2016. október 4., kedd

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 t
he 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]

2016. október 3., hétfő

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..

2015. december 19., szombat

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!

2015. október 23., péntek

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

2015. március 2., hétfő

Announcement - For founding a Bible study group

Announcement - For founding a Bible study group in my town.
Peace of God!
I would be interested in opening an independent church (neo-protestant) which reject the version taken from the Roman Catholic Church, preaching paterteism (only the Father is God, but his Son existed in heaven before he coming on Earth) and faith in the mortality of the soul - and it's resurrection with the body, in God's appointed day.
For those interested, e.mail bibliaantica@yahoo.com  


2015. február 21., szombat

The "archangel Christology" an "Angel Christology"? No!

Peace and grace for all the people who want's the peace and grace of God and his Son,

The "archangel Christology" an "Angel Christology"? No. The archangel is not "an angel". In Hebrew (hasar hagadol, Daniel 12,1) means "great prince", a "prince" (sar) like in Isaiah 9:6 "sar shalom". He is between God and angels.
In the heaven exist three ranks: God, the archangel and the angels.


The Protestants of Geneva, Adventists and Jehovah Witnesses weren't the first to reason that Jesus is Michael the Archangel:
"In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels of God's inner council, and who is regularly described as "most venerable", "holy", and "glorious". This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas (was the brother of the Bishop of Rome) saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael. Both, for example, are invested with supreme power over the people of God; both pronounce judgment on the faithful; and both hand sinners over to the angel of repentance to reform them. ... The evidence to be collected from the Apostolic Fathers is meagre, and tantalizingly inconclusive. There is evidence also, as we observed in the preceding paragraph, of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel; here the influence of Jewish angelology is discernible." - Early Christian Doctrines, by JND Kelly, pp 94, 95
In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, John A. Lees says:
"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl (for a full discussion see Hengstenberg, Offenbarung, I, 611-22, and an interesting survey in English by Dr. Douglas in Fairbairn B{ible} D{ictionary}." (1930, Vol. III), p. 2048.
"ARCHANGEL. This word is only twice used in the Bible, 1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9. In the last passage it is applied to Michael, who, in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish Nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of an angelic army. So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." - Inter-National Bible Dictionary, published by Logos International, Plainfield, New Jersey, p. 35.
John Wesley's Note on the Whole Bible:
Daniel Chapter 10
5. A certain man; Very probably Christ, who appeared to Daniel in royal and priestly robes, and in so great brightness and majesty.
13. Withstood me; God suffered the wicked counsels of Cambyses to take place awhile; but Daniel by his prayers, and the angel by his power, overcame him at last: and this very thing laid a foundation of the ruin of the Persian monarchies. Michael; Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ. I remained; To counter-work their designs against the people of God
21. Michael; Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it.
C. H. Spurgeon from "Mornings and Evenings":
"To whom do we owe all this? Let the Lord Jesus Christ be for ever endeared to us, for through Him we are made to sit in heavenly places far above principalities and powers. He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah's presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows."

There is no other archangel in heaven, just Michael. Gabriel is not an archangel, he is an angel. And other names we don't have for any so called archangels "Raphael and Co" were invented.

2015. február 20., péntek

My understanding regarding John 1:1 and Daniel 10:13

Peace and grace from God, the Father Almighty, and from Lord Yeshua his Son. I am a Bible believer from 1991, and a patertheist non-trinitarian from 1992. I believe in one and only God, the Father Almighty (John 17:1-3). And like Adventists believe, I also believe that the Son of God is Michael, the Archangel.
My understanding regarding John 1:1:
Here we are the Greek text: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Is possible that in the very beginning, the autograph writing of John 1:1 have a missing word, ignored or deleted later by a scribe in the early II century: In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and like God was the Word.
My understanding of Daniel 10:13
Michael is the first (achad) of the chief heads, compare with Daniel 12:1
Young's Literal Translation
'And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over-against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come in to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Persia;
Young's Literal Translation
'And at that time stand up doth Michael, the great head, who is standing up for the sons of thy people, and there hath been a time of distress, such as hath not been since there hath been a nation till that time, and at that time do thy people escape, every one who is found written in the book.
Best regards,
John Takacs, Floresti, Romania
My e.mail: bibliaantica@yahoo.com
My blogs:
About Biblical manuscripts, and themes
About conditionalism, annihilationism and the mortality of the soul