeh-and-i-am.html
Old page:
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?page_id=5085
Jesus said, search ye the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life, but they are they that testify of me.
Yes, the only true God testified about Jesus through his prophets. — Deuteronomy 18:15,18Matthew 1:22,232:5,6,15,233:38:1712:17-21Acts 2:3126:22,23,27Romans 1:2Hebrews 1:11 Peter 1:10,11, and many more….
In Luke 24 Jesus opened the understanding of the two on the road to Emmas and his disciples later, all that is written in scriptures concerning himself. Revelation 22:20-21 The Lord Jesus Christ is the one we look for to come for us.
Yes, that is our Lord Jesus speaking in verse 20. Nevertheless, Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus, comes to judge through — by means of — His son. Nothing in this means that one needs to imagine and assume that Jesus is Jehovah. — Psalm 96:1398:9Isaiah 40:1062:11Luke 1:32,35John 5:22,23Acts 10:4217:31;Romans 2:161 Corinthians 4:5Revelation 22:12.
Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the Father.
All things were made by him and for him.
Not anything made that was made without him.
See:
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=933
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=524
Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.
“God” is Colossians 1 is not Jesus, and Jesus is distinguished from being “God”.
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth. Enough said.
God made all the dominions, visible and invisible, in heaven and on earth, by means of his firstborn creature.

Regarding Image of God, All Power, Alpha and Omega, and Other Matters

The following provides some quotes from one who commented on "Is Jesus the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?".
The Son of man, Son of God, Lord and Savior is the the every Image of God,
In the expression, “image of God”, “God” does not refer to Jesus.
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?s=%22image+of+God%22
the most High Elohim,( His father),
Yes, Jesus is the Son of the Most High; Jesus is not the Most High, the only true Supreme Being, the source of all. — Genesis 14:22Psalm 7:1783:1892:1Luke 1:32John 13:1617:1,31 Corinthians 8:6.
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=750
in whom is vested all power and authority in heaven and on earth
All power and authority is given to Jesus, except that of being the source of all power and authority. — 1 Corinthians 15:27Ephesians 1:3,17-23.
Jesus is NOT the Supreme Being, the source of all. — 1 Corinthians 8:6.
and at his revelation all of creation in Heaven and earth and under the earth and in the sea shall bow to Him who is seated on the throne of Elohim and to the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world!
Yes, all will bow down to Jehovah (the only true Supreme Being — Isaiah 61:1John 17:1,31 Corinthians 8:6) who is on the throne and they will also bow down to Jehovah’s anointed/appointed King. Nothing in the entire book of Revelation gives us any reason to imagine and assume that Jesus is the Supreme Being, the source of all.
Yes, the Lord Jesus is the Alpha and Omega The Lord God Almighty !
In the book of Revelation, only the God and Father of Jesus is the Lord Jehovah, He who is, was and is to come, who is sitting on the throne. Jesus is no where in Bible identified as being then Lord Jehovah.
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?page_id=5259
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was within God and the Word is God,
I could not verify that the Greek word often transliterated as “pros” (Strong’s #4313) ever means located “within” somebody of something; it most common use is that of being as approaching “to”, or as being alongside, “with”, someone or something. The KJV renders this preposition as “within” in Mark 14:4, but it is evident that it is not speaking of location “within” someone or some thing, but rather of location with respects to each other as spoken of (in other words, “among”). I have no reason to think that John meant for “pros” to mean “within” in John 1:1, but rather as being “with”, alongside of, the only true God as Jesus spoke of in John 17:1,3,5.
Since Jesus spoke of his having been with the only true God before then world of mankind had been made, the default conclusion should be that the Greek word often transliterated as THEOS as applied to “the Word” in John 1:1 does not mean the Supreme Being, then source of all, but that is being used with the general Hebraic meaning of “might, strength.” Jesus “was” indeed “mighty” before he became flesh, but he “was” not the Supreme Being.
The Light of the world shines in the darkness and the darkness comprehended not,
The Word was actively the “light of the world” only while he was in the world. He was not that light until after he became flesh. After sacrificing his flesh, and ascending to his God and Father, he is not actively that light, but that light still shines in the work as presented in the Bible, as well by means of the righteous works that are being done by the new creatures in Christ.
but as many who receive Him He gives them the power (Holy Spirit) to become the sons of God
No serious disagreement here.
The mystery of the Father , Son and Holy Spirit will be revealed from heaven on earth on the day of the Lord!
The mystery of the only true God, His Son, and the saints, will be revealed by means God’s Holy Spirit in the last day.
http://reslight.net/?p=585
http://life-rlbible.com/?p=152
The saints will rejoice with reverent fear and sing songs to the Lord and the Love of God will cast out that fear from them, but the ungodly shall be consumed with terror and shame( weeping and gnashing of teeth! Time is short
Weeping and gnashing teeth is spoken of in the Bible in connection with the Jews who rejected Jesus as well as others. At the same time, they are to be reserved for the blessings of the judgment day in the last day.
For some studies related to weeping and gnashing of teeth:
http://life-rlbible.com/?s=gnash
The blessing of all the families of the earth without hindrance from Satan will bring joy to peoples of all nations; those who obey the Good News in that day will live forever on the earth; those who, once having been enlightened, prove themselves to still be disobedient will suffer eternal destruction.

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Response to Bible Baptist Tract

Over the years, several have pointed me to a page that contains the text of a tract, evidently written by James L. Melton, for "Bible Baptist Publications". The tract is entitled "The Bible Vs. Jehovah's Witnesses".

Although I am not associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, the tract, if applied to the things I have written would actually misrepresent what I have written, even as it appears to do with the JWs. The author did not appear, however, to be too concerned about getting the facts correct, but zealously made many false statements as though fact. Some of these are not that important, but there some that are very misleading.

The tract begins with Charles Taze Russell, who, by the way, was never a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization. The tract claims that in 1879, Brother Russell founded a magazine called "The Herald of the Morning". This is false. The magazine with the title, "Herald of the Morning" was founded in 1874 by Nelson H. Barbour. The magazine Brother Russell founded in 1879 was "Zion's Watch Tower".

It is claimed that Brother Russell incorporated "Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society" in 1884; this also is incorrect. "Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society" was formed in 1881, and it was not "incorporated" as claimed. In 1884, Russell was the main founder of the legal corporation entitled, "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society".

I point these errors out to illustrate that the author is evidently not fully concerned with getting the facts correct.

I agree with the author that one of the reasons God has given us the Bible is that of DOCTRINE. Nevertheless, sound doctrine as presented in the Bible is often confused with the doctrine of man, which has been formulated by thinking beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6), and which doctrine has to be explained or  reasoned by applying a lot of assumptions that have to be added to, and read into, the Bible.Most who do this, however, do not seem to be aware that they are actually thinking beyond what is written; many often claim that they do so because it is the holy spirit that is leading them into the truth.

I believe that the reason that many have sent me the link to the site is evidently because I am in general agreement with JWs that the Bible does not teach the trinity dogma, and/or because I belive that Jesus, having sacrificed his body of flesh for our sins, was not raised from the dead as a human being but rather as a spirit being, and therefore, that Jesus' return is not in his former body, but that he returns as a spirit being. I am also in general agreement with the JWs that those who go into the second death are not physically tormented forever. In each of these areas, however, I may disagree with the details as the JWs may present them.

As for the scriptures presented in the tract, most, if not all, I have already examined before on my various websites; in such cases, I will not be going into too much detail in this response, but will simply be giving links to the applicable studies I have presented elsewhere.

Is There a Trinity?

Contrary to what is stated, the Bible no where presents any idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a triune God; such an idea has to imagined beyond what is written, assumptions formulated to support that dogma, and these assumptions have to be added to, and read into, the scriptures to make it appear that the scriptures support what has been imagined and assumed.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 - Contrary to what is stated, there is nothing at all in the verse that says that every human is a trinity. Paul was speaking of the spirit (Ephesians 4:4; Philippians 1:27), the soul (Acts 4:32; Philippians 1:27), and the body of the church (Romans 12:4,5; Ephesians 4:4) See my studies:
Is Man a Trinity?
The Spirit, Soul and Body of the Church
Spirit, Soul and Body

Genesis 1:26; 11:7 - It is claimed that "us" and "our" in these verses "obviously refer to the Holy Trinity." In reality, there is nothing at all in the words "us" and "our" in these verses that gives us any reason to imagine, assume, add to, and read into these verses that these words have anything to do with the alleged "Holy Trinity" which is never found anywhere in the Bible. If I say to my son, "Let us build our house according to our plans," I am not saying that my son is another person of myself.  See my related studies:
Let Us and Elohim
Who Is God Speaking To?
Let Us - God Speaks to His Son
"Let Us" and "One of Us"

Matthew 3 -  It is claimed that Matthew 3 we find all three members of the trinity. We do find that God is mentioned, not as being three persons, but as only one person. (Matthew 3:9-16) At Jesus' baptism we do find that Jesus is mentioned, but he is not said to be God or a person of God, and we find that the God and Father of Jesus speaks, and we also find that the Spirit of God (one person) is said to descend as a dove. All three are mentioned, but there is nothing that says that they are all three persons of God. We also find that John the Baptizer is mentioned.
See my related study:
Jesus, Spirit, Heavenly Voice - Trinity?

Matthew 28:19 - This scripture is quoted, evidently with the assumption that, as it reads in the common texts, that it is speaking of the imagined triune God. However, I do not believe that Jesus spoke the words as we find them in the extant Greek texts of this verse. According to the Shem-Tob manuscript, Matthew 28:19 simply says, "Go" followed by verse 19: "and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever". No mention is made of baptizing in anyone's name. Eusebius' earlier quotes of Matthew 28:19 does having Jesus telling his disciples to baptize in his name, but no mention of the Father or the Holy Spirit.  Nevertheless, even as it reads in the extant Greek manuscripts, there is nothing in the words attributed to Jesus that warrants adding to the scripture the idea of three persons all of whom are the one Supreme Being.
See my related studies:
The Baptismal Name
One Name

1 John 5:7 - It is claimed that this scripture tells of three that bear record in heaven, evidently with the thought that this is referring to the alleged triune God. Although I highly doubt that John wrote of the heavenly testimony as it appears in the Textus Receptus, even in the words of the Textus Receptus we find no mention of these three all being members of a triune God. Such a thought has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into those words.
See my related studies:
1 John 5:7 - Does This Speak of Three As One God?
1 John 5:7 - The Usage of "Hen"
Three That Bear Record

John 1:1-3,14; 1 John 1:1-3 - It is claimed that Jesus is the Word (Logos), to which I agree, although I am sure that Mr. Melton imagines that these scriptures are speaking of the triune God. In reality, neither scripture says anything about a triune God, or that the Supreme Being is more than one person. See my studies:
Jesus' Prehuman Glory
Is Jesus "God" Whom He was With?
The Logos Was Theos
That Which Was From the Beginning
The Logos of God
What Beginning?
John 1:1 and Trinitarian Assumptions


Three Gods and the Trinity - It is denied that trinity is three Gods. I do not claim that trinitarians believe in three Gods, but I will state that some of the things the trinitarians say, if followed to their logical conclusion, would lead one to believe such, and if applied scripturally would end up with more than one God, more than one Supreme Being. Nevcrtheless, regarding this, I have heard ministers who believe in the trinity refer to the trinity as three Gods in one God. Additionally, many Christians and others who do not believe in the trinity have indeed stated words to the effect that the trinitarian believes three Gods in one God, etc., but I have endeavored to discourage such. On the other hand, the fact some may mistakenly refer to the trinity as three Gods does not make the trinity dogma truth; it only means that those who say such are mistaken in what they said. Additionally, the trinitarian may often complain that a non-trinitarian is misrepresenting the trinity when actually, the non-trinitarian may be just following the logical conclusion of applying certain trinitarian ideas to certain verses. At any rate, the trinitarian dogma is not found anywhere in the Bible; it has to be imagined and assumed upon any scripture presented that is claimed to support the added-on trinity dogma.
See my study:
About Jesus and His God

Psalm 19:1 - It is claimed that, according to this verse, creation declares the Trinity doctrine. Actually, there is nothing at all in this verse about a triune God, or that creation declares such a God. The heavens do declare the glory of the God and Father of Jesus. -- Ephesians 1:3,17.

Romans 1:20
- The same is claimed for  this verse as with the last verse: that it is saying that creation declares the Trinity doctrine. In reality, there is nothing in the verse that offers any reason to imagine and assume that "God" here is speaking of a triune God. Indeed, Romans 1:1-8 consistently presents "God" as being only person, and "God" is consistently distinguished from Jesus, the Son of God. There is no scriptural reason for thinking that Paul did keep using the word "God" to speak of that same one person throughout Romans Chapter One, including Romans 1:20. This is in harmony with John 17:1,3, where Jesus says that his Father in the only true God, and also 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Alleged Trinities in Creation - We are presented with a lot of things in God's creation that is claimed to be proof of the trinity. In reality, none of the things presented offer any proof whatsoever for the trinity dogma. For instance, it is claimed that the "universe consists of three parts: Time, Space, and Matter." Does the trinity dogma claim that God is "three parts"? If so, this would mean that the Father is not wholly, or fully, "God", but rather, if applied as equal parts, it would mean that the Father is one-third of God; and so forth. Likewise, with all alleged creation proofs of the trinity presented; not one of them provide any proof of the trinity. Nor is the number "three" the only number that can be found in God's creation. God's Word, however, never testifies that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is more than one person; Jehovah is always depicted as being only one person, and Jehovah is always distinguished from being the one whom he sent forth.

2 Corinthians 12:2 - Evidently, it is thought that since Paul mentions the third heaven, it is being imagined this offers some illustration of the trinity. Peter mentions the three heavens as well as the three earths in 2 Peter 3:5-13. For this to present an illustration of what is claimed for the triune God, each of these would have equal to some whole, whatever that whole might be. Each of these heavens and earths do represent a part (not the whole) of God's plan for man, but none could be said to represent the whole of that plan. See my studies:
The Third Heaven and Paradise
Jehovah's Plan of the Ages

The Sun and Its Rays - The statement is made that "The sun has three kinds of rays: chemical rays, light rays, and heat rays. Chemical rays cannot be seen or felt, but they can be very powerful. When one receives a sunburn, it is from the sun's chemical rays. This is a type of God the Father. Light rays are sometimes visible to the human eye. This is a type of Jesus Christ." I do not know of any scripture that presents any of this as being a "type" of the Father and Jesus, but assuming this to be so, if one attempts to apply this to the triune God philosophy, it would not fit, since the trinity dogma claims that both the Father and the Son are wholly, fully God, thus not a part of God. This same principle hold true for all the alleged examples of trinities that are claimed to exist in God's creation. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in God's Word or in God's creation that presents any concept of a trinity as defined by the self-proclaimed "orthodoxy".

Understanding the Trinity - While even many trinitarians have presented comments that the trinity is not understandable, that is not the basis for not adding the triune God dogma to the Bible. Trinitarians often think that because the imagine and assume this, and imagine and assume that, which they then place over many scriptures, that one should simply accept what is being imagined and assumed as being fact. The real basis for not adding the triune God to the Bible is simply that such a concept is nowhere presented in the faith once delivered to the saints, and contrary to what trinitarians often claim, the faith as presented in the Bible is fully at harmony with itself without adding all that the trinitarian has to imagine and assume in order to make the scriptures appear to support the added-on concept.
See my studies:
The Real Reasons for Not Believing the Trintiy
Genesis 1:26,27 and Trinitarian Assumptions
John 1:1 and Trinitarian Assumptions

Jesus Christ is Deity - I will first state that I do not have any objection to the deity of Jesus, as it is presented in the Bible as related to the Hebraic usage of the forms of the Hebrew and Greek words that are translated as God or god. The basic Hebraic meaning of the words for God/god is that of might, strength, power. As such it is used not just of Jehovah and false gods, but also of men and angels, and of abstract strength, power, as have demonstrated from the Bible itself in my study:
The Hebraic Usage of the Titles for "God"

There is nothing at all revealed in the Bible, however, that presents Jesus as being the second member of the alleged trinity, or triune God.
Related to this, see my studies to:
The Deity of Christ

The Eternity of Jesus - It is alleged that "Jesus Christ stands co-existent in Eternity with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit." "In Eternity" to the trinitarian usually means "outside of time", "timeless", or having no beginning or end. In reality, there is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible that corresponds with such a meaning. Jesus, however, now that God has raised him from the dead, is eternal, since he will never die again. But, although, many translations render certain verses with bias that Jesus existed from all eternity past, if the verses are examined carefully, we find that none of them actually support what is being claimed.


Zechariah 12:10 -- See my study: The One Pierced

John 1:1 - Most trinitarians ignore any application the Hebraic Biblical usage of applying common might or power to the Word in John 1:1 and assume the Greek word THEOS as applied to the Word in John 1:1 is in the sense of the Supreme Being. If one were to apply this assumption to what is actually written, it would literally mean that John was speaking of two different Supreme Beings, one Supreme Being who is with the other Supreme Being in the beginning of the world of mankind. Of course, the trinitarians have come up with a many assumptions that they add to, and read into, John 1:1 so as to explain this in such a way as to make it appear that John was writing about two different persons of the same one the trinune God, which concept is never once presented any where in the Bible. In reality, Jesus and Paul both identify the Father as the only true God (as meaning Supreme Being), thus the default reasoning should be that THEOS applied to the Word in John 1:1 is not in the sense of Supreme Being. Therefore, applying the Hebraic usage to the Logos in John 1:1 as many translations do in many other verses, it would understood as "the Word was mighty".
For more details concerning this, see the links provided at the John 1:1 Resource Page


God willing, I will be adding more to this as I have time...













Sunday, January 31, 2016

The Trinity and The Deity of Christ (Response to Walter Martin)

In this area, I will be responding to statements made by Walter Martin as presented in his book, "The Kingdom of the Cults" (pages 82-92, 2003 edition) , mostly by providing links to other posts wherein I have discussed the points in more detail. Please note that I am not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, but many people constantly refer me to Walter Martin, and that is why I am making these responses.


Colossians 2:9 - Tes Theotetos  (page 82) -- Martin claims that one of the greatest doctrines of the Scriptures is that of the Godhead, and he gives Tes Theotetos (transliterated from the Greek in Colossians 2:9) the meaning of the "Triune Godhead",  In application to Colossians 2:9, this would mean that the Son dwells bodily in the Son. If "bodily" is thought to mean Christ's physical body of flesh, if one is consistent with such thinking, it would indeed lead to the conclusion that the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit were incarnated within Jesus' body of flesh. Martin on page 83, however, denies that "the Trinity was incarnate in Christ", although he seems to fail to see the contradiction.
See Links to Studies Related to Colossians 2:9

Genesis 1:26; Genesis 11:7; Isaiah 6:8  (page 82) - See:
Links to Studies Related to Genesis 11:7


Isaiah 43:10,11 (page 82) -- Martin ignores the Hebraic usage. See:
Links to Studies Related to Isaiah 43:11

Trinity in the Bible  (page 82, foornote) - Not only is the word trinity not in the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is never once in the entire Bible presented as being more than one person. Any such thought has to be imagined beyond what is stated, add to, and read into any scripture that is thought to support the triune God dogma. Indeed, the trinitarian has to create many assumptions beyond what is written, and then assume that the assumptions are fact, and thus presentt those assumptions as being fact, in order to see the trinune God concept in any scriptrue of the Bible. Since Jehovah is presented as being the God of the Messiah (Isaiah 61:1,2; Micah 5:4; Ephesians 1:3),  the default reasoning should not be to imagine, assume, add to, and read into the scriptures that Jehovah is more than one person, and then further imagine, assume, add to and read into the scriptures that Jesus is a person of his God, but rather the default reasoning should be that Jesus is not his God, Jehovah.

Martin's comparison with the name "Jehovah" with the word "trinity" is actually irrelevant, since the Hebrew form of the Holy Name is found throughout the extant Hebrew texts. "Jehovah" is not a separate "name" from the Hebrew form of the Holy Name; although different in form, it is the same name, just as Jesus, although different in form from the Hebrew forms, is still the same name. Otherwise, since the original pronunciation of the Son's name cannot be determined with a certainty, no one is saved except that one may have accidentally come up with the original pronunciation. It would definitely mean that every one who uses the English form "Jesus" would not be saved, as well as the many similar linguistic forms of that name found in other languages.

YHVH/JHVH - (page 82, footnote) - Martin states that "the very name Jehovah ... does not appear as such in the Bible, but is an interpolation of the Hebrew consonants YHWH or JHVH, any vowels added being arbitrary." I am assuming that Martin did not really mean that the Hebrew has the Latin consonants "Y", "H", "W", "H", etc., but rather that these consonants are transliterations of the four Hebrew consonants that make up God's Holy Name in the original Hebrew; Martin -- in this statement -- ignores that no word in the original Hebrew has any consonants, and that the Masoretes did supply consonants for all Hebrew words -- including God's Holy Name -- as found in the Masoretic Hebrew text. The idea, however, that they took vowels they supplied for the words often transliterated as ADONAI and ELOHIM to use to form what can be transliterated as "Jehovah", "Yehowah", etc., is highly doubtful. They never stated that they did such a thing; this idea was created several hundred years later.

For most of my studies related to the Holy Name, see:
God's Holy Name

Death - (page 83) - Although this strays from the topic, Martin claims that death "in the scriptures is 'separation' from the body as in the case of the first death (physical), and separation from God for eternity as in the second death (the lake of fire, Revelation 20). Death never means annihilatiom." In reality, this philosophy is nowhere presented in the Bible. One has to assume such a philosophy, and then read that philosophy into the scriptures. As I have shown in my studies, every scripture in the Bible is in harmony with the thought that the dead in sheol/hades know nothing, can do nothing, are silent, cannot praise Jehovah, etc. Indeed, one has to assume the heathen concepts of immortal soul (or spirit) that continues to be conscious after the death of the body, and then read such philosophy into the scriptures. Since this is off-topic, I will not go into any details here. See some of my related studies:
Resurrection Hope

Christians - page 83 - Martin states: "Christians do not believe that the Trinity was incarnate in Christ and that they were 'three in one' as such during Christ's ministry." As stated, I would agree with this; however, I do not with agree with the intent of what is stated. Biblical Christianity has no concept of a "Trinity" -- as defined by the self-proclaimed trinitarian orthodoxy -- at all. One could indeed say that there is a Biblical "three-fold unity" of purpose related the only true God, the son of the only true God, and the holy spirit of the only true God, but this does not mean that the Bible teaches that there are three persons in the only true God. Indeed, when the church is included in this unity, this untiy would be relaed many, many more than just the Father, His Son, and His Holy Spirit. -- John 17:11,21-23.

Nevertheless, it should be apparent from the context that Martin, like the JWs, uses the word "Christian" in a sectarian manner, for the self-appointed trinitarian orthodoxy claims that one who does not accept their added-on trinitarian dogma is not Christian, and not saved, thus creating a trinitarian cult that follows the teachings of men who have come up with the self-proclaimed "orthodox" trinitarian dogma. These teachings of men have indeed ostensibly replaced the simple Biblical truth regarding salvation, for it adds acceptance of the teachings of men as the only means of salvation. In reality, the faith once delivered to the saints never presents any concept that the only true Supreme Being is more than one person, and certainly never claims that one has to accept such philosophy in order to be saved. See my studies regarding the atonement:
The Ransom For All

********Below still needs to be edited - links may not work.

Matthew 3:16,17 - (page 83) - It is clear and undeniable that the evidence is that God as one personspoke, God's Son was baptized, and God's Holy Spirit of God descendcd. There is no evidence whatsoever that these three are all persons of God. See my study:
Jesus, Spirit, Heavenly Vocie - Trinity?

Matthew 28:19 - (page 83) Martin claims that Jesus spoke of a "three-fold name of God" when he commissioned his disciples to preach. First, the Shem-Tob Hebrew manuscript does not refer to any name at all in Matthew 28:19. Second, Eusebius' earlier references of Jesus' commission only mentions the name of the Son, not the name of the Father, or the name of the Holy Spirit. Third, in the extant Greek manuscripts, the word "name" is distributive to all three, thus, could be referring to three different names. Fourth, the word "name" is not speaking here of any appellation, but rather it is referring to either authority or character, reputation, that for which one stands. One may be baptized with the authority of all three, and one is certainly baptized into unity with what all three of these stand for. What we do not find in Matthew 28:19 in any text is the thought that the only true God is more than one person. See my studies:
The Baptismal Name
One Name

Luke 1:35 - (page 83) Martin claims that the "Trinity" appeared at the "Incarnation" of Jesus.

First, we note that there is nothing in the scriptures about "the Incarnation", that is, the idea that God Almighty took on flesh, and thus came to have "two natures" at once.

There is definitely nothing at all in any of the verses about a triune  God, or that God is more than one person. In Luke 1:35, God is depicted as being only one person (not three persons), and Jesus is depicted as being the son of that one person. The Most High of Luke 1:35 is shown to be only one person in Luke 1:32, and Jesus is depicted as being the son of the one person. Jehovah God of Isaiah 9:7 is depicted as being only one person in Luke 1:32, and that one person gives to Jesus the throne of David. The idea that the Trinity (God as three persons) is being spoken of here has to be imagined beyond what is stated, added to, and read into, what is stated.
See my study:
Luke 1:35 and the Trinity

John 14:16 -  (page 83) In John 14, we find nothing about God as being three persons; "God" in John 14:1 refers to only one person, and Jesus is not included as being that God. The context shows that by "God" in John 14:1 Jesus was referring to his Father. This agrees with 1 Corinthians 8:6. Thus, in John 14:16, the Father to whom Jesus prayed is the only true God of John 17:1,3. The idea that the Trinity (God as three persons) is being spoken of here has to be imagined beyond what is stated, added to, and read into, what is stated.


John 15:26 - (page 83) Again, we find nothing in the verse that in any way indicates that the only true God (John 17:1,3) is more than one person. The idea that the Trinity (God as three persons) is being spoken of here has to be imagined beyond what is stated, and what is imagined has to be added to, and read into, what is stated.

Philippians 2:7,8 - (page 83) Martin refers to this scripture, evidently with the thought that it supports the alleged "dual nature" of Jesus, that is, that Jesus is both fully the Supreme Being and human being at the same time. Of course, in reality, no scripture ever presents Jesus as being the Supreme Being at all, nor does any scripture claim that the Jesus was two beings at once. There is nothing in Philippians 2 to support that idea although many do think beyond what is written there so as assume that Paul was writing about such. Martin, in his zeal to "see" the trinity in this verse, fails to realize that Paul is using three words as near synonyms in describing Jesus while Jesus was in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), and contrasting that to the "form" or appearance of Jesus before he became flesh. Philippians 2:7 is not just speaking of Jesus as being a human being, but rather of his humiliated condition as a human being, in likeness of a man under condemnation of sin. There is nothing, however, in Philippians 2:7 that means that Jesus was only in subjection, or inferior to, his God and Father as human being. Some of my studies related to Philippians 2:7,8:


Matthew 28:18 - (page 83) Martin makes a statement, however, that "as a man, the Son was subject to the Father willingly; but upon his resurrection and in the radiance of His glory take again from when He veiled it (vv. 7-8), He showed forth His deity when He declared, 'All authority is surrendered to me in heaven and earth' (Matthew 28:18); proof positive of His intrinsic nature and unity of Substance." I am assuming that Martin is here claiming Matthew 28:18 as proof that Jesus has the substance of being Supreme in his being; in reality such an idea is definitely not at all stated, and has to added to, and read into, what Jesus stated. The Supreme Being never gave to Jesus the authority or power of "being" the Supreme Being, or having the glory that only belongs to the Supreme Being, as can be seen from 1 Corinthians 15:27. For my study related to Matthew 28:18, see:
Matthew 28:18 and All Power

Reason - (pages 83,84)  Martin makes some false claims concerning Russell and "reason". I am working a response to those claims on another site and will, God willing, post a link here later.

God willing, I will be adding more later...