Kiemelt bejegyzés

1. The snowball Trinity versus the Father Almighty

The snowball Trinity versus the Father Almighty Who is the real God? A tri nity of persons (The Trinity) or just one person, the F at h...

Thursday, 27 October 2016

Blow the trumpet! (The articles of this blog)

International Standard Version
Joel 2:1 "Sound the ram's horn in Zion! Sound an alarm on my holy mountain! Tremble, all of you inhabitants of the land, because the Day of the LORD (Yehowah) is coming. Oh, how near it is!
"


New American Standard Bible
Ezekiel 33:
The Watchman’s Duty

1And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 2“Son of man, speak to the sons of your people and say to them, ‘If I bring a sword upon a land, and the people of the land take one man from among them and make him their watchman, 3and he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows on the trumpet and warns the people, 4then he who hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, and a sword comes and takes him away, his blood will be on his own head. 5‘He heard the sound of the trumpet but did not take warning; his blood will be on himself. But had he taken warning, he would have delivered his life. 6‘But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman’s hand.’

New Heart English Bible
1Corinthians 9:16
For if I proclaim the Good News, I have nothing to boast about; for necessity is laid on me; but woe is to me, if I do not proclaim the Good News.


(The articles of this blog: Waiting For The Final Test)


1. The snowball Trinity versus the Father Almighty
2. He is "Yehowah": God's holy name
3. The story of The rich man and the beggar Lazarus: A fake, a literal history or a parable?
See why is a fake...
Try with Google Translate from Romanian
4. Greetings from Romania!
5. Archangel Michael, the Son of God
6. E.mails from brother Raymond Franz, former member of the Governing Body Of Jehovah's Witnesses
7. Jay Dicken's 27 answer to trinitarians
8. Yah is One. Yah is Love.: Does Hebrews 1:10-12 prove that Yeshua is Yahweh?
9. DEMONISM and the WATCH TOWER: JW's leader under the demon's control
10. About me & My statement after the last split (2012)
11. Subject: If the Son is not created, how he came in existence?
12. A response to the Arian nontrinitarians
13. The Ancient Inventors of Hell's eternal torment
14. THE FIRE THAT CONSUMES: "Eternal" with Words of Action
15. What is a man, that I still believe in resurrection?
16. The Last hymn of Georg "Blaurock" 1529
17. KNOW THESE FACTS ABOUT some men and women who mocked God
18. Lazarus and the Rich Man: A literal, historical event or an extra-Biblical source?
19. About the "inspiration" of so called "church fathers": From where Hippolytus got it?
20. "The last gnostic" Origene, the head supporter of the unbiblical immortalily of the soul
21. Bishop Polycarp’s last prayer
22. Inquisitions: Where is the muslim and pagan inquisition?
23. You are free, my sister, my brother, my friend?
24. A vow sent by Marcus Ampe
25. Why is the Gospel good news?
26. Last Supper was a day earlier, scientist claims
27. My desire, what I believe, and why I believe what I believe My desire
28. The Lord's Prayer and The Great Commission
29. The Monkey's Disgrace
30. Free from sin, free from law: "for you are not under the law" (the law of Moses) Romans 6:14
31. “You subscribed, Eusebius!" The traitors of Arius
32. Why I believe in God's existence, and why you don't have any excuse?
33. An old mystery from the Noah's ark time: Where is the water?
34. A question for Sabbath-keeping churches: Why is missing the Sabbath from Acts 15?
35. About my supreme desire
36. May I present what the Bible really teach?
37. This is a dialog invitation: Let's talk in love and holiness
38. Who are "the other sheep" from John 10:16?
39. Adventist imagination: When God will shut the door
40. The Essene Text of Death Sea Scrolls
41. The 2520 year theory is from William Miller, not from God
42. The 2520 years Gentile Times are from God or from Joshua Spalding?
43. Who were the first associated of pastor Charles Taze Russell?
44. Adventist linked origin of Bible Students & Jehovah's Witnesses
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2012/12/adventist-origin-of-bible-students.html
45. Charles Taze Russell early view about Nelson H. Barbour as "the chosen vessel of God"
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2012/12/charles-taze-russell-early-view-about.html
46. A new split of the Second Adventists and the appearance of the Bible Student movement
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/parkinson-james-bible-student-movement.html
47. Request for A.P. Pottle, "The Power of the Mind," The Golden Age
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/no-sleep.html
48. Gerard Gertoux book's excellent review: Not a Nameless God - by George L Pullman
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/gerard-gertoux-books-excellent-review.html
49. CT Russell's wrong view about the gentile times and the great tribulation
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/ct-russell-about-gentile-times-and.html
50. JW's Splinter groups: Free Bible Students Romanian Trip Report
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/romanian-trip-report.html
51. JW's Splinter groups The Goshen Fellowship (1951 - Present)
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/the-goshen-fellowship-1951-present.html
52. Dialog about 1914 doctrine
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/dialog-meeting-on-5-of-this-month.html
53. God's people need a last reformation
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/gods-people-need-last-reformation.html
54. Bible believers, true witnesses for Almighty God, Jehovah and Lord Jesus Christ
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/our-desire-must-be.html
55. My Old Statement Of Faith
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/my-old-statement-of-faith.html
56. The Bible Student Movement and it's fractions
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/the-bible-student-movement-and-its.html
57. Questions
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/questions.html
58. Troubles in the Bible Student paradise
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/troubles-in-bible-student-paradise.html
59. Some info about this Bible Student and JW groups
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/i-need-some-info-about-this-bible.html
60. The "The Year 1881" the "last (lost) member" of the 144000
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/the-year-1881-last-lost-member-of-144000.html
61. Hegesippus, about the early sects
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/hegesippus-about-early-sects.html
62. Who invented this hell?
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/who-invented-this-hell.html
63. The pagan Pythagoreans and their bad influence
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/the-pagan-pythagoreans-and-their-bad.html
64. The real origin of the trinitarian dogma (three persons in one God)
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/the-real-origin-of-trinitarian-dogma.html
65. The trinitarian dogma and the marcionist movement
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/the-trinitarian-dogma-and-marcionist.html
66. What means the Hebrew word "sar"?
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/what-means-hebrew-word-sar.html
67. The History of the Development of the Trinity Doctrine, author RBD
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/the-history-of-development-of-trinity.html
68. God's name was removed from the New Testament? Yes, but WHY?
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/gods-name-was-removed-from-new.html
69. Who is, or what is "Babylon the great" from Revelation chapter 17 and 18?
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/who-is-or-what-is-babylon-great-from.html
70. Adventist linked family (a little "Babylon" :) )
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/adventist-babylon.html
71. The Great City
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/the-great-city.html
72. What means the word "transdoctrinal" and why?
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/what-means-word-transdoctrinal-and-why.html
73. About the last reformation
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/about-last-reformation.html
74. A view about millenium
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/a-view-about-millenium.html
75. The events of the Book of Revelation
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/the-events-of-book-of-revelation.html
76. The Revelation book first future event with Bible verses - Event one
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/revelation-book-first-future-event-with.html
77. Revelation book second future event with Bible verses - Event two
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/revelation-book-second-future-event.html
78. Revelation book's future events with Bible verses - Event three
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/revelation-book-second-future-events.html
79. Revelation book's future events with Bible verses - Event four
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/revelation-books-future-events-with.html
80. Did Calvin murder Servetus? Yes, he did!
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/did-calvin-murder-servetus.html
81. The spurious Comma
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/the-spurious-comma.html
82. A calling to the Church
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/01/a-calling-to-church.html
83. Newsletter Bible Community: Four translations
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/03/newsletter-bible-community.html
84. Exist "Pagan Christianity"? Yes.
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/03/pagan-christianity.html
85. Article, request for help: How Many TC Errors in This Statement?
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/04/article-request-for-help-how-many-tc.html
86. Why is not the Gospel a second chance good news?
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/05/why-is-not-gospel-second-chance-good.html
87. Presentation http://bible-translation.net
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/05/presentation-httpbible-translationnet.html
88. Was the divine name YHWH in the primitive writings of the New Testament?
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/05/was-divine-name-yhwh-in-primitive.html
89. Matthew of the DuTillet that contain the abbreviation for the Tetragrammaton
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/05/matthew-of-dutillet-that-contain.html
90. Ancient Truths Forum invitation
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/05/forum-invitation.html
91. Virtual Manuscript Room
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/06/virtual-manuscript-room.html
92. Online Bible translations
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/06/online-bible-translations.html
93. God's punishment over the false religion
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/06/gods-punishment.html
94. The real text of Matthew 10:28
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/06/the-real-text-of-matthew-1028.html
95. Hallelujah, Praise Jehovah
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/07/hallelujah-praise-jehovah.html
96. The Scribes, A Novel about the Early Church, news
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/07/5-days-of-free-download.html
97. Is a man immortal? A man have an immortal soul?
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/08/is-man-immortal-man-has-immortal-soul.html
98. The great grace of God
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/08/the-great-grace-of-god.html
99. Are you looking for God?
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/08/99-are-you-looking-for-god.html
100. Question: How are we saved?
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/09/question-how-are-we-saved.html
101. When we reach salvation
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/09/when-we-reach-salvation.html
102. Two "textual investigation"
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/09/two-textual-investigation.html
103. Questions and answers about...
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/09/questions-and-answers-about.html
104. The new manna (Jesus) is from heaven
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/09/the-new-manna-jesus-is-from-heaven.html
105. Exist connection between ...
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/09/exist-connection-between.html
106. About Jesus Christ and the holy spirit
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/09/about-jesus-christ-and-holy-spirit.html
107. "and that rock was Christ"
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/09/that-rock-was-christ.html
108. The reconstruction of the biblical calendar
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/09/jewish-essene-calendar.html
109. Biblia antica vs the modern Bible
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/09/biblia-antica-vs-modern-bible.html
110. The Marcionite version of Luke 16:19-31
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/09/the-marcionite-version-of-luke-829-31.html
111. Presentation of some biblical points
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/09/point-7.html
112. The angel of the covenant, who is he?
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/09/the-angel-of-covenant-who-is-he.html
113. The "anointed ones" and "the great crowd"
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/10/the-anointed-ones-and-great-crowd.html
114. The beast from Revelation's book
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/10/the-beast-from-revelations-book.html
115. Young Earth website
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/10/young-earth-website.html 1
116. Good news: ANNOUNCING DVD OF 'HELL AND MR. FUDGE' MOVIE
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/10/116-good-news-announcing-dvd-of-hell.html
117. Evangelical Textual Criticism: Reply to Parker's Review of The Early Text(s) of t...
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/11/evangelical-textual-criticism-reply-to.html
118. The Early Text of the New Testament : The Early Text of the New Testament Oxford Scholarship Online
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/11/the-early-text-of-new-testament-early.html
119. My old and new statement of faith
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/11/my-old-and-new-statement-of-faith.html
120. Request: The Book Of Nestor
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/11/request-book-of-nestor.html
121. Trouble on the earth
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/11/trouble-on-earth.html
122. The Conditionalist Faith Of Our Fathers - by Edwin Leroy Froom
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/11/the-conditionallist-faith-of-our.html
123. Tears for Jesus In Gamo Highland
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/12/tears-for-jesus-in-gamo-highland.html
124. A Pentateuch brought from Derband (Daghestan), written before 604 of the common era
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2013/12/a-pentateuch-brought-from-derband.html
125. Grace and Salvation blog (Har Şi Mântuire)
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2014/10/har-si-mantuire-puncte-de-credinta-spre.html
126. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? by Oscar Cullmann
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2014/11/immortality-of-soul-or-resurrection-of.html
127. THE APOSTLES CREED
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2014/11/the-apostles-creed.html
128. Question for Muslims about the end times
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2014/11/question-for-muslims.html
129. To the Christians and Muslims, about the life atfter death doctrine, according to the old time faith
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2014/12/to-christians-and-muslims-about-life.html
130. Vaiting for answers (Varvan "Gabor" velemenyet)
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/2014/12/varvan-gabor-velemenyet.html

Tuesday, 4 October 2016

Early Arians infected with trinitarian ideas

Quotes from Thalia, by Arius. See the infection, you can't find the "Triad, Monad, Dyad" in the Bible. "So there is a Triad, not in equal glories.
Their beings (hypostaseis) are not mixed together among themselves. (Marcellus of Ankyra testified that the followers of Arius were "trinitarians, who believed in three hypostases")
As far as their glories, one infinitely more glorious than the other.
The Father in his essence (ousia) is a foreigner to the Son, because he exists without beginning.
Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence.
It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God.
Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father’s will,
He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others" Trinity

In the fourth-century, Marcellus of Ancyra declared that the idea of the Godhead existing as three hypostases (hidden spiritual realities) came from Plato through the teachings of Valentinus,[9] who is quoted as teaching that God is three hypostases and three prosopa (persons) called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:

Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God... These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato.[10]

Since Valentinus had used the term hypostases, his name came up in the Arian disputes in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra was a staunch opponent of Arianism, but also denounced the belief in God existing in three hypostases as heretical, and was later condemned for his teachings. Marcellus attacked his opponents (On the Holy Church, 9) by linking them to Valentinus:

Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons — father, son, and holy spirit.[11]
Wikipedia


For many, who don't know  "He taught that the Father alone is God". No, he din not. Arius was a trinitarian, see what he wrote in his hymnal book, the Thalia: "Certainly there is a Trinity .. and they possess glories of different levels (δόξαις οὐχ ὁμοίαις)"
Αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ θεὸς καθό ἐστιν ἄρρητος ἅπασιν ὑπάρχει.
... And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all.
ἴσον οὐδὲ ὅμοιον, οὐχ ὁμόδοξον ἔχει μόνος οὗτος.
He alone has no equal, no one similar (homoios), and no one of the same glory.
ἀγέννητον δὲ αὐτόν φαμεν διὰ τὸν τὴν φύσιν γεννητόν·
We call him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten.
τοῦτον ἄναρχον ἀνυμνοῦμεν διὰ τὸν ἀρχὴν ἔχοντα,
We praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning.
ἀίδιον δὲ αὐτὸν σέβομεν διὰ τὸν ἐν χρόνοις γεγαότα.
We worship him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist.
ἀρχὴν τὸν υἰὸν ἔθηκε τῶν γενητῶν ὁ ἄναρχος
He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things
καὶ ἤνεγκεν εἰς υἱὸν ἑαυτῷ τόνδε τεκνοποιήσας,
He produced him as a son for himself by begetting him.
ἴδιον οὐδὲν ἔχει τοῦ θεοῦ καθ᾽¦ ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος,
He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God’s own being (kat’ hypostasis)
οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν ἴσος, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ὁμοούσιος αὐτῷ.
For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being (homoousios) as him.
σοφὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ θεός, ὅτι τῆς σοφίας διδάσκαλος αύτός.
God is wise, for he himself is the teacher of Wisdom
ἱκανὴ δὲ ἀπόδειξις ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀόρατος ἅπασι,
Sufficient proof that God is invisible to all:
τοῖς τε διὰ υἱοῦ καὶ αὐτῷ τῷ υἱῷ ἀόρατος ὁ αὐτός.
He is invisible both to things which were made through the Son, and also to the Son himself.
ῥητῶς δὲ λέχω, πῶς τῷ υἱῷ ὁρᾶται ὁ ἀόρατος·
I will say specifically how the invisible is seen by the Son:
τῇ δυνάμει ᾗ δύναται ὁ θεὸς ἰδεῖν· ἰδίοις τε μέτροις
by that power by which God is able to see, each according to his own measure,
ὑπομένει ὁ υἱὸς ἰδεῖν τὸν πατέρα, ὡς θέμις ἐστίν.
the Son can bear to see the Father, as is determined
ἤγουν τριάς ἐστι δόξαις οὐχ ὁμοίαις, ἀνεπίμικτοι ἑαυταῖς εἰσιν αἱ ὑποστάσεις αὐτῶν,
So there is a Triad, not in equal glories. Their beings (hypostaseis) are not mixed together among themselves.
μία τῆς μιᾶς ἐνδοξοτέρα δόξαις ἐπ’ ἄπειρον.
As far as their glories, one infinitely more glorious than the other.
ξένος τοῦ υἱοῦ κατ’ οὐσίαν ὁ πατήρ, ὅτι ἄναρχος ὐπάρχει.
The Father in his essence (ousia) is a foreigner to the Son, because he exists without beginning.
σύνες ὅτι ἡ μονὰς ἦν, ἡ δυὰς δὲ οὐκ ἦν, πρὶν ὑπάρξῃ.
Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence.
αὐτίκα γοῦν υἱοῦ μὴ ὄντος ὁ πατὴρ θεός ἐστι.
It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God.
λοιπὸν ὁ υἰὸς οὐκ ὢν (ὐπῆρξε δὲ θελήσει πατρῴᾳ)
Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father’s will,
μονογενὴς θεός ἐστι καὶ ἑκατέρων ἀλλότριος οὗτος.
He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others
ἡ σοφία σοφία ὑπῆρξε σοφοῦ θεοῦ θελήσει.
Wisdom came to be Wisdom by the will of the Wise God.
επινοεῖται γοῦν μυρίαις ὅσαις ἐπινοίαις πνεῦμα, δύναμις, σοφία,
Hence he is conceived in innumerable aspects. He is Spirit, Power, Wisdom,
δόξα θεοῦ, ἀλήθειά τε καὶ εἰκὼν καὶ λόγος οὗτος.
God’s glory, Truth, Image, and Word.
σύνες ὅτι καὶ ἀπαύγασμα καὶ φῶς ἐπινοεῖται.
Understand that he is also conceived of as Radiance and Light.
ἴσον μὲν τοῦ υἱοῦ γεννᾶν δυνατός ἐστιν ὁ κρείττων,
The one who is superior is able to beget one equal to the Son,
διαφορώτερον δὲ ἢ κρείττονα ἢ μείζονα οὐχί.
But not someone more important, or superior, or greater.
θεοῦ ¦ θελήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἡλίκος καὶ ὅσος ἐστίν,
At God’s will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has.
ἐξ ὅτε καὶ ἀφ’ οὖ καὶ ἀπὸ τότε ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπέστη,
His existence from when and from whom and from then — are all from God.
ἰσχυρὸς θεὸς ὢν τὸν κρείττονα ἐκ μέρους ὑμνεῖ.
He, though strong God, praises in part (ek merous) his superior.
συνελόντι εἰπεῖν τῷ υἱῷ ὁ θεὀς ἄρρητος ὑπάρχει·
In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son.
ἔστι γὰρ ἑαυτῷ ὅ ἐστι τοῦτ‘ ἔστιν ἄλεκτος,
For he is in himself what he is, that is, indescribable,
ὥστε οὐδὲν τῶν λεγομένων κατά τε κατάληψιν συνίει ἐξειπεῖν ὁ υἱός.
So that the son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them.
ἀδύνατα γὰρ αὐτῷ τὸν πατέρα τε ἐξιχνιάσει, ὅς ἐστιν ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ.
For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself.
αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίαν οὐκ οἶδεν,
For the Son himself does not even know his own essence (ousia),
υἱὸς γὰρ ὢν θελήσει πατρὸς ὑπῆρξεν ἀληθῶς.
For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father.
τίς γοῦν λόγος συγχωρεῖ τὸν ἐκ πατρὸς ὄντα
What reasoning allows, that he who is from the Father
αὐτὸν τὸν γεννήσαντα γνῶναι ἐν καταλήψει;
should comprehend and know his own parent?
δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι τὸ αρχὴν ἔχον, τὸν ἄναρχον, ὡς ἔστιν,
For clearly that which has a beginning
ἐμπερινοῆσαι ἢ ἐμπεριδράξασθαι οὐχ οἷόν τέ ἐστιν.
is not able to conceive of or grasp the existence of that which has no beginning.
A slightly different edition of the fragment of the Thalia from De Synodis is given by G.C. Stead,[63] and served as the basis for a translation by R.P.C. Hanson.[64] Stead argued that the Thalia was written in anapestic meter, and edited the fragment to show what it would look like in anapests with different line breaks. Hanson based his translation of this fragment directly on Stead's text. Here is Stead's edition with Hanson's translation.
Αύτὸς γοῦν ὁ θεὸς καθό ἐστ’ [ιν] ἄρρετος ἅπασιν ὑπαρχει
God himself, therefore, in himself remains mysterious (ἄρρετος).
ἴσον οὐ δὲ ὅμοιον, οὐχ ὁμόδοξον ἔχει μόνοσ οὗτος
He alone has no equal, none like him, none of equal glory.
ἀγέν[ν]ητον δ’αὐτόν φαμεν διὰ τὸν τὴν φύσιν γεννετόν
We call him unoriginated (ἀγέν[ν]ητον) in contrast to him who is originated by nature ...
τοῦτον ... ἄναρχον ἀνυμνοῦμεν διὰ τὸν ἀρχὴν ἔχοντα
we praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning,
ἀΐδιον δ’αὐτὸν σέβομεν διὰ τὸν ἐν χρόνοις γεγαότα.
we worship him as eternal in contrast to him who came into existence in times (χρόνοις).
ἀρχὴν τὸν υἰὸν ἔθηκε τῶν γεννητῶν ὁ ἄναρχος
He who was without beginning made the Son a beginning of all things which are produced (γεννήτῶν),
καὶ ἤνεγκεν εἰς υἱον ἑαυτῷ τόνδε τεκνοποιήσας.
and he made him into a Son for himself; begetting (τεκνοποιήσας) him.
ἴδιον οὐδεν ἔχει τοῦ θεοῦ καθ᾽ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος
He (the Son) has nothing peculiar to (ἴδιον) God according to the reality of that which is peculiarly his (καθ᾽ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος),
οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν ἴσος ... ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὁμοούσιος αὐτῷ.
and he is not equal ... far less is he consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος) to him (God).
σοφὸς [δ’] ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς, ὅτι τῆς σοφίας διδάσκαλος αύτός.
And God is wise because he is the Teacher of Wisdom.
ἱκανὴ δὲ ἀπόδειξις ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀόρατος ἅπασι
As a sufficient proof that God is invisible (ἀόρατος) to all,
τοῖς τε δι’ υἱοῦ καὐτῷ τῷ υἱ(ῷ) ἀόρατος ὁ αὐτός...
that he is invisible to the Son’s people and to the Son himself...
ῥητῶς δ’ <ἐγὼ> λέχω πῶς τῷ υἱῷ ὁρᾶτ’ ὁ ἀόρατος·
I will declare roundly, how the invisible can be visible to the Son:
τῇ δυνάμει ᾗ δύνατ’ ὁ θεὸς ἰδεῖν ἰδίοις. . τε μέτροις
by the power in which God can see, according to his individual ... capacities (ἰδίοις ... τε μέτροις)
ὑπομένει ὁ υἱὸς ἰδεῖν ... τὸν πατέρ’ ὡς θέμις ἐστιν.
the Son is able to see... the Father as is determined (θέμις).
ἤγουν τριάς ἐστιν ... δόξαις οὐχ ὁμοίαις
Certainly there is a Trinity .. and they possess glories of different levels (δόξαις οὐχ ὁμοίαις)
ἀνεπίμικτοι ἑαυταῖς [εἰσιν] αἱ ὑποστάσεις αὐτῶν
their individual realities (ὑποστάσεις) do not mix with each other,
μία τῆς μιᾶς ἐνδοξοτέρα δοξαῖς ἐπ’ ἄπειρον.
The sole glory is of the Sole (μία τῆς μιᾶς), infinitely more splendid in his glories.
ξένος τοῦ υἱοῦ κατ’ οὐσίαν ὁ πατήρ ὅτι ἄναρχος ὐπάρχει.
The father is in his substance (οὐσίαν) alien (ξένος) from the Son because he reamains without beginning.
σύνες <οὖν> ὅτι ἡ μονὰς ἦν, ἡ δυὰς δ’ οὐκ ἦν πρὶν ὑπάρξῃ.
Understand therefore that the Mondad (μονὰς) existed, but the Dyad (δυὰς) did not exist before it attained existence.
αὐτίκα γοῦν υἱοῦ μὴ ὄντος ὁ πατὴρ θεός ἐστι.

λοιπὸν ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ὢν (ὐπῆρξε<ν> δὲ θελήσει πατρῴᾳ)
So the Son having not existed attained existence by the Father’s will.
μονογενὴς θεός ἐστι<ν> κἀ κατέρων ἀλλότριος οὗτος.
He is only-begotten God and he is different from any others.
ἡ σοφία σοφία ὑπῆρξε σοφοῦ θεοῦ θελήσει.
Wisdom became Wisdom by the will of the wise God,
επινοεῖται γοῦν μυρίαις ὅσαις ἐπινοίαις
and so he is apprehended in an uncountable number of aspects (ἐπινοίαις).
πνεῦμα ... δύναμις, σοφία,

δόξα θεοῦ, ἀλήθειά τε καὶ εἰκὼν καὶ λόγος οὗτος.
He is God’s Glory and Truth, and Image and Word.
σύνες ὅτι καὶ ἀπαύγασμά <τε> καὶ φῶς ἐπινοεῖται.
Understand too that he is apprehended as Reflection (ἀπαύγασμα) also and Light.
ἴσον μὲν τοῦ υἱοῦ’ γεννᾶν δυνατός ἐστιν ὁ κρείττων
The Greater One is able to beget (γεννᾶν) someone equal to the Son,
διαφορώτερον δ’ ἢ κρείττονα ἢ μείζονα, οὐχί.
but not someone more important or more powerful or greater.
θεοῦ θελήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἡλίκος καὶ ὅσος ἐστὶν,
It is by the will of God that the Son has his stature and character (ἡλίκος καὶ ὅσος)
ἐξ ὅτε κἀφ’ οὖ κἀπὸ τότ’ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπέστη.
when and whence and from what time he is from God.
ἰσχυρὸς <γὰρ> θεὸς ὢν τὸν κρείττονα ἐκ μέρους ὑμνεῖ.
For he is the Mighty God [i.e., the Son, Isa 9:15] and in some degree (ἐκ μέρους) worships the Greater.
συνελόντι εἰπεῖν τῷ υἱῷ ὁ θεὸς ἄρρητος ὑπάρχει
To summarize, God is mysterious (ἄρρητος) to the Son,
ἔστι γὰρ ἁυτῷ ὅ ἐστι<ν>, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἄλεκτος,
for he is to him that which he is, i.e. ineffable (ἄλεκτος),
ὥστ’ οὐδὲν τῶν λεγομένων ... κατά τε κατάληψιν
so that none of the things spoken ... [text is corrupt for some words ]
συνίει ἐξειπεῖν ὁ υἱός, ἀδύνατα γὰρ αὐτῷ
 ... for it is impossible for him
τὸν πατέρα τε ἐξιχνιάσαι ὅς ἐστιν ἐφ’ αὑτοῦ·
to trace out in the case of the Father what he is in himself.
αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τὴν αὑτοῦ οὐσίαν οὐκ οἶδεν
Indeed the Son himself does not know his own substance (ousia),
υἱὸς γὰρ ὢν θελήσει πατρὸς ὑπῆρξεν ἀληθῶς.
for though he is the Son he is really so by the will of the Father.
τίς γοῦν λόγος συγχωρεῖ τὸν ἐκ πατρὸς ὄντα
For what sense does it make that he who is from the Father
αὐτὸν τὸν γεννήσαντα ... γνῶν’ ἐν καταλήψει;
should [text corrupt] in comprehending his own begetter?
δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι τὸ αρχὴν <τιν’> ἔχον, τὸν ἄναρχον ὅς ἐστιν
For it is clear that that which has a beginning, of him who is without beginning the nature (ὡς ἔστιν)
ἐμπερινοῆσ’ ἢ ἐμπεριδράξασθ’ οὐχ οἷόν τέ ἐστιν.
could not possibly comprehend or grasp.

Monday, 3 October 2016

Anarthrous construction of John 1:1 and It's Meaning


Anarthrous construction of John 1:1 and It's Meaning "en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos" John 1:1 in ancient Greek About the word anarthrous an·ar·throus (n-ärthrs) adj. 1. Linguistics Occurring without an article. Used especially of Greek nouns. [From Greek anarthros, not articulated : an-, without; see a-1 + arthron, joint; see ar- in Indo-European roots.] We could understand the anarthrous meaning of John 1:1 through a simple substitution of words. If we substitute a word of a proposition with one of the common ground words the construction of the proposition will be the same. For example: "In my bag I have two apples." "In my bag I have two plums." Now, what we will have if we substitute some words from John 1:1? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Let's see: in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god Compare now with this substitution: in the beginning was the women and the women was with man and the women was man Technically the substituted proposition shows us some very interesting things, the nature of woman. She was also a "man" in her human nature. That is the meaning of the non substituted John 1:1 If we compare John 1:1 with 2Peter 1:4, what we will say about our future nature (if we accept truly and faithfully the heavenly calling)? "Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." We will have "the divine nature" as our Lord Jesus have from the beginning, when he was with his Father. So, we will be God or Jesus, because our "divine nature"? No, not at all. This word "god" could be used in both way: - as a term for a descriptive title of God, the Father Almighty and - as a term for a similar nature as God have Conclusion: In John 1:1 we have both terms, but in the case of the Logos, we have an anarthrous construction not an articular construction and in this case the anarthrous construction emphasizes the nature of the Logos and is not a term for a descriptive title of God. So, John 1:1 shows us that the Logos was not God the Father himself, just has the same nature as his Father. Is not about a second or lesser "god", is about nature. If the Son is a "son"... If the Son is a "son"... Trinitarians, like Adam Clarke, admits, if Lord Jesus is a "son" of God, according to what means "a son" in literal sense, he must be "originated", with beginning, without knowledge, and so, connected to God through obedience and subordinate to God. This is what we as non-trinitarians strongly believe. What should know oneness "Jesus only", Trinitarians, Unitarians, etc. about the word "god" from John 1:1 part c "and god was the word"? Many people believe in "God's incarnation" (oneness "Jesus only", Trinitarians, etc.) or in God's literal words - as God's plan incarnation (Unitarians, Socinians, Christadelphians, etc.) because they don't understand John 1:1 part c "and god the word was" and they do this because not understand a very simple way of saying. For example Satan is "the god (the same word like in John 1:1 part c) of this age", according to 2Corinthians 4:4. Satan is God, like the Father, or just "god"? Again, Peter was named "satan" by Jesus, according to Matthew.16:23. Is Peter Satan, the Devil or just "satan"? When in John 1:1 part c our Lord Jesus is named "god" is in this way of saying: John 10: 25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.” 31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. What is the problem with the word "god" from John 1:1 part c? This word (god) could be used or was used just only in connection with God Almighty? No! I don't know why it is so hard for Trinitarians and Unitarians to accept an apart way of saying? The first man, Adam, after his earthly nature was named "man" (which means a kind of soil), and of course his sons are all named after his nature: man. If the sons of Adam have the earthly, Adam-like, Adam-nature, why the heavenly Son of God could not have the heavenly God-like, God (Divine)-nature? The sons of Adam are not Adam, so, the son of God are not God. Of course, when the Son of God came in this world he put down his God-nature, and put up the Adam-nature, so, he became a simple man, like the first man, Adam, special, pure and without sin. If we understand right John 1:1 part c, the whole message of John 1:1 is so simple, so wonderful, so true: God have a heavenly Son (son in literal meaning, see please Hebrews 1:3), who have the same nature as his Father. This Son came down from heaven, not God, nor a "God's plan". Proverbs 30:4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know! In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his (nick)name is called The Word of God.” (AV; Dy) Note that his nickname is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. Hence John 1:1 must mean, at most, that the Word was of God, not God himself..

Saturday, 19 December 2015

A statement of faith

A statement of true faith
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe in one God, Yehouah, the Father Almighty,

and in Yesus The Anointed, his only begotten Son, our Lord,
who came from heaven to be born on earth through Mary, a virgin, by the holy spirit (the mind-power of God),
was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
died and buried, rose from the dead on the third day,
ascended to the heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father,
whence he will come, to judge the living and the dead;
and in the holy spirit, the holy church, the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the death and in the eternal life. Amen!

Friday, 23 October 2015

Awesome one God, the Father Almighty

"May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace." Ephesians 1:2
I am a Bible believer, a born again Christian, from Romania. All of us have a great opportunity to read the Bible and believe it. We have the great opportunity to be saved, if will accept Lord Jesus Christ sacrifice and teachings and keep it holy in our life...
Friends, we have an awesome one God, the Father Almighty, and he have a great, unique only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. All of us could be adopted sons of God, through his Son, and through him, we could have an awesome one God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, who reigns from Heaven above, with great wisdom, mighty power and deep love.
Our God and Father is wise:
Jeremiah 10:12 "He has made the earth by his power, he has established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding has he stretched out the heavens:"

Our God and Father is strong:
Isaiah 40:26 "Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."

Our God and Father is just:
Deuteronomy 32:4
"He is the Rock; his deeds are perfect.
Everything he does is just and fair.
He is a faithful God who does no wrong;
how just and upright he is!"

Our God and Father is loving:
John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Our God and Father is worthy of praise:
Luke 10:21 "In that same hour he (Jesus) rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."
Our God and Father is a loving God and Father, is strong, wise and righteous, so is very worthy of glory for all what he do! This is his Son also. Let's be like our God and Father, loving, wise, strong and righteous and glorify him!

Amen, amen!
John Takacs, Romania


AN APPEAL TO PIOUS TRINITARIANS
By Henry Grew (c. 1857)
DEAR BRETHREN, - We acknowledge our fallibility. Truth will endure the closest investigation. I bear you record that you have a zeal for God. Is it, or is it not according to knowledge? Is it in the holy word, which you declare is the ONLY rule of faith, that you have found the declaration, that the one God is three persons? Have you been taught it by Jesus Christ, or by fallible men?
You admit that it is a subject of vast importance to understand correctly, what person, or being in the universe, has the rightful claim to the supreme worship of all intelligences, and the glory of being, exclusively, the one great and infinite source, "OF whom are all things." If one person rightfully claims this unrivaled glory, it must certainly be an error of no ordinary magnitude to give it to another.
No proposition is to be rejected because it cannot be perfectly comprehended by a finite mind. Yet a revelation to the human mind of anything, necessarily implies some intelligent understanding of it. The first question, however, for our serious consideration, is, Is the doctrine that God exists in three equal and infinite persons, a doctrine of divine revelation, or of human imagination?
Christian brother; can you open your bible and read, God is three; or that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are one God; or any words of equivalent import? Even the interpolation of 1Jo 5:7, does not affirm that the three are one God. What do we read in the Word of the Lord on this important subject? "Hear, O Israel? The LORD our God is ONE LORD." De 6:4. "God is ONE." Ga 3:20. "There is but one God, the Father." 1Co 8:6.
What is the testimony of "The faithful Witness" of the Truth? Addressing his "Father," Joh 17:1-3, he plainly and positively declares THE FATHER TO BE "THE ONLY TRUE GOD." You believe that the Father is one person. If then you believe that "the only true God" is three persons, does not your faith stand in the wisdom of men," which denies the testimony of Jesus Christ, that ONE person is "the ONLY true God?" Please to consider the testimony of the inspired apostle, 1Co 8:6. It is not only that "there is but one God," but that this one God is "THE FATHER." He plainly distinguishes the Father as the "one God" "or whom are all things." The Father the PRINCIPAL, the Son the AGENT. Now behold the harmony of divine truth. "God created all things BY Jesus Christ." Eph 3:9. "By whom also he made the worlds." Heb 1:2. All his works of love and power, were what "God did BY him." Ac 2:22. "God our Saviour" SAVES US BY, or "through, Jesus Christ our Saviour." Tit 3:4-6. He "shall raise us up also (from the grave) BY Jesus." 2Co 4:14. "God will judge the world in righteousness BY" him. Ac 17:31. All this the Saviour confirms in his own declaration, "I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." Joh 6:38. The humanity did not come down from heaven. The divine and "only begotten Son of God" came down, and took the body "prepared" for him. Heb 10:5. Does not this prove the inferiority of his highest nature to the supreme God? Does not the supreme God seek to do the will of another rather than his own?
Please to observe in what character our blessed Mediator presented himself to a sinful and dying world as the object of faith. To the healed man he said, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" Joh 9:35. When he asked his disciples-"Whom say ye that I am?" what did the apostle reply, to whom our "Father in heaven" had revealed the truth one this important subject? Did he reply, thou art the second person in the adorable trinity, or thou art the supreme God? He replied, "Thou are the Christ, the SON of the living God." Mt 16:16,17. Is it a significant fact that our Lord never claimed any higher title than this? When the captious Jews charged him with making himself equal with God, did he not immediately repel the charge by the solemn asseveration, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do?" Joh 5:19. The omnipotent Jehovah cannot be thus dependent on another. "I live by the Father," Joh 6:57. "My Father is greater than I", Joh 14:28. The connection proves that this refers to his highest nature. His prayer, Joh 17:5, for the glory of his divine nature which he had with the Father "before the world was" proves the dependence of his nature.
The scriptural doctrine of the divine Sonship is essential to the true doctrine of atonement or reconciliation. The inspired testimony on this great doctrine is, that God gave HIS OWN SON to be a "sacrifice" or "propitiation" for the sins of the world. Joh 3:16,1Jo 2:2 4:10 Ro 3:25, &c. He made the "soul" of his son "an offering for sin." Isa 53. Trinitarianism admits of no such offering. It supposes that the human body only died, and that the union to supreme deity gave efficacy to the sufferings and death of humanity. It should be considered, that it is the dignity of the nature and character of the real sufferer and dying Lamb, as "the first" and "only begotten of the Father," which gives virtue to the offering. "We have a great High Priest, Jesus, THE SON OF GOD." His soul was in sheol [the grave in Hebrew] until "God raised him from the death state," and in sheol" there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge." Ec 9:10, "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." "He offered HIMSELF without spot to God." Heb 9:14. It was not for the death of humanity only, that the sun withdrew its shining, the earth shook to its center, and the curtain of the Holy of Holies in the Temple was rent in twain. "Surely this was the Son of God."
Please to consider candidly, whether or not you can truthfully reconcile his constant declarations of dependence on the Father, with his supposed supreme deity, by referring those declarations to his human nature. If this nature was united to the second infinite person, how could it be dependent on the first? The dependence must necessarily have been on the second person and not on the Father.
You ask, Is not our dear Lord "the Word" which John declares "was with God and was God?" Certainly; but is not the term God, used (like the term Lord,) in different senses in the sacred scriptures? Is it not applied to the rulers of Israel, Ps 82:6?, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Moses was a god to Aaron, Ex 4:16, "And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.". Satan is "the god of this world." 2Co 4:4. The Son of the Blessed is "God over all." Is he God or ruler over all, independently, or by appointment of the Father, "the only true God?" Joh 17:1-3. Let the holy scriptures answer. 1Co 15:24-28, "God, even the Father-hath put all things under him." This is equivalent to his being "over all;" -"it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (not the Trinity, but "THE FATHER," as verse 24 proves) may be ALL in ALL." Is not this divine testimony fatal to trinitarianism? Our blessed Lord as God, has a GOD. Heb 1:8,9. The Father has no god above him. You believe that the God with whom the Word was, is the supreme God. If then the Word was also supreme God, is it not a truth of divine revelation, that there are two supreme Gods? Scripture is its own best interpreter. See the context (verse 14) where the Word is defined to be "the only begotten (Son) of the Father, full of grace and truth." Mr. Andrew Fuller has well observed, that "the glory of the Word, and the glory of the only begotten of the Father, is one and the same." The Word was "begotten" and not self-existent. Again we read, that he is "the first born of every creature." Col 1:15, which must refer to his pre-existent state; for the apostle argues that he is so, from the fact of all things being "created by him." He is "the beginning of the creating power, that the intelligent universe will ever behold; "being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person." The universe gains nothing, but sustains an inconceivable loss by substituting an infinite person for the matchless Son of God. To infinity you cannot add. One infinite person is equal to any number. The Father is "the alone (monou) God." Joh 5:44.
It is affirmed, that the same infinite attributes are ascribed to the Son as to the Father. Let us see. Peter said, "Lord, thou knowest all things." John said to his brethren, "ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things," 1Jo 2:20. Let us allow the sacred word to determine the source of the knowledge of our blessed Jesus. "God GIVETH not the Spirit by measure unto him," Joh 3:34. Will you not allow that, if thee is any thing unknown to the Son, in any nature, that he cannot be omniscient? He himself plainly declares that there is. He affirms that his "Father ONLY knows of the day of his second coming, Mt 24:30-36. He assures us that all the power he has "in heaven and in earth," "over all flesh," for the gracious purpose of giving eternal life to God’s elect, is GIVEN him by the Father, Mt 28:18 Joh 17:2. I ask, for Jehovah’s honor, if it is not contemning the divine wisdom, and charging God foolishly, if we say that an "given" power is inadequate for this purpose? Is it not the plainly revealed fact that "God our Saviour" hath "saved us, through (or by) Jesus Christ our Saviour?" Tit 3:4-6. The context of Re 1:8, does not require its application to the Son; it refers to the Father. -"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." See verses 4, 5, "John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; 5: And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood". If the spirit of Paul could be present with his absent brethren in their assembly, 1Co 5:4, cannot the spirit of Jesus Christ be present, in a more effective sense, with "two or three" who assemble in his name?
We have too little conception of the capacity of the Infinite to delegate "treasures of wisdom, and knowledge," and power, as he pleases. Infinite perfections are indeed incommunicable; but what a vast amount may be possessed within this boundary! It pleased the Father that in him (Jesus Christ) should all the fullness dwell," Col 1:19. "I and my Father are one." He did not say one God. He prayed that his disciples may be one with him and his Father," even as" he and the Father "are one," Joh 17:21-23 Php 2:5-11. "Christ Jesus-thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Doddridge and Macknight (both trinitarians) consider the word "equal" an incorrect translation, rendering the Greek word "like," or "as." As an example of humility, the apostle presents to the consideration of his brethren, a real and great change of condition of the pre-existing Son of God, which can never be predicated of immutable deity, being totally incompatible therewith.
Joh 5:22,23. "The Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father." Observe the ground of this great honor; it is judgment committed to him by the Father. We honor the Father, not on the ground of any thing committed to him by another, but as the independent source of all things, 1Co 8:6. Joseph was honored "even as Pharaoh," Ge 44:18. Yet Pharaoh was greater "in the throne" then Jos#Eph 41:40. So our Saviour affirms, "my Father is greater than I" Isa 6:1-5, compared with Joh 12:41, is supposed to prove that Jesus is Jehovah. In the Hebrew the first word Adonai, and not Jehovah occurs. In the 5th it is Jehovah. Compare this passage with Ps 110:1, and it appears that Isaiah saw both Christ and Jehovah. Now it is declared that "no man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," Joh 1:18. Must we not then understand that Isaiah saw the glory of God "in the face of Jesus Christ," who is "the brightness of the Father’s glory and the express image of his person," see 2Co 4:6. Jesus said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." How? "The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works," Joh 14:10. He doth not say the second person in the Trinity, of my own deity that dwelleth in me, doeth the works; but THE FATHER. In respect to his power to forgive sins, see Joh 20:23, " Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." [Editor: I like the comparison someone used to express this thought: He said, "One cannot look at the sun with his eyes, but one can see the effects of the sun by looking at the world," likewise with God; one cannot look at Jehovah, but one can see the effects of Him by looking at the effects of Jesus.]
Re 5:13. "Blessing and honor and glory and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever." 1Ch 29:20. "And all the congregation worshiped the LORD (Jehovah) and the king," i.e., David. Jehovah is worshipped as "the only true God," Jesus Christ as "his first begotten" Son, as Heb 1:6 proves, and as the Lamb that was slain. Re 5:12. David was worshiped as the King of Israel. Each in his true station. It is in the highest sense only, that we are forbidden to worship any but the Supreme. See Lu 14:10, "But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.".
Mr. MacWhorter of Yale College has published a volume, to prove two things. First, That the Hebrew word Jehovah signifying "I AM," should be Yahveh, signifying, "I will be." Second, that Yahveh or Jehovah is Christ.
To test the correctness of the term Jehovah, he proposes to "substitute the English I AM, as an equivalent for Lord" where "the latter occurs in the Old Testament." "This (he affirms) is a perfectly valid test, and should such a rendering seem unmeaning or unworthy, in any connection in which it is made to stand, this fact of itself, would afford a strong presumption that we have not arrived at the true significance of the term." Page 14.
Let us now apply this "perfectly valid test" to determine, whether or not the learned author is correct, in affirming that Yahweh or Jehovah is Christ, and substitute the word Christ where the word Lord in capitals occurs, which, in the Hebrew, is usually, Jehovah or Yahveh.
Ps 110:1 "The Christ said unto my Lord, (Adonai, i.e., Christ,) sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies they footstool." Here we see the rendering is "unmeaning and unworthy;" and that the Father, and not Christ, is Yahveh or Jehovah. The dying martyr saw Jesus Christ, "on the right hand of God." Ac 7:56. Did he see two Jehovah, or is the Father not Jehovah? Isa 42:6. "I the Christ have called thee in righteousness, -and will give thee (Christ) for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles."
Isa 53:6-10. The Christ hath laid on him (Christ) the iniquities of us all." Ps 40. "I (Christ) have preached righteousness in the great congregation, O Christ thou knowest." Isa 53:10. "It pleased the Christ to bruise him," i.e., Christ. Ps 2:2. "The rulers take counsel against the Christ and against his anointed" (Christ.) See also verse #6, Isa 61:1. "The Christ hath anointed me (Christ) to preach good tidings to the meek," &c. See also Mic 5:4. He of Bethlehem (i.e., Christ) "shall stand and feed in the name of the Christ HIS GOD." See also Isa 55:5, and other passages.
This we see is all "unmeaning and unworthy," according to the learned author’s own "perfectly valid test;" demonstrating that Christ is not Jehovah or Yahveh. Isa 63:16, positively declares; "O Jehovah (or Yahveh) thou art our Father."
The fallacious impression that we dishonor the Savior, if we withhold from him the highest possible divine nature, presents many from believing his testimony, that the Father is "the only true God." Joh 17:1,3. The writer was, for a tine, the subject of such an impression. Having found at the Cross that deliverance from the guilt and dominion of sin, which reading, prayer, and resolutions had failed to remove; his love abounded towards his precious Redeemer; but not "in all knowledge." Php 1:9. He has since learned, like Peter, that all regard for "the Son of the Blessed," (who delights to honor his Father) which is contrary to truth, will only meet his rebuke. Mt 16:22.
It plainly appears from 1Co 2:11, that "the Spirit of God" is no more a distinct person from God, than the spirit of a man is a distinct person from the man. It would be an anomaly of a most extraordinary character; if there was an infinite intelligent person in the universe, to whom no prophet, priest, apostle, or saint of the sacred Scriptures, ever offered any direct prayer or praise See the true doxology, Re 5:13. The Spirit of God is "poured out" or "shed forth," Ac 2:17,33; terms inapplicable to personality.
For the honor and glory of the ever blessed God, our Father; "the GOD and FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ;" I submit this brief essay to your serious candid consideration.
Finally, "forbearing one another in love;" let our chief concern be to possess the holy, the humble, the benevolent spirit of Him who has loved us and given himself for us, walking daily in his imitable footsteps; "that when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming."
Yours for the truth, in Christian love.
HENRY GREW (1857)