Gerald Massey on the Trinity Doctrine

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

From The Historical Jesus, and the Mythical Christ by Gerald Massey

The fact of the matter is, the Christian dogmas and doctrines began as such with being unintelligible and inexplicable; they were to remain as mysteries; and any true explanation of them is death to their false pretentions. It is my method to explode by explaining them. Take the doctrine of the Trinity for example. Can any theologian throughout all Christendom to-day give us any intelligible account of its origin and primary meaning? Not one. For that we must go to mythology, which was earlier than our theology, and which alone enables us to explain its primitive mysteries. The natural genesis of the Trinity was found, and is to be refound, in lunar phenomena. The moon, in mythology and chronology, was a time-measurer of a three-fold nature. At fifteen days of age, or full-moon, it was the mother-moon. Hence Ishtar, in Akkad, is designated Goddess 15. The lessening, waning moon was her little one, the child of the moon, who became the virile one, the adult, as the horned new moon, the reproducer who was fabled to rebeget himself on the mother moon, and thus become his own father, as a natural mode of describing natural phenomena.

These three are eternally one in external nature--a Trinity always manifesting monthly, and the
triple aspect was humanly, or naturally, expressed by means of the mother, child, and reproducing male, which three are also one in the total human being. In the Christian Iconography, you will sometimes see the Virgin Mary enthroned in the new moon, with the child in her arms, and these two, with the horned or phallic moon, constitute the Christian Trinity in Unity. Such was the primitive mode of thinking in things, afterwards continued in a mystical or doctrinal phase. Such, I affirm to be the origin of the Trinity in mythology, which preceded religion; and when this is applied abstractly, to the nature of deity, or to mind in nature, by means of metaphysic, the result is an imposition, and he or she who practices imposition, consciously or not, is an impostor. No such thing can be known as a triune or triangular God; but we are able to show how such types originated. When our words are examined, we shall frequently find that our metaphysic has been abstracted, or falsely filched from primitive physics, as was the Trinity by Plato, which was continued by the Christian Fathers, who tell us that but for Plato they would never have understood the doctrine of the Trinity.

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

An 1823 Critical Breakdown of 1 John 5:7

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

From An Introduction to the Defence of Abner Kneeland, Charged with Blasphemy by By Abner Kneeland 1834

This subject in relation to an important passage in John is explained in a most able manner in the letters of the Reverend Henry Ware, jr. now one of the Government of Harvard College, addressed to the Reverend Mr. McLeod, in 1823, on account of his use of a disputed verse in the common version of the Scriptures, as a text for a sermon. Here is an extract from Mr. Ware's letters:

It is not my object to make any general defence of the faith against which you have been preaching; much less to complain at your taking an opportunity to warn your people against what you esteem a dangerous error. Your duty to your conscience and to them required it of you; and I would be the last to advocate any abridgement of the liberty of speech in the pulpit. It is not because you have defended Trinitarianism that I ask to be heard; that, you had an unquestionable right to do; but because you defended it upon ground which it appears to me, you had no right to take. When I went up to worship in your church on the evening of the last Sabbath in April, nothing could exceed my astonishment at hearing you announce as your text, that celebrated verse— There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. (1 John, 5:7.) I did not readily recover from my surprise. The opinion which is universally expressed by the learned respecting this verse, came fresh to my recollection; and it was with difficulty I could persuade myself, that I had heard it quoted as a part of the Christian Scriptures in that sacred place. It was true, I had been told, that some ministers had lately quoted it as authentic; but I had taken it for granted they must be uninformed and ignorant men; for I had never yet seen reason to doubt the assertion of an able theologian, "that no man of tolerable learning or fairness, at the present day, would think of using it." But now I found it adduced by one to whom I could attribute neither ignorance nor unfairness; and what, then, should relieve my wonder?

My surprise at your use of this text has not ceased. The learned of the present day, throughout the religious world, have agreed, after a long and laborious examination, in pronouncing it no part of the original Scriptures. All who are most competent to judge, Trinitarians as well as Unitarians, with one voice, and with scarcely any reserve, declare it to be an unauthorized addition to the Epistle of John; so that it is, with one consent, thrown out of the Trinitarian controversy. I may well, therefore, be astonished, as I am ignorant of the reasons upon which you have made up your mind, that you should argue from it as genuine.

I do not forget that you told us, that it had been your object in a preceding discourse, "to establish its genuineness as a part of Scripture." I could not suspect you, indeed, of omitting, as some have done, so important a consideration; and I cannot but regret that I had not the opportunity of hearing it discussed. For I acknowledge I am at a loss to conjecture whence you could have gathered sufficient proof to outweigh all those circumstances of evidence, which have for so long a time put the question at rest. It would be wrong, however, to deal in mere assertion on this subject. I beg leave, therefore, to lay before you the language of a few respectable writers—all Trinitarians—whose decisions on this subject, of which they were well able to judge have been thought conclusive.

Let me first ask your attention to the Electic Review, the religious character of which is unsuspiciously orthodox. The passage has been frequently quoted, but the very honorable and decided stand which it takes in behalf of the purity of the sacred text, renders it worthy of perpetual remembrance.

"Upon this," says the writer, "we need not spend many words. It is found in No Greek manuscript, ancient or modern, except one, to which we shall presently advert; in no ancient Version, being interpolated only in the later transcripts of the Vulgate. Not one of the Greek fathers recognises it, though many of them collect every species and shadow of argument, down to the most allegorical and shockingly ridiculous, in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, though they often cite the words immediately contiguous both before and after; and though, with immense labor and art, they extract from the next words the very sense which this passage had in following times been adduced to furnish. Of the Latin fathers, not one has quoted it, till Eucherius, of Lyons, in the middle of the fifth century; and in his works there is much reason to believe that it has been interpolated."

After this summary of the evidence, the writer proceeds in the following striking and decided tone. "Under these circumstances, we are Unspeakably Ashamed that any modern divines should have fought, pedibus et unguibus, for the retention of a passage so Indisputably Spurious. We could adduce half a dozen, or half a score passages of ample length, supported by better authority than this, but which are rejected in every printed edition and translation."

The learned Griesbach, another believer in the Trinity, whose ability to judge in questions of this nature will be universally acknowledged, makes use of language equally strong with that just quoted. "If it were worth while," he says, "I would undertake to defend six hundred of the most futile and universally rejected readings by testimonies and arguments equally numerous and valid, nay, in general, more numerous and valid than those which the advocates of this passage adduce; nor would the defenders of a genuine text have so many and weighty arguments to oppose to such an absurd attempt, as have been produced against the defenders of this verse. I wish those would seriously consider this, who may in future undertake to defend this text."

Bishop Lowth, another learned Trinitarian, is equally decided. "We have some wranglers in theology," he says, "sworn to follow their master, who are prepared to defend any thing, however absurd, should there be occasion. But I believe there is no one among us, in the least degree conversant with sacred criticism, and having the use of his understanding, who would be willing to contend for the genuineness of the verse, 1 John, 5:7."

Michaelis, in his most learned and valuable Introduction to the New Testament, says, "It is very extraordinary that any man should think of opposing tBe testimony" in favor of this verse to the testimony against it. And again he says, "One would suppose that no critic, especially if a Protestant, would hesitate a moment to condemn as spurious, a passage," supported by such feeble evidence as this. To each of these sentences he adds a summary of the evidence, which it is unnecessary to quote here.

Dr. Middleton, in his elaborate work on the Greek article, tells us, that this passage is "now pretty generally abandoned as spurious;" and that if any one will study the controversy, "the probable result will be, that he will close the examination with a firm belief that the passage is spurious." He adds afterward—"in the rejection of the controverted passage, learned and good men are now for the most part agreed; and I contemplate with admiration and delight, the gigantic exertions of intellect which have established this acquiescence."

Rosenmuller observes, "It is the opinion of most critics at the present day, that these words are spurious."

Mr. Wardlaw, a late zealous and eloquent defender of the doctrine of the Trinity, is no less positive. "Certainly," he says, "this text should have been entitled to hold the first place, had its genuineness not been disputed, as that of many texts has been, on slight grounds. I freely acknowledge, however, that the evidence of the spuriousness of this celebrated passage, even if it were much less conclusive, than, in my mind, it appears to be, would be quite sufficient to prevent me from resting upon it any part of the weight of this argument."

To the same purpose the Bishop of Lincoln, in his 'Elements of Christian Theology,' says, "I must own, that after an attentive consideration of the controversy relative to that passage, I am convinced that it is spurious."

Prof. Stuart undoubtedly holds the same opinion respecting this verse; for in adducing the texts in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, he omits all mention of this—whereas if he thought it genuine, he must have given it a conspicuous place. He probably alludes to it, with others, when he says, he shall "select only those texts, the language of which appears to be genuine, and above the condemnation of textual criticism."

In this place may be added the fact, that the Great Reformer, Luther, uniformly rejected his verse from this Translation of the New Testament. He did not admit it to a place in the edition which was publishing at the time of his death; and "he concluded his preface to that edition," says Charles Butler, "with what may be termed his dying request, that upon no account his translation should be altered in the slightest instance;" which of course, implies his firm persuasion, that this verse does not belong to the Bible.

To these names, some of them amongst the most honored in the church, might be added many more equally well known; it is enough to mention those eminent biblical critics, Simon, and Wetstein; Benson, Grotius, and Semler, (who, says Micbaelis, "not only confuted all the arguments which had been used in favor of this verse, but wrote the most important work which we have on this subject,") Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Herbert Marsh, Archbishop Newcome, and the distinguished Methodist, Dr. Adam Clarke; and, finally, that illustrious scholar, Porson, whose letters, by which the controversy concerning the verse was brought to a final conclusion, "are an eternal monument of his erudition, critical sagacity, and wit."

To the extracts already made, others might be added, if I were in a situation to have access to the necessary books. I have not made them under the idea that you are unacquainted with them; but simply, that it might be seen how strong and unqualified is the conviction produced upon the minds of the most competent judges, by the evidence against this verse.

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

200 PDF Books to Download about Satan the Devil & His Minions

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 - For a list of all of my books, with links, click here

Join my Facebook Group - Contact theoldcdbookshop@gmail.com for questions

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

Contents:

Three Inquiries Into the Scriptural Doctrine Concerning the Devil
by Walter Balfour 1842

The biography of Satan, or, A historical exposition of the devil and his fiery dominions : disclosing the oriental origin of the belief in a devil and future endless punishment; also, an explanation of the pagan origin of the scriptural terms, bottomless pit, lake of fire and brimstone, chains of darkness, casting out devils, worm that never dieth, etc.  by Kersey Graves 1924

Satan Absolved: A Victorian Mystery by Wilfrid Scawen Blunt - 1899

THE POSSESSED (The Devils) A NOVEL IN THREE PARTS BY FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY

The Devil is an Ass (1905) Ben Johnson

Lucifer: A Theological Tragedy by George Santayana 1899

Studies in Occultism: A Series of Reprints from the Writings of H. P. Blavatsky 1910

The Case of Saul, Shewing that his Disorder was a Real Spiritual Possession by Granville Sharp 1807

Gods and Devils of Mankind by Frank Stockton Dobbins 1897

Infernal Conference: Or, Dialogues of Devils by The Listener 1835

Demonology - The Scripture Doctrine of Devils 1856 by Joseph Young

Elizabethan Demonology: An Essay in Illustration of the Belief in the Existence of Devils by Thomas Spaulding 1880

All about Devils: Or, An Inquiry as to Whether Modern Spiritualism and Other Great Reforms Emanate from his Satanic Majesty by Moses Hull 1902

Satan's Diary by L Andreyev 1920

Satan, his Origin, Work, and destiny by Carlyle Boynton Haynes 1920 (many illustrations)

The Devil: his Origin, Greatness, and Decadence by Albert Reville 1877

Devil Stories - an Anthology by M Rudwin 1921 (The devil in a nunnery, The marriage of the devil, The devil and Tom Walker, From the memoirs of Satan, The devil's wager, The printer's devil, The devil's mother-in-law, The three low masses, Devil-puzzlers, The devil's round, The demon pope, Madam Lucifer, Lucifer, The Devil, The devil and the old man)

The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as Revised and Corrected by The Spirits, by Leonard Thorn 1861

Satan as a Moral Philosopher by CS Henry 1877

The Bible History of Satan. Is he a fallen angel? 1858

Description of Satan's court -  Satan makes a speech, giving the result of 6000 years' study of man; exults at his success by WB Harris 1884

History of the Fallen Angels of the Scriptures -Proofs of the being of Satan and of evil spirits by Josiah Priest 1839

An Attempt to Prove that the Opinion Concerning the Devil as a Fallen Angel hath No Real Foundation in Scripture by William Ashdowne 1794

Buy my published Kindle book on Amazon for only 1.99

Visit the listing for this ebook here

Babylonian Influence on the Bible and Popular Beliefs - A Study of Genesis 1 and 2 by Abram Smythe Palmer 1897

Devil Worship - the Sacred Books and Traditions of the Yezidiz by Joseph Isya 1919

The God of this World - The Devil in history by Hollis Read 1875

Luciferianism or Satanism in English Freemasonry Volume 1 by Leon Fouquet 1898

Luciferianism or Satanism in English Freemasonry Volume 2 by Leon Fouquet 1898

The Autobiography of Satan, edited by John Beard 1872

The Believer's Victory over Satan's Devices by William Parson 1876

Diabolology - The person and kingdom of Satan by Ed Jewett 1889

The Fall of Lucifer - The Origin of Evil by ET Smets 1896

Satan's Guile and Satan's Wiles by E Lloyd Jones 1882

The History of the Devil by Daniel Defoe by 1727

The Life and Labors of the Devil by TT Johnson 1892

Foot Prints of Satan: Pope and Jesuits Against Bible by JG White 1874

The Passing of Satan, Death and Hell by Andrew Rogers 1903

The Book of the Damned by Charles Fort 1919

The Book of Adam and Eve: Also Called the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan by Solomon Caesar Malan 1882

Resuscitated - a Dream or Vision of the existence after Death. The soul before Satan and Lucifer, or the modernized Hades. Discourse of Lucifer on national, social, religious and scientific topics, principally about the United States of America by 1883

Devil reveals Himself - The Devil in his own defence by Richard Orme 1894

The Secret Doctrine; the Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy by Helen Blavatsky Volume 2 1888 (has sections on "Satanic Myths" and "Holy Satan"

The Origin of Sin, and Dotted words in the Hebrew Bible by E Gibbes 1893

The Origin of Sin and its Relations to God and the Universe by E Cook 1899

Spiritism, the Modern Satanism by Thomas Francis Coakley 1920

Modern Diabolism commonly called Modern Spiritualism by MJ Williamson 1873

La Bas (DOWN THERE. also known as The Damned) by Joris-Karl Huysmans (Huysmans' most famous work, Là-Bas deals with the subject of Satanism in contemporary France, and the novel stirred a certain amount of controversy on its first appearance.)

The Satanism of Huysmans, article in The Open Court, 1920

Proofs of Spirit Forces by G Henslow 1920

Proofs of the Spirit World by Agnes Gray 1920

Devils, Drugs, and Doctors - the story of the Science of Healing from Medicine Men to Doctor by Howard Haggard 1913
The Devil Worshipper by Frederick A. Ray 1908

Primitive Christianity and Its Corruptions: Discourses by Adin Ballou - 1870
"What, then, is there unreasonable, or incredible, in the primitive Christian doctrine concerning demons, a prince of demons, possession, and exorcism? It is felt and said that this entire demonology is inherently repulsive and abhorrent to the moral reason, as well as derogatory to the character of a
perfectly good, wise, and powerful God. Answer. Why is it any more so than the existence and wickedness of similar evil beings in this mortal state?"

Satan: His Personality, Power and Overthrow
by Edward McKendree Bounds 1922

The Devil in Britain and America by John Ashton 1896
(Purports to have a "facsimile of the only known specimen of the devil's handwriting)

The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil
by Paul Carus - 1899

War with Devils: Ministration Of, and Communion with Angels
by Isaac Ambrose 1769

Demoniality; Or, Incubi and Succubi
by Ludovico Maria Sinistrari  1879

A View of the Scripture Revelations Respecting Good and Evil Angels
by Richard Whately - Spirits - 1856

THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY by AMBROSE BIERCE

The Phantom World: Or, The Philosophy of Spirits, Apparitions
by Augustin Calmet 1850 (first 361 pages only)

Letters to the Rev. William E. Channing, D.D., on the Existence and Agency of Fallen Spirits
by Canonicus, William Ellery Channing 1828

Principalities and Powers in Heavenly Places
by Charlotte Elizabeth 1848

The Existence of Evil Spirits Proved
by Walter Scott  1843

An Essay on Evil Spirits; Or, Reasons to Prove Their Existence
by William Carlisle 1825

Elizabethan Demonology: An Essay in Illustration of the Belief in Devils
by Thomas Alfred Spalding 1880 (Page x is damaged)

Satans Invisible World Discovered
by George Sinclair 1872

Demon Possession and Allied Themes: Being an Inductive Study of Phenomena of our own Times
by John Livingston Nevius 1896

The Pedigree of the Devil by Frederic Thomas Hall 1883

The Holy Spirit and Other Spirits
by Daniel Otis Teasley 1904 (missing several pages)

An Essay on Demonology, Ghosts and Apparitions, and Popular Superstitions
by James Thacher 1831

A Safe View of Spiritism for Catholics
by Joseph C. Sasia 1920

Daemonologia Sacra: Or, A Treatise of Satan's Temptations by Richard Gilpin, Alexander Balloch Grosart - 1867 - 470 pages

Demonology and Devil-lore by Moncure Daniel Conway - 1879

Satan In Society  by Nicholas Francis Cooke M.D., L.L.D 1890
Discusses how Satan is prevalent in Society due to Infidels, Onanists (masturbators) and Abortions...and all this in 1890.

SATAN By LEWIS SPERRY CHAFER 1909 (searchable pdf)
Contents
Foreword, by Dr. C. I. Scofield
   I. The Career of Satan
  II. The Ages
 III. The Course of This Age
  IV. This Age and the Satanic System
   V. The Satanic Host
  VI. Satan's Motive
 VII. Satan's Methods
VIII. The Man of Sin
  IX. The Fatal Omission
   X. Modern Devices
  XI. The Believer's Present Position
 XII. The Believer's Present Victory

THE TRUE LEGEND OF ST. DUNSTAN AND THE DEVIL (searchable pdf)
Showing How the Horse-Shoe Came to Be a Charm against Witchcraft by EDWARD G. FLIGHT.
1871

A STORY OF SEVEN DEVILS by Frank R. Stockton (searchable pdf)

THE DEVIL AND TOM WALKER by Washington Irving (searchable pdf)

The Witchcraft Delusion in Colonial Connecticut, 1647-1697 by John Metcalf Taylor - 1908 - 170 page

Salem Witchcraft: With an Account of Salem Village, and a History of Opinion of Witchcraft Kindred Subjects by Charles Wentworth Upham - 1867

The Witchcraft Delusion in New England: Its Rise, Progress, and Termination by Cotton Mather, Robert Calef - 1866

Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft by Walter Scott, Henry Morley - 1898 - 310 pages

Narratives of the Witchcraft Cases, 1648-1706 by George Lincoln Burr - 1914 - 460 pages

The Psychology of the Salem Witchcraft Excitement of 1692 by George Miller Beard - 1882 - 109 pages

Irish Witchcraft and Demonology by St. John Drelincourt Seymour - 1913 - 245 pages

The Attitude of the Catholic Church Towards Witchcraft and the Allied Practises by Antoinette Marie Pratt - 1915 - 130 pages

The Superstitions of Witchcraft by Howard Williams - 270 pages

A History of Witchcraft in England from 1558 to 1718 by Wallace Notestein - 1911 - 435 pages

An History of Magic, Witchcraft, and Animal Magnetism by John C. Colquhoun - 1851

A Collection of Rare and Curious Tracts on Witchcraft and the Second Sight by David Webster - 1820 - 180 pages

Cotton Mather and Salem Witchcraft by William Frederick Poole - 1869
 
Hypnotism, Mesmerism and the New Witchcraft by Ernest Abraham Hart - 1896 - 208 pages

Fallacy of Ghosts, Dreams, and Omens: With Stories of Witchcraft and Monomania by Charles Ollier - 1848 - 245 pages

Mysteries, Or, Glimpses of the Supernatural, Containing Accounts by Charles Wyllys Elliott - 1852 - 265 pages

Faith-healing: Christian Science and Kindred Phenomena - Page 218
by James Monroe Buckley- 1892 - 303 pages DOES THE BIBLE TEACH THE REALITY OF WITCHCRAFT?

Demonology and Devil-lore by Moncure Daniel Conway - 1879

The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia: Being Babylonian and Assyrian Incantations against the Demons Ghouls Vampires Hobgoblins Ghosts and Kindred Evil Spirits which Attack Mankind by Reginald Campbell Thompson - 1903

War with Devils: Ministration Of, and Communion with Angels by Isaac Ambrose - 1769 - 361 pages

Spirit Rapping Unveiled!: An Exposé of the Origin, History, Theology
by Hiram Mattison - 1855 - 230 pages
Witches and Wizards of the Bible—Origin of Witchcraft—Witches ani Wizards—Necromancers
and Soothsayers—Astrologers and Magicians— Modern Fortune-tellers

Lives of the Necromancers: Or, An Account of the Most Eminent Persons
by William Godwin - 1834 - 460 pages
"THE oldest and most authentic record from which we can derive our ideas on the
subject of necromancy and witchcraft, unquestionably is the Bible."

An Essay on Demonology, Ghosts and Apparitions, and Popular Superstitions by James Thacher - 1831 - 230 pages

Critical Studies in St. Luke's Gospel: Its Demonology and Ebionitism
by Colin Campbell - 1891 - 310 pages

Antiquity Unveiled: Ancient Voices from the the Spirit Realms Disclose the Most Startling Revelations Proving Christianity to be of Heathen Origin by Jonathan Roberts - 1894 - 600 pages

The Bible Devil, a Modern Interpretation By Henry Richard Bender 1917

The Autobiography of Satan by John Beard 1872

The Biography of Satan by Kersey Graves

The Dragon, Image, and Demon by Hampden Du Bose 1886

The Evil eye, Thanatology, and other Essays by Roswell Park 1912

The worship of the serpent by John B Deane 1833

Serpent Worship, from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics by James Hastings 1922

A Personal Devil, article in The Unitarian review 1890

The Political History of the devil by Daniel Defoe 1726

The Origin, the nature, the kingdom, the works, and the destiny of the Devil by WA Jarrel 1892

A Dictionary of Miracles, imitative, realistic, and dogmatic by Ebenezer C Brewer 1884 (the devil(s) is mentioned nearly 900 times, Satan over 100 times)

Devil Tales by Virginia Frazer Boyle 1900

The Reign of the Evil One by CF Ramuz 1922

Does the Lord's Prayer Mention the Devil, article in Bibliotheca sacra 1891

Christ and other masters (has a section called "Doctrine of the Evil One) by Charles Hardwick 1859

Priests and philosophers (Personality of the Evil One) by William Gresley 1873

Legends of Old Testament characters by S. Baring-Gould 1871

Semitic Magic by RC Thompson 1908

Spiritism and the cult of the dead in antiquity by Lewis Bayles Paton - 1921

The Classic of Spiritism by Lucy Milburn 1922

The Sacred Book of Death: Hindu Spiritism, Soul Transition and Soul Reincarnation 1905 by DR LW Delaurance

Spiritism - the origin of all religions by JP Dameron 1885

The Serpent in Genesis, article in the Unitarian Review 1891

The Rise and Progress of the Serpent from the Garden of Eden to the Present by Mary M. Dyer 1847 (Shakerism)

The Serpent of Eden: a philological and critical essay on the text of Genesis 3 and its various interpretations by Jose P. Val d'Eremao 1888

The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves (Chapter 3 - Prophecies by the Figure of a Serpent) 1919

The Devil Satan said to be of Persian Origin, article in Current opinion 1888

The Existence and Fall of Satan and his Angels, article in the Methodist magazine and quarterly review 1838

The Devil by Charles Carroll Everett, article in The Thinker 1895

Plus you get the following books on the Devil in Literature

The Supernatural in Modern English Fiction by Dorothy Scarborough 1917

The Supernatural in Romantic Fiction by Edward Yardley 1880

A Drama of Exile and other poems, Volume 1, by Elizabeth Barrett Browning 1845

A Drama of Exile and other poems, Volume 2, by Elizabeth Barrett Browning 1845

A House of Pomegranates by Oscar Wilde (The Fisherman and his Soul) 1918

The Talisman by Sir Walter Scott 1876

They that Walk in Darkness by Israel Zangwill 1899 (the devil here appears as Satan Mekatrig)

The Man in Black by Stanley Weyman 1894

Great short stories (Ghost Stories, contains "Thrawn Janet" by RL Stevenson) 1909

War Letters from the Living Dead Man by Elsa Barker 1915

Melmoth the Wanderer, Volume 1 by Charles Robert Maturin 1820 (uncle of Jane Wilde, Oscar Wilde's mother)

Melmoth the Wanderer, Volume 2 by Charles Robert Maturin 1820

Melmoth the Wanderer, Volume 3 by Charles Robert Maturin 1820

Melmoth the Wanderer, Volume 4 by Charles Robert Maturin 1820 (The central character, Melmoth, is a scholar who sells his soul to the devil in exchange for 150 extra years of life; he spends that time searching for someone who will take over the pact for him.)

The Countess Eve by JH Shorthouse 1893 (here the devil appears differently to each tempted soul)

The Devil by Ferenc Molnár, 1908

The Sin-Eater by Fiona Macleod 1895

The Great God Pan by Arthur Machen 1894 (Stephen King calls this book "maybe the best [horror] story in the English language)

The House of Souls by Arthur Machen 1906

The Tales and Poems of Edgar Allan Poe, Volume 1 (1800's)

The Tales and Poems of Edgar Allan Poe, Volume 2 (The Devil in the Belfry) (1800's)

The Tales and Poems of Edgar Allan Poe, Volume 3 (Never Bet the Devil Your Head) (1800's)

The Tales and Poems of Edgar Allan Poe, Volume 3 (1800's)

Eugene Field, an auto-analysis - How one friar met the Devil and two pursued him 1901

The Holy Cross and Other Tales by Eugene Field (Daniel and the Devil) 1899

Septimius Felton by Nathaniel Hawthorne 1871 (Felton makes a deal with the devil to secure the elixir of life)

Lovers in heaven by Julian Hawthorne 1905 (Dead man meets the devil in the afterlife and find the devil looks like him)

Heroes and Heroines of Fiction - Famous characters and famous names in novels, romances, poems and dramas, classified, analyzed and criticised, with supplementary citations from the best authorities by William S Walsh 1914

Rídan the Devil by Louise Becke 1899

Seven legends by Gottfried Keller 1911 (The Virgin and the devil)

The Revolt of the Angels by Anatole France 1914 (full of metaphysical mockery on the one hand and a portrayal of Satan as seeker of mysteries on the other.)

The Home of the Seven Devils by Horace Newte 1913

The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus by Christoper Marlowe 1897

Vondel's Lucifer, by Joost von den Vondel 1604

The Marriage of Heaven and Hell by William Blake 1906

The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner by James Hogg 1824 (simultaneously infers a pseudo-Christian world of angels, devils, and demonic possession.)

Devil Stories - an Anthology by MJ Rudwin 1921 [19 tales] (Contains: The Devil in a Nunnery by F.O. Mann. Belphagor; or, The marriage of the devil by N. Machiavelli. The Devil and Tom Walker by W. Irving. From the memoirs of Satan by W. Hauff. St. John's eve by N.V. Gógol. The Devil's wager by W.M. Thackeray. The Painter's bargain by W.M. Thackeray. Bon-Bon by E.A. Poe. The Printer's devil. The Devil's mother-in-law by Fernan Caballero. The Generous Gambler by Charles Baudelaire. The 3 Low Masses by A. Duadet. Devil-Puzzlers by F. Perkins. The Devil's Round by Charles Deulin. The Legend of Mont St. Michel by Guy de Maupassant. The Demon Pope by Richard Garnett. Madam Lucifer by Richard Garnett. Lucifer by Anatole France. The Devil by Maxim Gorky. The Devil and the Old Man by John Masefield.

Pierce Penniless's supplication to the Devil by Thomas Nashe 1592

The Three Devils: Luther's, Milton's, and Goethe's by David Masson 1874

Paradise Lost by John Milton 1910

The Temptation of Saint Anthony by Gustave Flaubert 1910

The Sorrows of Satan by Marie Corelli 1896

Faust by Goethe 1908

Mr. Faust by Arthur Ficke

Faust's Death by Carl Moelling 1865

The Faust Legend And Goethes faust by HB Cotterill 1912

Flowers of Evil by Charles Baudelaire 1909

Asmodeus at Large by Edward Bulwer Lytton 1833

The Wonderful Visit by HG Wells 1914

Dante's Inferno 1888

The Devil's Case by RW Buchanan 1896

Satanism and Witchcraft, alternatively titled La Sorcière: The Witch in the Middle Ages by Jules Michelet 1863

The Tragedy of Man by Imre Madách 1908 (famous Hungarian play featuring Adam, Eve and Lucifer)

The Devil's Disciple by George Bernard Shaw 1901

The Mysterious Stranger by Mark Twain 1922
 gdixierose

Martin Luther Said the Darndest Things

Talking Tough - Martin Luther's Potty Mouth

Martin Luther, German leader of the Protestant Revolution, founder of Lutheranism, Protestant theologian, and Bible Translator, made many interesting comments that would make many hairs stand up...and also make a sailor blush. The following is an excerp:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I resist the devil, and often it is with a fart that I chase him away."

"God does not work salvation for fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin vigorously.... Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice; sin must be committed."

“Whoever drinks beer, he is quick to sleep; whoever sleeps long, does not sin; whoever does not sin, enters Heaven! Thus, let us drink beer!”

"Sin cannot tear you away from him [Christ], even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders."

"A large number of deaf, crippled and blind people are afflicted solely through the malice of the demon. And one must in no wise doubt that plagues, fevers and every sort of evil come from him."

“I'm like a ripe stool and the world's like a gigantic anus, and we're about to let go of each other.”

"An earthly kingdom cannot exist without inequality of persons. Some must be free, some serfs, some rulers, some subjects."

"As for the demented, I hold it certain that all beings deprived of reason are thus afflicted only by the Devil."

"As to the common people, ... one has to be hard with them and see that they do their work and that under the threat of the sword and the law they comply with the observance of piety, just as you chain up wild beasts."

"At Poltersberg, there is a lake similarly cursed. If you throw a stone into it, a dreadful storm immediately arises, and the whole neighboring district quakes to its centre. 'Tis the devils kept prisoner there."

"At Sussen, the Devil carried off, last Good Friday, three grooms who had devoted themselves to him."

"Demons live in many lands, but particularly in Prussia."

"How often have not the demons called 'Nix,' drawn women and girls into the water, and there had commerce with them, with fearful consequences."

"I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kulenberg did."

"I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist."

"I maintain that some Jew wrote it [the Book of James] who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any."

"I myself saw and touched at Dessay, a child of this sort, which had no human parents, but had proceeded from the Devil. He was twelve years old, and, in outward form, exactly resembled ordinary children."

"I should have no compassion on these witches; I should burn them all."

"Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads...."

"The Holy Spirit unveiled the Scriptures for me in this tower at the lavatory."

"In many countries there are particular places to which devils more especially resort. In Prussia there is an infinite number of evil spirits."

"In Switzerland, on a high mountain, not far from Lucerne, there is a lake they call Pilate's Pond, which the Devil has fixed upon as one of the chief residences of his evil spirits...."

"Many demons are in woods, in waters, in wildernesses, and in dark poolly places ready to hurt...people."

"Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. 'Faith justifies' and 'faith does not justify' contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor's hood and let him call me a fool."

"No gown worse becomes a than the desire to be wise."

“Devil, I have just $h!t in my trousers. Have you smelled it?”

"Our bodies are always exposed to Satan. The maladies I suffer are not natural, but Devil's spells."

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the Divine Word...."

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."

"Snakes and monkeys are subjected to the demon more than other animals. Satan lives in them and possesses them. He uses them to deceive men and to injure them."

"Some [demons] are also in the thick black clouds, which cause hail, lightning and thunder, and poison the air, the pastures and grounds."

"The best way to get rid of the Devil, if you cannot kill it with the words of Holy Scripture, is to rail at and mock him. Music, too, is very good; music is hateful to him, and drives him far away. "

"The damned whore Reason...."

"The Devil can so completely assume the human form, when he wants to deceive us, that we may well lie with what seems to be a woman, of real flesh and blood, and yet all the while 'tis only the Devil in the shape of a woman. 'Tis the same with women, who may think that a man is in bed with them, yet 'tis only the Devil; and...the result of this connection is oftentimes an imp of darkness, half mortal, half devil...."

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of [him]."

"The Devil fears the word of God, He can't bite it; it breaks his teeth."

"The Devil, it is true, is not exactly a doctor who has taken degrees, but he is very learned, very expert for all that. He has not been carrying on his business during thousands of years for nothing...."

"The Devil, too, sometimes steals human children; it is not infrequent for him to carry away infants within the first six weeks after birth, and to substitute in their place imps...."

"The fact that [the biblical book] Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle, is proved by what it says in chapter two...."

"The winds are nothing else but good or bad spirits. Hark! how the Devil is puffing and blowing...."

"There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Ghost, and he himself a prophet."

"This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

"To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason."

"...two devils rose from the water, and flew off through the air, crying, 'Oh, oh, oh!' and turning one over another, in sportive mockery...."

"We are at fault for not slaying them [the Jews]."

"We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the world did not exist."

"We may well lie with what seems to be a woman of flesh and blood, and yet all the time it is only a devil in the shape of a woman."

"We need not invite the Devil to our table; he is too ready to come without being asked. The air all about us is filled with demons...."

"We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [the University of Wittenberg]

"When I was a child there were many witches, and they bewitched both cattle and men, especially children."

"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason."

"Women...have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end that they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children."

"So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard."

Charles Morgridge on the Use of the Plural for God

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

A plurality of persons in the Godhead is argued from the plural termination of Aleim (Elohim), Adonim, and other Hebrew names for God. ELOHIM, or ALEIM, (being written without points) is the first word in the Hebrew Bible which is translated God. It is the plural of Al, or El; the proper sound of Aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, being now unknown. Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on Gen. 1:1, says, “The original word Elohim, God, is certainly the plural form of El, and has long been supposed by the most eminently learned and pious men, to imply a plurality of Persons in the Divine nature. As this plurality appears in so many parts of the Sacred Writings, to be confined to three Persons, hence the doctrine of the TRINITY.”

If the word Aleim, Adonim, &c. necessarily implies plurality at all, it denotes a plurality of Gods. It is impossible to translate the word Aleim so as to favor the Trinitarian hypothesis. It must be rendered either God, or Gods. If it be rendered God, the idea of plurality does not appear; if it be rendered Gods, we have a plurality of Gods, which no Christian will admit. Dr. Wardlaw, pressed with this difficulty, has translated Deut. 6:4, “Hear, O Israel, JEHOVAH, our Gods (ALEIM) Is one JEHOVAH.” Mr. Robbins thinks the plural termination implies a plurality of persons. After giving a few examples, such as “Remember thy Creators,” he says, “These texts of Scripture seem to establish the fact that there is a plurality of persons in God, though they do not fix the number.”

If the word Aleim necessarily implies plurality, how is it that the Jews have never understood it in that sense, when applied to God? That they have not so understood it, is certain from the fact, that, in the Septuagint, they have always translated it in the singular number. The Jews have never been Trinitarians. The very people by whom, and for whom, the Scriptures of the Old Testament were written, in their own language, and from whom we have derived all our knowledge of that language, have always maintained the doctrine of the Unity of God, in opposition to a plurality. Is it possible that they could have remained ignorant, to this day, of the true meaning of a most important word in their native tongue; a word connected with every part of their religion? If we suppose the Jews to have been thus ignorant, is it possible that Jesus Christ and the Apostles should not have corrected their error, if indeed it was an error? Yet they have always translated the words Aleim, Adonim, &c. when they denote God, by a word absolutely of the singular number. The very passage which Mr. Wardlaw translates thus, “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah, our GODS, is one Jehovah,” is thus translated into Greek, by the Evangelist Mark: “The Lord, our God, is one Lord.”—Mark 12:29. The plural form never appears in the New Testament, although the doctrine of the Trinity, which this form is supposed to support, is said to be the fundamental doctrine of the New Testament. As the Hebrew names of God, which have a plural form, are always translated into Greek by the word QEOS, of the singular number, instead of QEOI, of the plural, this ought to settle the question. Are not the inspired Apostles and Evangelists as sure guides to the import of a Hebrew word, as Mr. Wardlaw and Mr. Robbins?

Mr. Christie, in his discourses on the Unity of God, says, “that in all languages there are words of a plural termination, that have a singular signification, and that this is an idiom of the Hebrew language, and is acknowledged to be so by some of the best Trinitarian critics themselves.”

Wilson, in his Hebrew Grammar, p. 270, says, “Words, that express dominion, dignity, majesty, are commonly put in the plural.”

Thus it is evident to the mere English scholar, that the Hebrew names for God, which have plural terminations, may, according to a common rule of syntax, be used as singular, to denote but one. This rule may be illustrated by the following examples. On account of the authority and dignity of the patriarch Abraham, the Hebrew word Adonim, translated Master, (Gen. 24: 9, 10) is put in the plural number. Literally translated, the passage would read thus: “And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his masters, and sware to him concerning that matter; and the servant took ten camels of the camels of his masters, and departed; for all the goods of his masters were in his hand.” According to the same rule, Potiphar is called the masters of Joseph, in Gen. 39: 2, 3, 7, 8, 19, 20, and the Lords of Joseph, in verse 16, and 40: 7. Joseph is called “The man who is the Lords (Adonim) of the land,” Gen. 42:30, and “the Lords (Adonim) of the country,” in verse 33. God says to Moses, “See, I have made thee Gods (Aleim) to Pharaoh.”—Ex. 7:1. Here we have the same evidence for a plurality of persons in Abraham, Potiphar, Joseph, and Moses, which is urged by Trinitarians for a plurality of persons in God.

If Aleim is of plural import, when applied to God, and denotes a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, there cannot be less than six persons in the Godhead, without the Holy Spirit.

“Thy throne, O God, (Aleim) is forever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God (Aleim), thy God (Aleim), hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”—Ps. 45: 6, 7. In this passage it is supposed by Trinitarians, that God the Father, the first person in the Trinity, speaks to God the Son, the second person. But each one is called Aleim. If Aleim means Trinity, here we have one Trinity anointing another Trinity above his fellows. But if a Trinity has fellows, these fellows must be fellow Trinities, I suppose. Can one Trinity be anointed above another Trinity, without endangering their equality? This, I think, sufficiently exposes the absurdity of giving to Aleim a plural signification, when it is used to denote the Supreme Being.

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in translating this passage, has rendered the Hebrew Aleim by the Greek QEOS, a word absolutely singular. Now if he believed Aleim to be of plural import, he has handled the word of God deceitfully, and turned its truth into a lie. Had he been a Trinitarian, he would have translated as Trinitarians do. Had Mr. Wardlaw and Mr. Robbins translated Aleim as St. Paul (if he was the author of Heb.) has done, they must have stood condemned, at the tribunal of their own conscience, as having wilfully perverted the word of God.

4. As St. Paul has applied the passage under consideration to “the Son,” who is confessedly but one person, we have certain evidence that the word Aleim is sometimes of singular import. But if it be ever of singular import, it ought to be so understood when applied to God, whose Unity is so unequivocally asserted in the Scriptures.

5. Aleim is not only used to denote one single person, but is frequently applied to an idol. Let the reader critically examine Exodus 22: 3, 4, 7, 8, 31, and he will find Aleim, when used to denote the golden calf that Aaron made, rendered Gods, though neither Moses the writer, nor the translators, had the least suspicion that there was a plurality of persons in that dumb idol.

By consulting Judges 8: 33, and 16: 23, 24, it will appear that the plural Aleim is no less than five times used to denote one single idol, which was never thought to possess a plurality of persons; and that it is translated god, not gods, as in the case of the golden calf. 1 Kings, 11:33: Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, and Milcom, the god of the children of Ammon, are designated by the plural word Aleim, though each of these idols was but one person. If other examples are necessary, the reader may consult Num. 25: 1–5; Deut. 9: 7; 1 Sam, 4: 5–8; 1 Kings, 11: 5; 2 Kings, 1:2, 19: 37.

As these plural forms appear only in the Old Testament, where the doctrine of the Trinity is said to be not expressly taught, and entirely disappear in the New, in which the Trinity is said to be a cardinal doctrine, and to be more explicitly taught; and as they are often used to denote but one person or thing, it seems in the highest degree absurd to insist on their plural signification when applied to the only True God, whose strict Unity is so often and so unequivocally asserted both in the Old and the New Testament.

Another argument for a plurality of persons in the Godhead is derived from the use of the plural pronouns Our and Us, when God is supposed to be the speaker. Trinitarians have been able to collect, from the whole Bible, as many as three or four such passages, viz. Gen. 1:26, 3:22, 11:7, and Isa. 6:8. In answer to this argument I submit the following conssiderations.

1. In only one of these four texts does the plural pronoun necessarily imply a plurality of persons. “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”—Gen. 3:22. The expression, “one of us,” seems to allude to a plurality of persons, or intelligent beings. But that they were persons in the Godhead is impossible. For if God was the speaker, all, that was included in God, was included in the speaker. If in God there was a plurality of persons, the same plurality was in the speaker. Consequently the person, or persons, addressed, could not be persons in the Godhead. None but real distinct beings can converse together, or address each other, or hear conversation. Whenever God speaks to any person, that person is as much another being, as another person. No one, of a plurality of equal beings, can be the only True God. If the Supreme Being was the speaker, in this case, the beings, spoken to, could not be coequal persons in the Godhead.

2. The only attribute, which the passage ascribes to the beings denoted by the pronoun _us_, is the knowledge of good and evil. Now if there are any other intelligent beings, inferior to God, who resemble man in the capacity of knowing good and evil, it is reasonable to suppose the allusion was made to them. But it is certain there are such beings; and that they are called “Gods” in the 5th verse of this chapter. “In the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” These are the words of the serpent, to which the expression, “one of us,” unquestionably alludes. Therefore the assertion “The man is become as one of us,” only signifies, that the man was become as one of the host of heaven, or family of God; resembling them in the capacity of distinguishing between good and evil. Jesus uses the pronoun us, when speaking to his Father; and why may not the Father, when speaking to any of his children, or any of his servants? If a master were to say to his servant, concerning another person, “the man is become as one of us” in some branch of knowledge, which was common both to the master and servant, who would infer, from such a manner of speaking, that the servant was equal to his master, or that the master was himself a plurality of persons? And yet the doctrine of a plurality of equal persons in God is inferred, merely from his speaking in this manner to some of the heavenly host!

3. In the other three passages referred to, the pronouns, _us_ and _our_, do not necessarily imply a plurality of persons. It is common in all languages, with which we are acquainted, and it appears always to have been so, for an individual, especially if he be a person of great dignity and power, in speaking of himself only, to say we, our, us, instead of I, my, me. Thus the king of France says, “We, Charles the tenth.” The king of Spain says, “We, Ferdinand the seventh.” The Emperor of Russia says, “We, Alexander,” or “We, Nicholas.”

The following examples from the Scriptures further illustrate this universal custom.

Rehoboam, king of Israel, uses the pronoun _we_ when speaking of himself, thus, “What counsel give ye, that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me.”—1 Kings, 12: 9. See also 2 Chron. 10: 6–9.

Artaxerxes, king of Persia, uses the pronoun _us_ when speaking of himself, thus, “The letter which ye sent unto us, hath been plainly read before me.”—Ezra, 4:18.

Zedekiah, king of Judah, speaks of himself in the same manner, thus, “As the Lord liveth, that made us this soul, I will not put thee to death.”—Jer. 38:16. Who would infer from this manner of speaking, that in each of these kings there was a plurality of persons? Nor is this manner peculiar to kings. Christ uses the words _we_ and _our_, when speaking of himself, thus, “Verily, verily; I say unto you we speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness: If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you heavenly things?"—John 3:11, 12.

St. Paul, in describing his situation and feelings, uses the pronouns _we_, _our_, _its_, almost as frequently as _I_, _my_, _me_. And where is the writer, or the public speaker, who does not employ the same style? Are we to believe that every preacher and every orator of the present day, who says _we_, _our_, _us_, when he means no one but himself, employs a phraseology indicative of a plurality of persons in himself? If not, why should we believe God to be a plurality of persons, because in three or four instances he has spoken in this manner?

“If therefore we consider,” says Mr. Yates, “how common throughout the world has been the use of plural promouns to express the dignity and authority of the speaker, and that in the Scriptures this phraseology is employed by a Prophet, an Apostle, or a Prince, we cannot be surprised, that in three instances the King of Kings should employ the same majestic language. The wonder is, that the examples are so rare. Perhaps this form of expression was in general studiously avoided, in order to preserve the great doctrine of the Unity of God in one person, from the possibility of misapprehension.”

4. It is well known that Mohammed was a determined opposer of the doctrine of the Trinity: yet he often represents God as saying _we_, _our_, _us_, when speaking only of himself. This shows that, in his opinion, the use of such terms was not indicative of a plurality of persons. If no one infers, from their frequent use in the Koran, that Mohammed was a Trinitarian, surely their occurrence in a few places in the Bible ought not to be made a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity.

5. A plurality of persons, when speaking of themselves, never say _I_, _my_, _me_, _mine_, _myself_. There is no rule, or custom, known among men, to justify such a style. Yet God always speaks of himself in the use of the singular pronouns, except in three or four cases. This proves, beyond all debate, that God is but one individual person. One person can say _we_, _our_, _us_; but a plurality of persons cannot say _I_, _my_, _me_, _mine_, _myself_.

6. Every Trinitarian, who argues for a plurality of persons, from the use of plural pronouns, strengthens the opposite argument of the Unitarian. For if the use of plural pronouns is proof that God is several persons, the use of singular pronouns is proof that God is but one person. And the three or four cases in which the plural pronouns are employed, weigh no more than the small dust of the balance against the thousands, and tens of thousands of cases in which the singular pronouns are employed. Therefore the evidence that God is but one person, which is furnished by the use of the singular pronouns, God being the speaker, is thousands of times as strong as the evidence that he is more persons than one, which is furnished by the use of the plural pronouns.

7. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness......So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.”—Gen. 1:26, 27. As God's purpose, which he expressed by saying, Let us make man, was carried into effect by one person only, as the singular pronouns he and his clearly indicate, it is proper to infer that no more than one person was meant by the plural pronouns us and our.

“And the LORD said....Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language.”—Gen. 11:7. “Let me go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.”—Gen. 18:21. By comparing these two passeges together, we find that the same Being who, in the one, is represented as saying, “Let us go down,” is, in the other represented as saying, “Let me go down.” And as the singular pronoun, _me_ and _I_, in the latter passage, can denote but one person, it follows that the plural pronoun _us_, in the former passage, means no more than one. If it be objected that the expression, in the latter passage, is “I will go down,” and not “Let me go down,” as I have rendered it—I answer, that the verb, in both passages, is in the future tense in the original Hebrew, and may be translated either imperatively, or indicatively. We have a singular example of the use of the pronoun both in the singular and plural number, by the same speaker, and in relation to the same subject, in 1 Kings, 12:6-9, and in the parallel passage in 2 Chron. 10:6–9, already referred to. When Rehoboam consulted the old men concerning a reply to be made to the people of Israel, he said, “How do ye advise, that I may answer this people?” But when he consulted the young men, he assumed a more majestic and princely style, and said “What counsel give ye, that we may answer this people?”

“Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people,” &c. Isa. 6:8,9. As the pronouns I and he can denote but one person, it follows that the pronoun us, can mean no more than one person.

Finally, if these forms of expression were evidence that God did address some other being, who, of all the family above, would be so likely to be the object of such address, as his Son, "...by whom also he made the worlds?” So far as we are acquainted with the operations of Jehovah, it appears that all his works are effected through the agency of some intermediate minister. If God “created all things by Jesus Christ,” as we read in the Common Version, he would, unquestionably, sooner consult with him, especially in reference to the creation of man, than with any other being in the universe.

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

The Only True Church

Dr Ralph Wilson: It is typical of cults, however, to see themselves as the only right way of serving God, and the only ones who will be saved when God judges mankind. 

Reply: When I read this I am reminded the book, "True for you, but Not for Me" by Copan. In it he writes, "The Hindu philosopher Swami Vivekenanda came to Chicago in 1893 to address the World's Parliament of Religons. He told the delegates, 'We [Hindus] accept all religions to be true,' and '[it] is a sin to call a man [a sinner].'

What a problematic and self-contradictory view! The swami calls someone a sinner - because that person has called another a sinner. If the exclusivist is a sinner for calling all people sinners, then the Hindu is just as much a sinner for calling the exclusivist a sinner." p.34
Dr Wilson condemns some groups for saying that they are the only right way of serving God, yet the whole point of his article is to show that Wilson is right and these "cults" are wrong.

If we take a look at say, Bob Larson's Book of Cults, we realize that according to mainstream evangelicals, there are many many cults. According to the criteria set out in this book, five American presidents are cultists, as was Isaac Newton and other prominent people. People write to me to tell me that Catholicism is a cult, as is Islam and the Eastern religious cults. This accounts for most of the world's population.  Evidently, anyone is a cultist if they simply don't believe the same as you. The word "cult" is so overused it has completely lost its power.

Someone (JH) once wrote to me to tell me that "Independent fundamental local church Baptists do hold the only true saving faith (salvation by grace through faith in Christ apart from any works), but we are not the only ones that have this saving faith....Independent fundamental local church Baptists are, however, Christ's true churches whereas the Roman Catholic 'Church', all Protestant 'churches', Universal 'Church', and cults [including SDA] are not."

Others believe similarly (these links are rather old and may not work now):

"Now, when I was growing up, I heard that the Baptists were the only true faith because we went back past Peter, to John the Baptist, who baptized Jesus by immersion. Anybody that had not received believer's baptism by being dunked under the water, not some little sprinkling, had a defect."
By Pastor Lanny Peters
http://www.oakhurstbaptist.org/obc/Sermons/Sermon_2000_10_01_WorldCommunion=.htm

"It is not to be understood that each of these groups was entirely free from error or entirely embraced the truth. Through these groups can be traced the people called Baptists. In these groups is to be found the true church -- not in Catholicism.
http://members.aol.com/libcfl/history.htm

"Baptists did not come out of the Reformation under Martin Luther, for they were never a part of the Catholic Church. In fact Baptists were on the scene long before the Catholic Church ever came into existence. For those who are interested in studying more on this subject we highly recommend The Trail of Blood, by J. M. Carroll.
We do not believe in a so-called "Universal Invisible Church." We believe that Jesus established a local, visible church, and we are sure that this is the only kind of true church that is in existence today.
http://www.victorybaptist.org.uk/whatwebelieve.html

"At another extreme, the follower of one faith approaches the other from a position of superiority. She/he assertively presents theirs as the only true religion. Other faiths, including the religion of the listener, may [sic] described as inferior, filled with errors, and even Satan-inspired. The proselytizer might state that the other will spend eternity being tortured in Hell unless they convert to the proselytizer's religion...."However, the implicit suggestion in Southern Baptist prayer guides is that 'others, including Christians, who do not practice the Christian faith as they do are not as Christian,' contended United Methodist Bishop C. Joseph Sprague, a member of the inter-faith council. 'That is insulting to us and conducive to real hurt.' With the recent defamation of synagogues and deaths attributed to hate crimes in the Chicago area, the bishop said, 'it's no stretch to look back at history and see cause and effect.'"
"Sprague said the incident reflects the theological divide between Christians about evangelism. Evangelical Christians, like Southern Baptists, believe that salvation comes only by accepting Jesus Christ as savior. Others consider Christ as the decisive revelation and that believers witness their faith by living life 'with Jesus Christ as savior, living and proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ.' It is clear as the Southern Baptist leadership has communicated that they have a hold on truth, and others who do not agree are outside the fold of salvation,' the bishop said. 'That is offensive and theologically suspect...This raises deep historic wounds, particularly in the Jewish community. It is important for us as Christians to remember that this is still the century of the Holocaust.' "
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chi_decl.htm

Of course, it is not only Baptists:

"Is Evangelism the only true faith? It is the truest. The Lord decides [I'm a big believer in the absolute sovereignty of God] what is best for each of us and guides us to what food we can digest."
http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?action=oct99_1&startwith=40
"The Pentecostals of Clearwater is part of the United Pentecostal Church International, which has 2.6-million members around the world. Greg Bowe, 30, an analyst at an insurance and security firm, said he began attending a year ago "because it's the only true faith ... it doesn't cut things out of the Bible."  "The spirit of God is like nothing else," he said about speaking in tongues. "It's a joy no amount of alcohol, money or drugs can give you."
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/07/06/NorthPinellas/Congregation_is_thril.shtml

"the only true Church of Christ is the Catholic Church."
http://www.truecatholic.org/baltapx.htm

"I would like to teach this week on the deity of Christ, and the truth concerning the Jesus only faith, which is the only true faith set forth by God's apostles and the old testament writings that firmly establish the oneness of God."
http://truelightpentecostal.org/042902.html

"The Slavophils thought that Russian people live by the Orthodox faith, which is the only true faith containing the entire
truth... http://www.earlham.edu/archive/opf-l/May-2001/msg00043.html

"it has Apostolic foundations and it has the Apostolic Succession. The Orthodox Church believes it is the only true Church which has kept all these distinctive marks." http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/ortho.htm

Orthodox Church
"Thinking (like so many others) that they are the One And Only True Church" http://www.godulike.co.uk/az.php?order=o

You cannot condemn one group as a "cult" for believing they have true faith, and at the same time embrace the same view for yourself.

Buy these Books: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

Buy my published Kindle book on Amazon on Forgotten Bible Versions for only 99 cents  and Buy Forgotten Tales of Dogs - 60 Chapters of Dogs in Legend, Lore, Love, Loyalty and Intelligence for only 99 cents

Songs & Hymns with the Name Jehovah in the Title

Here are some songs I found online with the Divine Name in the title:

You are Jehovah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hF7mD-mSbs

He Is Jehovah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eDTFRZeHIA

Jehovah is your Name

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro9KtH6cSVU

In the Presence of Jehovah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgQX4lDzpWg

Hallelujah Praise Jehovah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4_i-6QPjZ0

Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5uwi04ttjA

Jehovah Jireh My Provider

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy2FFM9Kjqw

Guide Me O Thou Great Jehovah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK9-bJlSt6c

The Lord Jehovah Reigns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2soYV5b4Ms

Jehovah, let me now adore Thee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP_QLxbrTKo

Call Jehovah Thy Salvation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA-y_wzb028

Forward Still It's Jehovah's Will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a811VnV7GQ

Call Jehovah Thy Salvation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EESgRhz67Y

The Absurdity of the Trinity Doctrine by Baron D'Holbach

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

From Letters to Eugenia on the Absurd, Contradictory and Demoralizing Dogmas and Mysteries of the Christian Religion by Baron D'Holbach (1723-1789)

The Christians, scarcely content with the crowd of enigmas with which the books of the Jews are filled, have besides fancied they must add to them a great many incomprehensible mysteries, for, which they have the most profound veneration. Their impenetrable obscurity appears to be a sufficient motive among them for adding these. Their priests, encouraged by their credulity, which nothing can outdo, seem to be studious to multiply the articles of their faith, and the number of inconceivable objects which they have said must be received with submission, and adored even if not understood.

The first of these mysteries is the Trinity, which supposes that one God, self-existent, who is a pure spirit, is, nevertheless, composed of three Divinities, which have obtained the names of persons. These three Gods, who are designated under the respective names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are, nevertheless, but one God only. These three persons are equal in power, in wisdom, in perfections; yet the second is subordinate to the first, in consequence of which he was compelled to become a man, and be the victim of the wrath of his Father. This is what the priests call the mystery of the incarnation. Notwithstanding his innocence, his perfection, his purity, the Son of God became the object of the vengeance of a just God, who is the same as the Son in question, but who would not consent to appease himself but by the death of his own Son, who is a portion of himself. The Son of God, not content with becoming man, died without having sinned, for the salvation of men who had sinned. God preferred to the punishment of imperfect beings, whom he did not choose to amend, the punishment of his only Son, full of divine perfections. The death of God became necessary to reclaim the human kind from the slavery of Satan, who without that would not have quitted his prey, and who has been found sufficiently powerful against the Omnipotent to oblige him to sacrifice his Son. This is what the priests designate by the name of the mystery of redemption.

It is, unquestionably, the briefest way to show the absurdity of these notions, to state them fairly as the priests deliver them to us. It is evident, that if there be but one God alone, there could not be three. Yet one may very easily conceive such a trifold Divinity much in the same way as Plato, who has, doubtless, had the advantage of the Christian teachers in this respect, since he fashioned the Deity under three different points of view, namely, all-powerful, all-wise, reasonable, and, in fine, as full of goodness; but in the excess of his zeal for these perfections, Plato, who personified these three divine qualities, either himself transformed them into three real beings, or, at least, furnished the Christians with the means of their composition. It is not a difficult task to suppose, that those moral attributes may be found in one and the same God; but it is the height of folly, because such a supposition can be reasonably entertained, to fashion three different Gods; and in vain shall we be able to remedy this metaphysical polytheism by arguments to make of one three, and of three one. Besides, this reverie never entered the head of the Hebrew Legislator.— The Eternal, it is true, revealed himself to Moses, but not as a threefold Deity. There is not one syllable in the Old Testament about this Trinity, although a notion so bizzare, so marvellous, and so little consonant with our ideas of a divine being, deserved to have been formally announced, especially as it is the foundation and corner-stone of the Christian religion, which was from all eternity an object of the divine solicitude, and on the establishment of which, if we may credit our sapient priests, God seems to have entertained serious thoughts long before the creation of the world.

Nevertheless, the second person, or the second God of the Trinity, is revealed in flesh, the son of God is made man. But how could the pure Spirit who presides over the universe beget a son? How could this son, who before his incarnation was only a pure spirit, combine that etherial essence with a material body, and envelope himself with it? How could the divine nature amalgamate itself with the imperfect nature of man, and how could an immense and infinite being, as the Deity is represented, be formed in the womb of a virgin? After what manner could a pure spirit fecundate this favourite virgin? Did the Son of God enjoy in the womb of his mother, the faculties of omnipotence, or was he like other children during his infancy, weak, liable to infirmities, sickness, and intellectual imbecility, so conspicuous in the years of childhood; and if so, what, during this period, became of the divine wisdom and power? In fine, how could God suffer and die? How could a just God consent that a God exempt from all sin should endure the chastisements which are due to sinners? Why did he not appease himself without immolating a victim so precious and so innocent?

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents