Andrews Norton on Sharp's Rule (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1)

Andrews Norton on Sharp's Rule (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1)

The argument for the deity of Christ founded upon the omission of the Greek article was revived and brought into notice...by Granville Sharp, Esq. He applied it to eight texts which will be hereafter mentioned. The last words of Ephesians v. 5 may afford an example of the construction on which the argument is founded:

EN TH BASILEIA TOU CRISTOU KAI QEOU.

From the article being inserted before CRISTOU and omitted before QEOU, Mr. Sharp infers that both names relate to the same person, and renders, “in the kingdom of Christ our God.” Conformably to the manner in which he understands it, it might be rendered, “in the kingdom of him who is Christ and God.” The proper translation I suppose to be that of the Common Version, “in the kingdom of Christ and of God,” or “in the kingdom of the Messiah and of God.”

The argument of Sharp is defended by Bishop Middleton in his Doctrine of the Greek Article. By attending to the rule laid down by him, with its limitations and exceptions, we shall be able to judge of its applicability to the passages in question. His rule is this:-

“When two or more attributives, joined by a copulative or copulatives, are assumed of [relate to] the same person or thing, before the first attributive the article is inserted, before the remaining ones it is omitted.” (pp. 79, 80.)

By attributives, he understands adjectives, participles, and nouns which are significant of character, relation, and dignity.

The limitations and exceptions to the rule stated by him are as follows:—

There is no similar rule respecting “names of substances considered as substances.” Thus we may say hO LIQOS (stone) KAI CRUSOS (gold), without repeating the article before CRUSOS, though we speak of two different substances. The reason of this limitation of the rule is stated to be that “distinct real essences cannot be conceived to belong to the same thing”; or, in other words, that the same thing cannot be supposed to be two different substances. – In this case, then, it appears that the article is not repeated, because its repetition is not necessary to prevent ambiguity. This is the true principle which accounts for all the limitations and exceptions to the rule that are stated by Bishop Middleton and others. It is mentioned thus early, that the principle may be kept in mind; and its truth may be remarked in the other cases of limitation or of exception to be quoted.

No similar rule applies to proper names. “The reason,” says Middleton, “is evident at once; for it is impossible that John and Thomas, the names of two distinct persons, should be predicated of an individual.” (p. 86.) This remark is not to the purpose; for the same individual may have two names. The true reason for this limitation is, that proper names, when those of the same individual, are not connected by a copulative or copulatives, and therefore that, when they are thus connected, no ambiguity arises from the omission of the article.

“Nouns,” says Middleton, “which are the names of abstract ideas, are also excluded; for, as Locke has well observed, “Every distinct abstract idea is a distinct essence, and the names which stand for such distinct ideas are the names of things essentially different.” (Ibid.) It would therefore, he reasons, be contradictory to suppose that any quality were at once APEIRIA and APAIDEUSIA. But the names of abstract ideas are used to denote personal qualities, and the same personal qualities, as they are viewed under different aspects, may be denoted by different names. The reason assigned by Middleton is therefore without force. The true reason for the limitation is, that usually no ambiguity arises from the omission of the article before words of the class mentioned.

The rule, it is further conceded, is not of universal application as it respects plurals; for, says Middleton, “Though one individual may act, and frequently does act, in several capacities, it is not likely that a multitude of individuals should all of them act in the same several capacities: and, by the eXtreme improbability that they should be represented as so acting, we may be forbidden to understand the second plural attributive of the persons designed in the article prefixed to the first, however the usage in the singular might seem to countenance the construction.” (p. 90.)

Lastly, “we find,” he says, “in very many instances, not only in the plural, but even in the singular number, that where attributives are in their nature absolutely incompatible, i. e. where the application of the rule would involve a contradiction in terms, there the first attributive only has the article, the perspicuity of the passage not requiring the rule to be accurately observed” (p. 92.)

Having thus laid down the rule, with its limitations and exceptions, Bishop Middleton applies it to some of the passages in the New Testament adduced by Mr. Sharp in proof of the divinity of Christ. These were Acts xx. 28 (supposing the true reading to be TOU KURIOU KAI QEOU); Ephes. v. 5; 2 Thess. i. 12; 1 Tim. v. 21 (if KURIOU should be retained in the text); 2 Tim. iv. 1 (if we read TOU QEOU KAI KURIOU); Titus ii. 13; 2 Peter i. 1; Jude 4 (supposing QEON to belong to the text). In four of these eight texts, the reading adopted to bring them within the rule is probably spurious, as may be seen by referring to Griesbach; and they are in consequence either given up, or not strongly insisted upon, by Middleton. In one of the remaining, 2 Thess. i. 12, the reading is KATA THN CARIN TOU QEOU HMWN KAI KURIOU IHSOU CRISTOU. Of this Middleton is “disposed to think that it affords no certain evidence in favor of Mr Sharp,” because he “believes that KURIOS in the form of KURIOS IHSOS CRISTOS became as a title so incorporated with the proper name as to be subject to the same law.” (pp. 554, 564.) The three remaining texts are those on which he principally relies.

By the application of the rule to the passage last mentioned, it is inferred that Christ is called “God,” and “the great God”; and it is affirmed that the rule requires us to understand these titles as applied to him. The general answer to this reasoning is as follows.

It appears by comparing the rule with its exceptions and limitations, that it in fact amounts to nothing more than this: that when substantives, adjectives, or participles are connected together by a copulative or copulatives, if the first have the article, it is to be omitted before those which follow, when they relate to the same person or thing; and is to be inserted, when they relate to different persons or things, Except when this fact is sufficiently determined by some other circumstance. The same rule exists respecting the use of the definite article in English.

The principle of exception just stated is evidently that which runs through all the limitations and exceptions which Middleton has laid down and exemplified, and is in itself perfectly reasonable. When, from any other circumstance, it may be clearly understood that different persons or things are spoken of then the insertion or omission of the article is a matter of indifference.

But if this be true, no argument for the deity of Christ can be drawn from the texts adduced. With regard to this doctrine, the main question is, whether it were taught by Christ and his Apostles, and received by their immediate disciples. Antitrinitarians maintain that it was not; and consequently maintain that no thought of it was ever entertained by the Apostles and first believers. But if this supposition be correct, the insertion of the article in these texts was wholly unnecessary. No ambiguity could result from its omission. The imagination had not entered the minds of men, that God and Christ were the same person. The Apostles in writing, and their converts in reading, the passages in question, could have no more conception of one person only being understood, in consequence of the omission of the article, than of supposing but one substance to be meant by the terms hO LIQOS KAI CRUSOS, on account of the omission of the article before CRUSOS. These texts, therefore, cannot be brought to disprove the Antitrinitarian supposition, because this supposition must be proved false, before these texts can be taken from the exception and brought under the operation of the rule. The truth of the supposition accounts for the omission of the article.

[On the subject of this note, one may further consult the able tract of the Rev. Calvin Winstanley, entitled “A Vindication of certain Passages in the Common English Version of the New Testament. Addressed to Granville Sharp, Esq.”; published in 1805, and reprinted, with additions, at Cambridge (Mass.) in 1819. See also an essay by Professor Stuart, entitled “Hints and Cautions respecting the Greek Article,” in the Biblical Repository for April 1834; and the Rev. T. S. Green’s “Grammar of the New Testament Dialect,” (London, 1842,) p. 205, seqq.,- a work containing many acute observations. Winer, in his Grammar of the New Testament Idiom, 18.5, shows that there is no ground for the inference which Middleton and others would draw from the omission of the article in Titus ii. 13 and Jude 4.]

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

See a local listing for this book here

John 1:1 as a Forgery In Translation

John 1:1 as a Forgery In Translation

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

How coarse the forgery is in this case will be plain, when we give the following absolutely literal translation:—

"In (a) beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and the word was (a) god."

That is, the word was divine, a divine being, with him who is properly called the God.

We call the popular translation a coarse forgery, because it is forever compelling trinitarians to explain how the Word could possibly be with God, while literally being the God himself. The difficulty cannot be escaped: for John in the very next verse, as if wishing to anticipate the trinitarian contention, says, "The same was in (a) beginning with the God." How could the Word be the God and be with the God?

What John really said is easy to understand: That the Word in the indefinite past was a divine being, with the supreme God. Jesus himself was divine, and could be called a god, in the secondary sense.

In the age when John wrote, the word QEOS (theos, god), was applied to beings considered deities, and even to lesser beings sometimes; as in the case quoted by Jesus (John 10:35), "He called them gods unto whom the word of the God came."

And John (according to the text of Westcott and Hort) again in the first chapter emphasizes his use of the word QEOS {theos, god) in the secondary sense; saying (verse 18), "(An) only begotten god, he being in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared (him)." That is, the only begotten divine being, the Son of God, the only begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared the Father.

But the forgery in John 1:1 compels us to believe that the Word (Jesus) was with the supreme God, and was himself the supreme God; making John write nonsense. And this forgery is accomplished by the improper use of the capital letter in the English, and the ignoring of the use by John of the Greek article, which would in this case have shown the English reader that he was making a distinction between two beings, one of whom was the God, and the other a being also divine.

For the Greek word QEOS {theos, god) is generic; applying, in the age in which John wrote, to very many beings, all of whom, however, as we now know through divine revelation, were false QEOI {theoi, plural form, Gods, or gods) except God and his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. And this fact is alluded to by Paul in 1 Cor. 8: 4-6: —

"For there is no God but one. For though there be that are called gods (theoi), whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods (theoi) many, and lords {kurioi) many; yet to us there is one God
(theos), the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord (kurios) Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him."

The distinction intended and secured by John between the two beings, each of whom in John 1:1 he calls QEOS (theos, God, or god), is alluded to by Winer in his "New Testament Grammar," page 122, in the following language:—

"In John 1:1 QEOS HN hO LOGOS the article could not have been omitted if John had intended to designate the LOGOS as hO QEOS, because in this connection QEOS alone would be ambiguous. But that John designedly wrote QEOS is apparent, partly from the distinct antithesis PROS TON QEON verses 1, 2, and partly from the whole description of the LOGOS."

How shabby must then be considered that device that would not only conceal the distinction John intended by the use of the Greek article (seeing that he could not in his day make the sense distinction by the use of capitals and small letters), but must in the English Bible use our capital letter to mislead the reader. It is a clear case of forgery in translation.

But the moral bearing or significance of the act is not as great as the reader might at first suppose; seeing that the persons who committed the forgery had been trained to believe that there were three persons, each of whom was the infinite God, and yet there was but one infinite God.

Persons who have been trained to believe such an equation as 3 = 1 must consider theology a very mysterious science. And theologians of the trinitarian kind are always insisting on the mystery of the trinity, that it cannot be understood by the human mind; obscuring from their hearers and themselves that it is not a matter of mystery at all, but a matter of contradiction; that is, to teach that there are three persons, each of whom is infinitely God, is not mystery at all, but plain contradiction.

This Kindle book is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

An Overview of the Revised New Jerusalem Bible 2018

Available on Amazon

This Bible was released this year (2018), and claims to be a formal equivalent (literal) Bible, it is also a gender inclusive Bible. For instance, Matthew 4:4 reads, "A human lives not on bread alone" which feels awkward to me. However, the NJB had "human being" at this verse, (the JB had the more recognizable form "man"). The RNJB is however more of a gender-inclusive Bible than the NJB. As a result, this Bible will be rejected by conservative Catholics in favor of the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition or the Douay-Rheims Bible. See my comments below on gender inclusiveness.

For those who don't know already, the RNJB is a revision of the New Jerusalem Bible which was introduced in 1985, which itself was a revision of the The Jerusalem Bible from 1966...which itself was the English version of the French La Bible de Jerusalem.

This Bible does not bear the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat.

The Psalms is not a revision of the previous New Jerusalem Bible, but rather, it is the Revised Grail Psalter. Hence, unlike its predecessors, the Divine Name Yahweh is substituted by LORD.

The inside cover states that this Bible is not to be sold in the United states or Canada, but I had no problem purchasing it with my Prime membership here in the US.

Here are some sample translations for comparison:

Jerusalem Bible 1966 (JB) Matthew 2:2 "We saw his star as it rose and have come to do him homage."

New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) "We saw his star as it rose and have come to do him homage."

Revised New Jerusalem Bible (RNJB) "For we saw his star at its rising and have come to worship him."


JB John 16:7 "Still, I must tell you the truth: it is for your own good that I am going because unless I go, the Advocate will not come to you"

NJB "Still, I am telling you the truth: it is for your own good that I am going, because unless I go, the Paraclete will not come to you"

RNJB "Still I am telling you to truth: it is good for you that I am going, because unless I go, the Paraclete will not come to you"


JB Hebrews 1:6 "Again, when he brings the First-born into the world, he says: Let all the angels of God worship him."

NJB "Again, when he brings the First-born into the world, he says: Let all the angels of God pay him homage."

RNJB Again, when he brings the First-born into the world, he says: Let all the angels of God worship him."


JB 1 Corinthians 13:1 "If I have all the eloquence of men or of angels, but speak without love, I am simply a gong booming or a cymbal clashing."

NJB "Though I command languages both human and angelic -- if I speak without love, I am no more than a gong booming or a cymbal clashing."

RNJB "If I speak in the tongues of human beings and of angels but do not have love, I have become a sounding bronze or a cymbal clashing."


The JB and NJB use "only son" for MONOGENHS QEOS/hUION at John 1:18 however the RNJB uses "only-begotten Son." [The better Greek texts have "God" here, not "son."]


JB Revelation 5:10 "and made them a line of kings and priests, to serve our God and to rule the world."

NJB "and made them a line of kings and priests for God, to rule the world."

RNJB "and made them a kingdom and priests for God, And they will reign on earth."


JB Acts 20:28 "Be on your guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you the overseers, to feed the Church of God which he bought with his own blood."

NJB "Be on your guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you the guardians, to feed the Church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son."

RNJB " Be on your guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you the guardians, to feed the Church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son.


JB Romans 9:5 "They are descended from the patriarchs and from their flesh and blood came Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed!"

NJB "To them belong the fathers and out of them, so far as physical descent is concerned, came Christ who is above all, God, blessed for ever."

RNJB "To them belong the fathers and from them, according to the flesh, came Christ who is above all, God be blessed for ever."


At 2 Peter 2:4, the JB and NJB have "the underworld" while the RNJB has Tartarus


JB Matthew 5:22 "...anyone who is angry with his brother will answer for it before the court; if a man calls his brother 'Fool' he will answer for it before the Sanhedrine; and if a man calls him 'Renegade' he will answer for it in hell fire."

NJB "...anyone who is angry with a brother will answer for it before the court; anyone who calls a brother "Fool" will answer for it before the Sanhedrin; and anyone who calls him "Traitor" will answer for it in hell fire."

RNJB "anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will answer for it before the court; anyone who calls a brother or sister "idiot" will answer for it before the assembly; and anyone who calls a brother or sister "fool" will answer for it in hell fire."


JB Acts 17:18 "Does this parrot know what he's talking about?"

NJB "What can this parrot mean?"

RNJB "What does this word-spinner mean?"


JB Galatians 5:12 "Tell those who are disturbing you I would like to see the knife slip."

NJB "I could wish that those who are unsettling you would go further and mutilate themselves."

RNJB "I wish that those who are unsettling you would do some cutting off."


JB 1 Corinthians 7:36 "Still, if there is anyone who feels that it would not be fair to his daughter (parthenon, virgin) to let her grow too old for marriage, and that he should do something about it, he is free to do as he likes: he is not sinning if there is a marriage."

NJB "If someone with strong passions thinks that he is behaving badly towards his fiance'e and that things should take their due course, he should follow his desires. There is no sin in it; they should marry."

RNJB "If anyone thinks he is behaving badly towards his fiance'e and he is passionate and there is no alternative, let him do what he wishes; he is not sinning - let them marry.


While the JB and NJB has "compatriots" the RNJB has "fellow-citizens" at Luke 19:14. All three Bibles have "corn-fields" at Matthew 12:1.


JB Hebrews 1:1-4 "At various times in the past and in various different ways, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets; But in our own time, the last days, he has spoken to us through his Son, the Son that he has appointed to inherit everything and through whom he made everything there is. He is the radiant light of God’s glory and the perfect copy of his nature, sustaining the universe by his powerful command; and now that he has destroyed the defilement of sin, he has gone to take his place in heaven at the right hand of divine Majesty. So he is now as far above the angels as the title which he has inherited is higher than their own name."

NJB "At many moments in the past and by many means, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets; but in our time, the final days, he has spoken to us in the person of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things and through whom he made the ages. He is the reflection of God’s glory and bears the impress of God’s own being, sustaining all things by his powerful command; and now that he has purged sins away, he has taken his seat at the right hand of the divine Majesty on high. So he is now as far above the angels as the title which he has inherited is higher than their own name."

RNJB "In many ways and by many means in the past, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things and through whom he made the ages. He is the reflection of God's glory and the imprint of God's own being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. Now that he has made purification for sins, he has taken his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high. So he is now far above the angels, as the name which he has inherited is more excellent than theirs."


JB Matthew 1:19 "Her husband Joseph, being a man of honor and wanting to spare her publicity, decided to divorce her informally."

NJB "Her husband Joseph, being an upright man and wanting to spare her disgrace, decided to divorce her informally."

The RNJB here uses "dismiss her quietly" instead of "divorce."

The back cover states: "Ancient systems of measuring and timing have been replaced by modern, metric equivalents." However, I can still find the word "cubit" (Matt 6:27...not modern) and "mile" (Matt 5:41...not metric).

Hebrews 13:10 is used by Catholics as a defense for the Mass, however the footnote in this Bible destroys that argument with "Probably a metaphor for Christ's heavenly sacrifice rather than an Earthly eucharistic altar."

About the word MAN:

As dictionary.com states: a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex:
prehistoric man.
the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind:
Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war.

As for the Bible:

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

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

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

Conclusion: I have always been a big fan of the New Jerusalem Bible. I have a very worn out copy that I still make use of today. While I have not read the entire New Testament of the Revised New Jerusalem Bible, it is better than most modern Protestant Bibles, but so far as I can see, it is not an improvement over the New Jerusalem Bible. I will still be using my NJB for reading and studying.

The Shape of the Cross (from an 1879 book)

Buy my Kindle Book, The Strange History of Easter and the Christian Cross on Amazon for only $1.99 

From Revelations of Antichrist: Concerning Christ and Christianity published in 1879

Most people think that a cross, as an instrument of punishment, always implies a beam with a cross-bar. Not so. The Greek word is stauros, and is rendered in Latin, 1st, vallus, (a long spar of timber, a stake or post;) 2d, palus ligneus, (a post of wood to which the condemned were tied to be scourged and executed;) 3d, crux, (a cross, gibbet, or gallows.) Its simplest form was "an upright stake on which a malefactor was sometimes impaled and sometimes fastened with cords or nails." (Am. Cyc.) This was the Roman form to which "the Latin name crux was originally and more strictly applicable." (Chamb. Enc.) Afterwards a cross piece was added, to which the arms of the criminal were tied or his hands nailed; but "the shape of the cross on which our Savior suffered is not known, for the historians who record its discovery (!) give no description of it." (Am. Cyc.)

The popular form of the cross differs in one important feature from that described by the early Fathers. Justin, (Dial. Try., xci,) Ireneus, (Agt. Her., ii, 24,) and Tertullian, (Ad. Nat., xii,) all concur in affixing midway on the upright stake a "horn" or saddle, on which the culprit sits astride with his legs bound below.

metatron3@gmail.com

The Word was A God by Rev. W.E. Manley D.D. 1891

The Word was A God by Rev. W.E. Manley D.D. (published in The Arena, Volume 4 1891)

That Trinitarians should translate this expression, The Word was God, in John i. 1, might be expected; but by the rules of translating the Greek language into English, the expression should be, The Word was a god. The rule of Middleton that the article must not be used in the predicate of a sentence may hold good, when it conflicts with no superior rule; but if taken absolutely, it has many exceptions. I suppose the renowned Origen understood the Greek language. He interprets the passage before its as I do. "Origen uses QEOS (god), not in our modern sense, as a proper name, but as a common name. This use of the term, which was common to him with his contemporaries, and continued to be common after his time, is illustrated by his remarks on the passage, 'and the Logos was God'; in which he contended, that the Logos was god, in an inferior sense; — not as we would say God, but a god, not the divine being, but a divine being. (Opp. iv. p. 48, reqq.)."

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

See a local listing for this book here

Henry Grew on the Early Church Fathers and the Trinity

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

See a local listing for this book here

Henry Grew on the Early Church Fathers and the Trinity

From An Examination of the Divine Testimony Concerning the Character of the Son of God 1824
Download this book here for a limited time

As many persons appear to be confirmed in the belief of the doctrine of the Trinity, and are deterred from a diligent examination of the subject, by the supposition that almost all pious christians in every age have believed it, it is desirable that such a mistake should be corrected. The following quotations will serve to shew that many of the primitive christians did not believe that the Son of God was either self-existent or eternal.

Irenaeus who was but second from John says, "John, declaring the one God Almighty, and the only begotten, Christ Jesus by whom all things were made," &c. [Historical View of Heresies, p. 69.] He exhibited a creed which embraced the general belief of Christians in that age. He says, "The church, which is dispersed through the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles, and their immediate successors, the belief in one God, The Father Almighty, the maker of the heaven, the earth, and the sea, and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, made flesh for our salvation, &c. That to Christ Jesus our Lord, and God and Saviour and King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, every knee shall bow," &c.

How evident it is from this creed, that "the general belief of christians" in the primitive ages, agreed with that of the apostle Paul, "to us there is but one God, The Father." How evident it is that they believed that the Son was begotten, and that all his dignity and exaltation was "according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father."

Ignatius who lived in the first century, says, "If any one say there is one God, and doth not confess Jesus Christ, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only begotten God, the wisdom and word, &c. he is a serpent," &c. "In the Shepherd of Hermas, a writer cotemporary with Clemens Romanus," is the following passage: "God," says he, "placed that holy Spirit, which was created first of all, in the body in which he might dwell," &c. Justin Martyr, who lived about the middle of the second century, says, "God in the beginning, before any thing was created, begat a Rational Power, from himself; which is called by the Holy Ghost, Glory of the Lord, and sometimes Son, Wisdom, Angel, God, Lord, Logos.—All the above names he bears, because he ministers to the will of the Father, and was begotten by the will of the Father." Clemens Alexandrinus says, "There is one unbegotten being, the Almighty God. And there is one begotten before all things, by whom all things were made." He also calls the Logos "the first created wisdom" and he "who approximates the nearest to the only Almighty." "The older by birth," &c.

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, a little after the middle of the second century, says, "The Son of God is created and made—and as he is a created being, he existed not before he was made." Again; "God was not always Father; the Son was not always: but the supreme God was once without the Logos, and the Son was not, before he was begotten; for he is not eternal, but came into being afterwards." Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch at the close of the third century, asserts that he was begotten before all ages, (or worlds,) and that he was "the first born of every creature." Methodius, bishop of Tyre about the end of the third century, calls the Logos "the first begotten of God." Novatian says, "God the Father—creator—unoriginated, invisible, immense, immortal, eternal, the only God—from whom, when he pleased, the Word his Son was born."

Is it possible for language to express more fully, that these primitive christians did not believe that the one Almighty God consists of a trinity of persons? Is it possible for words to declare more explicitly, that the Word or Son, is, in bis highest nature, a distinct being from the Father, and dependent on him for all things? "The first born of every creature," and most glorious of all dependent intelligences.

The piety of Mr. Isaac Watts, "whose praise is in the churches," will not be doubted. Few persons have studied the important and interesting subject discussed in these pages with the humility, diligence and prayer which he did. In his researches after truth, he clearly perceived that the word of God teaches that our dear Saviour existed in a glorious state, but inferior to the Father, Before he "was made flesh." To reconcile this truth with the supreme deity of Jesus Christ, he adopted the theory of the pre-existence of Christ's human soul. On farther examination, it appears he was convinced that the doctrine of Christ's supreme deity is unscriptural; for in his last letter to Mr. Colman of Boston, dated Feb. 11, 1747, he says; "I think I have said every thing concerning the Son Of God, which scripture says; but I could not go so far as to say with some of our orthodox divines, that the Son is equal with the Father; because our Lord himself expressly says, "My Father is greater than I." About the same period, some pious christians in England believed what was called the indwelling scheme; which is, that the Son is supreme Deity by the union or indwelling of the Father, who is the only true God, with the man Christ Jesus; and that there are no distinct persons in the Godhead. This scheme implies that the Word or Son had no existence whatever, distinct from the Father, before he appeared on earth, and is, consequently, opposed to innumerable passages of scripture.

Few men have been more justly esteemed for correct views, and perspicuous illustration of divine truth, than Andrew Fuller. In mature age, he wrote a very convincing essay on the Sonship of Christ: in which, I think, he clearly proves, that the terms Son Of God, Only BeGotten Son, are expressive of the highest nature, and most glorious character of the "Word." He indeed considered these terms as importing supreme Deity and perfect equality, One Thing Excepted. This will unavoidably follow from his views. He says, "in the order of nature, the Father must have existed before the Son.'" Here, then, is a striking proof that it is impossible for the greatest minds to avoid falling into inconsistency, when they embrace error. If, as Mr. Fuller says, "the Father and the Son are properly eternal;" we may as well say, that in the order of nature, the Son must have existed before the Father, as to say, that the Father must have existed before the Son. Nothing could have existed, I'm any sense, Before that which is properly eternal, because that which is properly eternal can have no beginning. Besides, if the Son is eternal as the Father, there must be Two Eternal Spirits, which is contrary to scripture and reason.

Mr. Stuart, whose talents command our respect, and whose piety and candor excite our affection and esteem, has furnished us with a similar example. After all he has written, he is obliged to acknowledge that the Son, in respect to his highest nature, is not "in all respects" the same being as the Father. He must, consequently, in one respect at least, be a distinct being from the Father; and as certainly dependent upon him, as that there cannot he two distinct independent beings. I apprehend that one principal cause why many pious persons do not perceive the revealed truth on this subject is, an impression that the more firmly they believe, and the more positively they affirm, that Jesus Christ is the supreme Deity, the more they manifest their love to him. Let our Lord's answer to Peter, when he said, "Be it far from thee," he seriously and candidly considered. Peter undoubtedly felt a sincere regard for his Saviour, and was influenced by this very regard, to wish that he might escape from those sufferings he spake of. But as Peter's zeal was "not according to knowledge," and his affectionate feelings were expressed in a manner inconsistent with truth, he received the severe rebuke of his Master. Now, I solemnly ask, if we follow the example of Peter, and affirm any thing of Jesus Christ which is contrary to truth; is not the answer of our Lord, as applicable, in some degree, to us, as it was to him? If, to the declaration of the Son of God, "My Father is greater than I," we reply, "Be it far from thee, Lord," must not our erroneous zeal be "an offence" to the holy mind of him who assures us, "I honour my Father, — I seek not mine own glory?" And if the sincerity and affection of the apostle, (which surely was not less than ours,) did not screen him from the severe rebuke of our Lord, can we expect to escape his censure?

In concluding, let us review a few of the passages discussed in the preceding pages, and contrast them with Trinitarian sentiments. I am sensible that error as well as truth may receive apparent support by this method; but this is only when the most obvious and literal import of a passage is not according to the general analogy of the scriptures. Whether that is the case or not with the following, the candid reader will judge.

Jesus Christ And His Apostles:

To us, there is but one God, the father. 1 Cor. viii. 6.

My Father is greater than I. John xiv. 28.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature. Col. i. 15.

The Son can do nothing of himself. John v. 19.

But of that day, &c. knoweth no man, no not the angels, &c. neither the Son, but the Father. Mark xiii. 32.

All power is given, unto me in heaven and in earth. Matt. xxviii. 18.

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. John xvii. 2.

God, who created all things BY Jesus Christ. Eph. iii. 9.

By whom also he made the worlds. Heb. i. 2.

The Revelation of JesusChrist which God gave unto him. Rev. i. 1.

For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. ii 5.

Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 4.

Trinitarians:

To us, there is but one God, the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost.

The Son is as great as the Father.

Who is the invisible God, the uncreated Jehovah.

The Son is omnipotent.

The Son is omniscient, and knew of that day as well as the Father.

No given power can qualify the Son of God to give eternal life to his people.

Jesus Christ created all things by his own independent power.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ from his own omniscience.

There is one Mediator between God and man; who is also supreme God and man in one person.

Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also the only Lord God, and a distinct person.


Jesus Christ And His Apostles:

Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, and signs, and wonders, -which God did by him. Acts ii. 22.

For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. John v. 26.

I live by the Father. John vi. 57.

This is my beloved Son. Matt. iii. 17.

That they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. John xvii. 3.

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow — and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Phil. ii. 11.

Trinitarians:

Jesus performed his miracles by his own omnipotence.

The Son is self-existent.

The Son lives by himself.

This is the only true God, the same numerical essence as the Father.

That they might know thee, who art not the only true God, in distinction from the Word whom thou hast sent.

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow — and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to his ovn glory.

A Conversation on "Many Gods and Many Lords"

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

See a local listing for this book here

From an Email Sent to Me: Consider 1 Cor. 8:6.  Paul's concern is this context is explicitly monotheistic.  The issue of eating meat offered to idols and participation in temple banquets is an instance of the highly traditional Jewish monotheistic concern for loyalty to the only true God in a context of pagan polytheistic worship.  What Paul does is to maintain this Jewish monotheistic concern in a Christian interpretation for which loyalty to the only true God entails loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ.  He takes up from the Corinthians' letter (at the end of verse 4) the typical Jewish monotheistic formula "there is no God except One" in order to agree with it and to give, in verse six, his own fuller monotheistic formulation, which contrasts the "many gods and many lords" of the Corinthians' pagan environment (verse 5) with the one God and one Lord to whom Christians owe exclusive allegiance.
    Verse 6 is a carefully formulated statement:
    a. but for us [there is] one God, the Father,
    b. from whom [are] all things and we for him,
    c. and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
    d. through whom [are] all things and we through him.
The statement has been composed from two sources, both clearly recognizable.  One is the SHEMA', the classic Jewish statement concerning the uniqueness of God, taken from the Torah itself, recited twice daily by all observant Jews.  It is now commonly recognized that Paul has here adapted the SHEMA' and produced, as it were, a Christian version of it [see F.F. Bruce, 1&2 Corinthians - a must read scholar].  Not so widely recognized is the full significance of this.  In the first and third lines of Paul's formula [labeled a and c above], Paul has in fact reproduced all the words of the statement about YHWH in the SHEMA', but Paul has rearranged the words in such a way as to produce and affirmation of both one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.  It should be quite clear that Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity.  He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism.  If he were understood as adding the one Lord to the one God of whom the SHEMA' speaks, then, from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, he would certainly be producing not christological monotheism but outright ditheism.  The addition of a unique Lord to the unique God of the SHEMA' would flatly contradict the uniqueness of the latter.  the only possible way to understand Paul as maintaining monotheism is to understand him to be including Jesus in the unique identity of the one God affirmed in the SHEMA'.  But this is in any case clear from the fact that the term 'Lord' , applied here to Jesus as the 'one Lord', is taken from the SHEMA' itself.  Paul is not adding to the one God of the SHEMA' a 'Lord' the SHEMA' does not mention.  He is identifying Jesus as the 'Lord' whom the SHEMA' affirms to be one.  Thus, in Paul's quite unprecedented reformulation of the SHEMA', the unique identity of the one God consists of the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, his Messiah.  Contrary to what many exegetes who have not sufficiently understood the way in which the unique identity of God was understood in Second Temple Judaism seem to suppose, by including Jesus in this unique identity Paul is clearly not repudiating Jewish monotheism, whereas were he merely associating Jesus with the unique God, he certainly would be repudiating monotheism.....I hope this letter finds you thinking clearly.

Reply: I have Gerald O'Collins Christology and he also explains your *splitting* of the shema in the same way, but even he calls this a "redefining of Jewish monotheism." p.138
But O'Collins also reminds of the semantic range of the term "Lord".

"Let us review the range of usage for this term in the entire NT. (1) Kyrios could be simply a respectful way of addressing other people (e.g. Matt. 21:30;25:11;27:63; John 4:11;12:21; Acts 16:30) (2) It could be a way of addressing a ‘teacher' or ‘rabbi' (Matt. 8:25; see Matt. 17:15; Mark 4:38;9:17). (3) The designation can suggest authority, in the sense of one with power to perform mighty works (e.g. Matt 8:25). (4)Kyrios may denote the owner of property (Mark 12:9; Luke 19:33) or the master of slaves (Luke 12:42-7; Eph. 6:5; Col. 4:1) In some parables ‘the mater' or Kyrios is a metaphor for Jesus (e.g. Matt 25:18-24, 26). (5) Because of their power, political rulers (Matt. 27:63) could lay claim to a certain divinity and as ‘lords' even demand worship (see Acts 25:16). (6) ‘Lords' might also refer to so-called gods who were supposed to have rights over human beings (1 Cor. 8:5). (7) Finally, The NT speaks not only of God (e.g. Matt. 5:32; 11:25; Mark 12:29-30; Acts 2:39;4:26; Rom. 4:6-8; 11:2-4) but also of Jesus as Kyrios and often does so in a way that raises him above the merely human level (e.g. Mark 12:36-7;Luke 19:31; John 13:13-14; Phil. 2:11; Rev. 22:20-1)." p.139

But does "Lord" have to have a religious sense when applied to Jesus? The following is an example from John 4:11: Here the Samaritan woman has just met Jesus, he has not yet told her that he is the Messiah. They have just met, yet she addresses him as kyrios, which in the New American Bible is translated as "sir."

"The woman said to him, Sir (kyrios), you do not have a bucket and the cistern is deep."

The word in this passage is kyrios. It is applied to Jesus, and it is used as a term of respect, as "sir."
The Apostles used this title as a term of respect for Jesus just like the term "master." This is why Jesus is called Lord in the NT. He is our King, our master, our Lord. Like the Lord of a castle/ kingdom. He is the Lord of the kingdom of God.

Is Paul here borrowing "Lord" from the shema in Deuteronomy and applying it to Jesus in 1 Corinthians?

"With the Hebrew Bible in mind, Paul carefully distinguishes, in a critical creedal statement, between the "one God, the Father," and the "one Lord Jesus Christ." Paul has not split the Shema of Israel between two persons. This would be to abandon his precious Jewish creed. Paul in fact makes a clear unitarian declaration: "There is no God but One...There is One God, the Father" (1 Cor. 8:4,6) He then claims for Jesus a lordly status based on the central Christological affirmation, by divine oracle, that he is the promised "my lord, the King Messiah, the lord's   anointed" )Ps. 110:1; Luke 2:11): "There is one Lord Jesus Messiah" (1 Cor. 8:6) This is his full official title. Peter had likewise proclaimed in Acts 2:34-36, with apostolic authority derived from the Messiah, that Jesus was the appointed Lord Christ, in accordance with Psalm 110:1, as distinct from, and as the servant of, the Lord God." The Doctrine of the Trinity-A. Buzzard p.53

What do others have to say about Paul, the early Christians and their view of Christ?

"Apparently Paul did not call Jesus God" (Sydney Cave, D.D., Doctrine of the Person
    of Christ, p. 48).

    "Paul habitually differentiates Christ from God" (C.J. Cadoux, A Pilgrim’s Further
    Progress, pp. 40, 42).

    "Paul never equates Jesus with God" (W.R. Matthews, The Problem of Christ in the
    20th Century, Maurice Lectures, 1949, p. 22).

    "Paul never gives to Christ the name or description of ‘God’" (Dictionary of the
    Apostolic Church, Vol. 1, p. 194).

    "When the New Testament writers speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of Him nor
    do they think of Him as God" (J.M. Creed, The Divinity of Jesus Christ, pp. 122-123).

    "Karl Rahner [leading Roman Catholic spokesman] points out with so much emphasis
    that the Son in the New Testament is never described as ‘ho theos’ [the one God]"
    (A.T. Hanson, Grace and Truth, p. 66).

    "The clear evidence of John is that Jesus refuses the claim to be God…Jesus
    vigorously denied the blasphemy of being God or His substitute" (J.A.T. Robinson,
    Twelve More New Testament Studies, pp. 175, 176).

    "In his post-resurrection heavenly life, Jesus is portrayed as retaining a personal
    individuality every bit as distinct and separate from the person of God as was his in
    his life on earth as the terrestrial Jesus. Alongside God and compared with God, he
    appears, indeed, as yet another heavenly being in God’s heavenly court, just as the
    angels were — though as God’s Son, he stands in a different category, and ranks far
    above them" (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 1967-68, Vol. 50, p. 258).

    "What, however, is said of his life and functions as the celestial Christ neither means
    nor implies that in divine status he stands on a par with God Himself and is fully God.
    On the contrary, in the New Testament picture of his heavenly person and ministry we
    behold a figure both separate from and subordinate to God" (Ibid., pp. 258, 259).

    "When [first-century Christians] assigned Jesus such honorific titles as Christ, Son of
    Man, Son of God and Lord, these were ways of saying not that he was God but that he
    did God’s work" (Ibid., p. 250).

    "The ancients made a wrong use of [John 10:30, "I and the Father are one"] to prove
    that Christ is...of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the
    unity of substance, but about the agreement that he has with the Father" (John Calvin,
    Commentary on John).

    "The Pauline Christ who accomplishes the work of salvation is a personality who is
    both human and superhuman, not God, but the Son of God. Here the idea, which was to
    develop later, of the union of the two natures is not present" (Maurice Goguel, Jesus
    and the Origins of Christianity, Harper, 1960).

    "Jesus is never identified simplicitly [absolutely] with God, since the early Christians
    were not likely to confuse Jesus with God the Father" (Howard Marshall, "Jesus as
    Lord: The Development of the Concept," in Eschatology in the New Testament,
    Hendrickson, p. 144).

Now, you can view these separate scriptures in a long letter that even went longer than I what I included here. But we have to take the Bible as a whole, and not just dwell on a few scriptures here and there.  If you take a look at the Bible as a whole, we find powerful evidence that Christ was a created being:

Prov 8:22 "The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old." RSV
Col. 1:15 "which is the image of the invisible God, first begotten of all creatures"
Rev. 3:14 "This saith (amen) the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creatures of God."
Jn 5:26 "Life comes from the Father himself. So the Father has allowed the Son to give life."
Jn 6:57 "Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me."  

Jesus is either subordinate to, depends upon, or reveres his Father:
Isa 11:1,2 "But there shall come forth from a shoot the stock of Jesse, And a sprout from his roots shall bear fruit; And the spirit of Yahweh shall rest upon him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and might, The spirit of knowledge and reverence of Yahweh" Rotherham's Emphasized Bible
Heb 2:7,8 "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; and hast crowned him with glory and honor, and hast set him ruler over the works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet." Lamsa's Translation of the Aramaic Peshitta
1 Cor 11:3 "God is the Head of the Christ" 20th Century NT
Jn 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." KJV
Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." NASB
Jn 5:19 "I most solemnly say to you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, except as He sees the Father doing." Williams NT
Jn 6:38 "I came down from heaven, not to do what I want but what He wants who sent Me." Beck
Jn 7:16 "Jesus answered them and said, 'My doctrine is not Mine but His who sent Me"
Matt 20:23 "Truly, you will take of my cup: but to be seated at my right hand and at my left is not for me to give, but it is for those for whom my Father has made it ready. BBE
Luke 22:42 "He prayed saying 'Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; nevertheless, not My will, but Thine be done'" Worrell NT
Heb 5:8 "Although a Child, Jesus learned obedience through suffering." Inclusive Version
Rev 1:1 "This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to show his servants the things that must happen soon." ISV
Acts 5:31 "Him has God exalted by his right hand as leader and saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins." Darby
1 Cor 15:27,28 "the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God" NEB
Phil 2:8,9 "and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient [even] unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted him
Jn 14:28 "I go on to the Father, because my Father is greater than I." Young
Mark 13:32 "As for that exact day or minute: no one knows, not even heaven's messengers, nor even the son, no one, except the Father." Funk, Hoover  

And that he has someone who is God to him
Micah 5:1-4 "In the majesty of the name of the LORD, his God." Smith&Goodspeed
Matt 27:46 "Jesus cried out...My God, my God, why have you abandoned me." God's Word
Jn 20:17 "I am going to ascend to My God and your God" New Berkeley Version
Rom 15:6 "So that you may together give glory to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ with one heart. NJB
2 Cor 1:3 "Let us give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." TEV
2 Cor 11:31 "To God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" Geneva
Eph 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" BLE
Eph 1:17 "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ" Moffatt
Heb 1:7-9 " That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners." NWT
1 Pet 1:3 "Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Lattimore
Rev 1:6 "unto his God and Father" Montgomery
Rev 3:2 "in the sight of my God" Phillips
Rev 3:12 "the temple of my God....the name of my God...out of heaven from my God" Jewish NT

Exactly how many times does scripture have to attest to the subordination of the Son to His God and Father before it is actually believed?

1Cor.8:6 identifies the "one God" as the Father who is the source of creation. Jesus is explicitly excluded when he is next identified as the "Lord" who is simply the agent of the one God. 1Tim.2:5 states there is "one God" but then specifically EXCLUDES Jesus from being that one God by saying he is the "mediator" between GOD and humans. Without equivocation or replacing the word God with father, explain how can Jesus be the same God he is mediator for?

Far from being Almighty, Jesus is said to have a God over him before, during and after he came to earth (Mic.5:4, Rom.15:6, Rev.1:6; 3:2,12). Rather than being equal in power, Jesus is said to be in subjection to God even when he is as high as he ever gets (1Cor.15:27,28, Eph. 1:17; 19-22). Mat.28:18,19 says that when Jesus returned to heaven he had to be "given" all authority (power-KJV). If Jesus were equal to God in power, then why exactly would he need to be "given" any authority? (Mt.28:18; 11:27, Jn. 5:22; 17:2; 3:35; 2Pet.1:17) cf. (Mat.11:26-27, Dan.7:13-14, Phil.2:9).