Thursday, May 31, 2018

The Manipulation of Acts 7:59 in Protestant Bibles

Acts 7:59 KJV: And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

Acts 7:59 NASB: And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”

Acts 7:59 NIV: While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Acts 7:59 NWT: As they were stoning Stephen, he made this appeal: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Here we have 4 different translations of this one Scripture.

The King James Version has the word "God" here...a word that is NOT in the Greek text or any Greek Manuscript so it should not be used here.

The New American Standard Bible, you know, that great literal Bible that is supposedly the most accurate, has "called upon the Lord" here. Here as well, the word "Lord" is NOT in the Greek text or any Greek Manuscript so it should not be used here also.

The New International Version has the word "prayed" here for EPIKALEW. How else has the NIV used this word?

Go to Acts 25:11 "I appeal [EPIKALEW] to Caesar!"

The NIV also uses EPIKALEW in the next verse (Acts 25:12) "You have appealed [EPIKALEW] to Caesar."

The NIV also uses EPIKALEW at Acts 25:21 "But when Paul made his appeal [EPIKALEW] to be held over for the Emperor’s decision, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar."

So Stephen actually "appealed" (not PRAYED) to Jesus, just as Paul "appealed" to Caesar.

So it appears that the New World Translation is the most correct translation above.

As is often the case, the only way that these mainstream Protestant Bibles can make a Scripture read in such a way as to promote the deity of Christ is to either manipulate the underlying text or manipulate the translation.


Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Jesus as the Archangel Michael - The Evidence


The belief or idea that Jesus could be identified as Michael has a very old pedigree. Consider:

John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3,
page 2048 states:
"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl.

Protestant Reformer JOHN CALVIN said regarding "Michael" in its occurence at Daniel 12:1:

"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing  forward for the defense of his elect people."
J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.

WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER, DOCTOR OF DIVINITY, stated:

There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--William L. Alexander, ed., A CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, originally edited by John Kitto,  3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158

From Brittanica.com:
"Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology, which had already played a role in Rome in the early 2nd century--namely, the so-called angel-Christology. The descent of the Son to Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who became man in Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael. In the old angel-Christology the concern is already expressed to preserve the oneness of God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim--i.e., defending the idea of the oneness of the Christian concept of God against all reproaches that Christianity introduces a new, more sublime form of polytheism."

A Bible Dictionary published by Logos International, an evangelical Protestant outfit, says:
"Michael ... in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of the angelic army. So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." -- INTERNATIONAL BIBLE DICTIONARY -- ILLUSTRATED (Plainfield, NJ, Logos International, 1977), p. 35

Regarding the occurence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10, Methodist commentator ADAM CLARKE remarked:

"By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume commentary -- not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon Press, vol. 6, page 952).

LANGE'S COMMENTARY calls the figure here(Rev 12:7-10) "the warlike form of Christ." J.P. Lange's COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, s.v. Rev. 12:7

AN EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE, produced by 27 different scholars, says of Michael:

"It is even itself probable that the Leader of the hosts of light (in Rev. 12:7-9) will be no other than the Captain of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.... Above all, the prophecies of Daniel, in which the name Michael first occurs, may be said to decide the point." -- publ. in Hartford, CT, 1910, by the Scranton Co., vol. 6, p.882

Matthew Henry Commentary:
Concerning Revelation 12:9 in Henry's unabridged and concise commentaries.
2. The parties-Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their salvation.
Verses 7-11 The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and his instruments.

Concerning Daniel 10 in Henry's unabridged commentary.
Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but an archangel of the highest order, 1 Th. 4:16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5.

John Wesley:

Chapter XII
A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.

Wesley on Daniel 10:21
Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it. http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/daniel.htm

Geneva Study Bible:

Da 12:1
12:1 And at that {a} time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since
there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
(a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.

Da 10:1310:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (h) Meaning Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence, and did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church. (i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels.

"The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at.  That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage.  Hofmann (Schriftbeweis i., p. 296) objects to this explanation, and says, 'in this case it is impossible to imagine why the Archangel should be mentioned as fighting with the dragon, and not the child that was caught up to the throne of God.' But we have already replied to this in the commentary, where we said, 'if Michael be Christ, the question arises why Michael is mentioned here instead of Christ'. The answer to this is, that the name Michael [Who is like God?, that is, 'Who dares to claim that they are like God?'] contains in itself an intimation that the work referred to here, the decisive victory over Satan, belongs to Christ, not as human, but rather as divine [compare 1 John iii. 8].  Moreover, this name forms a connecting link between the Old Testament and the New.  Even in the Old Testament, Michael is represented as the great prince, who fights on
behalf of the Church (Dan. xii. 1).' The conflict there alluded to was a prediction and prelude of the one mentioned hero.  The further objections offered by Hofmann rest upon his very remarkable interpretation of chap. xii., which is not likely to be adopted by any who are capable of examining for themselves."

—Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel publication).
               
Paul says, 'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" and the dead in Christ will rise first.' I Thes. iv. 16.  From this text it appears that when the Lord shall descend with a shout, his voice will be that of the Archangel, or head Messenger; therefore the Lord must be that head Messenger. This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the Archangel; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be raised by his voice. He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John v. 26, 28, 29.

Brown's dictionary of the Bible on the words Michael, and Angel says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel. 

Wood's Spiritual Dictionary teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown's does. The former was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist. 

Buck in his Theological Dictionary says, under the article Angel, d) that Christ is in scripture frequently called an Angel.

Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.

Doctor Coke, a Methodist bishop, in his notes on the Bible, acknowledges that Christ is sometimes called an Angel. See his notes of that passage where the Angel of the Lord spake to the people at Bochim.

Winchester has taught the same doctrine in the 152 page of the first volume of his lectures on the prophecies.

Whitefield, in his sermon on the bush that burnt and was not consumed, says that the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush was Christ.

Pool, in his Annotations, explains those passages where the Lord appeared to the Patriarchs under the character of an Angel, as referring to Jesus Christ.

Bunyan makes the pilgrim ascribe his deliverance from Apollyon to Michael. He says, "Blessed Michael helped me." Pilgrim's Progress, Cincinnati edition, page 54.

Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev. xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.

Doctor Watts in his [G]lories of Christ, page[s] 200, 201, 202, 218, 223, and 224, teaches the same doctrine. 

Watts, Dodridge and some others have called this Angel of the covenant, or Angel of God's presence Christ's human soul, whom they think was the first Being that God ever created.

Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7.

"the influence of the late-Jewish speculation about the archangel Michael in the earlier period of Post-Apostolic Christianity helped to preserve the Angel-Christology: indeed it even provided new stimulus for the further development of Christology. In his day Wilhelm Bousset had already alluded to the fact, being the first to do so, in his writing about the 'Antichrist'. The figure of the archangel Michael had perhaps already influenced Philo's speculation about the Logos, and Philo bad affected Christian authors of the Post-Apostolic period. in any case Philo did not identify the Logos with the Messiah, but with an archangel,s and he predicated to him that which was appropriate to the archangel Michael. Thus the late-Jewish speculation about Michael (which imparted Messianic traits to the archangel), the Philonic Logos-doctrine and the PostApostolic Logos-Christology appear in a sequence and indicate that the late-Jewish doctrine of angels was their common presupposition." ~Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 133

Clement of Alexandria, 153—193—217 C.E. explains:

Formerly the older people [the Israelites] had an old covenant, and the law disciplined the people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but the fresh and new people  [the Christians] has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear turned into love, and that mystic angel is born—Jesus.—The Instructor, Book I, chapter VII (7); ANF, Vol. II, p. 224.

Hippolytus, 170—236 C.E.:

"And lo, Michael." and Who is Michael but the angel assigned to the people? As (God) says to Moses. "I will not go with you in the way, because the people are stiff-necked; but my angel shall go with you.—Scholia On Daniel, 13; ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 190. (Compare, Exodus 14:19; 23:20, 3; 32:34; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Insight On The Scriptures, Volume 2,  p. 816, paragraph 9.)

Melito, 160-170-177 C.E.: (estimated dates of composition):

He who in the law is the Law; among the priests, Chief Priest; among kings, the Ruler; among prophets, the Prophet; among the angels, Archangel; in the voice of the preacher, the Word; among spirits, the Spirit; in the Father, the Son; in God, God; King for ever and ever.—On Faith; ANF, Vol. VIII (8), pp. 756-7.

In Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning The Shepherd of Hermas, of the 2nd or 3rd century:

In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God's inner council, and who is regularly described as 'most venerable', 'holy' and 'glorious'. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael...Christ's pre-existence, was generally taken for granted, as was His role creation as well as redemption. This theme, which could point to Pauline and Johannine parallels, chimed in very easily with creative functions assigned to Wisdom in later Judaism...There is evidence also...of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel ... Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church's triadic formula left its mark everywhere—pp. 94-5.

(see also Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible)-The Shepherd of Hermas was so near and dear to the ante-Nicene Fathers that many of them considered it canonical scripture.

"For Justin the Logos-Christ was, therefore, the archistrategos, the highest angel-prince and leader of the angelic host." Werner, ibid. 135

Scripture Proof:

Michael has authority over the angels (Rev.12:7) and so does Jesus Christ (Mat.16:27; 25:31; 2Thes.1:7).

Michael leads the angels to defeat Satan and hurl him to earth (Re 12:7). So does Jesus. (Re 19:13,19).

At 1Thes.4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel. The Greek for 'with an archangel's voice' is literally 'EN FWNHi ARXAGGELOU', in the oblique dative case. In all other occurrences of this idiom in the Greek New Testament it describes the voice of the subject in the clause.
See: BAGD, page 878, [FWNH/phone - 1. Voice]
All these references have 'phone' (FWNH) in an oblique case, genitive or dative, thus signifying not just a noise, but a voice.
+ [Re 5:2] NRSV And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice:
[ EN FWNHi (dat.) MEGALH (WH)]
+ Re 14:7 (cf 9)] NRSV said in a loud voice: [ LEGWN EN FWNHi (dat.)
MEGALH (WH) ]
+ Joh 5:28] NRSV Do not astonished at this; for the hour is coming in
which all those who are in their graves will hear his voice [ AKOUSOUSIN
THS FWNHS (gen.) AUTOU (WH) ]
+ 1Th 4:16 ] NWT because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with
a commanding call, [ EN KELEUSMATI (WH) ] with an archangel's voice [ EN
FWNHi (dat.) ARXAGGELOU (WH) ] and with God's trumpet, and those who are
dead in union with Christ will rise first.
+ Ac 9:7 ] NRSV (not referenced in BAGD) The men who were traveling
with him stood speechless because they heard the voice, [ AKOUONTES MEN THS FWNHS (gen.) (WH) ] but saw no one.
See also: Lu 4:33; Rev 5:2; 7:2; 10:3; 14:7,9,15,18;19:17; Ac 7:60.

What about Heb 1:5, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee?" The main point of Hebrews 1 is to elevate Jesus above the angels (an elevation that an Almighty would not need). Hence the ARCH in ARCHangel.

If the title "archangel" also applied to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel's voice" would not be appropriate.

Jesus has been given authority by his Father to raise the dead. (Jn.5:25,26).
But the voice of the archangel also raises the dead (1Thes. 4:16; cf Dan.12:2).

Michael is called "the great prince" (Dan. 12:1).
Christ is called a "princely ruler" and "prince of peace" (Isa.9:6).

In Daniel chapter 7, there is a prophecy about the march of world powers to the end of the age. At the climax of that prophecy we read that "someone like a son of man" was "given rulership and dignity and kingdom," and that one is Jesus Christ. (Dan.7:13, 14)

In another prophecy Daniel wrote that reached down to "the time of the end" (Dan.10:13;11:40) Michael would stand up: "And during that time Michael will stand up." (Da 12:1) In Daniel's prophecy, 'standing up' frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as King. (Dan.11:2-4,7,16,20,21)
Michael's "standing" indicates a ruler and supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah's/Yahweh's appointed King.
Both prophecies deal with the same time and the same event...thus the conclusion is obvious.

Satan is abyssed by an *angel* for a thousand years. (Rev.20:1, 2, 10)
The demons identified Christ as the one who was to hurl them into the "abyss" (Mt 8:29).

The nations are destroyed by Jesus and *his* army of angels. (Rev.12:12; 17:16, 17; 19:11-16)
Jesus is also prophesied as the seed that is to crush Satan's head (Gen.3:15), but yet Michael with "his angels" does this in Revelation 12.

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Irenaeus and the Trinity Doctrine


Irenaeus and the Trinity Doctrine

From Alvan Lamson:

Irenaeus has left on record a summary or summaries of the faith of Christians of his day, in language, however, which will not satisfy the demands of a later orthodoxy. With the
preceding Fathers...he agreed in assigning to the Son a separate existence, making him inferior to the Father; but the mode of his generation he would not discuss, deeming it inexplicable. In his antagonism to the Gnostic doctrine of emanations, he was led to connect with the Son the terms "always " and "eternal"; it is difficult to define in what sense. He wants clearness, and his notions seem not to have been well defined even to himself. "Who," he asks, with the prophet, "can declare his generation? No one. No one knows it; not Valentinus, not Marcion, neither Saturninus, nor Basilides, nor angels, nor archangels, nor princes, nor powers, none but the Father who begat, and the Son who was begotten." He is very careful, however, on all occasions to distinguish the Son from the "One true and only God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other." Take two or three passages as specimens. "The Father is above all, and is himself the head of Christ." "John preached one God supreme over all, and one only-begotten Son Jesus Christ." "The Church dispersed throughout all the world has received from the Apostles and their disciples this belief—in one God the Father, supreme over all ... and in one Jesus Christ .... and in the Holy Spirit, that through the prophets preached the dispensations," etc. We could fill pages with similar passages. No language could more clearly and positively assert the supremacy of the Father.

The Father sends, the Son is sent; the Father commands, the Son executes, ministering to his will. The Father grants, the Son receives power and dominion. The Father gives him the "heritage of the nations," and "subjects all his enemies to him." These and similar expressions which form his current phraseology, — which are interwoven, in fact, with the texture of his whole work against heresies, — could not have been employed by one who conceived of the Son as numerically the same being with the Father, or as in any sense his equal.

Again: he quotes the words of the Saviour (Mark xiii. 32)

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father," without any attempt to explain them away, or evade the obvious inference. He admits their truth in the simplest and broadest sense, and thence adduces an argument for humility. "If the Son," says he, "was not ashamed to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father, neither should we be ashamed to reserve the solution of difficult questions to God." He goes further. Far from denying the inference to be drawn from the expression referred to, he expressly admits it. Our Saviour, he observes, used this expression that "we might learn from him that the Father is above all; for 'the Father,' he says, 'is greater than I.' The doctrine of two natures, by the help of which modern Trinitarians attempt to evade the force of this and similar passages, was not as yet invented.

From Joseph Priestley:

Irenaeus seems to have considered the Holy Spirit as a divine influence. "By the name of Christ," he says, "we are given to understand one who annoints, one who is annointed. It is the Father who annoints, but the Son is annointed in the Spirit."

Monday, May 28, 2018

The Mysterious Book of Genesis - 100 Books to Download


Only $5.00 -  You can pay using the Cash App by sending money to $HeinzSchmitz and send me an email at theoldcdbookshop@gmail.com with your email for the download. You can also pay using Facebook Pay in Messenger


Books Scanned from the Originals into PDF format


Books are in the public domain. I will take checks or money orders as well. 

Contents:

A Mohawk Legend of Adam and Eve 1892

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil by J.H. M'ilvaine 1847

The Lilith Legend 1912

Lilith - the Legend of the First Woman by Ada Langworthy Collier 1885

The Book of Adam and Eve also called The conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, a book of the early Eastern Church 1882

The First Adam and the Second - the Elohim revealed in the creation and redemption of man by Samuel J Baird 1860

Lilith - Adams First Wife, article in Sunday Magazine 1884

Adamitics - Essays on Man's First Language by Anthony De Velics 1914

Tales from the Talmud By E. R. Montague ("It will be remembered that at some period of his life Adam lived with Lilith as his wife. No more picturesque figure than Lilith can be found in legend") 1908

Semitic Magic by R Campbell Thompson 1908 (has a section on Lilith)

The Weird Orient - 8 Mystic Tales by Henry Iliowizi 1900

The Beginnings of History According to the Bible and the Traditions of Oriental Peoples by Francois Lenormant 1882

The Vengeful Brood of Lilith and Samael by RP Dow 1917

The Woman-Headed Serpent in Art, article in the 19th Century 1902

Adam's Two Wives, article in The Theosophical Review 1906

The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East by Charles Francis Horne - 1917 (has "The Lives of Adam and Evev", "The Apocalypse of Moses" and "The Slavonic Book of Eve")

Legends of the Patriarch and Prophets by S Baring Gould 1884

Plant Lore, Legends and Lyrics By Richard Folkard 1884 (deals with the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life)

In Praise of Legend by EE Holmes 1913





Leading Cases in the Bible by David Werner Amram 1905 ("The story of Adam and Eve....contains elements interesting to the sociologist and the lawyer.")

Adam and Eve, History Or Myth? by LT Townsend 1904

Bible Romances By George William Foote 1922

An Essay on the Mythological Significance of Tree and Serpent Worship 1870

Mythology Among the Hebrews by Ignaz Goldziher 1877

Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions By Thomas William Doane 1882

The Worship of the Serpent Traced Throughout the World by John Bathurst Deane - 1830

Were Adam and Eve our First Parents? 1865

The Mysteries of All Nations by James Grant 1880

The Legends of the Jews, Volume 1 by Louis Ginzberg 1909 (To banish his loneliness, Lilith was first given to Adam as wife. Like him she had been created out of the dust of the ground. But she remained with him only a short time, because she insisted upon enjoying full equality with her husband. She derived her rights from their identical origin. With the help of the Ineffable Name, which she pronounced, Lilith flew away from Adam, and vanished in the air.")

The Legends of the Jews, Volume 2 by Louis Ginzberg 1909

The Legends of the Jews, Volume 3 by Louis Ginzberg 1909

The Legends of the Jews, Volume 4 by Louis Ginzberg 1909

Lilith - Adam's First Wife and Progeny (article) 1908

The Private Life of Adam and Eve - Extracts from their Diaries Translated from the Original Mss by Mark Twain 1893

The Demonology of the Old Testament by W.O.E. Oesterley 1907

The Permanent Value of the Book of Genesis by CWE Body 1894

Genesis and Geology - The Holy Word of God Defebded from its Assailants by Joseph Baylee 1857

Moses and Geology, the Harmony of the Bible with Science by Samuel Kinns 1885

The Serpent in Genesis 1887

The Serpent of Eden: a Philological and Critical Essay by José P. VAL D'EREMAO - 1888

Genesis and Its Authorship: Two Disserations by John Quarry - 1866

Genesis and Semitic Tradition by John D Davis 1894

The Chaldean Account of Genesis by George Smith 1876





The Early Traditions of Genesis by Alex R Gordon 1907

A Jewish Interpretation of the Book of Genesis by Julian Morgenstern - 1920

The Book of Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge by Elwood Worcester - 1901

Legends of Babylon and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew Tradition by Leonard William King - 1918

Notes on the Text of the Book of Genesis by GJ Spurrell 1887

The Origin of the Pentateuch by Harold M Wiener 1912

History of the Fallen Angels of Scripture by Josiah Priest - 1837

Spiritism and the Fallen Angels in the Light of the Old and New Testaments by James Martin Gray - 1920

The Bible History of Satan 1858

The Bible Doctrine of Man - The Anthropology and Psychology of Scripture by John Laidlaw 1895

Myth and Legend in the Bible by Keighley Snowden 1915

Legends of Old Testament Characters by S Baring Gould 1871

The Book of Jubilees - The Little Genesis by RH Charles 1902

The Fallen Angels and the Heroes of Mythology by Rev. John Fleming 1879

The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin by FR Tennant 1903

Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel by TK Cheyne 1907

Was Enoch a Solar Myth by A Ben Shemesh 1885

Genesis 1 and Modern Science by Charles B Warring 1892

Genesis 1 & 2: an Essay on the Bible Narrative of Creation by A.R. Grote 1881

The Babylonian and the Hebrew Genesis by Heinrich Zimmern 1901

The Creation Story of Genesis 1 - Sumerian Theogony and Cosmogony by Dr Hugo Radau 1902

The Genesis of Genesis, a Study of the Documentary Sources of the 1st Book of Moses by Benjamin Wisner Bacon 1892

The Legends of Genesis by Hermann Gunkel 1901

The Types of Genesis by Andrew Jukes 1885





Heathen Mythology Corroborative or Illustrative of Holy Scripture by Hugh Barclay 1884

The Possible Sumerian Original of the name Nimrod 1920

The Two Babylons - Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and his Wife by the Rev. Alexander Hislop 1858

The Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science by J William Dawson 1888

The Pentateuchal Story of Creation, article in the Presbyterian Quarterly 1888

Genesis One, by Anne Young 1900

The First Page of the Bible by Fr Bettex 1908

The Two Creation Stories in Genesis by James S Forrester-Brown 1920

Paradise, Lost and Won by Martin M Morrison 1903

Moses and the Philosophers, Volume 1 by Stephen Alexander Hodgman 1881

Moses and the Philosophers, Volume 2 by Stephen Alexander Hodgman 1881

Scripture Symbolism by Edward Craig Mitchell 1904

An Esoteric Reading of Biblical Symbolism by Harriet Tuttle Bartlett - 1920

The First Chapter of Genesis as the Rock Foundation for Science and Religion by Albert Leverett Gridley - 1913

Dissertations on the Philosophy of the Creation and the First Ten Chapters of Genesis Allegorized in Mythology by William Galloway 1885

Pre-Adamites - the Existence of Men before Adam by Alexander Winchell 1860

The Heroes and Crises of Early Hebrew History by Charles Foster Kent 1908

Hebrew Ideals from the Story of the Patriarchs by James Strahan 1906

The Secret of Genesis - The Legends and Their Interpretation from the Fall of the Angels to the Building of the Tower of Babel 1907 By George St. Clair

Historical Geography of Bible Lands by John B Calkin 1904

The Cult of the Heavenly Twins by James Rendel Harris 1906

Genesis Critically and Exegetically Expounded, Volume 1 by August Dillman 1897

Genesis Critically and Exegetically Expounded, Volume 2 by August Dillman 1897

The Early Narratives of Genesis by Herbert Edward Ryle - 1892

Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament by JH Kurtz 1863

Earth's Earliest Ages and their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy by GH Pember 1889

The Sacred Tree (The tree in religion and myth) by Mrs JH Philpot 1897

Genesis in Advance of Present Science, A Critical Investigation of Chapters 1 to 9 1883  - (But now to this sister-wife theory. Is it true? Can it be true? Let it be duly weighed, that not a single passage is ever adduced, or can be adduced, to show that, either Kain or Seth married a sister.)

The Story of Creation by Gibson C Andrews 1901

Serpent-Worship and other Essays by C Staniland Wake 1888

Abraham, Joseph, and Moses in Egypt by Alfred H Kellogg 1887

Israel in Egypt, The Books of Genesis and Exodus 1854

Anacalypsis, an Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis - An inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations, and Religions, Volume 1 by Godfrey Higgins 1878

Anacalypsis, an Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis - An inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations, and Religions, Volume 2 by Godfrey Higgins 1878

Sunday, May 27, 2018

In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was the Father.


From The Doctrine of the Trinity Not Comprised in “the Faith which was Once Delivered Unto the Saints" by Fletcher Blakeley 1846

No part of Scripture has, I believe, been more insisted on as furnishing proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, than the introduction to the Gospel according to John:—“In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.” Several very distinguished divines consider these terms as spoken of God himself, who called all things into existence by the word of his mouth; and who is represented in the third verse as having brought to pass all things connected with the Christian dispensation. This rendering is adopted by a number of the most eminent Greek scholars, who assert that the term which is translated “was made,” occurs hundreds of times in the original language of the New Testament, but never in the sense of create. I shall, however, for the present, take the usual interpretation of Trinitarians, allowing them to think of the conclusion, which is the unavoidable result of their own premises. They must remember, then, that they are not, according to their tenets, to confound the persons of the Godhead;— that is, they are not to put the Son for the Father, nor either for the Holy Spirit. They tell us, that by the Word is meant the Son; if so, the conclusion, to which this interpretation will bring them, is destructive of their theory. The meaning will be,—“In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was the Father.” By using the term person, the same result will unavoidably follow:—“In the beginning was the second person, and the second person was with the first person, and the second person was the first person.” Let our orthodox logicians calmly look at the conclusion to which their own premises bring them:—a conclusion which completely nullifies their doctrine of three persons. This text, after all, contains no language that would lead an unprejudiced reader even to suspect it of comprising within it anything about a Trinity. 

Saturday, May 26, 2018

Behold a Green Horse (1844 Article)


Behold a Green Horse (Published in:- Hyponoia: Or, Thoughts on a Spiritual Understanding of the Apocalypse 1844)

'And lo, a pale horse.'—The word translated pale, CLWROS, is elsewhere rendered green; as Matt. vi. 39, Rev. viii. 7, green grass: and Rev. ix. 4, "every green thing." This Greek term occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and in the Septuagint it is cited only to express the colour, green. The reason for rendering the word pale in our translation, may be, that the term is supposed to be applicable to pale green; but grass green is not pale green, and we find it as much used in the description of dark green colours as of light. Our translators would probably say, that no one had ever seen a green horse, and, therefore, this could not be green; but they might as well say, that no one had seen an animal with seven heads and ten horns, and therefore the description in the Greek of the great red dragon should be rendered by some other terms. ["And I looked, and beholde a grene horsse, and his name that sat on him was Deeth."—(The Tyndale version of 1534, according to Bagster's Hexapla.)]

Green, however, is the colour here, and there must be as much reason for the green colour of this horse, as there is for the black, red, and white of the other horses. Metaphorically, green may be put for fresh, and signify strength; or, if it be a yellowish green, it may be put for fear, or something of a pallid colour; but according to the Septuagint, this word CLWROS, so far from signifying a pallid colour, is applied to a green flourishing tint, in opposition to a fading, or pale hue. It is not only applied to herbs, grass, and trees, it is used for them; as Gen. ii. 5, and Deut. xxix. 23, (see Trommii Concord. 687.)

The colour of a thing, in Scripture, is frequently put for the thing itself; as Gen. xxv. 30, give me some of that red, (that is, red pottage.) So, red is put for blood, white for light, and black for sackcloth. Grass, or herbage, generally is the covering of the earth, it is also the food furnished by the earth and it is strictly and immediately a product of the earth. Its beauty, and its goodness, are but transient; in the morning it springeth up, in the evening it is cut down and withereth: as it is said, "The grass withereth, and the flower thereof fadeth." So, a drought destroys its nutritious qualities—it is incapable of withstanding the scorching heat of the sun. In all these particulars, there is an analogy between this green clothing of the earth and the pretended clothing of self-righteousness. Man weaves a garment of salvation, as he supposes, of his own merits, which endures but for a little time, and then vanishes away. The manifestation of the sun of righteousness is as the scorching heat to it—it is incapable of standing in the day of trial, when the fire of revealed truth burns as an oven. It is incapable, too, of furnishing the means of eternal life. Instead of sustaining the sinner, it sustains and gives power to the principles of his everlasting destruction. Thus the power, or horse, represented in this exhibition, is a figure of the power or tendency of self-righteous systems. This horse is distinguished by the clothing, the covering, the uniform, or livery, of these systems. The rider of this horse is sustained by this tendency of man's self-justification; as the rider of the white horse was sustained by the opposite principle of justification by the righteousness of Christ.

Friday, May 25, 2018

The LOGOS as the Angel of Jehovah, by Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg


For a list of all of my disks and ebooks click here

The LOGOS as the Angel of Jehovah, by Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg

From Christology of the Old Testament 1865

That the angel of the Lord is the Logos of John, who is connected with the supreme God by unity of nature, but personally distinct from him, was...the universal doctrine of the early Church. The Fathers of the first Synod in Antioch, in a letter sent to Paul of Samosata before his deposition (Colet. conc, coll Vend i. p. 866, 70), affirm that "the angel of the father, being himself Lord and God, MEGALHS BOULHS AGGELOS, appeared to Abraham and to Jacob, and to Moses in the burning bush." Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue witH Tryphon, § 59—61, proves that Christ spoke to Moses out of the thorn-bush, and says that he is called the angel of the Lord, EK TOU DIAGGELLEIN TOIS ANQRWPMOIS TA PARA TOU PATROS KAI POINTOU TWN APANTWN. See, further, Constitutt. Apost. v. 20 b., Coteler. i. p. 325; Irenaeus, c. Haeres. iv. 7, § 4; Theophilus, ii. 31; Clemens Alex,, Paed. i. 7; Tertullian, c. Prax. c. 16; Cyprian, c. Jud. ii. 6; Hilary, de trin. iv. § 32; Eusebius, demonstr. evang. v. 10 sqq.; Cyril, Hieros. p. 322, ed. Ox.; Chrysostorn, hoM. 48 in Gen.; Amltrosim, defide ad Graf. opp. t. ii. p. 460. Theodoret says (interr. 5 in Ex. opp., t. i. ed. Hal. p. 121, on Ex. iii. 2), KAI OLON DE TO CWRION DEIKNUSI QEON ONTA TON OFQENTA KEKLHKE DE AUTON KAI AGGELON INA GNWMEN WS O OFQEIS OUK ESTIN O QEOS KAI PATHR, ALL O MONOGENHS UIOS H MEGALHS BOULHS AGGELOS.

We will now proceed to point out certain general grounds, which favour the conclusion that the angel of the Lord is the Logos, in addition to the argument which we have already drawn from the separate passages of the Old Testament; and to reply to all those who adopt a different hypothesis.

The testimony of the New Testament is of the utmost importance. This is given in many different ways. The most direct is Heb. iii. 1, "wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the apostle and High Priest of our profession (Christ) Jesus." "There is something very remarkable," says Bleek, "in the application of the term APOSTOLOS to Christ." It is the more striking, from the fact that, when the author wrote, the word apostle had already acquired the force of a proper name. The most natural course, therefore, would have been to avoid the appearance of placing Christ upon a par with the apostles. There can be no doubt, however, that the expression is used for the purpose of pointing out the identity of Christ with the angel of Jehovah under the Old Testament (Benyel: "legatum deI patris"), and is thus a kind of proper noun. It is only on this supposition that it has any bearing upon the exalted dignity which the context necessarily requires. 'APOSTOLON is followed by ARCIEPEA. And so also there are passages of the Old Testament (Ezek. ix. and Zech. i. 12), in which the angel of the Lord is represented as "High Priest."

This passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews is closely connected with other passages in the New Testament, in which Christ is spoken of as sent by God (APOSTELLW) is the word commonly employed, and on some occasions PEMPW). These passages are too numerous to be regarded as accidental. There is the less room for such a supposition, from the fact that the frequent use of the expression is apparent solely in the discourses of Christ and in the writings of John, who has moulded his style, far more than the others, after the model of his Master, and in whose writings the independent use of these terms goes hand in hand with the fact, that he inserts them more frequently than the other Evangelists in the sayings of Christ. The explanation of the latter circumstance is, that he paid peculiar attention to the deeper significance of these terms; and the same reason necessarily led to his own frequent use of them. As the expression "Son of man" which the Saviour applied to himself, always points to Daniel, so do these expressions invariably contain an allusion to the personal identity of Christ and the Old Testament angel or messenger (<i>Gesandte, one sent) of the Lord. This is all the more obvious, from the fact that it is a customary thing with John to introduce nice and obscure allusions to the Old Testament, and that in this respect he differs widely from Matthew, who prefers what is obvious and lies upon the surface. Compare Matt. x. 40, "he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me" (TON APOSTEILANTA ME): i.e., "he that receiveth you, my apostles, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, the Malakh YHWH [angel of Jehovah], receiveth the Lord himself." Again, chap. xv. 24, OUK APESTALHN, "I am not sent;" and chap. xxi. 37. Also, Luke iv. 43, "I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also, for therefore am I sent" (APESTALHN). And in addition...compare chap. iii. 17, "for God sent not (OU GAR APESTEILEN) his Son into the world to condemn the world ver. 34, "for he whom God hath sent (APESTEILEN) speaketh the words of God;" chap. v. 36, 37, "the works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me (APESTALKEN), and the Father himself, which hath sent me (O PEMYAS ME) hath borne witness of me;" ver. 38, "and ye have not his word abiding in you, for whom he hath sent (APESTEILEN), him ye believe not;" chap. vi. 29, 57, and vii. 28, "he that sent me (O PEMYAS ME) is true, whom ye know not;" ver. 29, "I know him, for I am from him, and he hath sent me" (avreo,TetXe); chap. viii. 42, "if God were your father ye would love me, for I proceeded forth and came from God, neither came I of myself, but he sent me" (APESTEILEN) ; chap. x. 36, xi. 42, xvii. 3,8, 18,21,23,25, xx. 21: "then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you, as my Father hath sent me (APESTALKEN), even so send (PEMPW)) I you;" 1 John. iv. 9, 10, "in this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent (APESTALKEN) his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent (APESTEILE) his Son to be the propitiation for our sins "ver. 14, "the Father (APESTALKEN) hath sent the son to be the Saviour of the world."


In John xii. 41, again, we read, "these things said Esaias, when he saw his (Christ's) glory, and spake of him." According to Is. vi. Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah. But if it be maintained that the angel of Jehovah is an ordinary angel, and is not in any way connected with Christ, the link between Jehovah and Christ is broken. It is perfectly obvious, however, that John does not assert the identity of Jehovah and Christ on his own authority, but stands upon such firm and clear scriptural ground that he is under no necessity of entering into discussions. Delitzsch objects (p. 355), that Isaiah did not see the glory of the angel of Jehovah, but the glory of Jehovah himself, and that, notwithstanding this, John speaks of him as seeing the glory of Jesus. But we have already observed, that the passages in which the angel of Jehovah is mentioned prove, that in every case, in which appearances of Jehovah are referred to, these appearances are to be understood as occurring through the medium of his angel, even where this is not expressly stated.

John speaks of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved (chap. xiii. 23; xix. 26; xx. 2; xxi. 7, 20). That this expression takes the place of a proper name is evident, not only from the frequency with which it is employed, but also from the fact that it is used in cases, in which there is no immediate reference to the love of Jesus to the apostle. It is obviously a paraphrase of the name John. The actual meaning of this name is "whom Jehovah loves;" and in the love of Jesus, John beheld a fulfilment of the pious wish, which dictated the name.

In chap. i. 11 John sets out with the view, that Christ was the angel of the Lord who had come in the flesh. He says Christ came EIS TA IDIA, and the IDIOI did not receive him. If we suppose the angel of the Lord to have been an ordinary angel, there is no foundation for this expression. The Israelites are described in the Old Testament as the people and inheritance of Jehovah (Ex. iv. 2:2, 23, and 2 Sam. vii. 24, "and thou preparedst for thyself thine Israel as a people for ever, and thou didst become their God"), and of his angel, through whom all his intercourse with his people was carried on. Compare Ex. iii. 2 ("and the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire"), and ver. 7 ("and the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt"). In Mal iii. 1, again, the temple is spoken of as belonging to the Lord and his covenant angel.

Not John alone, but the other "pillars" in the apostolic office start with the assumption, that Christ is the self-revealing Jehovah of the Old Testament, and thus confirm the view that has been maintained by the Church respecting the angel of the Lord. According to 1 Pet. i. 11, "the prophets searched what, or what manner of time the spirit of Christ which was in them did signify." But the prophets ascribe their revelations to the spirit of Jehovah. How, then, came Peter to substitute Christ so directly for Jehovah. unless he found a warrant for this in the Old Testament doctrine of the angel of the Lord? That the latter is always implied when the prophets speak of Jehovah, is apparent from Judges v. 23, where Deborah expressly refers to the angel of Jehovah a prophetic revelation, which she had received in a purely internal manner. In 1 Cor. x. 4, Paul says: "and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them; and the rock was Christ." Here, then, we have what Delitzsch felt to be wanting in John xii. 41. The preservation of the people during their march through the wilderness, and their admission into Canaan, is expressly ascribed in the Old Testament to the angel of the Lord. Compare Ex. xxiii. 20, 21, "behold I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take heed to him, and obey his voice, rebel not against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, <i>for my name is in him"; also Is. lxiii. 8, 9, "the angel of his presence saved them." According to 1 Cor. x. 9 ("neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents"),—Christ was the leader of Israel through the desert, and was tempted by them. In Num. xxi. 5—7 they are said to have tempted Jehovah, who is represented in Exodus as leading them in the person of his angel. The reading KURION, which Lachmann has adopted, is evidently traceable to short-sightedness. According to Heb. xi. 26, Moses esteemed the reproach which he endured for Christ's sake (ONEIDISMON TOU CRISTOU) greater riches than the treasures of Egypt. But according to the Mosaic account, he made all his sacrifices in the service of Jehovah and his angel.

In John v. 37, when Christ is telling the Jews that they will lose God if they reject him, he says, "ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." It is inconceivable that Christ should have spoken in this manner with the giving of the law at Sinai before him, as well as Is. vi. and other passages in which Jehovah appears and speaks, except on the assumption that whenever manifestations of Jehovah are mentioned in the Old Testament, they always take place through the medium of his angel, who is connected with him by unity of nature, and who came in the flesh in Christ. That the remarks of Ode are correct, to the effect that "it was he himself who had formerly spoken to the patriarchs, and had appeared in the form of the angel" cannot for a moment be doubted, especially as there is an allusion both before and afterwards to the personal identity of Christ and the angel of the Lord in the manner already indicated, viz., ver. 36, "the Father hath sent me," ver. 38, "for, whom He hath sent, him ye believe not." The same may also be said of the expression in John i. 18, "no man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." That no one has ever seen God must be an assertion entirely without foundation, and altogether at variance with history, unless we recognise a divine mediator in the angel of the Lord. For, otherwise, such passages as speak of appearances and utterances on the part of Jehovah, have no connexion whatever with those which mention the angel of the Lord. And so, again, when Christ tells the Jews in John vii. 28, that from not knowing Him, they do not know God, and by rejecting him they cut themselves off from any participation in God, light is thrown upon his words by the distinction, already made in the Old Testament, between the unseen God and his revealer, who is the medium of all approach to Him.

That the words of Christ in John viii. 56 assume the identity of Christ and the angel of the Lord, has already been pointed out [elsewhere].

In Col. i. 15, Christ is described as "the image of the invisible God," and in Heb. i. 3, as APAUGASMA THS DOXHS KAI CARAKTHR THS UPOSTASEWS ("the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person"). Further investigation will show, that in these passages, expressions which were current among the Jews in connexion with the Metatron or angel of the Lord, are transferred to Christ. There is something strange in the passages themselves. One cannot but feel throughout that they do not enunciate the doctrine in question for the first time, but point to something already in existence, and ultimately to the Old Testament, which alone could possibly afford a pledge of certainty. It is only so far as the expressions themselves are concerned, that they are in anyway connected with the Jewish theology of the time. Bahr has correctly remarked, that "the idea of a revealer of the deity was to them one of the primary truths of religion, which they expressed in language current at the time." The same remarks apply to the doctrine of John respecting the Logos. The manner in which John treats of the Logos shows very clearly, that his intention is not to make known this doctrine for the first time, but simply to show the relation in which Christ stands to the doctrine alluded to. The very name Logos was not originally a term peculiar to John, and does not occur at all among the terms which he ordinarily employs. That there must be some connexion between the Logos of Philo and the Logos of John is a thought which immediately suggests itself, and the attempt to do away with this connexion has been altogether futile. And, beside this, the correspondence between the Logos and the angel of the Lord, which strikes any one at the first glance, would be very remarkable if it were merely elicited by exegesis.—Whenever Jesus speaks of having lived before man or before the world, he assumes the existence of the doctrine of the angel of the Lord, in the form maintained by the Church. There would, otherwise, have been no link of connexion whatever between these doctrines and the minds of the hearers. What was new was simply the personal application.

Lastly, the angel of the Lord, whom we meet with constantly throughout the whole of the Old Testament, disappears entirely from the New.—We will not confine ourselves to the name, but look also at the facts of the case. An angel, who usually speaks in the name of Jehovah, and is represented as the guardian of the Church, has completely disappeared (the passage in Rev. xxii. 7, where an angel speaks in the name of Christ, stands quite alone in the whole of the New Testament), unless he is to be found in Christ. With the Church's view of the Maleach Jehovah the enigma is solved, and the connexion between the two Testaments, as well as their perfect harmony, brought into the clearest light.

With these distinct and manifold confirmations, which the orthodox view receives from the New Testament, the few plausible arguments, by which the attempt has been made to prove that the New Testament regards the "angel of Jehovah," referred to in the Old, as merely an ordinary angel, are deprived of all their force.

Delitzsch observes (p. 334), "Wherever AGGELOS KURIOS (the Greek rendering of MALAK YHWH), is mentioned in the New Testament, whether he be called AGGELOS KURIOU or hO AGGELOS KURIOU, confessedly a created angel is intended." But as we have already shown, hO AGGELOS KURIOU (the angel of the Lord) and not AGGELOS KURIOU (an angel of the Lord) corresponds MALAK YHWH and the former is never found, except in cases in which the angel has been mentioned before. Matt. i. 24, for example, "he did as the angel of the Lord (hO AGGELOS KURIOU) had bidden him," is very instructive in this respect, when compared with ver. 20, "behold an angel of the Lord (AGGELOS KURIOU) appeared unto him in a dream ;" also Luke i. 11, "there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord" (AGGELOS KURIOU), when compared with ver. 13, "but the angel (hO AGGELOS) said unto him." Compare also Matt. xxviii. 2 with ver. 5, and Acts xii. 7 with ver. 8. But if the case had been different, if hO AGGELOS KURIOU (the angel of the Lord) were used in any instance entirely by itself, with reference to an ordinary angel, this would prove nothing. We have already admitted that MALAK YHWH does not of necessity denote the Logos, but that there are passages in which the angel may possibly be regarded as an ideal person. And hO AGGELOS KURIOU would in such cases have to be explained in the same way. The proof that in a considerable number of passages in the Old Testament the angel of the Lord can only be the Logos, we have already found in the fact that this term, which points to a person exalted infinitely above the angels, is applied to the angel who speaks and acts in the name and person of God. It would be necessary therefore to point out the same fact, in connexion with those passages (if any existed), in which hO AGGELOS KURIOU occurred.

"But," continues Delitzsch, "the New Testament furnishes still more direct testimony against the divine nature of the Old Testament MALAK YHWH. In Acts 7:30, Stephen calls the angel of Jehovah, who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, AGGELOS KURIOU—In the original passage, Ex. iii. 2, it is stated that "the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the thorn-bush." In Acts vii. 30, "There appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai ayyeXos tcvpiov in a flame of fire in a bush." Thus in the Acts of the Apostles we find first of all a general term. But this proves nothing. The angel is also an angel. And it is evident from what follows immediately afterwards that it is not an ordinary angel that is intended. In ver. 31, we read of "the voice of the Lord," and in ver. 32, "I am the God of thy fathers," &c. On ver. 30, Bengel observes, "The Son of God (see following verses): at first Moses did not know who it was, but immediately afterwards he recognised Him from the voice."

"Again," says Delitzsch,p. 335, "tha angel, of whom he says in ver. 38 that he spake to Moses in Sinai, cannot have been regarded by him as a divine being, for in ver. 53 he says, (who have received the law by the disposition of angels (EIS DIATAGAS AGGELWN)'; and with this Paul agrees in Gal. iii. 19 and Heb. ii. 2."—In Acts vii. 38 we read, "this is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and spake with our fathers, who received the lively oracles to give unto us." Moses is placed between the angel and the congregation, in connexion with the giving of the law. Bengel correctly observes, that "Stephen does not say with the angels, but with the angel of the covenant;" compare Mal. iii. 1. In the original account there is no allusion to an angel at all. Moses converses with Jehovah. But the angel is understood as a matter of course, since all the revelations of Jehovah are made through him. Moreover there is in Mai. iii. 1, a distinct scriptural authority, for the intervention of a Mediator on this occasion. And, on the other hand, Stephen would never have ventured to supply the mediation of an angel on his own authority merely. Let any one read Ex. xix. and see for himself, whether the scene is one befitting an ordinary angel. And even ver. 53 ("who received the law by the disposition of angels") does not favour such a hypothesis; (compare Gal. iii. 19, where the law is called DIATAGEIS DI AGGELWN). Again, if an ordinary angel were intended in ver. 38, the expression in ver. 53 would be directly contradictory. In the one case we have an angel, (only one can be regarded as speaking TOU LALOUNTOS AUTW) in the other, on the contrary, we have a plurality of angels. But the case is entirely different, if the angel of the Lord is alluded to there. He is usually attended by a retinue of inferior angels, and so far as Sinai is concerned, the presence of such a retinue is expressly attested in such passages. Deut. xxxiii. 2, "he comes with myriads of holy ones;" ver. 3, "all his holy ones are in thy hand (i.e., serve thee, 0 Israel) ," and Ps. Ixviii. 17, "the chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of thousands, the Lord is among them, Sinai in the sanctuary." "The chariots are attended by hosts of angels. In the midst of them is the Lord, as formerly on Sinai. The one thing, which is common to Zion and Sinai, is the presence of the Lord in the midst of the numerous hosts of his angels." In ver. 38 the angel of the Lord occupies just the same place as Jehovah in Ex. xix. The angels in ver. 53 and Gal. iii. 19 are taken from Deut. xxxiii. In the latter passage, however, the angels are not mentioned in the place of the Lord, but the Lord comes attended by them.

The only passage in the New Testament, which presents a difficulty at first sight, is Heb. ii. 2, 3, where the law is apparently placed below the gospel, on account of the latter being "spoken by the Lord," whereas the former was merely "spoken by angels." But it cannot have been the author's intention to ascribe the giving of the law, the most glorious work of the Old Testament, to merely inferior angels, without any direct participation on the part of the Lord and his revealer, in direct opposition to the Old Testament; for in chap. xii. 26 he distinctly affirms that "the voice of the Lord shook the earth at the giving of the law." The only ground, therefore, upon which he can possibly intend to exalt the gospel above the law, is that the revelation of the Lord as MALAK YHWH was not so perfect as in his incarnation, and for this very reason there is a certain sense in which we must make a distinction between the angel of the Lord and the Son of God, instead of saying directly, as the Fathers and most of the early theologians do, that "the angel of the Lord is identical with the Son." [Compare the remark of Grotius on Ex. 20, "errant graviter, qui hic per angelum intelligent secundam dei hypostasin. Variis enim multiplicibusque modis deus locutus est patribus; at per filium ultimis demum temporibus."]


Thursday, May 24, 2018

A Brief History of the Church After the Nicene Council


325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: 

"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father'."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states: 

"Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."

At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.

328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.

335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius to Trier.

337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria.

339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being expelled.

341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.

343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand the removal of Athanasius.
346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.

351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.

353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is directed against Athanasius.

355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again condemned.

356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning his third exile.

357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.

359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how the Son is like the Father.

361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius' positions.

380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the empire.

381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review the controversy since Nicaea. 

Emperor Theodosius the Great establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm. The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters.

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then there really should not have been any conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It would be like me being a member of the Communist Party. I would join it knowing that they do not believe in the ownership of private property, no conflict. But now, say after I have been a member of the party for a few years, someone decides to introduce a proposal that we allow the ownership of private property, not everyone in the party is going to agree, the result is conflict. This is similar to what happened in the church. It was not the established teaching, and when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict.

It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of the church. The major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then as you can see, we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on who is in power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.

This is 180 degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian formula.

In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, that is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next.

In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the theology of the church.

The big difference now was that there was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years. It would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up. Debates however, would continue for years to come. 
~Juan Baixeras

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

The New World Translation Bible and the Words "In Union With"

A comment I noticed recently online: "When criticizing the NWT, John 1:1 is usually the first scripture mentioned. But there is another which disturbs me more. In John 14:10 (and other verses where Jesus speaks of being "IN" the Father), The NWT has changed it to say "in union with". (they must have thought that word "IN" sound too suggestive of the Deity of Jesus)."

Reply: The ASV has: "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works." The NWT has "Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to YOU men I do not speak of my own originality; but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works."

Albert Barnes in his commentary writes of this Scripture: "The Father that dwelleth in me - Literally, 'The Father remaining in me.' This denotes most intimate union, so that the works which Jesus did might be said to be done by the Father. It implies a more intimate union than can subsist between a mere man and God. Had Jesus been a mere man, like the prophets, he would have said, “The Father who sent or commissioned me doeth the works;” but here there is reference, doubtless, to that mysterious and special union which subsists between the Father and the Son."

This is why the Williams New Testament can translate this verse as: "Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and that the Father is in union with me? I am not saying these things on my own authority, but the Father who always remains in union with me is doing these things Himself."

Goodspeed in his New Testament has: "Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? I am not the source of the words that I say to you, but the Father who is united with me is doing these things himself."

The Twentieth Century New Testament has: "Do not you believe that I am in union with the Father, and the Father with me? In giving you my teaching I am not speaking on my own authority; but the Father himself, always in union with me, does his own work."

Also, this Scripture does not sound suggestive of the Deity of Jesus unless you are a Sabellianist.t

I have heard this complaint before from Rob Bowman (The New World Translation On Trial), where he writes:

"prepositions do have recognizable functions and meanings and cannot be translated in whatever manner one chooses. In violation of this, the NWT translates the simple preposition "in" (Greek, _en_) with unnecessary variations which often obscure or alter the meaning of the passage. This is illustrated in 1 John 5:20 where the NWT reads in part, 'And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ.' Reading this translation, one would never suspect that _in union with_ and _by means of_ translate the same simple Greek preposition. There is no sound reason for this variation."

Reply: What does being "In Christ" or "in the true one" mean to a modern reader? Bowman makes the fallacy that only an extremely literal or word-for-word translation will convey accurately the author's words through 2 milleniums.

"He[the translator] thinks that as long as he keeps the "same" words he cannot be too far wrong with the meaning. Instead, what he has done is not translation at all- he has put a new, and therefore wrong message in the bible. Whenever this happens, the problem has become very serious indeed." Norman Mundhenk, What Translation are you Using, The Bible Translator, Oct 1974, pp 419,420

For instance, in 1Samuel 24:3 the NWT uses the phrase "ease nature" while the original has "cover his feet". Is this is a mistranslation? After all the New World Translation is supposed to be literal Bible. But other literal Bibles such as the NKJV and the NASB also do not use the words "cover his feet". They use "relieve himself." This follows the original meaning better and it is an improvement.

No one is trying to obscure anything. Thayer's Lexicon under EN has,

"ingrafted as it were in Christ, in fellowship and union with Christ, with the Lord...Since such union with Christ is the basis on which actions and virtues rest, the expression is equivalent in meaning to by virtue of special fellowship or union with Christ."

See also Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 372-75 and BDAG under _EN_ (4c)

The Good News Bible has at 1 John 5:20,  "We live in union with the true God - in union with his Son Jesus Christ."
An American Translation by Smith & Goodspeed has, "we are in union with him who is true, through his Son Jesus Christ."
The Charles B. Williams New Testament has, "We are in union with the True One, through his Son Jesus Christ."
The Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech has, "We are in union with the True One - that is, we are in union with his Son Jesus Christ." See also 21st Century NT.
The Contemporary English Version uses the term "because of" here at 1 John 5:20, and Barclay uses "indissolubly bound."

The Revised English Bible frequently uses similar terms in place of "the simple preposition "in" (Greek, _en_)" so obviously, there is sound reason for this variation.

Monday, May 21, 2018

The Spirit Not a Person

 From an Email: The doctrine of theTrinity is also significant in terms of the truth of revelation. In 1 Cor. 2, Paul tells us that the hidden things of God have been revealed to us by God's Spirit, the Holy Spirit. In verse 11 Paul writes, "For who among men know the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him. Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God." Paul's logic is hard to fault. Who would better know what you are thinking than you? Similarly, who would better know the truths  of God than God's own Spirit? But what if the HS does not share the divine essence but is a lesser one (even a none divine one)? Then, according to Paul's logic, the HS would not necesarrily be in the best position to know the truths of God, and if that is so, we are in deep trouble in relation to Scripture. Scripture clearly teaches that revelation of God's truth comes through the Spirit and that the Spirit inspired Scripture (1 Cor 2:9-13). Believing this to be so and believing the Spirit to be coequally God so thathe really knows the truth of God, evangelicals take the Bible to be God's Word and understand it as a true revelation from God about himself, ourselves, etc. As Paul says, who would better know what someone is thinking than that person himself? If the HS doesn't share the divine essence withthe Father and the Son, he is not in a position to know. The implicationsfor our knowledge of God are staggering!
Reply: You quoted verse 11, ""For who among men know the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him. Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God."

I would say that the phrase "spirit of the man" helps us to understand "the Spirit of God," much like the "spirit of error" tells us how to view the "spirit of truth" at 1 John 4:6.

"The spirit of man bears the same relation to man as the spirit of God bears to God (1 Cor. 2:11). As the spirit of man is not another person distinct from himself, but his human consciousness or mind by which he is able to be self-aware and contemplate things peculiar to himself, so the spirit of God is not another person distinct from God. It is that consciousness and intelligence that is essential and peculiar to Him whereby He manifests amd reveals Himself to man. As the spirit of man means the man himself (the essence of a man is his mind), so the spirit of God means God Himself. The parallel usage of mind and spirit is seen in the Apostle Paul's citation of Isaiah 40:13 ('Who has directed the spirit of the Lord, or as His counselor has instructed him?') and in Romans 11:34 and 1 Corinthians 2:16 where 'spirit' is rendered 'mind.'

If the 'spirit of truth' in John 14:17 is a person, then 'the spirit of error' in 1 John 4:6 must also be a person, since the two are directly contrasted. The fact is, that each 'spirit' represents an influence or a power under which a person acts, but neither is a person in itself." p. 597, One God & One Lord by Graeser, Lynn and Schoenheit.

Let us look at some other examples of "the spirit of" in the Bible:

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both birds, and cattle, and beasts, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life" Gen 7:22 ASV
"the spirit of their father Jacob revived" NJB "he recovered from the shock" TEV Gen 45:27
"whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom" ASV "whom I have endowed with skill" NJB Ex 28:3
"and have filled him with the spirit of God" NJB "I have filled him with my power" TEV Ex 31:3
"have filled him with the spirit of God" NJB "God has filled him with his power" TEV Ex 35:31
"this spirit of suspicion comes over him" NJB "a husband becomes suspicious of his wife" TEV Numbers 5:14
"Joshua, son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom" NJB "Joshua, son of Nun was filled with wisdom" TEV Deut 34:9
"and the spirit of Yahweh began to stir him" NJB "the LORD's power began to strengthen him" TEV Judges 13:25
"the spirit of Elijah has come to rest on Elisha" NJB "the power of Elijah is on Elisha" TEV 2 Kings 2:15
"the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul" ASV "the God of Israel roused the hostility of Pul" NJB 1 Chron 5:26
"the spirit of the Philistines" ASV "the hostility of the Philistines" NJB 2 Chron 21:16

More examples can be allowed, but I think you get the gist of it here. The Spirit of God is God's power, his breath, it is God Himself. There is no difficulty here, it is simply not another person within a triune Godhead.

"After being exalted to the right hand of God and receiving the sacred breath as promised from the Father, he poured out all this you see and hear." Acts 2:33 Unvarnished NT