Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Reverend AtheiStar

Dirty Politics And The Doctrine Of The Trinity

Recommended Posts

Apart from the Person & ministry of Jesus the Messiah, our LORD & Savior - there is no possibility of salvation.

And apart from the hearing and believing the Gospel of Christ - there is no possibility for salvation.

 

centauri:

Not true according to the Bible.

 

What Bible are you reading? See Acts 4:13 and Romans 10:9-18.

Ezek 18:20-27 provides the recipe for salvation and it has nothing to do with Jesus.

Your claim about there being no possibility for salvation outside of Jesus is bogus.

 

What are you attempting to prove by telling me to read Acts 4:13?

Did you mean Acts 4:12?

 

Acts 4:12 is an attempt to usurp the status of the Hebrew God and place a crown of authority on the head of a messianic impostor called “Jesus”.

 

Acts 4:10,12

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth...

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

This attempts to convince people that Jesus of Nazareth is the only name that can provide salvation.

 

However, such is not the case according to the Old Testament scripture, and it says nothing about Jesus taking the place of God as the only savior.

Isa 42:8(YLT)

I [am] Jehovah, this [is] My name, And Mine honour to another I give not, Nor My praise to graven images.

 

Isa 45:20-21(YLT)

Is it not I -- Jehovah? And there is no other god besides Me, A God righteous and saving, there is none save Me.

Turn to Me, and be saved, all ends of the earth, For I [am] God, and there is none else.

 

Jesus isn’t God’s name, there are no saviors other than God, and God will not give his glory to others.

Acts 4:12 is Christian subterfuge, attempting to lure people into worshipping a false savior.

 

Concerning your other proof text:

 

Rom 10:9

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

 

This is heresy from “Paul”, the Jewish apostate.

Jesus isn’t God and as shown earlier, God is the only savior, there are no others, nor will God give his glory to others.

Isa 43:11

I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.

 

Trying to turn Jesus into God's replacement and having people chase after a new doctrine of salvation, based on believing a dead god-man can save you, is precisely what God warned his people not to be seduced by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ray.

 

If you should feel tempted to reply to Centauri's points Ray, please resist and answer my question first.

I'm sure you'll have no trouble remembering which one. ;)

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, such is not the case according to the Old Testament scripture, and it says nothing about Jesus taking the place of God as the only savior.

Isa 42:8(YLT)

I [am] Jehovah, this [is] My name, And Mine honour to another I give not, Nor My praise to graven images.

 

Isa 45:20-21(YLT)

Is it not I -- Jehovah? And there is no other god besides Me, A God righteous and saving, there is none save Me.

Turn to Me, and be saved, all ends of the earth, For I [am] God, and there is none else.

 

Jesus isn’t God’s name, there are no saviors other than God, and God will not give his glory to others.

 

Jesus isn’t God and as shown earlier, God is the only savior, there are no others, nor will God give his glory to others.

Isa 43:11

I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.

 

Well, you know Jesus = Greek. The Hebrew, or Aramaic, was Yeshua - which means "Yahweh is salvation" or "Yahweh saves." So Jesus' name declares that the God of the Bible is our Savior. As far as the Person of Jesus the Messiah being within the Godhead;

 

The Supremacy of God’s Son - from the Epistle to the Hebrews:

1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son,

today I have begotten you”?

Or again,

“I will be to him a father,

and he shall be to me a son”?

6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

7 Of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels winds,

and his ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,

the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;

therefore God, your God, has anointed you

with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

10 And,

“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,

and the heavens are the work of your hands;

11 they will perish, but you remain;

they will all wear out like a garment,

12 like a robe you will roll them up,

like a garment they will be changed.

But you are the same,

and your years will have no end.”

13 And to which of the angels has he ever said,

“Sit at my right hand

until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Heb 1:1–13). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

The Old Testament testifies of the deity of Jesus the Messiah.

 

See Also Isaiah ch 48;

 

The LORD’s Call to Israel

12 “Listen to me, O Jacob,

and Israel, whom I called!

I am he; I am the first,

and I am the last.

13 My hand laid the foundation of the earth,

and my right hand spread out the heavens;

when I call to them,

they stand forth together.

14 “Assemble, all of you, and listen!

Who among them has declared these things?

The LORD loves him;

he shall perform his purpose on Babylon,

and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans.

15 I, even I, have spoken and called him;

I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way.

16 Draw near to me, hear this:

from the beginning I have not spoken in secret,

from the time it came to be I have been there.”

And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Is 48:12–16). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Wow! The Trinity alluded to in the Old Testament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, such is not the case according to the Old Testament scripture, and it says nothing about Jesus taking the place of God as the only savior.

Isa 42:8(YLT)

I [am] Jehovah, this [is] My name, And Mine honour to another I give not, Nor My praise to graven images.

 

Isa 45:20-21(YLT)

Is it not I -- Jehovah? And there is no other god besides Me, A God righteous and saving, there is none save Me.

Turn to Me, and be saved, all ends of the earth, For I [am] God, and there is none else.

 

Jesus isn’t God’s name, there are no saviors other than God, and God will not give his glory to others.

 

Jesus isn’t God and as shown earlier, God is the only savior, there are no others, nor will God give his glory to others.

Isa 43:11

I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.

 

Well, you know Jesus = Greek. The Hebrew, or Aramaic, was Yeshua - which means "Yahweh is salvation" or "Yahweh saves." So Jesus' name declares that the God of the Bible is our Savior.

Having a name that describes an attribute or characteristic of God doesn't make the person God.

 

As far as the Person of Jesus the Messiah being within the Godhead;

 

The Supremacy of God’s Son - from the Epistle to the Hebrews:

1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son,

today I have begotten you”?

Or again,

“I will be to him a father,

and he shall be to me a son”?

Jesus didn’t atone for the sins of anyone because his death wasn’t a valid sin sacrifice according to the very law of God that is supposed to be holy and absolute.

The author of Hebrews has also ripped pieces of Psalms 2 out of context in an attempt to promote Jesus.

Psalms 2 is about David, who unlike Jesus was actually anointed king and sat on the throne.

Psa 2:6-7

Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

 

The author of Hebrews then rips 2 Sam 7:14 out of context in another attempt to promote Jesus as the fulfillment.

 

2 Sam 7:12-14

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

 

2 Sam 7:14 is about Solomon, who really was the seed of David and actually built the Temple.

The type of Christian chicanery displayed by the author of Hebrews doesn’t prove anything and actually mocks “God”, who wants people to people to take his word seriously rather than perverting it to satisfy subjective doctrinal whims and desires.

 

6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

7 Of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels winds,

and his ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,

the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;

therefore God, your God, has anointed you

with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

The author of Hebrews continues to string together pieces of scripture which are ripped out of context.

Including:

Psa 45:6-7

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

 

Once again, the throne is to be occupied by David and his seed.

Jesus wasn’t the seed of David, was never anointed king, and never sat on the throne.

Solomon did what Jesus never did.

 

1 Chron 29:22-23

And did eat and drink before the LORD on that day with great gladness. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him unto the LORD to be the chief governor, and Zadok to be priest.

Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.

 

10 And,

“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,

and the heavens are the work of your hands;

11 they will perish, but you remain;

they will all wear out like a garment,

12 like a robe you will roll them up,

like a garment they will be changed.

But you are the same,

and your years will have no end.”

13 And to which of the angels has he ever said,

“Sit at my right hand

until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Heb 1:1–13). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

Once again, the author of Hebrews hijacks the “Old Testament” and uses it to validate his wishful thinking.

 

Psa 110:1-2

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

 

This is a song concerning David, who was elevated by God and actually ruled as king.

 

The Old Testament testifies of the deity of Jesus the Messiah.

Your own proof text undermines the deity of Jesus.

Heb 1:9

9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

 

If Jesus was really the subject of verse quoted in Heb 1:9, then Jesus has a god.

 

When Old Testament verses are ripped out of context and then used to weave a story that must conform to a premise based on wishful thinking, anything is possible.

That’s what the author of Hebrews did, and it proves absolutely nothing about Jesus being “God” or even “the Messiah”.

Jesus didn’t have the pedigree to be a king messiah, he claimed to have a god, never performed the tasks of a king messiah, was never anointed king, and never sat on the throne.

All the wishful thinking in the world doesn’t change those facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Old Testament testifies of the deity of Jesus the Messiah.

 

See Also Isaiah ch 48;

 

The LORD’s Call to Israel

12 “Listen to me, O Jacob,

and Israel, whom I called!

I am he; I am the first,

and I am the last.

... 16 Draw near to me, hear this:

from the beginning I have not spoken in secret,

from the time it came to be I have been there.”

And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Is 48:12–16). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Wow! The Trinity alluded to in the Old Testament.

That’s wishful thinking on the part of Christians that promote the “Trinity” as reality.

You’re using Isa 48:12 to validate a trinity, when the text of verse 12 indicates a singular being.

God is a singular being, not a three person hydra.

 

Isa 43:10-11

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

 

Then you use verse 16, presumably because it mentions three subjects, as evidence of “The Trinity”.

Isaiah was the “me” sent to deliver messages from God and his court.

Isa 6:8

Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

 

There is no God called Jesus anywhere in Isaiah 48.

Yet, you want people to believe that God really meant to say that he was three persons, where the second person had to die to appease the wrath of the first person.

This is the same God that allegedly isn’t the author of confusion, yet Christianity remains confused 2,000 years later.

Your triune version of God is not universally accepted as valid even among Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Old Testament testifies of the deity of Jesus the Messiah.

 

See Also Isaiah ch 48;

 

The LORD’s Call to Israel

12 “Listen to me, O Jacob,

and Israel, whom I called!

I am he; I am the first,

and I am the last.

... 16 Draw near to me, hear this:

from the beginning I have not spoken in secret,

from the time it came to be I have been there.”

And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Is 48:12–16). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Wow! The Trinity alluded to in the Old Testament.

That’s wishful thinking on the part of Christians that promote the “Trinity” as reality.

You’re using Isa 48:12 to validate a trinity, when the text of verse 12 indicates a singular being.

God is a singular being, not a three person hydra.

 

Isa 43:10-11

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

 

Then you use verse 16, presumably because it mentions three subjects, as evidence of “The Trinity”.

Isaiah was the “me” sent to deliver messages from God and his court.

Isa 6:8

Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

 

There is no God called Jesus anywhere in Isaiah 48.

Yet, you want people to believe that God really meant to say that he was three persons, where the second person had to die to appease the wrath of the first person.

This is the same God that allegedly isn’t the author of confusion, yet Christianity remains confused 2,000 years later.

Your triune version of God is not universally accepted as valid even among Christians.

 

Wow - speak of ripping out of context. Isa 48:16 - the "me" obviously goes back to verse 12 for its antecedent pronoun; "I am He, I am the first, I am the last." And to earlier in vs 16 "from the beginning, I have not spoken in secret."

 

But you want to go back to Isa 6:8 and grab the antecedent pronoun? What kind of cock-a-maimy hermeneutic is that? The "I just make it up as I go along to fit my pre-conceived notion" hermeneutic?

 

Seriously, I cannot believe you're actually serious about that. Ergo, you're just shooting bull to be contrary.

 

Thnx, but No thnx - I prefer real conversations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Old Testament testifies of the deity of Jesus the Messiah.

 

See Also Isaiah ch 48;

 

The LORD’s Call to Israel

12 “Listen to me, O Jacob,

and Israel, whom I called!

I am he; I am the first,

and I am the last.

... 16 Draw near to me, hear this:

from the beginning I have not spoken in secret,

from the time it came to be I have been there.”

And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Is 48:12–16). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

Wow! The Trinity alluded to in the Old Testament.

That’s wishful thinking on the part of Christians that promote the “Trinity” as reality.

You’re using Isa 48:12 to validate a trinity, when the text of verse 12 indicates a singular being.

God is a singular being, not a three person hydra.

 

Isa 43:10-11

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

 

Then you use verse 16, presumably because it mentions three subjects, as evidence of “The Trinity”.

Isaiah was the “me” sent to deliver messages from God and his court.

Isa 6:8

Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

 

There is no God called Jesus anywhere in Isaiah 48.

Yet, you want people to believe that God really meant to say that he was three persons, where the second person had to die to appease the wrath of the first person.

This is the same God that allegedly isn’t the author of confusion, yet Christianity remains confused 2,000 years later.

Your triune version of God is not universally accepted as valid even among Christians.

 

Wow - speak of ripping out of context. Isa 48:16 - the "me" obviously goes back to verse 12 for its antecedent pronoun; "I am He, I am the first, I am the last." And to earlier in vs 16 "from the beginning, I have not spoken in secret."

Your claim about the obvious meaning of Isa 48:16 is another example of Christian Trinitarian wishful thinking.

You’ve tried to turn this:

…And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.

 

Into this:

…And now the Lord God has sent Jesus and his Spirit.

 

Isaiah already identified himself as being sent by God and God already claimed that he was singular being, not a three person hydra.

 

But you want to go back to Isa 6:8 and grab the antecedent pronoun? What kind of cock-a-maimy hermeneutic is that? The "I just make it up as I go along to fit my pre-conceived notion" hermeneutic?

 

Seriously, I cannot believe you're actually serious about that. Ergo, you're just shooting bull to be contrary.

 

Thnx, but No thnx - I prefer real conversations.

Well, I’m certainly used to your self-righteous effluent and imaginings about being a mouthpiece for “God”

I’m countering your incessant propaganda, which is based on your subjective interpretations that are driven by your wishful thinking.

You toss around words like “hermeneutics”, somehow imaging that your subjective theological speculations and interpretations are superior to those of all other people.

 

One of the themes of Isaiah is that he was sent by God to deliver messages to the Israelites.

Christian Bibles refer to that as Isaiah’s commission.

That’s made rather clear early on in Isa 6:8.

 

Immediately after Isa 48:16, Isaiah delivers another message from God:

Verse 17 - This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel:

"I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go.

 

Isaiah was identified as the messenger while Jesus is a complete no-show in this, so your accusation about me “shooting bull” is rather ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Old Testament testifies of the deity of Jesus the Messiah.

See Also Isaiah ch 48;

 

The LORD’s Call to Israel

12 “Listen to me, O Jacob,

and Israel, whom I called!

I am he; I am the first,

and I am the last.

... 16 Draw near to me, hear this:

from the beginning I have not spoken in secret,

from the time it came to be I have been there.”

And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.

 

Wow! The Trinity alluded to in the Old Testament.

 

God is a singular being, not a three person hydra.

 

Isa 43:10-11

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

 

Then you use verse 16, presumably because it mentions three subjects, as evidence of “The Trinity”.

Isaiah was the “me” sent to deliver messages from God and his court.

Isa 6:8

Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

 

There is no God called Jesus anywhere in Isaiah 48.

Yet, you want people to believe that God really meant to say that he was three persons, where the second person had to die to appease the wrath of the first person.

This is the same God that allegedly isn’t the author of confusion, yet Christianity remains confused 2,000 years later.

Your triune version of God is not universally accepted as valid even among Christians.

 

Throughout Biblical Christianity, believers have always accepted that God exists as a Tri-une Being; as you say "a singular being", who exists as three personages; father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

 

Only with the rise of Arius, with his doctrine of God which was amenable to Greek Gnostics and Arab paganism, did 'professing' Christians not accept the Deity of Jesus the Messiah. Today, they are the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Jesus-Only Pentecostals - all regarded as cultists (rightly so) by orthodox Protestants.

 

But various church councils debated this topic, and Athanasius and his compatriots won out - by the Scriptures and the strength of their arguments. And all this orthodoxy prevailed, despite the slander and violence and political avarice of the Arians. Athanasius was banished 5 times, yet died as the patriarch of Alexandria. And the Council of Nicea chose the word "homoousia" to denote that God was a singular essence, a singular Being. Yet, God exists as Three co-eternal, co-equal Persons.

 

Wow - speak of ripping out of context. Isa 48:16 - the "me" obviously goes back to verse 12 for its antecedent pronoun; "I am He, I am the first, I am the last." And to earlier in vs 16 "from the beginning, I have not spoken in secret."

Your claim about the obvious meaning of Isa 48:16 is another example of Christian Trinitarian wishful thinking.

You’ve tried to turn this:

…And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.

 

Into this:

…And now the Lord God has sent Jesus and his Spirit.

 

Just read the text for what it says - there are obviously three persons being referred to here. And the "me" is the first and last from a few verses above. Seriously, it's not difficult.

 

centauri

Well, I’m certainly used to your self-righteous effluent and imaginings about being a mouthpiece for “God”

I’m countering your incessant propaganda, which is based on your subjective interpretations that are driven by your wishful thinking.

You toss around words like “hermeneutics”, somehow imaging that your subjective theological speculations and interpretations are superior to those of all other people.

 

One of the themes of Isaiah is that he was sent by God to deliver messages to the Israelites.

Christian Bibles refer to that as Isaiah’s commission.

That’s made rather clear early on in Isa 6:8.

 

Immediately after Isa 48:16, Isaiah delivers another message from God:

Verse 17 - This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel:

"I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go.

 

So tell me, are you ignorant of the Suffering Servant theme in Isaiah - esp chap 52 & 53? Which passage Philip explained to the Ethiopian eunuch in the Book of Acts.

 

Have I ever claimed to be God's mouthpiece? I simply use historical-grammatical hermeneutics, the same method used by Christians for centuries - and I allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Ergo, Philip helps us see who Isa 52 & 53 is speaking of. Your method is what?

 

And who do you say God is directing in Isa 48:17?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Throughout Biblical Christianity, believers have always accepted that God exists as a Tri-une Being; as you say "a singular being", who exists as three personages; father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

 

<snip>

 

So tell me, are you ignorant of the Suffering Servant theme in Isaiah - esp chap 52 & 53? Which passage Philip explained to the Ethiopian eunuch in the Book of Acts.

 

Have I ever claimed to be God's mouthpiece? I simply use historical-grammatical hermeneutics, the same method used by Christians for centuries - and I allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Ergo, Philip helps us see who Isa 52 & 53 is speaking of. Your method is what?

 

And who do you say God is directing in Isa 48:17?

The doctrine of the trinity was a late derivation from the ideas of the New testament. It is not strictly "biblical" in that you will not find the word trinity there.

 

"The New Testament does not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."

 

Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early third century, is credited with using the words "Trinity",[19] "person" and "substance"[20] to explain that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "one in essence—not one in Person".[21]

 

About a century later, in 325, the First Council of Nicaea established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and adopted the Nicene Creed, which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father".

 

It is an ad hoc explanation to attempt to make Jesus divine and still maintain that there was "one god."

 

And Who was the Servant?

 

[Hebrew Bible] Question: Can Isaiah 53:5 apply to the Messiah?

 

The Messiah is never described in the Hebrew Bible as being wounded, and oppressed by others. Quite to the contrary, if the Messiah is the servant in Isaiah's First Servant Song, then the following is said of him:

 

Isaiah 42:4 - He [the Messiah] shall not fail nor shall he be crushed till he has set judgment in the earth; and the islands shall wait for his Torah.

 

With the above being one of the descriptions of the Messiah, it is rather clear that Isaiah 53:5 cannot describe this individual.

 

[Hebrew Bible] Answer:
No
!

 

[New Testament] Question: Can Isaiah 53:5 apply to Jesus?

 

The New Testament authors refer to this verse on several occasions. The references by Paul (Ro 4:25 ; 1 Co 15:3), by the author of Hebrews (He 5:8, 9:28 ), and by Peter (1 Pe 2:24 -25), are based on their misapplication of this verse to promote the notion of vicarious atonement by a person, something that is strictly prohibited according to the Hebrew Bible.

 

[New Testament] Answer:
No
!

 

The House of Israel is being directed in Isa: 48:17:

 

1. "Listen to this, O house of Jacob, you who are called by the name of Israel and come from the line of Judah, you who take oaths in the name of the LORD and invoke the God of Israel-- but not in truth or righteousness--

2. you who call yourselves citizens of the holy city and rely on the God of Israel-- the LORD Almighty is his name:

 

...

 

17. This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Old Testament testifies of the deity of Jesus the Messiah.

See Also Isaiah ch 48;

 

The LORD’s Call to Israel

12 “Listen to me, O Jacob,

and Israel, whom I called!

I am he; I am the first,

and I am the last.

... 16 Draw near to me, hear this:

from the beginning I have not spoken in secret,

from the time it came to be I have been there.”

And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.

 

Wow! The Trinity alluded to in the Old Testament.

 

God is a singular being, not a three person hydra.

 

Isa 43:10-11

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

 

Then you use verse 16, presumably because it mentions three subjects, as evidence of “The Trinity”.

Isaiah was the “me” sent to deliver messages from God and his court.

Isa 6:8

Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

 

There is no God called Jesus anywhere in Isaiah 48.

Yet, you want people to believe that God really meant to say that he was three persons, where the second person had to die to appease the wrath of the first person.

This is the same God that allegedly isn’t the author of confusion, yet Christianity remains confused 2,000 years later.

Your triune version of God is not universally accepted as valid even among Christians.

 

Throughout Biblical Christianity, believers have always accepted that God exists as a Tri-une Being; as you say "a singular being", who exists as three personages; father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

Only with the rise of Arius, with his doctrine of God which was amenable to Greek Gnostics and Arab paganism, did 'professing' Christians not accept the Deity of Jesus the Messiah. Today, they are the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Jesus-Only Pentecostals - all regarded as cultists (rightly so) by orthodox Protestants.

But various church councils debated this topic, and Athanasius and his compatriots won out - by the Scriptures and the strength of their arguments. And all this orthodoxy prevailed, despite the slander and violence and political avarice of the Arians. Athanasius was banished 5 times, yet died as the patriarch of Alexandria. And the Council of Nicea chose the word "homoousia" to denote that God was a singular essence, a singular Being.

Your definition of a cultist is subjective.

The Jews don’t accept your triune God either, but you condemn them as ignorant.

You’ve also condemned Catholics as heretics even though they agree with your version of God.

You’ve got nothing but your subjective assertions and imagined correctness to validate that your version of God exists.

 

Yet, God exists as Three co-eternal, co-equal Persons.

You continue to pump this version of God over and over with nothing more than your subjective interpretations, whims and traditions to back it up.

Ironically, a good chunk of that tradition comes from the sect you call heretics.

 

Rayskidude:

Wow - speak of ripping out of context. Isa 48:16 - the "me" obviously goes back to verse 12 for its antecedent pronoun; "I am He, I am the first, I am the last." And to earlier in vs 16 "from the beginning, I have not spoken in secret."

 

centauri:

Your claim about the obvious meaning of Isa 48:16 is another example of Christian Trinitarian wishful thinking.

You’ve tried to turn this:

…And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.

 

Into this:

…And now the Lord God has sent Jesus and his Spirit.

 

Rayskidude:

Just read the text for what it says - there are obviously three persons being referred to here. And the "me" is the first and last from a few verses above. Seriously, it's not difficult.

No, that’s your subjective Jesus fetish creeping in again.

Just read the text for what it says.

Seriously, it’s not difficult.

 

centauri

Well, I’m certainly used to your self-righteous effluent and imaginings about being a mouthpiece for “God”

I’m countering your incessant propaganda, which is based on your subjective interpretations that are driven by your wishful thinking.

You toss around words like “hermeneutics”, somehow imaging that your subjective theological speculations and interpretations are superior to those of all other people.

 

One of the themes of Isaiah is that he was sent by God to deliver messages to the Israelites.

Christian Bibles refer to that as Isaiah’s commission.

That’s made rather clear early on in Isa 6:8.

 

Immediately after Isa 48:16, Isaiah delivers another message from God:

Verse 17 - This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel:

"I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go.

 

Rayskidude

So tell me, are you ignorant of the Suffering Servant theme in Isaiah - esp chap 52 & 53? Which passage Philip explained to the Ethiopian eunuch in the Book of Acts.

The servant was defined in Isa 49:3, which is titled "The Servant of the Lord".

 

Have I ever claimed to be God's mouthpiece? I simply use historical-grammatical hermeneutics, the same method used by Christians for centuries - and I allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Ergo, Philip helps us see who Isa 52 & 53 is speaking of. Your method is what?

 

And who do you say God is directing in Isa 48:17?

Don’t be so modest preacher.

You’ve been instructing people on this forum for well over a year.

Your interpretations are the ones that are correct and anyone that doesn’t agree with you is wrong.

You’ve even labeled other Christian sects as cults and heretics.

I really like the part about “historical-grammatical-hermeneutics”, and where you allow scripture to interpret scripture.

I’ve never met a zealous preacher that didn’t insist their interpretation was proper and sound.

It’s actually quite subjective.

 

Shyone has already addressed Isa 48:17, and the answer appears in Isa 48:1-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.realchrist.info/4-5.html

 

4-5 Dirty Politics And The Doctrine Of The Trinity

 

A review of the "Letters concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea", published in English translation in the Collection Of Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers, reveals that Athanasius kept insisting that the church had the right to definitively interpret Scripture, and it was their authority to interpret it as they wished, and therefore no great weight should be placed on the fact that at times their conclusions and dogmas weren't supported by the Bible text. Letter 5.20,21 reads: "The bishops... were compelled to collect the sense of the Scriptures... the expressions [of the proposed doctrine of the Trinity] are not in so many words in the Scriptures". It was not a question of those men being 'compelled' at all- they ought to have been faithful to the Biblical text, rather than demanding that others accept their "sense" on pain of being called non-Christian and cast out of the church. It is this attitude to the Bible itself which ultimately determines whether we accept or reject the Trinity.

 

The argument between Arius (non-trinitarian) and Athanasius (trinitarian) was more political than it was theological or Biblical. There was a power struggle between the two men. Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire, power within the church became political power. These two Christian leaders both had significant followings; and they both wanted power. The followers of the two groups fought pitched battles with each other in the urban centres of the empire. There are numerous accounts of Athanasius’ followers beating and murdering non-trinitarian Christians in the lead-up to the Council of Nicea, torturing their victims and parading their dead bodies around (1). The trinitarian Athanasius was by far the more brutal. “Bishop Athanasius, a future saint… had his opponents excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled to distant provinces” (2). As in any power struggle, the opponents of both sides became vilified and demonized; the issue of how to formulate a creed about the nature of Jesus became a matter of polemics and politics, with the non-trinitarians being described in the most vitriolic of language. Non-trinitarians were accused of “rending the robe of Christ”, crucifying Him afresh, and far worse. Sadly this spirit of vilification of those who hold another view has continued to this day, with many trinitarians refusing to accept any non-trinitarian as a Christian. Arius complained in a letter that “We are persecuted because we say that the Son had a beginning, but that God was without beginning” (3). At the Council of Nicea, Bishop Nicholas- who later became the legendary saint of Christmas in much of Europe- slapped Arius around the face (4). It would be wrong to think of the dispute as a matter of learned men of God disagreeing with each other over a matter of Biblical interpretation. Athanasius, who had the ear of Constantine more than Arius, was out for victory. He therefore emotionalized the issue and used every manner of politics and destruction of his opponents in order to get Constantine to come down on his side, exile Arius for heresy, and therefore leave him as the senior churchman of the Roman empire- which meant major political power, in an empire which had newly adopted Christianity and sought to enforce it as the empire’s religion. It's highly significant that the draft 'creed' relating to the Godhead was initially acceptable to Arius; but because Alexander and his side simply wanted Arius 'out', they made the language more extreme; so that reconciliation wouldn't be achieved. And so they added the clause that Jesus was homoousios, of the same substance, with the Father- knowing Arius would have to reject this (5). Again, this was no outcome of sober, sincere Bible study. It was pure politics.

 

Often I hear the comment ‘Well this matter was all looked into long ago, and wise Christians weighed it up and came to a prayerful conclusion, which tradition Christians rightly follow and uphold’. The history of the matter is quite different, and those who make such statements are sadly ignorant. Athanasius compounded his physical attacks on Arius’ supporters, his burning of their churches etc, with a series of personal slanders against the leading non-trinitarians, calling them seducers, rapists, frequenters of prostitutes, etc (6). If the argument was really just about the interpretation of Scripture, there needn’t have been all this personal attacking and politicking and rioting. Clearly, the issue of accepting the trinity was all about power politics. In any case, we simply cannot allow our personal faith and understanding of God and His Son to be dictated and defined by a church council of many centuries ago. Reviewing the history of the Christian church hardly gives much reason to trust its "councils" to come up with Godly, Biblical decisions. Just think back through the burning of heretics and suspected witches, torture to the death of non-trinitarians such as Michael Servetus by Luther, anti-semitism, the crusades, the Inquisition, church support for Fascism, for war and violence, for making black people stay out of white churches in the USA and South Africa... high level "Christian" decision making has a pathetic record. We really have no reason at all to allow "church councils" to define our view of the Lord, Saviour and Master with whom we are to have an intensely personal relationship mediated by His word. I cannot rest my faith on the shoulders of men; true faith cannot be a secondhand faith. It must trace its origins directly back to the Lord Jesus and His word, rather than back to some cranky guys playing church politics in the fourth century.

 

Constantine was a politician, not a Bible student. "Constantine's goal was to create a neutral public space in which Christians and pagans could both function... creating a stable coalition of both Christians and non-Christians" in the Roman empire (7). He also realized that Christianity itself had to be united if it were to be the state religion, and so he wanted there to be only one view on this contentious issue of who Jesus was. It was intolerable for him that Christians were rioting against each other over it. The matter had to be resolved. One side had to be chosen as right, and the other side must be silenced. He came down on the side of Athanasius for political reasons- adopted the trinitarian creed for the church, and exiled Arius. And so, Jesus ‘became’ God because of that. In the same spirit of wanting a united church at all costs, Constantine agreed at Nicea to a whole range of other measures which were likewise not Biblical- e.g. that anyone excommunicated by a Bishop in one province could never be accepted in another province, and the appointment of “superbishops” in Alexandria, Rome and Antioch who would decide all contentious issues in future. Personal conscience and understanding didn’t matter; all Constantine wanted was a united church, as he believed it would result in a united empire. One empire, one religion- and therefore, that religion had to be united, and dissent had to quashed. Someone had to be made out as totally right, and someone as totally wrong. Sadly one sees today the very same mentality in so many churches and local congregations. It’s all about power. The mess made in early Christianity remains our sober warning in these last days.

 

Constantine's Legacy

 

Constantine's integrity is for me self-questioned by his claim to be "the thirteenth apostle". Such a person can hardly be taken as a founding father of the true church. And add to this his murder of his rivals, boiling his wife to death in her bath and murdering one of his sons. Paul Johnson documents all this, and in the context of the trinity [and other] political agreements, comments: "His abilities had always lain in management... he was a master of the smoothly-worded compromise" (8). Indeed, Constantine wrote to both Arius and Alexander that he considered the theological issues themselves to be of no importance: "Having inquired carefully into the origin and foundation of these differences, I find their cause to be of a truly insignificant nature, quite unworthy of such bitter contention" (9). It really was all just dirty politics- for soon after writing this, non-trinitarians were cast out of the church as infidels and heretics, over an issue which Constantine considered "insignificant". It wasn't many centuries later that the Crusaders raped and pillaged both Moslem and Jewish cities, in the name of the Trinity and justified by the idea that those who didn't accept it, and were monotheists, should be put to the sword. John Calvin, in this spirit, ordered the destruction of Michael Servetus, because he too came to deny the Trinity. For this, he "deserved to have his bowels ripped out and to be torn in pieces" (10). So much for Calvin as a father of the so-called reformation. Nothing very fundamental was reformed. And Michael Servetus was taken to his execution in a dung cart, and burned alive with his anti-trinitarian writings, and the flames were fed with every known copy of his book Christianismi Restutio- a book which called for the restoration of Christianity to its non-trinitarian original form. The downright nastiness of many Trinitarians to non-Trinitarians today, branding them as cults etc., is a continuation of this spirit.

 

Theodosius And AD381

 

The Nicaea decree of AD325 was set even further in stone by the decree of Constantinople, issued by the emperor Theodosius in AD381. This edict condemned all other Christian beliefs as heresy, punishable by both the Roman state and also, so he claimed, by God's condemnation. The historian Charles Freeman argues at length that this edict brought about what he calls "the closing of the western mind" (11). All Bible study, theology etc. was now done within the tramlines of the Trinitarian dogma; fear of being accused heretical permeated Christianity. The state controlled the church, and thus the Roman empire became as much a 'one church' state as it did a one party state. Secular law upheld church law. Loyalty to the empire thus became the same thing as loyalty to the church. Once the empire pronounced God as being a Trinity- anything else was seen as subversive and dangerous. And so "'Having faith' could be defined as the virtue of believing what the church believed, and 'the sin of pride' as thinking for oneself" (12). The 'orthodox', Trinitarian bishops were empowered to confiscate the churches and property of heretics, and punish and slay them as required. The libraries and writings of 'heretics' were destroyed. The tradition of intellectual free thought and debate that Rome had inherited from Greece dried up; even Christian art became influenced and limited by the Trinity, triple tiaras started appearing everywhere... and the slide into the dark ages was perhaps hastened by this clampdown on Christian thought. The divisive and condemnatory language used by Theodosius and his supporters in condemnation of non-Trinitarian Christians bears quoting at length: "We shall believe in... the Holy Trinity. We command that persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom we judge demented and insane, shall carry the infamy of heretical dogmas. Their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by Divine vengeance, and secondly by the retribution of hostility which we shall assume in accordance with the Divine judgment... [Arians] are wolves harrying the flocks, daring to hold rival assemblies, stirring sedition among the people and shrinking from nothing which can do damage to the churches" (13). This kind of vitriolic recalls the way the Trinitarian Athanasius spoke of non-Trinitarian Christians like Arius: "In every respect his heart is depraved and irreligious... utterly bereft of understanding, heretics show no shame... they are hostile and hateful to God" (14). And so the art of heresy hunting by Christians against other Christians began in earnest. There was no category in Roman law to condemn wrong belief; there were only articles against sorcery. Understanding the Lord Jesus in a non-Trinitarian way was therefore elevated to a seriously criminal offence. Burning alive was the traditional Roman punishment for counterfeiting coins- and this was applied to those who 'counterfeited Christ' by rejecting the Trinity. There arose, therefore, a fear of asking too many questions- as the Bishop of Melitene observed: "We uphold the Nicene creed but avoid difficult questions... Clever theologians soon become heretics" (15). Yet asking questions is a basic tool in the search for Truth, for God, in exploring His word for ourselves. Yet to simply be, in all spiritual, Bible-believing honesty, a non-Trinitarian was painted as an awful sin... and in some quarters, Trinitarian Christianity has the same aggressive, intolerant spirit to this day, associated with a total closedown of thought and intellectual integrity when it comes to the issue of the Trinity.

 

Why did Theodosius act like this? Why did he begin this process of persecuting anyone who didn't accept the Trinity? It wasn't the outcome of Biblical study, but rather political fears and ambitions. The Roman empire was breaking up, and he urgently wanted to unite the empire through enforcing unity of belief. Further, it had been pointed out that the Gospels present Jesus as a rebel against the Roman empire, a man who claimed to be King in contradistinction to Caesar. The response of Theodosius was therefore to insist that Jesus was God, and His human side was to be downplayed. One recalls the way that the Nazis, in a desperate attempt to get the German church onside with them, likewise ordered the Divine side of Jesus to be emphasized and His humanity as a Jew to be diminished. For one could hardly expect a Christian church to support the extermination of Jewry if the Christ of Christianity were to be title-roled as a Jew. Further, the empire of Theodosius was under attack from the Goths, who had been converted to an earlier, non-Trinitarian form of Christianity. Rather than justify a war of Christians against fellow Christians, it was expedient for Theodosius to slate the Goths as apostate Christians, deserving of Rome's brutality to suppress them.

 

Notes

 

(1) See Richard Hanson, The Search For The Christian Doctrine Of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) p. 386.

(2) Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God (London: Harcourt, 2000) p. 6.

(3) Quoted in Rubenstein, ibid p. 58.

(4) Mentioned in Rubenstein, ibid p. 77.

(5) As documented in Charles Freeman, AD381: Heretics, Pagans And The Christian State (London: Pimlico, 2008) p. 54.

(6) These things are chronicled extensively in T.D. Barnes, Constantine And Eusebius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981) pp. 18-27 and throughout T.D. Barnes, Athanasius And Constantius: Theology And Politics In The Constantinian Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993).

(7) H.A. Drake, Constantine And Consensus (Oxford: O.U.P., 1995). The same author concludes that Constantine realized that Christianity was unstoppable, and therefore it was better to merge with it than seek to destroy it. See his Constantine And The Bishops: The Politics Of Intolerance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 2000).

(8) Paul Johnson, A History Of Christianity (New York: Atheneum, 1976) pp. 67,68.

(9) Quoted in Ian Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence (London: Harper & Row, 1984) p. 165.

(10) As quoted in A. Buzzard and C. Hunting, The Doctrine Of The Trinity (Oxford: International Scholars Press, 1998) p. 155. For more on Calvin's persecution of Servetus, see Marian Hillar, The Case of Michael Servetus (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1997).

(11) Charles Freeman, The Closing Of The Western Mind (London: Heinemann, 2002) and also AD381: Heretics, Pagans And The Christian State (London: Pimlico, 2008).

(12) Charles Freeman, The Closing Of The Western Mind (London: Heinemann, 2002) p. 341.

(13) As quoted in Charles Freeman, AD381: Heretics, Pagans And The Christian State (London: Pimlico, 2008) pp. 25,101. There are many similar quotations on record- see Richard Hanson, The Search For The Christian Doctrine Of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) p. 828.

(14) Quoted in Freeman, op cit. p. 70.

(15) As quoted in Henry Chadwick, The Church In Ancient Society (Oxford: O.U.P., 2001) p. 591.

 

 

 

More Christians need to read this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. N00b mistake. First time posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. N00b mistake. First time posting.

Welcome!

 

And to tell you the truth, it's been so long since I read the original post that I had forgotten it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been raised in a catholic family, taught by nuns, and being an altar boy, I was exposed to the catholic cult from birth. Naturally, I was a believer. How can a child not believe what his parents and teachers insist is the gospel truth? But, even a seven year old is smart enough to question the trinity. What humans have to do is to simply use common sense, and ask "possible or probable". A person named SOMS on another board came up with this approach, and uses it to teach her child the art of critical thinking with much success, and the adult Christians on this board would be wise to use the same rationale. So would every Christian,, priest and bishop.

 

What religion does is to first present a case that ANYTHING is possible to explain events. In the case of the resurrection, for instance, they contend it's 'possible" for Jesus to have arisen because God can perform miracles. First, they get the person to admit that God can't be disproven, and since there is a "possibility' that God exists, then it follows that he could make Jesus rise, and not only that, But it was possible that Jesus himself was God himself, and the trinity. Of course, all of this presupposes that the bible accounts are possible (true)

 

When one uses critical thinking and looks at what is probable, there are a whole host of things that are far more likely than a trinity. Jesus was just a man. Paul was a wanabee apostle and made up or imagined seeing Jesus, Paul wanted to feel important, there were no 500 witnesses, the other apostles thought they saw Jesus. The apostles having seen Jesus is made up, and on and on.

 

I am extremely sad that grown humans believe this nonsense. It doesn't speak well for the intelligence of humans, and shows we have a long ways to go from monkeyhood.

Sorry. N00b mistake. First time posting.

Welcome!

 

And to tell you the truth, it's been so long since I read the original post that I had forgotten it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.realchrist.info/4-5.html

 

4-5 Dirty Politics And The Doctrine Of The Trinity

 

A review of the "Letters concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea", published in English translation in the Collection Of Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers, reveals that Athanasius kept insisting that the church had the right to definitively interpret Scripture, and it was their authority to interpret it as they wished, and therefore no great weight should be placed on the fact that at times their conclusions and dogmas weren't supported by the Bible text. Letter 5.20,21 reads: "The bishops... were compelled to collect the sense of the Scriptures... the expressions [of the proposed doctrine of the Trinity] are not in so many words in the Scriptures". It was not a question of those men being 'compelled' at all- they ought to have been faithful to the Biblical text, rather than demanding that others accept their "sense" on pain of being called non-Christian and cast out of the church. It is this attitude to the Bible itself which ultimately determines whether we accept or reject the Trinity.

 

The argument between Arius (non-trinitarian) and Athanasius (trinitarian) was more political than it was theological or Biblical. There was a power struggle between the two men. Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire, power within the church became political power. These two Christian leaders both had significant followings; and they both wanted power. The followers of the two groups fought pitched battles with each other in the urban centres of the empire. There are numerous accounts of Athanasius’ followers beating and murdering non-trinitarian Christians in the lead-up to the Council of Nicea, torturing their victims and parading their dead bodies around (1). The trinitarian Athanasius was by far the more brutal. “Bishop Athanasius, a future saint… had his opponents excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled to distant provinces” (2). As in any power struggle, the opponents of both sides became vilified and demonized; the issue of how to formulate a creed about the nature of Jesus became a matter of polemics and politics, with the non-trinitarians being described in the most vitriolic of language. Non-trinitarians were accused of “rending the robe of Christ”, crucifying Him afresh, and far worse. Sadly this spirit of vilification of those who hold another view has continued to this day, with many trinitarians refusing to accept any non-trinitarian as a Christian. Arius complained in a letter that “We are persecuted because we say that the Son had a beginning, but that God was without beginning” (3). At the Council of Nicea, Bishop Nicholas- who later became the legendary saint of Christmas in much of Europe- slapped Arius around the face (4). It would be wrong to think of the dispute as a matter of learned men of God disagreeing with each other over a matter of Biblical interpretation. Athanasius, who had the ear of Constantine more than Arius, was out for victory. He therefore emotionalized the issue and used every manner of politics and destruction of his opponents in order to get Constantine to come down on his side, exile Arius for heresy, and therefore leave him as the senior churchman of the Roman empire- which meant major political power, in an empire which had newly adopted Christianity and sought to enforce it as the empire’s religion. It's highly significant that the draft 'creed' relating to the Godhead was initially acceptable to Arius; but because Alexander and his side simply wanted Arius 'out', they made the language more extreme; so that reconciliation wouldn't be achieved. And so they added the clause that Jesus was homoousios, of the same substance, with the Father- knowing Arius would have to reject this (5). Again, this was no outcome of sober, sincere Bible study. It was pure politics.

 

Often I hear the comment ‘Well this matter was all looked into long ago, and wise Christians weighed it up and came to a prayerful conclusion, which tradition Christians rightly follow and uphold’. The history of the matter is quite different, and those who make such statements are sadly ignorant. Athanasius compounded his physical attacks on Arius’ supporters, his burning of their churches etc, with a series of personal slanders against the leading non-trinitarians, calling them seducers, rapists, frequenters of prostitutes, etc (6). If the argument was really just about the interpretation of Scripture, there needn’t have been all this personal attacking and politicking and rioting. Clearly, the issue of accepting the trinity was all about power politics. In any case, we simply cannot allow our personal faith and understanding of God and His Son to be dictated and defined by a church council of many centuries ago. Reviewing the history of the Christian church hardly gives much reason to trust its "councils" to come up with Godly, Biblical decisions. Just think back through the burning of heretics and suspected witches, torture to the death of non-trinitarians such as Michael Servetus by Luther, anti-semitism, the crusades, the Inquisition, church support for Fascism, for war and violence, for making black people stay out of white churches in the USA and South Africa... high level "Christian" decision making has a pathetic record. We really have no reason at all to allow "church councils" to define our view of the Lord, Saviour and Master with whom we are to have an intensely personal relationship mediated by His word. I cannot rest my faith on the shoulders of men; true faith cannot be a secondhand faith. It must trace its origins directly back to the Lord Jesus and His word, rather than back to some cranky guys playing church politics in the fourth century.

 

Constantine was a politician, not a Bible student. "Constantine's goal was to create a neutral public space in which Christians and pagans could both function... creating a stable coalition of both Christians and non-Christians" in the Roman empire (7). He also realized that Christianity itself had to be united if it were to be the state religion, and so he wanted there to be only one view on this contentious issue of who Jesus was. It was intolerable for him that Christians were rioting against each other over it. The matter had to be resolved. One side had to be chosen as right, and the other side must be silenced. He came down on the side of Athanasius for political reasons- adopted the trinitarian creed for the church, and exiled Arius. And so, Jesus ‘became’ God because of that. In the same spirit of wanting a united church at all costs, Constantine agreed at Nicea to a whole range of other measures which were likewise not Biblical- e.g. that anyone excommunicated by a Bishop in one province could never be accepted in another province, and the appointment of “superbishops” in Alexandria, Rome and Antioch who would decide all contentious issues in future. Personal conscience and understanding didn’t matter; all Constantine wanted was a united church, as he believed it would result in a united empire. One empire, one religion- and therefore, that religion had to be united, and dissent had to quashed. Someone had to be made out as totally right, and someone as totally wrong. Sadly one sees today the very same mentality in so many churches and local congregations. It’s all about power. The mess made in early Christianity remains our sober warning in these last days.

 

Constantine's Legacy

 

Constantine's integrity is for me self-questioned by his claim to be "the thirteenth apostle". Such a person can hardly be taken as a founding father of the true church. And add to this his murder of his rivals, boiling his wife to death in her bath and murdering one of his sons. Paul Johnson documents all this, and in the context of the trinity [and other] political agreements, comments: "His abilities had always lain in management... he was a master of the smoothly-worded compromise" (8). Indeed, Constantine wrote to both Arius and Alexander that he considered the theological issues themselves to be of no importance: "Having inquired carefully into the origin and foundation of these differences, I find their cause to be of a truly insignificant nature, quite unworthy of such bitter contention" (9). It really was all just dirty politics- for soon after writing this, non-trinitarians were cast out of the church as infidels and heretics, over an issue which Constantine considered "insignificant". It wasn't many centuries later that the Crusaders raped and pillaged both Moslem and Jewish cities, in the name of the Trinity and justified by the idea that those who didn't accept it, and were monotheists, should be put to the sword. John Calvin, in this spirit, ordered the destruction of Michael Servetus, because he too came to deny the Trinity. For this, he "deserved to have his bowels ripped out and to be torn in pieces" (10). So much for Calvin as a father of the so-called reformation. Nothing very fundamental was reformed. And Michael Servetus was taken to his execution in a dung cart, and burned alive with his anti-trinitarian writings, and the flames were fed with every known copy of his book Christianismi Restutio- a book which called for the restoration of Christianity to its non-trinitarian original form. The downright nastiness of many Trinitarians to non-Trinitarians today, branding them as cults etc., is a continuation of this spirit.

 

Theodosius And AD381

 

The Nicaea decree of AD325 was set even further in stone by the decree of Constantinople, issued by the emperor Theodosius in AD381. This edict condemned all other Christian beliefs as heresy, punishable by both the Roman state and also, so he claimed, by God's condemnation. The historian Charles Freeman argues at length that this edict brought about what he calls "the closing of the western mind" (11). All Bible study, theology etc. was now done within the tramlines of the Trinitarian dogma; fear of being accused heretical permeated Christianity. The state controlled the church, and thus the Roman empire became as much a 'one church' state as it did a one party state. Secular law upheld church law. Loyalty to the empire thus became the same thing as loyalty to the church. Once the empire pronounced God as being a Trinity- anything else was seen as subversive and dangerous. And so "'Having faith' could be defined as the virtue of believing what the church believed, and 'the sin of pride' as thinking for oneself" (12). The 'orthodox', Trinitarian bishops were empowered to confiscate the churches and property of heretics, and punish and slay them as required. The libraries and writings of 'heretics' were destroyed. The tradition of intellectual free thought and debate that Rome had inherited from Greece dried up; even Christian art became influenced and limited by the Trinity, triple tiaras started appearing everywhere... and the slide into the dark ages was perhaps hastened by this clampdown on Christian thought. The divisive and condemnatory language used by Theodosius and his supporters in condemnation of non-Trinitarian Christians bears quoting at length: "We shall believe in... the Holy Trinity. We command that persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom we judge demented and insane, shall carry the infamy of heretical dogmas. Their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by Divine vengeance, and secondly by the retribution of hostility which we shall assume in accordance with the Divine judgment... [Arians] are wolves harrying the flocks, daring to hold rival assemblies, stirring sedition among the people and shrinking from nothing which can do damage to the churches" (13). This kind of vitriolic recalls the way the Trinitarian Athanasius spoke of non-Trinitarian Christians like Arius: "In every respect his heart is depraved and irreligious... utterly bereft of understanding, heretics show no shame... they are hostile and hateful to God" (14). And so the art of heresy hunting by Christians against other Christians began in earnest. There was no category in Roman law to condemn wrong belief; there were only articles against sorcery. Understanding the Lord Jesus in a non-Trinitarian way was therefore elevated to a seriously criminal offence. Burning alive was the traditional Roman punishment for counterfeiting coins- and this was applied to those who 'counterfeited Christ' by rejecting the Trinity. There arose, therefore, a fear of asking too many questions- as the Bishop of Melitene observed: "We uphold the Nicene creed but avoid difficult questions... Clever theologians soon become heretics" (15). Yet asking questions is a basic tool in the search for Truth, for God, in exploring His word for ourselves. Yet to simply be, in all spiritual, Bible-believing honesty, a non-Trinitarian was painted as an awful sin... and in some quarters, Trinitarian Christianity has the same aggressive, intolerant spirit to this day, associated with a total closedown of thought and intellectual integrity when it comes to the issue of the Trinity.

 

Why did Theodosius act like this? Why did he begin this process of persecuting anyone who didn't accept the Trinity? It wasn't the outcome of Biblical study, but rather political fears and ambitions. The Roman empire was breaking up, and he urgently wanted to unite the empire through enforcing unity of belief. Further, it had been pointed out that the Gospels present Jesus as a rebel against the Roman empire, a man who claimed to be King in contradistinction to Caesar. The response of Theodosius was therefore to insist that Jesus was God, and His human side was to be downplayed. One recalls the way that the Nazis, in a desperate attempt to get the German church onside with them, likewise ordered the Divine side of Jesus to be emphasized and His humanity as a Jew to be diminished. For one could hardly expect a Christian church to support the extermination of Jewry if the Christ of Christianity were to be title-roled as a Jew. Further, the empire of Theodosius was under attack from the Goths, who had been converted to an earlier, non-Trinitarian form of Christianity. Rather than justify a war of Christians against fellow Christians, it was expedient for Theodosius to slate the Goths as apostate Christians, deserving of Rome's brutality to suppress them.

 

Notes

 

(1) See Richard Hanson, The Search For The Christian Doctrine Of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) p. 386.

(2) Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God (London: Harcourt, 2000) p. 6.

(3) Quoted in Rubenstein, ibid p. 58.

(4) Mentioned in Rubenstein, ibid p. 77.

(5) As documented in Charles Freeman, AD381: Heretics, Pagans And The Christian State (London: Pimlico, 2008) p. 54.

(6) These things are chronicled extensively in T.D. Barnes, Constantine And Eusebius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981) pp. 18-27 and throughout T.D. Barnes, Athanasius And Constantius: Theology And Politics In The Constantinian Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993).

(7) H.A. Drake, Constantine And Consensus (Oxford: O.U.P., 1995). The same author concludes that Constantine realized that Christianity was unstoppable, and therefore it was better to merge with it than seek to destroy it. See his Constantine And The Bishops: The Politics Of Intolerance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 2000).

(8) Paul Johnson, A History Of Christianity (New York: Atheneum, 1976) pp. 67,68.

(9) Quoted in Ian Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence (London: Harper & Row, 1984) p. 165.

(10) As quoted in A. Buzzard and C. Hunting, The Doctrine Of The Trinity (Oxford: International Scholars Press, 1998) p. 155. For more on Calvin's persecution of Servetus, see Marian Hillar, The Case of Michael Servetus (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1997).

(11) Charles Freeman, The Closing Of The Western Mind (London: Heinemann, 2002) and also AD381: Heretics, Pagans And The Christian State (London: Pimlico, 2008).

(12) Charles Freeman, The Closing Of The Western Mind (London: Heinemann, 2002) p. 341.

(13) As quoted in Charles Freeman, AD381: Heretics, Pagans And The Christian State (London: Pimlico, 2008) pp. 25,101. There are many similar quotations on record- see Richard Hanson, The Search For The Christian Doctrine Of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) p. 828.

(14) Quoted in Freeman, op cit. p. 70.

(15) As quoted in Henry Chadwick, The Church In Ancient Society (Oxford: O.U.P., 2001) p. 591.

 

This web page was originally found here:

 

http://home.talkcity.com/ParadiseDr/nkuehl/Hebrews.html

 

 

 

 

 

The Gospel of the Hebrews

 

Extracts and Commentary

 

Taken from Gospel Parallels,

 

Ed. Burton H. Throckmorton, Jr.

 

ISBN 0-8407-5150-8

 

And

 

The Other Bible

 

Ed. Willis Barnstone

 

ISBN 0-06-250030-904143784

 

 

 

The Gospel of the Nazaraeans ("observers") in Hebrew is believed to have been the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the source for the present gospel (which was composed in Greek). There are reliable witnesses that this gospel was both used and circulated among the earliest followers of Yahshua in the diaspora. Some believe it originated in Egypt, and that the latest possible date it might have been written was during the first half of the second century; however, there are other opinions that it was composed in the middle of the first century, when "Jesus" traditions were first being produced and collected. An earlier date is more likely than a later one. Jerome, Eusebius, and Hegesippus (the latter two not quoting it) make mention of it as do Origen, Clement (both Alexandrians). It is believed to have been known to Papias who died about 130 C.E. and may have quoted it in his lost "Exegesis of the Sayings of the Lord" (which is now "lost"). It is significant to note that Nicephorus, when drawing up his list of canonical and apocryphal books, stated that the Gospel of the Hebrews contained only 2200 lines, 300 fewer than Matthew. It has been suggested that these three hundred lines are the birth narratives of the first and second chapters of our canonical Matthew.

 

 

 

The following are the only known extractions from it. Care should be exercised to separate the actual quotations of the extractions from the interpretative remarks made by the church writers. I have placed any corresponding New Covenant verses (taken from the KJV) before each extract. All material underlined, bold-faced, and italicized contains my own emphasis.

 

 

 

Matthew 3:13: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him."

 

 

 

To Matt. 3:13: cf. Gospel according to the Hebrews, (in Jerome, Against Pelagius III.2)--The mother of the Lord and his brothers said to him, "John the Baptist baptizes for the forgiveness of sins; let us go and be baptized by him." But he said to them, "In what way have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, perhaps, what I have just said is a sin of ignorance."

 

 

 

Commentary:

 

Within the Torah are different categories of sin; a sin of ignorance is a mis-stepping, or a "side-slip", meaning that in order to learn from one's mistakes he often side-steps to the left or right hand through ignorance, but once he has realized his mistake he then again attempts to step back on the "way" or "path" of righteousness. In the New Covenant this type of sin is often referred to as a "trespass".

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew 3:16-17: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God [Elohim] descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

 

 

 

(From Gospel Parallels)

 

To Matt. 3:16-17 cf. Gospel according to the Hebrews, (in Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 11:2)--When the Lord ascended from the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him, and said to him, "My son, in all the prophets I was waiting for you, that you might come, and that I might rest in you. For you are my rest; and you are my firstborn son, who reigns forever."

 

 

 

(From The Other Bible)

 

(Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 4 [on Isaiah 11:2])

 

According to the Gospel written in the Hebrew speech, which the Nazaraeans read, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit shall descend upon him....Further in the Gospel which we have just mentioned we find the following written: "And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon him and rested on him and said to him: My son, in all the prophets was I waiting for you that you should come and I might rest in you. For you are my rest; you are my firstbegotten Son that reigns forever.

 

 

 

Commentary:

 

The earliest followers of Yahshua believed that Yahshua was empowered by the Holy Spirit at his immersion, not at his birth (thus they did not include the later birth narratives in their gospel). The important point in using the word "rest" above is that it refers to the Jewish belief that the Messiah's name will be called "Menachem", or "rest". You will also notice that while our present Matthew does not include the idea of the "firstborn" son (implying that there will be others), they use also the second phrase as quoted in Psalm 2:7 as well: "this day have I begotten thee". You will note that John 1:14 is translated as the "only begotten", but the word "only" there is an addition to the text. It should read "the begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He (the Father) hath declared." The word "begotten" here implies only that he was in the Father's bosom before the creation of the world. In the Hebrew, as used in Zechariah 12:10, the word for "only" is yachid meaning "beloved" and implying the "firstborn" son, and as the book of Hebrews states, that Yahvah would use Yahshua, His Firstborn, for "bringing many sons to glory" [Hebrews 2:10] as an "elder brother". Please note that this gospel was written first in Hebrew by the testimony of several of the "church fathers".

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."

 

 

 

(From Gospel Parallels)

 

To Matt. 4:8 cf. Gospel according to the Hebrews (in Origen, Commentary on John 2:12 and Homily on Jeremiah 15:4)--And if any accept the Gospel of the Hebrews, here the Savior says: "Even so did my mother, the Holy Spirit, take me by one of my hairs, and carry me to the great Mount Tabor." Jerome also records these words in Latin in his commentaries on Micah 7:6, Isaiah 40:9ff., and Ezekiel 16:13.

 

 

 

(From The Other Bible)

 

(Origen, Commentary on John 2.12.87 [on John 1:3]):

 

And if any accept the Gospel of the Hebrews -- here the Savior says: Even so did my mother, the Holy Spirit, take me by one of my hairs and carry me away on to the great mountain Tabor.

 

 

 

Commentary:

 

Within Judaism, the Shekinah (or "visible" cloud of the Presence) is a feminine word, thought to be Yahvah's feminine aspect; therefore, they called the Spirit the "mother". You will note, likewise, that the Renewed City of Jerusalem that "descends from heaven" is also referred to as female, as the "mother" of us all. Jewish studies have shown that this Heavenly Jerusalem is a "palace of overcomers" (the Overcomer's Palace), and is called by the ancient Jewish kabbalists Binah ("Understanding"), a house with "many rooms" (in the New Covenant it is translated "many mansions"). The verse above follows the motif in the book of Ezekiel where it is stated: "And he put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem" [Ezekiel 8:3], i.e. to a "holy mountain". Tabor (meaning "mound"; Strong's has broken" or "fragile") was a "very high mountain" located as a landmark within the territories of Issachar and Zebulon, overlooking the Plain of Esdraelon (Greek for Jezreel); and is where Barak gathered his ten thousand men in Deborah's campaign. This is why some believe that "Har Megiddo" or "Armageddon" will be the gathering place of the final battle of the age. While it is entirely possible that this mountain is the one referred to in the book of Revelation, we must realize also that the word "megiddo" means "gathering place" and could mean any "gathering place". Isaiah refers to the Mount of the Congregation (or the Mountain in Jerusalem) as the Har Moed, the Mountain of Appointment, or "meeting"; and since all Scripture states the "Day of Yahvah" will occur in Jerusalem, we must also consider that Tabor is a "symbolic" term used because of its historical significance as a "gathering place". Note: Origen, an Alexandrian, both quoted from and used the Gospel of the Hebrews. The reason he says "if any accept it" is because many of his colleagues in the west did not.

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew 5:23: "Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee..."

 

 

 

(From Gospel Parallels)

 

To Matt. 5:23 cf. Gospel according to the Hebrews (in Jerome Commentary on Ezekiel 18:7): And in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which the Nazaraeans are accustomed to read, one of the greatest sins is "To grieve the spirit of one's brother." And, Jerome on Ephesians 5:4 writes: As also we read in the Hebrew Gospel that the Lord spoke to his disciples: "And never," he said, "be joyful except when you look on your brother with love."

 

 

 

(From The Other Bible)

 

(Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 3 [on Ephesians 5:4]):

 

As we have read in the Hebrew Gospel the Lord says to his disciples: And never be you joyful, save when you behold your brother with love.

 

 

 

(From The Other Bible)

 

(Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel 6 [on Ezekiel 18:7]):

 

In the Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Nazaraeans are wont to read there is counted among the most grievous offenses: He that has grieved the spirit of his brother.

 

 

 

Commentary:

 

The saying in Matthew 5:23-24 appears to confirm the saying in the Gospel of the Hebrews. Even Jerome seems to agree with the saying in this Gospel about "brotherly love".

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew 7:7: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you..."

 

 

 

(From Gospel Parallels)

 

To Matt. 7:7 cf. Gospel according to the Hebrews (in Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies V.14.96); also cf. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 654, Logion 1: "He who seeks will not give up until he finds; and having found, he will marvel; and having marveled, he will reign; and having reigned, he will rest."

 

 

 

(From The Other Bible)

 

(Clement, Stromateis 2.9.45.5)

 

As also it stands written in the Gospel of the Hebrews: He that marvels shall reign, and he that has reigned shall rest.

 

 

 

Commentary:

 

I have explained this in other early gospel commentaries. When we seek ardently, we shall find, and when we find, we shall be in awe, and having come to an understanding, we shall be in the "house of understanding", reigning as priests and rulers with Yahshua, our Chief, and that will be our rest.

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew 11:29: "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls."

 

 

 

(From Gospel Parallels)

 

To Matt. 11:29 cf. Gospel according to the Hebrews (in Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies II.9.45)--He who has marveled shall reign, and he who has reigned shall rest. He who seeks will not give up until he finds; and having found, he will marvel; and having marveled, he will reign, and having reigned he will rest, Ibid. V.14.96.

 

 

 

(From The Other Bible)

 

(Clement, Stromateis 5.14.96.3)

 

To those words (from Plato, Timaeus 90) this is equivalent: He that seeks will not rest until he finds; and he that has found shall marvel; and he that has marveled shall reign; and he that has reigned shall rest.

 

 

 

Commentary:

 

Apparently, the editors of these books have chosen to use this verse to identify these sayings (although the previous verse defines it better), the similarity that I find here is the concept of learning from Yahshua to understand and, thus receiving rest.

 

 

 

 

 

Luke 24:50-53: "And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen."

 

 

 

(From Gospel Parallels)

 

Luke 24:50-53 cf. Gospel according to the Hebrews (in Jerome, On Illustrious Men, 2)--Also the gospel called according to the Hebrews, recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen often uses, says, after the resurrection of the Savior: "Now the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, went to James and appeared to him (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the Lord's cup until he should see him risen from among them that sleep)." And a little further on the Lord says, "Bring a table and bread." And immediately it is added, "He took bread and blessed and broke and gave it to James the Just and said to him, "My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep.'"

 

 

 

(From The Other Bible)

 

(Jerome, De viris inlustribus 2):

 

The Gospel called according to the Hebrews which was recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen frequently uses, records after the resurrection of the Savior: And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him risen from among them that sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said: Bring a table and bread! And immediately it is added: he took the bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat your bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep.

 

 

 

Commentary:

 

This verses from the KJV above really have little to do with the resurrection narrative in the Gospel of the Hebrews concerning James (Yacov or Jacob). There was a tradition among the early apostles that James, having been present at the Passover meal, did not believe his brother would be raised from the dead, but that Yahshua visited him first after his resurrection. The present gospels seem to evidence the fact that James nor his brothers were followers of Yahshua prior to the execution and resurrection and actually believed that he might be "mad" (see Mark 3:21; Luke 8:19-20; Matthew 12:46-50; John 7:1-9, especially verse 5). At the Feast of Weeks, however, Judas the brother of James, is at least listed among the group of believers (see Acts 1:14). Jude, in his own epistle, claims verifies that he is the same "brother of James" [Jude 1]. Shaul (Paul) in 1 Corinthians 15:7 would seem to provide the evidence that Yahshua did, in fact, visit James after the resurrection but after Cephas and the twelve, then more than five hundred "brethren" who were still alive at the time of Shaul's writing: "After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles". During the beginning of Yahshua's ministry James did not believe Yahshua was the Messiah; however, there was some great catalyst that changed his mind, for he became the leader of the Nazaraean community in Jerusalem and produced our present epistle of James (written before 61 C.E. -- 42 C.E., or earlier, being the most likely date of the writing -- when he was stoned by the Sanhedrin under the authority of Ananus, the son or grandson of Annas who had been responsible for bringing Yahshua to trial; see Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.200) where he makes mention of Yahshua as the Messiah only twice; in verse 1: "James, a servant of Elohim and of the Lord Jesus Christ [Master Yahshua haMashiach], to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting" (he was writing to the "diaspora"); and in James 2:1: "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ [Master Yahshua haMashiach], (the Lord) of glory, with respect of persons." (The words "the Lord" are not in the manuscript). James, as the leader of the Jerusalem Jewish believers in Yahshua, was apparently a Nazaraean (or Nazir) and "high priest" (Mary was of the lineage of Aaron) and entitled to enter the "Holy of Holies" for which we also have evidence. Eusebius quotes Hegesippus, who states: "This apostle was consecrated from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from anima food. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath. He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. He never word woollen, but linen garments [i.e. as the priests did]...And indeed, on account of his exceeding great piety, he was called the Just, and Oblias (or Zaddick and Ozleam) which signifies justice and protection of the people. Some of the seven sects [of Judaism], therefore, of the people, mentioned by me above in my Commentaries, asked him what was the door to Jesus? And he answered, 'that he was the Saviour.'. From which, some believed that Jesus is the Christ..." [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Chapter XXIII]. Likewise, he was said to have worn the "crown" or "sacradotal plate" of the high priest. This has also been interpreted to have been the "ephod"; however, the "plate" was the golden "crown" upon which the letters YHVH were inscribed and placed on the "turban" on top of the forehead.

 

 

 

 

 

Other references mentioning the Gospel of the Hebrews:

 

 

 

(Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter XXIV):

 

"...yet of all the disciples, Matthew and John are the only ones that have left us recorded comments, and even they, tradition says, undertook it from necessity. Matthew also having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them, by his writings.

 

 

 

(Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter XXV) in compiling the "canon":

 

But there are also some who number among these [genuine books], the gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have received Christ are particularly delighted. These may be said to be all concerning which there is any dispute.

 

 

 

(From The Other Bible)

 

(Cyril of Jerusalem, Discourse on Mary Theotokos 12a):

 

It is written in the Gospel of the Hebrews: When Christ wished to come upon the earth to men, the good Father summoned a mighty power in Heaven, which was called Michael, and entrusted Christ to the care thereof. And the power came into the world and it was called Mary, and Christ was in her womb seven months.

 

 

 

Commentary:

 

This is obviously a heretical and distorted interpretation of the words in the Hebrew gospel to convince the "church" that Mary is the "Mother of God" and a perpetual virgin. This appears to be an interpretation evidencing the Eastern influence on the "church" at the Council of Ephesus (431 C.E.) where she was proclaimed Theotokos, "God-bearer" and "perpetual virgin". "Virgin birth stories (e.g., Hera, Rhea, Silvia, Brigid [also Venus, Aphrodite, among others]) were circulated in other cultures, as were tales of mothers mourning lost and deceased children (e.g., Demeter and Persephone; Isis and Horus [also the story of Tammuz, etc.]. Iconographically, just as Mary was often portrayed holding or nursing the infant Jesus, so too was the Egyptian goddess Isis depicted suckling her infant son, Horus. Even as Mary was called Queen of Heaven and sometimes depicted surrounded by the zodiac and other symbols, so too were the deities Isis, Magna Mater, and Artemis. Such parallels show that Mary's cult had roots in the cults of the female deities of the Greco-Roman pantheon, cults ultimately eradicated by Christianity" [bruce Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 500]. The "Jesus Movement" was utilized by Constantine for cult assimilation of the Greco-Roman world into a "one-world government". He succeeded. The "love-feasts" on the eight day ("Sun-day") commemorating the "Last Supper" (or Pesach) of Yahshua became separated and ritualized in the "church" as the Eucharist, and a heirarchy of governmental "priests" became the harbingers of the Scriptures and the canonizing of the New Covenant, initiating the "Dark Ages" when it was illegal for any common individual to have copies. It was about this time that the "Cult of the Saints" was also spawned. There can be little doubt that the above reflects a perversion of the original Hebrew gospel.

 

 

 

Go to the Gospel of Hebrews page.

Go to the Early Christian Writings table of contents.

This web page is copyright © 2001 Peter Kirby <E-Mail>.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! That has got to be one of the best written explanations concerning the creation of the trinity. I knew much of the history and leaned many new things from this piece. Good research. I'm sure i'll be referring to your cited works for my own needs. Been trying to explain some of this to my mother when we have our lengthy disputes on the validity of the trinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was born and raised a RC and was one for over 50 years, I just believed what they said, then I got time and the internet.  I knew many of their doctrines never lined with with the Bible but once a RC always a RC and its been a horrible several years for me.

Most like to ignore the obvious and I did as well and I'm at the point I believe in God and I believe in astrotherology , everything is based on the heavens.  There may have been a historical man named Jesus who was very holy man, and I love the bible as it has lots of wisdom in it, and also lots of stuff that should not be in it. Its man made book and it did not fall from heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.