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:
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.
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:
- Philippians 2:5-11 – Humility of Mind
- Philippians 2:5-11 — The Unipersonal God Exalted Jesus
- Philippians 2:6 – Did Paul Say Jesus Is God? (Video)
- Philippians 2:6,7 and the Greek Morphe
- Philippians 2:9,11; Isaiah 42:8 – Was the Holy Name Changed to “Jesus”?
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...
****************
