Origen, and "the Word was a god" by William Allen 1860

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 Word was a god, and Origen, by William Allen 1860

From A Book of Christian Sonnets By William Allen 1890

According to our English Bible the Son of God under the name of the Word seems to be called God by the apostle John, ch. 1, v. 1. But it was not the purpose of John to represent the Word as the infinite, supreme, almighty God. Origen, who wrote in Greek, in the third century, and understood the language better than any modern critic, says, that John's assertion is that, "the logos, or word, was a god," using the word god in its inferior, well-known sense, as is proved by his omission of the article. If he had inserted the article, he would have said, that "the logos was the God, the supreme God, Jehovah." The plain teaching is, there is one God. With him was the logos in the beginning, an exalted, glorious being; a second, inferior God; a being derived from God; and in this sense a divine being.—Besides Origen, Philo and several other fathers of the three first centuries speak of John's omission of the article here as a proof that by the word god he did not mean the Supreme God. Consider also, that if the logos existed "with God," then he was not the very God, with whom he existed.—On the other hand, it is a matter of no weight that when the supreme God is meant, yet the article is often omitted; for it is an established principle that it may be omitted when the name of God is sufficiently definite without it. In John 1: 6,—"a man sent from God:" here is an omission of it as unnecessary. So v. 12,13,18. Origen again says,—"Angels are called gods because they are divine; but we are not commanded to worship them in the place of God, and hence they are not really gods." He says, the article is withheld, when what is called god is a being different from the self-existent God, having a communicated divinity, being a divine person. Such also was the opinion of Clemens, Alexandrinus and Eusebius; and they were men more competent to decide a matter concerning the construction of the Greek language than any modern critic.—In several of the first centuries it was the judgment of such Fathers as Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Clemens, Origen, &c., that the word god as applied to Christ denoted a celestial nature, superior to all creatures, but inferior to the Supreme God. But the authority of Christ himself is more decisive,—"My Father is greater than I:" and the whole of scripture shows, that the one perfect God and his Son are two distinct intelligent Beings. As the word in Greek, Acts 28: 6, has no article our translators have very properly said "a god." If any one will look at 2 Thess. 2: 4, he will see, that the word God occurs four times and undistinguished in the English Testament, but in the Greek the word for God appears once—"in the temple of God" —with the article, shewing that the true Supreme God is meant,— and three times without the article, showing, that the word is used in an inferior sense, that a false god was intended. Dr. Macknight's translation is as follows,—"above every one, who is called a god or an object of worship. So that he, in the temple of God, as a god sitteth, openly shewing himself, that he is a god." It is thus, that the Word in John 1st is called a god, and not God the Supreme, the Almighty Jehovah.

When Tatian, about A. D. 165 speaks of "a god, who was born in the form of man" and of "the suffering God," he certainly did not mean, that Christ was the Supreme God, incapable of suffering. 

From: Unitarianism the Doctrine of the Gospel: A View of the Scriptural Grounds on Unitarianism from Lant Carpenter - 1817

"...the meaning of the Apostle may, probably, be more correctly represented as follows:
'At the beginning' of this grand era in the moral world, 'he was' declared to be 'the Word; and the Word was with God,' favoured by Him with peculiar divine intercourse and communications, (referring to the period of our Lord's retirement in the Desert;) 'and the Word was a God,' since to him the word of God came, and he was the Representative of the Most High. 'All things' relative to the Gospel dispensation 'were done through him;' he was the appointed agent in all.— Ver. 10. 'He was in the world, and the world' of mankind 'were formed anew' (or brought into an enlightened state) 'by him, and yet the world knew him not.'

A 1695 Tract and "The Word was a God"

"The WORD was a God; there is, saith Socinus, but One God: Therefore when the WORD is here called a God, it must be meant in a Sense of Office, or of Mission, or of Representation, (not of Nature;) as Moses, and others, are (confessedly) called Gods in Scripture...Socinus saw plainly, that St. John having at first called the WORD (or the Lord Christ ) a God; that he might equal him to Moses, (Author of the Jewish State) who Is so called in Scripture: therefore to carry on the Metaphor, he speaks of him throughout, in the Terms of Creation." ~Sept 29, 1694

I and My Father are One by Winthrop Bailey 1822

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

I and My Father are One by Winthrop Bailey 1822

CHRISTIANs agree in admitting the truth of all that is taught in the oracles of God. The opposite opinions, which they hold on many subjects, are to be traced to their different interpretations of the sacred volume. The Calvinist and Arminian, the Trinitarian and Unitarian, adopt, each, their peculiar views of doctrine, not because each rejects the passages, on which the other relies; but because each prefers his own explanation of those passages. In order then to know what is the truth, we must inquire, not merely respecting the words of scripture, but respecting the meaning also; we must understand, not so much the literal, as the real, import; we must ascertain, not only what the language is capable of denoting, but what it actually denotes. There is reason to think, that the sound is sometimes more regarded, than the sense; and that, in support of a favourite theory, expressions are advanced in a sense different from what they are admitted to bear in other passages.

These remarks have been suggested by the use, which has often been made, and which is still made, of the passage, selected for the theme of this discourse. It is often quoted to prove the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ; or that he and the Father are one and the same God. As it is found in the scriptures, however, it proves no such doctrine. In order to be made a proof of this, something must be added to it by human authority. Our Lord did not say; I and my Father are one being, or one God; nor does his language naturally lead to such a result. I shall endeavour to show, that the passage is not to be understood in this sense; and that, on the other hand, Christ and the Father are two distinct beings. In order to show, that the text is not to be understood as implying, that Christ and the Father are one being, or one God, I would observe,

First, that, in the verses preceding, and following, our Lord plainly represented himself as one being, and his Father as another. As a proof of the safety of his followers, he said, “My Father, who gave them me, is greater than all; and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. But, after having mentioned himself as their protector, nothing could be added to the assurance of their safety by representing the Father as engaged in their defence, if he were the same being. If God said, ‘I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand,’ what more could be said: But if this was said by a being distinct from God, and inferior to him, we see the propriety of what follows respecting the Father, and their safety in his hand.

If it be said, that there is a personal distinction between Christ and the Father; this is admitted; and the consequence is, they are not equal. “My Father is greater than all.” Of course, whether he is God, or a divine person, no other person can be equal to him. On another occasion Christ said; 'My Father is greater than I.’ Who then shall undertake to say they are equal, and the same" When Christ said, ‘I and my Father are one;’ and “My Father is greater than I; he doubtless uttered that which is consistent with itself. Both expressions are consistent with the Unitarian doctrine, as they now stand; or in the sense, in which similar phrases are known to be used. But the Trinitarian is under the necessity of putting an arbitrary construction on both. The first, he supposes to mean, ‘I and my Father are one being.' This interpretation, it is presumed, cannot be supported by any similar example. The other he explains to signify, that the Father is greater in office than the Son. But with what apparent reason is such an interpretation given to the words:
 
When the Jews accused our Lord of representing himself to be God; he answered by showing that the word, God, is not limited to the Supreme Being. ‘If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came,’ &c. Had he called himself, therefore, by this name, it would not follow, either that he was guilty of blasphemy, or that he was the Supreme God. Our Saviour added, “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.’ All this implies, as distinctly as language can, that Christ considered himself as one being, and his Father, as another. If, in this whole paragraph, he does not speak of two distinct beings, it is impossible to
know by any language, when two beings are spoken of. As a further proof, that Christ and the Father are not one being, I would observe,
  
Secondly, that, through the whole of the New Testament, they are uniformly represented as two. One is said to have been with the other; to have been sent by the other; to return to the other; to know and love the other; to do the will of the other; and to receive power from the other. If the language of the scriptures does not prove, that the Father is one being, and the Son another; every individual mentioned in the bible may be the same; or rather nothing can be known by language. We cannot have more evidence, that David was a different man from Solomon; than we have, that the Father is a different being from the Son. If it be irrational to suppose, that any being sends himself, commands himself, prays to himself, comes from himself, returns to himself, is the son of himself, and the father of himself, sits on the right hand of himself, gives power to himself, and receives power from himself; then it is irrational to suppose, that Christ and the Father are the same being. If it be said, this is human reasoning, and must not be set in opposition to an express declaration of Christ; I reply; this objection may be worthy of consideration, when Trinitarians cease to reason. If the terms, Father and Son, do not denote two distinct beings, they are only two names, given to the same being; and in this case, either of the names may be used without changing the truth of what is said; or all, that is true respecting the Son, is equally true respecting the Father. The Son became a partaker of flesh and blood; was born; is the only mediator between God and men; was anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power; suffered and died; rose from the dead. If the Father be the same being with the Son, all this is equally true of the Father. If any thing, which our Saviour ever said, or which any sacred writer ever said respecting him, was intended to prove, that he and the Father are one and the same being, these consequences will necessarily follow; because it is impossible, that the same being should be born, and not be born; should be mediator, and not be mediator; should suffer, and not suffer; should rise from the dead, and not rise. As a further proof that Christ and the Father are not one being, I would observe,

Thirdly, that language, similar to the text, is used in other cases, where no person supposes, that any such idea is conveyed; and where, by universal consent, nothing more than a moral union is intended. Christ said; “I and my Father are one.' We have no doubt of the truth of this assertion. The only question is; what does it mean? To decide this question, we should have recourse to other passages, where similar language is employed. With such we are furnished from the mouth of Christ himself. He prayed for his disciples; ‘That they all may be one; as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us. And the glory, which thou gavest me, I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.' Now, if this language does not prove, that all the disciples are one being; the text does not prove, that Christ and the Father are one being. If the language in the former instance, refers merely to a union of affection, interests, purposes; why does it not refer to a similar union in the latter? Would it be more repugnant to the dictates of common sense, to reason seriously in support of the doctrine, that all the disciples of Christ are mysteriously one man; than to reason seriously in favour of the doctrine, that Christ and the Father are one God If there be nothing in the latter doctrine, incapable of being proved; neither is there in the former. If one rest on the declaration of Christ; so does the other. If mystery be a sufficient shield for the one; so it is for the other.

St. Paul said; “I have planted; Apollos watered. Now he that planteth and he that watereth, are one.’ I and Apollos are one. One in what sense One apostle; one man; one person? Certainly not. Whatever else St. Paul meant, he could not intend to convey this idea. They were one, as to the object, which they had in view; the work which they were accomplishing. The same questions are applicable in relation to the text. “I and my Father are one.” One, in what respect? One God; one Being? Surely not. Whatever other meaning should be attributed to the passage; this cannot be its import.

It is not once asserted in the scriptures, that Christ and the Father are one being, or one God. In every place, where this is supposed to be implied, the supposition is adopted without necessity, and in opposition to the current language of the bible. The words of Christ to Philip; “he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father,’ are thought by some to imply this doctrine. But this mode of reasoning would prove, that Christ and the apostles are one being; for he said to them, “he that heareth you, heareth me.” If the inference be unwarrantable in the latter case it is equally so in the former; for the mode of expression is the same in both.

The first verse in John's Gospel is frequently quoted to prove, that Christ and the Father are one God. “The word was with God, and the word was God.” Any mode of interpretation, which is consistent with the use of language, and which will render this passage agreeable to the general tenor of scripture, should be preferred to the literal meaning. It has been already observed, that our Saviour authorized the application of the name, god, to inferior beings. “Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?' Each one, addressed, then, was a god. It is, therefore, strictly conformable to the scriptural use of language to render this passage as follows:—‘The word was with God, and the word was a god.’ He was one of those beings, to whom this title was applicable.— The foregoing translation is exactly suited to the original of the passage. But, if the common translation be preferred, we are under no necessity of understanding the latter clause in the literal sense. Christ said, ‘this is my body; this is my blood.' St. Paul, speaking of the rock, which followed the Israelites, said;— 'that rock was Christ.’ In these three plain assertions, the meaning simply is:—this represents my body; this represents my blood; that rock represented Christ.’ Let a similar explanation be given to the phrase; “the word was God; and the difficulty vanishes. ‘The word was with God; and the word represented God.” This agrees with the declaration of St. Paul, that Christ 'is the image of the invisible God.' Is this taking an unauthorized liberty with the passage? Is this taking greater liberty with the passage, than Trinitarians take with one before quoted; “My Father is greater than I?” May not Roman Catholics bring the same charge against Protestants, in reference to the words; ‘this is my body?'

We are often referred to the following passage in Isaiah, as proving, beyond a doubt, that Christ and the Father are one God.— “And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” Of this passage, a late writer [Rev. Mr. Sparks, of Baltimore] has given the following translation, derived, as he observes, from the critical expositions of Trinitarians, “And his name shall be called Wonderful, Divine Counsellor, Mighty, Father of the age to come, Prince of Peace.” See also http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/01/what-has-trinity-done-to-our-bible.html. If this be a fair translation, the passage ceases to be an argument in favour of the supreme deity of Jesus Christ. Even if the common translation be preferred, this doctrine is not supported by it. We are told by Cruden, that Elijah signifies, God the Lord; and we know it was the name of a man. If, then, a man was called, God the Lord, without actually being God; Christ might be called, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, without being the supreme God.

The following passage in St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, is frequently quoted to prove, that Christ is equal with the Father. ‘Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' It is generally admitted, I believe, that our translation of this passage is not correct; though, probably, all would not agree in any other, which could be offered. In the improved version, the passage is as follows:—‘Let this mind be in you, which was in Christ Jesus also ; who, being in the form of God, did not eagerly grasp at the resemblance to God; but divested himself of it.' Wakefield translates the passage thus; ‘Let the same disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, though in a divine form, did not think of eagerly retaining this divine likeness; but emptied himself of it, by taking a servant's form.' [See also http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/01/what-has-trinity-done-to-our-bible.html] If it be said, that these are the translations of known Unitarians; I reply: our common translation is the work of known Trinitarians. If prejudice render the former suspicious; it renders the latter not less so. Macknight's translation is as follows. ‘Let this disposition be in you, which was even in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be like God.' Macknight was a learned Trinitarian; and he observes, that Whitby has proved in the clearest manner, that the original word rendered, equal, is used in the Greek version of the Old Testament, to express likeness but not equality. Whatever may be thought of the comparative merit of these different translations; it seems evident from the whole passage, that the apostle here speaks of two distinct beings; of whom, one only is the supreme God, and the other bears a resemblance to God; such a resemblance, however, that he was capable of undergoing the greatest changes, and did actually die. You will observe, the apostle does not say, that Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with the Father, or like the Father. Had this been his language, it would probably have been said, that he teaches us the equality between the first and second persons in the Godhead. He uses the term, God; and thus shows, that Christ is a being distinct from God, not a person in the divine nature. Whether it can be supposed, that one divine person is equal to another, or not; does any man believe, that any being can, with truth and propriety, be said ‘to be equal with God?”

The following words of St. John have been thought to prove, that Christ is the true God. “We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” But it does not appear, that this last clause refers to Jesus Christ. The word, this, may as well relate to him that is true; and this seems the more natural construction. We are in him that is true, or in the true one, even in the Son of him (that is true.) This is the true God and eternal life. To say the least, there is no conclusive evidence, to show, that the apostle here meant to assert the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ. That this was not his design will appear, if we consider,

Fourthly, that in several passages of scripture the Father alone is declared to be God. Our Lord, addressing his Father, said:— ‘This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” This is addressed to the Father, whom all admit to be but one person; and he is expressly said to be the only true God. To represent St. John as asserting, that Jesus Christ is the true God, is to represent him as contradicting the plain declaration of our Lord himself; for, if Christ be the true God, then the Father is not the only true God. The words of Christ necessarily exclude every person, human or divine, from being the true God, except the Father, to whom his prayer was offered. The language of St. Paul is equally explicit. “Then cometh the end, when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.” As if on purpose to exclude the notion, that Christ will retain the kingdom as God, though he will relinquish it as man, or as mediator, the apostle has expressly told us, that Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God, the Father. He has thus limited the former term by the latter. The kingdom will not be delivered up to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, or to a triune God: but to God even the Father. “For, though there be, that are called gods, whether in heaven, or in earth; but to us there is but one God, the Father; and one Lord, Jesus Christ.' No language could express more accurately the sentiments of Unitarians, respecting the unity of God. We are not under the necessity of correcting the expression of the apostle, or of making any addition to it, in order to convey our opinions. In this plain and decisive manner, are we taught, that the Father is the only true God: and that Jesus Christ is another being, distinct from him.

If any further proof were necessary to show, that Christ and the Father are not one being, I might refer you to such expressions as the following. “Why callest thou me good? None is good, but one; that is, God. All are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. The head of every man is Christ; and the head of Christ is God. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” If, then, he who sends, be not the same with him, who is sent; if he who prays, be not the same with him, to whom the prayer is offered; if he who gave his only begotten Son, be not the Son, thus given; if he, by whose power Christ was raised from the dead, be not the same with him, who thus arose; if he, who exalted Christ at his own right hand, be not the same with him, who was thus exalted; if he, who, at the end, will receive the kingdom, be not the same with him, who will then deliver up the kingdom; it follows, that Christ is one being; and the Father, another.

It may be thought by some, that I have been attempting to prove what is self-evident; what is intuitively certain; what no person can doubt. I would remind them, however, that there are multitudes, who hold, as one of the essential doctrines of the gospel, that Christ and the Father are one and the same being, one and the same God. It is true, they admit that Christ and the Father are two distinct persons. But, if to be two distinct persons, is any thing less, than to be two distinct beings, the same difficulties still remain; for in this case the same being sent himself, was the son of himself, &c. Until Trinitarians will explain the difference between two distinct persons, and two distinct beings, in relation to this subject, I must believe, that there is no difference; especially as the scriptures have given no intimation of any such thing. As we profess to take them for our guide, in all matters of faith and duty, let us study them with diligence, care, and impartiality. Let us imbibe the spirit, which they inculcate; and, while we dare to think for ourselves, unshackled by human creeds, and uninfluenced by human authority or human censure, let us freely concede to others, what we claim for ourselves; and never, either in our words or actions, condemn them for the errors, which they may embrace.

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

Matthew 25:46 and the word KOLASIN/Cutting-Off) By James T. Haley 1911

Matthew 25:46 and the word KOLASIN By James T. Haley 1911

We [now] refer to the Greek word kolasin, translated "punishments" in verse 46. This word has not in it the remotest idea of torment. Its primary signifisation is to cut off or prune or lop off, as in the pruning of trees, and a secondary meaning is to restrain. The wicked will be everlastingly restrained, cut off from life in the second death. Illustrations of the use of kolasin can easily be had from Greek classical writings. The Greek word for "torment" is basinos, a word totally unrelated to the word kolasin.

Kolasin, the word used in Matthew 25: 46, occurs in but one other place in the Bible—viz., 1 John 4: 18, where it is improperly rendered "torment" in the common version; whereas it should read: "Fear hath restraint." Those who possess a copy of Young's Analytical Concordance will see from it (page 995) that the definition of the word kolasin is "pruning, restraining, restraint." And the author of the "Emphatic Diaglott," after translating kolasin in Matthew 20: 46 by the words "cutting off," says in a footnote: "The common version and many modern ones render kolasin aionios 'everlasting punishment,' conveying the idea, as generally interpreted, of basinos, torment, Kolasin in its various forms occurs in only three other places in the New Testament: Acts 4: 21; 2 Peter 2: 9; 1 John 4: 18. It is derived from kolazoo, which signifies (1) to cut off, as lopping off branches of trees; to prune. (2) To restrain, to repress. The Greeks write: 'The charioteer restrains [kalazei] his fiery steeds.' (3) To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life or from society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as a punishment. Hence has arisen this third or metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted [in the 'Diaglott'] because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life; the wicked, to the cutting off from life—death." (2 Thess. 1:9.)

Now consider carefully the text and not the antithesis, the contrast shown between the reward of the sheep and the reward of the goats, which the correct idea of kolasin gives. The one class goes into everlasting life, while the other is everlastingly cut off from life, forever restrained in death. And this exactly agrees with what the Scriptures everywhere else declare concerning the wages or penalty of willful sin.

metatron3@gmail.com

The 1904 Herald of Gospel Liberty and John 1:1

 

See image above. I found this very interesting answer in regards to John 1:1:

Please explain John 1:1 through the Herald.~A.O. Jacobs, Newton, Illinois

Answer: The best explanation is a true translation, more in harmony with the Greek of John and with his doctrine. The passage might better have been rendered thus: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a divine being. For the literal translation of the language of John is this: "In (a) beginning was the Word, and the word was with the God, and the Word was (a) god. He was in a beginning with the God."

The Herald of Gospel Liberty is "what some claim was the first religious newspaper in the world. The Herald of Gospel Liberty played a formative role in the Christian Church that became part of the UCC" (United Church of Christ).
http://www.ucc.org/200-years-and-counting-the 

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

A Reply to Dr. Sam Reed on John 1:1 and the New World Translation

In this video at the 5:13 mark Dr Sam Reed singles out 43 words out of an over 1500 word Appendix, 43 words ripped right out context and they use these 43 words to make it sound like the NWT translators are saying that all anarthrous constructions (where there is no definite article) MUST be translated with an "a." (1) However, the KIT and 1950 NWT appendix never says that at all. Had these people in this video read the other 1500 words they would have known that. The fact that the NWT doesn't translate all anarthrous nouns with an "a" is proof of that they don't believe that. This entire video is based on a straw man argument, and it repeats the lie ad nauseum. How embarrassing for them. The Appendix gives less than 2 dozen examples in Scripture where "predicate nouns does not have the definite article" and most of these precede the verb or participle, just as in John 1:1:

Joh 4:19  The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. ASV

Joh 6:70  Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" RSV

Joh 9:5  when I am in the world, I am a light of the world. YLT

Joh 9:24 "We know that this man is a sinner.” ESV

Joh 9:25  He said therefore to them: If he be a sinner, I know not. Darby

Joh 9:28 You are a disciple of that [man]. NWT

Joh 10:12 (should be 13) he runs away because he is only a hired man and has no concern for the sheep. NJB

Joh 10:33 "claim to be a god" NEB

Also John 10:36; 11:49, 51; 12:6; 17:17; 18:37, 38; 19:12, 21

The Appendix also correctly uses Xenophon's Anabasis "and the place was a market [EMPORION HN]" as a parallel to John 1:1, just as stated in Dana & Mantey's Greek Grammar.*

Additionally, none of the examples given in this video have a context where QEOS/theos is used of two individuals who are said to be "with" one another, and where the first theos has the article and the second is an anarthrous nominative that precedes the verb.

In subsequent additions of the NWT Reference Bible and the KIT the committee had the advantage of reading Phillip Harner's article Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15: 39 and John 1:1 as published in 1973 and were able to better flesh out the argument for "many cases of anarthrous predicate noun(s) preceding the verb." NWT Appendix 6a

[*Dana Mantey: "The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, EMPORION D HN TO CWRION, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to that we have in John 1:1, KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article was also used with QEOS. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in QEOS." pp. 148, 149
Dana & Mantey have a disadvantage here as they have to work within the narrow confines of a Trinity doctrine. Notice where he says: "Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God." This is not an even parallel at all. A truthful and equivalent statement SHOULD be, "Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word the only God."]

[(1) Sam Reed may have borrowed from Robert Countess: "The first section of John—1:1-18—furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. QEOS occurs eight times—verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18—and has the article only twice—verses 1,2. Yet NWT six times translated 'God,' once 'a god,' and once 'the god.'" (The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament, 55.)]

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

Henry Grew: An Appeal to Pious Trinitarians

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

An Appeal to Pious Trinitarians by Henry Grew 1857

Minister of the Gospel

“Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God IS ONE LORD.” — De 6:4.

PHILADELPHIA:

MERRIHEW & THOMPSON, PRINTERS.

Lodge St., north side of Pennsylvania Bank

DEAR BRETHREN, — We acknowledge our fallibility. Truth will endure the closest investigation. I bear you record that you have a zeal for God. Is it, or is it not according to knowledge? Is it in the holy word, which you declare is the ONLY rule of faith, that you have found the declaration, that the one God is three persons? Have you been taught it by Jesus Christ, or by fallible men?

You admit that it is a subject of vast importance to understand correctly, what person, or being in the universe, has the rightful claim to the supreme worship of all intelligences, and the glory of being, exclusively, the one great and infinite source, “OF whom are all things.” If one person rightfully claims this unrivaled glory, it must certainly be an error of no ordinary magnitude to give it to another.

No proposition is to be rejected because it cannot be perfectly comprehended by a finite mind. Yet a revelation to the human mind of anything, necessarily implies some intelligent understanding of it. The first question, however, for our serious consideration, is, Is the doctrine that God exists in three equal and infinite persons, a doctrine of divine revelation, or of human imagination?

Christian brother; can you open your bible and read, God is three; or that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are one God; or any words of equivalent import? Even the interpolation of 1Jo 5:7, does not affirm that the three are one God. What do we read in the Word of the Lord on this important subject? “Hear, O Israel? The LORD our God is ONE LORD.” – De 6:4 . “God is ONE.” – Ga 3:20. “There is but one God, the Father.” – 1Co 8:6.

What is the testimony of “The faithful Witness” of the Truth? Addressing his “Father,” Joh 17:1-3, he plainly and positively declares THE FATHER TO BE “THE ONLY TRUE GOD.” You believe that the Father is one person. If then you believe that “the only true God” is three persons, does not your faith stand in the wisdom of men, which denies the testimony of Jesus Christ, that ONE person is “the ONLY true God?” Please to consider the testimony of the inspired apostle, 1Co 8:6. It is not only that “there is but one God,” but that this one God is “THE FATHER.” He plainly distinguishes the Father as the “one God” “or whom are all things.” The Father the PRINCIPAL, the Son the AGENT. Now behold the harmony of divine truth. “God created all things BY Jesus Christ.” – Eph 3:9. “By whom also he made the worlds.” – Heb 1:2. All his works of love and power, were what “God did BY him.” – Ac 2:22. “God our Saviour” SAVES US BY, or “through, Jesus Christ our Saviour.” – Tit 3:4-6. He “shall raise us up also (from the grave) BY Jesus.” – 2Co 4:14. “God will judge the world in righteousness BY” him. – Ac 17:31. All this the Saviour confirms in his own declaration, “I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” – Joh 6:38. The humanity did not come down from heaven. The divine and “only begotten Son of God” came down, and took the body “prepared” for him. – Heb 10:5. Does not this prove the inferiority of his highest nature to the supreme God? Does not the supreme God seek to do the will of another rather than his own?

Please to observe in what character our blessed Mediator presented himself to a sinful and dying world as the object of faith. To the healed man he said, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” – Joh 9:35. When he asked his disciples: “Whom say ye that I am?” what did the apostle reply, to whom our “Father in heaven” had revealed the truth one this important subject? Did he reply, thou art the second person in the adorable trinity, or thou art the supreme God? He replied, “Thou are the Christ, the SON of the living God.” – Mt 16:16,17. Is it a significant fact that our Lord never claimed any higher title than this? When the captious Jews charged him with making himself equal with God, did he not immediately repel the charge by the solemn asseveration, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do?” –Joh 5:19. The omnipotent Jehovah cannot be thus dependent on another. “I live by the Father,” –Joh 6:57. “My Father is greater than I”, Joh 14:28. The connection proves that this refers to his highest nature. His prayer, Joh 17:5, for the glory of his divine nature which he had with the Father “before the world was” proves the dependence of his nature.

The scriptural doctrine of the divine Sonship is essential to the true doctrine of atonement or reconciliation. The inspired testimony on this great doctrine is, that God gave HIS OWN SON to be a “sacrifice” or “propitiation” for the sins of the world. – Joh 3:16, 1Jo 2:2 4:10 Ro 3:25, &c. He made the “soul” of his son “an offering for sin.” – Isa 53. Trinitarianism admits of no such offering. It supposes that the human body only died, and that the union to supreme deity gave efficacy to the sufferings and death of humanity. It should be considered, that it is the dignity of the nature and character of the real sufferer and dying Lamb, as “the first” and “only begotten of the Father,” which gives virtue to the offering. “We have a great High Priest, Jesus, THE SON OF GOD.” His soul was in sheol [the grave in Hebrew] until “God raised him from the death state,” and in sheol “there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge.” – Ec 9:10, “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.” “He offered HIMSELF without spot to God.” – Heb 9:14. It was not for the death of humanity only, that the sun withdrew its shining, the earth shook to its center, and the curtain of the Holy of Holies in the Temple was rent in twain. “Surely this was the Son of God.”

Please to consider candidly, whether or not you can truthfully reconcile his constant declarations of dependence on the Father, with his supposed supreme deity, by referring those declarations to his human nature. If this nature was united to the second infinite person, how could it be dependent on the first? The dependence must necessarily have been on the second person and not on the Father.

You ask, Is not our dear Lord “the Word” which John declares “was with God and was God?” Certainly; but is not the term God, used (like the term Lord,) in different senses in the sacred scriptures? Is it not applied to the rulers of Israel, Ps 82:6?, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” Moses was a god to Aaron, Ex 4:16 , “And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.”. Satan is “the god of this world.” – 2Co 4:4. The Son of the Blessed is “God over all.” Is he God or ruler over all, independently, or by appointment of the Father, “the only true God?” – Joh 17:1-3. Let the holy scriptures answer. 1Co 15:24-28, “God, even the Father-hath put all things under him.” This is equivalent to his being “over all” – “it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (not the Trinity, but “THE FATHER,” as verse 24 proves) may be ALL in ALL.” Is not this divine testimony fatal to trinitarianism? Our blessed Lord as God, has a GOD. – Heb 1:8,9. The Father has no god above him. You believe that the God with whom the Word was, is the supreme God. If then the Word was also supreme God, is it not a truth of divine revelation, that there are two supreme Gods? Scripture is its own best interpreter. See the context (verse 14) where the Word is defined to be “the only begotten (Son) of the Father, full of grace and truth.” Mr. Andrew Fuller has well observed, that “the glory of the Word, and the glory of the only begotten of the Father, is one and the same.” The Word was “begotten” and not self-existent. Again we read, that he is “the first born of every creature.” Col 1:15, which must refer to his pre-existent state; for the apostle argues that he is so, from the fact of all things being “created by him.” He is “the beginning of the creating power, that the intelligent universe will ever behold; “being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person.” The universe gains nothing, but sustains an inconceivable loss by substituting an infinite person for the matchless Son of God. To infinity you cannot add. One infinite person is equal to any number. The Father is “the alone (monou) God.” – Joh 5:44.

It is affirmed, that the same infinite attributes are ascribed to the Son as to the Father. Let us see. Peter said, “Lord, thou knowest all things.” John said to his brethren, “ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things,” – 1 John 2:20. Let us allow the sacred word to determine the source of the knowledge of our blessed Jesus. “God GIVETH not the Spirit by measure unto him,” – John 3:34. Will you not allow that, if thee is any thing unknown to the Son, in any nature, that he cannot be omniscient? He himself plainly declares that there is. He affirms that his “Father ONLY knows of the day of his second coming, Mt 24:30-36. He assures us that all the power he has “in heaven and in earth,” “over all flesh,” for the gracious purpose of giving eternal life to God’s elect, is GIVEN him by the Father, Mt 28:18 Joh 17:2. I ask, for Jehovah’s honor, if it is not contemning the divine wisdom, and charging God foolishly, if we say that an “given” power is inadequate for this purpose? Is it not the plainly revealed fact that “God our Saviour” hath “saved us, through (or by) Jesus Christ our Saviour?” – Tit 3:4-6. The context of Re 1:8, does not require its application to the Son; it refers to the Father. -“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” See verses 4, 5, “John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; 5: And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood”. If the spirit of Paul could be present with his absent brethren in their assembly, 1Co 5:4, cannot the spirit of Jesus Christ be present, in a more effective sense, with “two or three” who assemble in his name?

We have too little conception of the capacity of the Infinite to delegate “treasures of wisdom, and knowledge,” and power, as he pleases. Infinite perfections are indeed incommunicable; but what a vast amount may be possessed within this boundary! It pleased the Father that in him (Jesus Christ) should all the fullness dwell,” Col 1:19. “I and my Father are one.” He did not say one God. He prayed that his disciples may be one with him and his Father,” even as he and the Father “are one,” Joh 17:21-23; Php 2:5-11. “Christ Jesus-thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Doddridge and Macknight (both trinitarians) consider the word “equal” an incorrect translation, rendering the Greek word “like,” or “as.” As an example of humility, the apostle presents to the consideration of his brethren, a real and great change of condition of the pre-existing Son of God, which can never be predicated of immutable deity, being totally incompatible therewith.

Joh 5:22,23. “The Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father.” Observe the ground of this great honor; it is judgment committed to him by the Father. We honor the Father, not on the ground of any thing committed to him by another, but as the independent source of all things, 1Co 8:6. Joseph was honored “even as Pharaoh,” Ge 44:18. Yet Pharaoh was greater “in the throne” then Joseph. Ge 41:40. So our Saviour affirms, “my Father is greater than I” Isa 6:1-5 , compared with Joh 12:41, is supposed to prove that Jesus is Jehovah. In the Hebrew the first word Adonai, and not Jehovah occurs. In the 5th it is Jehovah. Compare this passage with Ps 110:1, and it appears that Isaiah saw both Christ and Jehovah. Now it is declared that “no man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,” – Joh 1:18. Must we not then understand that Isaiah saw the glory of God “in the face of Jesus Christ,” who is “the brightness of the Father’s glory and the express image of his person,” see 2Co 4:6. Jesus said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” How? “The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works,” – Joh 14:10. He doth not say the second person in the Trinity, of my own deity that dwelleth in me, doeth the works; but THE FATHER. In respect to his power to forgive sins, see Joh 20:23, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” [Editor: I like the comparison someone used to express this thought: He said, “One cannot look at the sun with his eyes, but one can see the effects of the sun by looking at the world,” likewise with God; one cannot look at Jehovah, but one can see the effects of Him by looking at the effects of Jesus.]

Re 5:13. “Blessing and honor and glory and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever.” – 1Ch 29:20. “And all the congregation worshiped the LORD (Jehovah) and the king,” i.e., David. Jehovah is worshipped as “the only true God,” Jesus Christ as “his first begotten” Son, as Heb 1:6 proves, and as the Lamb that was slain. – Re 5:12. David was worshiped as the King of Israel. Each in his true station. It is in the highest sense only, that we are forbidden to worship any but the Supreme. See Lu 14:10, “But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.”.

Mr. MacWhorter of Yale College has published a volume, to prove two things. First, That the Hebrew word Jehovah signifying “I AM,” should be Yahveh, signifying, “I will be.” Second, that Yahveh or Jehovah is Christ.

To test the correctness of the term Jehovah, he proposes to “substitute the English I AM, as an equivalent for Lord” where “the latter occurs in the Old Testament.” “This (he affirms) is a perfectly valid test, and should such a rendering seem unmeaning or unworthy, in any connection in which it is made to stand, this fact of itself, would afford a strong presumption that we have not arrived at the true significance of the term.” Page 14.

Let us now apply this “perfectly valid test” to determine, whether or not the learned author is correct, in affirming that Yahweh or Jehovah is Christ, and substitute the word Christ where the word Lord in capitals occurs, which, in the Hebrew, is usually, Jehovah or Yahveh.

Ps 110:1 “The Christ said unto my Lord, (Adonai, i.e., Christ,) sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies they footstool.” Here we see the rendering is “unmeaning and unworthy;” and that the Father, and not Christ, is Yahveh or Jehovah. The dying martyr saw Jesus Christ, “on the right hand of God.” – Ac 7:56. Did he see two Jehovahs, or is the Father not Jehovah? – Isa 42:6. “I the Christ have called thee in righteousness, – and will give thee (Christ) for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.”

Isa 53:6-10. “The Christ hath laid on him (Christ) the iniquities of us all.” – Ps 40. “I (Christ) have preached righteousness in the great congregation, O Christ thou knowest.” – Isa 53:10. “It pleased the Christ to bruise him,” i.e., Christ. – Ps 2:2. “The rulers take counsel against the Christ and against his anointed” (Christ.) See also verse 6, – Isa 61:1. “The Christ hath anointed me (Christ) to preach good tidings to the meek,” &c. See also Mic 5:4. He of Bethlehem ( i.e., Christ) “shall stand and feed in the name of the Christ HIS GOD.” See also Isa 55:5, and other passages.

This we see is all “unmeaning and unworthy,” according to the learned author’s own “perfectly valid test;” demonstrating that Christ is not Jehovah or Yahveh.  Isa 63:16, positively declares; “O Jehovah (or Yahveh) thou art our Father.”

The fallacious impression that we dishonor the Savior, if we withhold from him the highest possible divine nature, presents many from believing his testimony, that the Father is “the only true God.” – Joh 17:1,3. The writer was, for a tine, the subject of such an impression. Having found at the Cross that deliverance from the guilt and dominion of sin, which reading, prayer, and resolutions had failed to remove; his love abounded towards his precious Redeemer; but not “in all knowledge.” – Php 1:9. He has since learned, like Peter, that all regard for “the Son of the Blessed,” (who delights to honor his Father) which is contrary to truth, will only meet his rebuke. – Mt 16:22.

It plainly appears from 1Co 2:11, that “the Spirit of God” is no more a distinct person from God, than the spirit of a man is a distinct person from the man. It would be an anomaly of a most extraordinary character; if there was an infinite intelligent person in the universe, to whom no prophet, priest, apostle, or saint of the sacred Scriptures, ever offered any direct prayer or praise!! See the true doxology, Re 5:13. The Spirit of God is “poured out”or “shed forth,” Ac 2:17,33; terms inapplicable to personality.

For the honor and glory of the ever blessed God, our Father; “the GOD and FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ;” I submit this brief essay to your serious candid consideration.

Finally, “forbearing one another in love;” let our chief concern be to possess the holy, the humble, the benevolent spirit of Him who has loved us and given himself for us, walking daily in his imitable footsteps; “that when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.”

Yours for the truth, in Christian love.

HENRY GREW.

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

The NWT Bible and Johannes Greber

Someone asked me to look at a video on youtube about "The NWT and the Occult"  where it centers on Johannes Greber's New Testament and his supposed use of the Spirit World to help him translate his Bible, and the fact that the WTS used his translation as support for their rendering of John 1:1.

There are so many things to unpack here that I don't know where to start. In the video much is made of the 1950 edition of the NWT and that it used Greber. It is repeated over and over in that video that the NWT and Greber at John 1:1 are "word for word." This is not true. The 1950 NWT at John 1:1 starts off "Originally the Word was..." unlike Greber's NT. Also, the 1936 Greber NT was in German. The English translation was not made by him, but by a professional translator, corrected by a committee of American Clergymen and thoroughly revised by a teacher. The German and English versions at John 1:1 do not even agree with each other.

What we have in English is a "meaning for meaning" translation of Greber's original, not a word-for-word translation. A translation BTW, that went thru many hands to come to us in English.
You can notice some of the changes even with John 1:1. Greber's German reads:

"Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott; und ein 'Gott' war das Wort."

Translated to English, this should read,
"In the beginning was the Word,  and the Word was with God, and a 'God' was the Word."
However, the English-translated Greber actually reads:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was a god."
Take note of the capitalization and the changed word order of clause C.
German Greber "and a 'God' was the Word."
English Greber "and the Word was a god."
His word order represents that of Luther's,
"und Gott war das Wort." [and God was the Word]
which the later Elberfelder changed to
"und das Wort war Gott." [and the Word was God]
This is the same order the German and English NWT uses.

There are also many Scriptures where Greber disagrees with the NWT and agrees more with mainstream Bibles, such as in the use of the word "cross" for stauros, the placement of the comma at Luke 23:43, the translation of John 8:58 and Greber does not use the Divine Name Jehovah in the NT. In a survey of 64 scriptures taken from the book of John, the Greber NT agrees with the KJV 24 more times than it does with the NWT.

Others have also made mention of Johannes Greber in their books (see Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament", Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation and Duthie's How to Choose Your Bible Wisely).

Others have claimed that they used the spirit world in the past in translating scripture. In 1823 Joseph Smith claimed that the "Angel" Moroni appeared to him and led him to some plates. Smith translated the plates into English through supernatural means and called the record the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon contains entire excerpts that are identical with the King James Version Bible. Are we now to conclude that the King James Version is a demonic Bible? In fact, Joseph Smith has made his own "Inspired" version of the Bible, which, except for a few place [like the beginning of Genesis, the Johannine prologue, Ex 33:20, 1John 4:12 and Genesis 50:24], this "direct revelation" is otherwise identical to the King James Version. Sure, we might argue that this is a claim by Mr. Smith only, but that argument can go both ways. What Joseph Smith received by supernatural means, Johannes Greber received from the Codex Bezae. [The Codex Bezae was first presented to the library at Cambridge University in 1581 by Theodore Beza, who is no stranger to textual critics and Calvinists. The Codex probably dates from somewhere around the 4th century, making it very old. The inner page of Johannes Greber's NT states, "A New Translation and Explanation based on the Oldest Manuscripts [the codex Bezae]." Others have also made translations from this Codex, namely William Whiston (1745) and J.M. Wilson (1923).]

Also, The New Testament Revised and Translated by A. S. Worrell (American Baptist Publication Society 1904) stated also that he was under the guidance of the Spirit, and his translation of John 1:1 does not resemble the NWT's at all (feel free to compare with your King James Bible).

It is a tactic of disputes among Christians to claim some association with darker forces.

"The first two, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort (Westcott & Hort introduced a Greek text in the 19th century based on older mss. Ed) discuss their club, the Ghostly Guild, in their biographies. They were actually the fathers of the New Age channeling movement; their Ghostly Guild evolved into the infamous Society for Psychical Research."

"The third translator to confess involvement was J.B. Phillips, author of the Phillips Translation. His autobiography details his necromancy and communication with the dead."

"The last and most recent revelation of "giving heed to seducing spirits," concerns Dr. Virginia Mollenkott of the NIV. Her book, Sensous Spirituality, tells tales of her spirit guide and contact with her dead mother...The doctrines of devils which follow her includes admitted involvement with divination through use of Tarot cards and the I Ching." 'Which Bible is God's Word' by Gail Riplinger, p.81

Even older versions are not safe if you consider the accusations hurled at Origen: "Origen's six column Old Testament, the Hexapla, parallels O.T. versions by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla, all three Gnostic occultists." Ibid, p.79

But wait, there is more: "But is it only the pride of man that prompted this rewriting, or is some malignant supernatural power guiding the hands of these people as they take away from and add to the Word of God?  Below are some of the results of this satanic assault on the Bible."

This is from a pastor on jesus-is-lord.com, and he includes the NASB in this attack. Not even the New King James Version is without suspicion:

"There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by satanist Aleister Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the New King James Bible, on certain rock albums (like Led Zeppelin's), or you can see it on the cover of such New Age books as The Aquarian Conspiracy. (See Riplinger's tract on the NKJV.)"

Also, the "a god" translation has support that goes back 300 years, long before Greber"

In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.
(Interlineary Word for Word English Translation-Emphatic Diaglott)
Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"
Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god
Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694, "and the Word was a god"
Hermann Heinfetter, 1863, [A]s a god the Command was"
Abner Kneeland, 1822, "The Word was a God"
Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary) "[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"
Belsham N.T. 1809 “the Word was a god”
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
Leicester Ambrose, 1879, "And the logos was a god"
J.N. Jannaris, 1901, [A]nd was a god"
George William Horner, 1911, [A]nd (a) God was the word"
Stage, 1907, The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being.
Holzmann, 1926, "a God/god was the Thought/thought"
Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word]
John Crellius, Latin form of German, 1631, "The Word of Speech was a God"
Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)"

The Trinity Doctrine Embarrassed with Numerous Difficulties by Alvin Lamson 1828

 

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 Trinity Doctrine Embarrassed with Numerous Difficulties by Alvin Lamson 1828

The doctrine of the Trinity is embarrassed with numerous difficulties, and these difficulties multiply and strengthen, in proportion as its several parts and appendages are brought distinctly into view. The hypothesis of two natures in Jesus Christ we deem one of its heaviest encumbrances. The trinity supposes the truth of this hypothesis; it may be said, in fact, to rest upon it as its basis, and with it must stand or fall. This circumstance has not, we fear, received the attention it deserves. It is true that the advocates for the strict and proper unity of the Divine Being, have occasionally argued from the absurdity of ascribing to an individual a finite and an infinite nature, but the argument has not been urged with due frequency and earnestness. For ourselves, we place great reliance upon it; it has a force, we think, which is not easily resisted; and could we bring no other, we should consider this alone sufficient to put the question of the truth or falsehood of opposite views at rest for ever.

Let us carefully weigh the doctrine of a double nature in Jesus Christ; let us see to what it amounts, and take a view of some of the chief objections to it. But first, let us glance at its origin and history in the early ages of the church.

We gather from ancient records, that the great bulk of plain unlettered believers, who derived their knowledge of Christianity from its first preachers and their immediate successors, viewed Jesus as a finite and dependent being. That this is true of the whole body of Jewish Christians, during their existence as a church, admits of no doubt. The uneducated Gentile converts, whose minds were not fettered by the prejudices of learning, partook of the same views. The doctrine of Christ's proper divinity appears to have encountered from them the sternest opposition; they dreaded it on account of its supposed impiety, thinking, that it infringed on the supremacy of the Father, and it was not till it had sustained severe and protracted struggles, that it finally obtained currency.

The learned converts from Paganism are entitled to the credit of introducing it. These converts, several of them at least, came fresh from the schools of Alexandria in Egypt, where they had become deeply imbued with the doctrines of the later Platonists, and on embracing Christianity took along with them the sentiments there imbibed. The consequence was, that as early as the former part of the second century, the religion of Jesus began to be corrupted, and its simple truths became disfigured, by an unnatural union with a speculative and earth-born philosophy.

Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, led the way by transferring the Platonic doctrine of the divine reason (logos) to Christianity. This reason, originally considered an attribute of the Father, he converted into a proper person, making it to constitute the divine nature of Jesus. The first step having been taken, further innovations followed, and the work of corruption soon went on apace. It was aided in its progress by Clemens of Alexandria, A.D. 192, and especially by Origen, A.D. 230, a man of subtle and fervid genius, but of an extravagant imagination, and weak judgment, and a very prolific writer. The fame of Origen attracted numerous followers, who, afterwards dispersing into various parts, "everywhere," to use an expression of the learned Brucker, "sowed the field of God with tares."

The doctrine of the trinity, however, as explained by the Fathers of the first three centuries, we feel authorized to say, was very different from the modern orthodox doctrine. The perfect equality of the Son with the Father they never dreamed of asserting. Justin Martyr, as the complexion of his whole language testifies, evidently held the belief of his strict and proper inferiority; and such seems to have been the faith of all the christian writers of any celebrity before the Council of Nice, A.D. 325. It is unnecessary to adduce passages in corroboration of this statement, as its truth has been admitted by several learned trinitarians best acquainted with the writings of christian antiquity. Among those who have conceded it fully, or in substance, it is sufficient to mention the learned Jesuit Petavius, and Cudworth, the profound author of the "Intellectual System," both orthodox authorities.

The Fathers of the Council of Nice asserted the divinity of the Son, but not his individual identity with the Father. He was consubstantial, as they expressed it, with the Father, that is, as they understood it, was in all respects similar, partook of the same specific nature, though not of the same numerical essence; as one man is of the same substance, or species, with another, though possessing distinct individuality. The Councils of Ephesus, A.D. 431, and Chalcedon, A.D. 451, occasioned by the controversies of the Nestorians and Eutychians, the former of whom were accused of dividing the person, and the latter of confounding the natures, of Jesus Christ, appear to have succeeded but little better than that of Nice in defining his divinity, though they undertook to determine the nature and results of its union with humanity. The Council of Chalcedon, particularly, claims the merit of having ascertained and settled the doctrine of the incarnation, which, according to its creed, is in substance as follows. Jesus Christ is truly God and man, perfect in both natures, consubstantial with the Father with respect to his divinity, and consubstantial with us with respect to his humanity; the two natures, the divine and human, are indissolubly united in him without confusion or change, each retaining all its former attributes, yet so united as to form one person.

The doctrine of the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ, as held by the orthodox of succeeding ages, and received by trinitarians of the present day, does not differ in any important particulars from that established by the council of Chalcedon, except, perhaps, that the term consubstantial, which the Fathers of that council, to preserve consistency, must have explained to mean only a specific, would be understood by the moderns to express an individual or numerical identity.

Dr Barrow, one of the most distinguished of the old English divines, thus expresses himself on the subject. "We may, with the holy Fathers, and particularly with the great council of Chalcedon, assert, that in the incarnation of our Lord, the two natures, the divine and human, were united, without any confusion or commixtion; for such a way of blending would induce a third nature different from both; such a commixtion being supposed, our Lord would be neither God nor man, but another third kind of substance, that would destroy, diminish, or alter the properties of each; which is unsound to say, and impossible to be; wherefore both natures in this mystery do subsist entire, distinct, and unconfused, each retaining its essential and natural properties."

After some further remarks of a similar character, he adds, "The natures were joined undividedly;—there is but one Christ, one person, to whom, being God, and being man, are truly and properly attributed."

"The same person never ceased to be both God and man; not even then, when our Lord as man did undergo death; for he raised himself from the dead, he reared the temple of his own body, being fallen; as being God, he was able to raise himself, as being man, he was capable of being ra sed by himself; the union between God and man persisting, when the union between human body and soul was dissolved."*

The church of England, following in the steps of the unreformed Catholic church, determines that, "the Son —took man's nature—so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man." Art. sec.— It is added by an expositor, "the essential properties of one nature were not communicated to the other nature —each kept his respective properties distinct, without the least confusion in their most intimate union." [Prettyman, Elements of Christian Theology, Vol. ii.]

"In whatever way," says Professor Stuart, "the union of the two natures as effected, it neither destroyed nor essentially changed either the divine or the human nature." He supposes Christ to be "God omniscient and omnipotent; and still a feeble man of imperfect knowledge."

It is unnecessary to add more to show what the received opinion on this subject is.—The doctrine of the Union of the two natures in the person of Jesus Christ, in the form in which it is stated in the above extracts, is admitted, as far as we know, by all genuine trinitarians. No one of them doubts that Christ was perfect man; no one of them professes to doubt that he was also perfect God. According to this doctrine, when fairly stated, an infinite nature with all its essential attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, necessary and everlasting existence, incapable of suffering or change, was indissolubly united in the person of Jesus Christ, with a finite nature, with all its properties, as imperfect knowledge, weakness, exposure to sorrow, pain, and death, in such a manner, that the two natures remain for ever distinct, each retaining unaltered all its former attributes.

Now to this extraordinary doctrine we have several strong objections. Before proceeding to state them, however, we will pause to make one observation suggested by the foregoing narrative. It is this: There is a strong antecedent probability, that the doctrine will be found, upon examination, to be equally unsupported by scripture and by reason. It appears from ecclesiastical history that the simple and unlearned Christians of the earlier and purer ages of the church knew nothing about it; that the first traces of it are found among the learned Platonizing converts; that its features were at first rude and imperfect; that it from time to time received modifications and additions as the disciples of the Egyptian, philosophy, the most absurd that ever disgraced the human intellect, flowed into the church; that it was long opposed on account of its antichristian tendency; that so late as the end of the third century, it had not succeeded in eradicating from the minds of the generality of Christians, learned or unlearned, the great doctrine of the inferior and derived nature of the Son; and finally, that it gathered strength and was matured amid storms of controversy, at a time when the principles of sound criticism and just reasoning had fallen into contempt. That such a doctrine, growing up with the worst philosophy of the worst times, should originally have sprung from the bosom of Christianity, and not from the vicious systems of human speculation, in the midst of which it was nurtured, that it should have remained hidden for years in the records of our Saviour's instructions, and the writings of his apostles, and its existence there not have been suspected till the Alexandrian Platonists pointed it out, is a supposition altogether too extravagant for credit. Its late rise, in union with the philosophical jargon of the age, to which it was wedded, and from which it was content to borrow its terms and illustrations, renders it difficult, if not impossible, for us to believe, that it was one of the truths, which either our Saviour or his apostles were commissioned to impart to the world. In tracing its history, indeed, we gather, at every step, evidence of its human and earthly origin.

Our principal objections to the orthodox distinction of two natures in Jesus Christ are, that it involves an absurdity; that it destroys the personal unity of Jesus, and introduces strange perplexity into our conceptions of his character; that it exposes him to the charge of equivocation and dishonesty; that it destroys the efficacy of his example, and nullifies his instructions; that it is unnecessary, and fails of the object for which it is alleged to be wanted; that it thus carries with it irresistible evidence of its falsehood, it bears all the marks of a most improbable and extravagant fiction; and finally, that after the most careful search, we find no traces of it in the sacred writings.

In the first place, we think that the doctrine of two natures in Jesus Christ, as held by its advocates, is absurd, and consequently that no evidence whatever would be sufficient to establish it. Before we believe it, we must abandon the use of our understandings; we must free ourselves from a disposition to weigh evidence; we must have the convenient pliancy of mind, the happy facility of belief, to which the good father had attained, when he said, "I believe, because it is impossible." If we reflect for a moment on the qualities of the divine and human natures, we must, one would think, be convinced, that they can never be united in the same mind or person. They are absolutely incompatible with each other; they cannot possibly exist together in the same intelligent agent. What are the attributes of the divine and human natures? God is infinite, everlasting, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible. Man is finite, limited in knowledge and power, weak, erring, subject to vicissitude, disease, and death. Now, let any one, who ventures to use his understanding, say whether these qualities are compatible with each other. For ourselves, we think they are such, that their union in the same being is naturally impossible. It is the union of infinite and finite, of knowledge and ignorance, of power and weakness, of perfection and imperfection. We may as well talk of the union of light and darkness, or of any two qualities, of which the one necessarily implies the negation or absence of the other.

What is the consequence of the union of divine and human attributes in the same mind or being, on the supposition, admitted by trinitarians, that the two natures remain distinct, none of the qualities of either being lost or changed? Why, that a being may be at the same time infinite and finite; that he may be omnipotent, yet partake of weakness and infirmity, and be unable of himself to do all things; that he may be omniscient, yet be ignorant of many things; that he may be the Author of the universe, yet a wailing infant, wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger; a being incapable of pain and suffering, yet a man of sorrows, who expired on the cross, was placed in a shroud, and slept in the tomb. Now if this be not contradiction and absurdity, we confess we know not what contradiction and absurdity are.

We do not think our opponents very fortunate in their attempts to illustrate the doctrine of two natures in Jesus Christ by comparison. Thus we are told, that for an explanation of it we must look into ourselves, and consider the union of soul and body in man; "for as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ." Such is the language of the Athanasian creed. The comparison it suggests has been a favorite one with the assertors of the theological doctrine of the incarnation, from the time this doctrine came into vogue to the present day. That such has been the fact, we think a remarkable instance of the effect of hereditary prejudices in blinding the understanding, and of the lamentable weakness of human nature, which induces men to listen to flimsy argument and mere sophistry, when employed in the support of received opinions.

The comparison of the two natures of Jesus Christ with the union of spirit and body in ourselves, may serve to introduce confusion and darkness into a person's ideas, in consequence of which he may lose sight of the absurdity of the hypothesis, which it is meant to illustrate;— perhaps he may think, that he has, at length, hit upon a parallel, which solves all difficulties. But a little sober reflection, we think, must abate his confidence. To us the two cases appear totally dissimilar. Man is a complex being, very different from that compound being, which Christ is represented by our adversaries to be. If you admit the common distinction, and say that man is made up of matter and spirit, and then inquire what is his nature, the only general and intelligible answer to this inquiry is, that it is those properties, corporeal and mental, which result from his constitution and physical organization; that is, all those qualities, which constitute him what in his present state he is. Now it cannot be said, that any of these qualities are incompatible with others. There is nothing in any of them, which makes it a contradiction or absurdity to suppose, that they may all exist together in the same subject. You may, indeed, affirm of apart, what is not true of the whole of man. You may say of his body, that it has extension and solidity, and attribute to his mind perception, memory, judgment; but here is no contradiction. You do not attribute to him, as an individual or whole, opposite qualities. You do not ascribe to his person qualities or acts so utterly repugnant, that one necessarily excludes the other, as light excludes darkness, or omnipotence, weakness. Our objection to the union of two natures in the person of Jesus Christ, is, that it brings together an assemblage of qualities, which are incompatible with each other that it ascribes to Christ, as an individual or person, properties between which there is such an utter repugnance, such direct opposition, that they cannot exist together in the same subject. Trinitarians affirm, that Christ is perfect God and perfect man; consequently he must have all the qualities of both, as omnipotence and weakness, infallibility and fallibility, infinite knowledge and limited and partial information; and these qualities are affirmed of him in a personal character. Man presents no phenomenon resembling this; no such combination of incongruous and opposite qualities.

To say of Christ, that he is divine and human, infinite and finite, omnipotent and weak, is to assert nothing more strange or mysterious, it is contended, than to affirm of man that he is mortal and immortal. But the fallacy of this statement is quite obvious. The expressions in question do not belong to the same class, nor have they any real, but only a seeming resemblance. When we say that man is mortal and immortal, we do not employ terms, which, in the connexion in which they stand, have any opposition or repugnance; they are not, in fact, opposites; they convey no incompatible ideas. What we affirm in one part of the proposition we do not deny in the other. By the assertion, man is mortal, we mean that his present mode of existence will cease, and by the assertion that he is immortal, we mean that he will continue in being for ever. The two assertions are distinct, but not opposed. We affirm simply that man will undergo a change at death, but that this change will not amount to an absolute annihilation of his being, and in this proposition there is nothing contradictory or absurd.—A similar explanation may be given of numerous other propositions, in which the same thing is apparently affirmed and denied of the same subject. The terms in different parts of the proposition either change their signification, or they are used in senses not really, but only apparently opposed. The same solution, however, does not apply to the proposition, Christ is finite and infinite, for the terms here employed are by their nature wholly opposed, and undergo no change of signification in the different parts of the proposition. We affirm, in one breath, that he is finite and not finite, God and not God, the terms, the whole time, being used in the same sense, and thus fall into as palpable a contradiction as could be uttered. 
 

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