Joseph Priestley on the Trinity Doctrine 1782

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

Joseph Priestley on the Trinity 1782

Divines are content to build so strange and inexplicable a doctrine as that of the Trinity upon mere inferences from casual expressions, and cannot pretend to one clear, express, and unequivocal lesson on the subject

I wish you would reflect a little on the subject, and then inform us what there is in the doctrine of the Trinity, in itself considered, that can recommend it as a part of a system of religious truth. For there is neither any fact in nature, nor any one purpose of morals, which are the object and end of all religion, that requires it

If the doctrine of the Trinity be true, it is, no doubt, in the highest degree important and interesting. Since, therefore, the evangelists give no certain and distinct account of it, and say nothing of its importance, it may be safely inferred that it was unknown to them

Why was not the doctrine of the Trinity taught as explicitly, and in as definite a manner, in the New Testament at least, as the doctrine of the divine Unity is taught in both the Old and New Testaments, if it be a truth? And why is the doctrine of the Unity always delivered in so unguarded a manner, and without any exception made in favour of the Trinity, to prevent any mistake with respect to it, as is always now done in our orthodox catechisms, creeds, and discourses on the subject?

The doctrine of Transubstantiation implies a physical impossibility, whereas that of the Trinity, as unfolded in the Athanasian Creed, implies a mathematical one; and to this only we usually give the name of contradiction ......

Now I ask, Wherein does the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity differ from a contradiction? It asserts, in effect, that nothing is wanting to either the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, to constitute each of them truly and properly God; each being equal in eternity and all divine perfections; and yet that these three are not three Gods, but only one God. They are, therefore, both one and many in the same respect, viz., in each being perfect God. This is certainly as much a contradiction as to say that Peter, James, and John, having each of them everything that is requisite to constitute a complete man, are yet, all together, not three men, but only one man. For the ideas annexed to the words God or man cannot make any difference in the nature of the two propositions .....

Why, then, should you be so desirous of retaining such a doctrine as this of the Trinity, which you must acknowledge has an uncouth appearance, has always confounded the best reason of mankind, and drives us to the undesirable doctrine of inexplicable mysteries? Try, then, whether you cannot hit upon some method or other of reconciling a few particular texts, not only with common sense, but also with the general and the obvious tenor of the Scriptures themselves. In the meantime, this doctrine of the Trinity wears so disagreeable an aspect, that I think every reasonable man must say, with the excellent Archbishop Tillotson, with respect to the Athanasian Creed, "I wish we were well rid of it." This is not setting up reason against the Scriptures, but reconciling reason with the Scriptures, and the Scriptures with themselves .....

I therefore think it of the greatest consequence to Christianity, that this doctrine of the Trinity, which I consider as one of its most radical corruptions, should be renounced in the most open and unequivocal manner by all those whose minds are so far enlightened as to be convinced that it is a corruption and an innovation in the Christian doctrine, the reverse of what it was in its primitive purity; and that they should exert themselves to enlighten the minds of others.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1823 Article

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The Three Heavenly Witnesses, article in The Liberal Christian, May 23 1823 (Brooklyn)

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." 1 John v. 7

This passage is admitted by learned Trinitarians lo be an interpolation, and they decline making use of it in support of their hypothesis. I shall first state the proof of its being an interpolation, which I quote from the note on the place in the Improved Version, and then show that if genuine, it would not prove the existence of three co-equal persons in one God.

"This text concerning the heavenly witnesses, is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century.
2. Nor in any Latin manuscript, earlier than the ninth century.
3. It is not found in any of the ancient versions.
4. It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, though to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, they, have cited the words both before and after this text.
5. It is not cited by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subject on which they treat would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority.
6. It is first cited by Virgilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century, and by him it is suspected to have been forged.
7. It has been omitted as spurious in many editions of the New Testament, since the reformation: in the two first of Erasmus, in those of Aldus, Colinaeus, Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach.
8. It was omitted by Luther in his German version. In the old English bibles of Henry VIII. Edward VI. and Elizabeth, it was printed in small types, or included in brackets; but between the years 1566 and 1580, it began to be printed as it now stands; by whose authority it is not known. The evidence of its spuriousness is complete, and is admitted by the most learned Trinitarians of all denominations.

If genuine, this text would not prove the doctrine of the Trinity, for,
1. The word persons occurs not in it.
2. It says not these three are one in nature, or one in essence, or are one God, nor, these three are co-equal and co-eternal.
3. It only asserts the three are one in testimony, one in the record they bear.
4. A oneness in testimony by no means requires that the witnesses should be all persons of the same rank, and on a perfect equality with each other.
5. None but distinct beings can be distinct witnesses; if the three were all one being, and God is one being only, they could be but one witness.

See also Over 200 PDF Books on the Christology & Deity of Christ on DVDrom

John 1:3, Punctuation, Staircase Parallelism and Caris

 "What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of men." New American Bible
..."and without Him nothing was made that was made." New King James Bible

I often have people writing to me  and quoting John 1:3 as it is rendered in the New King James Version, in order to prove to me that Jesus was creator. As it is written, in the NKJV, it certainly seems to say that, but once we read it in the New American Bible above, we get quite another picture. Going along with the NAB, is the 20th Century NT, NRSV, NAB, NJB, JB, NEB, BBE, HCSB ftn., RSV ftn., RV ftn., Weymouth ftn, ASV ftn, Anchor Bible, Fenton, Schonfield, Lattimore, Translator's New Testament, Funk/Hoover and Rotherham."

John 1:3 cannot be used to promote a certain dogmatism, as a rule of hermeneutics is that no ambiguous text can be a proof text.

So what happened with John 1:3? As the NAB says in its footnote,

"WHAT CAME TO BE, while the oldest manuscripts have no punctuation here, the corrector of Bodmer P75, some mss, and the ANF take this phrase with what follows, as staircase parallelism. Connection with verse 3 reflects 4th century anti-Arianism."

Has this verse been corrupted to quell a certain doctrine (Arianism) as the NAB claims?
The Anchor Bible has this reading, "That which had come to be in him was life, and this life was the light of men" as opposed to the other reading we have in the NKJV. To support their reading, Raymond E. Brown writes,

"These lines are sometimes divided in another way, thus: 3b and apart from him there came to be not a thing which came to be./4 In him was life.' In such a division, the clause 'which came to be' - instead of beginning in vs. 4 - completes vs. 3. This alternate division is found in the Clementine Vulg.; and according to Mehlmann, 'De mente,' it was Jerome's own division (except for one instance). But De la Potterie, 'De interpretatione,' insists that Jerome changed to this division only about A.D. 401 for apologetic reasons. Most modern commentators use the division we have chosen in our translation; Barrett and Haenchen are exceptions. In an attempt to prove our division is the most ancient Boismard, p. 14, gives an impressive list of patristic writers who used it; and he suggests that the above alternate translation was introduced only in the 4th century as anti-Arian apologetics."

JR Michaels, in his commentary on John, also writes:

"But the overwhelming evidence of ancient manuscripts and church fathers is that in the early centuries hO GEGONEN was read as the beginning of v. 4, not the conclusion of v. 3" (John, 25).

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament has this to say:

"It is doubtful also whether the relative clause "that hath been made" (o gegonen) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of ginomai. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with o gegonen. The early uncials had no punctuation.

Bruce Metzger, while stating that none of the arguments are conclusive, does put forth the following in his Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,

"Should the words O GEGONEN be joined with what goes before or with what follows? The oldest manuscripts (P66, P75, Aleph, A [Codex Alexandrinus] B [Vatican Manuscript 1209]) have no punctuation here, and in any case the presence of punctuation in Greek manuscripts, as well as in versional and patristic sources, cannot be regarded as more than the reflection of current exegetical understanding of the meaning of the passage.
A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took O GEGONEN with what follows. When, however, in the fourth century Arians and the Macedonian heretics began to appeal to the passage to prove that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things, orthodox writers preferred to take O GEGONEN with the preceding sentence, thus removing the possibility of heretical use of the passage.
The punctuation adopted for the text [O GEGONEN as part of verse 4] is in accord with what a majority regarded as the rhythmical balance of the opening verses of the Prologue, where the climactic or 'staircase' parallelism' seems to demand that the end of the line should match the beginning of the next. (For discussion in support of taking O GEGONEN with what follows, see K. Aland, "Uber die Beduetung eines Punktes. (Eine Untersuchung zu Joh. 1, 3 4)." in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, ed. by Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs (=Studies and Documents, XXIX; Salt Lake City, 1967), pp. 161
-187 (an expanded form of the study appeared in Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, LIX [1968], pp. 174-209), and Ed. L. Miller, Salvation-History in the Prologue of John. The Significance of John 1:3/4 (Leiden, 1989), pp. 17-44."

Note how all the early Fathers took this
verse and how it is when we get closer to Nicaea, the sentiment changes. These stats
can all be derived from the Nestle Aland 27th edition.

"What came to be through him was life,  and this life was the light of men." NAB	..."and without Him nothing was made  that was made." New King James Bible
Naassenes II/III
Theodotus (ac. to Cl) II
Valentinians(ac.to Ir) 160
Diatessaron II
Ptolemy II
HeracleonII
Theophilus 180
Perateni III
Irenaeus 202
Clement 215
Tertullian 220
Hippolutus 235
Origen 254	Adamantius 300
Eusebius 339	Alexander 373
Ambrosiaster IV	Ephraem 373
Hilary 367	Didymus 398
Athanasius 373	Epiphanus 403
Cyril (Jerusalem) 386	Chrysostom 420
Epiphanus 403	Jerome 420
	Nonnus 431
	Pseudo Ignatius V

We can see from the above that the closer one gets to Trinitarian controversy surrounding Nicaea, the more the punctuation changes in favor of showing Jesus as creator. The change is evidently theological, promoting a certain doctrine. It does not reflect the ancient text.
What is "Staircase Parallelism?" Let's start with Verse 1, with the punctuation as supplied the W/Hort Greek Text:
EN ARCH HN O LOGOS, KAI
                         O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON, KAI
                                                              QEOS HN O LOGOS
Now let us try verses 3 and 4:
PANTA DI AUTOU EGENETO, KAI
      CWRIS AUTOU EGENETO OUDE EN.
                             O GEGONEN EN AUTW ZWH HN,
                                                           KAI H ZWH HN TO FWS TWN ANQRWPWN
Verse 5:
KAI TO FWS EN TH SKOTIA FAINEI,
                        KAI H SKOTIA AUTO OU KATELABEN
Or, in English,
In the beginning was the Word, and
                                 the Word was toward the God,
                                                                    and god was the Word.
All (things) thru him came-to-be, and
         apart from him came-to-be nothing not but one (thing).
                 which has come to be in him life was, and
                                                         the life was the light of the men;
                                                                      and the light in the darkness is shining
                                                                                        and the darkness it not overpowered.
It only makes sense here to leave "what has come to be" as part of verse 4.
What this leaves us with, is to focus on the agency of the LOGOS/Word through the use of CWRIS/Caris.
 On page 793 (volume I, Louw-Nida's Greek-English Lexicon ) under semantic domain 89.120, this source makes this observation about XWRIS Jn 1:3:

"It would be wrong to restructure Jn 1:3 to read 'he made everything in all creation,' for in the Scriptures God is spoken of as the Creator, but the  creation was done 'through the Word.' If one must restructure Jn 1:3, it may be possible to say 'he was involved in everything that was created' or 'he took part in creating everything.'

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament says:

All things (panta). The philosophical phrase was ta panta (the all things) as we have it in 1 Corinthians 8:6; Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16. In verse 1:10 John uses o kosmoß (the orderly universe) for the whole. Were made (egeneto). Second aorist middle indicative of ginomai, the constative aorist covering the creative activity looked at as one event in contrast with the continuous existence of hn in verses 1,2. All things "came into being." Creation is thus presented as a becoming (ginomai) in contrast with being (eimi). By him (di autou). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 1:2) names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that "the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him and unto him" (Colossians 1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (ex ou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di ou). Without him (cwriß autou).

Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of CWRIS in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or co-operation) of one."

BAGD has "without, or apart from=apart from someone's activity or assistance"
In this way, the Bible in Living English handles it superbly, "Everything was made by his agency." Jn 1:3

Even Origen acknowledged this,

"And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages, " showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when the ages were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage also, THROUGH [DIA] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this but the Father?"

Origen's Commentary on John, ANF 10, Book 2, chap. 6, p. 328
The assistance of whom though? Why, by His created Wisdom, Jesus Christ himself:

"The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago..
Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water.
Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills was I brought forth-
when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil.
When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep,
when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
then I was beside him, like a master worker, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always." Prov 8:22-30 NRSV

Many do not usually like it when you connect this verse with Jesus, but the parallels are too overwhelming to be ignored. Check out the cross-references of the following Bibles, as they point between  Wisdom and the Logos.
New American Bible: John 1:1-> Prov 8:22-25
New Scofield Study Bible/KJV: Prov 8:22-> John 1:1; Prov 8:30->John 1:1, 2
Nelson Study Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3, 18
Oxford Annotated Bible/RSV: John 1:3->Prov 8:27-30; Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3
NIV Study Bible: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3
MacArthur Study Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3
Zondervan NASB Study Bible: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3
New American Standard Bible Reference Edition: Prov 8:30->John 1:2,3
Geneva Study Bible: Prov 8:22-John 1:1
Matthew Henry: John 1-5->Prov 8:22
John Wesley: John 1:1-> Prov 8:23
Harper Collins Study Bible/NRSV: John 1:1->Prov 8:22
Ryrie Study Bible/NIV: John 1:1->Prov 8
New Jerusalem Bible: John  1:1->Wisdom; Prov 8:22, 23-> John 1:1-3
Vine's Expository Reference Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3
Prophecy Study Bible/KJV by Tim LaHaye: Prov 8:22->John 1:1; Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3
NIV Rainbow Study Bible: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3
Men's Study Bible/NIV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3
Nestle-Aland 27th Edition: John 1:1->Prov 8:22; Prov 8:22->John 1:1,2
Oxford Study Bible/REB: Prov 8:22->John 1:1-3; John 1:1-18->Wisd. 9:1-4:8; Ecclus 24:1-12 Even
 Jesus acknowledges that he is this Wisdom:

"Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles; and some of them they shall kill and persecute; that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation" Luke 11:49 ASV

But in a parallel account we read, "Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city" Matthew 23:34 ASV
Even Paul confirms Jesus as Wisdom, "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." 1 Cor 1:24 ASV
It should be considered a very important point that Jesus is here, in the Johannine prologue, referred to as "the Word." This gives us an indication as to why Jesus was also referred to as God/a god/Divine/deity in "the Word was God." ASV
As God's Word, or mouthpiece, he represents God in every way.
In the Bible, Angels were representatives of God, and yet are referred to as GOD.
Let us see what happened to Hagar in Genesis 16. Verse 7 says, "And the angel of Jehovah found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur." The angel then conversed with her.
Then it goes on to say, "And she called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou art a God that seeth. For she said, Have I even here looked after him that seeth me?"
The context clearly says that it was an angel that spoke to her, but her reaction is that Jehovah God spoke to here.
Let us go to Judges 13 where again, the angel of Jehovah spoke to Manoah and his wife. Verse 21 and 22 says, "But the angel of Jehovah did no more appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of Jehovah. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God."

Angels were allowed to appear in behalf of God, and even use his name.

Take Exodus 3:2, "And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed." But further on down this angel speaks, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God." Look at what this angel further says, " I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."

Even God admits that angels can bear his name, "Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him." Ex 23:20

Angels represented God, appeared as God, and were everything that God was to those who saw them. It is more than interesting that the word angels means, "messenger." They were the word(s) of God.
This did not stop with Angels, it also worked with humans as representatives of God.
Judges were representatives of God, as in 1 Sam 2:25:
"If one man sin against another, God shall judge him" ASV
"If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him" KJV
The king of Israel sat on Jehovah's throne (1 Chron 29:23) and as such, was God to the people (Ps 45:6, 7). "O god: the king in courtly language, is called "god," i.e., more than human, representing God to the people." Ps 45:7 footnote New American Bible.
Jehovah made Moses "God to Pharoah." Ex 4:16; 7:1.
To go against Moses was to go against God. (Number 16:11; Ex 16:8).
To act against the apostles was to act against God (Acts 5:39).
There is something called the Schaliach Principle which I have explained elsewhere on this site, and I will repeat here:

"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself. Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle."

The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder
GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic
law as follows:

"One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach]
is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 18).

George Buchanan also appears to take this position in his commentary on Hebrews (Anchor
Bible series). Buchanan notes that

"a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power of attorney for the one who sent him" (Buchanan 7). He then adds "The New Testament apostles were apostles of Jesus, and Jesus was an apostle of God. It is against this background that Jesus, in the same context, could say both, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

What does this all mean?
"When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was n o t saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we
perfectly see what God is like” Barclay

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The Divinity of Christ and the Divine Name

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

From an Email: We are told at Isaiah 45:22-24: "Turn to me and be saved, all you at the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no one else. By my own self I have sworn-out of my own mouth in righteousness the word has gone forth, so that it will not return- that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear, saying, `Surely in Jehovah there are full righteousness and strength.'" Notice how Paul makes a direct allusion to this passage at Philippians 2:9-11 (NIV): "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." At Isaiah 45:23 we were told that every knee would bend in worship and every tongue swear to Jehovah. Paul alludes to this and says this would happen "at the name of Jesus." Why? Because Paul adds that God has shared with Christ "the name that is above every name "-the Divine Name. So, when every knee bows before Jesus and every tongue confesses Jesus Christ as LORD, does this detract from the Father? Not at all! Rather, Paul said this would glorify God the Father!-compare John 5:23. (Interestingly, early editions of the N.T. part of the New World Translation had a cross-reference at Philippians 2:10 pointing to Isaiah 45:23. Their 1984 Reference Bible edition has removed that cross-reference.).... (Above written by Mr. Dave Brown; originally appeared as an article in "The Dividing Line", the newsletter of Alpha and Omega Ministries. Printed copies available.)

Reply: 1Cor.8:6 identifies the "one God" as the Father who is the source of creation. Jesus is explicitly excluded when he is next identified as the "Lord" who is the agent of the one God. 1Tim.2:5 states there is "one God" but then specifically EXCLUDES Jesus from being that one God by saying he is the "mediator" between GOD and humans. Without equivocation or replacing the word God with father, explain how can Jesus be the same God he is mediator for?
Far from being Almighty, Jesus is said to have a God over him before, during and after he came to earth (Mic.5:4, Rom.15:6, Rev.1:6; 3:2,12). Rather than being equal in power, Jesus is said to be in subjection to God even when he is as high as he ever gets (1Cor.15:27,28, Eph. 1:17; 19-22). Mat.28:18,19 says that when Jesus returned to heaven he had to be "given" all authority (power-KJV). If Jesus were equal to God in power, then why exactly would he need to be "given" any authority? (Mt.28:18; 11:27, Jn. 5:22; 17:2; 3:35; 2Pet.1:17) cf. (Mat.11:26-27, Dan.7:13-14, Phil.2:9).

So what of the NAME in Php 2:9-11. We have to keep in mind the context of the passage.
"Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name."
God had to exalt Jesus, and give him a name above all others. Obviously, it is something he did not have before his exaltation, and again, why would Almighty God need to be given anything?
Any authority Jesus has was given to him (see Mt 9:8; 28:18; Jn 17:2).

It never says God shared his name.

But how does this authority tie into his exalted name? Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of NAME/ONOMA, "for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc."
Vine's Bible Dictionary says of ONOMA/Name in reference to Jesus (as "in the name of Christ"). "representing the authority of Christ."

Christians are persecuted for recognizing his authority. Interestingly, the New Living Translation renders Matthew 24:9 as "You will be hated all over the world because of your allegiance to me."
The Message translates Php 2:9 as "God lifted him high and honored him far beyond anyone or anything."
What else can we learn from the preceeding verses in Php 2?
"Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross." ASV
Jesus, as the last Adam (1Cor 15:45) would never do what Adam did, that is, trying to be "be as God, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:5) Jesus humbled himself and was obedient to God, and in this, we should be of the "same mind." For this ultimate humility, Jesus was honored by being given more authority than the angels.
Does the exaltation of Jesus push his Father, Jehovah into the background? No, for the Bible never tells us to stop honoring the Father, and this is where I agree with you. Honoring Jesus means honoring the Father, as Jesus definitely made God's name known.
"Hallowed be thy name" Matt 6:9 Revised Version
"I have made known to them your name, and will make it known," John 17:26 NASB

"Around the time of Christ the Jewish copyists began to leave off writing the Divine Name in their Hebrew MSS and substituting the titles Lord and God. The reason was the development of a tradition of superstitious fear over pronouncing or writing the Divine Name. Old worn-out MSS were not destroyed but were buried, because they contained the Name. One Jewish tradition credits the miracles of Jesus to his possessing a writing containing the Name that he stole from the temple. Each time scribes scribes wrote the Name they reverently wiped their pens, some even took a bath! Little wonder that the copying of the Name was eventually dropped altogether by Jewish scribes.
Jesus was no respecter of Jewish traditions (Matt 15:3,6) especially when his Father's Name was at stake (John 17:26). So he and his apostles would scarcely have approved or followed this practice. In the original Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures as used by the apostles, the Name appeared in the form of the four Hebrew letters. This is shown by its appearance in ancient fragments of the Septuagint such as the Fouad 266 papyrus of the 2nd century B.C. It also can be seen in Aquila's version of the second century A.D., in Origen's Hexapla of the third century, and is attested to by Jerome in the fourth century. It can also be seen in the Dead Sea fragment of Habakkuk in Greek.

The Divine Name would thus have been spoken by Jesus and the apostles whenever they quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, either directly or from the Greek version, and so would have appeared in their writings when they made such quotations."
Appendix, 21st Century N.T.

George Howard has done extensive study on the Divine Name in the New Testament and has this to say:

"The removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates KYRIOS and THEOS blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in many passages made it impossible which one was meant. ..Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate 'Lord', scribes were unsure whether "lord" meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries." George Howard, The Name of God in the New Testament, BAR 4.1 (March 1978), 15
In fact, the name Jesus means, "Jehovah is Salvation."
Does the Bible ever tell us to stop using the Divine Name though?
No, definitely not. This name is in the Hebrew scriptures almost 7000 times. This name was in the LXX in Jesus time and it was definitely in the Hebrew scriptures. When Jesus read scriptures, whether he was using the the LXX (Septuagint) or the Hebrew, he read the Divine Name. This name is mentioned more than any other name, and more than all the other titles put together. The math and common sense alone tells us this repetitive emphasis means the Name was meant to last forever.

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The Divine Name in the Early LXX and New Testament

Question: Why the change of emphasis between the Old Testament Yahweh and the New Testament Jesus? Are we being introduced to some rival deity in the New Testament when we encounter so much emphasis on the name of Jesus? That is the way some nearly react when it is suggested that the answer lies in the fact that the N.T. identifies Jesus with Yahweh. Bear in mind that I am not saying Jesus is the Father! Rather, what I am saying is that Jesus and the Father share the same Name and are not in some sort of competition.

Reply: The NT writers had use of the LXX (Septuagint). Did the early LXX use the divine name?

    "We know that the the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine Name by Kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood anymore". (Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p.222)

    When did they remove the name? In a commentary on the manuscript P Fouad 266, Professor G. D. Kilpatrick, on talking about the period between 70-135 C.E. said that 3 important changes were made in this period. The change from scroll to Codex, the Tetragrammaton was replaced by KYRIOS and abbreviations were introduced for divine names. See Etudes de Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme 1971 pp. 221,222

    That's right, the Divine Name WAS at one time in the New Testament! Here is a quote from the Catholic magazine "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, april-june 1997, p. 183-186.
    JHWH. The Tetragrammaton in the New Testament:
    "The Tetragrammaton in the christian Scriptures according to the Babylonian Talmud.
    The first part of this Jewish work is called Shabbath (Sabbath) and it contains an immense code of rules that establishes what could have been done of a Sabbath. Part of it deals with if on the Sabbath day Biblical manuscripts could be saved from the fire, and after it reads:
    "The text declares: 'The white spaces ("gilyohnim") and the books of the Minim, can't be saved from the fire'. Rabbi Jose said: 'On working days one must cut out the Divine Names that are contained in the text, hide them and burn the rest'. Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my son if I don't burn them toghether with the Divine Names that they contain if I come across them". From the English translation of Dr. H.Freedman.
    The word "Minim" means "sectarians" and according to Dr. Freedman it's very probable that in this passage it indicates the Jewish-Christians. The expression "the white spaces" translates the original "gilyohnim" and could have meant, using the word ironically, that the writings of  the "Minim" where as worthy as a blank scroll, namely nothing. In some dictionaries this word is given as "Gospels". In harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above mentioned passage says: "The books of the Minim are like white spaces (gilyohnim)."
    So in the book Who was a Jew?, of L.H.Schiffman, the above mentioned passage of the Talmud is translated: "We don't save the Gospels or the books of Minim from the fire. They are burnt where they are, together with their Tetragrammatons. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: "During the week one should take the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the rest". Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my children! If I would have them in my hands, I would burn them with all their Tetragrammatons'". Dr. Schiffman continues  reasoning that here "Minim" is referred to Hebrew Christians.

It's very probable that here the Talmud refers to the Hebrew Christians. It is a supposition that finds agreement among the studious people, and in the Talmud seems to be well supported by the context. In Shabbath the passage that follows the above mentioned quotations relates a story, regarding Gamaliel and Christian judge in which there is an allusion to parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, this passage of the Talmud is a clear indication that the Christians included the Tetragrammaton in their Gospel and their writings."

We have seen elsewhere that the omission is due to the expansion of piety, and to honor the Son more than the Father. It was important to lessen or blurr the role of the Father.

    "In pre-Christian manuscripts for Greek-speaking Jews, God's name was not paraphrased with kurios [Lord], but was written in the tetragram form [YHWH] in Hebrew or archaic characters....We find recollections of the name in the wroting of the Church Fathers; but they are not interested in it. By translating this name kurios (Lord), the Church Fathers were more interested in attributing the grandeur of the kurios to Jesus Christ." Entschluss/Offen, 1985, Feneberg

    "The strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be 'updated' by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted  distinction between the Father and the Son." ~Rubenstein's When Jesus Became God, p. 74.

Was Jesus Worshipped as a God? by Winthrop Bailey 1822

Was Jesus Worshipped as God? by Winthrop Bailey 1822

While Christ was on earth, many, who came to request favours of him, are said to have worshipped him. This circumstance has been considered a decisive proof, that he was God, in as much as he accepted this worship. It would be easy to show, that the original word is used to denote, not only religious worship, but that homage or respect, which men pay to their superiors. I shall mention a few of the many examples, which might be produced to confirm this latter sense of the term. “And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself to (worshipped) the people of the land.’ (Gen. xxiii. 7. 12. “And Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and did obeisance’—(worshipped him.) (Ex. xviii. 7.) “Judah, thy father's children shall bow down before thee'-(worship thee.) (Gen. xlix. 8.) “A man came out of the camp from Saul, and when he came to David, he fell to the earth, and did obeisance’—(worshipped him.) (II. Sam. i. 2.) “And all the king's servants, that were in the king's gates, bowed and reverenced (worshipped) Haman.” (Est. iii. 2.). Those, who are not acquainted with the original, may see, by these examples, the weakness of the argument above alluded to, in favour of the supreme divinity of Christ. It is an argument only in sound. It results entirely from the want of uniformity in the translation of the word in question. No one supposes, that David or Haman, or the others, mentioned in the preceding quotations, were regarded as objects of religious worship. And there is as little reason to suppose, that those, who came to Christ, and worshipped him, or rather did him homage, or obeisance, regarded him as an object of religious veneration, or could justly be charged with idolatry, if he were not the supreme God. It was as proper for him to receive this worship, homage, or respect; as it was for David to receive the same. When therefore, we are told, that Christ was worshipped while on earth; it is sufficient to reply, that, in the strict and proper sense of the term, he was not worshipped. In reference to this term, Dr. Campbell has the following note. ‘The homage of prostration, which is signified by this Greek word, in sacred authors, and well as in profane, was throughout all Asia, commonly paid to kings and other superiors, both by Jews and by Pagans. It was paid by Moses to his father-in-law, called in the English translation obeisance. The instances of this application are so numerous, both in the Old Testament, and in the New, as to render more quotations unnecessary.” [Campbell's Note on Matth. ii. 2, See also Schleus, in voc. PROSKUNEO.]

The foregoing remarks on the import of the word, rendered worship, furnish a sufficient explanation of the following passage, (Heb. i. 6.) which is often quoted to prove the supreme deity of Jesus Christ. 'And let all the angels of God worship him.’ According to what has been already said, this clause can only prove, that the angels, whether human or celestial messengers, were to regard ‘the first begotten,' as their superior; and to pay him the customary homage due to such. To this interpretation we are also led by the connexion of the words; as it seems to be the principal design of the writer in this chapter to show the superiority of the Son to the angels. But would it not be as singular, as it is needless, for any writer to enter into a formal proof of the preeminence of the eternal God over his creatures through the whole passage, God and the Son are represented as two distinct beings, as plainly as language can convey this idea. Besides, the clause in question, contains no intimation, that the angels were to worship Christ as the supreme God. Would it be consistent with reason or scripture, to suppose that God is ‘the first begotten?'— By comparing the clause under discussion, as the apostle has applied it, with the ninety-seventh Psalm, from which it is quoted, some have inferred, that Christ is the Lord, or Jehovah there spoken of. But this is far from being a conclusive mode of reasoning. Passages, which in the Old Testament relate to particular individuals, or objects, are sometimes applied to others by the writers of the New. Thus the words in the preceding verse of this chapter, “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son,” related originally to Solomon. They were however equally true respecting Christ, to whom the apostle applies them. To prove that those, who preach the gospel, are justly entitled to be supported by those, who have the benefit of their labours, St. Paul quoted the following words;– Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox, that treadeth out the corn.” That this was their original design or application, no one will suppose. To the return of Christ from Egypt, St. Matthew applies a passage, which referred to the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt by Moses. (Matth. ii. 15. Hosea xi. 1.) In the prophet, the passage is: 'When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.' The words of the apostle are: ‘That it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.' Notwithstanding this, it is evident, that the ‘son’ mentioned by the apostle, is not the same with the ‘son’ mentioned by the prophet. These examples show, that, when the apostle said “Let all the angels of God worship him; he did not necessarily refer to the same Being, of whom the Psalmist spake, when he said, ‘Worship him all ye gods.’ The Psalm seems to relate to the introduction of the gospel, or to the period, when the kingdom or reign of heaven was to be established; and as God was then to 'set his King upon his holy hill of Zion,’ a command to worship God necessarily included a command to do homage to his Son; or to honour him in that high station, to which he was exalted. To say, therefore, ‘Worship Jehovah, all ye gods,” was in effect to say; ‘Worship the Son, all ye messengers of God.” As Saul of Tarsus persecuted Jesus, when he persecuted the disciples; so the angels or gods honoured Jehovah, when they honoured his Son. (Acts ix. 1. 5.)

There are several passages in the Revelation, which are supposed to prove, that Christ is worshipped as the Supreme God. St. John heard “every creature, which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him, that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever, and ever.” Here we are told, that the Lamb is united with him that sitteth upon the throne, as an object of worship; and that the same ascription of praise belongs to both. But is not the Lamb represented as a distinct being from him, who sitteth on the throne;— and is it not evident, that the latter is supreme In a preceding verse, the reason for this ascription to the Lamb seems to be suggested. “Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” (Rev. v. 9.) If this were the reason of his being worthy to take the book, and to open the seals; it does not appear probable, that a higher reason existed for his receiving the other honour. Nothing conclusive can be inferred from the application of the same language to God, and to the Lamb. This circumstance does not prove their equality. We find the same language, which is applied to Christ, applied also to his disciples. Of him who is ‘called, the Word of God,' it is said, that ‘he shall rule the nations with a rod of iron.' (Rev. xix. 15.) ‘To him that overcometh,' said Christ, 'will I give power over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron.' (ii. 26, 27.) Why may we not as well infer, that their power is equal to his; as, in the other case, that his honour is equal to that of God? Is Christ represented as receiving blessing, honour, and glory, with God? So are saints represented as living and reigning with Christ; as sitting on the throne with him, as he sits on the throne with the Father. If there be no equality in the one instance, I see not, that there is in the other.

The circumstance that both are mentioned in the same connexion, is no evidence that both are equally worshipped. This is confirmed by the following examples. “And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king.” (I. Chron. xxix. 20.) Here Jehovah and David are connected as objects of worship, in the same way, as God and the Lamb are connected in the passages under consideration. Had these words been found in the New Testament, with the name Christ instead of the king, it is needless to say, how they would be applied by Trinitarians.— We should have been told of the inconsistency, nay the idolatry, of uniting a creature with the Creator, in the same act of worship. The passage now shows, how we are to estimate this kind of argument. It proceeds on a wrong supposition; viz. that both of the persons, mentioned, must be equally objects of worship.– When the congregation worshipped Jehovah and David, they doubtless worshipped each according to his character; the first, as God, the second, as king of Israel. Both were worthy of honour; but in unequal degrees. So, when blessing, honour, &c. are ascribed to him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb; the nature of the case, and the description, given of the two, show, as in the other instance, that only one of them is worshipped as the supreme God. The language here no more proves the Lamb to be equal, or equally worshipped, with him, who sitteth on the throne; than, in the other case, it proves David to be equal, or equally worshipped, with the Lord. Our Saviour said, ‘Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.” (Luke ix. 26.) Had the last clause been;– when he shall come in his own glory and of the Father, and of the holy Spirit;’—we should probably have been told, that the glory of the three is the same, and therefore that the three must be equal; and, further, that it is inconsistent to mention the glory of a creature in connexion with that of the supreme God. The passage however entirely refutes this mode of reasoning; and shows, from the very best authority, that the glory of creatures may be mentioned in the same connexion with that of the Creator, without any design of representing them to be equal. St. Paul said, (I. Tim. v. 21.) “I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels.” Had this passage been read;–'I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Spirit; it would doubtless have been regarded as a proof of the Trinity; on the ground, that, in the most solemn charge, which can be given to man, a created being could not consistently be united with the supreme God. Perhaps it would have been considered an act of worship to the three persons in the divine nature; and as an instance of the equal glory, which they receive. Of ‘him that overcometh, Christ said, ‘I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, and my new name.' (Rev. iii. 12.) Though this is never thought to prove the supreme divinity of ‘him that overcometh; yet, the angel, who is supposed to be Christ, is thought by many to possess essential deity, because God said, 'My name is in him.’ (Ex. xxiii. 21.) Why is an inference drawn in the latter case, which, as every one knows, cannot be drawn in the other?

It is often intimated, that, if Christ be not, in the highest sense, God, the honour, which the scriptures require us to ascribe to him is inconsistent with the worship, which is due to God alone. But, after what has been already said, it is sufficient to reply, that the scriptures do not require us to honour or worship him, as the supreme God; and that it is undoubtedly right to honour him and others, according to the characters, which they sustain. To do this in obedience to the command of God, is far from dishonouring him. Christ, whom we are required to own, and to revere, as the one Lord, and the one Mediator, instead of being the ultimate object of worship, is himself a worshipper of the Father; and in this respect is like all other created beings. It will not be doubted, that, while he was on earth, he was in the habit of worshipping his Father and his God. Nor can we well suppose, that his relation to the great Father of all was changed, when he was received to heaven; when ‘God highly exalted him, and gave him a name, which is above every' other, given to creatures. The honour, which he has received, is not inconsistent with his adoring and worshipping the great Supreme. 'All things' are indeed put 'under his feet.' But the period is approaching, when he will 'deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father.’ ‘Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him, that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here
metatron3@gmail.com

On the First and the Last in Revelations

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

Question: Let's move along to Rev l:4 it speaks of the one who is, and who was and who is coming.  Now read verse 8.  I am the Alpha and the Omega says Jehovah God "the one who is and who was and who is coming the Almighty."  Now back up to verse 7 and it says he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, and those who pierced him.
Who pierced the Almighty?  In verse 17,18 reads I am the first and the last, verse l8 and the living one, and I became dead.  So this is Jesus.  Could this explain the one "who was" in verse 8?  So let's get this straight Jehovah is the Alpha & Omega (I know you know what that means), and Jesus is the First and last in ver 17,18.
Who is speaking in Rev 22:14?
You know now that I'm thinking about it you have two of everything else you might as well have two first and last!!

Reply: Well, let us take a closer look at this.
In verse 4, we have John talking, until verse 7, which ends with "Amen."
Verse 7 refers to Jesus, and it ends with "Amen."
Verse 8 we have the Lord God talking, but then, in verse 9, it starts off with John talking again.
To confuse things even further, all this was sent via an angel. (Rev 1:1).
Jesus is "the first and the last" with reference to his death and resurrection."
All references to Jesus as being the "first and the last" have this limitation. Let us take a look?  "I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18 (Actually, one of the oldest manuscripts that we have (A) has the word "firstborn" here.
"These things saith the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]" Rev. 2:8
"Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead" Rev 1:5 See also Romans 14:9 and Col 1:18.

Question: Just a few more questions.  In verse 3 it reads, "But the throne of God (Jehovah), and of the lamb (Jesus) will be in the city and his slaves will render him sacred service.  Ver 4 and they will see his face.
Should this have read their throne, and see their faces?  According to previous passages both are coming (ver 12,13 & Jesus in ver 20)  According to Matt 25:31 the son of man arrives in his glory (Isaiah 42:9) and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.  Now back in Rev. 22:3 it reads, "the throne of God"
Do we now have two thrones?So back to Rev 22:3,4
Who is on the throne?  Now verse 4 and they will see his face, and his name (singular)  will be on their foreheads.  Well guess what?  Read Rev l4:l now you've got two names on one forehead!!!  Unless......they are the same God.

Reply: Rev 22:3 actually mentions THREE different parties, God, the Lamb, and the servants. When the name is mentioned, we can exclude the other 2. as it is definitely the Lord God that is the referent (see verse 5), which is a term (i.e. Lord God) never used of Christ (the Lamb) or his slaves (servants).
Do we have 2 thrones? Yes we do. Remember that the Jewish kings sat on Jehovah's throne (1 Chron 29:23) and that Jesus would be at God's right hand, "thus he is made second in authority to God himself." Footnote at Ps 110:1 NIV Study Bible
Jesus gets his glory from the Father (John 1:14), and we share in that glory (John 17:22), but are to acknowledge that "Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Everything eventually comes back to the Father.

Remember too that Jesus, God's agent, his hands the kingdom BACK to God the Father (1 Cor 15:24) so in this way, we can speak of both of them as coming.

Jesus, as agent, represents God in such a way that he hold a functional equality with him.

"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself. Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle."
The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder

Question? Why is it that the person of the holy spirit is never pictured in the visions of heaven?

Question: One last question
Did you know that Jesus and Jehovah have their own individual angel Rev 22:6,l6?

Reply: So does Satan (Rev 12:9) and Michael (Rev 12:7). Angel simply means "messenger."
Why does the person of the holy spirit not have any of his own individual angels?

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

metatron3@gmail.com

Revisiting Monogenes and "Only-begotten."

In response online to the usual downplaying of monogenes theos (MONOGENHS QEOS, traditionally "only-begotten") as relating to birth and generation, I posted:

 In the N.T., monogenes is used in a filial way, one that is used for offspring...see Thayers Greek Lexicon & BAGD. In fact the BAGD states that it could be analogous to prototokos (firstborn). In view of this, John V. Dahms in his The Johannine Use Of Monogenes Reconsidered NTS 29, 1983, p.231 states: We have examined all of the evidence which has come to our attention concerning the meaning of monogenes in the Johannine writings and have found the majority view of modern scholarship has very little to support it. On the other hand, the external evidence, especially that from Philo, Justin and Tertullian, and the internal evidence from the context of its occurrences, makes clear that 'only begotten' is the most accurate translation after all."

I got this reply: it's interesting that you would quote from John V. Dahms who has been opposed in numerous books from theologians and scholars alike. The fact that Dahms has a theological bias against the Trinity is seen in the propagation of the idea that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. In other words, there was no choice in submission. The Father is superior, which causes the Son to be inferior. This is hardly the truth with the Trinity. The Son willingly submits to the Father. There's an order to the Godhead and all three are equal. So naturally because of this theological bias of eternal subordination, Dahms would expound on "monogenes" as being properly interpreted as "only begotten." The majority of scholars disagree with his ideas, since this idea of eternal submission was first propagated by the heretic Arius.

My reply: So your opposition to Dahm's is not his thesis, but that the people you like don't like him. Is there something in his thesis that you could isolate for criticism? I also reject your "The majority of scholars disagree with his ideas" since you have never queried all Greek scholars in existence. (And frankly, what do I care about Dahms' religious views when it is his ideas we should be looking at. It is like saying I shouldn't read a book about Obama if the author is critical of him.)

Question: How do you view this as happening? If the verb means "beget", do they think God has a wife? Do they think God has a womb?

Reply: Abraham did beget Isaac. Does Abraham have a womb? (Yes, Abraham had a wife, but the Bible does not say that Sarah Begat Isaac.)

Question: In Hebrews 11:17 Isaac is called Abraham's "only begotten son" too. But certainly Abraham had more than one son. Something more must being going on here.

Reply:  In Heb 11:17 it is still a filial relationship. There was a time when Isaac was not, and according to Philo he had "begotten no son in the truest sense but Isaac." The Targum (Pseudo-Jonathan) mentions that Isaac is the son of Abraham's wife while the other is the son of the hand-maid, and "the son of the handmaid shall not be genealogized."

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

Addendum: There are about 58 proper names in Greek built on the "genes" stem, like Diogenes, which means "born of Zeus" or Hermogenes ("born of Hermes). These are names given by parents to their offspring that represents birth. (See https://www.behindthename.com/names/usage/ancient-greek) There are also words like theogenes which means "born of God." Though there are exceptions, "the word monogenes is used most basically and frequently in contexts having to do with biological offspring." Charles Lee Irons (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary)

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

Answering Questions on the NWT, the word "Worship" and "Lord"

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

Question: In the New International Dictionary of the Bible (Editor J.D. Douglas & Merrill C Tenney) page 1070 under "worship" says to prostrate, do obeisance  In your (69 & 85) Kit when translating the word "worship" is translated "did obeisance" every time for Jesus, and the exact same word says worship toward Jehovah.
What happened to the word for word translation promise in the foreword of both books?
The fact is Jesus was worshipped as God many times according to the Gospel accounts, and he always accepted such worship as appropriate.
Jesus accepted worship from Thomas (John 20:28), the angels (Hebrews l:6)  the wise men (Matt 2:ll), a leper (Matt 8:2, a ruler (Matt 9:18), a blind man (John 9:38), an anonymous woman (Matt 15:25; Mary Magdalene (Matt 28:9, and his diciples (Matt 28:l7)  In the book of Rev, God the Father (4:l0) and Jesus Christ (5:ll-l4) are clearly portrayed as receiving the exact same worship.
Hebrew l:6 Jehovah said let all God's angels do obeisance to him (Now we know what that means)  And in Luke 4:8 Jesus said, "It is Jehovah your God you must worship and it is him alone you must render sacred service.
How do you explain this?
Now let's read Rom 14:11 Jehovah says "to me every knee will bend down and every tongue will make open knowledgement to God.  I think both of us will agree this is worship.  So let's read Phil. 2:10,ll.  Imagine that!!  It says the exact same thing about Jesus.
Your comments please.

Reply: Have you ever really bothered to check out the meanings of these words. We will start of the with the Hebrew equivalent, Shachah. Ex 34:14 says, " for thou shalt worship (shachah) no other god: for Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" ASV
However, this same word for worship, shachah [proskuneo, LXX], was also often used of mere men of honor (see Gen 23:7, 12; 33:3; 43:28; 1 Sam 24:8; Ruth 2:10; 1 Kings 1:31; 2 Kings 4:37; Esther 3:2, 5 etc.), and angels (Jos 5:14; Num 22:31; Gen 18:2; 19:1).
In the Greek, according to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary, PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence to...It is used of an act of homage or reverence to God (John 4:24)...to Christ (Matt 2:2)...to a man (Matt 18:26)...to the Dragon (Re. 13:4)...to the Beast (Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast (Rev 14:11)...to demons (Rev 9:20)...to idols (Acts 7:43)."
Remember, the LXX uses this word when it comes to shachah. It simply means that the word does not hold the same connotations as it does today.
"Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel" Dan 2:46 KJV, RV, ASV
"And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king." 1Chron 29:20 KJV, ASV
Here, king David is given the same worship as Jehovah.
Even the American Standard Version mentions at Matt. 2:2, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to man (see chap. Matt. 18:26) or to God (see chap. Matt. 4:10)'" ?
So it is necessary for Bible versions to make a distinction, as they all do (see Matt 18:26).
Is the Kingdom Interlinear Translation discriminatory in its inconsistency. I checked this with other interlinears that I own. My NKJV/Majority Text has "obeisance" at Matt 18:26, but "worship" at Heb 1:6. My Marshall/Nestle Interlinear has the same thing in the same places. It appears that they, like the translators of the KIT gave "as literal a translation as possible" and "as nearly as possible word for word" renderings. (see forward KIT).
See also NEB, Young, Byington, NJB, Goodspeed, Newcome, REB, 20th Cent, Schonfield, Confraternity, Douay and Kleist&Lilly etc


Question: Also in Ephesians 4:5 it reads one Lord.  In Isaiah l0:33 Jehovah is the {true} Lord.  But in Luke 2:ll reads Jesus is {the} Lord. 16.  If there are two Lords why didn't they say "A" Lord in Luke 2:ll?  Ver 6 reads "one God", you have two.

Reply: No one here has 2 gods based on your meaning of "god", as those of my ilk are one of the few that actually recognize the Biblical use of the word "God."
Luke 2:11 OTI ETECQH UMIN SHMERON SWTHR OS ESTIN CRISTOS KURIOS EN POLEI DAUID
As you can see, there is actually no article here in the Greek by Lord (KURIOS), it is supplied by the translators of Bible versions (you will notice that the article "the" is often supplied in brackets).
As far as the OT goes, the scripture that is definitely applied to Christ (Psalm 110:1) uses the word adoni, a form of the word that is never used of YHWH, but only humans and angels.

As for the word Lord in the Greek, it is used (a) of an owner, as in Luke 19:33, cp. Matt. 20:8; Acts 16:16; Gal. 4:1; or of one who has the disposal of anything, as the Sabbath, Matt. 12:8; (b) of a master, i.e., one to whom service is due on any ground, Matt. 6:24; 24:50; Eph. 6:5; (c) of an Emperor or King, Acts 25:26; Rev. 17:14; (d) of idols, ironically, 1 Cor. 8:5, cp. Isa. 26:13; (e) as a title of respect addressed to a father, Matt. 21:30, a husband, 1 Pet. 3:6, a master, Matt. 13:27; Luke 13:8, a ruler, Matt. 27:63, an angel, Acts 10:4; Rev. 7:14; (f) and as a title of courtesy addressed to a stranger, John 12:21; 20:15; Acts 16:30.

The Bible has many references to a "lord and king" that refer to human kings. (See 1 Sam 24:8; 26:15, 17, 19; 29:8; 2 Sam. 2:7; 3:21; 4:8; 9:11; 13:33; 14:9 etc). And why not, as they sit on Jehovah's throne (1 Chron 29:23). Like Jesus, they were GIVEN authority.

But isn't the term used for both the Father and the Son?
Consider the following verses:
Rom. 15:6
"you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"

2 Cor. 1:3
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"

2 Cor. 11:31
"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus"

Eph. 1:3
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"

Eph. 1:17
"...the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"

1 Pet. 1:3
"...the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"

These verses present a few problems:
God the Father is Lord. But when one Lord is the God of another who is also Lord, then they are not the same, or even equal.
If Jesus is subordinate to God only as to his "human nature," then this contradicts the above verses, for there Jesus, in his divine state, has someone who is God to him.

Question: Also it reads "One Father", Jesus is all eternal Father and Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6.  And in Isaiah l0:21 Jehovah is called a "Mighty God".  Imagine that!! They both are God, Lord, Father,  when Paul said there is only one.   In latter part of verse 6 reads "who is over all and through all and in all"  But if you read Matt 28:18 Jesus said "All" authority (not half) has been given me in Heaven and on the Earth.  Either you have one of each or you have a lot of contradictions.
Your comments please.

Reply: And you forget the optimum word here. It is the word GIVEN. Almighty God does not need to be GIVEN anything. By handing over all authority to Christ, he, as Michael, can oust Satan from the heavens (Rev 12:7-12).
"And I heard a great voice in heaven, saying, Now is come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuseth them before our God day and night."
But he eventually hands it back to God, who is excepted from the word "ALL."
1 Cor 15:24-28 says, "Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father; after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For God has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when it says, All things are put in subjection under him, it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things unto him, that God may be everything to everyone." RSV

As for Isaiah 9:6, read how it is used in other Bibles:

"Wonder-Counsellor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace." Byington
"A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince." Moffatt
"in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like...." New English Bible
"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father...."Revised English Bible
"great leader, time's father"...Fenton

Why, because this verse has an earlier reference to a human king, like King Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz; or to Hezekiah initially and Christ finally. Note what some from former years have said regarding this account:

"Hezekiah, who was very unlike his father Ahaz. This passage is acknowledged, not only by Christians, but by the Chaldee interpreter, to relate in the same manner, but in a more excellent sense, to the Messiah––(Annotationes ad vetus et Novum Testamentum, by Hugo Grotius, a Dutch Arminian, 1583-1645).

"In several places of his Expositions and Sermons, he [LUTHER] maintains that the epithets belong, not to the person of Christ, but to his work and office. He understands [ale; Strongs 410] in the sense of power or ability, citing for his authority Deut. Xxviii. 32, where, as in about four other places, the expression occurs of an action's being or not being "in the power of the hand,"––(Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, Third ed. Lond. 1837, 3 vol., by Dr. J.P. Smith [it should fairly be noted that Dr. Smith disapproves of Luther's rendering])

"The word la [ale] here used is applicable, not only to God, but to angels and men worthy of admiration. Whence it does not appear, that the Deity of Christ can be effectually gathered from this passage."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, SASBOUT [as quoted in Concession, by Wilson])

"The words of Isaiah, Deus fortis, "strong God," have been differently interpreted. It is evident, that the term God is in Hebrew applied figuratively to those who excel – to angels, heroes, and magistrates; and some render it here, not God, but brave or hero."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, Esromus Rudingerus [as quoted in Concessions, by Wilson])

"It is evident that la [ale] properly denotes strong, powerful, and is used in Ezek. Xxxi. 11, of king Nebuchadnezzar, who is called... "the mighty one of the heathen."––(Scholia in Vetus Testamentum. Lips. 1828-36, 6 vol, E.F.C. Rosenmuller [Prof. of the Arabic Language at Leipzig; d. 1836])

...and, do you really think both of them are the Father, as you have stated above? If you do, then you are a Sabellianist, not a trinitarian.

Question: While you are in the 28 Chapter read verse 9, then turn to Acts 2:38 and read.
Why didn't it say Jehovah?
There is something else that bothers me, that Rom l0:13.  Now read Acts 4:10-12, If both names are equally important 19.  Why are they not listed together?  Unless he is the same.-given name
Please comment.

Reply: Because Jesus was GIVEN a better name. "Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name." Php 2:9
Almighty God does not need to be exalted, he does not need to be given a name above all others.
You see, in the past, you can do things in a prophet's name (1 Ki 21:8) or in a king's name (1 Sa 25:9), but unlike these, including the angels, "he hath inherited a more excellent name than they." Heb 1:4
Jn 17:2 just as you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all you gave him. NAB
Jn 17:11 And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are. NAB
We don't need to know that Almighty God is better than the angels, for that is already understood. Almighty God does not need to inherit anything, for that is understood. 

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here