Thursday, June 14, 2018

May the Force Be With You: Genesis 1:2 and the Word "Spirit"

The Bible translates the words ruach (Hebrew) and pneuma (Greek) in various ways, but this article just concentrates on how the word Ruach/Ruah was used the very first time in Genesis 1:2.

One way to understand how the Bible often uses the word "spirit" is to think of the Force as used in Star Wars as the spirit or power of God. Sure, the Greek word for spirit PNEUMA and the Hebrew word for spirit RUACH/Ruah have "wind" and "breath" as primary definitions, but these fail to flesh out full meaning.

Let's take a look at Genesis 1:2, the first place in the Bible where the word in question is used:

"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." King James Version
"a mighty wind swept over the waters." New American Bible
"a divine wind sweeping over the waters." New Jerusalem Bible
"and the power of God was moving over the water." Good News Bible-TEV

The New World Translation of the Bible however has and "God's active FORCE was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."

This translation may better explain what the text is trying to explain:

"In the OT, Heb. Ruah means first of all wind and breath, but also the human spirit in the sense of life FORCE and even personal energy." Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible

"Spirit is the principle of life and vital activity. The spirit is the breath of life (Gn 6:17; 7:15, 22; BS 38:23; WS 15:11, 16; 16:14). The breath is the breath of God, the wind, communicated to man by divine inspiration....The spirit of Yahweh or the spirit of God (Elohim) is a FORCE that has unique effects upon man...and the spirit of Yahweh is a FORCE which operates the works of Yahweh the savior and the judge. The spirit of Yahweh is often the FORCE which inspires prophecy (Nm 11:17 ff; 24:2; 2 S 23:2; 1 Ch 12:18; Is 61:1; Mi 3:8; Ezk 2:2; 3:12, 14, 24; 8:3; 11:1, 5, 24; 37:1; 43:5; Ne 9:30; Zc 7:12 Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, S.J.

"wind, air in motion…breath…an influential principle, a pervading influence…" Perschbacher's The New Analytical Greek Lexicon

Pnuema: "a movement of air, **blast**…God's power and agency." Thayer's Greek Lexicon (a BLAST is a force...God's power is a force)

"This powerful and invisible FORCE is under the direct control of God." The Use of Ruah in the Old Testament and of Pneuma in the New Testament By William Ross Schoemaker 1904

Brown Driver Brigg's Lexicon: energy of life, vital power (a vital power is a force)

A Catholic Dictionary: "On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power."

The New English Bible, (Catholic edition called the Oxford Study Edition), has this footnote at Joel:2:32: "The Lord's spirit-the animating FORCE behind the prophets".

The Companion Bible (KJV), appendix No. 9, "The Usage of Ruach-Spirit": "The one root idea running through all the (224) passages is invisible FORCE…Invisible Divine power manifesting itself."

"As the principle of cosmical life, as ruach Elohim, as the mighty divine FORCE of all things" Biblical Theology of the Old Testament By Revere Franklin Weidner

"It may be gathered from the passages which have been cited, that the word Ruach conveys to us at once the idea of wind or invisible FORCE" Synonyms of the Old Testament By Robert Baker Girdlestone

"From these combinations between the wind, the breath of God and the human breath arise manifold, and in their turn opposite, relations for the ruach. As the wind is chiefly a destroying and dreaded nature-FORCE, so the breath, resembling in its snorting movement that of stormy wind, gets the sense of anger" St. Paul's Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit By William Purdie Dickson

"Even in the original organization of life on this earth (Gen. i. 2 seq.), spirit takes the form of a universal physical FORCE" Outlines of Biblical Psychology By Johann Tobias Beck

"In Hebrew, the original inspired language of the Tanach (Old Testament), the word 'Ruach' cannot be construed as a person. It is a FORCE." https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots/Trinity/Holy_Spirit

"The Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma mean 'breath' or 'wind' and are translated by 'spirit', denoting an unseen life-giving FORCE." A Dictionary of the Bible by W.R.F. Browning

"Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma; Latin, spiritus. The root meaning of these words is wind or breath, and the idea conveyed is that of an invisible FORCE or wind, and life, and feeling or breath." "What is Man?": His Origin, Life-history and Future Destiny as Revealed in the Word of God By J. Anderson

"This testifies that the fundamental idea underlying the word 'spirit' is that of invisible FORCE. The earliest form of invisible force of which men became aware was undoubtedly the wind without, the breath within, themselves. And there is great significance in the fact that in many languages the same word has stood for 'wind,' 'breath,' and 'spirit.' The spectacle of the leaves being whirled over the ground, or of the trees shaken by the gale, was impressive evidence of an invisible FORCE." The Spirit: The Relation of God and Man, Considered from the Standpoint of Recent Philosophy and Science By Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison, James Arthur Hadfield, Charles Archibald Anderson Scott, Cyril William Emmet, Arthur Clutton-Brock 1919

"The phrase describes not chaos but the creative power of God in action. Wind, a symbol of power, is used theologically in the Old Testament to refer to the dynamic activity and presence of God in the world - his Spirit." -Genesis 1-11 Cambridge Bible Commentary, Robert Davidson (1973), page 16.

"In sharp contrast with the orderly heavens and earth, the cosmos of verse 1, created by the will of a free and sovereign God, is the formless void of verse 2, over which the divine Spirit broods like a mighty bird to effect the miracle of creation (see also Deu 32:11). Here the underlying conception of creation is a struggle between the Deity and certain FORCES of nature in which the mysterious, invisible divine power brings order out of chaos, conquers the realm of the darkness, and subdues the wild and boundless sea." -Genesis, C. T. Fritsch (1959), page 22.

"The wind of divine proportions might also be "the spirit [i.e., the life-giving breath] of God" moving upon the waters preparatory to the beginning of creation. "For the Spirit of God has made me, the breath of the Almighty keeps me alive" (Job 33:4): in Hebrew the words for spirit, breath, wind, all symbols of power, are one and the same." On Genesis, Bruce Vawter (1977), page 41.

"'Spirit' as understood in the Bible means the FORCE or power proceeding from God, which is opposed to 'flesh,' to created, perishable reality: that invisible FORCE of God and power of God which is effective creatively or destructively, for life or judgment, in creation and in history, in Israel and in the church." Hans Kung, On Being a Christian

"The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics and in Acts as a divine force or power." The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity By Edmund J. Fortman

So when the Bible says at Luke 1:80 "The child grew and became strong in spirit" (New American Bible) it is the same as saying that "the force grew strong in the child." To think...Jesus may have been the first Jedi.

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Georg Benedikt Winer on Granville Sharp's Rule


From A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek

["Granville Sharp's first rule", so often referred to in discussions on these texts, is as follows: "When the copulative KAI connects two nouns of the same case (viz. nouns—either substantive, or adjective, or participles—of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties or qualities good or ill), if the article hO, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e. it denotes a further description of the first-named person." Remarks on the uses of the definitive article in the Greek text of the N.T. p. 3 (2d ed. 1802). He adduces the following examples: Acts. 20:28 (with the reading KURIOU KAI QEOU), Ephesians 5:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:12, 1 Timothy 5:21, (Received Text)., 2 Timothy 4:1 (Received Text., but KURIOU instead of TOU KURIOU), Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Jude 4 (Received Text). "The rule is sound in principle, but, in the case of proper names or quasi-proper names, cannot safely be pressed": Ellicott in Aids to Faith p. 462. See also Ellicott and Alford in loce., Middleton p. 60 sqq., Green, Gr. p. 73 sqq.]

In Titus 2:13, EPIFANEIAN THS DOXHS TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS HMWN IHSOU CRISTOU, considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe that SWTHROS is not a second predicate, coordinate with QEOU,—Christ being first called O MEGAS QEOS, and then SWTHR. The article is omitted before SWTHROS, because this word is defined by the genitive HMWN, and because the apposition precedes the proper name: of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.* Similarly in 2 Peter 1:1, where there is not even a pronoun with SWTHROS. So also in Jude 4 we might suppose two different subjects to be referred to, for KURIOS, being defined by HMWN, does not need the-article: KURION HMWN IHSOUN CRISTON is equivalent to IHS. CR. OS ESTI KURIOS HMWN. (In 2 Th. 1:12 we have simply an instance of KURIOS for O KURIOS.)

* In the above remarks I had no intention to deny that, in point of grammar, SWTHROS HMWN may be regarded as a second predicate, jointly depending on the article TOU; but the dogmatic conviction derived from Paul's writings that this apostle cannot have called Christ the great God induced me to show that there is no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause KAI SWTHROS HMWN IHSOU CRISTOU by itself, as referring to a second subject. As the anonymous writer in Tholuck's Lit. Anz. (1837, No. 5) has not proved that my explanation of this passage would require a second article before SWTHROS; (the parallels adduced are moreover dissimilar, see Fritz. Rom. II. 268), and still less that to call Christ O MEGAS QEOS would harmonise with Paul's view of the relation of Christ to God, I adhere to the opinion expressed above. Any unprejudiced mind will at once perceive that such examples as are adduced in § 19. 2 prove that the artICLE was not required with SWTHROS, and the question whether SWTHR is elsewhere applied to God is nothing to the purpose. It is sufficient that SWTHR HMWN, our Saviour, is a perfectly definite predicate,—as truly so as "his face": PROSWPON indeed is applied to many more individuals than SWTHR is! The words on p. 38, "SWTHR HMWN were used in the N. T. of one definite individual only &C.", contain an arbitrary assumption. Matthies has contributed nothing decisive towards the settlement of the dispute. [This passage is very carefully examined by Bp. Ellicott and Dean Alford in loc.; and though these writers come to different conclusions (the latter agreeing with Winer, the former rendering the words, "of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ"), they are entirely agreed, as to the admissibility of both renderings in point of grammar. See also Green, Or. p. 75, Scholefield, Hints, Middleton p. 393 sq.]

(In online discussions Granville Sharp's Rule is also referred to as the article-noun-KAI-noun construction or TSKS: the-substantive-KAI-substantive construction)

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Interesting Quotes on the Doctrine of the Trinity


Interesting Quotes on the Doctrine of the Trinity 

"The doctrine of the Trinity is a post-scriptural attempt to bring to coherent expression diverse affirmations about God..." -- Grolier Encyclopedia

"The Chalcedonian formula [the council's decision declaring Jesus both God and man] makes genuine humanity impossible. The conciliar definition says that Jesus is true man. But if there are two natures in him, it is clear which will dominate. And Jesus becomes immediately very different from us. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He knows the past, present and future...He knows exactly what everyone is thinking and going to do. This is far from ordinary human experience. Jesus is tempted but cannot sin because he is God. What kind of temptation is this? It has little in common with the kinds of struggles we are familiar with." To Know and Follow Jesus, Roman Catholic writer Thomas Hart (Paulist Press, 1984), 46.

"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics)

Historian Will Durant: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity." And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: "The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology."

"The New Testament does not actually speak of tri-unity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the N.T."—Kittels Theological Dictionary of the N.T.

"The doctrine of the Trinity has in the West come into increasing question...there has for long been a tendency to treat the doctrine as a problem rather than as encapsulating the heart of the Christian Gospel."
The Promise of the Trinity, Gunton, p.31

"Despite their orthodox confession of the Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere monotheists. We must be willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged." Karl Rahner, The Trinity, J. Donceel, trans, p.10

"There was no theoretical framework in Scripture that explained the relationship of the Father, Son and Spirit. No Old Testament author addressed the issue of a separate being, the Holy Spirit, and its ('her,' in Hebrew) relationship to the Father; the Spirit of God was God's 'spirit' or breath that carried his power. Likewise, no New Testament author addressed the interrelationship of Father, Son, and Spirit. There are triadic formulations in the New Testament, such as the command to baptize "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matt 28:19), and the prayer of the blessing that "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Cor. 13:14).  But all of these have to do with how God relates to the church. None explains how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relate to each other in essence. That task fell to a particularly influential group of 'heretics' - Gnostic Christians of the second century." The River of God, by Gregory J. Riley, p. 62

"Why have Christians generally failed to grasp the grammar of the Trinity as the "fundamental grammar of Christian theology"? Why the "strange paucity of Trinitarian hymns in our modern repertoire of praise"? Or for that matter, in evangelical praise songs, hymns and choruses" Christianity Today, April 28 , 1997, p.28

"Whatever else might be said about the doctrine of the Trinity, it is safe to say that in the history of Christian doctrine there has been no single, universally accepted articulation of the specific way in which it is to be understood. Every attempt to articulate the doctrine has had its detractors and has been viewed as erring in one direction or the other. Articulations stressing the unity of God to the relative de-emphasis of divine threeness have most often been labelled modalist or Sabellian: whereas, those stressing the threefold existence of deity to the relative neglect of divine unity have been castigated as as tri-theistic or polytheistic. It has seemed next to impossible to achieve a balanced presentation of the triune nature of God that is both relatively detailed and also acceptable to most sincere Christians with theological sensitivity." Logic, Morris, pp. 207, 208

". . . it is a remarkable fact, that no single passage or verse of  the Old or New Testament is received as an assured proof-text of the trinity by the unanimous consent of all Trinitarian writers: some ground their faith on one passage, some on another."
A Religious Encyclopædia: or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, Based on the Real-Encyklopädie of Herzog, Plitt, and Hauck."

"But how can such weak creatures ever take in so strange, so difficult and so abtruse a doctrine as this [the Trinity], in the explication and defence wherof multitudes of men, even men of learning and piety, have lost themselves in infinite subtleties of dispute and endless mazes of darkness? And can this strange and perplexing notion of three real persons going up to make one true God be so necessary and important a part of that Christian doctrine, which, in the Old Testament and the New, is represented as so plain and so easy, even to the meanest understandings."
William G. Eliot, Discourses on the Doctrines of Christianity (American Unitarian Association, Boston,1877), pp. 97, 100

The Eastern Theologian John of Damascus (c. 675-749) once used a very curios argument in favour of icons...John replied to the criticism are unscriptural by admitting the fact, and adding that you will not find in scripture the Trinity, of homousian or the two natures of Christ either. But we know those doctrines are true. And so, having acknowledged that icons, the Trinity and the incarnation are innovations, John goes on to urge his reader to hold fast to them as venerable traditions delivered to us by the Fathers...He was not the only one to use this argument: Theodore the Studite (759-826) adopted it too. It brings out an odd feature to Christianity, its mutability and speed with which innovations come to be vested with religious solemnity to such an extent that anyone who questions them find himself regarded as the dangerous innovator and heretic." The Christ of Christendom by Don Cupitt, as used in The Myth of God Incarnate, p. 133

"Jesus retorted, "Get away from me Satan!, it is written: 'Jehovah your God you should worship and him alone you should serve.'" Matthew 4:10 21st Century NT

Paul, of course, did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity, and he often appears to operate with a subordinationist christology (cf. 15:28)." (Richard Hays, 1 Corinthians, page 192).

"The doctrine of God as existing in three persons and one substance is not demonstrable by logic or by scriptural proofs.”--Hastings Dict. of The Bible  -Revised edition by F.C. Grant & H.H. Rowley

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."

"We must not contend that the Nicene Creed looks like the New Testament. The creed is an exercise in systematic theology. Although there are portions of the New Testament which are highly theological, the one thing we cannot say is that any of it is systematic theology as it was practiced three hundred years later."
Beisner, E. Calvin's "God in Three Persons."  (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, c1984), footnote 7, p. 145.  BT109 .B45 1984 / 84-051210.

"Throughout the Jewish scriptures, God never "screened or veiled his divine nature." In fact, Isaiah unequivocally proclaimed that the Almighty did not reveal Himself in darkness or in a hidden or veiled fashion. In Isaiah 45:19 the prophet, speaking in the Almighty's name, declares that, 'I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob's descendants, "Seek Me in vain." I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right.' Although the belief in the unity of God is taught and declared on virtually every page of the Jewish scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is never mentioned anywhere throughout the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible. This is understandable when we consider that primitive Christianity, in its earliest stages, was still monotheistic. The authors of the New Testament were completely unaware that the church they had fashioned would eventually embrace a pagan deification of a triune deity. Although the worship of a three-part godhead was well known and fervently venerated throughout the Roman Empire and beyond in religious systems such as Hinduism and Mithraism, it was quite distant from the heretical Judaism out of which Christianity emerged. However, when the Greek and Roman rather than the Hebrew began to dominate the church, it created a theological disaster from which Christendom has never recovered. By the end of the fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly in place as a central tenet of the church, and strict monotheism was formally rejected by Vatican councils in Nicea and Constantinople." Rabbi Singer

"Only one, the Father, can absolutely be termed the ‘only true God,’ not at the same time Christ (who is not even in I John 5:20 the true God…). Jesus, in unity with the Father, works as his commissioner (John 10:30), and is His representative (John 14:9, 10) (Professor H.A.W. Meyer, Commentary on the New Testament. The quotation is from his comment on John 17:3).

"It was impossible for the Apostles to identify Christ with Jehovah. Psalm 110:1 and Malachi 3:1 prevented this" (R.A Bigg, D.D. Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, in International Critical Commentary on I Peter).

"A classic contrast is between [John] 10:30, 'The Father and I are one,' and 14:28, 'The Father is greater than I.' It is the perdurance of such lower christological statements which shows that the Johannine community had not made a rival God out of Jesus, but it also shows that the christology of John still stands at quite a distance from the christology of Nicaea wherein the Father is not greater than the Son." (R.E. Brown "The Johannine Community" 53)

"During these years [the first three centuries of Christianity's existence], most Christians vaguely thought of Jesus as God; yet they did not actually think of him in the same way as they thought of God the Father. They seldom addressed prayers to him, and thought of him somehow as second to God--divine, yes, but not fully God" (Robert Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings, 179).

"Does this mean that early Christian theology was "nothing but" paganism with a biblical accent? Or, to paraphrase Numenius, was Christianity no more than Plato with a faint Palestinian accent?...We should not say it was "no more than" the sum of its parts, but the reality of the pagan environment cannot be neglected." Gods and the One God, Robert M. Grant, p. 170

"Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it" (Soren Kierkegaard, cited in Time magazine, Dec. 16, 1946, p. 64).

Emil Brunner, in Dogmatics I:205, writes: "On the triadic passages in the N. T., see below. The only trinitarian passage which is found in some ancient  versions of the Bible (1 John 5:7) is regarded as not genuine."

"The attempt to superimpose these three abstract categories [Father,  Son, and Holy Spirit] on the Godhead and then to claim a Trinity has been discovered, is misleading in the extreme. It is no genuine Trinity, but merely a useful and at times quite penetrating analysis of three aspects of what is involved in making something. But there is no real reason to stop at three, nor is there any validity in isolating idea, energy, and power from a complex process with an indefinite number of terms" (CC Richardson, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 139-140).

"In his theological interpretation of the idea of God, Arius was interested in maintaining a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of the oneness of God, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, as stressed by the theologians of the Neoplatonically influenced Alexandrian school. From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament--such as the question of the sameness of essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons." Brittanica.com

"The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official. The subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . . Finally, cart-loads of saints raised to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, it was the most polytheistic religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This untenable contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt with by accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. "
"The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages." -- The Doubter's Companion (John Ralston Saul)

"In brief, the ante-Nicene Fathers taught the real distinction and divinity of the three persons . . . but in their attempts at a philosophical interpretation of the Dogma, the ante-Nicene Fathers used certain expressions which would favor sudordinationism. In the late 17th century, the Socinians cited these expressions that the ante-Nicene tradition agreed rather with Arius than with Athanasius . . . Catholic theologians commonly defend the orthodoxy of these early Fathers, while admitting that certain of their expressions were inaccurate and eventually dangerous." -- Colliers Encyclopedia

"You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest).

"No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity . . . Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands of martyrs . . . The Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such person, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." -- Thomas Jefferson: Letter to James Smith, Dec. 8, 1822 For more Letters from T. Jefferson see:
http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/tjletters.html

"The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father" -- MS Encarta 99

"The word itself does not occur in the Bible...The explicit formula was thus formulated in the post-biblical period, although the early stages of its development can be seen in the NT. Attempts to trace the origin still earlier (to the OT literature) cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship, and these attempts must be understood as retrospective interpretations of this earlier corpus of Scripture in the light of later theological developments." The Harper Collins Study Bible Dictionary

"We are judged to be heretics because we can no longer believe in essence, person, nature, incarnation, as they want us to believe. If these things are necessary for salvation, it is certain that no poor peasant Christian be saved, because he could never understand them in all his life." -- Francis David (1510-79)

Christ's deity was "repugnant not only to sound Reason, but also to the holy Scriptures." -- Fostus Socinus (1539-1604)

Catholic theologian Hans Küng in Christianity and the World Religions, "Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity . . . The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God's oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?"

"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." -- The Illustrated Bible Dictionary

And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God." -- New Catholic Encyclopedia

The Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180 . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian." However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity. The Catholic work Trinitas - A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example, notes that some of Tertullian's words were later used by others to describe the Trinity. But then it states: "But hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology."

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."

Jesuit Fortman: "The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."

The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament."

Bernhard Lohse in A Short History of Christian Doctrine: "As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."

Rotherham - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:
"The N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity."

"The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence.", said Protestant theologian Karl Barth

Yale University Professor E. Washburn Hopkins: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it." -- Origin and Evolution of Religion.

Tom Harpur states, "As early as the 8th century, the Theologian St. John of Damascus frankly admitted what every modern critical scholar of the NT now realizes: that neither the Doctrine of the Trinity nor that of the 2 natures of Jesus Christ is explicitly set out in scripture. In fact, if you take the record as it is and avoid reading back into it the dogmatic definitions of a later age, you cannot find what is traditionally regarded as orthodox Christianity in the Bible at all." -- For Christ's Sake.

Historian Arthur Weigall: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord." -- The Paganism in Our Christianity

The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' -- Deut. 6:4

. . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." -- Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

"It is fair to say that no one in the first century was a Trinitarian as the doctrine was later defined in the creeds of the fourth century." p. 55 The River of God by G.J. Riley

The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." -- (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

"The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature: which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as "essense" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God by some theologians." Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, S.J. p. 899

Regarding the Nicene Council and those that followed, Hans Kung in Christianity says, "The conciliar decisions plunged Chrisitianity into undreamed-of theological confusions with constant entanglements in church politics. They produced splits and sparked off a persecution of heretics unique in the history of religion. This is what Christianity became as it changed its nature from a persecuted minority to a majority persecuting others."

"Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything." -- Robert A. Heinlein


Monday, June 11, 2018

The Christian Cross a Pagan Symbol - 70 PDF Books to Download


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


Books Scanned from the Originals into PDF format

Contact theoldcdbookshop@gmail.com for questions

Books are in the public domain.

Contents:

Life Symbols as related to Sex Symbolism, a brief study into the origin and significance of certain symbols which have been found in all civilisations, such as the cross, the circle, the serpent, the triangle, the tree of life, the swastika, and other solar emblems by Elisabeth Goldsmith

The Image of the Cross and lights on the altar in the Christian church and in heathen temples before the Christian era 1879

The Cross and the Serpent by William Haslam 1849

History of the Cross of Christ by William R Alger 1858

Our Sun-God - Christianity Before Christ by John Denham Parsons 1895

Christianity before Christ by Charles John Stone 1885

Frazer's Theory of the Crucifixion, article in The Fortnightly Review 1901

The Cross Ancient and Modern by Willson W Blake 1888

Holy Cross - a history of the invention, preservation, and disappearance of the wood known as the True Cross by William C Prime 1877

Phallism - with an account of ancient & modern Crosses particularly of the Crux Ansata, or handled cross, and other symbols connected with the mysteries of sex worship by Hargrave Jennings 1892

Sex Worship - an exposition of the phallic origin of Religion by Sanger Brown 1897

Rivers of Life - Sources and Streams of the faiths of man in all lands, showing the evolution of faiths from the Rudest Symbolisms to the latest spiritual developments by JGR Forlong 1883

Mysteries of the Rosie Cross 1891

The Worship of the Dead - The Origin and Nature of Pagan Idolatry and its Bearing upon the early History of Egypt and Babylonia by Col. J Garnier 1909

Phallic Objects - Rise and Development of the Phallic Idea 1889

The Rosicrucian Cosmo-conception - Mystic Christianity by Max Heindel 1911

The Cross and the Steeple - Their Origin and Significance by Hudson Tuttle 1875

Phallicism - celestial and terrestrial, heathen and Christian, its connexion with the Rosicrucians and the Gnostics and its foundation in Buddhism, with an essay on mystic anatomy by Hargrave Jennings 1884

The Cross in Tradition, History and Art by William Wood Seymour 1898

Handbook of Christian Symbolism by W Audsley 1865

Pagan Origin of Partialist Doctrines by John Claudius Pitrat - 1871

History of the Celtic Language (deals at length with the Cross) by Lachlan Maclean 1840 ("To trace the emblem of the cross no farther back than St Andrew, or even the crucifixion, is a glaring error.")

The Diegesis - being a discovery of the origin, evidences and early history of Christianity, never yet before or elsewhere so fully and faithfully set forth by Robert Taylor 1834

The Ethnic Trinities and their relations to the Christian by Leonard Levi 1901 ("It may be a surprise to some of my readers to be told that this symbol of the cross is as old as history itself. Indeed, its origin is hidden in prehistoric times. The Greek or Maltese cross, with its four arms of equal length, which is worn by Roman Popes on the breast, appears on the breasts of Assyrian kings nine or ten centuries before the birth of Christ")

Phallic Symbolism by Lee Alexander Stone MD 1920

A reply to: Jehovah's Witnesses and the Symbol of the Cross.
Sample: Are JW's using partial quotes? And do Greek Lexicons and dictionaries agree more with Mark's point of  view? Let us take a look. "The Tau was the basis for what is now called the "cross" taken from the Latin "crux".
"The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god  Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands,  including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system  pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain  their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered,  was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ."—An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256. What is this? The Cross used among ancient pagan? Is there more?..... (in searchable .pdf format)


The Natural Genesis or Second Part of a Book of the Beginnings by Gerald Massey 1883
The value of the cross as a Christian symbol is supposed to date from the time when Jesus Christ was crucified. And yet in the "Christian" iconography of the catacombs no figure of a man appears upon the Cross during the first six or seven centuries. There are all forms of the cross except that — the alleged starting-point of the new religion. That was not the initial but the final form of the Crucifix. During some six centuries after the Christian era the foundation of the Christian religion in a crucified Redeemer is entirely absent from Christian art."

Faith of Abraham and of Christ by Henry Dana Ward 1872
"The Scripture sense of the word stauros for the cross of Christ, is in the concrete a pale, a strong stake, a wooden
post..."

Irish Druids and old Irish Religions by James Bonwick 1894
"The Spaniards saw the Indians bowing to the cross in worship. It has been found on the breasts of statuettes from the Indian cemetery of Jingalpa, Nicaragua, of unknown antiquity. Tablets of gypsum, in Mexico, bore it in the form of that cross adopted by the Knights in Malta. The Peruvians and Babylonians had the Maltese cross. The Druids were said to have made their cross of the stem and two branches of the oak."

The Evolution of Man: His Religious Systems and Social Ethics by William Hardwicke 1899
"Notwithstanding the destruction of MS. which might be considered detrimental to their religion by the Christian fathers, the following admission from the holy father Minucius Felix in 211 c.e. has, by some oversight, been preserved. He says, in a retort to a Pagan opponent: 'We neither adore crosses nor desire them; ye Pagans it is who adore wooden crosses for what else are your ensigns, flags...'"

Is Christianity a failure? by Fred Eddy 1922
"The symbol of Phallic worship, the cross, has become the emblem of Christianity. We find the cross in India Egypt, Thibet, Japan, always as the sign of life giving power; it was worn as an amulet by girls and women, and seems to have been especially worn by the women attached to the temples (sacred prostitutes,) as a symbol of what was, to them a religious calling."

The Non-Christian Cross-An Enquiry into the Origin and History of the Symbol Eventually Adopted as that of our Religion, by John Denham Parsons, 1896 (scanned in .pdf format...also an additional searchable pdf)

The cross, heathen and Christian : a fragmentary notice of its early pagan existence and subsequent Christian adoption (1879) Mourant Brock

The Paganism in Our Christianity by Arthur Weigall

The Cross of Christ - studies in the history of religion and the inner life of the church by Otto Zoeckler 1877 (searchable pdf)

The Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels by Thomas James Thorburn

The Mystery by James Johnstone 1858 (has Scripture index)
"Now the Scriptures teach us that xulon means a dead tree without branches, whereas a cross has artificial branches, therefore it is impossible that Christ could have been put to death on a cross. Third, the Scriptures tell us that Christ was put to death on stauros, a stake. Now a stake is a dead tree deprived of its branches, hence the two independent words which the Scriptures apply to the instrument on which Christ was put to death, stauros, a stake, or tree without branches, and xulon, a tree without branches, support and corroborate one another in proving that it was not a cross on which Christ died."

The Christ Myth by Arthur Drews 1910 (searchable pdf)
"In the whole of Christendom it passes as a settled matter that Jesus "died upon the cross"; but this has the shape, as it is usually represented among painters, of the so-called Latin cross, in which the horizontal cross-piece is shorter than the vertical beam. On what then does the opinion rest that the cross is the gibbet? The Evangelists themselves give us no information on this point. The Jews described the instrument which they made use of in executions by the expression "wood" or "tree." Under this description it often occurs in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, in which the gibbet is rendered by xulon, the same expression being also found in the Gospels. Usually, however, the gibbet is described as staurös (i.e., stake), so much so that stauros and xulon pass for synonyms."

Ancient Pagan And Modern Christian Symbolism by Thomas Inman 1922 (searchable PDF)

The Masculine Cross and Ancient Sex Worship by Sha Rocco (pseudonym of Abisha S. Hudson) 1874 (searchable pdf)

History of the Cross-The Pagan Origin and Idolatrous Adoption of the Worship of the Image by Henry Dana Ward (1871)

The Two Babylons or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife By the Late Rev. Alexander Hislop 1903

The 2 Babylons Dictionary in searchable .pdf format

CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY BY G. W. FOOTE AND J. M. WHEELER 1887. (in searchable .pdf format)

The Swastika - The Earliest Known Symbol and its Migrations by Thomas Wilson 1894 (searchable PDF)

Kersey Graves and The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors (.txt and .pdf format)

The Mysteries, Pagan and Christian 1897 by Samuel Cheetham

The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism By Franz Cumont 1911

Paganism and Christianity (1891) James Anson Farrer

Paganism Surviving in Christianity by Abram Lewis 1892

Isis and Osiris - The Origin of Christianity by John Stuart Glennie 1878

An Introduction to the Science of Comparative Mythology and Folklore by George Cox 1883 (searchable PDF)

Paganism and Christianity in Egypt 1913

A New Testament Commentary for English Readers by CJ Ellicott 1897 (Searchable PDF)
"A sharp-pointed stake of this kind was often used as a means of torture in the punishment known as impaling. and the two Greek words for "impaling" and "crucifying" were indeed almost interchangeable...It is significant that men like Celsus and Lucian, writing against the faith of Christians, used the term "stake" instead of "cross," as more ignominious, and spoke of Jesus as having been 'impaled.'"

Symbolism of the Pre-Christian Cross in The Methodist Review 1876 (searchable PDF)

On the Pre-Christian Cross in The Gentleman's Magazine 1863

Lectures on the Pentateuch and the Moabite stone by John Colenso
(Has an Appendix on the Pre-Christian Cross) 1873

Memorial Art, Ancient and Modern By Harry Augustus Bliss 1912

Imperial Bible Dictionary 1866 Volume 1
"CROSS, CRUCIFY. The Greek word for cross,...properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part. Rut from the time that it began to beused as an instrument of punishment, a transverse piece of wood was commonly added & not, however, always even then."

The Masculine Cross, or, A History of Ancient and Modern Crosses, and their Connection with the Mysteries of Sex Worship, also an account of the Kindred Phases of Phallic Faiths and Practices by 1904

Sex and Sex Worship- Phallic Worship by Otto Augustus Wall 1919

Sex worship - an Exposition of the Phallic Origin of religion by Clifford Howard 1909

Ancient Symbol Worship, Influence of the Phallic Idea in the Religions of Antiquity by MW Hodder 1874

The Swastika by Edward Butts 1908 (searchable pdf)

Tammuz, Pan and Christ by Wilfred Schoff 1912

Pagan Christs - Studies in Comparative Hierology 1911 by John M Robertson

Holy Cross - a History of the Invention, Preservation, and Disappearance of the Wood known as the True Cross by William Prime 1877 (searchable PDF)

Christianity and Mythology by John M Robertson 1910



The Great Law: A Study of Religious Origins and of the Unity Underlying Them By W. Williamson ("But the age of the cross-symbol is not to be measured by the date of its adoption by the early Christians. Hundreds—nay thousands— of years before, it was a sacred emblem in Egypt and in India.")

The Key to the Universe (the Spiritual Interpretation of Numbers and Symbols) By Harriette Augusta Curtiss 1917

Symbolism of the East and West by Mrs Murray-Aynsley 1900

Christ Lore - the Legends, Traditions, Myths, Symbols, Customs & Superstitions of the Christian church by FW Hackwood 1902

The Papal System from its Origin to the Present Time. A Historical Sketch of every Doctrine, Claim and Practice of the Church of Rome by William Cathcary 1872

The Logos (or Word) as a God, by T. Latham 1826


Christ, or Logos, according to John, was a begotten being; but a begotten being, must be a created being, and such can be no self-existent and uncreated God. Christ himself has said, and John has recorded that saying, chap. xvii. 3. that the Father is the only true God; that he himself is the Christ or Messiah whom the only true God has sent. God himself has said, I am God, and besides me there is no other. Is there a God besides me? I know not any, Paul has said to us, there is but one God, and that one God is the Father. Now, can we suppose, with the orthodox, that John had the hardihood to contradict the assertions of God, of Christ, and of Paul? And also contradict what he has written elsewhere with his own pen, that the Father is the only true God? And that he could be so weak and inconsistent after all this to assert that Jesus, the Logos, or Word of God, is God essentially and equally with the one only true God? I hope, however inconsistent the orthodox creed may be found, that the advocates of that creed will admit the Apostle John to have been consistent with truth and with himself; and not rashly assert, with Mr. Monday, a Baptist Missionary in the East Indies, “that if Christ be not God essentially, Paul was a fool and the Bible is a bundle of lies.” The Word was God, says the common version, but the true rendering of the original is, the Word was a God; and it is well known that the Hebrew word Elohim, and the Greek word Theos, are used with great latitude, and applied to men as well as to God. Thus, Moses was a God to Pharoah, and Aaron was a Prophet to Moses; and God has called them Gods to whom the Word of God came. And as Jesus had received a commission as a Prophet of God, and was invested with extraordinary powers and authority, he was a God in the phraseology of scripture, a messenger of God, a God in the same sense that others were Gods to whom the word of God came. In this sense, and in no other, he claimed the title, as appears from his answer to the charge of the Jews, who said to him; “for a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are Gods? If he called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scriptures cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” Now, if Christ had said, he was God, he had been guilty of blasphemy; but he only said, he was a Son of God, or the Son of God, (i. e.) the Messiah; and he shows he had as good a right to this title, because God had sanctified him and sent him as his great prophet to the world, as others had to the title of God, or a God, because God had made them inferior prophets and ministers of his word. And in this sense, and in no other, does John stile him a God: for as has been noted already in the 14th verse, he says, this same word who was a God, was a mortal man, a begotten son, a truly human being; and that his glory was not that of essential deity, but such as God could confer upon a man, and such as the man Jesus did actually receive from God; for he received from God the Father honour and glory; but God could receive no glory from another God, which was not actually his own, independent of every other being. To us there is but one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus the Christ, the son and servant of the Lord of all. This is amply sufficient for Unitarian christianity; but orthodoxy requires three Gods, and one God to be the sent and servant of the other. 

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Indefinite Pre-verbal Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives in John's Gospel


In 1975 Paul S. Dixon did a study of all the anarthrous predicate nominatives in the Gospel of John in his "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John" (Dallas Seminary, 1975) wherein he concluded that there was only one instance of an indefinite predicate nominative (John 11:38), and even then it was post-copulative.

But by my examination in the Gospel of John, over half of the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives (such as in John 1:1c) are actually indefinite. For example:

John 4:19 has PROFHTHS EI SU which translates to: "you are a prophet."

John 6:70 has DIABOLOS ESTIN which translates to: "is a slanderer."

John 8:34 has DOULOS ESTIN which translates to: "is a slave."

John 8:44 has ANQRWPOKTONOS HN which translates to "a murderer."

John 8:44 has EUSTHS ESTIN which translates to "he is a liar." 

John 8:48 has SAMARITHS EI SU which translates to "you are a Samaritan."

John 9:8 has PROSAITHS HN which translates to "as a beggar."

John 9:17 has PROFTHS ESTIN which translates to "He is a prophet."

John 9:24 has hAMARTWLOS ESTIN which translates to "is a sinner."

John 9:25 has hAMARTWLOS ESTIN which translates to "he is a sinner."

John 10:1 has KLEPTHS ESTIN which translates to "is a thief"

John 10:13 has MISQWTOS ESTIN which translates to "a hired hand."

John 12:6 has KLEPTHS HN which translates to "he was a thief."

John 18:35 has MHTI EGO IOUDAIOS EIMI which translates to "I am not a Jew, am I?"

John 18:37 has BASILEUS EI SU which translates to "So you are a king?"

John 18:37 also has BASILEUS EIMI EGW which translates to "I am a king."

These examples are obviously indefinite, yet Biblical "scholars" won't allow for indefiniteness in these cases because that would allow for indefiniteness at John 1:1c (with the reading "and the word was a god").

Can you really trust these "scholars?"

Saturday, June 9, 2018

Revelation 3:14 - Is Christ a Created Being or the Ruler/Source of Creation?

Revelation 3:14 - H ARCH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU...Is Christ a Created Being or the Ruler/Source of Creation?

Unless otherwise stated, all scriptures are from the American Standard Version 1901
The words "of" or "of the" is characteristic of genitive phrases. Greek has five cases—nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and vocative. How a word is spelled can vary depending on the case in which it is used. In Greek as well as in English the genitive case can mean a number of different relations or connections that the word in the genitive case has to the person or thing that it modifies. 
Wherever in scripture, both the New Testament (NT) and the Septuagint Old Testament (OT), arche is followed by a genitive phrase "of the ...", that which is called the "arche" is a always a member of the group referred to in the genitive phrase. 
But Ankerberg/Weldon quote Metzger as saying,

"Actually, the word ARCHE, translated "beginning" carries with it the Pauline idea expressed in Colossian 1:15-18, and signifies that Christ is the origin, or primary source, of God's creation (compare also John 1:3, "Apart from him not one thing came into existence)."
We can see that Metzger's theory has been put into motion by the change of the RSV's "the beginning of God's creation" to "the origin of God's creation" in the New RSV. Other Bibles in recent times have followed this faddish move, as we will see in the list below. 
There are three other scriptures that use the words *beginning/ARCH* and *creation/ KTISEWS* (which are also genitive constructions).
Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them."
Mark 13:19.  "For those days shall be tribulation, such as there hath not been the like from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never shall be."
2 Peter 3:4 "Where is the promise of his coming? for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." 
Let us see how faithfully these have been rendered: 

Bible Version Mark 10:6 Mark 13:19 2 Peter 3:4 Revelations 3:14
New Revised Standard Version beginning beginning beginning Origin
Good News Bible beginning beginning N/A* origin
New International Version beginning beginning beginning ruler
Contemporary English Version beginning N/A N/A source
New American Bible beginning beginning beginning source
New English Bible beginning beginning N/A source
Ferrar Fenton beginning beginning beginning beginner
Holman Christian Standard beginning beginning beginning Originator
Jerusalem Bible beginning beginning began source
New Jerusalem Bible beginning N/A beginning Principle
Revised English Bible beginning beginning N/A source
Williams NT beginning beginning beginning origin
Beck beginning beginning first Origin
James Moffatt Translation beginning beginning beginning origin
Amplified Bible beginning beginning beginning origin/beginning
/author
Jewish New Testament beginning beginning beginning ruler
Wuest's Expanded NT beginning N/A beginning originating source
God's Word NT beginning beginning beginning source
New Life New Testament beginning beginning beginning the one who
made everything
LITV Jay P Green beginning beginning beginning Head
Simple English Bible beginning beginning beginning Source
Smith & Goodspeed beginning beginning beginning origin
*Left untranslated

As we can see, there is a particular bias at play here in regards of the inconsistency of translating this expression as it relates to Christ.

The Bibles that have not allowed bias to change the meaning of beginning/creation with the genitive are as follows: King James Version, New King James Version, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Aitken Bible, Tyndale's Bible, Geneva Bible, Douay, New American Standard Bible, New World Translation, Kleist & Lilly, Confraternity, Worrell NT, Webster Bible, the Message, Lattimore NT, Montgomery NT, Schonfield, 20th Century, Darby, 21st Century, Emphatic Diaglott, Weymouth NT, Revised Standard Version etc.

Perhaps it is this genitive construction that has prompted the BAGD , A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by  Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker (Editor), William F. Arndt (Translator), F. Wilbur Gingrich, to make some changes in their revision, the BDAG. On page 138 that the interpretation that ARXH means that Christ was created at Rev 3:14 has been upgraded from poss. [possible] to prob. [probable].

It cites the JTS article "Christ as ARCH of Creation," by C.F.BURNEY, JTS XXVII. Burney considers the Hebrew ReSHit [beginning] in detail and concludes strongly against ARCH as "source":

"Another New Testament allusion to Prov. viii 22 in reference to Christ is found in Rev. iii 14 H ARXH THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU, [the beginning of the creation of/by God] a title of the risen Christ which Dr Swete and Dr Charles have not a shadow of authority for limiting in meaning to 'the Source of God's Creation'. There is every reason to suppose that ARXH is here used with all the fullness and meaning which St Paul extracts from ReSHiT ... "

The BAGD/BDAG reference also cites Job 40:19 ARCH, speaking of Behemoth "He {is} ARCH [a beginning, first] of the ways of God". Behemoth was certainly not the source or "first cause" of God's ways, but rather was one of them, or a partitive genitive.

The primary meaning of ARCH at Rev. 3:14 admits that Christ is a part of creation. It is for theological considerations that "source" and "first cause" are translated for ARCH, re: Alford:

"The mere word ARCH would admit the meaning that Christ is the first created being; see Gen [49].3; Deut. [21].17; and Prov. [8].22." - Alford's Greek New Testament."

This is not something that Alford personally believes and he Alford borrows meanings for ARCH from the apocryphal Wisdom and The Gospel of Nicodemus. If others could just be as honest.

As Jewish translator Hugh J. Schonfield (The Original New Testament) states at Rev 3:14 in a footnote, "Clearly, John the Elder himself believed that the heavenly Christ was a created being, as did the early Christians."

Let us consider other examples of this to better explain it.
Examples from the Septuagint (LXX):

Gen. 10:10  And the beginning (arche) of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
Babel, Erech, Accad and Calneh were PART of Nimrod's kingdom.

Gen. 49:3 Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power:
Rueben was the beginning, the first one of/PART of Jacob's generative strength.

Deuteronomy 11:12 A land which the LORD thy God careth for: the eyes of the LORD thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the year.
The beginning of the year was the first PART of the year.

Deuteronomy 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
The firstborn was the beginning, the first one/PART of his generative strength.

Ruth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.
The beginning was the first PART of the harvest.

2 Samuel 21:9 And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.
21:10 And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night.
The beginning was the first PART of the harvest.

2 Kings 17:25 And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the LORD: therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which slew some of them.
The beginning was the first PART of their dwelling there.

Daniel 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
The beginning was the first PART of the supplication.

Examples from the NT:
Matthew 24:8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
The beginning was the first PART of the sorrows.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
The beginning was the first PART of the world.

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
The beginning was the first PART of the gospel according to Mark.

Mark 13:8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.
The beginning was the first PART of the sorrows.

John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
The beginning was the FIRST miracle among the miracles of Jesus.

Philippians 4:15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
The beginning was the first PART of the gospel.

Hebrews 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
The beginning of their confidence was PART of their confidence.

These examples and the ones in the chart clearly demonstrate the manner in which the phrase "beginning of the creation" at Revelation 3:14 should be understood. As in all the other Biblical examples the "arche" is a part "of the ...". This demonstrates that Christ is a PART, the FIRST part of the creation of God.

Although "arche" can mean ruler, it must be noted that John NEVER uses "arche" in this manner. He consistently uses "arche" in the sense of "beginning."

It should be noted as well that among the times "arche" is used to designate "ruler" in the NT 11 times, 10 of those occurrences the word appears in the plural or is signified to be understood as a plural by the word "every" or "all" along with it. Once, in Luke 20:20 it is used in a 'genitive' phrase and is a PART of that which is signified by the genitive.

Can the word "arche" can mean "source" or "cause?"

This claim however can not be substantiated in the Septuagint (LXX) or NT. We do not have any  examples (except for attempts to do so with Rev 3:14) within the Bible where "arche" can be shown to clearly mean "cause" or "source".

Again, we have to keep in mind, again, that John NEVER used "arche" except in the sense of "beginning". The Bible has other words for "ruler" (archon), and "source/cause/author" (rhiza or aitios). We simply cannot find where"arche" is used in the sense of "author" or "source".

So, the evidence clearly shows that the Apostle John considered Jesus Christ to be a "creation" of God.

It is interesting that Metzger parallels Rev 3:14 with Col 1:15-18, which also has a genitive construction. Every time the phrase, "the firstborn of" is used, it is used as part of a group. If it is "the firstborn of" Israel (Ex. 6:14), it is one of the sons of Israel, if it is "the firstborn of" Pharaoh (Ex. 11:5) it is a member of the house of Pharaoh, if it is "the firstborn of" beasts (Ex. 13:15) then it is an animal also. Why then should this rule be changed as it applies to "the firstborn of" creation?

In dealing with an objection similar to Metzger's, the following was pointed out on B-Greek:

"In any event, you invoke what is said in Col. 1:15-18 and John 1:1-3 as support for your view that Christ created all things. However, Colossians 1:15 uses a term (PRWTOTOKOS) that could, just as with ARCH, invoke temporal notions with respect to Christ's being. But, putting that aside as an accepted area of dispute, in verse 16 the passive verb EKTISQH is used in reference to what someone else did EN AUTWi (= Christ). This could not grammatically be construed as an instance where it is said that Christ created all things, but where it is said that all things were created "in him" by someone else.

The same is true of EKTISTAI in verse 17, where we also find DI' AUTOU, which, together with the passive verbs, clearly involves the idea of agency, namely, Christ as the medium or instrument through which someone else created (this concept of mediation does recall what is said of Wisdom in Proverbs 8, regardless of who/what we think Wisdom might be, there). This is significant for we also find this construction in John 1:1-3, to which you also refer. When we compare these texts with 1Cor 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2-3 it is hard, if not reasonable impossible, to escape the conclusion that God created through Christ.

Significantly, in Revelation 3:14 we find that Christ is the hH ARCH THS KTISEWS **TOU QEOU**. Thus, even if we accepted "source" for ARCH, here, it is still hH KTISIS TOU QEOU, and, hence, shows that the position of creator belongs to someone other than hH ARCH, namely, the God mentioned.

So, if a temporal beginning is not meant for Christ's being in this verse, as the first of God's creation (which is *strikingly* similar to what we read in the LXX of Proverbs 8 [KURIOS EKTISE ME ARCHN hODWN AUTOU EIS ERGA AUTOU]), then it would seem to me that "ruler" would be a better fit; however, we are then confronted with the fact that where ARCH has the meaning of "ruler," in the NT it is always accompanied by words denoting authority, power, etc., as Wes pointed out and which BAGD suggests."


Metzger also complains about the NWT's use of *by God* rather than *of God* in Revelation 3:14. He is right about the wording of *by God* usually requiring a preposition (like UPO for instance), but Rev 3:14 is different in that the last 4 words, THS KTISEWS TOU QEOU, are all genitive.