John10:30 demystified.

 ONE - John 10:30

“I and my Father are one” - John 10:30, KJV. 

Trinitarians want to believe that Jesus was implying that he and his Father together make up one God. But there isn’t even the slightest suggestion that he intended the word “God” to be understood as being included in this statement. Instead, context and NT Greek grammar show just the opposite. (Famed trinitarian John Calvin rejected this scripture as trinitarian evidence for just that reason in his book Commentary on the Gospel According to John.) 

If we insist on taking the statement literally, it would be much more likely (although still clearly impossible when the rest of John’s writings are examined) that he was saying, “I and my Father are the same person.”

There are numerous scriptures clearly showing that the Son is not the same person as the Father (although a very few figurative statements - such as “He who has seen me has seen the Father” - when taken literally could be wrongly interpreted in such a way). There are, in like manner, numerous scriptures clearly showing that the Son is not equally God with the Father.

For example: “My Father is greater than I” - John 14:28 (see the MINOR study, “Meizon vs. Kreitton”). And Jesus calls the Father “the only true God” (“who alone art truly God”! - NEB) - John 17:3. And Jesus’ Father is the God of Jesus - John 20:17 and Rev. 3:12. 1 Cor. 11:3 tells us that Jesus is head over the men of the Christian congregation (they are certainly not equal to him), and in a like manner, God is head over Jesus. Obviously they are not “one” in the same sense of being “equally God” as trinitarians insist. 

In fact, when Bible writers write that a number of persons are “one,” they consistently mean it in a figurative sense.

For example, Paul includes himself and Apollos in a “oneness”: “He that plants [Paul] and he that waters [Apollos] are one” - 1 Cor. 3:6, 8. Obviously Paul does not consider himself literally one person (or any other literal “one”) with other persons. However, he, as many other Bible writers do, considers himself as “one” with others in a figurative sense.

Yes, Bible writers consistently described groups of individuals as “one” figuratively in the sense of their being “united in will and purpose.” Here’s how one respected trinitarian reference book states it: 

“‘One’ also expresses the unity between Christ and the Father (Jn 10:30), the union between believers and the Godhead, and the unity which exists among Christians (Jn 17:21; Gal. 3:28). ‘One’ further expresses singleness of purpose” - p. 844, New Bible Dictionary, (2nd ed.), 1982, Tyndale House Publ.

However, since we are concerned with a scripture written by John, we need to be assured that John (and even more specifically that Jesus as quoted by John) uses this figurative sense of “one” for groups of individuals.

Therefore, let’s examine John 17:22. “The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as we are one.” - NASB. (Compare John 17:11. - A footnote for John 17:11 in the very trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 says: “the unity is to be like that between the Father and the Son.”)

Not only is it obvious that these Christians are not equally Christ with Jesus, nor equally God with the Father, nor are they all one person, but that they are all figuratively united in “will” and “purpose” with God. That is, they agree with and carry out the Father's will.

Notice that Jesus clearly defines his being “one” with his Father as being in the very same sense that he wants certain Christians to be “one”: “just as we are one” (NASB). There can be no doubt, then, that John 10:30 does not mean Jesus and the Father are equally God, but that, just as certain Christians were “one” in will and purpose so “the Father and I are one [in will and purpose].”

Although they have the same will and purpose as God, it is because they willingly and totally accept and conform to God’s will and purpose and take them as their own. God does not conform to their wills but they to his! This is exactly the same way that Christ is one in will with the Father (who alone is God) - Analyze John 6:38 (compare Luke 22:42 and Mark 14:36.) 

Bible Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer tells us “one” can mean 

“to be united most closely (in will, spirit), Jn x.30 [John 10:30]; xvii.11, 21-23 [John 17:11, 21-23]” - p. 186, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, tenth printing, August, 1984.

Commenting on John 10:30, J. H. Bernard, D.D. says in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John: 

“A unity of fellowship, of will, and of purpose between the Father and the Son is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel..., and it is tersely and powerfully expressed here; but to press the words so as to make them indicate identity of ousia [Greek for ‘substance,’ ‘essence’], is to introduce thoughts that were not present to the theologians of the first century."[1] 

Even the very trinitarian New Testament Greek scholar W. E. Vine when discussing the Greek word for “one” says: “(b) metaphorically [figuratively], union and concord, e.g., John 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22....” - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 809.

Trinitarian Professor William Barclay writing in his popular Daily Study Bible Series, The Gospel of John, Vol. 2, The Westminster Press, 1975, pp. 74, 75, 76 says: 

“Now we come to the supreme claim [of John 10:30]. ‘I and the Father are one,’ said Jesus. What did he mean? Is it absolute mystery, or can we understand at least a little of it? Are we driven to interpret it in terms of essence and hypostasis and all the rest of the metaphysical and philosophic notions about which the makers of creeds fought and argued? Has one to be a theologian and a philosopher to grasp even a fragment of the meaning of this tremendous statement?

“If we go to the Bible itself for the interpretation,” continues Barclay, “we find that it is in fact so simple that the simplest mind can grasp it. Let us turn to the seventeenth chapter of John’s Gospel, which tells of the prayer of Jesus for his followers before he went to his death: ‘Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one’ (John 17:11). Jesus conceived of the unity of Christian with Christian as the same as his unity with God.”

“Here is the essence of the matter”, says Barclay. “The bond of unity is love; the proof of love is obedience. Christians are one with each other when they are bound by love, and obey the words of Christ. Jesus is one with God, because as no other ever did, he obeyed and loved him. His unity with God is a unity of perfect love, issuing in perfect obedience.[2]

"When Jesus said: ‘I and the father are one,’ he was not moving in the world of philosophy and metaphysics and abstractions; he was moving in the world of personal relationships. No one can really understand what a phrase like ‘a unity of essence’ means; but any one can understand what a unity of heart means. Jesus’s unity with God came from the twin facts of perfect love and perfect obedience. He was one with God because he loved and obeyed him perfectly....”

Finally, we need to be aware that the word “one” at John 10:30 and 17:22 is the neuter form hen. The two other forms for “one” are mia, which is the feminine form, and heis, the masculine form. Those who insist that John 10:30 means “the Father and I are one God” are clearly wrong as shown by New Testament Greek grammar alone. “God” in New Testament Greek is always masculine and must take masculine forms of adjectives, pronouns, etc. in agreement (see Mark 12:29, 32; 1 Cor. 8:4; Eph. 4:4-6 in interlinear Bibles). 

Or, as Dr. Marshall puts it in one of his basic NT Greek grammar rules: 

“Adjectives must agree with the nouns they modify in number, gender,...and case”. - p. 25, Rule 7, New Testament Greek Primer, Alfred Marshall, Zondervan Publishing, 1978 printing. (Compare 1 Cor. 3:8 in interlinear Bible [esp. note footnote in The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English] with NIV; NAB; LB; and CBW.) 

Therefore, the use of the neuter “one” (hen) at John 10:30 shows “one God” could not have been intended by Jesus but instead shows “metaphorically, union and concord”! As we have seen in the study on “Wisdom” (BWF), we may  have gender irregularities when someone is described figuratively (“metaphorically”) such as “he is a Rock” or “Jesus is the Lamb,” but when he is being literally described we must have gender agreement.[3] 

If we insist on supplying an “understood” ‘God,’ it must be at a place which uses the masculine form of “one” (heis) in gender agreement (cf. Mark 10:18; Ro. 3:30). Trinitarian scholar Robert Young commented on this knowledge of the word “one” at John 10:30 in his Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary: 

“The particle en [hen] being of the neuter gender, can hardly signify ‘one being, i.e. one God,’ but rather ‘one in will, purpose, counsel...” - p. 62, Baker Book House, 1977.

The very trinitarian Bible study reference book, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, agrees with trinitarian Young (above) in its discussion of John 10:30.

Truly, then, there is absolutely no evidence for a “trinitarian” interpretation at John 10:30. In fact, the real meaning shows Jesus is not God!

It’s interesting that some trinitarian scholars apparently (inadvertently?) admit that Gal. 3:20 shows God to be one person. 

You should be aware, however, that some trinitarian Bibles translate Gal. 3:20 as “a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.” - NASB. The underlined words (“party” and “only”) are not in the original text, but certain trinitarians insist that something like “party” has to be understood in order for God to be three persons [a “party”] and not just one person. 

However, even some trinitarian translators don’t believe such a translation of Gal. 3:20 is correct. For example, the Roman Catholic New American Bible (1970) renders Gal. 3:20 as: 

“Now there can be no mediator when only one person is involved; and God is one [heis - masculine singular].” 

And the highly trinitarian Good News Bible (GNB) renders it: 

“a go-between is not needed when only one person is involved; and God is one.” - also TEV.

Even the extremely trinitarian The Amplified Bible, which often goes to incredible lengths in its attempt to produce trinitarian “proof” scriptures, renders Gal. 3:20 as: 

“there can be no mediator with just one person. Yet God is [only] one PERSON.”

And yet the trinity doctrine states that God is “one God in three persons”! Isn’t it odd that these trinitarian scholars admit that this scripture shows God to be one person?

NOTES

1. This hold true for the second century A.D. as well. For example, Tertullian (writing in Latin in the early 3rd century) tells us that John writes ‘We are one thing’ at Jn 10:30 - "'We are one thing' Unum, not 'one person' Unus. .... He accordingly says Unum, a neuter term [equivalent to hen in NT Greek], which does not imply singularity of number, but unity of essence, likeness, conjunction, affection on the Father's part, who loves the Son, and submission on the Son's, who obeys the Father's will." - ANF, 3:618, 'Against Praxeas.' Here we see Tertullian using "one" in "essence" (as did Origen, 3rd century A.D.) to mean both individuals having the same will or purpose. And that will is the Father's which the Son obeys perfectly. They are "ONE" then in "essence" (will) only because one of them is completely, perfectly subordinate to the will of the other! But over 100 years later trinitarians began insisting that the renowned Tertullian and Origen (credited by many trinitarians as being the founders of the modern trinity doctrine) had stated trinitarian truths by their uses of "substance/essence," etc. 

2. John then reinforces Paul’s teaching that the relationship of Christians to Jesus is the same as Jesus’ relationship to God: one of obedience! Just as Christians are obedient to their superior, Jesus, so Jesus is obedient to his superior, God (who is the Father, alone): “The head of every man [Christian, of course] is Christ, ... and the head of Christ is God [who is the Father alone]” - 1 Cor. 11:3. NIV. (“This is eternal life: to know thee [Father - 17:1] who alone art truly God” - Jn 17:3, NEB.)

3. Also see the use of the neuter form of “equal” (isos) describing an alleged attempt of Jesus to be “absolutely equal” to God (see MINOR study, “John 5:18”) and the neuter plural form of “equal” being used to describe Jesus’ refusal to be “equal” to God (PHIL study, “Ison: ‘Equal’”). In addition to the other evidence showing the actual meaning of the word isos in these verses, the fact that it is in the neuter form shows immediately that the intended meaning did not include the understanding that Jesus was or was attempting to be absolutely equal to God himself. The Jews were accusing Jesus of attempting to be equal to God in only some attribute (neuter) at John 5:18 - probably authority. Paul is also saying at Phil. 2:6 that Jesus did not attempt to seize certain attributes (neuter) that were equal to God’s.


Posted by Elijah Daniels

Isaiah9:6 demystified

 Isa. 9:6 "Mighty God, Eternal Father"

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
  
All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ.  Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is  the Mighty God and the Eternal Father."

But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses.  (2) The titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

First, there is the possibility that the words (or titles) found in the literal meaning of the name apply directly to the Messiah all right but in a subordinate sense.  In other words, Christ is "a mighty god" in the same sense that God's angels were called "gods" and the judges of Israel were called "gods" by God himself (also by Jesus - John 10:34, 35), and Moses was called "a god" by JEHOVAH himself.  This is the interpretation of Is. 9:6 by the WT Society at this time (1986).

Yes, men and angels were called gods (elohim - Hebrew; theos - Greek) in a proper, but subordinate, sense by Jehovah and his inspired Bible writers.  Although they were given this elevated title in a proper sense (not false gods), it was obviously with the clear understanding that it in no way implied a comparison with the Most High, Only True God.  (A bank employee calling his boss, the head of the bank, "the president" would certainly not imply an equality of position, power, etc. with "The President" [of the USA].)
   
The word "god" as understood by those who used that term simply meant a "mighty one" - see Young's Concordance.  In fact the word "Mighty" as found at Is. 9:6 (Gibbor in the original Hebrew) is also applied to the angels at Ps. 103:20 (see a modern concordance such as the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible).  It is interesting that the  ancient translation of the Old Testament that Jesus frequently quoted, the Septuagint Version, renders Is. 9:6: "and his [the Messiah's] name is called the Angel [aggeloV, messenger] of Great Counsel."   

The very early (ca. 160 A.D.) Christian Justin Martyr quoted Is. 9:6 also as "The Angel of mighty counsel" - "Dialogue With Trypho," ch. LXXVI.

So, just as "Lord" was applied to anyone in authority: angels, masters over servants, husbands, etc., so, too, could "god" be applied to anyone (good or bad) who was considered a "mighty person."  Of course only one person could be called the "Most High God," or the "Only True God," or the "Almighty God"!  [See the sidebar: "God and gods"]

In the same way, "Eternal Father" could mean that the Messiah is one who has been given eternal life and through him God has brought eternal life to many others.  (We might make the comparison that the Heavenly Father has brought men to life in this world through their earthly fathers.)  This would be intended in a clearly subordinate sense and not to take anything away from the ultimate honor, glory, worship, etc. due the Most High God and Father in heaven - JEHOVAH.

At any rate, even trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son.  They do not say the Son is the Father.  They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally "God"!

Therefore, since we obviously cannot take "Eternal Father" in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father,   we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. `Mighty God') in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.

In addition to the distinct possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as "God/god" as explained by Bible language scholars, we can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.

Instead of "Mighty God," Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as "a divine hero;" Byington has "Divine Champion;" The New English Bible has "In Battle Godlike;" The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it "God-Hero;" and the REB says "Mighty Hero."  Even that most-respected of Biblical Hebrew language experts, Gesenius, translated it "mighty hero" - p. 45, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us: 


"In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his `splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called `god' as a title of honor [cf.  Isa 9:6]."  (Bracketed information included in original footnote.  Emphasis is mine)
     
In addition, Rotherham has rendered "Eternal Father" as "father of progress," and the New English Bible translates it: "father of a wide realm."

The above-mentioned Bible translations by trinitarian scholars which apply the words in the name at Is. 9:6 in a subordinate sense directly to Jesus clearly show that they do not believe this scripture implies an equality with JEHOVAH the Father.

But, some may ask, if ‘a mighty god’ were intended in this name, why is “God” given a capital ‘G’ in most translations of this name?

The answer is that in English translations of names we often find the major words within a name (or title) are capitalized. This is similar to the way book titles, names of buildings, ships, etc. are written in English. ‘The Lord of the Rings,’ ‘The World Trade Center,’ ‘The Empire State Building,’ ‘Allure of the Seas’ (cruise ship), etc., are modern examples. 

........................
  
And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, JEHOVAH God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today.  The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.


For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.
  
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King."  Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King."  Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" -  p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.  And an online meaning is given as “My God is the King.” - http://www.kveller.com/jewish_names/display.php?n=Elimelech&k=840  
And, “God is my King.” - http://www.jhom.com/calendar/sivan/symbolism.htm . 


I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.” 

  Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference!  - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name 'Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e., `[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.

This is why another name the Messiah is to be called by at Jer. 23:6 is rendered, `The LORD [YHWH] is Our Righteousness' in the following Bibles: RSV; NRSV; NEB; NJB;  JPS (Margolis, ed.); Tanakh; Byington; AT; and  ASV (footnote).  Of course other translations render it more literally by calling the Messiah "The LORD [YHWH] Our Righteousness" to help support a `Jesus is God' doctrine. Some of these (such as the NASB) actually render the very same name at Jer. 33:16 as "The LORD [or Jehovah] is Our Righteousness"! - [bracketed information is mine].

(Unfortunately for "Jesus is JEHOVAH" advocates, the very same name given to the Messiah at Jer. 23:16 is given to a city at Jer. 33:16.) 


But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.


Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.” 

And John Gill wrote: 

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’” 

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as: 

"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.


Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says: 


"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."
  
Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."
    
And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it: 

[a]"The Mighty God is planning grace; 
[b] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."
  
This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism.  Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a  parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means  [a]"quick to the plunder;   [b] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]"For unto us a child is born;  [b] unto us a son is given."  It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is JEHOVAH God.



Posted by Elijah Daniels 

"The first and the last" demystified.

 

First and Last" 

Another interesting example of the "title confusion trick" frequently used by anti-Watchtower trinitarians is the use of "First and Last" at Is. 44:6 and Rev. 1:17.

(Actually you might prefer to call this a "description-confusion trick" since JEHOVAH calls himself Protos kai ego meta tauta - "First and I [am] hereafter" - Septuagint, Is. 44:6; whereas Jesus calls himself ho protos kai ho eskatos - "The First and the last" - somewhat similar descriptions but much different wording or title. (Is. 48:12 is sometimes used , but it says in the Septuagint that he is: protos, kai ego eimi eis ton aiona - "first, and I am into the ages.")

Is. 44:6 - "Thus saith JEHOVAH, ... I am the first and I am the last; and besides me there is no God .... (:8) Is there a God besides me? ... I know not any." - ASV.

Rev. 1:17 - "... And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, (:18) and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." - ASV.

The trinitarian "proof" goes like this: "since only one can be first (and last), and since JEHOVAH is `first' (and `last') and Jesus is also `first' (and `last'), then they must both be the same one!" Therefore, they say, Jesus must be JEHOVAH!

The answer is, of course, that there can be many who are "first and last." We must discover, from context, in what sense they are "first and last."

For example, in the Biblical understanding of the meaning of the term "first and last" (or "only"), Adam was "the first and last" human created from the dust of the earth. But calling him "the first and the last" would certainly not mean he is JEHOVAH, and it does not mean he is Jesus (although any devious Bible student could find such "evidence" at 1 Cor. 15:45)!

We could certainly call Jesus "The first and the last" because he was the first and last (only) direct creation by JEHOVAH himself. The rest of creation from JEHOVAH came through Jesus. But, instead of speculating on the many ways Jesus could be considered the "first and the last" (only), we need to examine the use of "first and last" in context to discover in what sense it probably was intended originally!

Examining Is. 44:6, 8, we see that "first and last" refers to JEHOVAH being the only person who is the Most High God: "I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God ... I know not any." - compare Is. 43:10; 2 Sam. 7:22; Deut. 4:39.

Now if we examine Rev. 1:17, 18, we can see in what sense "the first and last" (only) is intended there. Context shows that it is not (as it could have been) in the sense of the only direct creation by the Father, JEHOVAH, and it is certainly not in the sense of the only true God (John 17:1, 3), but it clearly refers to the resurrection (the dying and then living again) of Jesus!

Notice that the entire context refers to death and living again: Rev. 1:17: "I am the first and the last, (:18) and the living one; and I was [or `became'] dead, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death ..." - compare Rev. 2:8 (the only other place Jesus calls himself "the first and the last").

JEHOVAH, the Father, uses the expression at Rev. 22:13 - and makes no reference to dying and living again, apparently intending it as he did at Is. 44:6 - "I am the only God."
So in what sense is Jesus the first and last (only) resurrected person? Just as he was the first and last (only) of JEHOVAH'S direct creations (and all other things were created through Jesus), so Jesus was also the first and last (only one) of those resurrected to eternal life who was resurrected directly by the Father (JEHOVAH) Himself (and all others are to be resurrected through Jesus who now has "the keys of death") - see John 6:39, 40; Acts 3:26; Acts 13:30, 33, 38.

ITimothy 3:16 demystified.

  1 Tim. 3:16 God "manifest in the flesh" KJV

As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God “manifest in the flesh.” 


Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “God” as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: “he” (NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “he who” (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), “who,” or “which.” Even the equally old Douay version has “which was manifested in the flesh.” All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word ὃς (“who”) here instead of θεὸς (“God”).Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16? 


     Noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:
  
“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts .....” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse: 

“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or OC, “who” - masc.] or ὅ [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641. 

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other. 

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse! 

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes: “The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott and Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992. 

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture: 

“He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.
And even hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc. 

Even if we were to insist that those later manuscripts that used theos were, somehow, correct, we would have to recognize that it is the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos which we find. This is rarely, if ever, the form used for the only true God (when the known exceptions are taken into account - see MARTIN study paper). Instead, it either points to the probability that it is a corrupted OC (which of course would not have the article in the first place), or, less probable, but still possible, that Christ is being called “a god” - see the BOWGOD and DEF studies.
Posted by Elijah Daniels

Why an increasing number no longer trust "the science"

 

His fullness demystified.

 

"Fulness of Deity" - Col. 2:9 


Col. 2:9 - "For in him [Jesus] the whole fulness [Gr. pleroma] of deity [theotes] dwells[1] bodily" - RSV. The word theotes appears only this once in the entire New Testament [NT] (and never in the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament [OT]). It has been rendered in various trinitarian translations as follows: "Godhead" - KJV, ASV, NEB, REB, MLB; "deity" - RSV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, NAB, CBW, Mo, By; "divinity" - JB, NJB. It should be remembered also that "Godhead" as found in the older English Bibles (such as KJV) had a different meaning than it has come to have in modern English. "In older English ['Godhead'] was a synonym for divinity"[2] - p. 221, Vol. 2, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, 1988 printing; and p. 362, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell and Scott, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.

Theotes simply does not literally mean "godhead," and the use of "godhead" by the KJV translators was not intended as some would understand it today.[3]Actually, the heavenly Father, alone, is the closest thing to a literal "Godhead" to be found anywhere in the inspired Scriptures - see 1 Cor. 11:3.

Col. 2:9 is also rendered by noted trinitarian scholars with these translations of theotes: "The full content of divine nature" - TEV and GNB (also see Barclay); "God's whole being" - Beck (NT); "God's nature" - AT; "Yet it is in [Christ] that God gives a full and complete expression of himself (within the physical limits that he set himself in Christ)." - Phillips; "In him resides all the fulfillment of the divine" - Lattimore.
* * * * *
The trinitarian argument that Col. 2:9 proves that Jesus is God overlooks the common understanding of "fulness of ..." and "filled with ..." by those who used those common phrases in New Testament times. For example, the person who became "filled with Holy Spirit" (Eph. 5:18) was greatly influenced by that spirit, but he certainly did not become the Holy Spirit.

And having "the fulness" of someone or something could similarly mean being greatly influenced by that person or thing. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says:

"Just as a person can be full of pain, joy, love, and virtue, he can also be said to be filled with God ..., i.e. possessed and inspired by God." - Vol. 1, p. 734.[4]
Surely we wouldn't expect anyone who is "filled with" God or who receives the "fulness of" God to actually be God! Nor would we expect anyone who has the "fulness of" Christ to actually be Christ! In fact it clearly shows that he is NOT the person with whom he is "filled"!

So, when we read Eph. 1:22, 23 - "the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all" - we do not think that all real Christians are actually Christ. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1977) tells us in a footnote for this scripture:

"the Church, as the fulness of Christ, is the complement of his mystic [figurative] person; he is the head, the Church is his body."The noted trinitarian NT Greek scholar, W. E. Vine, explains:

"Fill, Fill Up": "... (a) of the members of the Church, the Body of Christ, as filled by Him", Eph. 1:23 (`all things in all the members'); ... in 3:19, of their being filled ... `with' all the fulness of God; of their being 'made full' in Him, Col. 2:10." - p. 426, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.Yes, at Eph. 3:19 we actually see Paul expressing the thought "that you [Ephesian Christians] may be filled with all the fulness of God" - RSV. And at Eph. 4:13 we find - "until we all attain ... to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" - RSV
.
Even the trinitarian reference work, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, commenting about the word "fullness" at Col. 2:9 ("In his [Jesus'] body lives the fullness of divinity" - JB), tells us:

"this fullness which is described in Col. 1:15-18 is entirely related to Christ's cross (v. 20), death (v. 22), and resurrection (v. 18). For this reason believers also have this fullness in him (2:10)." - Vol. 1, p. 740, Zondervan, 1986. - See AT, CBW, NAB (especially 1991 ed.).

"Outside the NT the word occurs in Ignatius in a sense which is clearly influenced by the NT, and apparently in the meaning of the Divine fulness, as going forth and blessing and residing ["dwelling"] in the Church [the congregation]" - p. 1, Vol. 4, A Dictionary of the Bible, James Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ., 1988.

For exactly the same reasons that we don't allow such figurative language to persuade us that all true Christians actually are (or may become) God or Christ, we should not let it persuade us that Christ is actually God!The Bible tells us how essential to eternal life it is to know God and Jesus (John 17:3 and 2 Thess. 1:8, 9). Therefore, if one "knows" Jesus as God and "knows" God as three (or two) persons and such "knowledge" turns out to be false, then he is certainly not on the road to eternal life!

And as we saw above, if Christians can be "filled with" God and receive the "fulness of" God, we know by this very wording that they are not God! And we know that those Christians who had the "fulness of" Christ could not actually be Christ! The very wording itself shows that someone else is "filling" (or influencing) the person who is being "filled" (influenced). In fact it clearly shows that he CANNOT be the person (or thing) with whom he is "filled"!

Therefore, those Christians who are "filled with" or have the "fulness" of God are not God! Those Christians who are "filled with" or have the "fulness" of Christ are not Christ! Those men and women who are "filled with" or have the "fulness" of the Holy Spirit are not the Holy Spirit!! And even if we interpret Col. 2:9 as meaning that Christ has the fullness of "Godhood" in him, it still cannot mean Christ is God!!
............................................

Notes1. What about things and persons "dwelling" in us? Does this mean we are those things or persons? Of course not! Compare "dwell" at Ro. 7:20 (sin `dwells' in people); 8:9,11 (holy spirit `dwells' in us); 1 Cor. 3:16 (holy spirit "dwelling" in Christians); Eph. 3:17 (Christ "dwells" in our hearts); 2 Tim. 1:5 (faith "dwelt" in her); 2 Pet. 3:13 (righteousness "dwells"). Actually, the word "dwell" shows we cannot be those things or persons who "dwell" in us!

It is similar to the term "image of ...." If someone is the image of something or someone else, then he cannot be that person or thing. For example, men being the image of God (Gen. 1:26; 1 Cor. 11:7; 2 Cor. 3:18) proves, in itself, that none of them actually is God! No one and no thing actually are their own images! Therefore, when scripture tells us that the resurrected, heaven-dwelling Jesus Christ is "the image of God," it is certain that he is not God! - 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15. [Also "reflection" or "refulgence" in Heb. 1:3, RSV, NRSV, NJB, AT, MLB, GNB, CBW, NAB (`70), NAB (`91).]


2. "Divinity" is a word with various meanings and levels of meanings: "divinity ... 1. a being divine 2. a god 3. theology - the Divinity: God." - Webster's New World Dictionary, 1973.3. "Godhead" has various meanings in modern English besides that of "the nature of God esp. when regarded as triune". In Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary (Unabridged) the #1 definition is "1: the quality or state of being divine" - 1962 ed. And the derivation of the word "godhead" shows that it originally meant "godhood" not "godhead": "fr[om] god + -hed, -hede - hood (akin to ME -hod, -had - hood)" - Webster's 3rd New Int.

"divine ... 1a: of or relating to God: proceeding from God ... b: of or relating to a god: having the nature of a god .... 2a: devoted or addressed to God: religious, holy, sacred ... 3a: Supremely good or admirable ... b: having a sublime or inspired character" - Webst. 3rd New Int.


4. Even in modern English idiom we say things like: "He is full of the Devil." But we don't intend to say he literally is the Devil or even equal to the Devil in the fullest sense. We merely mean that he may, in some respects, show certain "devil-like" or "devil-influenced" qualities! (Cf. Jn 6:70 and Mark 8:33 footnotes in NIVSB.)

Promising,very promising?

 

Even empty space can be overthought?

 

JEHOVAH'S Productivity.

 

1Corinthians8:6 demystified.

  1 Cor. 8:6: `Unitized Title' Vs. `Title with Identifiers'

8:6 - “yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from [ex, ‘out of’] whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through [di/dia]whom all things came and through [di/dia] whom we live.” - NIV.

……………………………….......

　

One type of the typical trinitarian “title confusion” trick involves the interpretation of a single title with its appositive (or identifiers) as being, instead, a single compound (or multi-worded ‘unitized’) title.
　 
For example, if a gangster named Percival Grabonski had the nickname of “Mailman Mike,” we would consider that as an exclusive single unitized title of two words.　 We might even say, “There is only one 'Mailman Mike'; he’s unique.”　　 The whole thing (both words: “Mailman” and “Mike”) taken together as a multi-worded, but ‘unitized,’ whole, then, is the complete title.
　
However, if we knew a young man named Mike who delivered our mail every morning, we might tell someone, “This town has only one mailman, Mike.”

　 

In this case the title is “mailman” alone, and “Mike” is an appositive or identifier added to that single title to further identify which “mailman.”　 

　

Since it is not an exact exclusive title, it could even be phrased differently:　 “Mike is our only mailman;” “only one letter carrier, Mike;” “only one mail deliverer, Mike;” etc.　 When the writer (or speaker) intends it in this ‘title with appositive’ manner, the phrase may be understood as actually saying: “only one mailman, [and that is] Mike.”

　

On the other hand, the gangster’s unitized title will not be phrased differently.　 He wouldn’t be called “Mailman Mike” one time and “Mike the Letter Carrier” or “Mike the Postal Person” the next time.　 His exclusive, distinguishing unitized title is “Mailman Mike” and that won’t change (even though he may pick up additional, different titles, e.g. “Percy the Purse-snatcher”).

　

In one case, then (e.g., “mailman, Mike”), we have a single-word title (e.g., “mailman”) followed by a word or words (sometimes even set off by commas in English) which identify that individual.　 In the other case (e.g., “Mailman Mike”) we have a full title composed of two or more words which must be taken together as a complete unit (“unitized”).　 Don't forget that in the original manuscripts there was no punctuation or Capitalization. These have been added by modern translators as they see fit.


　
An example of a single title followed by identifiers (appositives) is found at Matt. 23:10, “you have one master, the Christ.” - RSV.　　 It is clear that Jesus is not calling someone “Master-The-Christ” as a unitized title, but, instead, is calling that person by the single-word title　“master” (or “teacher” or “leader” in some translations) and further identifying that person as “the Christ”!　　 In other words the phrase may be understood as actually saying: “one master, and that is the Christ.”

　

Other trinitarian translations make it very clear what the literal “One is your leader, the Christ” (The Interlinear Bible) at Matt. 23:10 actually means:

　

　　　　　　　　　 “for one is your Leader, that is, Christ.” - NASB.


　　　　　　　　　 “for you have only one Leader, and that is Christ.” - CBW.


　　　　　　　　　 “you have only one Teacher, and that is Christ.” - Beck.


　　　　　　　　　 “your one and only leader is the Messiah.” - GNB and TEV.


　　　　　　　　　 “There is only one Leader and He is Christ.” - NLV.

　

Another significant example (although not a single-word title in this case, the principle is the same) may be seen at Eph. 1:17, “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom” - RSV.　

　

Not only does this scripture show that the Father is ”the God of” the  heavenly glorified Jesus, but it clearly illustrates the usage by Paul of a title (“the God of our Lord Jesus Christ”) followed by an  identifier (“the Father of Glory”).

　
For another example of the single-word title followed by identifiers as might be found in the Bible let’s examine the uses of “King/king.”　 Since no capitalization was used by the inspired Bible writers, today’s translators capitalize for their English-speaking readers in the way they think best to bring out the meaning they think was originally intended.  So the word “king” in the original language may be translated as either “King” or “king” at the translator’s discretion.
　
David is king: 

“...and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah.” - 2 Sam. 2:4, KJV.
　
Christ is king:

“For Christ will be King until he has defeated all his enemies .... For the rule and authority over all things has been given to Christ by his Father; except, of course, Christ does not rule over the Father himself, who gave him this power to rule.” - 1 Cor. 15:25,27, Living Bible.

　
Jehovah God is King: 

“But the Lord [Jehovah] your God was already your King, for he has always been your King.” - 1 Sam. 12:12, Living Bible.

　
“And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb [Jesus], saying ‘Great and wonderful are thy deeds, O Lord God [Jehovah] the Almighty.  Just and true are thy ways, O King of the ages...’” - Rev. 15:3, RSV.

　
So, although there are many kings, to Christians there is only one ultimate, most high, supreme King, God himself, Jehovah, the Father.　 Of course there is also only one king directly and immediately over all Christians (with no intermediary): Jesus.  And there have been various kings on earth over God’s people in the past. 


Therefore, since there are many who may be called “king” at various levels, if we wanted to refer to one of them, we should most often use an identifier (appositive) with the word “king.”　 For example:

　
(1) “We Israelites have only one king, David.”
　 
The writer would clearly be understood as using the title “king” and further identifying that individual with an appositive.　 We know it cannot be a single unitized title (“King David”) because the context would make it a ridiculous, senseless statement.　 Obviously the Israelites at that time had only one “King David”!　 It would be ridiculous to think that anyone might have believed that they had several “King Davids”!　 The only other possible interpretation here is that “king” is the title alone which is followed by an identifier (appositive) and, therefore, must mean “we have only one [earthly] king, (and that is) David.”

　

　(2) “We Christian ‘Israelites’ have only one king, Christ.”
　 
The reader would know by this identifier (“Christ”) that the “Israelite” writer was referring to the direct and immediate king over all Christians on earth.　 And, obviously, it should not be considered as a single unitized two-word title (“King Christ”) since the context would make that ludicrous: Of course there is only one “King Christ” - no one has ever suggested that there are two (or more) “King Christs” (or a  multiple-person “King Christ”)!　 Again the meaning has to be: “Christians have only one immediate, heavenly king, (and that is) Christ.”

　
(3) “We Israelites have only one King, the Father.”
　 
The reader would know by this identifier (“the Father”) that the Israelite writer was referring to their heavenly ultimate, Most High King.　 Again, no one would have considered it as a unitized three-word title (‘King the Father’): Everyone knew that “the Father” was a single Person - no one even considered two or more “King the Fathers”!　 It obviously would, again, be a single title (“King”) followed by an identifier (appositive): “we have only one Most High King, (and that is) the Father.”
　
And so it is with “God;” “Father;” and “God, the Father.”　 If the trinity were really true, we should see hundreds of examples of “God” with its identifiers for each of the members of the “Godhead”!　　　　 

Since there are hundreds of uses of “God the Father” (“God our Father,” etc.), there should be hundreds of uses of “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit” (if the trinity were actually true).　 And “God” used alone, without identifiers, if ever used at all, must always mean all three together (not merely any one or two of them).

　
But this is not so.　 There are hundreds of uses of “God, the Father” because the only person who is God is the Father (John 17:1, 3).　 There are no uses of “God, the Son” in the entire Bible because the Father is the only person who is God!　 There are no uses of “God, the Holy Spirit” in the entire Bible because the Father is the only person who is God!

　
Some of the hundreds of uses of “God, the Father” and its equivalents:

Jn 8:41, 42; Ro. 1:7; 15:6; 1 Cor. 1:3; 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:2, 3; 11:31; Gal. 1:3, 4; Eph. 1:2, 3; 4:6; 5:20; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 2:11; 4:20; Col. 1:2, 3; 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:1, 3; 3:11, 13; 2 Thess. 1:1,2; 2:16; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Phm :3; 1 Pet. 1:2, 3; 2 Pet. 1:17; 2 Jn :3; Jude :1; Rev. 1:6 (RSV).　 
Notice how many of these are greetings or blessings wherein the writer wishes to praise those most worthy of praise in his religion.　 How is it, then, that the Father is so often glorified as God, but we never see this honor clearly stated for the Son or the Holy Spirit?　 Does this really make sense if all three are truly and equally God as trinitarians insist?

　
Okay, finally, here is the point:

　

1 Cor. 8:5 tells us that indeed there are many gods and many lords (NASB).

　 
However, in verse 6 it tells us there is only one Most High God.　 “...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from [ex, literally ‘out of’]　whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through [dia] whom all things came and through whom we live.” - 1 Cor. 8:6, NIV - Cf. RSV and NASB.

　
There is no doubt (and never has been), even by trinitarians, that “God the Father” is only one single person.  So if we interpret “God the Father” as a unitized title (as some trinitarians feel they must at 1 Cor. 8:6), we end up in 1 Cor. 8:6 with an absurd, meaningless truism (like, “Elizabeth, John’s mother, was female” or “he died when he ceased to live”).
　　 
Of course there is only one “God-the-Father”!　 Who could have possibly thought there were two “God-the-Father”s?　 What a senseless, useless statement this is if　we interpret 'God, the Father'　as a ‘unitized title’ here!


And exactly in the same way, if we take the last part of this scripture (“Lord-Jesus-Christ”) as a single unitized title, we again have an absurd, senseless statement: “there is but one Lord-Jesus-Christ.”　 Since there couldn’t possibly be any doubt by anyone that this single person with the singular personal name (whom everyone knew was a single person) was anything but one person, it would have been ridiculous for Paul to make such a statement.　 (Unless, perhaps, there had been some significant conclusion such as: “in like manner there is only one baptism and one faith”.)

　

However, if we interpret it in the way that Paul obviously intended it, the two parallel descriptions are single-worded titles (“God” and “Lord”) followed by identifying appositives (“the Father” and “Jesus Christ”).　 In this way, and only in this way, do we have a sensible and significant  statement:　 “Although there are many gods, we Christians have only one God, (who is) the Father, and, in like manner, although there are many lords, we have only one Lord,　(who is) Jesus Christ.”　 

One’s “lord” is his master or head - see 1 Cor. 11:3.　 Sarah’s immediate lord or head, for example, was her husband Abraham, but her God was the Father, Jehovah, who, of course, could also be called her “lord” in the ultimate sense. (Jesus called our one Lord, may refer to his being the one King (kings were addressed as “Lord”) directly over all Christians, or it could refer to his being master (addressed as “Lord”) over his slaves, Christians, who he alone bought with his own blood).

　
Not only would the trinitarian (unitized title) interpretation be a nonsensical statement, but it would be slighting to Jesus (if he were equally God) and terribly slighting to the Holy Spirit (if “he” were equally God).　 After all, the term “God” is only used here for the Father.　 The other two (who trinitarians say are “equally God”) are either given a lesser title (“Lord”) or are not even mentioned at all!

　
And only the understanding that the phrase “one God, the Father” is speaking of a single title　 (“God”) followed by an identifying appositive (“Father”) makes sense with the introduction to it presented in 1 Cor. 8:5:　 “There are many gods.”　 To follow this with “yet there is to us only one God-the-Father” (unitized) would not be a contrast to that initial statement at all!　 It certainly would not preclude other gods “to us”!　 

　

But “only one God, (and that is) the Father” does provide the required contrast to the introductory “there are many gods... but to us....”

It is obvious, then, that the intended meaning by Paul must be that the only god (in the Most High sense: ‘God’ in modern English) for Christians (as for Jews) is the Father alone!  This is clearly brought out in the very trinitarian Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version, World Bible Translation Center, 1992:　 “But for us there is only one God.  He is our Father.” And the equally trinitarian Holy Bible New Life Version [NLV], Victor Books, 1993, renders it, “But we know there is only one God. He is the Father.”

　

If we also analyze Eph. 4:4-6 with a critical eye, we find God (as usual) is the Father only　 (in spite of the fact that Paul is listing nearly everything that a Christian is to hold dear):　 “There is one body [the ‘Church’] and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord [Jesus], one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all.” - RSV.　 If Paul is going to list all the most important stuff, where are “God, the Holy Spirit” and “God, the Son”?　 Or just “God” which we could at least “interpret” as all of them?

　 
Why always “God, the Father” or one person who is “God and Father”?  BECAUSE GOD IS　 THE FATHER ALONE!!　　 In fact, as noted above, the trinitarian NLV actually translates Eph. 4:6: “There is one God.　 He is the Father of us all.”
“In the latest edition (BDAG) [‘a major standard for research on the Greek of the New Testament’], section 6 under πατήρ, which discusses God as Father, gives the following definition: ‘the supreme deity, who is responsible for the origin and care of all that exists…’” [underlining added, boldface is in BDAG] - 

http://www.frame-poythress.org/how-have-inclusiveness-and-tolerance-affected-the-bauer-danker-greek-lexicon-of-the-new-testament-bdag/ 


　
　

Posted by Elijah Daniels

Puppets of Satan?

 

Darwinism is atheism's creation myth? Pros and Cons.

 

Isaiah 48:16 demystified.

  Isa. 48:16

Another example of "speaker confusion" I have seen attempted by certain anti-Watchtower trinitarians is found at Is. 48:16 in the KJ

Is. 48:16 - Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD [Jehovah], and his spirit, hath sent me. - KJ

Commenting on this scripture some trinitarians will say: "The speaker of Is. 48:16 is Jehovah as identified by context in the first part of the verse and as shown by his identification in verse 17 where he continues to speak. But notice that Jehovah, who is speaking, says: `The Lord GOD [Jehovah] ... hath sent me.' Therefore there must be at least two persons who are Jehovah!

The answer to such "proof" is obvious: "speaker confusion." Isaiah, like most other Bible writers, often interspersed the conversation of one person with statements by others and often doesn't identify the new speakers. Very often they appear to be comments by Isaiah himsel

That this is very likely the case here is shown, not only by context, but by these modern trinitarian Bible translations: The RSV and the NIV Bibles show by quotation marks and indenting that Isaiah himself made the final comment in Is. 48:16

The NAB also indicates a new speaker there, and, in the St. Joseph edition of the NAB, a footnote for Is. 48:16 tells us that the final statement was made by Cyrus! And the very trinitarian Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version, World Bible Translation Center, 1992, comes right out and says at Is. 48:1

" 'Come here and listen to me! ... from the beginning, I spoke clearly, so that people could know what I said.' Then Isaiah said, `Now the Lord [Jehovah] my master sends me and his Spirit to tell you these things.'

The New English Bible (NEB), The Revised English Bible (REB), and the Bible translation by Dr. James Moffatt (Mo) consider the last statement of Is. 48:16 to be spurious and leave it out of their translations entirel

Certainly these trinitarian translations would have rendered this scripture (and punctuated it accordingly) to show a two-Jehovah meaning (or given such an alternate rendering in the footnotes) if their trinitarian translators had thought there was even the slightest justification for such an interpretation! (Also analyze Jer. 51:19 - Jacob is the former of all things - Jehovah of hosts is his name, according to this trinitarian-type "speaker confusion" reasonin

Some notes by trinitarians on this scriptur

"The prophet himself, as a type of the great prophet, asserts his own commission to deliver this message: Now the Lord God (the same that spoke from the beginning and did not speak in secret) has by his Spirit sent me, v. 16." - Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, Isaiah Chapter 48 verse 1

..........................................

"And, like almost every other prophecy of Christ in the Old Testament, it is subject to all kinds of interpretations. Calvin and many other scholars have seen it as a prophecy of the sending of Isaiah. Barnes agreed with this, stating that, 'The scope of the passage demands, it seems to me, that it should be referred to the prophet Isaia

"However, we believe that Hailey is correct in his declaration that, 'The coming of Jesus is the theme of this prophecy; the entire Old Testament looks forward to Christ's coming to carry forward the purpose of Jehovah; and the Holy Spirit would accompany Christ on that mission, and then complete the work after the Son's return to the Father; let it be remembered that the prophecy is here declaring new things to come in the future

"Lowth explained the passage thus: 'Who is it that saith in Isaiah, "And now hath the Lord sent me and his Spirit"? in which, as the passage is ambiguous, is it the Father and the Holy Spirit who hath sent Jesus; or the Father who hath sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit? The latter is the true interpretation.' The Father sent Jesus when he was born in Bethlehem; and the Father sent the Holy Spirit upon the occasion of the baptism of Christ (Matthew 3:16

"Thus, as Kidner put it, 'This is a glimpse from afar of the Trinity.' [?] As Cheyne expressed it, 'I cannot but think that we have both here and in Gen. 1:2 an early trace of what is known as the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit.' [

"The speaker here is therefore, the pre-incarnate Christ who identifies himself as the one sent ... to convey God's message of salvation to mankind. ..

"Jamieson, noting that Isaiah, not Christ, is the author of the passage, stated that, 'Isaiah here speaks not in his own person so much as in that of the Messiah, to whom alone, in the fullest sense, the words apply.'" - Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, Is. 48:1

Posted by Elijah Daniels 6...?])..'h.'...6.e:g!)y. "6,. f." V.V., Is. 48:16.

Posted by Elijah Daniels 

Substitutionary atonement a brief history.

 

 Substitutionary Atonement 

 Wikipedia 

 Substitutionary atonement, also called vicarious atonement, is a central concept within Christian theology which asserts that Jesus died "for us",[1] as propagated by the Western classic and objective paradigms of atonement in Christianity, which regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, "instead of" them.

Substitutionary atonement has been explicated in the "classic paradigm" of the Early Church Fathers, namely the ransom theory,[2] as well as in Gustaf Aulen's demystified reformulation, the Christus Victor theory;[2][note 1] and in the "objective paradigm," which includes Anselm of Canterbury's satisfaction theory,[3] the Reformed period's penal substitution theory,[4] and the Governmental theory of atonement.[note 2] 

Definition 

Substitutionary atonement, also called vicarious atonement, is the idea that Jesus died "for us".[1] There is also a less technical use of the term "substitution" in discussion about atonement when it is used in "the sense that [Jesus, through his death,] did for us that which we can never do for ourselves".[note 3]

The English word atonement originally meant "at-one-ment", i.e. being "at one", in harmony, with someone.[5] According to Collins English Dictionary, it is used to describe the redemption through Jesus' death and resurrection, to reconcile the world to himself, and also of the state of a person having been reconciled to God.[note 4][6][7]

The word "atonement" is often used in the Old Testament to translate the Hebrew words kipper and kippurim, which mean 'propitiation' or 'expiation'. The word occurs in the KJV in Romans 5:11 and has the basic meaning of reconciliation. In the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible or Tanakh), atonement was accomplished by the sacrifice of specified animals such as lambs to pay for one's sins.[8]

A distinction has to be made between substitutionary atonement (Christ suffers for us), and penal substitution (Christ punished instead of us), which is a subset or particular type of substitutionary atonement.[9] Care should be taken when one reads the language of substitution in, for example, patristic literature, not to assume any particular substitution model is being used but should, rather, check the context to see how the author was using the language.[note 5]