Jesus in the FORM OF GOD at Philippians 2

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 vigorous debate still continues around the hymnic passage. However, the suggestion that the hymn has been constructed with a strong allusion to Adam, or even modeled after the template of Adam christology is still persuasive." p. 282, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, by James D.G. Dunn 

A rule of hermeneutics states that you cannot use an ambiguous scripture as a proof text.
The ambiguity here is simply one that is shared by many translators and exegetes.
The Harper Collins Study Bible NRSV states that some of the key words used here "had puzzled interpreters" and are "problematic." 

Sure, we have the way that Trinitarians like to look at this verse, as is stated in Heinz Cassirer's "did not look upon his equality with God as something to be held in his grasp," but there are many others that do not see this in the same way: 

"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" ASV
"who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" NASB
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" Revised Standard Version
"Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized, accounted the being equal with God." Rotherham
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped" TCE
"Christ Jesus, who, when he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as a prize" Bible in Living English
"Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped" New Jerusalem Bible
"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped" New American Bible
"who, though being in God's Form, yet did not meditate a Usurpation to BE like God" Emphatic Diaglott
"Who, [beginning] [existing] in a form of God did not consider a seizing, to be equal to God" 21st Century Literal
"although he was like God in nature, he never even considered the chance to be equal with God." 21st Century Free
"who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." Revised Version
"Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God." An American Translation/Goodspeed
"who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped" NET Bible
"who though he had god-like form, did not regard it as a prize to be equal to God." The Original NT-Schonfield
[Footnote: "Referring to the sin which Adam was tempted by Satan to commit, and which Lucifer in his former state had committed (Gen 3:5; Isa 14:12-14). Moses is said to have had a divine form, and as an infant to have received the crown from Pharoah's head (Josephus, Antiq II 232-235). The Christ Above of the Jewish mystics had angelic likeness as a Son of God (Dan 4:25-28; Job 1:6-7)."]
"who - did not think it a matter to earnestly desired." -Clarke
"Did not regard - as an object of  solicitous desire." -Stuart
"Thought not - a thing to be seized." -Sharpe
"Did not eagerly grasp." -Kneeland
"Did not violently strive." -Dickinson
"did not meditate a usurpation." -Turnbull

If, as the New Scofield Bible says, that this verse is the strongest assertions of Christ's deity, then those who hold such a position have a real problem.

These verses are about humility, and how, unlike Adam, Jesus did not try to be equal to God. That is why the preceding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean that we should try to cling to our equality with God? Of course not. To translate this verse in a way that promotes the deity of Christ robs it of its true force and meaning.

But what of the phrase, "form of God" or EN MORFH QEOU

Carolyn Osiek writes that the NIV translation, "being in very nature God," misses the mark since it "overstates the traditional  interpretation" by rendering MORFH as "very nature" instead of "form." Osiek goes on to say that MORFH [in the Phil account] does not mean nature, "but form, shape, or appearance . . ." She says more and favors the understanding "status" for MORFH. She goes on to say that "divinity in the absolute sense is probably not being ascribed to Christ."  EN MORFH QEOU appears to be a dative of indirect object that describes "an exalted heavenly figure very close to God," but not one who possesses absolute divinity (Osiek, Carolyn. _Philippians, Philemon_. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000). See page 60.

Also, "This interpretation is enhanced by the rest of verse 6: he did not consider it a hARPAGMOS, something to be seized or exploited, to be ISA QEWi, equal or of equal status to God" (Osiek 60).
I think she has something here regarding status, since EN MORFH QEOU (in the form of God) seems to be contrasted with EN MORFH DOULOU (form of a slave). A slave is not the antithesis of deity. A slave, or servant, has the bearing of status or function among humanity, serving humans while heavenly beings, angels, have also served and held a functional equality with God.
[See Exodus 3:2, 14-16 cf. Acts 7:30-32; Gen 16:13, 21:17; 22:15,16; 31:11, 13, Jg 6:12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23; 13:6, 21; Deut 5:24; Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23; Psalm 8:5; 82:1; 97:7; 138:1.]
They are representatives, and as such, can even bear the title of "God." See footnote Psalm 45:7 New American Bible.

As Buchanan says, "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"

But for sure, the notion that MORFH can also mean outer appearance, but too much cannot be read into this as assuming divinity in its absolute sense, as even sinful humans can have a "form [MORFWSIN] of godliness, although they have denied its power." 2 Tim 3:5 NASB

"But Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of God. His oneness with the Father does not mean absolute identity of being. Although the Son of God in his preexistent being was in - the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God."-The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. II, p. 80."When he [Paul] says that Christ existed in the form of God, he implies that Christ was of the same nature as God, [yes a spirit] that the principle of his being was essentially divine. Since he had this affinity with God, he might have aspired to "equality" with him; he might have claimed an equal share in all the powers which God exercises and in all the honors which are rendered to him by his creatures. Standing so near to God, he might have resented his inferior place and thrown off his obedience. (d) Yet he never attempted the robbery which might have raised him higher….But in Greek, as in English, the word "robbery" involved the idea of violent seizure, and what Christ resisted was not merely the prize but the means of obtaining it. He refused to seize for his own the glory which belongs to God….Paul…set the obedience of Christ over against that old conception  of a heavenly being  [Satan] who had sought by violence to make himself equal to God." (e.a.)-The Interpreter's Bible, in loc cit.

Additionally, you may want to check out the book entitled Where Christology Began : essays on
Philippians 2 ; Ralph P. Martin, Brian J. Dodd,  editors. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.

This is again, where the Adam Christology talked about above comes into play.

Rom 5:14 Nonetheless death reigned over all from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sin was not the breaking of a commandment, as Adam was. He prefigured the One who was to come..."1 Cor 15:22 Just as all die in Adam, so in Christ all will be brought to life.
1 Cor 15:45 So the first man, Adam, as scripture says, became a living soul; and the last Adam has became a life-giving spirit.

If we lost eternal life because of Adam, who was once perfect and without sin, then it only follows that it would take another Adam, another perfect man, to get it back for us.
The NWT renders 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 in a superior manner when it deals with the ransom,

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all-[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times."

Rob Bowman calls the NWT's rendering at 1 Tim 2:6 of antilutron ["a corresponding ransom,"] an "overtranslation." (See Why You Should Believe In The Trinity. pp. 76, 77)

Now, the NASB, NJB and others all render this as simply "ransom."  If Paul wanted just "ransom," he could have just used LUTRON, but instead he used LUTRON with the preposition ANTI, indicating, as grammarians generally agree, of "substitution." Vine's says that ANTILUTRON is "significant," and indicates a "substitutionary ransom." Surely Vine's take on this must also be considered "overtranslation."

Actually, it could be said that translating ANTILUTRON as simply "ransom" is undertranslation.

H.A.W. Meyers says: “The word antilutron, is synonymous with antallagma
in Mt. 16:26; it is distinguished from the simple lutron only in this,
that the preposition makes the idea of exchange still more
emphatic."--Meyers Commentary on the NT."Antilutron: a corresponding price."--Young’s Concordance.
"It signifies a substitute ransom price, a ransom in place of another or others." Paul's Letter to the Colossians-An Exegetical and Devotional Commentary by J. Hampton Keathley III-Biblical Studies Press 2001, p. 64
"the reference in 1 Timothy 2:6...has a substitutionary meaning." Davies, Christ in our Place, 89-90
"A ransom, price of redemption, or rather corresponding ransom. It
properly signifies a price by which captives are redeemed from the
enemy; and that kind of exchange in which the life of one is redeemed by
the life of another. so Aristotle uses the verb antilytroo for redeeming
life by life."--Parkhurst's Lexicon;47

A look at the word ANTI help us with this reasoning. The BDAG Lexicon says that it is "indicating that one thing is equiv[alent] to another" and some of the examples it gives are Matt 5:38, "Eye for [ANTI] eye and tooth for [ANTI] tooth" and Romans 12:17, "Never pay back evil with [ANTI] evil."
This substitutionary value is stressed further by the use of the prepositional hUPER following LUTRON in 1 Timothy. So, when the Bible tells us that, "it was through one man [Adam] that sin came into the world, and through sin death, and thus death spread to the whole world" then it requires another Adam to free us from this sinful inheritance of death. (Romans 5:12) Both Adam and Jesus are called the "Son of God" [Luke 3:38; 4:3] but, while Adam may at the same time be the father of a sinful many,  Jesus will bear their sins, and we can be in this way counted as offspring of  the father and suffering servant who gives us eternity. (Isaiah 9:6; 53:10-12)

For God, the creator of universe, the awesome, powerful, dynamic Almighty Jehovah to have to pay this price is not the ANTILUTRON, it is not a corresponding, substitutionary ransom, for a million planets housed with billions of people could never measure up to the immeasurable Yahweh.

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

Now let's take a different look at Phil 2:5-7..."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 slave...

You have to wonder if QEOU should be taken as indefinite here, such as “form of a god”? This would highlight a parallel that is overlooked by most, the parallel between "the form of a god" and "the form of a slave."

"In the epistle to the Philippians, 2. 6—11, he represents the Logos, as being first in the form of a god, and afterwards humbling himself, laying aside his majesty, and taking the form of a servant..." [A Monotessaron; Or The Gospel of Jesus Christ, According to the Four Evangelists by John Samuel Thompson 1828]

"Agreeably to the language here made use of, it is said in another place, that Christ, being in the form of God, or in the form of a God, took upon himself the form of a servant." ~Rev. Timothy Kenrick 1828

Samuel Clarke’s 55 Theses on the Doctrine of the Trinity

1. There is one Supreme Cause and Original of Things; One simple, uncompounded, undivided, intelligent Being, or Person; who is the Author of all Being, and the Fountain of all Power.

2. With This First and Supreme Cause or Father of all Things, there has existed from the Beginning, a Second divine Person, which is his Word or Son.

3. With the Father and the Son, there has existed from the Beginning, a Third divine Person, which is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

4. What the proper Metaphysical Nature, Essence, or Substance of any of these divine Persons is, the scripture has no where at all declared; but describes and distinguishes them always, by their Personal Characters, Offices, Powers and Attributes.

5. The Father (or First Person) Alone is Self-existent, Underived, Unoriginated, Independent; made of None, begotten of None, Proceeding from None.

6. The Father (or First Person) is the Sole Origin of all Power and Authority, and is the Author and Principle of whatsoever is done by the Son or by the Spirit.

7. The Father (or first person) Alone, is in the highest, strict, and proper sense, absolutely Supreme over All.

8. The Father (or First Person) is absolutely speaking, the God of the Universe; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the God of Israel; of Moses, of the Prophets and Apostles; and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9. The scripture, when it mentions the One God, or the Only God, always means the Supreme Person of the Father.

10. Whenever the Word, God, is mentioned in Scripture, with any High Epithet, Title, or Attribute annex’d to it; it generally (if not always) means the Person of the Father.

11. The Scripture, when it mentions GOD, absolutely and by way of Eminence, always means the Person of the Father.

12. The Son (or second Person) is not self-existent, but derives his Being or Essence, and all his Attributes, from the Father, as from the Supreme Cause.

13. In what particular Metaphysical Manner, the Son derives his Being or Essence from the Father, the Scripture has no where distinctly declared; and therefore men ought not to presume to be able to define.

14. They are therefore equally worthy of Censure, who either on the one hand presume to affirm, that the Son was made out of Nothing; or, on the other hand, that He is the Self-existent Substance.

15. The Scripture, in declaring the Son’s Derivation from the Father, never makes mention of any Limitation of Time; but always supposes and affirms him to have existed with the Father from the Beginning, and before All Worlds.

16. They therefore have also justly been censured, who pretending to be wise above what is written, and intruding into things which they have not seen; have presumed to affirm that there was a time when he Son was not.

17. The Son (according to the Reasoning of the Primitive Writers) derives his Being from the Father, (whatsoever the particular Manner of that Derivation be,) not by mere Necessity of Nature; (which would in reality be Self-existence, not Filiation;) but by an Act of the Father’s incomprehensible Power and Will.

18. The Word or Son of the Father, sent into the World to assume our Flesh, and die for the Sins of Mankind; was not the internal Reason or Wisdom of God, an Attribute or Power of the Father; but a real Person, the same who from the Beginning had been the Word, or Revealer of the Will, of the Father to World.

19. The Holy Spirit (or Third Person,) is not Self-existent, but derives his Being or Essence from the Father, (by the Son,) as from the Supreme Cause.

20. The Scripture, speaking of the Spirit of God, never mentions any Limitation of Time, when he derived his Being or Essence from the Father; but supposes him to have existed with the Father from the Beginning.

21. In what particular metaphysical Manner the Holy Spirit derives his Being from the Father, the Scripture hath no where at all defined, and therefore men ought not to presume to be able to explain.

22. The Holy Spirit of God does not in scripture generally signify a mere Power or Operation of the Father, but a real Person.

23. They who are not careful to maintain these personal characters and distinctions, but while they are solicitous (on the one hand) to avoid the errours of the Arians, affirm (in the contrary extreme) the Son and Holy Spirit to be (individually with the Father) the Self-existent Being: These, seeming in the Words to magnify the Name of the Son and Holy Spirit, in reality take away their very Existence; and so fall unawares into Sabellianism, (which is the same with Socinianism.)

24. The Word, God, in the New Testament, sometimes signifies the Person of the Son.

25. The Reason why the Son in the New Testament is sometimes stiled God, is not upon account of his metaphysical Substance, how Divine soever; but of his relative Attributes and Divine Authority (communicated to him from the Father) over Us.

26. By the Operation of the Son, the Father both made and governs the World.

27. To the Son are ascribed in Scripture Other the Greatest Things and the Highest Titles; even all Communicable Divine Powers; That is, All Powers which include not That Independency and Supreme Authority, by which the God and Father of All is distinguished to be the God and Father of All.

28. The Holy Spirit is described in the New Testament as the immediate Author and Worker of All Miracles, even of those done by our Lord himself; and as the Conductor of Christ in all the Actions of his Life, during his State of Humiliation here upon Earth.

29. The Holy Spirit is declared in Scripture to be the Inspirer of the Prophets and Apostles, and the Great Teacher and Director of the Apostles in the whole Work of their Ministry.

30. The Holy Spirit is represented in the New Testament, as the Sanctifier of all Hearts, and the Supporter and Comforter of good Christians under all their Difficulties.

31. Concerning the Holy Spirit, there are other Greater Things spoken in Scripture, and Higher Titles ascribed to him, than to any Angel, or any other created Being whatsoever.

32. The Word, God, in Scripture, no where signifies the Person of the Holy Ghost.

33. The Word, God, in Scripture, never signifies a complex Notion of more persons than One; but always means One person only, viz. either the person of the Father singly, or the person of the Son singly.

34. The Son, whatever his metaphysical Essence or Substance be, and whatever divine Greatness and Dignity is ascribed to him in Scripture; yet in This He is evidently Subordinate to the Father, that He derives his Being and Attributes from the Father, the Father Nothing from Him.

35. Every Action of the Son, both in making the World, and in all other his Operations; is only thr Exercise of the Father’s Power, communicated to him after an ineffable manner.

36. The Son, whatever his metaphysical Nature or Essence be; yet, in this while Dispensation, in the Creation and Redemption of the Worl, acts in all things according to the Wil, and by the Mission or Authority of the Father.

37. The Son, how great soever the metaphysical Dignity of his Nature was, yet in the whole Dispensation entirely directed all his Actions to the Glory of the Father.

39. The reason why the Scripture, though it styles the Father God, and also stiles the Son God, yet at the same time always declares there is but one God; is because in the Monarchy of the Universe, there is but One Authority, original in the Father, derivative in the Son: The Power of the Son being, not Another Power opposite to That of the Father, nor Another Power co-ordinate to That of the Father; but it self The Power and Authority of the Father, communicated to, manifested in, and exercised by the Son.

40. The Holy Spirit, whatever his metaphysical Nature, Essence, or Substance be; and whatever divine Power or Dignity is ascribed to him in Scripture; yet in this he is evidently subordinate to the Father; that He derives his Being and Powers from the Father, the Father nothing from Him.

41. The Holy Spirit, whatever his metaphysical Nature, Essence, or Substance be; and whatever divine Power or Dignity is ascribed to him in Scripture; yet in the whole Dispensation of the Gospel, always acts by the Will of the Father, is given and sent by him, intercedes to him, &c.

42. The Holy Spirit, as he is subordinate to the Father; so he is also in Scripture represented as subordinate to the Son, both by Nature and by the Will of the Father; excepting only that he is described as being the Conductor and Guide of our Lord, during his State of Humiliation here upon Earth. ibid.

43. Upon These Grounds, absolutely Supreme Honour is due to the Person of the Father singly, as being Alone the Supreme Author of all Being and Power.

44. For the same Reason, all Prayers and Praises ought primarily or ultimately to be directed to the Person of the Father, as the Original and Primary Author of all Good.

45. And upon the same account, whatever Honour is paid to the Son who redeemed, or to the Holy Spirit who sanctifies us, must always be understood as tending finally to the Honour and Glory of the Father, by whose good Pleasure the Son redeemed, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies us.

46. For the great Oeconomy, or the Whole Dispensation of God towards Mankind in Christ, consists and terminates in this; that as all Authority and Power is originally in the Father, and from him derived to the Son, and exercised according to the Will of the Father by the Operation of the Son, and by the Energy of the Holy Spirit; and all Communications from God to the Creature, are conveyed through the Intercession of the Son, and by the Inspiration and Sanctification of the Holy Spirit: So on the contrary, All Returns from the Creature, of Prayers and Praises, of Reconciliation and Obedience, of Honour and Duty to God; are made in and by the Guidance and Assistance of the Holy Spirit, through the Mediation of the Son, to the Supreme Father and Author of all things.

47. The Son, before his Incarnation, was with God, was in the Form of God, and had Glory with the Father.

48. Yet He had not then distinct Worship paid to him in his Own Person, but appeared only as the [Shecinah or] Habitation of the Glory of the Father: in which the Name of God was.

49. At his Incarnation he freely diverted himself of that Glory, which he had with God before the World was, and by virtue of which He is described as having been in the Form of God: And in this State of Humiliation he suffered and died for the Sins of the World.

50. After, and upon account of, the Accomplishment of which Dispensation, He is described in Scripture as invested with distinct Worship in his Own Person; his original Glory and Dignity being at the same time revealed, and his Exaltation in the Human Nature to his Mediatorial Kingdom declared: Himself sitting upon his Father’s Throne, at the Right Hand of the Majesty of God; and receiving the Adoration and Thanksgivings of his Church, as the alone Mediator between God and men.

51. This Honour the Scripture directs to be paid to Christ; not so much upon account of his metaphysical Essence or Substance, and abstract Attributes; as of his Actions and Attributes relative to Us; his Condescension in becoming Man, who was the Son of God; Redeeming, and Interceding for, us; his Authority, Power, Dominion, and Sitting upon the Throne of God his Father, as our Law-giver, our King, our Judge, and our God.

52. The Honour paid in this manner to the Son, must (as before) always be understood as redounding ultimately to the Glory of God the Father.

53. The Honour which Christians are bound to pay peculiarly to the Person of the Holy Spirit, is expressed in the Texts following; &c.

54. For putting up Prayers and Doxologies directly and expressly to the Person if the Holy Spirit, it must be acknowledged there is no clear Precept or Example in Scripture.

55. From all which, it appears, even to a demonstration (the words GOD and FATHER, being put promiscuously for each other) that GOD, in Scripture-language, does not signify the Trinity, but the first person of the Trinity. According to that of Theophilus...the Trinity, which is GOD, and his Word, and his Wisdom.

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 Brief Look at the "An Inclusive Version" of the New Testament

"If every man's humour were followed, there would be be no end of translating."Richard Bancroft -Bishop of London(1604)

The foreword of this Bible makes reference to Star Trek. Like Star Wars, this Inclusive Version is a pop (culture) Bible that, unlike Star Trek, no one talks about anymore after 2 decades. 

Sample translations:

"Ruler" or "Sovereign" is substituted for King (because that sounds too male).

"Kingdom" is now "Dominion" 

Lord is removed(ie...1 Corinthians 6:14)

Sarah is added to John 8:58

"Father" is now "Father-Mother" John 1:18

"homosexuals" changed to "male prostitutes"  1 Corinthians 6:9,10

"Son of Man" is the "Human One" Luke 17:26

I already knew the Trinity was plural, but John 10:30 pretty much proves it, "The Father-Mother and I are one."

The Comma Johanneum at 1 John 5:7,8 (footnote) introduces to a Quadrinity, "There are three that testify in heaven, the Father-Mother, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

While the NRSV has "blood of his own Son" this Inclusive NT instead has "Child" in place of "Son."

This Bible is under copyright protection and does not permit quoting from it in any manner (unlike most Bibles that allow up to 500 words). So...exactly what good is this useless version of the Bible?

This version also removes the term "darkness" such as in Psalm 107:10 and substitutes it with "captivity". Why? Because "darkness" might discriminate against Black people.

The term "Jews" are altered when it is used in a less than favorable sense. 

References to the handicapped are slightly altered too at Matthew 11:5 and "slaves" changed to "those enslaved to him."

While at Psa 109:26 the ASV has: "Help me, O Jehovah my God" the Inclusive Version replaces "Jehovah" with "GOD" which seems unnecessarily awkward.

This Bible substitutes GOD for Jehovah/Yahweh, but I can still find instances of them using the male term LORD, such as at Psa 86:1. If you were really interested in being gender-inclusive, why not just keep the original YHWH/Jehovah/Yahweh in the text?

About the word MAN:

Anthropos is a Greek word which is often meant in a gender-inclusive sense, especially in the plural. However, the use of anthropos has a masculine sense in certain contexts, and the Greek-speaking world of the early Christian era would presume that anyone who is called an anthropos is male. This may be seen in the following examples from the RSV:

Matthew 19:5 "For this reason a man (anthropos) shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'."
Matthew 19:10 "If such is the case of a man (anthropos) with his wife, it is not expedient to marry."
I Corinthians 7:1 "It is well for a man (anthropos) not to touch a woman."

Many other examples could be offered that shows that the word MAN/anthropos has masculine connotations. However, in general usage when "Man" is used in a larger sense, such as "mankind" it is already gender-neutral. (Rev. 14:4)

Conclusion:

This Inclusive Version is a revision of the New Revised Standard Version, which is a revision of the Revised Standard Version, which is a revision of the American Standard Version which is a revision of the King James Version. What an odd legacy of a once grand Bible.

Proofs that Christ was NOT God By Hugh Hutton Stannus 1899

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

Proofs that Christ was NOT God By Hugh Hutton Stannus 1899

Because Christ most clearly showed he was not God

The Jews who were seeking a charge against him said, "he made himself God"; Christ immediately refuted the falsehood,—"Jesus answered them is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods; if he called them gods unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God".—Jn. x. 34,36. He whom Christ addressed in prayer, he addressed as "The Only True God".—Jn. xvii. 3. "He came from God, and went to God ". —Jn. xiii. 3. "I came out from God ".—Jn. xvi. 27. "And "Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God".—Mark x. 18. "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama, sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me"?—Matt. xxvii. 46. "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God".—Jn. xx. 17.

Because the New Testament in numerous passages declares that God is the God and Father of Jesus Christ

"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not".—2 Cor. xi. 31. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blest us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ".—Eph. i. 3. "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, "may give unto you the spirit of wisdom ".—Eph. i. 17. "That ye may with one mind, and one mouth, glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ".—Rom. xv. 6. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead".— 1 Pet. i. 3.

Because the Scriptures teach us there is but One God, and in the same sentence affirm that Christ is not that God

"To us there is but one God, the Father of whom are all things, and we "in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ".—I Cor. viii. 6. "For "there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".—1 Tim. 2, 5. "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all".—Eph. iv. 5, 6.

Because the Scriptures testify that Jesus grew and increased in favour with God. How could he then be God?

"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man".—Luke ii. 52. "And the child (Jesus) grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him ". —Luke ii. 40.

Because the high names, and offices, and greatness of Christ, are said to be given to him by God

"Wherefore God also hath "highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name".—Philippians ii. 9. "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell".—Col. i. 19. "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye hath crucified, both Lord and Christ".— Acts ii. 36. "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob; the God of our fathers hath glorified his Son Jesus".— Acts iii. 13. "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour".—Acts v. 31.

Because the New Testament teaches that all power and authority possessed by Christ were given to him by God

"Then answered "Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do".—Jn. v. 19. "I can of mine own self do nothing".— Jn. v. 30. "And (God) hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church".— Eph. i. 22. "For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God".—2 Cor. xiii. 4. "I have "power to lay it (his life) down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father".— John x. 18.

Because Jesus Christ says he is inferior and subordinate to the Father

"My Father is greater than I".—Jn. xiv. 28. "To sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them, for whom it is prepared of my Father". Matt. xx. 23. "But of that day and that hour (of judgment) knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father".—Mark xiii. 32. "My Father is greater than all".—Jn. x. 29.

Because Christ worshipped and prayed to God

"Jesus went "out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God".—Luke vi. 12. "At that time Jesuss answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth".— Matt. xi. 25. "Jesus prayed, saying, Father if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine be done".—Luke xxii. 42. "Christ in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto Him that was able to save".— Heb. v. 7.

Because Christ has taught us not to pray to him, but to God

"In that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father, in my name, he will "give it you".—Jn. xvi. 23. "The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth".—Jn. iv. 23. "As he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, our Father which art in Heaven".—Luke xi. 1, 2. "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ".—Eph. iii. 14.

Because the very name Christ shows he is not God, but anointed of God

"Thou (Christ) hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows".—Heb. i. 9. "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost "and with power: who went about doing good ... for God was with him '.—Acts x. 38. "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed ".—Acts iv. 27.

Because Jesus Christ is represented by himself as distinct from God as one witness in a court is from another

"It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am one who bears witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me".—Jn. viii. 17, 18.

Because in numerous passages of Scripture Christ is represented as appointed Judge of all by God

"For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son". —Jn. v. 22. "And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead ".—Acts x. 42. "Because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised Him from the dead".—Acts xvii. 31.

Because the name Son OF GOD shows he is not God

"But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God".— Matt. xvi. 15, 16. "For he received from God the Father honour and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased".—2 Peter i. 17. "Of a truth thou art the Son of God".—Matt. xiv. 33.

Because Christ was taught of God the doctrines he taught to Men

"I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things".—Jn. viii 28. "Jesus answered "them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me". Jn. vii. 16. "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak".—Jn. xii. 49.

Because numerous passages show a clear distinction between God and Christ

"Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ".—1 Cor. i. 3. "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ".—Rom. i. 7. "Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord".—I Tim. i. 2. "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the Church of the Thessalonians which is in "God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ".—1 Thess. i. I

Because Christ always declared he was only the sent of God

"For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the spirit by measure unto him".—Jn. iii. 34. "And he that sent me is with me".—Jn. viii. 29. "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you".—Jn. xx. 21. "I am not come of myself but he that sent me is true".—Jn. vii. 28. "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent". -Jn. vi. 29.

Because the Apostles always speak of Christ as less than God

"But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God".— I Cor. xi. 3. "And ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's".—I Cor. iii. 23. "For he (God) hath put all things under his (Christ's) feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him ".—1 Cor. xv. 27.

Because Christ is called the Image of God; and an image cannot be that of which it is the likeness

"Who (Christ) is the image of the invisible God".—Col. i. 15. "Lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them ".—2 Cor. iv. 4. "Who (Christ) being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person". —Heb. i. 3.

Because the uniform teaching of the Scripture is that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead

"This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses".—Acts ii. 32. "And (ye) killed the Prince of Life, whom God hath raised from the dead". —Acts iii. 15. "Unto you first God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities".—Acts iii. 26. "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom ye slew and hanged on a tree".— Acts v. 30. "And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power".—1 Cor. vi. 14.

Because the Apostles often speak of Christ as a Man, and in the same sentence show he is not God

"Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him".—Acts ii. 22. "But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God".—Heb. x. 12.

Because Jesus Christ never taught he was God, but most distinctly taught he was a Man, and the Son of Man

"But now "ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God".—Jn. viii. 40. "Therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath".—Mark ii. 28.

Because Christ was a Prophet as Moses was a Prophet

"The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren like unto me....I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words into his mouth".—Deut. xviii 15,18. Stephen testifies that Christ is that prophet. "This is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise unto you of your brethren, like unto me".—Acts vii. 37.

Because the Sacred Scriptures represent Christ as coming not to do his own will, but the will of God

"Jesus saith unto them, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me".—Jn. iv. 34. "For I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me".—Jn. vi. 38. "I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent me".—Jn. v. 30. "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God".—Heb. x. 7.

Because the Scriptures uniformly represent Christ as being at the right hand of God. How then can he be God?

"So then "after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into "heaven, and sat on the right hand of God".—Mark xvi. 19. "Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the power of God".—Luke xxii. 69. "Therefore being by the right hand of God ".—Acts. ii. 33.

Because the reign of Christ shall come to an end

"Then "cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power".—"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all".—1 Cor. xv. 24, 28.

Because the whole of the passages adduced for the deity of Christ are capable of an easy explanation, so that every text supposed to support the doctrine of the Godhead of Christ has been explained by Trinitarian theologians in a different sense from that which supports this doctrine. And because we find it conceded in the commentaries of Trinitarians that our proof texts cause them insuperable difficulties, so that they retire from their own explanations, expressing dissatisfaction at them and conceding that these texts are not capable of an easy explanation on their hypothesis; while their proof texts are explained away by expositors of their own school.

Because Christ is represented as a Priest. The office of a priest is to minister to God.—Because he is represented as an Apostle appointed of God.—Because he is represented as an Intercessor with God.—Because he is represented as not the primary, but intermediate, cause of the benefits he bestows.— Because he denies that he is possessed of independent existence, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. — Because it is expressly stated, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ God gave to him".—Because he is represented as the servant of God.—Because he is represented as receiving honour from God in consequence of doing what pleased God.— Because Christ is represented as having learned obedience by the things which he suffered.—Because St. Paul affirms that Christ now lives unto God and by the power of God. —Because when charged by the Jews with making himself equal with God, he replied, "The Son can do nothing of himself".—Because if the salvation of man depends on believing Christ is God, it is curious that Christ never taught those who surrounded him that he was God; but when they professed to understand he was making himself God, or equal with God, he immediately denied these charges, so that they might not regard him in that light.—Because no man hath seen God at any time. This cannot be affirmed of Jesus Christ.—Because had the disciples believed him to be Almighty God, they could not have been so familiar with him, argued with him, betrayed him or denied him, and fled from him, and at first disbelieved in his resurrection from the dead. If this is an essential doctrine of Christianity, we cannot understand how the disciples knew nothing of it.—Because we never find the Jews charging the first Apostles with teaching that Christ is God, which every Jew now charges on the head of Christian teachers.

For much more information go to The Trinity Doctrine & Christology - Over 320 Books on the on TWO DVDroms

metatron3@gmail.com

The Inconsistencies and Contradictions of the Trinity Doctrine

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

WHAT IS TRINITARIANISM? By William Hamilton Drummond 1831

The Scriptures are silent. They never present God under any aspect but that of unity. Of a plurality of persons in the Godhead they know nothing. We must therefore turn for information to the "Infallible Church," and to those other churches which, having thrown off her yoke, still adhere to her creeds—from the assembly of the disciples at Jerusalem to the councils of fathers; from Paul, the inspired apostle, to Athanasius, the factious and turbulent ecclesiastic.

The doctrine of the Trinity then, informs us that the Godhead consists of "three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity;" "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost." Now, any man, under the influence of such vulgar principles as "reason and common sense," would conclude that three persons must mean three distinct beings, and consequently that there are three Gods. This, Dr. Sherlock candidly admits, and says "it is plain the persons are perfectly distinct. A person is an intelligent being, and to say there are three divine persons and not three distinct infinite minds, is both heresy and nonsense." Here then is palpable polytheism, from which thus fairly exhibited, even orthodoxy recoils astounded. Doctor South, scandalized by such an admission, from a Doctor of his own church, showers down upon him a torrent of theological vituperation; and alleges that there is only "one infinite mind, with three modes, attributes, or offices, manifested under the different states or relations of father, son, and spirit." Thus the meaning of the word person is explained away; and after the most painful struggles against the conviction of their own minds, that God is one, the most eminent divines are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that the three persons of their imaginary Trinity are not persons, but something else. Tillotson calls them "three differences,"—Burnet "three diversities,"—Seeker "three subsistences,"—others "threa postures!" Le Clerc thought them to be "three distinct

cogitations;"—-and that the subject might be explained by the philosophy of Descartes. Some are for a specific, some for a numerical unity, and others for both united, though involving a monstrous contradiction. Waterland speaks of a "three-fold generation of the son, two antemundane and one in the flesh. The substance of the one person," he says "is not the substance of either of the others, but different, however of the same kind or united." Barrow speaks of "the mutual inexistence of one in all, and all in one." "They are joined together," says another, "by a perichoresis—and this perichoresis, circumincession or mutual inexistence is made very possible and intelligible by a mutual conscious sensation." Some divines understand the words person and personality in a philosophical sense, others in a political, and a third class in a theological sense. The doctrine of three persons, according to Watts, must be true, "at least in a political sense, yet cannot amount to so much as a philosophical personality, unless we allow a plurality of Gods" We sometimes find the same Trinitarian Divine confuting himself, for error is always inconsistent, and maintaining in one part of his writings, propositions subversive of those which he has maintained in another. Thus Bishop Bull, against the Arians, asserts the consubstantiality and coeternity of Christ with the Father: but against the Tritheists and Sabellians, "he argueth the necessity of believing the father to be the fountain, original and principle of the son, and that the son is hence subordinate to the father!" What is this but Unitarianism?—We are told of a Ciceronian, a Platonic, an Aristotelian, and a Swedenborgian Trinity, and finally "the Trinity of the Mobile, or common people and lazy divines, who content themselves by calling it an inconceivable mystery."

Now, what is this but darkening of counsel by words without knowledge? Which of these contradictory schemes is to be embraced by the man who is determined to depart from the simple truth, that God is one?" What is there" asks the author of an excellent letter on this subject, "to guide me through the dark and dreary labyrinth? Not one solitary ray of light glimmers to direct my path. All is darkness and confusion: the more I read, the more I am confounded. I cannot advance a step, and I end as I began, without being able to find two men or two creeds agreeing in a similar answer to my inquiry: What is the Trinity?" [The Doctrine of the Trinity Indefensible, by Edward Taylor]


Perhaps the light of an Infallible Church might be of use to this importunate inquirer.

If we turn to the popular creeds we shall find that they only render confusion worse confounded, and add a deeper shade to Egyptian darkness. The Athanasian creed, the moat accredited standard of the orthodox faith, teaches that "the Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten; the Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten; the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, not created, nor begotten, but proceeding." "In this Trinity none is afore or after other." But that which is begotten, if language has any meaning, must be posterior to that which begets it; and that which proceeds must be subsequent to the source from which it issues. As the very terms begotten and proceeding cannot be in any way applicable to the Father, they demonstrate an essential difference between Him and every being to whom they can be applied. There is also an essential difference between the Son and the Holy Ghost, for the one is begotten, and the other proceeds; so that each has a peculiar and distinguishing characteristic. Moreover, both the Athanasian and Nicene creeds contradict the Apostle's creed, which so far from affirming that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, says that the Son was "conceived by the Holy Ghost:" whereas the Athanasian creed says that "the Son is of the Father alone!"

Such are the inconsistencies and contradictions of the creeds and articles which we are told we must believe or "perish everlastingly!" They not only contradict the Scriptures but themselves and one another. It would seem that their fabricators, by some signal act of providence, laboured under an insuperable disability of giving them coherence, and that every scheme tending to subvert a belief in the Divine unity, should contain in itself the elements of its own destruction.

Horsley, notwithstanding his being regarded as a chief pillar of orthodoxy, took the liberty of differing from the creeds which he subscribed, and supposed that the second person in the Trinity was "an effect" produced by the first person contemplating his own perfections! No wonder that Priestley on reading such aegri somnia, sick man's dreams, could "hardly help fancying that he had got back into the very darkest of the dark ages, or at least that he was reading Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, or Duns Scotus."

[Horsley in his controversy with Priestley, says, it is a contradiction that "a part is equal to the whole, or that the same thing, in the same respect, is at the same time, one and many." This he admits that nothing can prove. "No testimony that a contradiction is, should be allowed to overpower the intuitive conviction that it cannot be."
"Now," asks Dr. Priestley, "Wherein does the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity differ from a contradiction as you have defined it? 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 every thing 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 man, cannot make any difference in the nature of the two propositions. After the council of Nice, there are instances of the doctrine of the Trinity being explained in this very manner. The fathers of that age being particularly intent on preserving the full equality of the three persons, they entirely lost sight of their proper unity. And explain this doctrine as you will, one of these things must ever be sacrificed to the other,"—Priestley's Letters to Horsley, p. 78, Lond. 1815.]

The three persons of the Trinity, after all that is said by the bishops and archbishops, about diversities and subsistences, modes and relations, perichoresis and circumincession, can be contemplated only as "three distinct infinite minds." The advocates of the doctrine speak of them as such, and assign to each his different province. The father commands, the son obeys, the holy spirit sanctifies. But though they are one God, the first and second persons do not appear to be always influenced by the same principles. It might be expected when such enormous sacrifices as "reason and common sense" are made in support of the doctrine, that it would be consistent in itself—that the three persons being one God, they would act together with perfect harmony. The Unitarian maintains that God and Christ are one—one in the sense declared by the Saviour himself—one in affection and design. He never can admit the idea that any difference of mind subsisted between the father and the son on any subject whatsoever. The father speaks by or through the son, and hence the Unitarian receives the precepts and doctrines of Christ as those of God himself. Now for this unity which is rational and scriptural, and most beneficially influential on the conduct of men, Trinitarianism sets up another of its own, which is chimerical and full of conflicting imaginations. It represents the father and son as actuated by different principles, and on the most important of all subjects, moral virtue—the one as rigorous and inflexibly just, the other as merciful and compassionate. Here their unity is abolished. An act of disobedience is committed by the first of God's intelligent creatures placed upon this earth; and he who "knoweth our frame and remembereth that we are but dust," filled with ineffable fury, sentences man, and, in him, all his innocent and unconscious posterity, to everlasting perdition! Then had man been irrecoverably lost—but God the Son interferes; and since nothing less than a ransom of infinite price should atone for the smallest offence against an infinite being, (as theologians tell us—though they have forgotten to shew how a finite creature can merit the inflictions of infinite and eternal wrath,) he offers to pay the price required—to assume a human form and die the death of the cross, that the curse may he annulled.

Accordingly the proposal is accepted, and the Father Almighty suffers his son, who is equal to himself in majesty and power, to assume the form of an embryo in the virgin's womb— to be born—to encrease in stature like an ordinary mortal—to appear in the humble condition of a carpenter's son—to undergo the most cruel sufferings, bodily and mental; and after a life of poverty and pain, and all the bitter feelings of degradation, of which the highest celestial spirit exiled from heaven and tabernacled in flesh, may be supposed susceptible—to be accused of blasphemy and sedition, to be mocked, spat on, scourged, nailed to a cross as a malefactor, and raised up before an astonished universe—the sacrifice of a son to a father—of a God of superlative benevolence, to the inexorable wrath of an offended Deity—and all for a single act of disobedience in a frail child of the dust!

[See Channing's admirable Sermon, entitled "The superior tendency of Unitarianism to form an elevated religious character." It is stated in the larger Catechism joined to the Westminster Confession of Faith, that Christ "felt and bore the weight of God's wrath." Q. 49,—"and it was requisite the mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God!" Q. 38.]

 What an awful and tremendous idea of the father of all, does this doctrine convey! Is this the God whom we are instructed to love with all our hearts? What lesson do we read like this in the heavenly discourses of him who said "What man is there of you, of whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone—or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?"—of him who has so beautifully depicted the Creator as the kindest and most affectionate of parents; whom even the extravagant guilt of his prodigal son could not alienate from his affections—but who "when he was yet a great way off, saw him, and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him."

Our blessed Saviour delighted to appeal to the natural feelings of the human heart, to enable us to form just notions of the mercy and beneficence of the universal parent. But priests and theologians, in support of their unscriptural systems, outrage every sentiment of justice and mercy; and hesitate not to ascribe to God such conduct as would horrify them in a mortal like themselves.

[The doctrine that God could not be appeased without an infinite satisfaction, and a bloody sacrifice, is such an atrocious libel on the character of the beneficent Father of all, that even orthodoxy is beginning to be ashamed to avow it—and to explain it away. It robs God of his glorious attributes of justice, mercy, forgiveness. It represents him as surpassing in cruelty the legislator whose laws were written in blood. If the natural sentiments of right and wrong in the breast of a heathen poet, rose indignant at the dogmas of the Stoics, that all faults are equal, and should be punished with equal rigour, how would he have shrunk with horror from Ihis monstrous Calvinistic heresy!

------adsit
Regula, peccatis quae poenas irrogct sequas."
Hor,

"—— let the punishment be fairly weighed
Against the crime."
Francis.

This is the language of nature, and it is confirmed by revelation, which tells us that God is an equitable judge; that he is merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth." Exod. xxxiv. 6. IT says, "Let the wicked forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and unto our God, for he will abundantly pardon."—Isaiah, lv. 7.]

"Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his maker?"

Christ, according to covenant, having paid the infinite ransom, it might be concluded that the salvation of all men would be secured. But this, as we are told by the disciples of Calvin, would be an egregious mistake, for though the uttermost farthing has been paid, a large majority of mankind are predestinated to hell-fire, by an omnipotent decree which not even the bloody sacrifice of the Eternal Son of God could avert or annul! So that, after all, the benefits of Christ's death are extended to only a chosen few—the elect—"The rest of mankind," as the Westminster Confession of Faith charitably informs us, (c. iii. 7.) "God was pleased to pass by and ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice."

Now it is evident from this scheme, that God the Father and God the Son entertained totally contradictory views of man's first offence. Though consubstantial they are dissentient, for if they are one in mind, why did not the Son join in the curse, and demand an infinite ransom as well as the Father? Again, by whom was the ransom paid? By God the Son, or by the man Jesus? If by the former, then one person of the Godhead suffered and died to make atonement to another person, and yet both persons are the same God!—This is truly marvellous. On the other hand, if only the human nature of Christ suffered, how was the infinite debt discharged? Moreover—why is God the Holy Ghost passive or neutral in this transaction? Why did not the Third person of the Trinity demand satisfaction as well as the First? Were his ideas of justice less rigorous, his majesty less offended, or his spirit less vindictive?

These, no doubt, are audacious questions, but those whe advocate the free use of Scripture, and the right of private judgment, will excuse them. The only mode of preventing their repetition, as Mr. Maguire will candidly admit, is quiet submission to the authority of an Infallible Church.

metatron3@gmail.com

Is Christ Equal to God in Ephesian 2? By Winthrop Bailey

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

Is Christ Equal to God in Ephesian 2? By Winthrop Bailey

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.” 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?”

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

Additionally:

Ralph Martin, says in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: "It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'"

The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of its derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'"

The Greek says literally, "deemed not being-on-a-par-with-God a-thing-to-be-plucked (hARPAGMON)."

An added problem is that the word hARPAGMON is not found anywhere else in extant Greek; clearly it derives from hARPAZW, "pluck," "grasp in the hand," "seize." But if equality-with-God is something Jesus doesn't deign to grasp, is it reasonable to suppose that it is something he actually already has?

"A vigorous debate still continues around the hymnic passage. However, the suggestion that the hymn has been constructed with a strong allusion to Adam, or even modeled after the template of Adam
christology is still persuasive." p. 282, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, by James D.G. Dunn

If we read the preceding verse it tells us to "have the same attitude that was in Christ." Does that mean that we should try to be equal with God? Of course not.

metatron3@gmail.com

The Temporal Jesus (LOGOS)

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

Claim...from an email (with many spelling errors): JESUS WAS GIVEN POWERS POSSESSED ONLY BY GOD 
The diciples of Christ not only gave him the titles of Jehovah or Deity but the also attributed to him powers that only God 
possesses.  The NT writers declare that Jesus raised the dead (Jn 5, 11), and yet the OT declares, "Jehovah Killeth, and maketh alive" ( 1 Sam 2:6; cf. Deut. 32:39).  Isaiah pronounced Jehovah as "the everlasting God...the Creator of the ends of the earth" (4:9) and Jerimiah clalled him the "former of all things" (10:16); the NT writers speak of all things being created through Christ (Jn 1:2; Col 1:16).  Likewise, for the Jews "who can forgive sins but God alone?"; and yet without hesitation the NT writers attribute this power to Jesus (acts 5:31; 13:38).  Such attribution should removed all reasonable doubt as to whether they believed in the Deity of Christ.

Reply: Elijah also raised the dead (1 Ki 17; 2 Ki 4) as did Peter (Acts (9:37-40) and Paul (Acts 20:9-12). Once someone had only to touch Elisha's bones to live again.

This brings to an interesting area. As we have noted above, others have, in the Bible, not only been favorably referred to as gods, but also as Jehovah. We have even seen angels accepting the divine name for themselves. The fact is, a representative of God bears his name and authority. Let's take a look at Moses and Aaron. Ex 16:2 says, "And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron in the wilderness", but then at v. 6 it says, "Your murmurings are not against us, but against Jehovah." As representatives, Aaron and Moses could speak thus. This was repeated in Christian times. Speaking of the apostles, Acts 5 says, "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God." 38-40
This speaks of the close relationship God has with his servants. "For thus saith Jehovah of hosts...he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye." So his representatives have spoken for him, and as him. "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets many times and in many different ways. But now in these last days God has spoken to us through his Son. God has chosen his Son to own all things, and through him he made the world. The Son reflects the glory of God and shows exactly what God is like. He holds everything together with his powerful word. When the Son made people clean from their sins, he sat down at the right side of God, the Great One in heaven." Heb 1:1-3 (NCV)


Claim...from an email: Some very important things we must now close with concerning the Deity of Christ.  The first is Jn 1:1, the second is Jn 1:18; 8:58; 20:20, the third is Jesus was considered to be the Creator of the universe, and last Jesus was obeyed and worshiped by angels. Why can we not accept "the Word was a god?"  On top of Hartley's great advise lies a very simple and concrete objection.  The theological context, viz., John's monotheism, makes this rendering of 1:1c impossible, for if a monotheist were speaking of the Deity he himself reverenced, the singular THEOS could be applied only to the Supreme Being, not to an inferior divine being or emanation 
as if THEOS were simply generic.  That is, in reference to his own beliefs, a monotheist could not speak of THEOI nor could he use THEOS in the singular (when giving any type of personal discription) of any being other than the one true God whom he worshiped. On the other hand, when the polytheistic inhabitants of Malta affirmed that Paul was Theos, they were suggesting that he had or deserved a place among their owm patheon of gods. "They said that he was a god" is therefore a proper translation of Acts 28:6.

Reply: Murray Harris says that "the Word was a god" is grammatically possible, and W.E. Vine calls it the most literal rendering of the phrase, but both, like you, say it shouldn't be translated that way because it contradicts monotheism. Let us take a further look at this. The monotheistic Jews had no problem interchanging the word angel with god, and this can be proven by comparing the Masoretic Text with the LXX at Ps 8:5; 97:7; 138:1. The Jewish Christians had little problem with this either at Hebrews 2:7. Therefore the Jew had no problem with putting a lesser being in this divine position. But what does this have to do with a Trinity? Nothing! In fact the opposite. Here is what one Jew has to say about it, "The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a Trinity is to be found there or even in any way shadowed forth, is an assumption that has long held sway in theology, but is utterly without foundation. The Jews, as a people, under its teachings became stern opponents of all polytheistic tendencies, and they have remained unflinchingly monotheists to this day. On this point there is no break between the Old Testament Scriptures and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament Scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core, a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology." L.L. Paine, A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism (Boston and New York; Houghton Mifflin and Co., 1902), 4.


Claim...from an email: If you were to honestly look at Jn 1:1 you would find it clearly triadic:  each of the three clauses has the same subject (HO LOGOS) and an identical verb (ANE).  So far from being tautological, verse 2 gathers together these three seperate affirmations 
and declares them all to be true EN ARCHN:  "This LOGOS who was THEOS was in the beginning with God."  Even though Jesus Christ is not explicitly mentioned until verse 17, the evangelist clearly assumes throughout the prologue that the Logos is none other than the "only Son" (monogenes, 1:14, 18) of the Father..  In the first proposition of the verse 1 John affirms that the Logos existed before all time and creation and therefore implicitly denies that the Logos was a created being.

Reply: Again, it is only with you trinitarians that words change meanings, in this case EN ARCH/In the Beginning, no longer means in the Beginning, but "Before" the beginning. Most Bibles cross reference John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1 where "the beginning" is when God created the heavens and the earth. There is nothing in the scriptures that supports a "timeless" EN ARCH, and this is only building on Greek philosophy where time was created with the universe (see Timaeus/Plato). I have come to that conclusion by looking honestly at John 1:1. John 1:1 also parallels Prov 8 where Wisdom (i.e. the Word) is a created being. I also consider "Only Son" to be a poor translation of MONOGENHS QEOS or even UION TON MONOGENH as God also had other sons (Job 1:6; 38:7 etc).


Claim...from an email: In the second, he declares that the Logos always was in active communion with the Father and thereby implies that the Logos cannot be personally identifying with the Father, [thus illustrating the error in using Colwell's rule to argue for a definite reading of 1:1c].  In the third, he states that the Logos always was a partaker of Deity and so implicitly denies that the Logos 
was ever elevated to divine status.  The thought of the verse moves from eternal preexistence to personal intercommunion to intrinsic Deity.  Verse 1c states the basis on which vv.1a and b can be said to be true:  only because the Logos participated inherently in the Divine nature could he be said to be already in existence when time began or creation occured and to be in unbroken eternal  fellowship with the Father.  This would justify regarding THEOS as emphatic, standing as it does at the head of the clause. 
    Whereever you place the piviotal point in the prologue, verses 14 and 18 are of paramount importance.  Verse one stands in antithetical parallelism to verse 14 and in synthetic and climatic parallelism to verse 18.  The Logos who "existed in the beginning" (v.1a), "came on the human scene (egeneto)" in time (v. 14a) [notice the difference in word choice between NV in verse 1a and EGENETO in verse 14a - it is the difference between timeless and within time - just like I've been saying all along - why did the evangelist use NV in v. 1a and EGENETO in v.14a if it was not to make that very crucial distinction?].  The one who was eternally 
"in communion with God" (v. 1b), temporarily sojourned among us" (v. 14b).  "The Word had the same nature as God" (v. 1c) is paralleled by the contrasting though that "the Word assumed the same nature as humans (SARKS EGENETO)" (v. 14a).  Verses 1 and 18 share references to timeless existence (NV ter, v.1; HO WV, v. 18c), intimate fellowship (pros tov theov, v. 1b; eis tov kolpov tou patros, v. 18c), and predicated Deity (THOES, vv. 1c; 18b).  Where v. 18 advances beyond verse 1 is in its grounding of the validity and accuracy of the Son's revelation (EXNGNSATO) of the Father in his oneness with the Father in nature (THEOS) and fellowship (EIS TOV KOLPOV).  And, as you will see shortly, this 1c verse is strategically placed.  It is the first of three stratigically placed verses to unveil the Nature of Christ in the fourth gospel (1:1c; 1:18; 20:28).  These three verses unequivocally affirm the essential Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Reply:  Well, you have alot of grammatical acrobatics above to prove...what is it exactly? A Trinity? Again, does any of the above really prove that Jesus is part of a Triune relationship? If John had wanted to place hO LOGOS prior to the beginning, then he would have used the preposition PRO (before) instead of EN (in). If one is IN something, be it a place or time, one is not necessarily before it. For example when the LOGOS in Jn 1:10 was in (HN) the world, he was not ALWAYS in the world, because as 1:9 shows us he was in the process of coming INTO the world before that point. You are assuming something not there. As someone else has put it earlier: "Consider John 1:10 EN TWi KOSMWi HN KAI O KOSMOS DI AUTOU EGENETO. Here we have a grammatical parallel to the EN ARXHi HN hO LOGOS with the preposition EN (IN) being followed by the dative. This dative is locative while John 1:1 is temporal, but the concept is still 'in or in the realm of'" (see Porter's Idioms 156). Take note that even though the world EGENETO through the Word, that the HN does not indicate that the Word was "in the world" from all eternity. This verse simply means what is says. While it is true that the state is continuous it is equally true that the Word did not remain in the world for all eternity nor was he there from eternity. The period of time is made visible by the writer even though the aspect is continuous. Now let us look at John 1:3-4 hO GEGONEN EN AUTW ZWH HN KAI H ZWH HN TO FWS TWN ANQRWPWN. This example is a bit of an enigma, however when one takes a look at the syntax of the phrase which includes both GINOMAI and HN one can see that it does not necessarily prove a difference between what "was made" and what "was." Using the punctuation as accepted by most modern scholars, we find that what came into existence (hO GEGONEN) is said to enter into the state of HN, which happens to be the complete opposite of the Trinitarian theory that beings with these properties are mutually exclusive. Others have come to the same conclusion that the LOGOS is not eternal, like Bultmann (The Gospel of John, 21); Moses Stuart, (Exegetical and Theological Examination of John 1:1-18), who himself says, "To say, as some have said, the HN[was] of itself denotes timeless existence....seems not to be well founded in the laws of grammatical usage."

We know also that the angels were present at the beginning of creation (Gen 1:26, Job 38:7), but to say that "in the beginning were the angels/EN ARCHE ESAN HOI ANGELOI means that the angels are eternal is just ridiculous. In the part of the LOGOS, this is a desperate attempt to try to put a 4th or 5th century philosophy into the plain reading of scripture.

I will let John A. T. Robinson finish this off nicely, "The Greek runs: KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS. The so-called Authorized Version has: 'And the Word was God.' This would indeed suggest the view that 'Jesus' and 'God' were identical and interchangeable. But in Greek this would most naturally be represented by 'God' with the article, not QEOS but hO QEOS. But, equally, St. John is not saying that Jesus is a 'divine' man, in the sense with which the ancient world was familiar or in the sense that Liberals spoke of him. That would be QEIOS. The Greek expression steers carefully between the two. It is impossible to represent it in a single English word, but the New English Bible, I believe, gets the sense pretty exactly with its rendering, 'And what God was, the Word was.' In other words, if one looked at Jesus, one saw God--for he who has seen me, has seen the Father . . . Through him, as through no one else, God spoke and God acted; when one met him one was met . . . by God" (Robinson 70-71).

Since the scriptures do not speak of Jesus/LOGOS as having existed from eternity, we must rely on what IS revealed. What is revealed is that Jesus/LOGOS is described with temporal terms such as Son, only-begotten Son/god (John 1:18, 3:16 MONOGENHS), firstborn (Col 1:15), and beginning (Col 1:17, Rev 3:14). Since the bible describes the LOGOS with these temporal terms, this therefore is strong evidence that he has not existed from eternity. To do so one needs to redefine the term "begotten," which indicates a beginning, the opposite of eternal begetting! In view of the Bible's use of this kind of language regarding Jesus, we must consider this strong evidence of the Son's temporal origin. John 1:1c distinguishes the godship of the LOGOS from HO QEOS because the LOGOS was *with* hO QEOS. They are not presented as two equal gods. In fact, John 1:18 adjectivally modifies the godship of the LOGOS by calling him the *only-begotten* god, rather than QEOS in an unqualified sense. This subordinate only-begotten god had a beginning ("only-begotten"), which is in perfect harmony with the monotheism of the first century. Even if you prefer "unique" for MONOGENHS, it raises the question of how the godship of the LOGOS is "unique" in comparison with HO QEOS.

The Platonism of the Early Fathers By Alvan Lamson 1865

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 Platonism of the Early Fathers By Alvan Lamson 1865

Justin [Martyr], in what he teaches of the Logos, drew from other sources, and not from the sacred writings, or from primitive Christian antiquity.

The inference just stated, we conceive, would be authorized, were the evidence that Justin's sentiments respecting the Logos corresponded in their essential features with those of the later or Alexandrian Platonists far less satisfactory than it is. But this evidence is absolutely irrefragable. Look at the concessions of Trinitarians themselves. Few names stand higher in the Romish Church than those of Petavius and Huet, or Huetius: the latter, Bishop of Avranches, a learned man, and the original editor of Origen's Commentaries on the New Testament; the former, a Jesuit, profoundly versed, as his writings prove, in a knowledge of Christian antiquity. Among Protestants, Cudworth, author of the "Intellectual System," stands preeminent for erudition; and Mosheim, and many will add Horsley, the antagonist of Dr. Priestley, have no mean fame. Yet all these — and we might mention several others, all belonging to the ranks of Trinitarians — admit, in substance, the charge of Platonism brought against the Fathers. Horsley says expressly that the Platonizing Fathers were "the Orthodox of their age," and contends for "such a similitude" between the doctrine of the Fathers and Platonists "as speaks a common origin"; and Cudworth has instituted a very labored comparison to show that "there is no so great difference," as he expresses it, "between the genuine Platonic Trinity, rightly understood, and the Christian." Brucker, the historian of Philosophy, also a Trinitarian, gives in his learned work the result of a diligent examination of the writings of Justin, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others. His conclusion, in which he is fully borne out by his citations, is, that the taint of Platonism strongly adhered to these Fathers; and that, through their writings, the whole Church, in fact, became infected.

The great points of resemblance between the views of the Platonists and those of the Christian Fathers, and of Justin in particular, on the subject of the Logos, Son, or- second God, may be stated in few words. Plato had spoken of God, and his reason or logos, embracing the patterns or archetypes of things afterwards formed. The latter, sometimes called also the intellect of God, he pronounces "the divinest of all things," and admits it into the number of his primary principles. Whether he regarded it as having a real and proper subsistence, or as only an attribute represented as a person by a sort of poetical fiction, it is of no consequence to determine. It is acknowledged that he sometimes speaks of it in terms that, literally understood, (which, however, they probably were never intended to be,) would lead to the supposition that he considered it a real being, distinct from the Supreme God, or united with him only as proceeding from the fountain of his divinity. Certain it is that it was so explained by bis later followers of the Egyptian school, especially after they had become acquainted with the Oriental doctrine of emanations.

Of the opinions of this school, Philo, a learned Jew of Alexandria, who flourished soon after the Christian era, — and who has been called the Jewish Plato, from the striking resemblance of his opinions to those of the Athenian sage, — may be regarded as a fair representative; and his writings were the immediate source whence Justin and the Fathers derived their doctrine of the Logos. Fortunately, these writings, the bulk of them at least, have been preserved; and from them we may gather the sentiments of the Alexandrian Platonists of his time. He admits that there is one Supreme God; but supposes that there is a second God, inferior to him, and begotten of him, called his reason, Logos: the term, as we have seen, employed by Plato to designate his second principle. To this Logos, or intelligent nature, emanating from God, as he considers it, he attributes all the properties of a real being, and calls him God's "first-born Logos, the most ancient angel, as it were an archangel with many names." [De Confus. Ling., c. 28; Opp., i. 426, 427,, ed. Mang.] To this "archangel, the most ancient Logos, the Father omnipotent," he says, "granted the preeminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separate the created from the Creator; he is continually a suppliant to the immortal God in behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador sent by the ruler of all to the subject race; being neither unbegotten as God, nor begotten as man, but occupying a middle place between the extremes, being a hostage to both." [Quis Rerum Div. Hoeres, c. 42; Opp., i. 501, 502.] He applies the title "God" to him; not using the term, he is careful to say, in its highest sense. When used without the article, as here, he says, referring to the passage in Genesis on which he is commenting, it can be understood only in its secondary sense, the article being prefixed when the Supreme God is referred to. What is "here called God," he says, "is his most ancient Logos." [De Somniis, lib. i. c. 89; Opp., i. 655.] At other times, he speaks of him as the image of God; "the image of God," he says, "is his most ancient Logos"; [De Confus. Ling., c. 28; Opp., i. 427.] and, again, as the Reason of God, embracing, like Plato's Logos, the ideas or archetypes according to which the sensible world was framed. He calls God the fountain of the Logos, and the Logos his instrument, or minister, in forming, preserving, and governing the world; his messenger, and the interpreter of his will to man. [In a fragment preserved by Easebius, Philo remarks upon a passage in Genesis (ix. 6), which reads, according to the Septuagint version, "For in the image of God did I make man." "This divine oracle," he says, "is full of beauty and wisdom. For it was not possible that anything mortal should be formed after the image of the Most High, the Father of the universe; it could only be formed in the image of the second God, who is his Logos (or Reason). It was necessary that the stamp of reason on the soul of man should be impressed by the divine Logos; for the God above (or before, PRO) the Logos is superior to every rational nature; and it was not lawful that anything begotten should be made like Him who is above (hUPER) the Logos, and subsists in a form the most excellent and peculiar to himself."]

[Prap. Evang., lib. vii. c. 13, or Philo, Opp., ii. 625. The passage is taken by Eusebius from Philo's Questions and Solutions on Genesis. In the Armenian version of this work, published by Aucher in 1826 with a Latin translation, it is found in Sen*, ii. c. 62. — Ed.]