Monday, January 27, 2020
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Sunday, January 19, 2020
The Supremacy of the Father, and the Subordination of the Son
The New Testament is redundant in passages proving the supremacy of the Father, and the subordination of the Son. The very ideas of Father and Son imply superiority in the one— inferiority in the other. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, in fact, admit this, though it is denied by the "Article," which affirms that the three persons are of one substance, power, and eternity. They admit that Christ was begotten of the Father, and thus contradict the coeternity and coequality which the article asserts. The words of the second article of the Church of England "begotten from everlasting of the Father," are nonsense, for they involve two ideas which destroy each other — that which is begotten is not self-existent, therefore not eternal— that which is eternal is self-existent, therefore not begotten. So little consistency is there in the creeds and articles of man's invention. So difficult it is to put a total extinguisher on the truth, that God is one!
Again, as reason and common sense tell us that a father must exist before a son can be begotten, so must he who commands be greater than he who obeys; the bestower is superior to the receiver; the sender to him who is sent; and he who prescribes a task, to him by whom it is executed. Now Christ is represented in the Scriptures as in all things subordinate to the Father. He declares his own inferiority, and so strongly and so frequently disclaims the ascription to himself of the attributes that belong to Jehovah alone, that it is really a matter of astonishment how any one can entertain a doubt on the question.
He affirms the supremacy of the Father in terms the most explicit, undeniable, and unqualified.
"My Father is greater than all."—John, x. 29.
Consequently greater than the Son—and that there may be no doubt of this, he says again,
"My Father is greater than I."—John, xiv. 28.
He declares that the same great being who is our God and Father, is also his God and Father.
"I ascend unto my Father and your Father: and to my God and your God."—John, xx. 17.
He denies independant and underived existence when he says,
"I live by the Father."—John, vi. 57.
He denies that he is inherently and underivably possessed of any power whatsoever; and he does this with a solemn repeated asseveration.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son Can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do."—John, v. 19.
"To sit on my right-hand and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father."—Matt xx. 23.
He affirms that he is not omniscient—
"Of that day, and that hour, knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven; neither the Son, but the Father."—Mark, xiii. 32.*
[This is a most distressing text to Trinitarians. In vain have they tortured invention and falsified the meaning of the Greek text, to escape a conclusion which is fatal to their scheme. One informs us that the verb OIDEN here signifies maketh known, though no instance of its having such a meaning occurs in the whole compass of Greek learning. Admit, it however, for a moment, and mark the consequence. "That day and that hour no man maketh known, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only maketh known." This is a direct contradiction of the Saviour's meaning, to avoid which, it is proposed by other expounders, to supply the words "in his official capacity," or "in his human nature," for which addition, even if it did not convert solemn truth into impious folly, they have no more authority, than for writing a new gospel. But this is not all. Audi facinus majoris abollae. In order to parallel and neutralize the force of this vexatious text, they have actually quoted Hosea viii. 4. "They have made princes, and I (Jehovah) knew it not:" as if this was an expression of ignorance and not of disapproval—and in their anxiety to secure a point, have been contented to rob Jehovah of his Omniscience!]
He refuses to be called good in the sense of infinitely benevolent.
"There is none good but ONE, that is God."—Mat. xix. 17.
He ascribes his mission and his works to his Father. "The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me that the Father hath Sent Me."—John, v. 30
He acknowledges that his power of exercising judgment is bestowed upon him by the Father.
"The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son."—John, v. 22.
He affirms that his doctrine did not originate with himself;
"My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine; whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."—John, vii. 16, 17.
He denies that he came of himself.
"Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true whom ye know not."—John vii. 28.
He denies that he came to do his own will. "I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."—John, v. 30.
Or, that he sought his own glory.
"I seek not mine own glory—there is one (viz: God) that seeketh and judgeth."—John, viii. 50.
Or, that he is himself the ultimate end and object of our faith. "He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me."—John, xii. 44. i.e. not so much on me, as on him who sent me.
He makes it a less heinous offence to speak against himself than against the Holy Spirit, which is a clear acknowledgment of his inferiority.
"Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him."—Mat. xii. 32.
After his resurrection he says, that all his power is the gift of his Heavenly Father.
"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."—Mat. xxviii. 18.
The texts that speak a similar language are almost innumerable, and all so plain and intelligible, that their meaning is never disputed. How then avoid the conclusion to which they irresistibly compel? How maintain a doctrine by which that conclusion is utterly subverted? Certain creed-makers and Infallible Churches will inform us. They have inventions of their own which could never be found out by minds uninitiated in their mysteries. They inform us, though Scripture does not, that Christ had two natures, a human and a divine; and that he speaks and acts sometimes in the one, and sometimes in the other nature. This, for a moment, being admitted, we naturally enquire, how is it to be ascertained when any of his discourses or actions are to be ascribed to him as God the Son, and when as the man Jesus? To a plain and unsophisticated reader this is a serious difficulty, dignus vindice nodus, a knot which can be untied only by the skill of the "Infallible Church."
By what rule Protestants are guided in this inquiry, or whether they have any rule, the writer must confess ignorance. The learned Rammohun Roy,* a name which there will be occasion often to mention in the sequel of this essay, has expressed a wish to be furnished with a list enumerating those expressions which are made in one and in the other capacity, with authorities for the distinction. What authorities should he expect but those of tradition and an Infallible Church .J The list, perhaps, might be furnished, but it would scarcely yield the satisfaction which he seems to require—since one clause of the same text, as he has himself remarked and illustrated, would require to be Bpoken by the divine, and another by the human nature; and even the same clause might have to be understood as spoken sometimes by the one and sometimes by the other, as it chanced so suit the argument of the polemic or expounder. A principle of conformity to the creed which they have brought from the nursery or college, is the only rule, as far as the Unitarian can discover, which Trinitarians employ in making the distinction. This is the touchstone by which every text must be proved.
They cover the pure gold of gospel truth with the base alloy of human invention, stamp it with the image and superscription of Athanasius or Calvin, and circulate it as the true evangelical coin. When our blessed Saviour says, "I live by the Father,"—they exclaim, this is spoken in his human nature! When he says, "My Father and 1 are one," though it is clear as the sun, that he means one in the Unitarian sense; they immediately call out, here is a proof of the coexistence, coeternity, and consubstantiality of God and Christ! Mr. Pope adopts this mode of explanation, and alleges that "those passages which affirm the son's inferiority were not spoken of him whole and entire, but refer to his human nature, and mediatorial character; and that this view of the subject alone, harmonizes the seemingly contradictory descriptions which the Scriptures give of the Messiah."
Such vague and unfounded notions as this may content those who can "prostrate the understanding;" but reason and common sense must protest against them. Can it be imagined that a distinction of such importance to the right interpretation of Scripture, should be sought for in them in vain? By admitting it as necessary to explain certain fancied contradictions, we are involved in ten-fold difficulties, from which we cannot be extricated, even by the power of an Infallible Church. While it aims, on the one hand, to exalt the Saviour to Supreme Deity, it degrades him, on the other, beneath the level of an honest and true man. It grants the Unitarian more than he either asks or will accept. It strips part of our Lord's declarations of their sacred influence, by representing them as spoken of himself in the nature of a common uninspired mortal; whereas the Unitarian receives them all as coming from the inspiration of the Almighty. Nor is this all. It involves more awful consequences. We should have supposed from reading the Scriptures, "without note or comment." that the Saviour's character presented to us one symmetrical and consistent whole. But this invention affirms that he was not one but two persons; and since he did not always speak and act as a whole and entire, he must sometimes have spoken and acted as a part and a fraction. What he was ignorant of as a man, he knew as God. Each character had its peculiar language and mode of acting; and that which was utterly false, as coming from the one, was demonstratively true as coming from the other. He is, and he is not, omnipotent, and omniscient. He tells a female petitioner, that what she asks is not his to give—and notwithstanding, it is his to give! He cannot do what is requested of him, and yet it is perfectly in his power! What havoc does such a fancy make of the character of him who was full of grace and truth; who always acted with such perfect candour, and who branded hypocrites with his severest indignation? Let those who advocate the doctrine abide the consequence.
Such, it seems, is the only way to harmonize the discordancies, of a system which has neither reason nor Scripture for its support. Were Unitarians to have recourse to any such miserable expedients what a clamour would be raised? What epithets of abuse—what charges of blasphemy would be reverberated through the synods and convocations of orthodoxy! The dread sounds of heretics—lepers—infidels—atheists—deniers of the God that bought them, would be thundered in their ears: and all this for their adherence to the plain and unequivocal language of Scripture! We understand the Saviour's words in the sense which we believe they were intended to convey, and it would excite our special wonder, were we not accustomed to it, to witness the irreverence and disrespect with which they are treated by the upholders of Trinitarianism. These, seem to make it their uniform practise to contradict the plainest declarations of our Lord, as if they had taken part with the Scribes and Pharisees of old, and were determined to fix on him the very imputations which he repelled. When he says, "My Father is greater than I"—they virtually tell him that he utters a falsehood, for they know well that he is equal to the Father in all respects. When he denies that he knows when the day of judgment will arrive, they affirm that he knows it full well, and only imposes upon them by an equivocation. When he says, "It is not mine to give," they exclaim, this is only an ingenious mode of escaping from importunity, for though he cannot give in his assumed character, he can give all things in his real one! When he speaks of himself as of "a man who told the truth which he had heard of God," they say he is a man only in outward shew, but in reality the Omnipotent Jehovah! Thus, with the intention, as in charity we suppose, of exalting the Saviour, they heap upon him the greatest dishonour. They make him equivocate, dissemble, and falsify, and impute to him such a mode of speaking and acting, as they would be ashamed to impute to any man of common integrity.
These enormities Unitarians avoid, by adhering to the plain meaning of Scripture. They feel assured that the Saviour did not equivocate, nor practise any species of deception. They cannot find a single text which leads to such a horrible suspicion; neither are they able to discover any such contradictory views of his character and conduct as would lay them under the necessity of having recourse to Platonic inventions to reconcile them. They cannot "entangle him in his talk"—nor refuse to him the testimony which was given by his enemies, "Master we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth; neither carest thou for any man, for thou regardest not the person of men."—Mat. xxii. 16. They contemplate our Lord not as a mysterious and ambiguous being, acting a double part, and paltering with language in a double sense, meaning one thing and expressing another—but as one being, sustaining one character, a beautiful, harmonious and consistent whole—without guile—of spotless purity, and unimpeachable rectitude, who spoke as inspired by the spirit of truth, and acted, in all respects, as became the Son of God, deputed with the High commission to instruct and reform the world; to leave us an example that we should follow his steps, and live and die for our salvation.
[* An Indian Brahmin, who from a diligent perusal of the Sacred Scriptures, has become a convert to Christianity, and whose intimate and most accurately critical knowledge of oriental customs and languages eminently qualifies him both to understand and explain the inspired volume. His work entitled "The precepts of Jesus, the guide to peace and happiness," with his first, second, and final appeal to the Christian public, in reply to lir. Marshman of Serampore, should be in the hands of all lovers of truth. It might have been expected that such a convert would have been welcomed with delight by every disciple of Jesus; but his love of truth preventing him from embracing certain "peculiar doctrines" which, with all his critical acumen, he could not find in the Bible; he became as much an object of obloquy to the "Orthodox," in the East, as his Unitarian brethren are in the West. His editor, at length, refused to publish his works, and he was under the necessity of purchasing types and a printing press, to have them printed beneath his own immediate inspection. Happily for the cause of genuine Christianity, they have reached the shores of Great Britain, and the "Isle of Saints," and while paper, ink, and type, remain, they will not perish; though some ardent proselyters decry them, and say their author is no Christian. Thus did their Jewish brethren oif old declare of Christ, that he was a Samaritan and bad a devil!]
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
Monday, January 13, 2020
Monday, December 30, 2019
Using the Indefinite Article at John 1:14
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
Reply: The main difference here is the placement of the verb before the noun, while at John 1:1c the verb is placed after the noun.
However, we already have many instances in John where we translate with the indefinite article "a" where the verb is placed after the noun:
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."
Not only that, John 1:14 can be translated indefinitely as well, and some Bibles actually do this:
"The Word became a human being." CEV, GNT, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John by Barclay Newman & Eugene Albert Nida, Biography of the Biblical God by E. Asamoah-Yaw, NIRV
"The Word became a man" ICB
"The Word became a human" NCV
So, if you compare John 1:14 to John 1:1c, you can insert the indefinite "a" in both Scriptures to flesh out the proper meaning.
Friday, December 27, 2019
Thomas More's Horse, and Erasmus
On a visit to England, he passed some time at the house of Sir Thomas More, a decided Papist. Upon his departure, "Sir Thomas loaned him a favorite horse, to go as far as the seashore and then to be returned. Erasmus, taking a fancy to the horse, kept him, whereupon Sir Thomas reproached him for not fulfilling his word, and taking what was not his own. Erasmus sent back the following lines, which contain a satire upon his friend's belief in transubstantiation:—
'That Christ's body is in the bread, say you,
Only believe, 't is therefore true;
So of your horse, if you are able,
Only believe 't is in the stable.'"
from: Jortin's Life of Erasmus.
See also Erasmus the Reformer & Bible Scholar - 40 PDF Books on DVDrom
Thursday, December 26, 2019
Exodus 3:14 in the New World Translation
Exodus 3:14 “At this God said to Moses: ‘I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.’ And he added: ‘This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, “I shall prove to be has sent me to you.'" (NWT)
The website says: The Hebrew phrase, ‘eheyeh ‘asher ‘eheyeh, literally is “I am who I am.” But Jesus alludes to this statement in John 8:58 by calling himself “I am,” and Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the deity of Jesus so this passage was modified.
Reply: Does Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh literally mean “I am who I am?”
Look at this image that shows the same word used two verses prior at Exodus 3:12 where it is translated in your Bible as "I Will Be." It seems odd to translate it so oddly at Exodus 3:14, unless you are going to great pains to link it to Jesus' words at John 8:58.
I have looked at many occurrences of the Hebrew word `hyh (ehyeh) I could find with the pronoun, and the results are overwhelming that "I AM" is a poor translation. Unless otherwise stated, the Bible used is the Revised Standard Version:
Exo 3:12 And he said, Certainly I will be with thee ASV
Exo 3:14 snip
Exo 4:12 Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak."
Exo 4:15 And you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and will teach you what you shall do.
Deu 31:23 And the LORD commissioned Joshua the son of Nun and said, "Be strong and of good courage; for you shall bring the children of Israel into the land which I swore to give them: I will be with you."
Jos 1:5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you.
Jos 3:7 And the LORD said to Joshua, "This day I will begin to exalt you in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that, as I was with Moses, so I will be with you.
Jdg 6:16 And the LORD said to him, "But I will be with you, and you shall smite the Mid'ianites as one man."
Jdg 11:9 Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, "If you bring me home again to fight with the Ammonites, and the LORD gives them over to me, I will be your head."
1Sa 18:18 And David said to Saul, "Who am I, and who are my kinsfolk, my father's family in Israel, that I should be son-in-law to the king?"
1Sa 23:17 And he said to him, "Fear not; for the hand of Saul my father shall not find you; you shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next to you; Saul my father also knows this."
2Sa 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men;
2Sa 15:34 But if you return to the city, and say to Ab'salom, 'I will be your servant, O king
2Sa 16:18 And Hushai said to Ab'salom, "No; for whom the LORD and this people and all the men of Israel have chosen, his I will be
2Sa 16:19 so I will be in your presence. NASB
Isa 3:7 in that day he will speak out, saying: "I will not be a healer; in my house there is neither bread nor mantle; you shall not make me leader of the people."
Isa 47:7 You said, "I will be the mistress for ever," HCSB
Jer 11:4 which I commanded your fathers when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Listen to my voice, and do all that I command you. So shall you be my people, and I will be your God,
Jer 24:7 I will give them a heart to know that I am the LORD; and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart.
Jer 30:22 And you shall be my people, and I will be your God."
Jer 31:1 "At that time, says the LORD, I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people."
Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Eze 11:20 that they may walk in my statutes and keep my ordinances and obey them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Eze 14:11 and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, saith the Lord Jehovah. Darby Bible
Eze 34:24 And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them; I, the LORD, have spoken.
Eze 36:28 You shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.
Eze 37:23 They shall not defile themselves any more with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; but I will save them from all the backslidings in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Hos 1:9 Then He said, Call his name Not My People, for you are not My people, and I will not be for you. LITV [RSV has "I am"]
Zec 2:5[9] And I will be to her a wall of fire all around, and I will be for glory in her midst, declares Jehovah. LITV
Zec 8:8 and I will bring them to dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and they shall be my people and I will be their God, in faithfulness and in righteousness."
Psa 50:21 You have done these things, and I have kept silence; you thought that surely I would be like you LITV
Job 3:16 Or as a hidden untimely birth I had not been, As infants that never saw light. ASV
Job 10:19 I should have been as though I had not been ASV
*Job 12:4 I am as one that is a laughing-stock to his neighbor ASV
[Compare NIV "I have become a laughingstock to my friends"]
*Job 17:6 He has made me a byword of the peoples, and I am one before whom men spit.
[Compare NKJV "I have become one in whose face men spit."
KJV "and aforetime I was as a tabret."
DARBY "and I am become one to be spit on in the face."]
Song 1:7 for why should I be like one who wanders beside the flocks of your companions?
Rth 2:13 though I am not one of your maidservants
[Compare KJV, ASV "though I be not like unto one of thine handmaidens."
NET "though I could never be equal to one of your servants."
1Ch 17:13 I will be his father, and he shall be my son
1Ch 28:6 I will be his father
For this reason, many other Bibles do not translate Exodus 3:14 as I AM, but rather "I will be," such as The James Moffatt Translation and Smith & Goodspeed's An American Translation. The Jewish Study Bible: Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation By Adele Berlin, Marc Zvi Brettler says that Exodus 3:14 is "probably best translated as 'I Will Be What I Will Be'" and Robert Alter in his Hebrew Bible concludes as well that "I Will Be Who I Will Be" is the most plausible construction. Frederic Huidekoper in his "Genesis, Chapters I.-XI.: In Parallel Columns" also believes "I Will Be What I Will Be" "is the only translation." https://tinyurl.com/se9cupw . Even Walter Martin in his The Kingdom of the Occult at footnote 25 in the Eastern Mysticism and the New Age section that "the original words literally signify 'I will be what I will be.'"
"YHWH is the name that describes this essence and identity most clearly: 'I will be what I will be.'" Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation By Herman Bavinck, John Bolt, John Vriend
"The traditional English translation within Judaism favors 'I will be what I will be' because there is no present tense of the verb 'to be' in the Hebrew language." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am
Elsewhere in Judaism, The book "An Introduction to Judaism" By Nicholas de Lange prefers "I shall be what I shall be" https://tinyurl.com/sxtq8z9 as does "Ehyeh: A Kabbalah for Tomorrow" By Arthur Green https://tinyurl.com/qko3w3a and "Tales of the Village Rabbi: A Manhattan Chronicle" By Harvey M. Tattelbaum https://tinyurl.com/tuf4wv9 and "Gan Sofer" by Baruch Myers (Page 275) and "The Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition" https://tinyurl.com/udpkgmo and "Prophecy: The History of an Idea in Medieval Jewish Philosophy" By Howard Kreisel https://tinyurl.com/vnwca73 and "Crescas: Light of the Lord (Or Hashem): Translated with introduction and notes" by Roslyn Weiss https://tinyurl.com/yx2o9qdb and Rational Rabbis: Science and Talmudic Culture by Menachem Fisch (Page 194) and "Religion of the Age and of the Ages" by Abraham Moses Hershman (Page 61) and "Judaism: an Analysis and an Interpretation" by Israel Herbert Levinthal (Page 61) and Journal of Reform Judaism, Volume 32, 1985 (Page 112) and it is ascribed to the great medieval Jewish commentator Rashi in "The God Who May Be: A Hermeneutics of Religion by Richard Kearney (Page 25).
See also The Exodus 3:14/John 8:58 Nothing-Burger
https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-exodus-314john-858-nothing-burger.html
The Present of Past Action and John 8:58
https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-present-of-past-action-and-john-858.html
EGW EIMI (ego eimi), I AM and John 8:58
https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/07/egw-eimi-ego-eimi-i-am-and-john-858.html
Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents
[The newer NWT has “I Will Become What I Choose to Become.”]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)