'Evidences' of the Trinity or Binity refuted

[Danage]

In this thread I aim to explain away the heretical Trinity and Binity (the belief in the Father and the Son being one G-d) using the Scriptures that the Trinitarians and Binitarians themselves cite as proof for their heretical doctrine.

The most obvious one to start with:

1 John 5:7-8: 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost : and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one'

Here it says they are one, but it means one in purpose, as compared to one G-d.

[I]'Evidences' from the Synoptic Gospels

'Evidences' from the Gospel According to Matthew

Matthew 11:27: 'All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him]'.

Just because only the Son knows the Father does not make him a part of G-d.

Matthew 23:34: 'Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city:'

Christ sends prophets as the Archangel of the Presence and the Covenant.

Matthew 28:18-19: 'And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [Holy Spirit]:'

Here it says that all power is given to him, so it wasn't his in the first place, so he logically can't be the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent G-d. Just because Christ says to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, does not imply a Trinity or Binity at all.

'Evidences' from the Gospel According to Mark

Mark 2:5-7: 'When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this [man] thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?'

Jesus does not refute their claims, but he does not encourage them either.

Mark 2:28: 'Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath'.

Jesus Christ was pre-existent as the Archangel of the Presence, the Archangel of the Covenant, and not a part of G-d Almighty.

Mark 10:45: 'For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many'.

Christ was indeed pre-existent, but as the Archangel of the Presence.

Mark 13:26-27: 'And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven'.

Indeed Christ will return, but he is not G-d, or a part of G-d.

Mark 13:31-32: 'Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father'.

The heretics who believe in a Binity or Trinity ignore the fact that Christ says that the Son knows not the hour or day of his second coming. They says that no man would say that his words would not pass away, but he was an Archangel first, and Christ is indeed above the angels, but only as an Archangel.

Mark 14:61-62: 'But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven'.

Christ is indeed at the right hand of his Father, but not as a second person in a Binity of Trinity.

'Evidences' from the Gospel According to Luke

Luke 10:19: 'Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you'.

Notice that Christ, once an Archangel, can transfer the power to other men.

Luke 22:29: 'And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me'.

Notice that the Father gave him the power, he didn't have it automatically.

Luke 24:49: 'And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high'.

Notice that it says 'the promise of my Father', not his promise, which it would be also if he were G-d.

More to come...

[Danage]

'Evidences' from the Gospel According to John Part I

The Gospel According to John has been cited as leaning heavily towards Trinitarianism and Binitarianism by the believers in these doctrines, but in this reply I aim to prove that it suggests nothing of the kind.

John 1:1: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d'.

The Word was not Christ, for he was the Word made flesh, but Christ was one of the Heavenly Council, and thus he was a 'god' of sorts, but a 'god' below Almighty G-d. He was a 'god' or a member of the Heavenly Council, and besides the Word was the Book, as compared to Christ explicitly.

John 3:13-15: 'And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life'.

Christ indeed came from Heaven, but he was a pre-existent Archangel. Whoever believes he is Messiah shall have eternal life, and keeps to the commandments of Christ and G-d.

John 6:33: 'For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world'.

This is an evidence in favour of Christ's pre-existence.

John 6:38: 'For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me'.

It is yet another evidence for Christ being pre-existent and doing the will of G-d.

John 6:46: 'Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of G-d, he hath seen the Father'.

Christ is of G-d as he was made of G-d, G-d is everywhere and Christ was full of the Holy Spirit of G-d.

John 6:62: '[What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?'

Another evidence for Christ's pre-existence.

John 7:28-29: 'Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me'.

Christ knew G-d because he was in the presence of G-d during the Creation.

John 8:23: 'And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world'.

Yet another evidence for Christ's pre-existence.

John 8:38: 'I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.'

Christ saw the Father, for he was a pre-existent Archangel.

More to come...

[Danage]

'Evidences' from the Gospel According to John Part II

John 8:42: 'Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me'.

This is a reference to Christ's pre-existence.

John 8:58: 'Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am'.

This is another reference to Christ's pre-existence.

John 9:35-38: 'Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of G-d? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him'.

Christ does not in any way condone this act.

John 10:17-18: 'Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father'.

Christ has the power to raise himself back to life for he was filled with the Holy Spirit of G-d and he was an Archangel before he came to Earth.

John 10:30: 'I and [my] Father are one'.

They are one in purpose. The Binitarians and Trinitarians also ignore the previous verse which states that the Father (G-d) is greater than all: 'My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand' (John 10:29).

John 11:4: 'When Jesus heard [that], he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of G-d, that the Son of G-d might be glorified thereby'.

The heretical Binitarians and Trinitarians should notice it says Son of G-d, not G-d the Son.

John 13:32: 'If G-d be glorified in him, G-d shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him [Christ]'.

Just because G-d glorifies His son does not make Christ G-d, quite the opposite in fact.

John 14:9: 'Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?'.

Christ was the first born of the creation, and man is made in the image of G-d.

John 14:28: 'Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I'.

The Binitarians and Trinitarians assert this refers to Christ being fully man, and that is when is less than G-d, but the obvious statement says that Christ is less than G-d for all eternity.

John 15:5: 'I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing'.

The Binitarians and Trinitarians assert this refers to Christ's supposed divinity, but Christ was a great teacher, and nothing could be done or kept without his help.

John 15:9: 'As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love'.

Christians are commanded to love our G-d with all our hearts, and love our neighbours also, to get closer to G-d, thus Christ was obeying the commandments of G-d in saying this commandment.

John 15:23: 'He that hateth me hateth my Father also'.

Those who hate the Messiah will logically hate the Father and vice versa.

John 15:26: 'But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me'.

Christ sends the Holy Spirit as he was and is an Archangel.

John 16:7: 'Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you'.

Christ sends the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) as he was and is an Archangel.

John 16:28: 'I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father'.

Again, another reference to Christ's pre-existence as the Archangel of the Presence.

John 17:2: 'As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him'.

Christ will be given the power over Earth as our Messiah and over eternal life as the dispenser of eternal life to those who keep to his and G-d's holy commandments.

John 17:5: 'And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was'.

Another reference to Christ's pre-existence.

John 17:10: 'And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them'.

All Christ has (eternal life) will be ours, otherwise we could become G-d.

John 20:17: 'Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my G-d, and your G-d'.

Notice he says the Father is our Father and he is our and his G-d, not that he was G-d in the flesh (which is logically impossible).

[Danage]

John 10:30: 'I and [my] Father are one'.

They are one in purpose. The Binitarians and Trinitarians also ignore the previous verse which states that the Father (G-d) is greater than all: 'My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand' (John 10:29).

I would like to admit that I have made a mistake here, since Binitarians believe that in the Binity the Father is greater than the Son.

[Danage]

It has been a long time since I have read this thread, but since then I have a few corrections to make:

1 John 5:7-8: 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost [I put Holy Spirit here, as compared to Holy Ghost, for ghosts do not exist]: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one'

Here it says they are one, but it means one in purpose, as compared to one God.

This never originally said this, in fact it said: 'For there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one'.

No references of the heretical Trinity were there.

Matthew 28:18-19: 'And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [Holy Spirit]:'

Here it says that all power is given to him, so it wasn't his in the first place, so he logically can't be the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God. Just because Christ says to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, does not imply a Trinity or Binity at all.

Once again, Scriptural theology rebukes this Trinitarian reference.

It originally said: 'And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the my [Christ's] name'.

Once again, no references to the heretical Trinity doctrine.

John 1:1: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'.

The Word was not Christ, for he was the Word made flesh, but Christ was one of the Heavenly Council, and thus he was a 'god' of sorts, but a 'god' below Almighty God. He was a 'god' or a member of the Heavenly Council, and besides the Word was the Book, as compared to Christ explicitly.

Christ is God, as in he acts as God, and is the advocate for God.

[miseretur]

1Th 4:9 Now you do not need anyone to write to you about brotherly love, since you have been taught by God to love each other.

Eph 5:1 So be imitators of God, as his dear children.

1Pe 2:21 This is, in fact, what you were called to do, because Christ also suffered for you and left an example for you to follow in his steps.

Joh 14:10 You believe, don't you, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own. It is the Father who dwells in me who does his works.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[miseretur]

Can someone explain to these biblical points.
Have they understood through the ancient god idea.
The concept of god in ancient time was´t not so fatalistic as that is today, in our culture.'
There Is called the Old Testament, the people and angels to god.

But monotheism was so strong that early Christians would not have talked about God, if it did would have been god, Jesus.
What do you think of these points, as the primary language (koen kreek) they are the only points in which Jesus is addressed directed as a god.

1Jn 5:20. We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the true God. We are in union with the one who is true, his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Rom 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, Christ descended, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Tit 2:13 as we wait for the blessed hope and the glorious appearance of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, saying "My Lord and my God!"

And of course Joh.1:1.
I am were that, most of all that the apostle John quotes these lines.
I see these as problematic items.
1Jn 5:21 Little children, guard yourselves from idols.
Why John first call Jesus as a God and then say, dont worship false gods?

Rom 10:13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
shouting to the Lord is very similar to the Old Testament yelling
I read book what is telling about Pauls ideas and Paul was always make the difference between
the God and the New Testament Lord.
like this verse examble.
Rom 1:7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be holy. May grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be yours!

Paul did not connect at any time, Old Testament Lord to Jesus, what is our lord.
Act 2:36 Therefore, let the entire house of Israel understand beyond a doubt that God made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!"

Paul is also always shows that Jesus is subordinate to God.
many provocations against Paul, at least in Trinity issue will be in vain.
the question should be, rather, how should we interpret
johannes?

I consider both men, a man of God, but I have noticed that here forum Paul is suspected:)
However, the case concerned the question which verses I put.
where jesus is called God.
But I wanted to express Paul's view of the strong monotheistic.

God bless you all...
:-)

[miseretur]

Something about connection of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Joh 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
Only God can give Holy Spirit. God was in the Christ 2.Cor.5:19.
We also have peace in Christ.God made peace in Christ.

The problem here is that this drive us thinking like adoptionism.
Was Jesus only flesh, when Jesus shout in cross.
Mar 15:34 At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, eloi, lema sabachthani?", which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Trinitarian theology claim, (augustinus) that here Jesus, shout because hi Loses his body (flesh) Here Jesus or God did not die. Only the flesh what is redeemed is lost.
But this kind of thinking,does not do real justice for events.
This trinitarian theology like also adoptionis is so close each others.

Percentage of the Holy Spirit is always a difficult doctrine of the Trinity.
Augustiinus said that the Holy Spirit is Love between Father and son.
But I consider it is weak explanation.

Question about Holy spirit.
What is the spirit who lead the christians.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by God's Spirit are God's children.
The Bible speaks a lot of the father's spirit, but also the spirit of Christ

Maybe these thoughts have driven to think of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the unity in trinity?
Trinity doctrine, is only human way, try to explain the Role of Jesus.
Who is Jesus if we pray in his name. Who is Jesus if bible In some respects
tell hi is "GOD"
Christian were monotheist. How can be a monotheis if we pray, some one other than a God?
That question is too hard to understand.
Even if it turns and how to examine, so it does not open.
Trinity doctrine can not be a thoroughly bad.
It is only human perception and the need to explain God and the essence of it. The replacement of explanation is also weak.
Apostles' Creed is the only recognition that this definition does not take too far.
1Jn 3:24 The person who keeps his commandments abides in God, and God abides in him. This is how we can be sure that he remains in us: he has given us his Spirit.

I am so confused sometimes between all the front, that I only have questions, as any philosopher :)
Though, I think the basic blocks are still in place.
Jesus is the alpha and omega. Hi is best man who ever lived here, and his is friend all of us.

:-)

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

John 1:1: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d'.

The Word was not Christ, for he was the Word made flesh, but Christ was one of the Heavenly Council, and thus he was a 'god' of sorts, but a 'god' below Almighty G-d. He was a 'god' or a member of the Heavenly Council, and besides the Word was the Book, as compared to Christ explicitly.

Trinitarians have failed to realize one fatal error to their position that Messiah being "the word made flesh" means that Messiah IS the Word (in person and essence) and therefore is God. They forget that Christ is FLESH! Trinitarians who quote "the word was made flesh" are stating that at one time the WORD (christ) was NOT flesh and had to be created so! This makes Messiah (Christ) a CREATED BEING, something that is MADE! The only way to get around this is to deny Christ was flesh! Thus, the trinitarian stand on "the word made flesh" leads inevitably to the denying that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (which John clearly identified as the ANTICHRIST SPIRIT).

Furthermore, Christ stated that WE are ALSO the LIGHT of the world (something the trinitarians emphatically deny, using Christ's claim to being the light as evidence that he is God incarnate). In the same way Messiah was the light, so are those who follow him, he made this clear. He also stated that WE, the followers in the regeneration, become "the word made flesh as well." This was echoed by the Apostles. In one place it is written that we become "living epistles." (We know that the epistles too are considered "the word of God" and we have clear scripture that states the believer becomes "living word" or "word made flesh" when the believer submits the the WORD)!




John 3:13-15: 'And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life'.

Christ indeed came from Heaven, but he was a pre-existent Archangel. Whoever believes he is Messiah shall have eternal life, and keeps to the commandments of Christ and G-d.

I am not convinced of Messiah's pre-existence! First and logically speaking we know that he was born in a manger, to Josef and Mirriam! We also know that angels are physical beings, possessing a body. (Jacob wrestled with one all night until morning, angels ate and drank with people, and angels physically dragged lot and his family out of the city). There is MORE than enough evidence that angels possess a body. How can an arch angel (who already possesses a body) shed this body and somehow enter into the womb of Mary and be born as a man?

I'm sorry if I seem contentious, but I'm going to need scriptural documentation to explain and answer these logical questions please.

Messiah's statement that he "came down from heaven" is merely a reference to his being SENT from the Father and his being "ORDAINED." God created the PLAN OF SALVATION before the foundation of the world and that "light" was the PLAN OF MESSIAH. In this way, the man Yeshua "came down from heaven." You are taking it far too literally.


John 6:33: 'For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world'.

This is an evidence in favour of Christ's pre-existence.

I'm sorry but I couldn't disagree more. The only way your statement is true is if:
1. Messiah is LITERALLY A LOAF OF BREAD
2. We LITERALLY EAT MESSIAHS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD

If you agree that "bread" here is an allegory (or metaphor) which clearly it is, then you have to accept that Messiah is speaking here in symbolic and spiritual terms. If you conclude that the "came down from heaven" part is literal you MUST conclude that the "bread" part is ALSO LITERAL. In which case Messiah is a LOAF of BREAD that came down from HEAVEN.

I know I'm sounding more and more contentious here, but you really are required to explain the logic of taking the "bread" spiritual and symbolic but making the "came down from heaven" literal!



John 6:38: 'For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me'.

It is yet another evidence for Christ being pre-existent and doing the will of G-d.

Again, Messiah is the very PLAN OF SALVATION, that God created when he said "let there be light." In that sense he "came down from heaven." As I said before, you need to support your conclusion with scripture first. How does an arch angel shed his body in heaven and enter into a female human and be born a man? Where are the scriptures on this?


John 6:46: 'Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of G-d, he hath seen the Father'.

Christ is of G-d as he was made of G-d, G-d is everywhere and Christ was full of the Holy Spirit of G-d.

In the letter of John it states

"Now we know that we are the sons of God and it does not yet appear what we shall be but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him for we shall SEE HIM AS HE IS."

By your logic, those who "see him as he is" at his second coming must have "pre-existed" with him in Heaven prior to his return! Seeing Christ does not necessarily mean that we must have gone up to Heaven (where Christ currently is) and literally see him and it certainly doesn't have to mean that before we were born we "saw him" in Heaven.

Your argument therefore is non-sequitur.

Messiah "saw the Father" and guess what, WE WHO ARE OF GOD shall ALSO SEE THE FATHER! That is what he meant when he said "he who is of God has seen the Father." That statement applies, not just to Christ but to ALL WHO SEE THE FATHER!



John 6:62: '[What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?'

Another evidence for Christ's pre-existence.

Again, in order to make this LITERAL you have to accept that Christ is a LOAF OF BREAD. It's illogical!


John 7:28-29: 'Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me'.

Christ knew G-d because he was in the presence of G-d during the Creation.

That is trinitarianism in a nut shell! You're making the same mistake as they are, I'm sorry to say.

Again I'll repeat it. Messiah "came from God" because his birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection were ALL PLANNED and the entire thing was PLANNED from the beginning when God said "let there be LIGHT." That is how Christ could say that he "came down from Heaven."



John 8:23: 'And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world'.

Yet another evidence for Christ's pre-existence.

Your argument is still not supported.


John 8:38: 'I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.'

Christ saw the Father, for he was a pre-existent Archangel.

I disagree. WE SEE CHRIST according to scriptures (even though Christ is at the right hand of the Father)! This is ALL Spiritual. Otherwise those who "see Christ" now must also have pre-existed WITH CHRIST (this is your logic not mine).

In the same way that he who saw Christ "saw the Father" those who see Christ's brethren "see Christ."

This is born out by the sheep and the goats parable. "When did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or sick, or in prison?" Christ's response: "when you did it not unto the least of my brethren you did it not unto me." Clearly, it is POSSIBLE TO SEE CHRIST IN HIS BRETHREN otherwise this parable has NO MEANING AT ALL!

Shalom



More to come...[/quote]

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

John 1:1: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d'.

The Word was not Christ, for he was the Word made flesh, but Christ was one of the Heavenly Council, and thus he was a 'god' of sorts, but a 'god' below Almighty G-d. He was a 'god' or a member of the Heavenly Council, and besides the Word was the Book, as compared to Christ explicitly.

Trinitarians have failed to realize one fatal error to their position that Messiah being "the word made flesh" means that Messiah IS the Word (in person and essence) and therefore is God. They forget that Christ is FLESH! Trinitarians who quote "the word was made flesh" are stating that at one time the WORD (christ) was NOT flesh and had to be created so! This makes Messiah (Christ) a CREATED BEING, something that is MADE! The only way to get around this is to deny Christ was flesh! Thus, the trinitarian stand on "the word made flesh" leads inevitably to the denying that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (which John clearly identified as the ANTICHRIST SPIRIT).

Furthermore, Christ stated that WE are ALSO the LIGHT of the world (something the trinitarians emphatically deny, using Christ's claim to being the light as evidence that he is God incarnate). In the same way Messiah was the light, so are those who follow him, he made this clear. He also stated that WE, the followers in the regeneration, become "the word made flesh as well." This was echoed by the Apostles. In one place it is written that we become "living epistles." (We know that the epistles too are considered "the word of God" and we have clear scripture that states the believer becomes "living word" or "word made flesh" when the believer submits to the WORD)!




John 3:13-15: 'And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life'.

Christ indeed came from Heaven, but he was a pre-existent Archangel. Whoever believes he is Messiah shall have eternal life, and keeps to the commandments of Christ and G-d.

I am not convinced of Messiah's pre-existence! First and logically speaking we know that he was born in a manger, to Josef and Mirriam! We also know that angels are physical beings, possessing a body. (Jacob wrestled with one all night until morning, angels ate and drank with people, and angels physically dragged lot and his family out of the city). There is MORE than enough evidence that angels possess a body. How can an arch angel (who already possesses a body) shed this body and somehow enter into the womb of Mary and be born as a man?

I'm sorry if I seem contentious, but I'm going to need scriptural documentation to explain and answer these logical questions please.

Messiah's statement that he "came down from heaven" is merely a reference to his being SENT from the Father and his being "ORDAINED." God created the PLAN OF SALVATION before the foundation of the world and that "light" was the PLAN OF MESSIAH. In this way, the man Yeshua "came down from heaven." You are taking it far too literally.


John 6:33: 'For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world'.

This is an evidence in favour of Christ's pre-existence.

I'm sorry but I couldn't disagree more. The only way your statement is true is if:
1. Messiah is LITERALLY A LOAF OF BREAD
2. We LITERALLY EAT MESSIAHS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD

If you agree that "bread" here is an allegory (or metaphor) which clearly it is, then you have to accept that Messiah is speaking here in symbolic and spiritual terms. If you conclude that the "came down from heaven" part is literal you MUST conclude that the "bread" part is ALSO LITERAL. In which case Messiah is a LOAF of BREAD that came down from HEAVEN.

I know I'm sounding more and more contentious here, but you really are required to explain the logic of taking the "bread" spiritual and symbolic but making the "came down from heaven" literal!



John 6:38: 'For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me'.

It is yet another evidence for Christ being pre-existent and doing the will of G-d.

Again, Messiah is the very PLAN OF SALVATION, that God created when he said "let there be light." In that sense he "came down from heaven." As I said before, you need to support your conclusion with scripture first. How does an arch angel shed his body in heaven and enter into a female human and be born a man? Where are the scriptures on this?


John 6:46: 'Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of G-d, he hath seen the Father'.

Christ is of G-d as he was made of G-d, G-d is everywhere and Christ was full of the Holy Spirit of G-d.

In the letter of John it states

"Now we know that we are the sons of God and it does not yet appear what we shall be but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him for we shall SEE HIM AS HE IS."

By your logic, those who "see him as he is" at his second coming must have "pre-existed" with him in Heaven prior to his return! Seeing Christ does not necessarily mean that we must have gone up to Heaven (where Christ currently is) and literally see him and it certainly doesn't have to mean that before we were born we "saw him" in Heaven.

Your argument therefore is non-sequitur.

Messiah "saw the Father" and guess what, WE WHO ARE OF GOD shall ALSO SEE THE FATHER! That is what he meant when he said "he who is of God has seen the Father." That statement applies, not just to Christ but to ALL WHO SEE THE FATHER through CHRIST! This is why Christ said "he who has seen me has seen the Father."



John 6:62: '[What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?'

Another evidence for Christ's pre-existence.

Again, in order to make this LITERAL you have to accept that Christ is a LOAF OF BREAD. It's illogical!


John 7:28-29: 'Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me'.

Christ knew G-d because he was in the presence of G-d during the Creation.

That is trinitarianism in a nut shell! You're making the same mistake as they are, I'm sorry to say.

Again I'll repeat it. Messiah "came from God" because his birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection were ALL PLANNED and the entire thing was PLANNED from the beginning when God said "let there be LIGHT." That is how Christ could say that he "came down from Heaven."



John 8:23: 'And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world'.

Yet another evidence for Christ's pre-existence.

Your argument is still not supported. Christ said to US that "we are not of this world" and the apostles echoed this. It does not mean that we pre-existed before we were born. Sorry!


John 8:38: 'I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.'

Christ saw the Father, for he was a pre-existent Archangel.

I disagree. WE SEE CHRIST according to scriptures (even though Christ is at the right hand of the Father)! This is ALL Spiritual. Otherwise those who "see Christ" now must also have pre-existed WITH CHRIST (this is your logic not mine).

In the same way that he who saw Christ "saw the Father" those who see "the least of" Christ's brethren "see Christ."

This is born out by the sheep and the goats parable. "When did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or sick, or in prison?" Christ's response: "when you did it not unto the least of my brethren you did it not unto me." Clearly, it is POSSIBLE TO SEE CHRIST IN HIS BRETHREN otherwise this parable has NO MEANING AT ALL!

Shalom



More to come...[/quote]

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

1Jn 5:20. We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the true God. We are in union with the one who is true, his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.



The trinitarians do the same thing with this verse they do with the Gospel of John chapter 1. The subject in that verse is that the Son of God has come that we may KNOW GOD. God is the context here, (and that the Son has shown us God). The concluding statement "He is the true God and eternal life" is a reference to the CONTEXTUAL SUBJECT, God. It's not even talking about Christ in that verse when it says "He is the true God" it's talking about the "GOD THAT CHRIST HAS SHOWN US."

Typical trinitarian trickery playing games with context. It only works on the gullible and ignorant and small minded. Any intelligent and sincere seeker of truth who reads it for themselves quickly sees through it!



Rom 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, Christ descended, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

The word "descended" in this verse does NOT exist in the original text! Do you know how I know? In the King James Version it is the word "came" and is in ITALICS (which anyone who is thoroughly familiar with KJV knows that is an admission of the translators that the word is ADDED).

This verse actually says:

"Whose the father's (a reference to Israel), and of whom as concerning the flesh, Christ. (Christ came to Israel first, offering salvation). Who is over all. (It does not say "who is GOD over all" again they add to the text to make thier trinitarian teaching appear in scripture). God blessed forever. Amen"

If Christ is God he cannot be "God blessed," for he is the blessor, not the blessee! That Christ is "over all" is never in dispute! He has been GIVEN a name (by God) that is above all names, and he has been PLACED OVER THE ENTIRE KINGDOM, BY GOD. That does NOT MAKE HIM GOD INCARNATE!



Tit 2:13 as we wait for the blessed hope and the glorious appearance of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Here the trinitarians DROP a word. In the original text this verse reads:

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and OUR Savior Jesus Christ."

The placement of "and our" phrase completely separates the two subjects, making them separate in the text. In other words we are awaiting the appearance of TWO THINGS. "the great God" and "our Savior Jesus Christ."
When Christ sets up his kingdom "God shall be in the midst of us" through the HOLY SPIRIT! God shall be "all in all" according to scripture. Thus, Messiah's appearing is also the appearance of the "ancient of days."

That Messiah and God are ONE is not in dispute. (So naturally the appearance of Messiah and the appearance of God occur at the same time and we are awaiting the event). The problem with trinitarianism is that they want to make the ONENESS of Christ and the Father mean that they are the SAME PERSON, and this is not supported in scripture.

One final note. When Christ appears the believers appear WITH HIM! Does that make the believers "GOD" too, (since God is appearing at the same time the believers appear and trinitarians want to say that means God and Christ are the same).


Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, saying "My Lord and my God!"

Again, here trinitarians play game with translation:

John 20:27-28 (a real term translation in bold)
27 Then he (Messiah Y'Shua) said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see my hands. Reach here your hand, and put it into my side. Don't be faithless, but believing."
28 Thomas answered him, <b>"My Kurios and my Theos!"</b>


Here is how it is translated properly

John 20:27-28 (The True "Implied" Translation in bold)
27 Then he (Messiah Y'Shua) said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see my hands. Reach here your hand, and put it into my side. Don't be faithless, but believing."
28 Thomas answered him, <b>"My Supreme Master and My Supreme Godly Leader!"</b>

This trinitarian insistance that Messiah continually accepted "worship" from others as "God Almighty" is very dishonest! That people prostrated themselves before Messiah (which is what worship means) cannot be denied. That they declared him to be the King of Kings is NEVER IN DISPUTE! Messiah is a KING and as such men "bowed" to him and men prostrated themselves before him. Does this mean he was claiming to be God incarnate? If so, then evidently the Pope is claiming to be God incarnate for men prostrate themselves before him. Every monarch who existed was claiming to be "God Incarnate" therefore, using their argument!



And of course Joh.1:1.
I am were that, most of all that the apostle John quotes these lines.
I see these as problematic items.
1Jn 5:21 Little children, guard yourselves from idols.
Why John first call Jesus as a God and then say, dont worship false gods?

John most definitely NEVER called Jesus God! That is just a flat out lie of the trinitarians.

Rom 10:13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
shouting to the Lord is very similar to the Old Testament yelling
I read book what is telling about Pauls ideas and Paul was always make the difference between
the God and the New Testament Lord.
like this verse examble.
Rom 1:7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be holy. May grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be yours!

The term "Lord" denotes not a God, but a KING. That's where you are confused.


Paul did not connect at any time, Old Testament Lord to Jesus, what is our lord.
Act 2:36 Therefore, let the entire house of Israel understand beyond a doubt that God made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!"

Again, anyone who examines the WORDS of the text used to denote "Lord" is going to immediately understand that calling someone Lord does not make them God!


Paul is also always shows that Jesus is subordinate to God.
many provocations against Paul, at least in Trinity issue will be in vain.
the question should be, rather, how should we interpret
johannes?

I consider both men, a man of God, but I have noticed that here forum Paul is suspected:)
However, the case concerned the question which verses I put.
where jesus is called God.
But I wanted to express Paul's view of the strong monotheistic.

God bless you all...
:-)

I can see that I am going to have to DEMONSTRATE that John does NOT call Jesus God and does NOT state that Jesus "pre-existed." The first chapter of John only APPEARS to say this as long as you have the PRECONCEIVED NOTION of it. If you read it without the unproved premise of Christ's deity, or of his "pre-existence" you can clearly see that the text by itself does not support it. It's like an "optical illusion" which contains an image that you only see because it was suggested to you that it is there!

John 1: 1
"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Okay, yes, this makes sense. God's word was in his own mouth from the beginning and his word is his bond! (My father used to say a man is only as good as his word). In these sense God's word is God!

John 1: 2
"2 The same was in the beginning with God."

Yes, indeed, the God's Word was in the beginning with him because it's God's word!
John 1: 3
"3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Okay, the CONTEXT and SUBJECT HERE IS GOD! Since we know that the WORD IS NOT A HIM (the Word is NOT A PERSON) and this says "made by him" the ONLY HIM IDENTIFIED IN THE CONTEXT SO FAR IS GOD. Thus, this verse merely states that all things were made by GOD! Something that Genesis teaches us. The only way we can make verse 3 apply to the "Word" is if we have the PRECONCEIVED and UNPROVED PREMISE that the WORD IS A PERSON. (Basic Trinity). Without that, we have to defer verse 3 to the CONTEXT and accept that verse 3 is saying this.

"3 All things were made by him: (God) and without him (God) was not any thing made that was made."

John 1: 4
"4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

Okay, in God was life. Torah tells us this. That all life came from God! That LIFE came forth from God and has ALWAYS been described as a "light."

John 1: 5
"5 And the light shined in a dark place; and the darkness comprehended it not."

Again, this light is the same exact light that Christ was referring to when he said to his followers "YOU are the light of the world." Trinitarians make "the light shining in a dark place" some sort of proof that Messiah existed with God from the beginning. HOWEVER, we know that this LIGHT was CREATED in Genesis 1: 3 so when Trinitarians state that CHRIST IS THE LIGHT they inadvertently ADMIT that CHRIST IS A CREATED BEING!

When I was young I was at a Bible study with a leader in our church. I pointed out that the Light was created in Genesis and he and the entire study erupted against me. I remember him saying "you're denying the deity of Christ" and of course I was, but didn't really understand that I was. I denied it. He said "you are saying that Christ was created!" I told him, "actually, no it is you who are denying the deity of Christ when you make the LIGHT a PERSON, for the LIGHT is CREATED according to scripture." I drove away that day with him standing in the driveway yelling at me "YOU'RE DENYING THE DEITY OF CHRIST, YOU'RE DENYING THE DEITY OF CHRIST."

It took me years to understand the significance of that study that day!

John 1: 6
"6 There was a man sent from God, whose name is John."

Trinitarians and those who think Messiah claimed to "pre-exist" with God always like to point to the scriptures where Jesus says that he "came from God" or "came down from Heaven." Yet HERE is a verse that says that JOHN was sent from God! Are we to then conclude that John was also God incarnate, or that God also "pre-existed" with God before his birth?

Nonsense!

John 1: 7
"7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe"

I will break this verse down.

The same (John) came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light (the created light that shines in a dark place and is not comprehended) that all men through him (through John) might believe," (in the light).

John 1:8
"8 He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light."

This merely says that John was not the light, but came to bear witness of that light. Yet, I could easily do what the TRINITARIANS do, take verse 8 of context and say that "He" in verse 8 is talking about CHRIST. Like so:

" He (Christ, him that John bears witness of) was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light."

I could do this, but it would be dishonest!

Here is what the verse is really saying:

"He (John) was not that light, but came to bear witness of that light."

John 1:9
"9 That was the true light, which lights every man that comes into the world."

This makes it clear that this is the SPIRITUAL LIGHT that was created before even the FIRST DAY in Genesis. It's not a HE or a PERSON (well actually it is since the LIGHT was the PLAN OF SALVATION and pertains to Christ directly).

John 1: 10
"10 He was in the world and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."

Trinitarians want the "He" in verse 10 to be CHRIST. Thus, verse 10 is saying that the world was made by Christ. This is NOT the case however. Again, the CONTEXT of John Chapter 1 is GOD! So far the only TWO PERSONS mentioned in John chapter 1 are GOD and John the Baptist! Since verse 10 says "HE was in the world" we have to go back to the CONTEXT to figure out WHO HE IS! Since we know that John the Baptist did not create the world, we know that the "HE" in verse 10 is GOD HIMSELF. The only way you can make it JESUS is to make the LIGHT A PERSON! You have to have a PRECONCEIVED NOTION and have accepted a false and unproved premise that the LIGHT, is a PERSON, in order to make verse 10 be a reference to Christ! Here's what verse 10 says:

" He (God) was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."

God was in the world from the very beginning! There is so much testimony of this in the Torah and the Tanakh that it cannot be denied. God was in the world from the beginning and the world never really KNEW him. (Only a chosen few of whom God said, "you alone out of the nations of the earth have I known).

John 1: 11
"11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not."

God indeed came to his own (Israel) and they rejected him time and time again! Now the story begins to turn to the SUBJECT OF SALVATION THROUGH ISRAEL'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE LIGHT THROUGH MESSIAH (of whom John the Baptist testified).

John 1: 12
"12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"

But as many as received the TESTIMONY OF JOHN, and FOLLOWED MESSIAH, to THEM God gave power to become sons of God, even to them that believe on His (God's) name.

John 1: 13
"13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Those who received the testimony of God and followed Messiah were "not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh," they are "born of God." Again, trinitarians try to make verse 13 talking about Christ but it's not it clearly says "which were" and the context is "them that believe on God's name" through John the Baptist's testimony!

John 1: 14
"14 And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Messiah was indeed "the created word of God." Every word he spoke was "from the Father" by his own testimony. This does NOT make him God incarnate! We who believe ALSO become the "word of God" and "living epistles." Saying that Messiah is "the word made flesh" does NOT mean that he is the PERSON of God. The only way this can be true is if we ACCEPT THE PRECONCEIVED NOTION AND UNPROVED PREMISE THAT THE WORD IS A PERSON! They haven't PROVED this yet (and in fact they've never proved it). They are simply ACCEPTING IT. To them, the logic is. "The word was God, the word became flesh, Jesus is the word made flesh, therefore Jesus is God." Yet the ONLY WAY for this to work is if they PROVE the premise that the WORD IS A PERSON!

Even the Catholics will tell you they have NO SCRIPTURAL PROOF that the WORD IS A THIRD PERSON of the TRINITY! It's something that they DEMAND WE TAKE ON FAITH. But considering this creates THREE GODS, and IS HERESY, it's not a wise thing to take it on faith!

One has to take a lot of false premises on FAITH in order for the 1st Chapter of John to be a DEFINITIVE PROOF of the DEITY OF CHRIST! The Chapter simply DOES NOT SAY THIS without preconceived notions of the TRINITY!

In fact, if the Trinitarians interpretation of the 1st Chapter of John is TRUE then God is not a TRIUNE GOD, but is a QUADRINITY! For the Trinitarians say that the LIGHT IS A HE and that IT IS ALSO CHRIST! Thus the LIGHT IS A FOURTH PERSON OF THE GODHEAD, according to the trinitarians reading of John chapter 1! Nowhere does it say that the Light is the SAME PERSON as God, yet trinitarians state that the Light and God existed from the very beginning together. Thus, the LIGHT is a FOURTH PERSON of the GODHEAD and has completely been OVERLOOKED by the trinitarians!

Yet John Chapter 1 makes a statement that PROVES that Jesus Christ is NOT GOD:

John 1: 18
"No man has seen God at any thim; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has DECLARED him."

First John states that no man has seen God at ANY TIME! (This directly contradicts the trinitarians claims that Christ claimed to be God when he said "he who has seen me has seen the Father." We now know that Christ was speaking figuratively, otherwise when John wrote his Gospel years later and said "no man has seen God at any time," he would have been MISTAKEN on that point). Yet, here in verse 18 John also says that Christ is "in the bosom of the Father." He does not say that he IS the Father!

Anyone who wants to turn John chapter 1 into a teaching proof of the trinity is just DISHONEST. Before you can say that this chapter is proof of the trinity and deity of Christ, you have to the following 3 things FIRST before you ever even READ it:

1. The word is a person
2. The light is a person
3. Christ pre-existed

If you read the chapter WITHOUT the above 3 preconceived beliefs, it does NOT TEACH TRINITY AT ALL but teaches quite the opposite in fact!

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

1Jn 5:20. We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the true God. We are in union with the one who is true, his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.



The trinitarians do the same thing with this verse they do with the Gospel of John chapter 1. The subject in that verse is that the Son of God has come in order that we may KNOW GOD. God is the context here, (and that the Son has shown us God). The concluding statement "He is the true God and eternal life" is a reference to the CONTEXTUAL SUBJECT, God. It's not even talking about Christ in that verse when it says "He is the true God" it's talking about the "GOD THAT CHRIST HAS SHOWN US."

Typical trinitarian trickery playing games with context. It only works on the gullible and ignorant and small minded. Any intelligent and sincere seeker of truth who reads it for themselves quickly sees through it!



Rom 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, Christ descended, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

The word "descended" in this verse does NOT exist in the original text! Do you know how I know? In the King James Version it is the word "came" and is in ITALICS (which anyone who is thoroughly familiar with KJV knows that is an admission of the translators that the word is ADDED).

This verse actually says:

"Whose the father's (a reference to Israel), and of whom as concerning the flesh, Christ. (Christ came to Israel first, offering salvation). Who is over all. (It does not say "who is GOD over all" again they add to the text to make thier trinitarian teaching appear in scripture). God blessed forever. Amen"

If Christ is God he cannot be "God blessed," for he is the blessor, not the blessee! That Christ is "over all" is never in dispute! He has been GIVEN a name (by God) that is above all names, and he has been PLACED OVER THE ENTIRE KINGDOM, BY GOD. That does NOT MAKE HIM GOD INCARNATE!



Tit 2:13 as we wait for the blessed hope and the glorious appearance of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Here the trinitarians DROP a word. In the original text this verse reads:

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and OUR Savior Jesus Christ."

The placement of "and our" phrase completely separates the two subjects, making them separate in the text. In other words we are awaiting the appearance of TWO THINGS. "the great God" and "our Savior Jesus Christ."
When Christ sets up his kingdom "God shall be in the midst of us" through the HOLY SPIRIT! God shall be "all in all" according to scripture. Thus, Messiah's appearing is also the appearance of the "ancient of days."

That Messiah and God are ONE is not in dispute. (So naturally the appearance of Messiah and the appearance of God occur at the same time and we are awaiting the event). The problem with trinitarianism is that they want to make the ONENESS of Christ and the Father mean that they are the SAME PERSON, and this is not supported in scripture.

One final note. When Christ appears the believers appear WITH HIM! Does that make the believers "GOD" too, (since God is appearing at the same time the believers appear and trinitarians want to say that means God and Christ are the same).


Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, saying "My Lord and my God!"

Again, here trinitarians play game with translation:

John 20:27-28 (a real term translation in bold)
27 Then he (Messiah Y'Shua) said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see my hands. Reach here your hand, and put it into my side. Don't be faithless, but believing."
28 Thomas answered him, "My Kurios and my Theos!"


Here is how it is translated properly

John 20:27-28 (The True "Implied" Translation in bold)
27 Then he (Messiah Y'Shua) said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see my hands. Reach here your hand, and put it into my side. Don't be faithless, but believing."
28 Thomas answered him, "My Supreme Master and My Supreme Godly Leader!"

This trinitarian insistance that Messiah continually accepted "worship" from others as "God Almighty" is very dishonest! That people prostrated themselves before Messiah (which is what worship means) cannot be denied. That they declared him to be the King of Kings is NEVER IN DISPUTE! Messiah is a KING and as such men "bowed" to him and men prostrated themselves before him. Does this mean he was claiming to be God incarnate? If so, then evidently the Pope is claiming to be God incarnate for men prostrate themselves before him. Every monarch who existed was claiming to be "God Incarnate" therefore, using their argument!



And of course Joh.1:1.
I am were that, most of all that the apostle John quotes these lines.
I see these as problematic items.
1Jn 5:21 Little children, guard yourselves from idols.
Why John first call Jesus as a God and then say, dont worship false gods?

John most definitely NEVER called Jesus God! That is just a flat out lie of the trinitarians.

Rom 10:13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
shouting to the Lord is very similar to the Old Testament yelling
I read book what is telling about Pauls ideas and Paul was always make the difference between
the God and the New Testament Lord.
like this verse examble.
Rom 1:7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be holy. May grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be yours!

The term "Lord" denotes not a God, but a KING. That's where you are confused.


Paul did not connect at any time, Old Testament Lord to Jesus, what is our lord.
Act 2:36 Therefore, let the entire house of Israel understand beyond a doubt that God made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!"

Again, anyone who examines the WORDS of the text used to denote "Lord" is going to immediately understand that calling someone Lord does not make them God!


Paul is also always shows that Jesus is subordinate to God.
many provocations against Paul, at least in Trinity issue will be in vain.
the question should be, rather, how should we interpret
johannes?

I consider both men, a man of God, but I have noticed that here forum Paul is suspected:)
However, the case concerned the question which verses I put.
where jesus is called God.
But I wanted to express Paul's view of the strong monotheistic.

God bless you all...
:-)

I can see that I am going to have to DEMONSTRATE that John does NOT call Jesus God and does NOT state that Jesus "pre-existed." The first chapter of John only APPEARS to say this as long as you have the PRECONCEIVED NOTION of it. If you read it without the unproved premise of Christ's deity, or of his "pre-existence" you can clearly see that the text by itself does not support it. It's like an "optical illusion" which contains an image that you only see because it was suggested to you that it is there!

John 1: 1
"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Okay, yes, this makes sense. God's word was in his own mouth from the beginning and his word is his bond! (My father used to say a man is only as good as his word). In these sense God's word is God!

John 1: 2
"2 The same was in the beginning with God."

Yes, indeed, the God's Word was in the beginning with him because it's God's word!
John 1: 3
"3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Okay, the CONTEXT and SUBJECT HERE IS GOD! Since we know that the WORD IS NOT A HIM (the Word is NOT A PERSON) and this says "made by him" the ONLY HIM IDENTIFIED IN THE CONTEXT SO FAR IS GOD. Thus, this verse merely states that all things were made by GOD! Something that Genesis teaches us. The only way we can make verse 3 apply to the "Word" is if we have the PRECONCEIVED and UNPROVED PREMISE that the WORD IS A PERSON. (Basic Trinity). Without that, we have to defer verse 3 to the CONTEXT and accept that verse 3 is saying this.

"3 All things were made by him: (God) and without him (God) was not any thing made that was made."

John 1: 4
"4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

Okay, in God was life. Torah tells us this. That all life came from God! That LIFE came forth from God and has ALWAYS been described as a "light."

John 1: 5
"5 And the light shined in a dark place; and the darkness comprehended it not."

Again, this light is the same exact light that Christ was referring to when he said to his followers "YOU are the light of the world." Trinitarians make "the light shining in a dark place" some sort of proof that Messiah existed with God from the beginning. HOWEVER, we know that this LIGHT was CREATED in Genesis 1: 3 so when Trinitarians state that CHRIST IS THE LIGHT they inadvertently ADMIT that CHRIST IS A CREATED BEING!

When I was young I was at a Bible study with a leader in our church. I pointed out that the Light was created in Genesis and he and the entire study erupted against me. I remember him saying "you're denying the deity of Christ" and of course I was, but didn't really understand that I was. I denied it. He said "you are saying that Christ was created!" I told him, "actually, no it is you who are denying the deity of Christ when you make the LIGHT a PERSON, for the LIGHT is CREATED according to scripture." I drove away that day with him standing in the driveway yelling at me "YOU'RE DENYING THE DEITY OF CHRIST, YOU'RE DENYING THE DEITY OF CHRIST."

It took me years to understand the significance of that study that day!

John 1: 6
"6 There was a man sent from God, whose name is John."

Trinitarians and those who think Messiah claimed to "pre-exist" with God always like to point to the scriptures where Jesus says that he "came from God" or "came down from Heaven." Yet HERE is a verse that says that JOHN was sent from God! Are we to then conclude that John was also God incarnate, or that John also "pre-existed" with God before his birth?

Nonsense!

John 1: 7
"7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe"

I will break this verse down.

The same (John) came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light (the created light that shines in a dark place and is not comprehended) that all men through him (through John) might believe," (in the light).

John 1:8
"8 He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light."

This merely says that John was not the light, but came to bear witness of that light. Yet, I could easily do what the TRINITARIANS do, take verse 8 of context and say that "He" in verse 8 is talking about CHRIST. Like so:

" He (Christ, him that John bears witness of) was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light."

I could do this, but it would be dishonest!

Here is what the verse is really saying:

"He (John) was not that light, but came to bear witness of that light."

John 1:9
"9 That was the true light, which lights every man that comes into the world."

This makes it clear that this is the SPIRITUAL LIGHT that was created before even the FIRST DAY in Genesis. It's not a HE or a PERSON (well actually it is since the LIGHT was the PLAN OF SALVATION and pertains to Christ directly).

John 1: 10
"10 He was in the world and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."

Trinitarians want the "He" in verse 10 to be CHRIST. Thus, verse 10 is saying that the world was made by Christ. This is NOT the case however. Again, the CONTEXT of John Chapter 1 is GOD! So far the only TWO PERSONS mentioned in John chapter 1 are GOD and John the Baptist! Since verse 10 says "HE was in the world" we have to go back to the CONTEXT to figure out WHO HE IS! Since we know that John the Baptist did not create the world, we know that the "HE" in verse 10 is GOD HIMSELF. The only way you can make it JESUS is to make the LIGHT A PERSON! You have to have a PRECONCEIVED NOTION and have accepted a false and unproved premise that the LIGHT, is a PERSON, in order to make verse 10 be a reference to Christ! Here's what verse 10 says:

" He (God) was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."

God was in the world from the very beginning! There is so much testimony of this in the Torah and the Tanakh that it cannot be denied. God was in the world from the beginning and the world never really KNEW him. (Only a chosen few of whom God said, "you alone out of the nations of the earth have I known).

John 1: 11
"11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not."

God indeed came to his own (Israel) and they rejected him time and time again! Now the story begins to turn to the SUBJECT OF SALVATION THROUGH ISRAEL'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE LIGHT THROUGH MESSIAH (of whom John the Baptist testified).

John 1: 12
"12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"

But as many as received the TESTIMONY OF JOHN, and FOLLOWED MESSIAH, to THEM God gave power to become sons of God, even to them that believe on His (God's) name.

John 1: 13
"13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Those who received the testimony of God and followed Messiah were "not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh," they are "born of God." Again, trinitarians try to make verse 13 talking about Christ but it's not it clearly says "which were" and the context is "them that believe on God's name" through John the Baptist's testimony!

John 1: 14
"14 And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Messiah was indeed "the created word of God." Every word he spoke was "from the Father" by his own testimony. This does NOT make him God incarnate! We who believe ALSO become the "word of God" and "living epistles." Saying that Messiah is "the word made flesh" does NOT mean that he is the PERSON of God. The only way this can be true is if we ACCEPT THE PRECONCEIVED NOTION AND UNPROVED PREMISE THAT THE WORD IS A PERSON! They haven't PROVED this yet (and in fact they've never proved it). They are simply ACCEPTING IT. To them, the logic is. "The word was God, the word became flesh, Jesus is the word made flesh, therefore Jesus is God." Yet the ONLY WAY for this to work is if they PROVE the premise that the WORD IS A PERSON!

Even the Catholics will tell you they have NO SCRIPTURAL PROOF that the WORD IS A THIRD PERSON of the TRINITY! It's something that they DEMAND WE TAKE ON FAITH. But considering this creates THREE GODS, and IS HERESY, it's not a wise thing to take it on faith!

One has to take a lot of false premises on FAITH in order for the 1st Chapter of John to be a DEFINITIVE PROOF of the DEITY OF CHRIST! The Chapter simply DOES NOT SAY THIS without preconceived notions of the TRINITY!

In fact, if the Trinitarians interpretation of the 1st Chapter of John is TRUE then God is not a TRIUNE GOD, but is a QUADRINITY! For the Trinitarians say that the LIGHT IS A HE and that IT IS ALSO CHRIST! Thus the LIGHT IS A FOURTH PERSON OF THE GODHEAD, according to the trinitarians reading of John chapter 1! Nowhere does it say that the Light is the SAME PERSON as God, yet trinitarians state that the Light and God existed from the very beginning together. Thus, the LIGHT is a FOURTH PERSON of the GODHEAD and has completely been OVERLOOKED by the trinitarians!

Yet John Chapter 1 makes a statement that PROVES that Jesus Christ is NOT GOD:

John 1: 18
"No man has seen God at any thim; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has DECLARED him."

First John states that no man has seen God at ANY TIME! (This directly contradicts the trinitarians claims that Christ claimed to be God when he said "he who has seen me has seen the Father." We now know that Christ was speaking figuratively, otherwise when John wrote his Gospel years later and said "no man has seen God at any time," he would have been MISTAKEN on that point). Yet, here in verse 18 John also says that Christ is "in the bosom of the Father." He does not say that he IS the Father!

Anyone who wants to turn John chapter 1 into a teaching proof of the trinity is just DISHONEST. Before you can say that this chapter is proof of the trinity and deity of Christ, you have to the following 3 things FIRST before you ever even READ it:

1. The word is a person
2. The light is a person
3. Christ pre-existed

If you read the chapter WITHOUT the above 3 preconceived beliefs, it does NOT TEACH TRINITY AT ALL but teaches quite the opposite in fact!

[Postulare42]

:-)()

That is one of the finest exegeses on the topic I have read.

Keep up the good work !!!

:-)()

[miseretur]

Thank you for your very good writings "TwoWitnessesUSdotcom"
some of the theological references were familiar to me.
But some part was new kind of vision:) thanks for that.
I try to study your writings, even though they are in English.
Now I spend my Easter sermon, and I try to write to tomorrow's prison visitor.
We have prison God service tomorrow. And Estern time is best for this kind of action. Our Lord is raised from the dead. Jesus has redeemed us from our sins:)
God bless all of you and, very blessed ester time.

[Kymbo]

[quote=Danage;2601]

"In this thread I aim to explain away the heretical Trinity and Binity (the belief in the Father and the Son being one G-d) using the Scriptures that the Trinitarians and Binitarians themselves cite as proof for their heretical doctrine.

The most obvious one to start with:

1 John 5:7-8: 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost [I put Holy Spirit here, as compared to Holy Ghost, for ghosts do not exist]: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one'" (unquote.)

1 John 5: 7-8 is known as the `Comma Johanneum', and is an addition by Erasmus, whose editing of the third edition of the `Textus Receptus' eventually formed the basis of the K.J.V. While it was included in the Vulgate; which Erasmus regarded as having been compiled from corrupt texts, he actually knew better than including it - but made a silly boast that he would include it in his third edited edition of the `Textus Receptus' if any Greek manuscript could be found bearing this text. A manuscript was produced, which is thought to have been `manufactured' by a Jesuit for this purpose and `created' from the Latin Vulgate in 1520, with the most likely `origen' (please excuse the pun) of this verse coming from a marginal gloss of a fifth century Latin manuscript! The Vulgate, or Latin text, was originally written by Jerome and heavily influenced by the neo-platonism of Origen. The Vulgate formed the basis of the Catholic `Doauy' Bible, which is a recension based upon the allegorization of Origen.

Erasmus kept his word and foolishly included this gloss in the manuscript. Unfortunately, it was never removed from the text and found its way into the King James Bible. It has become the most quoted `evidence' of a Trinity by those who have little idea of history, or textual criticism, or textual corruption.

Who was it who said if we haven't learned from the mistakes of past history, then we are doomed to repeat them?:eek:

[miseretur]

Do you believe Mr TwoWitnessesUSdotcom, that these verses talks about Jesus, when hi was in heaven?
do you belive that this prove Son of God Pre-existence?
I belive that these show trinitarian doctrines weakest links to the scriptures.
This verse (pro.8:22) show That God´s son is created.
First before others. This logos thinking is also very platonic and philosophical.
Christians do not understand this logos thinking like kreek´s did. But why is that so difficult understand that we have right to call some one else to god if it is not God. Judaism is strong monoteism religion, and we christians in herit that thinking from them.
We have only one Lord. Like apostolic creed also say. is the confusion caused by that, we dont say Lords name yahweh? are it simble then understand these two things each others. Jesus son of God and God The Father, who is also Jesus God, and Father.
Some ideas and so many questions, this is too much to my poor english:) hah.


Pro 8:22-31. Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was.

When there were no depths, I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water.

Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth;

While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world.

When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep,

When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong,

When he gave to the sea its bound, That the waters should not transgress his commandment, When he marked out the foundations of the earth;

Then I was by him, as a master workman; And I was daily his delight, Rejoicing always before him,

Rejoicing in his habitable earth; And my delight was with the sons of men.

Dan. 7:13-14.
I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

[miseretur]

None worthy theologian today, consider these additions to the genuine or authentic.
original manuscripts of these does not exist.
Textus receptus even do not have these additions in it´s manuascripts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

I personally think that these additionsin bible verses 1.Joh.5:7 are the vain to explain of text. that I am not sure whether it is intentional or an honest casuistry. When texts were translated and copied an oral speech through.
it may therefore be a humane attempt to structure the idea of text.
but on this day, such act would be fake.
I do not think that it belongs to the original manuscript.
Some monk have here made here serious crime.

[miseretur]

The Story of an Interpolation—1 John 5:7, 8

MODERN scholars do not hesitate to omit from their Bible translations the spurious passage found at First John 5:7, 8. After the words “For there are three witness bearers” this added passage reads, “in heaven, the Father, the Word and the holy spirit; and these three are one. [Verse 8] And there are three witness bearers on earth.” (Omitted by the American Standard Version, An American Translation, English Revised Version, Moffatt, New English Bible, Phillips, Rotherham, Revised Standard Version, Schonfield, Wade, Wand, Weymouth, etc.) Commenting on these words, the famous scholar and prelate B. F. Westcott said, “The words which are interpolated in the common Greek text in this passage offer an instructive illustration of the formation and introduction of a gloss into the apostolic text.”1 So what is the story behind this passage, and how did the science of textual criticism finally show it to be no part of God’s inspired Word, the Holy Bible?

WHEN THE PASSAGE FIRST APPEARS

With the falling away from true Christianity came the rise of much controversy regarding the doctrine of the trinity, yet, though these words would have been most pertinent, early church writers never once used them. Verses six to eight of First John chapter five are quoted by Hesychius, Leo called the Great, and Ambrose among the Latins; and Cyril of Alexandria, Oecumenius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and Nicetus among the Greeks, to name just a few, but the words in question never appear in the quotations. As an example, the anonymous work entitled “Of Rebaptising,” written about A.D. 256, states, “For John teaching us says in his epistle (1 John 5:6, 7, 8) ‘This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.’”2 Even Jerome did not have it in his Bible. A prologue attributed to him that defended the text has been proved to be a false one.

The “comma Johanneum,” as this spurious addition is usually called, first appears in the works of Priscillian, leader of a sect in Spain near the end of the fourth century A.D.3 During the fifth century it was included in a confession of faith presented to Hunneric, king of the Vandals, and it is quoted in the Latin works of Vigilius of Thapsus, in varying forms. It is found in the work entitled “Contra Varimadum” composed between 445 and 450 (A.D.), and Fulgentius, an African bishop, used it a little later.

Until then the “comma” had appeared as an interpretation of the genuine words recorded in the eighth verse, but once it had become established in this way, it next began to be written in as a gloss in the margin of Latin Bible manuscripts. But a marginal gloss can easily be construed as an omission from the genuine text, and so in later manuscripts it is interlined, then finally it became an integral part of the Latin text, though its position in consequence varies, and it is sometimes before the eighth verse and sometimes after it. (Compare John Wesley’s New Testament where the seventh verse follows the eighth.) An interesting survey made some years ago of 258 Latin Bible manuscripts in the National Library of Paris showed the progressive absorption of this interpolation through the centuries.

[Chart]

Number omitting

Century the interpolation

9th 7 out of 10, or 70%

10th 3 out of 4, or 75%

11th 3 out of 5, or 60%

12th 2 out of 15, or 13%

13th 5 out of 118, or 4%

14th-16th 1 out of 106, or 1%

The text was further promoted at a council held in 1215 by Pope Innocent III when a work of the Abbot Joachim on the trinity was condemned. The entire passage with the interpolation was quoted from the Latin Vulgate in the acts of the council, which were translated from Latin into Greek. From here some Greek writers took up the text, notably Calecas in the fourteenth century and Bryennius in the fifteenth.

ERASMUS AND STEPHENS

The invention of printing gave rise to much increased production of the original Bible text. The interpolation at 1 John 5:7, 8 was omitted in the Greek texts of Erasmus (1516 and 1519), Aldus Manutius (1518) and Gerbelius (1521). Desiderius Erasmus was violently attacked for not including the text, both by Edward Lee, later Archbishop of York, and J. L. Stunica, one of the editors of the Complutensian Polyglott, which had been printed in 1514 but still remained locked in the warehouse awaiting the pope’s approval. The opposition to Erasmus was based upon the view, expressed in a letter to him by Martin Dorp, that the Latin Vulgate was the official Bible and could not be in error.

Confident that no Greek manuscript contained the “comma Johanneum,” Erasmus in reply rashly stated that if so much as one Greek manuscript could be found to contain the words he would insert them in his next edition. He was told of the early sixteenth century Codex Britannicus, better known as Codex Montfortianus (No. 61). Keeping his promise, Erasmus inserted the words in his third edition of 1522, though he appended a long note reasoning against the addition.

A closer examination of the Codex Montfortianus reveals some interesting facts. Its collator, O. T. Dobbin, wrote that the interpolation at 1 John 5:7, 8 “not only differs from the usual text, but is written in such Greek as manifestly betrays a translation from the Latin.”4 For instance, because the Latin does not have the article “the” before each of the expressions “Father,” “Son” and “holy spirit” it did not occur to the translator that the Greek would require them. So of how much worth was this codex as a Greek manuscript? The same fault is found in the other authority sometimes referred to, the Codex Ottobonianus 298 (No. 629) in Latin and Greek. In his fourth edition, of 1527, Erasmus inserted the definite articles to make the Greek text more accurate grammatically.

From now on the interpolation appeared in other Greek texts whose authors followed the editions of Erasmus. Then in 1550 further confusion occurred through the edition of Robert Stephens published that year. It contained a critical apparatus giving various readings from fifteen manuscripts and at 1 John 5:7 a semicircle points the reader to the margin, where seven manuscripts are cited as authority for the omission of three words only. Critics have demonstrated that this semicircle was misplaced, as were many other signs throughout this edition, and that it should have included for omission the entire “comma Johanneum.” But worse still, because only seven manuscripts were cited, it was assumed by many ignorant people that all the rest of Stephens’ manuscripts did include the interpolation, for they did not realize that the remaining manuscripts did not contain the epistles of John anyway. So out of a possible 100 percent (seven manuscripts) not one included the disputed words.

It was now only a short step to introduce the text into other language translations. It had already appeared in the version of Wycliffe (1380), for he translated from the Latin, having no knowledge of Greek. But now it appeared in translations made from the Greek, such as those of Tyndale and Cranmer, though it was printed in italics and set in brackets. But by the time of the Geneva version of 1557 even this distinction disappeared and the passage is set in ordinary type without brackets. So the interpolation slipped unobtrusively into the 1611 authorized King James Version.

THE BATTLE RENEWED

Had the final word been said on the “comma Johanneum”? Perhaps it seemed that way as the seventeenth century progressed, dominated by the Authorized Version. But the murmurings never ceased and the search for the mysterious Codex Britannicus continued, for it disappeared after Erasmus was told about it. Toward the end of the century, no less a personage than Sir Isaac Newton turned the attention of his scientifically trained mind to this text. In 1690 he sent John Locke the treatise “An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture.” The tract set out clearly the reasons for rejecting the text as spurious and several copies circulated among friends of Newton, but it was never published until nearly seventy years later and then only imperfectly.

Meanwhile the growth of textual criticism took on new impetus. The text was attacked by Richard Simon, and Dr. John Mill gathered the evidence against the passage, though he remained its defender. But Thomas Emlyn took up Mill’s evidence and urged both houses of Convocation assembled in 1717 to cut the words right out, for he said, “ ’tis never given up fairly, till it be left out of our printed copies.”5 In short order Emlyn was attacked by Mr. Martin, pastor of the French Church at Utrecht, whose voluminous and subtle answer seemed to clear the field. Emlyn’s reply caused Martin to launch a second tirade against him. But Emlyn won many supporters, though the devious windings of the controversy often made it extremely difficult to find out what it was really all about.

In 1729 there appeared here in England a diglot version of the Christian Greek Scriptures by Daniel Mace. In a fourteen-page note he listed the Greek and Latin manuscripts, ancient versions, early Greek and Latin writers that omitted the text and threw it out with this conclusion, “In a word, if this evidence is not sufficient to prove, that the controverted text in St. John is spurious; by what evidence can it be prov’d, that any text in St. John is genuine?”6 Thereafter, other English translations began to omit the verse, such as the one by William Whiston (1745), well known for his translation of Josephus, and that by John Worsley in 1770.

If Edward Gibbon thought the wheel had turned full circle when he published The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1781 he was mistaken. With his usual sarcasm he denounced the passage as a “pious fraud.”7 Up rose another champion, George Travis, an archdeacon, who rushed into action to defend the text. His extreme statements elicited crushing replies from Professor Richard Porson (running to over 400 pages) and Herbert Marsh, a bishop. At last the interpolation was exposed in a minute and most exact manner.

THE LAST STRONGHOLD GIVES WAY

After Porson and Marsh there was little to add. Most scholars of the nineteenth century considered the matter settled, but one stronghold remained, the Roman Catholic Church.

As late as 1897 a papal decree was issued forbidding the faithful to doubt the “comma Johanneum.” In part it said:

“Secretariat of the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Concerning the authenticity of the text of 1 John V. 7. (Wednesday, Jan. 12, 1897).

“In a General Congregation of the Holy Roman Inquisition . . . the following doubtful question was presented:

“‘Whether we may safely deny, or even treat as a matter of doubt, the authenticity of that text (1 John V. 7). . . ’

“All things having been most diligently examined and weighed, and the opinion of the Lords Consultors having been taken, the aforesaid Most Eminent Cardinals gave out ‘the answer is in the negative.’ On Friday the 15th of the aforesaid month and year, in the usual audience granted to reverend father the lord Assessor of the Holy Office, after that he had made an exact report of the aforesaid proceedings to our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, His Holiness approved and confirmed the resolution of these Most Eminent Fathers . . . ”—Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 29. 1896-7. p. 637.

But Pope Leo soon realized that he had been imposed upon, and in 1902 he established a commission to study Scripture more closely, directing it to begin with 1 John 5:7, 8. Because the report was unfavorable to the earlier decree it had to be put aside, but the pope continued to be worried by the situation right up to his death. Some Roman Catholic scholars began to ignore the decree. Dr. Vogels omitted the text from his Greek Testament published in 1920. Others were at first more cautious.

In the Roman Catholic Westminster Version of the New Testament published in 1931 the footnote to 1 John 5:7, 8 after calling attention to its omission in the original text continues, “Until further action be taken by the Holy See it is not open to Catholic editors to eliminate the words from a version made for the use of the faithful.”8 But in the same version republished as one volume in 1947 the interpolation is omitted, editor Cuthbert Lattey citing the Greek text published by Jesuit scholar A. Merk, which also omits it.

So the prospect envisaged by Professor J. Scott Porter in 1848 has come true. “It is to be hoped,” he wrote, after summing up the evidence on 1 John 5:7, 8, “the time will soon come when those who have the charge of preparing editions of the Bible for general circulation, will be ashamed of sending forth a known interpolation as a portion of the sacred text.”9 In recent times the discovery of such Bible manuscripts as the Codex Sinaiticus has confirmed that this particular verse was no part of God’s inspired Word.

In brief summary the words of that well-known textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener can be quoted: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”10

Our faith in God’s Word is greatly strengthened when we review the story of this text and reflect on the abundance of evidence from all sources that testifies to the accuracy of the Bible we hold in our hand.

REFERENCES

 1 The Epistles of John by B. F. Westcott, 4th edition, 1902, page 202.

 2 The Works of N. Lardner, volume 3, page 68.

 3 Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, volume 18, 1889, by G. Schepss, page 6.

 4 The Codex Montfortianus, A Collation, by O. T. Dobbin, 1854, page 9.

 5 A Full Inquiry into the Original Authority of the Text, 1 John 5:7 . . . (second edition) by T. Emlyn, 1717, page 72.

 6 The New Testament in Greek and English, 1729, volume 2, page 934.

 7 The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by E. Gibbon, chapter 37, Chandos edition, volume 2, page 526.

 8 The Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures, volume 4, page 146.

 9 Principles of Textual Criticism by J. Scott Porter, 1848, page 510.

10 A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament by F. H. A. Scrivener, 4th edition, 1894, volume 2, page 407.

[Kymbo]

Hullo brother,

It is good to finally write a posting to you. I have noticed some of your postings which I would have liked to reply to. I think that this one deserves an amplification of my previous post.

It was no mistake. The `manufacturing' of a manuscript which echoed the sentiments of a fifth century gloss were quite deliberate. The last thing Rome wanted was a Revision based upon majority texts; she could only benefit if error was introduced into this stream of manuscripts. Erasmus foolishly provided one avenue by which she was able to do this.

You are probably aware that the stream of manuscripts known as the `Textus Recuptus' (or `Received Text') became the K.J.V. and the Protestant Bibles of the European nations, while Codices A and B (the Siniaticus and Vaticanus) contributed towards Jerome's Vulgate in the fifth century; which then of course became the Catholic Douay Bible. One of the theories `Higher Criticism' uses in determining the most accurate Bible to use, is `The older the manuscript, the more accurate it must be'. This is in fact a fallacy created by the Jesuits in their attempts to have the Protestant world accept the Romanized `Revised' versions (which in fact were recensions - Westcott & Hort, who presided on the committee of the R.S.V in the late 19th century were Romanizers and spiritualizers of the worst degree), which are based upon codices A and B, which were (as I have already noted) corrupted manuscripts from which the Catholic Douay Bible is based. As our ArchBishop noted in his posting on `Which Bible', over three thousand changes were made to the text of the K.J.V. This of course resulted in serious textual corruption, and in some instances changed the import of doctrine as well.

If we are to follow the line of reasoning championed by `Higher Criticism', we would most certainly agree with these `scholars' when they say that Codices A and B (Siniaticus and Vaticanus) must be the most accurate translations of the manuscripts which became the Bible. This indeed was the line of reasoning given by Westcott and Hort when they first framed the R.S.V. during the late 19th century, as at that time (by memory) the earliest extant manuscripts which were of the class belonging to the Received Text could not be dated before about the twelfth century, while the Vaticanus was the basis of Jeromes Vulgate in the fith century. But why were there no earlier extant manuscripts which pertained to the stream known as the `Received Text'? As I stated before, the most ancient copies of these manuscripts simply wore out with constant use and handling by people such as the Waldensians, who followed in the traditions of the Hebrew scribes in that they carefully copied and memorized portions of the Bible word for word, so that precious light and truth might be given to those who were desirous of the Word of God. The Waldensians were both Sabbath keepers and semi-Arians who clung to what they believed were their apostolic interpretation of the Scriptures. For this reason, they were both hated and despised by Rome and put to death for heresy if found - their villages were also razed to the ground. It is they who were responsible for guarding the Word of God during the `Dark Ages', so that Wycliffe, Huss and Luther could then begin the Reformation.

Thus the arguments of Westcott and Hort bewitched the Protestants, until the cracks began to appear in their argument. Early in the twentieth century, a small number of manuscripts began to be found, which were not written on vellum (which only the most expensive early Bibles, such as the Siniaticus and Vaticanus were written on), but were written on papyrus, which is the reed like paper which the earliest disciples are thought to have used. The `Papyrus Bodmer II', which dates to c 125 A.D, is of the Received Text stream of manuscripts. And it should also come as no surprise that the manuscripts retrieved from the Qumran caves also closely follow the Received Text, to the letter with little variation. Clearly, only Bibles based upon this stream of manuscripts should be regarded as the Word of God. Even then, one should be aware of errors (such as 1 John 5:7-8) and omissions which have crept in over the centuries.

The fact that over ninety five percent of extant manuscripts favour the Received Text testifies to the courage of people like the Waldenses who ensured that the common people who gladly received these manuscripts during the `Dark Ages' might know the Word of God. Codices A and B are thought by some to be the surviving manuscripts of two Bibles, of which fifty were commssioned by the Emperor Constantine. It is for this reason they survived - originally being kept under lock and key and rarely used, they stood a fair chance of survival - so these manuscripts which were, at the time of Westcott and Hort the oldest extant manuscripts known and were therefore considered by them to be the most accurate. Of course,the oldest, most accurate manuscripts had either long since been destroyed by constant handling and use, or had been burnt by the Roman Bonfires for reason of gross heresy; for Rome hated the manuscripts of the Waldenses as much as she hated the Bearers of the Book themselves.

The following is an extract from `Our Authorized Bible Vindicated', which was written by B.J. Wilkinson in 1930. Wilkinson was one of the few `straight' men left in my Church before it slid into apostasy in 1930. It is an authoritive source of textual history.

`FUNDAMENTALLY, THERE ARE ONLY TWO STREAMS OF BIBLES

Anyone who is interested enough to read the vast volume of literature on this subject, will agree that down through the centuries there were only two streams of manuscripts.


The first stream which carried the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek, began with the apostolic churches, and reappearing at intervals down the Christian Era among enlightened believers, was protected by the wisdom and scholarship of the pure church in her different phases; by such as the church at Pella in Palestine where Christians fled, when in 70 A. D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem
by the Syrian Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in northern Italy; and also at the same time by the Gallic Church in southern France and by the Celtic Church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the Waldensian, and the churches of the Reformation.

This first stream appears, with very little change, in the Protestant Bibles of many languages, and in English, in that Bible known as the King James Version, the one which has been in use for three hundred years in the English speaking world. These MSS. have in agreement with them, by far the vast majority of numbers. So vast is this majority that the enemies of the received Text admit that nineteen-twentieths and some ninety-nine one-hundredths of all Greek MSS. are of this class; while one hundred per cent of the Hebrew MSS. are for the Received Text.
The second stream is a small one of a very few manuscripts. These last MSS. are represented:

(a)


In Greek: — The Vatican MS., or Codex B, in the library at Rome; and the Sinaitic, or Codex Aleph (#), its brother. We will fully explain about these two MSS. later.

(b)


In Latin: — The Vulgate or Latin Bible of Jerome.

(c)


In English: — The Jesuit Bible of 1582, which later with vast changes is seen in the Douay, or Catholic Bible.

(d)


In English again: — In many modern Bibles which introduce practically all the Catholic readings of the Latin Vulgate which were rejected by the Protestants of the Reformation; among these, prominently, are the Revised Versions.

So the present controversy between the King James Bible in English and the modern versions is the same old contest fought out between the early church and rival


sects; later between the Waldenses and the Papists from the fourth to the thirteenth centuries; and later still, between the Reformers and the Jesuits in the sixteenth century.' (`Our Authorized Bible Vindicated', B.J. Wilkinson, pp, 8,9.)


My brother, I noticed in another posting you were enquiring about the Jehovahs Witness Bible, and thought it to be corrupted. You are right. I had an old copy about 15 years ago. The introductory flier read that it was a translation by a Jesuit scholar. (I don't know if this is in the newer translations.) That statement alone should warn us about that Bible.



Peace be with you brother,



Kym.


I can send a PDF file containing this book to anyone who is interested in reading it. It is no longer under copyright.

[miseretur]

Thanks for your ideas and thought´s Mr Kymbo.
Your writting where so long that I must read it in more detail and slower:)
Yeah I would be very interested thet pdf, what you write in the end of your writtings. My e-mail, is founded in this website

While the Bible has been translated and twisted a lot of human own theological conclusions.
I believe though, that the manuscripts what belongs the bible, are real.
although in recent centuries has been found in a lot of new scripts, so they testify still The Bible.
Examble qumran1947, did not changed bible content.
some grammatical forms was only diifrent these new scriptures qumran like book of Jesajah.
although until the translations were used by only a copy of a copy of copies.so Qumran texts show us, however, that the copies were reliable.
I believe that God has guarded trough the history the biblical texts.
Bible is also quite exceptional in the ancient source.
any other ancient text has not been much to me as Handbook of studies or discoveries, as the new Testament.
for example the Finnish church bible from 1938.
could not avail Qumran discoveries, but when the new translation of the Bible and was also compared to the new discoveries, as could be, but noted that the changes did not take. Finnish new church bible is from year 1992.

It is amazing to see that the Bible is indeed a constant through history.
Moreover, 1938 years church bible not included so called comma johannium.
although this comma johanneum was in 1776 finnish bible translete version, but not enymore in 1938, and also not in new one 1992.
This comma johanneum is fake.

Jer. 23:29.
Is not my word like fire? saith Jehovah; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

Eph. 6:17.
also take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.


Ps: Look below and see the link of Jehowas wittnes Bible translation.
I have too this bible, but I do not think it is as authentic. bacuse there is too much they own theology and and unnecessary text casuistry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

God bless all of you, in the truth of our Lord.

[Kymbo]

Hi brother,

I just read the article you found on the infamous Comma Johanneum. It's fairly explicit, isn't it? It is, as you say, a complete fraud. While this text is one of the few instances in which the K.J.V is not to be trusted, it is not the fault of the manuscripts from which it originates. It is the fault of Erasmus by foolishly making that boast in the first place. However, any Bible which is based upon the `Recieved Text', which was first edited by Lucian of Antioch (who originally presided over Arius and painstakingly copied from the original Hebrew and Greek word for word) is free from the allegorizing tendencies based on Platonic philosophy which is found in Codices A and B, as well as Westcott & Hort and their recension of the R.S.V. `revision'. I had a look at the Wikipedia explanation on the construction of the J.W. Bible which you directed me to. It came as no surprise that it is reputed to have originated from corrupt manuscripts which Westcott and Hort ascribed to being the word of God. Nevertheless, in relation to the secrecy behind the compilation of that Bible, as I said to you, about 15 years ago I had a copy of a J.W. Bible which stated that it was translated by a Jesuit; which is cause enough to be suspicious of it. Perhaps one day I should post the `Jesuit Oath' onto a thread; in case you are not aware of it. (The Jesuits were commissioned to counter the Reformation, and their `extreme oath' is almost unbelievable in its scope.) I will send that PDF book to you on the side.

Kym.

[Augustines Error]

Excellent points of debate! Your arguement would cause any die hard trinitarian to lose a few hours sleep :)

[Postulare42]

I would like a copy of that PDF.

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

Even if this text were not manufactured, the beauty of God's HOLY WORD is that the text STILL does NOT prove a trinity! That's what I love about it.

Let me explain. The Father (through Messiah) made many statements that would FOREVER bar such notions as "trinity." Three in heaven bearing witness being "one" does not prove they are "one in the same" and "of the same essence." Messiah stated that we who follow him shall also be "ONE" with the Father (even as he is ONE).

They would have to do a COMPLETE REWRITE of the entire Gospel record and ALL the words of Christ in order to make Christ "one in the same" and "the same person" as God the Father.

To me that is so beautiful!

[Kymbo]

Even if this text were not manufactured, the beauty of God's HOLY WORD is that the text STILL does NOT prove a trinity! That's what I love about it.

Greetings brother,

While you and I know that this text does not prove a trinity - try telling that to a `True Believer' who regards it as their primary `Proof Text'. One might say that they have a-wrested scripture - you could argue with them until they are you are blue in the face, but they will not concede - simply because Trinitarians believe that to deny belief in the trinity is to deny belief in the divinity of Christ. While there are some in this forum who do this (and it is their right to do so), I do not, yet I still see the Son as a literal Son to the Father in His pre-existence. This, therefore is theology that is deeply flawed in their eyes and theology which they can not accommodate.

I have found some of the material you have written to be most edifying, brother.

Kym

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

Greetings brother,

While you and I know that this text does not prove a trinity - try telling that to a `True Believer' who regards it as their primary `Proof Text'. One might say that they have a-wrested scripture - you could argue with them until they are you are blue in the face, but they will not concede - simply because Trinitarians believe that to deny belief in the trinity is to deny belief in the divinity of Christ. While there are some in this forum who do this (and it is their right to do so), I do not, yet I still see the Son as a literal Son to the Father in His pre-existence. This, therefore is theology that is deeply flawed in their eyes and theology which they can not accommodate.

I have found some of the material you have written to be most edifying, brother.

Kym

I thank you and bless your efforts to understand the truth! Trinitarians are FUNDAMENTALLY reprobate according to scriptures! (There are many who are sincerely deceived and I do pray for them but there are a vast majority who LOVE NOT THE TRUTH). I don't pray for them and I certainly don't cast my pearls before them to be trampled.

I do not believe in a "pre-existence" of Messiah but that is for another thread!

Trinitarians who are confronted with the TRUTH and reject it vehemently are given up to "reprobate minds" according to scripture:

Romans 1: 22-29



22 Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
25 Wh changed the truth of God into A LIE, and worshpped the CREATURE, more than the CREATOR, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."


By making Messiah a "God/Man" and worshipping him OVER the Father, they have taken the CREATURE (for Messiah is a CREATED BEING) and changed the image of the INCORRUPTIBLE GOD into the image of a CORRUPTIBLE MAN. (For Messiah DIED, and they teach that he died, yet God is incorruptible and eternal). It is idol worship plain and simple, nothing different than worshipping the image of a bird or of a creeping thing!

This they have done for one simple and fundamental reason when you get to the crux of the matter. They do this so that they are FOREVER EXCUSED from being LIKE MESSIAH (tempted in all ways yet without sin and ONE WITH THE FATHER). They teach plainly that Messiah was sinless and perfect BECAUSE he was "God Incarnate" and therefore conclude that we can NEVER repeat Christ's success in obedience to the Father.

This is why the teaching of the Trinity is such a damnable heresy!

As for Messiah's divinity! I believe that he is DIVINE in this world because the FATHER has given him a name above all names, that at HIS name every knee shall bow! Yet we do NOT worship Messiah nor do we PRAY to him, for as Paul taught in Corinthians, when Messiah has subdued the earth he himself shall be once again subject unto the Father!

Messiah, being the King of Kings and Lord of Lords on this earth, and being the BEGOTTEN SON OF THE FATHER, most definitely makes him DIVINE, but not because he pre-existed as the DIVINE AND HOLY I AM!

Anyone who reads the very scriptures that the Trinitarian antichrists have so carefully preserved can discover the truth of these matters if they are sincere and IF they allow the Holy Spirit of LOVE to guide them!

That is why the damnation of the staunch Trinitarian is JUST and INEVITABLE because their intent is to THWART the ministry of Christ.

They can NEVER be ONE with the Father for they have RESERVED this for their false Christ!

They shall most certainly perish if they do not REPENT of this heresy!

It is completely unforgiveable!

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

This post was a "repeat" post, don't know how this happens

[Postulare42]

Ad hominems, even against those not a party to a discussion, do not enhance an exposition, and detract from a rebuttal.

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

Does anyone here know the exact history of how the "three in one" text was added and can you provide me direct references to the historical facts on this issue?

Thanks.

[Postulare42]

I must be overlooking something in the thread. From where in particular are you deriving the phrase? With that, I can find it for you easily. Othewise, I can only conjecture that you are seeking the ante-Nicene origins.

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

Ad hominems, even against those not a party to a discussion, do not enhance an exposition, and detract from a rebuttal.


I'm grappling with this post somewhat because of its ambiguity.

Are you addressing my previous post and concluding that my questioning of the trinitarian's ultimate morality (mistakenly thinking I'm using an ad hominem)?

OR, or you asking us to "consider the source" when examining teachings such as the one we are discussing in the thread?

I assure you, although I often seem to "attack" the morality of trinitarians and it sometimes appears to be completely incongruous with the subject of the thread, if you were to study further you will see that my points (concerning the morality or amoralism of trinitarian doctrine) are not only quite relevant but are indeed "the crux" of the matter as I claim.

Ultimately it is why the Holy Spirit is beginning an all out spiritual war against the trinity and it is why I refer to it as a heresy.

Yet, do not think that I am militant in my stance or that I am out plotting against trinitarian churches or that I am seeking ways of "punishing" the evil doers. NO! My example is Christ and I open not my mouth when I am accused of them and I certainly do not have to fight with them. I simply do not regard them as relevant in my life.

One thing's for sure, though, if I had a daughter I'd never let a trinitarian date her!

Shalom