Getting It Wrong Again on John 1:1c

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1, is available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

Visit a local listing for this book here

Michael S. Heiser is yet another "scholar" who gets it wrong on John 1:1 at https://drmsh.com/of-yehovah-and-jehovahs-witnesses/

Here he states that “the Word was a god” in the New World Translation Bible is only translated that way because of "the absence of the definite article before the Greek word theos ('God'; 'god')." 

He even provides a graphic that shows other mentions of the word "god" in John 1, with and without the article. 

When we look closer at this graphic we see that most of the mentions of "god" without the article are in the genitive case, and the genitive is the case of possession (from god; of god) and requires no article. The only exception is John 1:18, which, like John 1:1 has two mentions of "god." John 1:18 also differentiates between the two gods. The first mention is of a god that "no one has ever seen." Since Jesus has been seen, he cannot be that god. The second mention of god here is MONOGENHS QEOS (an only-begotten god) which Heiser incorrectly translates as "the only god."* 

What he, and so many others fail to grasp is the uniqueness of John 1:1c. The second god mentioned is said to WITH "the god." You cannot be the same god that you are WITH. The second god mentioned is also an anarthrous (lacking the definite article) predicate nominative that precedes the verb. What is a predicate nominative? A predicate nominative (or predicate noun) completes a linking verb (is, are, was etc) and renames the subject. When you look up predicate nominatives in English in a search engine you will most often get examples that use the indefinite article "a."

Mr. Johanson is a teacher.

http://www.dailygrammar.com/Lesson-105-Predicate-Nominative.htm 

John was a policeman.

https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/predicate_nominative.htm

The Turn of the Screw is a famous Henry James novel.

https://www.k12reader.com/term/predicate-nominative/

The guava is a fruit.

https://www.thoughtco.com/predicate-nominative-1691657

Sarah is a great friend.

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/predicate-nominative-and-predicate-adjective/

So it is common to use the indefinite article with a predicate noun in English.

Since the construction at John 1:1c is also a (pre-verbal) predicate nominative without the definite article, we can add an "a" there as well. The Gospel of John has other examples of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives, over half of which are translated with the indefinite article "a." 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."

Notice the indefinite article "a" is inserted here in most Bibles, in all of these examples, even though the Greek does not have an indefinite article.

It had to be added because the English, and common sense (just as at John 1:1) demands it.

*The Greek already has a word for "only," it is MONOS. In the New Testament, monogenes is used in a filial way, one that is used for offspring...see Thayers Greek Lexicon & BAGD. In fact the BAGD states that it could be analogous to prototokos (firstborn). There are about 58 proper names in Greek built on the "genes" stem, like Diogenes, which means "born of Zeus" or Hermogenes ("born of Hermes). These are names given by parents to their offspring that represents birth. (See https://www.behindthename.com/names/usage/ancient-greek) There are also words like theogenes which means "born of God." Though there are exceptions, "the word monogenes is used most basically and frequently in contexts having to do with biological offspring." Charles Lee Irons (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary)

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

The Bible HELL by W. E. Manley, D.D. 1889

The Bible HELL by W. E. Manley, D.D. 1889

See also Unitarianism & Universalism - 100 Books on DVDrom

For a list of all of my disks, and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

Very few, it is probable, of the habitual readers of the Unitarian have any faith in the place denoted by the term hell, or any uncomfortable fears concerning it; yet the word is found in our Bible, and to some, perhaps to many, it will be a gratification to know what it means.

Having suffered in my early life more than I can tell, and having seen others in my father's family suffer more, at least with results more sad, I early gave attention to this subject, till I was satisfied that the term had been grievously misunderstood and misrepresented, to the discomfort and ruin of thousands of sincere and honest souls, who placed implicit confidence in all they heard from the orthodox pulpit.

When the late revisers were engaged in their work on the Bible, Canon (now Archdeacon) Farrar said: "If the revisers do their duty, when their work is completed, the word hell will not be found in the Bible." The ground of this remark is that there is no word in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures which has the meaning of our English word hell. But, as this word is still found in our Bible, it seems to follow that the revisers failed of their duty. The truth is that they lacked courage. They feared blame for going too far; when almost the only thing they have been blamed for, is that they did not go far enough. It was perhaps too much to expect of them. They have gone a good way in the right direction. They have lessened the number of passages containing this word about one-half: and in the rest they have put the right word in the margin. It is more than some of us expected. Let us be thankful for what we have, and wait patiently for the rest.

Should there be an American edition in a few years, as it was agreed among the revisers, we shall have but little cause for complaint, for the American revisers were far ahead of their British associates.

Four words in the Bible are translated hell in the old version; three are so translated in the new. The four are sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus. In the revised version the word hell for hades is left out, and hades is put in its place. The first of them, sheol, occurs sixty-five times in the Old Testament, and, being a Hebrew word, is found only in that part of the Bible. Hades is Greek, and is found only in the New Testament; there it is found eleven times in the old version and ten in the new, one of the eleven being regarded as spurious by the revisers.

Gehenna occurs twelve times, and in the New Testament only, though its equivalent occurs a few times in the Old. Tartarus is found but once.

Sheol of the Old Testament, and hades of the New, are corresponding terms; hence, in the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, the latter is used for the former in almost every instance. Since the idea has been given up that these words have the meaning of hell, the meaning substituted and generally accepted has been that of a place of spirits, an underworld, the residence of departed souls. That this meaning came to be entertained by the Jews, at a late day, after the Captivity of Babylon, and their intercourse with the Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, there can be no doubt.

The opinions on such subjects, among either the Jews or the Pagans, did not remain stationary. But it is quite certain that the idea of a place of departed spirits for both the good and bad, with a separate department for each, was first adopted by the heathen, and by them communicated to the Jews. Jesus constructs one of his parables out of this theory (Luke xvi.), which implies that this view prevailed to some extent among the Jewish people. This is the only passage in the whole Bible which has the slightest appearance of favoring the theory in question. No one can pretend that it is a doctrine of divine revelation; nor did Jesus give it his sanction by the use he makes of it. Parables were generally made up for the occasion; and no one supposed it necessary for them to be literally true.

At the time of the revision of the Bible, it was well understood that the men engaged in that work generally held the theory above stated. They gave as a reason for not translating the words in accordance with this theory, that there was no English word that expressed the exact sense of these terms. This is not satisfactory. How is it in other cases? Surely this is not a solitary example in the matter of translating. I suppose the general rule is, if one word does not answer the purpose, to take two or three; or, what might have been better, let the original stand in the place of a translation. This is the plan adopted by the New Testament revisers; and their example ought to have been followed by those of the Old Testament. Instead of this, they have given all the old renderings, hell, grave, and pit, in a part of the passages, and done the sensible thing with the rest, namely, left sheol in the text.

As will probably be inferred, I do not endorse the common opinion. Sheol means the grave, hades means the grave. The only exception is the one given above, where the heathen theory is assumed the time for being.

A few passages from the Old and New Testaments, where sheol and hades occur, will, I think, sustain the definition I give of these words. The patriarch Jacob says, "I will go down to the grave to my son mourning." "Ye will bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave." (Gen. 37: 35; 42: 38; 44: 29. 31). Here sheol is used four times in the same connection, and can mean only the grave.

It is said of Korah and his company, who rebelled against Moses, "They and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit." (Num. 16: 30, 38).

This pit in the earth was their grave, sheol. That a place of spirits is not intended, is proved by the fact that all that appertained to them (tents and goods) went to the same place.

We read of being brought down to sheol with blood (1 Kings 2: 9); of being hidden in sheol (Job 14: 13); of sheol being in the dust (Job 17: 16; we read that sheol consumes those who go there (Job 24: 19); that in sheol there is no remembrance, no giving thanks (Ps. 6: 5); that some are consigned to sheol like sheep (Ps. 49: 14); that our bones are scattered at the mouth of sheol, etc. (Ps. 141: 7).

Even in Isaiah 14: 11, 15, where the revisers have used the word hell, we find the words, "Thy pomp is brought down to sheol, and the noise of thy viols; the worm is spread under thee; and the worms cover thee." So in Ezekiel 32: 27, we read of those "which are gone down to sheol with their weapons of war; and they have laid their swords under their heads." That a place of spirits is not meant, a single passage ought to suffice as proof,—" There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in sheol, whither thou goest" (Eccl. 9: 10).

I find that sheol is put in the text thirty times, grave and hell fifteen times each, and pit five times. This is easily remembered,—30 + 15 + 15 + 5 = 65.

In the New Testament, hades is used as sheol is in the Old. Capernaum,is threatened with being brought down to hades (Luke 10: 15; Matt. 11: 23). Nothing surely is meant but its utter destruction. In like manner it is said, "The gates of hades shall not prevail against the church" (Matt. 16: 18). An abode of spirits, having twenty or one hundred saints to one sinner, would not be likely to make war on the church. A hundred years ago when these figures were reversed, such a warfare might seem more probable. The meaning is that the church should never die, never pass through the gates of the grave.

Jesus was not left in hades; nor did he remain long enough to see corruption (Acts 2: 27, 31). It is certain the grave is here referred to. The expression, "his soul," means himself, as it often does. Jesus had the keys of hades and of death (Rev. 1: 18). The resurrection of Lazarus is proof that he had the keys of the grave; and that of the widow's son and others, that he held the keys of death.

Death sits on a pale horse; and hades follows with him (Rev. 6: 8). The reference is to a plague or pestilence, when the burial follows death so suddenly that it is said to follow with death rather than after. Hades is to be destroyed (Rev. 20: 13, 14). There is propriety in this, as death is to be destroyed at the same time: the grave is needed only while men continue to die. Not so the abode of souls. But the passage is highly figurative.

It will be observed that sheol and hades are spoken of as being down. If it is a place of spirits, it is down in the earth. This no sensible man believes. It follows, therefore, that a place of spirits is not called sheol nor hades.

Tartarus is found but once, namely, in 2 Pet. 2: 4: "If God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to tartarus." The reference is to an apocryphal book, called the "Book of Enoch." The author argues that if these things occurred, and other things named with them (verses 4-9), then it follows that "the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly," etc. It is a just conelusion from hypothetical premises; he does not say that the things occurred, but if they did, such a conclusion followed.

I will now speak of gehenna, as briefly as possible. The word literally means the valley of Hinnom, the last word being the name of an owner, then long dead. Its location was south of Jerusalem, where it ran along under the ancient city wall, nearly half a mile south of the present wall ( Jeremiah 7 and 19).

It was a noted spot, once the place of human sacrifices; after that, of capital punishment; and still later, the place to which the carcasses of animals, and other refuse of the city, were carried. That it might not be destructive to the health of the people, a perpetual fire was kept burning to consume the foul deposit; hence, the expression, "Where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Isaiah 66:24; Mark 9: 49).

If one will bear in mind what is said above, he will find no difficulty in understanding every passage where gehenna is found in the New Testament, without any resort to the future life to help his investigations.

In Matthew 5: 22, the reference is to capital punishment by fire, in the valley of Hinnom, in a distant dark age of Jewish history. In Matthew 5: 29, 30, and 18: 8, 9, there is a comparison of two evils, one much greater than the other. No matter how hard it is to withstand temptation, and do right, though it be like the loss of the right hand, or the eye, we may rest assured that doing wrong will be worse—as much worse as the loss of the whole body is a greater evil than the loss of an eye, hand, or foot. This illustration did not necessarily require a reference to gehenna; but, as that was the place where bodies were destroyed by capital punishment, the reference to the place rendered the illustration more complete and impressive.

As Jesus illustrated his teachings by figures, and compared the foul characters of the Scribes and Pharisees to the sepulchers, "full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness," we might expect him to use gehenna in the same way. He does do this. Hence the converts made by Jewish zealots were twofold more than themselves, the children of gehenna; in other words, more corrupt. To be the child of a thing, was a figure for likeness, or resemblance (Matt. 23: 15). So, in the epistle of James 3: 6, the foulness of the tongue is indicated by its being set on fire by the polluted flames arising from the filth of gehenna.

When God is said to be "able to destroy soul and body in gehenna" (Matt. 10: 28), the meaning is—in a foul condition, represented by gehenna. In any case, gehenna, be it a place, or a condition represented by a place, is where the body can be destroyed: and, therefore, not in the future life. Take gehenna in any sense you will in this passage, it belongs to the present life, where the body as well as the soul can be killed or destroyed. The reference is to the death of the body, which is physical, and to the death of the soul, which is moral. There are many passages that allude to the death of the soul. The soul can not be dead without being killed; but this last is not often mentioned, though it is a few times. Paul says that the letter killeth not the body, but the soul. He says again that sin deceived him and slew him his soul, of course, not his body.

Luke 12: 4, 5, refers to casting the body into gehenna, after it had been killed, and says not a word about the soul. There is reference to a peculiar custom among the Jews. In cases of any aggravated murder, or other capital offense, the penalty of death was inflicted, generally by stoning: and. in addition, the body was thrown into the filth of gehenna and left unburied, as a disgrace to the name of the criminal. This at length came to be a figure of speech denoting disgrace after death, in whatever form it came about. Jesus holds this motive before his disciples, to keep them faithful to his cause in the face of persecution and death.

The "judgment of gehenna"' (Matt. 23: 33) seems to refer to the overthrow of the Jews predicted by Jeremiah, under the figure of Tophet, a part of the valley of Hinnom (Jer. 7 and 19).

In Mark 9: 43-50, there is a reference to the same comparison we have had before; but here it is applied to the faith of the Gospel. The faithful believer would suffer serious afflictions, like the loss of an eye or a hand; but the unbeliever or apostate would suffer worse. The fire that is not quenched is called eternal; and it was so, in the Bible sense of that term. But the purpose sought was a good one; and the punishment represented by it, can not be other than beneficent. The fire was to burn up the filth of the city. It was all the better for being eternal, that is, perpetual. So the fire of divine judgment consumes sin, and will not go out so long as the fuel is supplied.

I will add in conclusion that the evidence is entirely wanting that gehenna was used in the time of Christ to denote a future hell. The Pharisees had no need of the term for such a purpose. With their view, the wicked were punished in hades. And here I would remind the reader that he must distinguish between the New Testament usage of hades, and the heathen usage, which the Pharisees (some of them, if not all) had adopted. The hell of hades was tartarus and not gehenna, though in process of time they adopted the latter term. The Jewish Rabbis say it was two or three centuries after our era. The Christians used it before the Jews did; but in the early days of the church they taught that the punishment of gehenna is salutary and limited, and would end in the purification and salvation of all souls. Such was the teaching of Origen, of Clement of Alexandria, of the Gregories, and other eminent men. But when the dark ages came on, this state of things was changed and the church became very corrupt.

W. E. Manley, D. D.

The Hidden Books of the Bible (1913 Article)

The Hidden, Concealed Books of the Bible, article in the Methodist Review 1913

See also Over 100 Lost, Hidden, & Strange Books of the Bible on DVDROM (Gnostics, Gospels), and Over 180 Forbidden & Lost Books of the Bible on CDROM

There can be no doubt that the collection of Jewish books known as the Apocrypha has been too much neglected during the past fifty years, and nowhere more so than in the churches of the United States. This arises largely from the fact that these books have not been in circulation to any great extent since the middle of the nineteenth century.

The earliest versions of the English Bible, beginning with that of Coverdale, almost without exception, had the apocryphal books placed usually between the Old Testament and the New. This continued till the appearance of the Authorized Version, in 1611, but from 1629 editions of this version without the Apocrypha were frequently published. Many of the lessons read in the services of the Church of England are taken from the apocryphal books.

Little by little the collection became less and less favored, especially in the nonconformist churches of English-speaking countries, so that a copy of the Bible including the Apocrypha was a rarity. This accounts very largely for the dense ignorance of many Christians regarding these old Jewish writings.

It is a matter of interest to know that a society for the study of the Apocrypha has been organized recently in England. Being international in character, its membership is composed of very many distinguished biblical scholars in Europe and America. In the list of officers and council we find a long array of university professors and church dignitaries. Such a society cannot but give added zest to the study of this branch of Jewish literature, which forms, as It were, the connecting link between Judaism and Christianity. It would be too much to say that a symmetrical conception of Jewish faith in its relation to Christianity cannot be gained without some knowledge of the Apocrypha, but no one will deny the advantage which may be derived from the study of these uncanonical books.

The word Apocrypha Is from the Greek word for "hidden", or "concealed." The exact reason for such a designation is not clear. It may be that the books were at one time literally hidden and kept concealed from the people at large and open only to the select few. Such a proceeding was common to many religions. Indeed, we know from Josephus and Phllo that the Essenes and the Therapeutae and other Jewish sects had their hidden books containing esoteric doctrines known only to Initiates. Judaism in the main was very free from occult priestly rites and doctrines; at the same time It did not fully "escape from the charm which mystery exerts over the human mind." This accounts for the large number of apocalyptic Hebrew writings. Whatever may have been the original signification of the term, it gradually acquired the meaning to many people of spurious, or forged; unfit for reading in the public congregation.

The collection, as we shall see farther on, is not exactly the same in the many versions, but the title is applied by Americans to the following uncanonical books. The list is that given In the Revised Version (1905):

1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The Rest of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah, The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees.

Several of the above were written in Hebrew, or rather Aramaic. This may be true of portions of Baruch, Judith, and 1 Maccabees. Quite a fragment of Ecclesiasticus in the original Aramaic has been lately found and published by Cowley and Neubauer. The larger portion, however, was In the Greek language, perhaps by the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria. There are portions, like 2 Esdras, where no Greek original has been discovered.

The age of the Apocrypha is not easily settled. It will be safe to conclude that It was written between the time of Ezra and the beginning of our era, and yet there are passages In some of the books which, could not have been written till after the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 72. These, however, may be simple Interpolations. It is characteristic of these books that they are, with one or two exceptions, anonymous. This fact adds to the difficulty of the question of age.

The Apocryphal books differ greatly in style, content, and value. Some—like Tobit and Bel and the Dragon—are pure Inventions, with little or no historical basis. The Son of Sirach. wrote with keen intellectuality, representing not only the thought of his own time, but also of the past ages. This book, as well as Baruch, as Churton observes, "might have been produced in times of comparative peace and prosperity, before the faith of the nation was tried by the persecution of the heathen." Not so the first book of Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon; they display less rationalism and more dependence upon the power of Jehovah to save. While persecuted and dismayed, the eye of faith pierces the clouds and is made to catch a glimpse of immortality and the resurrection of the body. "The author of Wisdom describes the state of the soul after death in language derived from the Psalms and Isaiah, and his faith In the ressurrection may be Inferred from his expression in chapter 16. 13, 14. . . . The doctrine of the prophet Daniel concerning the awakening of those who sleep in the dust is more clearly realized in the books of Maccabees, where the mother and her devoted sons are put to death with the confesslon of the resurrection on their lips." Future rewards and punishments are clearly taught. So, too, the efficacy of prayer and masses for the dead.

None of these books ever appeared with the canonical books of the Hebrew Scriptures. There is, thus; no doubt that so far as the Jewish church was concerned, they were regarded as uninspired. Indeed, some of the books confess their inferiority and disclaim inspiration. (See 1 Macc. 4. 46. 2. Macc. 15. 38.) There can be no reasonable doubt that our Saviour was acquainted with these apocryphal books, but there is no evidence in the Gospels that he ever referred to them. The same is true of the apostles, notwithstanding the fact that they were acquainted with the Septuagint version, which included the apocryphal books. The fact that they were not cited by Christ and the apostles is no conclusive evidence against their canonicity, for the same argument would exclude Ecclesiastes, Ezra, Nehemiah, as well as Esther and the Song of Songs.

When, however, the Septuagint translation was given the world, these books, without note or comment, or without any apparent distinction as to their value, were interspersed among the canonical books of the Old Testament. Now, the Greek translation was made in Egypt and intended for the Jews scattered abroad. Very naturally, the Jews residing in foreign lands did not adhere so rigidly to the traditions of the fathers as did their brethren in Palestine. It has been suggested that there were two canons, one by the Jews of Palestine and another by the Jews of Alexandria. If that were true, the insertion of the Apocrypha in the Septuagint would not be hard to explain. But there is no proof of such a supposition. There is not a passage in the New Testament, In Josephus, Philo, or any other Jewish authority, which favors the canonicity or inspiration of any one of the apocryphal books. Nor is there any proof that the Jews in or outside of Palestine paid the same reverence to this collection as they did to the books of the Old Testament.

As already stated, the Apocrypha found their way into the Greek version of the Old Testament, and through the Greek into the Vulgate, and again through these two versions to the other versions of different countries.

Before proceeding farther it would be well to call attention to the lack of uniformity In the number and arrangement of the apocryphal books In the translations into different languages. The following from Churton will make this matter clear: "Of the more modern versions into the various European languages, the earlier ones are based upon the Vulgate; some of the later ones follow the Greek. Some include those books only which were authorized by the Council of Trent; others add the fourth book of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh from the old editions of the Vulgate; or the third book of Maccabees from the Septuagint. In some the books are separated from the canonical books; in others, they occupy their old position, as in the Douay Bible. The old edition of the Vulgate was the basis of the English versions of the Reformation period."

There was no unanimity in the early church as to the exact value and nature of the Apocrypha. The fact, however, that they were included by the Septuagint and Vulgate among the canonical writings gave them a great prestige. Most of the Fathers held them in great estimation, and some went so far as to make them equal to the canonical books. The books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch were more frequently cited than even the books of the New Testament. The writings of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irensus, Tertulllan, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and others, show a high degree of respect for the Apocrypha. And yet, notwithstanding the fact that the Fathers apparently made no distinction between them and the canonical writings, the earliest canons of Scriptures left us by the early church do not include them with the canonical Scriptures. This is true of the Canon of Melito of Sardis, and also of the list given by Euseblus. And yet some Fathers, like Origen, designate some apocryphal books as "Holy Word," as "inspired and authoritative Scriptures." While held in high esteem by the majority, they were, nevertheless, condemned by not a few as Irreligious; while not read in all churches, like the canonical Scriptures, they were usually recommended for private study. Jerome, a long-time resident of the Holy Land and influenced by the study of the Scriptures in Hebrew, was on the whole unfavorable to the Apocrypha. He had no hesitation in placing them among the uncanonical.

And so down through the middle ages to the Council of Trent there was practically no unanimity concerning the value of the Apocrypha.

At the Council of Trent, In 1546, after a long discussion and no little opposition, the Apocrypha, excepting 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh, were pronounced canonical, and of equal value with the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The list as adopted by this council differed from both the Old Vulgate and the Septuagint; from the former by omitting the third and fourth books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh, from the latter by the omission of 3 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, 3 and 4 Maccabees, as well as minor additions to Job and the Psalms. The arrangement was practically that of Jerome rather than the Septuagint. The Roman Catholic Church still adheres to the position taken by the Council of Trent.

The position of the Greek or Eastern Church is less clear, for It Is an open question whether this church has ever taken a positive stand on the Apocrypha. Indeed, from the fourth century on many of the leading lights in the Eastern church have made a clear-cut distinction between the apocryphal and canonical books. Nevertheless, the Septuagint, and not the Hebrew original, Is its recognized version. As the Septuagint contains the Apocrypha as apparently of the same value as the other books, It would seem natural that the former books should be regarded as inspired writings, and yet while the official Bible of the Greek Church contains some of the apocryphal books, the recognized catechism (from 1839 on), which has official sanction, gives to all books outside of the twenty-second (canonical Old Testament) a subordinate place.

The Protestant churches, though not uniform In their treatment of the Apocrypha, are practically united In placing a much lower value upon them than upon the canonical Scriptures.

Luther's position is not easily defined. To judge from his writings he changed his opinion more than once. Like Melanchthon and Erasmus, he placed, as was proper, much higher value upon some of the books than upon others. It is almost certain that he never regarded any of them as canonical, though he declared some of them more worthy of a place in the canon than the book of Esther. His first translation of the Bible (1534) contained the Apocrypha. The following explanatory note was Inserted: "Apocrypha, that is, books which, although not estimated equal to the Holy Scriptures, are yet useful and good to read." In his arrangement and translation he was influenced more by the Vulgate than the Septuagint. It should be added that his criticisms of first and second Esdras are very unfriendly.

The other Reformed churches, as a rule, are less partial to the Apocrypha. This is especially true of all nonconformists in English-speaking lands. Though the Apocrypha used In former years to be printed either as an appendix at the close of the New Testament, or more usually between the Old Testament and the New, there was always some kind of explanation. For example, in the Zurich Bible (1529-1530) we read: "These are the books which by the ancients were not written or numbered among the biblical books, nor are they found among the Hebrew Scriptures." In the French Bible (1535) the following note, presumably from Calvin's pen, is appended: "The volume of the apocryphal books, contained in the Vulgate translation, which we have not found in Hebrew or Chaldee."

The Synod of Dort (1618-1619), having discussed the Apocrypha at some length, declared that they were human, uninspired books, In many places at variance with the canonical Scriptures. It was also decided that If the apocryphal books should be bound in one volume with the Old and the New Testaments they should be carefully distinguished, both as to type and style of page, and, farther, that they should be placed as a separate appendix at the close of the New Testament and not between the Old and the New, as in most versions.

Though the Church of England has at all times regarded the Apocrypha as worthy of study, and has appointed several portions of the books for lessons to be read in the public services, it defines its position regarding them by saying that they were used for "example of life and instruction of manners, but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine," There were loud protests against reading the Apocrypha in the public congregation even as early as the days of Queen Elizabeth, and also against binding them in the same volume as the canonical books. This opposition grew in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when the Puritans attacked the Apocrypha with Increased vigor. It was, however, not until 1827 that the British and Foreign Bible Society was forced to leave out the Apocrypha from its editions of the Bible. From that time to the present copies of the Bible with the apocryphal books have become rarer and rarer. So that to-day the average Bible reader in nonepiscopal churches is In blissful ignorance of the Apocrypha.

Apart from the question of inspiration and canonicity, there can be no doubt that the study of the Apocrypha offers material nowhere else found for an intelligent understanding of both the Old and New Testaments. These books stand in the gap between the old and the new dispensations and furnish us much information concerning the Hebrews during the most eventful period of their history.

See also The Book of Enoch and Other Odd Bibles on DVDrom and Over 320 Forbidden and Lost Books of the Bible on DVDROM (Apocrypha)

Calvin: “Servetus, that barking dog!”

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: Twelve Lectures, in illustration and defence of Christian Unitarianism By John Scott Porter 1853 

Many of the reformers seem to have taken a barbarous pleasure in pursuing [Unitarians] with civil and ecclesiastical vengeance: and some of them avowed their desire to diminish the odium of their own heresy by torturing and burning others more heretical than themselves. Most of you are aware that the celebrated physician, MICHAEL SERVETUS, having escaped from the dungeons of the Inquisition in France, was detected in Geneva, delivered up to the magistrates by means of John Calvin, and condemned to death for the crime of denying the doctrine of the Trinity. He was accordingly burnt to death; and the great Reformer, who, from a window, beheld him dragged to execution, was so overjoyed at the spectacle that he burst into an irrepressible fit of laughter; and even at the distance of eleven years, in writing to a friend, he avowed and gloried in the deed. “Servetum, canem illum latrantem compescui!” . —“I quelled,” he says, “Servetus, that barking dog!” A similar fate overtook the learned GENTILI, at Berne. Poland alone afforded a refuge to the unhappy Unitarians; but after some years a fanatical outcry was raised against them—their churches were leveled to the ground—their university and flourishing schools were dispersed and broken up by armed force; and finally they were, one and all, by a public decree, banished from the territory of Poland, under pain of death, and scattered to the four winds of heaven, without a home or refuge—being allowed only one year to dispose of their property and prepare for their departure. [The popular fury being excited against the Unitarians, many of them, while in the act of departure, were robbed of their property, and some were massacred with impuuity. This calamitous event occurred in the year 1660.]

Such was the fate of the unhappy Unitarian Church in Poland, which at one time numbered upwards of 100 congregations, including several of the best and noblest families of the Republic, and adorned by divines whose works, even yet, are most valuable repertories of scriptural and ecclesiastical learning. The persecution was carried even to the death upon all such as remained, unless they could be prevailed upon to recant; and the same penalty was inflicted upon all persons whatever who should befriend or relieve the unhappy exiles, or even keep up any correspondence with them. The illustrious confessors were, by the spectacle of their sufferings, their virtues, and their heroism, the means of exciting in other countries to which they fled for refuge, a deep interest in the cause for which they endured so much and so patiently. This feeling was latent for a season; but in the progress of time it produced important results.

In the British empire, the ancient law was most severe against all professors of Unitarianism. Not to go farther back than the time of the Reformation, it is well known that after that epoch the writ “de heretico comburendo,” or, for burning the heretic, remained in full force; and under its bloody operation many Unitarians were put to death by their Protestant brethren—by those who had themselves so narrowly escaped the persecution of the Roman Catholics. In the reign of King Edward VI JOANNA BOCHER was condemned as guilty of heresy, in denying the doctrine of the Trinity, by a court in which Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, sat as judges. Cranmer extorted from the youthful sovereign his signature to the warrant for executing this virtuous and noble-minded lady; and she was burnt to death. And so was GEORGE VAN PARIS, a foreigner, two years afterwards, of whom his enemies have left this record—that “he was a man of strict and virtuous life, and very devout: he suffered with great constancy of mind, kissing the stake and fagots that were to burn him. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, WIELMACKER, VAN TOORT, HAMMOND, LEwIS, COLE (a clergyman), and FRANCIS KET, were put to death “for the like heresies.” The Rev. Mr. Burton— who was an eye-witness of the execution of Ket, and one of those who thought his sentence just, and who approved of its being carried into effect, declares that he was a man of exemplary piety and integrity, and that the only words which he uttered amidst the flames were, “Blessed be God! blessed be God! blessed be God!”: And in the reign of King James I Mr. LEGATE and Mr. WIGHTMAN suffered in the same manner, for the same offence. During the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, the learned and virtuous Mr. BIDDLE was apprehended, and would have been put to death by the Parliament, but the Protector rescued him from their fangs, and allowed him to spend the remainder of his life in exile, upon the rock of Scilly. In the reigns of Charles I and II and James II many hundred persons, accused of Unitarianism, were apprehended and lodged in jail; but lest their public sufferings might excite commiseration they were allowed to languish out their miserable lives in perpetual imprisonment. The last judicial execution in Great Britain, for this offence, was that of Mr. THOMAS AIKENHEAD, a student of divinity, who was hanged at Edinburgh, on the 8th of January, 1697, for denying the doctrine of the Trinity. This was in the reign of King William III. That monarch was known to entertain tolerant principles, and it was expected that he would interpose his royal clemency between the persecutors and their victim. To prevent this, all the Presbyterian clergy in Edinburgh and the neighbourhood so inflamed their flocks by violent and inflammatory harangues against the unhappy culprit, while he lay in prison, during the interval between his sentence and the day of execution, that the government thought it safest to allow the law to take its course; and he was put to death accordingly. The ever-memorable Mr. THOMAS EMLYN was punished in Ireland, in the reign of Queen Anne, by fine and imprisonment, for his opinions. He had been condemned to the pillory in addition; but that part of the sentence was not carried into effect. Unitarians were expressly exempted from the benefit of the Act of Toleration, both in England and in Ireland; and it was not till the year 1817 that Parliament removed the penalties to which the profession of our opinions subjected us in Ireland. It cannot, and ought not to be concealed, that for some years previously they had been left as a dead letter—they disgraced the statute-book—but were not carried into execution.

I recall these things to memory, not for the purpose of kindling afresh the expiring embers of religious discord—far, far otherwise. I am far from imputing the spirit which these barbarous enactments breathe, to my fellow-christians generally of other Churches, at the present day. They were the consequence of imperfect light; and advancing knowledge has taught men the great lesson of mutual toleration. Among those who now hear me there are probably many who differ from me very widely in doctrine; but I hope and firmly believe, there is not one among them who would wish to see me burnt for what he deems my heresy; nor even to be the means of injuring me in my person, property, or liberty. My object in referring to this point is simply to shew, that until very recently our opinions have not had a clear stage and fair play. Our advocates dared scarcely open their mouths. If they did on any occasion come forward, there were not wanting learned opponents to meet them in controversy;—that was perfectly fair: not only allowable, but desirable: but if argument failed, there was the last resource—the gibbet and the gallows—the pillory, imprisonment, and fine. I am of opinion, that Unitarianism has not even yet fair play. True it is, that the sanguinary and bloody laws which were intended to extirpate it, have been repealed; but, there still remains so much of exclusion—popular odium—misrepresentation—and clamour to contend against, that its advocates still require all the support and strength they can derive from their sense of the importance of their views, and their deep conviction of their truth, to nerve them against the obloquy and opposition which they are certain to encounter. Of this it would not be difficult to produce many striking examples; some of them very recent, and rather remarkable. But this would be an invidious task, and might lead to a misconception of my motives in adverting to the subject. I therefore pass it over, and proceed to shew, that notwithstanding all these adverse circumstances, Unitarianism has made a very considerable progress; fully as much as could reasonably have been expected, under these circumstances, and more than enough to encourage its advocates to zeal and perseverance.

See also: The Murder of Michael Servetus by John Calvin, 50 PDF Books on CDrom

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

Erasmus the Reformer & Bible Scholar - 40 PDF Books to Download

Only $4.00 -  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

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

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

Contents:  

The First Tome or Volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus Upon the Newe Testamente by Erasmus 1548

The Second Tome or Volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus Upon the Newe Testamente by Erasmus 1549

The Praise of Folly by Erasmus 1887

Erasmus Greek New Testament 1516

Erasmus Greek New Testament 1522

Life and letters of Erasmus by JA Froude 1894

Erasmus by Ernest FH Capey 1902

Erasmus: the Scholar by John Alfred Faulkner 1907

The Life of Erasmus, Volume 1 by John Jortin 1808

The Life of Erasmus, Volume 2 by John Jortin 1808

Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam by Ephraim Emerton 1899

The Age of Erasmus by PS Allen 1914 

Erasmus, and other Essays by Marcus Dods 1891

Erasmus by RC Jebb 1897

Martin Luther on the bondage of the Will to the venerable mister Erasmus of Rotterdam 1823

Erasmus & Luther - their Attitude to Toleration by Robert H Murray 1920

Erasmus Of Rotterdam by Maurice Wilkinson 1921

The Oxford Reformers (Colet, Erasmus, Thomas More) by Frederic Seebohm 1887

The Ancestry of Our English Bible by Ira Maurice Price 1911

A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament by Marvin R Vincent 1899

The Revision Revised by John William Burgon - 1883

Erasmus: His Life, Works and Influence Upon the Spirit of the Reformation by Arthur Elley Finch

History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament, Volume 1 by Eduard Reuss 1884

History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament, Volume 2 by Eduard Reuss 1884

Books and their Makers During the Middle Ages, Volume 1 by George Haven Putnam 1897

Books and their Makers During the Middle Ages, Volume 2 by George Haven Putnam 1897

On the Sources of the Received Text of the Greek Testament, article in The Journal of Sacred Literature 1853

Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament by Eberhard Nestle 1901

An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles - 1854

Selections from Erasmus, Principally from his Epistles 1908

The Epistles of Erasmus, Volume 1, 1901

The Epistles of Erasmus, Volume 2, 1901

A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Volume 1 by FHA Scrivener 1894

A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Volume 2 by FHA Scrivener 1894

The History of the printed Greek text of the New Testament by Willett L Adye 1865

The Evolution of the English Bible by Henry William Hamilton-Hoare - 1902

The Whole Familiar Colloquies of Desiderius Erasmus 1877

The Apophthegmes of Erasmus 1877

The life and character of Erasmus by Arthur Pennington 1875

The Renaissance, the Protestant Revolution and the Catholic Reformation by Edward M Hulme 1914

Of Worship Addressed to Christ by Charles Morgridge 1837

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

Of Worship Addressed to Christ by Charles Morgridge 1837

To worship is to adore, to reverence, to honor, to submit to; and this homage differs as much in nature and degree, as the beings to whom it is rendered differ in nature, character, or dignity. Therefore to infer that all objects of worship are equal, is, in the highest degree, absurd. It is maintained by Trinitarians, that worship being ascribed to Christ, in the Scriptures, proves him to be God. That Christ is to be worshiped according to a scriptural use of the term, is admitted by all. But the only question is, in what sense is he to be worshiped! Inattention to the true import of words has been the source of many errors, and of much animosity among Christians. The word worship is now generally used to express the religious homage due to God. But this is not the only sense in which the word is used in the Bible. Illustration: “And all the congregation bowed down their heads, and worshiped the LORD and the king.” I Chron. 29:20. That is, they worshiped the LORD as God, and David as their King. “Then the King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and worshiped Daniel.” Dan. 2:46. Had the king worshiped Daniel as God, he would have been guilty of idolatry; and Daniel would, unquestionably, have reproved him. But no reproof was intimated. Cornelius, when Peter first came into his house, “fell down at his feet, and worshiped him.”—Acts 10:25. Yet Cornelius knew that Peter was not God. Nor did Peter reprove him; which he would have done, had Cornelius been guilty of an act of idolatry. Peter only declined the homage, saying, “I myself also am a man.” As if he had said, “I pretend to no superiority or dominion over others, which can entitle me to such homage.” Thus it is evident that the word worship is used in the Scriptures to denote that reverence and submission which an inferior owes to a superior; as well as to denote that supreme adoration which is due to God only. That Christ used the term in this sense, is obvious from the following passages. “But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, ‘Friend, go up higher:' Then thou shalt have worship, in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.” —Luke, 14:10. Speaking of the conduct of a servant towards an earthly benefactor, Christ says, “The servant fell down and worshiped him.” These passages show that we are not to build our faith upon the mere sound of words; but on the broad basis of unequivocal Scripture testimony.

That this kind of worship should never have been offered to Jesus, by any of the hundreds and thousands on whom he bestowed special favors, is incredible. That they should have worshiped him as God, is also incredible — for we have already seen, that those who saw and enjoyed the miraculous displays of his grace and mercy, never inferred that he was God. The worship offered by those who were the happy subjects of these blessings, must have been such as to comport with the character they conceived him to bear. Did they believe him to be “a Teacher come from God,” they worshiped him as such. Did they believe “God was with him,” they worshiped him as such. Did they regard him as “a man approved of God, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him,” they worshiped him as such. Did they believe him to be the “Son of God,” whom God had sanctified and sent into the world, they worshiped as such. When he stilled the winds and the waves, his disciples worshiped him, not as God, but as the Son of God: for they said in just so many words, “Of a truth thou art the Son of God.”—Matt. 14:33. The man born blind, whose eyes Jesus opened, worshiped him, not as God, but as the Son of God. For Jesus “said unto him, ‘Dost thou believe of the Son of God?' He answered and said, ‘Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, ‘Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.' And he said, ‘Lord, I believe.’ And he worshiped him.”—John, 9:35–38. This, I think, is the only instance recorded by John in which “worship” is ascribed to Christ. How is this to be reconciled with the belief that John wrote particularly to prove that Christ is God? Besides the two just quoted, I think there are but nine passages recorded by all the four Evangelists, in which persons who came to Christ as suppliants for favors, or who had been witnesses of his miraculous works, are said to have worshiped him. [Matt, 8:2, the leper: 9:18, the ruler: 15:25, the woman of Camaan: 20:20, the wife of Zebedee: 28:9, the woman who had been at the sepulchre: verse 17, the eleven disciples. Mark, 5:6; 15:19. Luke, 24:52, where we find the eleven, on the ascension of Christ, worshiped him, and, returning to Jerusalem, ‘were continually in the Temple praising and blessing God.’ In all these instances, let the reader substitute, for “worshiped him,” did him homage or obeisance, and then judge whether Jesus was worshiped as God, or as the Christ, the Son of God, whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world.]

Had there been a hundred times as many, it would not have been surprising. If the reader will carefully examine those passages, he will perceive that there is no circumstance connected with them which intimates that Christ was worshiped as God. Seven out of the eleven are recorded by Matthew, who informs us that Jesus instructed his disciples, “After this manner pray ye, “Our FATHER,” &c., and who assures us that he restricted supreme worship to JEHOVAH. There is nothing but the mere sound of the English word worship, that favors the idea that Jesus was worshiped as God. Had the translators rendered it did him obeisance, as Archbishop Newcome has done, in Matt. 8:2, there would be nothing to favor the belief that supreme adoration was intended. It was the constant practice of our blessed Saviour, whenever his discourses or miracles had excited the astonishment of the people, to lead their minds away from himself, to the invisible Father, as the original source of all his wisdom and power, and consequently the only proper object of supreme adoration and praise. And we know that, sometimes at least, the people entertained these just sentiments. There is no evidence that worship was ever offered to, or accepted by, Jesus Christ, without a higher reference to the glory of God the FATHER.

“For the Father judgeth no man; but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent him.”— John, 5:22,23. It has been often insisted upon, by Trinitarians, that the word honor here means worship, and that the passage requires that Jesus should be worshiped as God. This, I think, is not correct. If honor here means worship, we may substitute the latter for the former, without altering the sense. Verse 23 would then read thus—“He that worshipeth not the Son, worshipeth not the Father which hath sent him.” But this would not be true. Many worship the Father who do not worship the Son. Jesus, himself, always worshiped the Father, but he never worshiped the Son. He taught his disciples to worship the Father, but he forbade them to worship the Son. “In that day, (that is, after the resurrection) ye shall ask ME nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the FATHER, in my name, he will give it you.”—John 16:23. How very careful was Jesus to remove all possibility of mistake in this matter. Again, Jesus here claims honor for the Son, not on account of any supposed equality with the Father, but simply on the ground of his having received a commission from him, and having been sent by him. It will not be pretended that the Father hath committed all judgment unto God, or that the Father hath sent God. Whatever may be the meaning of the word honor in this passage, it must be admitted, I think, that, as it is claimed by the Son only on the ground of such relations as demonstrate his dependence on the Father, it cannot mean supreme worship. If honor is due to the Son because the Father hath commissioned and sent him, it must be received by the Son with higher reference to the glory of God the Father. Hence all men are to honor the Son as the authorized ambassador of God, to reveal his will to men. Finally, why are we required either to worship God, or to honor the Son? We are required to worship God primarily and chiefly on the ground of his moral attributes, and his relations to us. Though these depend on his natural attributes, and cannot exist without them, yet those are not the principal grounds on which God claims from men the homage of adoration and praise. ‘We love God because he first loved us, and gave his Son to die for us.” 'Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and magnify thy name? For thou art Holy.' 'Praise the Lord, for he is good, for his Mercy endureth forever.’ ‘A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if then, I be a Father, where is my honor and if I be a Master, where is my fear? If it were possible to conceive of an eternal, independent being of a malignant character, no honor would be due him from men. If Satan, were almighty, he would have no claims upon our love or homage. If then, we are to honor the Father on account of his moral attributes and relations, it follows that we are to honor the Son on similar grounds. But the relations of the Father and the Son are, in some respects, different. The Father gave and sent his Son, but the Son did not give and send the Father. The Son sustains the relations of Lord and Christ; of Prince and Saviour; of Prophet, Priest, and King. But all these relations demonstrate his dependence on God the Father. For God made him both Lord and Christ; exalted him to be a Prince and Saviour; and ordained him Prophet, Priest, and King. Therefore all men honor the Son, even as they honor the Father, when they render to him that homage only which comports with his moral character and relations. Consequently it cannot be supreme worship; that being due to the FATHER, the fountain of all that love, and mercy, and grace in the Son, for which we are required to honor him. Yet we are required to worship the Son, as the Son, and to honor him in all his character. With the angels of God, we are to worship him as the first begotten. We are to worship him as the brightness of the FATHER's glory, and the express image of his person—as the Christ of God, in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead—as the Lamb that was slain for us—as the resurrection and the life—as the author and finisher of our faith—and our intercessor at the right hand of God.

But he that honoreth the Son, honoreth the Father also. If we honor the Son on the ground of derived dignity, as “God's own Son,” then we honor the Father. If we honor the Son because the Father dwells in him, then we honor the Father. If we honor the Son on account of his official character, and the divine authority the Father gave him, as the appointed Saviour, and constituted judge of the world, then we honor the Father.

I know of no passage of Scripture that ascribes worship to the Son, where the connection and circumstances furnish the least intimation that he was worshiped as God. Even in the most splendid description of the glory of Christ found in the Bible, the distinction between God and him is sufficiently clear. Rev. 4:2, we read, “Behold, a throne was set in heaven, and ONE (not three) sat on the throne.” Verses 10 and 11, this ONE is worshiped, as the Being who liveth forever and ever, and who had created all things. Ch. 5:6, 7, 9, we read, “And in the midst of the elders stood a Lamb, as it had been slain.....And he came and took the book out of the right hand of HIM that sat upon the throne;.....and they sung a new song, saying, ‘Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.’” There is not in the Bible a clearer distinction between the only true God, and his only Son our Saviour, than is here expressed. GoD sat on the throne; the Son stood amidst the elders. God had in his right hand a book; the Son came and took the book out of his hand. GOD was worshiped as the Being who created all things; and who liveth forever and ever. The Son was honored as the Lamb that was slain, and redeemed us unto God by his blood. And as the whole congregation of Israel bowed down their heads, and worshiped the LORD and the king, who was but a type of this Lamb; so, in verse 13, the whole universe is represented as ascribing Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, unto HIM that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever.

It is maintained by Trinitarians, that, ‘since God and Jesus Christ in this instance receive the same tribute of praise, they must be equal in eternity, power, and glory.’ Indeed those who believe that Christ is God, commonly represent it as a circumstance of great importance, whenever he is mentioned in connection with God, and in the same or similar terms. The following passages will show what inferences ought to follow from the application of the same language in the same connection to God and to some other being. Ex. 14:31—“And the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses.” 1 Sam. 12:18—"And all the people greatly feared the LORD and Samuel.” 1 Chron. 29:20–"And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshiped the Lord and the king.” 2 Chron. 31:8—“And when Hezekiah and the princes came and saw the heaps, they blest the Lord and his people Israel.” Acts, 15:28—“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit (that is, to God) and to us.” 1 Thess. 2:10—“Ye are witnesses and God also.” In these passages the only True God is associated with his creatures, as the object of faith, fear, worship, and blessing: and as giving counsel and bearing witness. As we are here taught to apply the terms to God and to men in a different sense, with different modifications of meaning, so we ought to do when God in the same sentence is conjoined with Jesus Christ his Son. 1 Tim. 5:21—“I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things.” Let us suppose that, instead of the “elect angels,” the Apostle had written “the Holy Spirit,” and that the verse read thus—“I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, that thou observe these things.” Would it not have been regarded as an unanswerable argument for the doctrine of the Trinity? Would it not have been insisted upon that the three persons in the Godhead are appealed to in exactly the same terms, and called upon by a solemn adjuration to bear testimony to the injunction delivered by the Apostle to Timothy 1 Sam. 25:32, 33—“And David said unto Abigail, ‘Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who sent thee this day to meet me; and blessed be thy advice; and blessed be thou.” Now suppose the terms “Son,” and “Holy Spirit,” to be in verse 33, instead of “thy advice,” and “thou,” and the passage to read thus—“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; and blessed be the Son; and blessed be the Holy Spirit.”—Would not this passage thus written have been better evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, than any of those which are now cited? It would, no doubt, have been peremptorily asserted that the ascription of blessing and praise, in precisely the same words, and in the same connection, is as strong proof as language can furnish of the equality of the persons in God.

Dr. Dwight, speaking of the formula of baptism, says— “Nothing but impiety can, so far as I can see, be contained in a direction to baptize in the name of God and a Creature. What creature would dare associate himself with God in such an act of authority; and thus presume to ascend the throne of his Maker?' Men in the heat of controversy are not apt to weigh their words. Does the Dr. make nothing at all of “the man Christ Jesus?” Does he believe “the Lamb that was slain” to be the Divine nature of Christ, that is, God? The Scriptures clearly teach that “the man Christ Jesus” does “associate himself with God in such an act of authority;” and in much higher acts of authority. He also does “presume to ascend the throne of his Maker,” and sit on his right hand. “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and True Witness, the beginning of the creation of God.....and the first begotten of the dead, ‘To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”—Rev. 1:5; 3:14, 21.

Phil. 2:9–11: “God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven, and in earth, and under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the FATHER.” This passage, I think, proves beyond all debate, that the highest homage given to Christ “in heaven,” as well as “in earth, and under the earth,” is ascribed to him with higher reference to the glory of God the FATHER. If Jesus were to be worshiped as God, his own glory would be the supreme object with every true worshiper.

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

See also Christology & the Trinity Doctrine - Over 320 Books on the on TWO DVDroms