Wednesday, November 25, 2020

To HELL Potatoes

 

The English Word Hell

The old English word hell comes from "helan", and means to cover or conceal. Similar words coming from the same root have a similar meaning.

"Hill" for example is a mound of dirt or stone that covers the level surface of earth. "Hull" is the covering of a nut or the covered part of a ship. "Heal" is the covering of a wound. "Hall" is a building space which is used to cover people or goods. "Hole" is an uncovering. A book heller was someone who put the cover on a book. 

In the early days "to hell potatoes" meant to cover them, as to store them in a cellar or underground. To "hel" a house meant to cover a portion of it with tile. The term "heling a house" is still used in the New England portions of the United States.

Incidentally,  if you google the definition of hell, you will get this comment on the origin of the word: “the Old English hel, hell, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch hel and German Hölle, from an Indo-European root meaning ‘to cover or hide.’” Hence, “helmet, to hell potatoes, etc.”

At first the use of hell had no fiery meaning to it. It was simply used as the common grave of man. To go to hell in the old English language meant simply that one was dead and buried. It was in Germany and England that the word began to evolve into a meaning of eternal punishment.

The NIV and the KJV Bibles translate the words for Hell inconsistently. The KJV in the Old Testament translates the Hebrew word SHEOL 31 times as "hell", 31 times as "grave" and 3 times as "pit." The NIV translates the word hADHS as "grave" at Acts 2:27, "hell" at Luke 16:23, and "Hades" at Rev 20:13.

Perhaps it would be wise to switch Bibles to ones that are more accurate. The New World Translation does not use the word "Hell" and neither does the Catholic New American Bible.*

*See also: Young's Literal Translation (1891); Twentieth Century New Testament (1900); Rotherham's Emphasized Bible; Fenton's Holy Bible in Modern English (1903); Weymouth's New Testament in Modern Speech (1903); Concordant Literal NT; Emphatic Diaglott; the Revised English Version; Revised Version Improved and Corrected; New European Version, David Bentley Hart New Testament, The Kingdom of God Version (KGV) etc

Saturday, November 21, 2020

Restoring the Divine Name JEHOVAH to its Rightful Place in the Bible


 
IS THE REVISED VERSION TO BE FAITHFUL

[I discovered this article in The Christian Life, July 26 1879. I could not find a name attached to it. Enjoy:]

THE scholars and divines who have been asked by the Convocation of Canterbury to revise the Authorised Version of the Bible, do not communicate to the public the particulars of their work as it goes forward. They do not intend that it should be criticised in detail; we are to wait until it is all finished before we are allowed a sight of any part— unless, perhaps, they may publish the New Testament without waiting for the larger work, the Old Testament. But notwithstanding this aim at secrecy, knowledge about it does creep out; and this is not altogether encouraging as to what the work will be. Now it is well known that the Jews at an early time—certainly before the Christian era—had such a religious reverence for the name of Jehovah that they would not utter it when reading the Scriptures aloud. They used the word Adoni, Lord, in its place.

This religious feeling led the Greek Jews, when translating their Scriptures into Greek, to avoid the sacred word Jehovah; and thus in the Septuagint, for Jehovah they always wrote the Lord, and for Jehovah God, the Lord God, and for the Lord Jehovah, the Lord God. In this matter the Greek translators were followed by King James's translators, except in seven places, where in our version we meet with the word Jehovah. The modern Jews, in their new translations, show the same scruple against using the sacred name, and they write The Eternal. This is a great improvement on our Authorised Version. It removes the ambiguity of using the ordinary word Lord as the proper name of the Almighty.

The writers of the Greek New Testament, writing in Greek, unfortunately introduced this same ambiguity into their work; and thus they call Jesus the Lord, and then, perhaps in the next sentence, quote the Hebrew Scriptures as saying, "the Lord thy God," when in truth the Hebrew is, "Jehovah thy God." This sad ambiguity, which runs through the Greek New Testament, cannot now be removed by a translator. It must be left to the commentator to say when, in the English New Testament, "the Lord" means Jesus, and when it means Jehovah. This ambiguity has done much to make ignorant readers of the Bible think Jesus was God, because they find Jesus and God are both styled "The Lord." But though this cannot be corrected in a revised translation of the New Testament, it of course should be corrected in the Old Testament. There we should keep the word Jehovah as a proper name; and this would often enable the unlearned reader to recognise in the New Testament that "the Lord," when quoted from the Old, meant not Jesus but Jehovah. In short, a correct translation of the Old Testament would do much to throw light on the Unitarian controversy, not for scholars, but for the unlearned. All scholars know perfectly well that this mistranslation in the Old Testament does quite as much to support the doctrine of the Trinity among the ignorant as the verse of the three heavenly witnesses has done in the New Testament.

Now if, as report tells us, the revised version of the Old Testament is to say "the Lord God," when the Hebrew has Jehovah God, this will be the wilfully retaining a mistranslation. It will be giving a support to orthodoxy which it is not entitled to. It would be such a departure from impartial accuracy that we will not believe twenty-four gentlemen can be guilty of it until we see it. The forthcoming version is, we understand, to have a margin, with a second rendering of some words; and then, perhaps, we shall read in the text "the Lord God," and in the margin, "Jehovah God." But this will be no apology for not putting the correct translation into the text. If the cheaper copies of the Bible shall be printed without the margin, as is probable, then the million will be left in their ignorance to continue to think that the Lord Jesus and the Lord God are the same, But let us hope better things of our translators. The report that they are going to retain the words "the Lord," when the Hebrew has "Jehovah," may be a slander. Such an obvious departure from accuracy would throw a distrust upon the whole work, and go far to render it worthless.

-end of article


xxxxxxxxxx

HS: The Revised Version would go on to restore the Divine Name Jehovah only 15 times:

Gen_22:14  And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be provided.
Exo_6:2  And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am JEHOVAH:
Exo_6:3  and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH I was not known to them.
Exo_6:6  Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am Jehovah, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:
Exo_6:7  and I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
Exo_6:8  And I will bring you in unto the land concerning which I lifted up my hand to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am Jehovah.
Exo_17:15  And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-nissi:
Jdg_6:24  Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD, and called it Jehovah-shalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.
Psa_68:20  God is unto us a God of deliverances; and unto JEHOVAH the Lord belong the issues from death.
Psa_83:18  That they may know that thou alone, whose name is JEHOVAH, art the Most High over all the earth.
Isa_12:2  Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and song; and he is become my salvation.
Isa_26:4  Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is an everlasting rock.
Isa_49:14  But Zion said, Jehovah hath forsaken me, and the Lord hath forgotten me.
Jer_16:21  Therefore, behold, I will cause them to know, this once will I cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is Jehovah.
Hab_3:19  Jehovah, the Lord, is my strength, and he maketh my feet like hinds' feet, and will make me to walk upon mine high places.




Friday, November 20, 2020

The Heathen Origin of the Trinity by Thomas William Doane 1883

 

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


THE TRINITY.
"Say not there are three Gods, God is but One God."—(Koran.)

The doctrine of the Trinity is the highest and most mysterious doctrine of the Christian church. It declares that there are three persons in the Godhead or divine nature—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost—and that "these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory, although distinguished by their personal propensities." The most celebrated statement of the doctrine is to be found in the Athanasian creed, which asserts that:

"The Catholic faith is this: That we worship One God as Trinity, and Trinity in Unity—neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance—for there is One person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal."

As M. Reville remarks:

"The dogma of the Trinity displayed its contradictions with true bravery. The Deity divided into three divine persons, and yet these three persons forming only One God; of these three the first only being self-existent, the two others deriving their existence from the first, and yet these three persons being considered as perfectly equal; each having his special, distinct character, his individual qualities, wanting in the other two, and yet each one of the three being supposed to possess the fullness of perfection—here, it must be confessed, we have the deification of the contradictory."

We shall now see that this very peculiar doctrine of three in one, and one in three, is of heathen origin, and that it must fall with all the other dogmas of the Christian religion.

The number three is sacred in all theories derived from oriental sources. Deity is always a trinity of some kind, or the successive emanations proceeded in threes.

If we turn to India we shall find that one of the most prominent features in the Indian theology is the doctrine of a divine triad, governing all things. This triad is called Tri-murti—from the Sanscrit word tri (three) and murti (form)—and consists of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. It is an inseparable unity, though three in form.

"When the universal and infinite being Brahma—the only really existing entity, wholly without form, and unbound and unaffected by the three Gunas or by qualities of any kind—wished to create for his own entertainment the phenomena of the universe, he assumed the quality of activity and became a male person, as Brahma the creator. Next, in the progress of still further self-evolution, he willed to invest himself with the second quality of goodness, as Vishnu the preserver, and with the third quality of darkness, as Siva the destroyer. This development of the doctrine of triple manifestation (tri-murti), which appears first in the Brahmanized version of the Indian Epics, had already been adumbrated in the Veda in the triple form of fire, and in the triad of gods, Agni, Surya, and Indra; and in other ways."

This divine Tri-murti—says the Brahmans and the sacred books—is indivisible in essence, and indivisible in action; mystery profound! which is explained in the following manner:

Brahma represents the creative principle, the unreflected or unevolved protogoneus state of divinity—the Father.

Vishnu represents the protecting and preserving principle, the evolved or reflected state of divinity—the Son.

Siva is the principle that presides at destruction and re-construction—the Holy Spirit.

The third person was the Destroyer, or, in his good capacity, the Regenerator. The dove was the emblem of the Regenerator. As the spiritus was the passive cause (brooding on the face of the waters) by which all things sprang into life, the dove became the emblem of the Spirit, or Holy Ghost, the third person.

These three gods are the first and the highest manifestations of the Eternal Essence, and are typified by the three letters composing the mystic syllable OM or AUM. They constitute the well known Trimurti or Triad of divine forms which characterizes Hindooism. It is usual to describe these three gods as Creator, Preserver and Destroyer, but this gives a very inadequate idea of their complex characters. Nor does the conception of their relationship to each other become clearer when it is ascertained that their functions are constantly interchangeable, and that each may take the place of the other, according to the sentiment expressed by the greatest of Indian poets, Kalidasa (Kumara-sambhava, Griffith, vii. 44):

"In those three persons the One God was shown—
Each first in place, each last—not one alone;
Of Siva, Vishnu, Brahma, each may be
First, second, third, among the blessed three."

A devout person called Attencin, becoming convinced that he should worship but one deity, thus addressed Brahma, Vishnu and Siva:

"O you three Lords; know that I recognize only One God; inform me therefore, which of you is the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my vows and adorations."

The three gods became manifest to him, and replied:

"Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us; what to you appears such is only by semblance; the Single Being appears under three forms, but he is One."

Sir William Jones says:

"Very respectable natives have assured me, that one or two missionaries have been absurd enough in their zeal for the conversion of the Gentiles, to urge that the Hindus were even now almost Christians; because their Brahma, Vishnou, and Mahesa (Siva), were no other than the Christian Trinity."

Thomas Maurice, in his "Indian Antiquities," describes a magnificent piece of Indian sculpture, of exquisite workmanship, and of stupendous antiquity, namely:

"A bust composed of three heads, united to one body, adorned with the oldest symbols of the Indian theology, and thus expressly fabricated according to the unanimous confession of the sacred sacerdotal tribe of India, to indicate the Creator, the Preserver, and the Regenerator, of mankind; which establishes the solemn fact, that from the remotest eras, the Indian nations had adored a triune deity."

Fig. No. 34 is a representation of an Indian sculpture, intended to represent the Triune God, evidently similar to the one described above by Mr. Maurice. It is taken from "a very ancient granite" in the museum at the "Indian House," and was dug from the ruins of a temple in the island of Bombay.


The Buddhists, as well as the Brahmans, have had their Trinity from a very early period.

Mr. Faber, in his "Origin of Heathen Idolatry," says:

"Among the Hindus, we have the Triad of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva; so, among the votaries of Buddha, we find the self-triplicated Buddha declared to be the same as the Hindu Trimurti. Among the Buddhist sect of the Jainists, we have the triple Jiva, in whom the Trimurti is similarly declared to be incarnate."

In this Trinity Vajrapani answers to Brahma, or Jehovah, the "All-father," Manjusri is the "deified teacher," the counterpart of Crishna or Jesus, and Avalokitesvara is the "Holy Spirit."

Buddha was believed by his followers to be, not only an incarnation of the deity, but "God himself in human form"—as the followers of Crishna believed him to be—and therefore "three gods in one." This is clearly illustrated by the following address delivered to Buddha by a devotee called Amora:

"Reverence be unto thee, O God, in the form of the God of mercy, the dispeller of pain and trouble, the Lord of all things, the guardian of the universe, the emblem of mercy towards those who serve thee—OM! the possessor of all things in vital form. Thou art Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa; thou art Lord of all the universe. Thou art under the proper form of all things, movable and immovable, the possessor of the whole, and thus I adore thee. I adore thee, who art celebrated by a thousand names, and under various forms; in the shape of Buddha, the god of mercy."

The inhabitants of China and Japan, the majority of whom are Buddhists, worship God in the form of a Trinity. Their name for him (Buddha) is Fo, and in speaking of the Trinity they say: "The three pure, precious or honorable Fo." This triad is represented in their temples by images similar to those found in the pagodas of India, and when they speak of God they say: "Fo is one person, but has three forms."

In a chapel belonging to the monastery of Poo-ta-la, which was found in Manchow-Tartary, was to be seen representations of Fo, in the form of three persons.

Navarette, in his account of China, says:

"This sect (of Fo) has another idol they call Sanpao. It consists of three, equal in all respects. This, which has been represented as an image of the Most Blessed Trinity, is exactly the same with that which is on the high altar of the monastery of the Trinitarians at Madrid. If any Chinese whatsoever saw it, he would say that Sanpao of his country was worshiped in these parts."

And Mr. Faber, in his "Origin of Heathen Idolatry," says:

"Among the Chinese, who worship Buddha under the name of Fo, we find this God mysteriously multiplied into three persons."

The mystic syllable O. M. or A. U. M. is also reverenced by the Chinese and Japanese, as we have found it reverenced by the inhabitants of India.

The followers of Laou-tsze, or Laou-keum-tsze—a celebrated philosopher of China, and deified hero, born 604 B. C.—known as the Taou sect, are also worshipers of a Trinity. It was the leading feature in Laou-keun's system of philosophical theology, that Taou, the eternal reason, produced one; one produced two; two produced three; and three produced all things. This was a sentence which Laou-keun continually repeated, and which Mr. Maurice considers, "a most singular axiom for a heathen philosopher."

The sacred volumes of the Chinese state that:

"The Source and Root of all is One. This self-existent unity necessarily produced a second. The first and second, by their union, produced a third. These Three produced all."

The ancient emperors of China solemnly sacrificed, every three years, to "Him who is One and Three."

The ancient Egyptians worshiped God in the form of a Trinity, which was represented in sculptures on the most ancient of their temples. The celebrated symbol of the wing, the globe, and the serpent, is supposed to have stood for the different attributes of God.

The priests of Memphis, in Egypt, explained this mystery to the novice, by intimating that the premier (first) monad created the dyad, who engendered the triad, and that it is this triad which shines through nature.

Thulis, a great monarch, who at one time reigned over all Egypt, and who was in the habit of consulting the oracle of Serapis, is said to have addressed the oracle in these words:

"Tell me if ever there was before one greater than I, or will ever be one greater than me?"

The oracle answered thus:

"First God, afterward the Word, and with them the Holy Spirit, all these are of the same nature, and make but one whole, of which the power is eternal. Go away quickly, mortal, thou who hast but an uncertain life."

The idea of calling the second person in the Trinity the Logos, or Word is an Egyptian feature, and was engrafted into Christianity many centuries after the time of Christ Jesus. Apollo, who had his tomb at Delphi in Egypt, was called the Word.

Mr. Bonwick, in his "Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought," says:

"Some persons are prepared to admit that the most astonishing development of the old religion of Egypt was in relation to the Logos or Divine Word, by whom all things were made, and who, though from God, was God. It had long been known that Plato, Aristotle, and others before the Christian era, cherished the idea of this Demiurgus; but it was not known till of late that Chaldeans and Egyptians recognized this mysterious principle."

"The Logos or Word was a great mystery (among the Egyptians), in whose sacred books the following passages may be seen: 'I know the mystery of the divine Word;' 'The Word of the Lord of All, which was the maker of it;' 'The Word—this is the first person after himself, uncreated, infinite ruling over all things that were made by him.'"

The Assyrians had Marduk for their Logos; one of their sacred addresses to him reads thus:

"Thou art the powerful one—Thou art the life-giver—Thou also the prosperer—Merciful one among the gods—Eldest son of Hea, who made heaven and earth—Lord of heaven and earth, who an equal has not—Merciful one, who dead to life raises."

The Chaldeans had their Memra or "Word of God," corresponding to the Greek Logos, which designated that being who organized and who still governs the world, and is inferior to God only.

The Logos was with Philoa most interesting subject of discourse, tempting him to wonderful feats of imagination. There is scarcely a personifying or exalting epithet that he did not bestow on the Divine Reason. He described it as a distinct being; called it "a Rock," "The Summit of the Universe," "Before all things," "First-begotten Son of God," "Eternal Bread from Heaven," "Fountain of Wisdom," "Guide to God," "Substitute for God," "Image of God," "Priest," "Creator of the Worlds," "Second God," "Interpreter of God," "Ambassador of God," "Power of God," "King," "Angel," "Man," "Mediator," "Light," "The Beginning," "The East," "The Name of God," "The Intercessor."

This is exactly the Logos of John. It becomes a man, "is made flesh;" appears as an incarnation; in order that the God whom "no man has seen at any time," may be manifested.

The worship of God in the form of a Trinity was to be found among the ancient Greeks. When the priests were about to offer up a sacrifice to the gods, the altar was three times sprinkled by dipping a laurel branch in holy water, and the people assembled around it were three times sprinkled also. Frankincense was taken from the censer with three fingers, and strewed upon the altar three times. This was done because an oracle had declared that all sacred things ought to be in threes, therefore, that number was scrupulously observed in most religious ceremonies.

Orpheus wrote that:

"All things were made by One godhead in three names, and that this god is all things."

This Trinitarian view of the Deity he is said to have brought from Egypt, and the Christian Fathers of the third and fourth centuries claimed that Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Plato—who taught the doctrine of the Trinity—had drawn their theological philosophy from the writings of Orpheus.

The works of Plato were extensively studied by the Church Fathers, one of whom joyfully recognizes in the great teacher, the schoolmaster who, in the fullness of time, was destined to educate the heathen for Christ, as Moses did the Jews.

The celebrated passage: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," is a fragment of some Pagan treatise on the Platonic philosophy, evidently written by Irenæus. It is quoted by Amelius, a Pagan philosopher, as strictly applicable to the Logos, or Mercury, the Word, apparently as an honorable testimony borne to the Pagan deity by a barbarian—for such is what he calls the writer of John i. 1. His words are:

"This plainly was the Word, by whom all things were made, he being himself eternal, as Heraclitus also would say; and by Jove, the same whom the barbarian affirms to have been in the place and dignity of a principal, and to be with God, and to be God, by whom all things were made, and in whom everything that was made has its life and being."

The Christian Father, Justin Martyr, apologizing for the Christian religion, tells the Emperor Antoninus Pius, that the Pagans need not taunt the Christians for worshiping the Logos, which "was with God, and was God," as they were also guilty of the same act.

"If we (Christians) hold," says he, "some opinions near of kin to the poets and philosophers, in great repute among you, why are we thus unjustly hated?" "There's Mercury, Jove's interpreter, in imitation of the Logos, in worship among you," and "as to the Son of God, called Jesus, should we allow him to be nothing more than man, yet the title of the 'Son of God' is very justifiable, upon the account of his wisdom, considering you have your Mercury, (also called the 'Son of God') in worship under the title of the Word and Messenger of God."

We see, then, that the title "Word" or "Logos," being applied to Jesus, is another piece of Pagan amalgamation with Christianity. It did not receive its authorized Christian form until the middle of the second century after Christ.

The ancient Pagan Romans worshiped a Trinity. An oracle is said to have declared that there was, "first God, then the Word, and with them the Spirit."

Here we see distinctly enumerated, God, the Logos, and the Spirit or Holy Ghost, in ancient Rome, where the most celebrated temple of this capital—that of Jupiter Capitolinus—was dedicated to three deities, which three deities were honored with joint worship.

The ancient Persians worshiped a Trinity. This trinity consisted of Oromasdes, Mithras, and Ahriman. It was virtually the same as that of the Hindoos: Oromasdes was the Creator, Mithras was the "Son of God," the "Saviour," the "Mediator" or "Intercessor," and Ahriman was the Destroyer. In the oracles of Zoroaster the Persian lawgiver, is to be found the following sentence:

"A Triad of Deity shines forth through the whole world, of which a Monad (an invisible thing) is the head."

Plutarch, "De Iside et Osiride," says:

"Zoroaster is said to have made a threefold distribution of things: to have assigned the first and highest rank to Oromasdes, who, in the Oracles, is called the Father; the lowest to Ahrimanes; and the middle to Mithras; who, in the same Oracles, is called the second Mind."

The Assyrians and Phenicians worshiped a Trinity.

"It is a curious and instructive fact, that the Jews had symbols of the divine Unity in Trinity as well as the Pagans." The Cabbala had its Trinity: "the Ancient, whose name is sanctified, is with three heads, which make but one."

Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai says:

"Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim: there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone, and yet, notwithstanding, they are all One, and joined together in One, and cannot be divided from each other."


According to Dr. Parkhurst:

"The Vandals had a god called Triglaff. One of these was found at Hertungerberg, near Brandenburg (in Prussia). He was represented with three heads. This was apparently the Trinity of Paganism."

The ancient Scandinavians worshiped a triple deity who was yet one god. It consisted of Odin, Thor, and Frey. A triune statue representing this Trinity in Unity was found at Upsal in Sweden. The three principal nations of Scandinavia (Sweden, Denmark, and Norway) vied with each other in erecting temples, but none were more famous than the temple at Upsal in Sweden. It glittered on all sides with gold. It seemed to be particularly consecrated to the Three Superior Deities, Odin, Thor and Frey. The statues of these gods were placed in this temple on three thrones, one above the other. Odin was represented holding a sword in his hand: Thor stood at the left hand of Odin, with a crown upon his head, and a scepter in his hand; Frey stood at the left hand of Thor, and was represented of both sexes. Odin was the supreme God, the Al-fader; Thor was the first-begotten son of this god, and Frey was the bestower of fertility, peace and riches. King Gylfi of Sweden is supposed to have gone at one time to Asgard (the abode of the gods), where he beheld three thrones raised one above another, with a man sitting on each of them. Upon his asking what the names of these lords might be, his guide answered: "He who sitteth on the lowest throne is the Lofty One; the second is the equal to the Lofty One; and he who sitteth on the highest throne is called the Third."

The ancient Druids also worshiped: "Ain Treidhe Dia ainm Taulac, Fan, Mollac;" which is to say: "Ain triple God, of name Taulac, Fan, Mollac."

The ancient inhabitants of Siberia worshiped a triune God. In remote ages, wanderers from India directed their eyes northward, and crossing the vast Tartarian deserts, finally settled in Siberia, bringing with them the worship of a triune God. This is clearly shown from the fact stated by Thomas Maurice, that:

"The first Christian missionaries who arrived in those regions, found the people already in possession of that fundamental doctrine of the true religion, which, among others, they came to impress upon their minds, and universally adored an idol fabricated to resemble, as near as possible, a Trinity in Unity."

This triune God consisted of, first "the Creator of all things," second, "the God of Armies," third, "the Spirit of Heavenly Love," and yet these three were but one indivisible God.

The Tartars also worshiped God as a Trinity in Unity. On one of their medals, which is now in the St. Petersburgh Museum, may be seen a representation of the triple God seated on the lotus.

Even in the remote islands of the Pacific Ocean, the supreme deities are God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit, the latter of which is symbolized as a bird.

The ancient Mexicans and Peruvians had their Trinity. The supreme God of the Mexicans (Tezcatlipoca), who had, as Lord Kingsborough says, "all the attributes and powers which were assigned to Jehovah by the Hebrews," had associated with him two other gods, Huitzlipochtli and Tlaloc; one occupied a place upon his left hand, the other on his right. This was the Trinity of the Mexicans.

When the bishop Don Bartholomew de las Casas proceeded to his bishopric, which was in 1545, he commissioned an ecclesiastic, whose name was Francis Hernandez, who was well acquainted with the language of the Indians (as the natives were called), to visit them, carrying with him a sort of catechism of what he was about to preach. In about one year from the time that Francis Hernandez was sent out, he wrote to Bishop las Casas, stating that:

"The Indians believed in the God who was in heaven; that this God was the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that the Father was named Yzona, the Son Bacab, who was born of a Virgin, and that the Holy Ghost was called Echiah."

The Rev. Father Acosta says, in speaking of the Peruvians:

"It is strange that the devil after his manner hath brought a Trinity into idolatry, for the three images of the Sun called Apomti, Churunti, and Intiquaoqui, signifieth Father and Lord Sun, the Son Sun, and the Brother Sun.

"Being in Chuquisaca, an honorable priest showed me an information, which I had long in my hands, where it was proved that there was a certain oratory, whereat the Indians did worship an idol called Tangatanga, which they said was 'One in Three, and Three in One.' And as this priest stood amazed thereat, I said that the devil by his internal and obstinate pride (whereby he always pretends to make himself God) did steal all that he could from the truth, to employ it in his lying and deceits."

The doctrine was recognized among the Indians of the Californian peninsula. The statue of the principal deity of the New Granadian Indians had "three heads on one body," and was understood to be "three persons with one heart and one will."

The result of our investigations then, is that, for ages before the time of Christ Jesus or Christianity, God was worshiped in the form of a Triad, and that this doctrine was extensively diffused through all nations. That it was established in regions as far distant as China and Mexico, and immemorially acknowledged through the whole extent of Egypt and India. That it flourished with equal vigor among the snowy mountains of Thibet, and the vast deserts of Siberia. That the barbarians of central Europe, the Scandinavians, and the Druids of Britain and Ireland, bent their knee to an idol of a Triune God. What then becomes of "the Ever-Blessed Trinity" of Christianity? It must fall, together with all the rest of its dogmas, and be buried with the Pagan débris.

The learned Thomas Maurice imagined that this mysterious doctrine must have been revealed by God to Adam, or to Noah, or to Abraham, or to somebody else. Notice with what caution he wrote (A. D. 1794) on this subject. He says:

"In the course of the wide range which I have been compelled to take in the field of Asiatic mythology, certain topics have arisen for discussion, equally delicate and perplexing. Among them, in particular, a species of Trinity forms a constant and prominent feature in nearly all the systems of Oriental theology."

After saying, "I venture with a trembling step," and that, "It was not from choice, but from necessity, that I entered thus upon this subject," he concludes:

"This extensive and interesting subject engrosses a considerable portion of this work, and my anxiety to prepare the public mind to receive it, my efforts to elucidate so mysterious a point of theology, induces me to remind the candid reader, that visible traces of this doctrine are discovered, not only in the three principals of the Chaldaic theology; in the Triplasios Mithra of Persia; in the Triad, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, of India—where it was evidently promulgated in the Geeta, fifteen hundred years before the birth of Plato; but in the Numen Triplex of Japan; in the inscription upon the famous medal found in the deserts of Siberia, "To the Triune God," to be seen at this day in the valuable cabinet of the Empress, at St. Petersburgh; in the Tanga-Tanga, or Three in One, of the South Americans; and, finally, without mentioning the vestiges of it in Greece, in the Symbol of the Wing, the Globe, and the Serpent, conspicuous on most of the ancient temples of Upper Egypt."

It was a long time after the followers of Christ Jesus had made him a God, before they ventured to declare that he was "God himself in human form," and, "the second person in the Ever-Blessed Trinity." It was Justin Martyr, a Christian convert from the Platonic school, who, about the middle of the second century, first promulgated the opinion, that Jesus of Nazareth, the "Son of God," was the second principle in the Deity, and the Creator of all material things. He is the earliest writer to whom the opinion can be traced. This knowledge, he does not ascribe to the Scriptures, but to the special favor of God.

The passage in I. John, v. 7, which reads thus: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one," is one of the numerous interpolations which were inserted into the books of the New Testament, many years after these books were written. These passages are retained and circulated as the word of God, or as of equal authority with the rest, though known and admitted by the learned on all hands, to be forgeries, willful and wicked interpolations.

[The celebrated passage (I. John, v. 7) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one," is now admitted on all hands to be an interpolation into the epistle many centuries after the time of Christ Jesus. (See Giles' Hebrew and Christian Records, vol. ii. p. 12. Gibbon's Rome, vol. iii. p. 556. Inman's Ancient Faiths, vol. ii. p. 886. Taylor's Diegesis and Reber's Christ of Paul.)]

The subtle and profound questions concerning the nature, generation, the distinction, and the quality of the three divine persons of the mysterious triad, or Trinity, were agitated in the philosophical and in the Christian schools of Alexandria in Egypt, but it was not a part of the established Christian faith until as late as A. D. 327, when the question was settled at the Councils of Nice and Constantinople. Up to this time there was no understood and recognized doctrine on this high subject. The Christians were for the most part accustomed to use scriptural expressions in speaking of the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit, without defining articulately their relation to one another.

In these trinitarian controversies, which first broke out in Egypt—Egypt, the land of Trinities—the chief point in the discussion was to define the position of "the Son."

There lived in Alexandria a presbyter of the name of Arius, a disappointed candidate for the office of bishop. He took the ground that there was a time when, from the very nature of Sonship, the Son did not exist, and a time at which he commenced to be, asserting that it is the necessary condition of the filial relation that a father must be older than his son. But this assertion evidently denied the co-eternity of the three persons of the Trinity, it suggested a subordination or inequality among them, and indeed implied a time when the Trinity did not exist. Hereupon, the bishop, who had been the successful competitor against Arius, displayed his rhetorical powers in public debates on the question, and, the strife spreading, the Jews and Pagans, who formed a very large portion of the population of Alexandria, amused themselves with theatrical representations of the contest on the stage—the point of their burlesques being the equality of age of the Father and the Son. Such was the violence the controversy at length assumed, that the matter had to be referred to the emperor (Constantine).

At first he looked upon the dispute as altogether frivolous, and perhaps in truth inclined to the assertion of Arius, that in the very nature of the thing a father must be older than his son. So great, however, was the pressure laid upon him, that he was eventually compelled to summon the Council of Nicea, which, to dispose of the conflict, set forth a formulary or creed, and attached to it this anathema:

"The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, and that, before he was begotten, he was not, and that, he was made out of nothing, or out of another substance or essence, and is created, or changeable, or alterable."

Constantine at once enforced the decision of the council by the civil power.

Even after this "subtle and profound question" had been settled at the Council of Nice, those who settled it did not understand the question they had settled. Athanasius, who was a member of the first general council, and who is said to have written the creed which bears his name, which asserts that the true Catholic faith is this:

"That we worship One God as Trinity, and Trinity in Unity—neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance—for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost, but the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal,"

—also confessed that whenever he forced his understanding to meditate on the divinity of the Logos, his toilsome and unavailing efforts recoiled on themselves; that the more he thought the less he comprehended; and the more he wrote the less capable was he of expressing his thoughts.

We see, then, that this great question was settled, not by the consent of all members of the council, but simply because the majority were in favor of it. Jesus of Nazareth was "God himself in human form;" "one of the persons of the Ever-Blessed Trinity," who "had no beginning, and will have no end," because the majority of the members of this council said so. Hereafter—so it was decreed—all must believe it; if not, they must not oppose it, but forever hold their peace.

The Emperor Theodosius declared his resolution of expelling from all the churches of his dominions, the bishops and their clergy who should obstinately refuse to believe, or at least to profess, the doctrine of the Council of Nice. His lieutenant, Sapor, was armed with the ample powers of a general law, a special commission, and a military force; and this ecclesiastical resolution was conducted with so much discretion and vigor, that the religion of the Emperor was established.

Here we have the historical fact, that bishops of the Christian church, and their clergy, were forced to profess their belief in the doctrine of the Trinity.

We also find that:

"This orthodox Emperor (Theodosius) considered every heretic (as he called those who did not believe as he and his ecclesiastics professed) as a rebel against the supreme powers of heaven and of earth (he being one of the supreme powers of earth) and each of the powers might exercise their peculiar jurisdiction over the soul and body of the guilty.

"The decrees of the Council of Constantinople had ascertained the true standard of the faith, and the ecclesiastics, who governed the conscience of Theodosius, suggested the most effectual methods of persecution. In the space of fifteen years he promulgated at least fifteen severe edicts against the heretics, more especially against those who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity."

Thus we see one of the many reasons why the "most holy Christian religion" spread so rapidly.

Arius—who declared that in the nature of things a father must be older than his son—was excommunicated for his so-called heretical notions concerning the Trinity. His followers, who were very numerous, were called Arians. Their writings, if they had been permitted to exist, would undoubtedly contain the lamentable story of the persecution which affected the church under the reign of the impious Emperor Theodosius.


This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here




Sherlock Holmes and the Mormons on This Day in History

 

Today in History: Arthur Conan Doyle first Sherlock Holmes's story "A Study in Scarlet" was accepted by a publisher (Ward and Lock) on this day in 1886. The name comes from Holmes' words: "There's the scarlet thread of murder running through the colourless skein of life, and our duty is to unravel it, and isolate it, and expose every inch of it."

The story did come under attack because of its portrayal or Mormons (Latter Day Saints). According to a Salt Lake City newspaper article, when Conan Doyle was asked about his depiction of the Latter-day Saints' organisation as being steeped in kidnapping, murder and enslavement, he said: 'all I said about the Danite Band and the murders is historical so I cannot withdraw that, though it is likely that in a work of fiction it is stated more luridly than in a work of history. It's best to let the matter rest'. Conan Doyle's daughter has stated: 'You know, father would be the first to admit that his first Sherlock Holmes novel was full of errors about the Mormons.' Historians speculate that Conan Doyle, a voracious reader, would have access to books by Fannie Stenhouse, William A. Hickman, William Jarman, John Hyde and Ann Eliza Young, among others,' in explaining the author's early perspective on Mormonism.

Years after Conan Doyle's death, Levi Edgar Young, a descendant of Brigham Young and a Mormon general authority, claimed that Conan Doyle had privately apologised, saying that 'He [Conan Doyle] said he had been misled by writings of the time about the Church' and had 'written a scurrilous book about the Mormons.'

In August 2011, the Albemarle County, Virginia, School Board removed A Study in Scarlet from the district's sixth-grade required reading list following complaints from students and parents that the book was derogatory toward Mormons. It was moved to the reading lists for the tenth-graders, and remains in use in the school media centres for all grades." Wikipedia

In Arthur Conan Doyle's defense, there were many writings critical of Mormonisn at the time, including those from Mark Twain.

See also:Over 300 Books on Mormons (Latter Day Saints) on DVDrom - For a list of all of my disks and digital books click here

See also True Crime + Mystery Fiction - 500 Books on 2 DVDroms 

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

The Jonestown Massacre on This Day in History

 

Today in History: In Jonestown, Guyana, the Reverend Jim Jones led his Peoples Temple to a mass murder–suicide that claimed 918 lives in all, 909 of them in Jonestown itself, including over 270 children. Congressman Leo Ryan was murdered by members of the Peoples Temple hours earlier.

This made me wonder what kind of "Reverend" Jim Jones was. In a 1976 phone conversation with John Maher, Jones alternately said he was an agnostic and an atheist. Marceline Jones admitted in a 1977 New York Times interview that Jones was trying to promote Marxism in the U.S. by mobilizing people through religion, citing Mao as his inspiration: "Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion." He had slammed the Bible on the table yelling "I've got to destroy this paper idol!" In one sermon, Jones said:

"You're gonna help yourself, or you'll get no help! There's only one hope of glory; that's within you! Nobody's gonna come out of the sky! There's no heaven up there! We'll have to make heaven down here!"* 

A Former Temple member quoted him as saying:

"What you need to believe in is what you can see.… If you see me as your friend, I'll be your friend. As you see me as your father, I'll be your father, for those of you that don't have a father.… If you see me as your savior, I'll be your savior. If you see me as your God, I'll be your God." 

Jones also began preached that he was the reincarnation of Gandhi, Father Divine, Jesus, Gautama Buddha, and Vladimir Lenin, and stated, "If you're born in capitalist America, racist America, fascist America, then you're born in sin. But if you're born in socialism, you're not born in sin."

Over 40 years this could be dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic. I can actually see many repeat that last statement today and fervently believe it.


*[The Serpent in the Garden of Eden said, in effect, "You don’t have to wait; you can have it now! Be your own god, and write your own rules."]


Sunday, November 15, 2020

The Holy Spirit and Pronouns - Is it a "He" or an "It"?

 

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents.

See a local listing for it here

"The Greek word for spirit (pneuma) has many different meanings, the correct one being determined only from the context of each occurrence. In Greek pneuma, is neuter, as are all pronouns referring to the spirit, making them necessarily impersonal. Those New Testament translations, which render the “spirit” as “He” instead of “it,” do so because of trinitarian beliefs (e.g., John 14:17). If the translators had properly rendered the neuter pronouns of “the spirit of the truth” found in John 14 through 16 as “it,” “its,” “itself” and “which” instead of “He,” “His,” “Him,” “who,” and “whom,” (John 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-15) there would not be this false sense that there is personality attributed to the holy spirit." Trinity Doctrine Error: A Jewish Analysis by Gerald Sigal


Let's take a look at how Bible translations and versions treat John 14:17.

John 14:17 reads in the 1977 New American Standard Bible (like almost all mainstream/Evangelical Bibles) "that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you."

Thankfully there are more accurate alternatives that you need to acquire, such as the Julia Smith Bible: "The Spirit of truth; which the world cannot receive, for it sees it not, neither knows: and ye know it; for it shall remain with you, and shall be in you."

Also:

"Even the Spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive because it perceives it not, nor knows it; but you know it because it dwells with you, and shall be within you." A Faithful Version

"It is the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot obtain that Spirit, because it does not see it or recognize it; you recognize it because it stays with you and is within you." Smith & Goodspeed Bible

"the spirit of the truth, which the world not is able to receive, because not it beholds it, nor knows it; you but know it, because with you it abides, and in you it will be." Emphatic Diaglott

"the spirit of truth, which the world can not get, for it is not beholding it, neither is knowing it. Yet you know it, for it is remaining with you and will be in you." Concordant Literal Version

"the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot receive, because it doth not behold it, nor know it; ye know it, because it abideth with you, and will be in you." The New Testament: Translated from the Greek text of Tischendorf, by George R. Noyes

"the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither beholds it nor knows it. YOU know it, because it remains with YOU and is in YOU." New World Translation

"the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you." Catholic New American Bible

"the Spirit of Truth, which the world cannot receive because it does not perceive nor know it; you know it, because it stays with you and is in you." Byington's Bible in Living English

"The Spirit of Truth. The world won’t receive it, because they can’t see it or understand it. However you will recognize it, for it will stay with you and in you." 2001translation

"even the spirit of truth: which the world cannot receive; for the world beholdeth it not, neither knoweth it: ye know it; for it abideth with you, and shall be in you." Revised Version Improved and Corrected

See also the David Bentley Hart New Testament, the Unvarnished New Testament, Revised English Version, Richmond Lattimore's New Testament, the 21st Century New Testament by Vivian Capel, New Simplified Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.

However, these Bibles are not mainstream (except for the Catholic New American Bible) and the Bibles you will find on a bookshelf or on a bestseller list have a decided bias in favor of adding personality to the spirit of God.

An article at https://restitutio.org/2015/11/05/translating-the-holy-spirit/ (The Holy Spirit and Translation Bias: A Smoking Gun of Trinity Mischief) talks about how most mainstream Bibles mistranslate pronouns to give personality to the holy spirit, and they state:

"The most frustrating aspect of this chicanery is that these translations mislead honest-hearted men and women who simply want to read and understand the Scriptures. What is more, most Bible readers implicitly trust the scholars who produce translations in the same way that most people trust doctors or school teachers. This is partly due to the impressive verbiage we saw above in their translation philosophies. The NASB team 'adhered to the literal philosophy of translation' and required 'a word-for-word translation that is accurate and precise,' yet, they literally did not translate the word “o” as “which.” The NET boasts that its nearly 61,000 translators’ notes enable readers to 'look over the translator’s shoulder' and make 'transparent the textual basis and the rationale for key renderings (including major interpretive options and alternative translations).' However, when I look at the footnotes on Acts 5.32, I see nothing whatsoever indicating they flat out changed a word to make their translation more palatable. Ironically, Daniel Wallace was one of the primary scholars involved in the NET and his paper on this subject exposes this very issue. The NIV committee stated that they were committed 'to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form,' yet they corrected the infallible Scripture in their translation to read 'whom' instead of 'which.' Isn’t a correction the result of an error? But, if Scripture is infallible, why is the NIV correcting it? Lastly, the NRSV claims it is 'the most accurate and readable translation' and that it 'leaves interpretation in the hands of the reader.' Yet, in this verse (and many others like it), it obscures the meaning of the text and does not so much as leave a footnote indicating their decision."



Saturday, November 14, 2020

The Holy Spirit Not a Person, by Luther Hamilton 1833

 

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents.

See a local listing for it here

[I will proceed] to point out particularly a few of the many passages in which the phrase cannot denote a person. Acts x, 38. "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy spirit and with power.' Does the author mean that one person, who is God, anointed another person who is God, with a third person who is God? It seems more reasonable to suppose the meaning of the passage to be this:-'God imparted to Jesus of Nazareth miraculous knowledge and power.' The Pharisees charged Jesus with casting out demons by the power of the prince of demons. In answer to this charge Jesus said, according to Matth. xii, 28, “I cast out devils by the spirit of God, and according to Luke xi, 20, 'I with the finger of God cast out devils.' Thus it is manifest from these passages, that the phrases, “spirit of God,' and 'finger of God,' mean simply, in these instances, that divine power by which Jesus was enabled to cast out demons; and that these phrases are used in both passages as equivalent to the phrase, “holy ghost,' in the following verses of the same chapter of Matthew. In the 32d verse, referring to the above mentioned charge which the Pharisees had brought against him, Jesus says—whosoever speaketh against the holy ghost, it shall not be forgiven him,'—which means—the wilful denial of the miraculous testimony given to my doctrine, will not be forgiven men.' In the above passages, it is at least evident, that the phrases, spirit of God, “finger of God,' and 'holy ghost,' mean merely the miraculous power and authority with which Christ was clothed.

In those passages where the expression, 'baptized with the holy ghost,' occurs, the phrase cannot denote a person. Acts i, 5. 'John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the holy ghost.' Luke iii, 16. 'John said, I baptize you with water, he shall baptize you with the holy ghost and with fire.' Compare these promises with their remarkable fulfilment on the day of Pentecost, when the disciples were filled with the holy ghost,—which must mean, not that they were baptized with a person, but that they were favored with divine inspiration, or filled with a miraculous influence, i. e. an influence from heaven. Compare these passages with the following, from John xx, 21, 22. 'Jesus said to them again peace be unto you; as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you; and when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, receive ye the holy ghost.' How did the Father send Jesus? I answer, ‘God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy spirit and with power;' gave 'not the spirit by measure unto him;' —which means, as I have before shown, that God endued Jesus with miraculous knowledge, authority and power.

There are yet many other passages in which the phrase holy spirit cannot be considered the name of a person. There are fourteen passages in which persons are said to have been 'filled with,' or full of the 'holy spirit.' I have mentioned one of them; the rest I need not specify. Of a similar character are those in which the holy spirit is said to have been 'poured out,' or 'showered down,' which phraseology is consistent enough with the idea that the phrase 'holy spirit' denotes a divine or miraculous influence, but utterly inconsistent with the notion that it denotes a person. Before I leave this branch of my subject, I would invite your attention to a striking passage in John vii, 39. "This he spake of the spirit which they that believe on him should receive; for the holy ghost was not yet given, for Jesus was not yet glorified." The word 'given' is not in the original, and it is accordingly, in the common version, printed in italics. The Evangelist, then, does affirm in so many words, “there was no holy spirit yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified!" The meaning of this declaration agrees perfectly with the signification which I think the phrase almost always has in the New Testament; but it is utterly inconsistent with the doctrine that there is an eternal intelligent agent, distinct from the Father and equal with him, and whose appropriate or distinguishing name was, holy spirit. 'There was no holy spirit yet,' says the sacred writer; meaning that there had not been any communication of the extraordinary gists which Jesus had promised, because he was not yet glorified. Had it been the doctrine of Christ, or the doctrine of the ancient prophets, that there is a person or being eternal, almighty, infinite, equal with the Father, and at the same time distinct from him, and whose distinguishing name was holy spirit; who can believe that the Evangelist would have made the declaration, there was no holy spirit yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified?-pp, 52–55.



Wednesday, November 11, 2020

The Apostle Peter a Unitarian (1829 Article)

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

The Apostle Peter a Unitarian, from The Unitarian Advocate, Volume 4, 1829

In a former number of this work, it was attempted to be shown that Peter must have been a Unitarian at the time of our Saviour's ascension. The sources of proof to which recourse was had for establishing this position, were, first, his known declarations and conduct while a pupil of Christ; and secondly, the recorded instructions which he, in common with the other disciples, received during that period. If it be possible, in any case, to form an opinion, approaching at all to accuracy, of what a man's religious views at a given time of his life must be, from a knowledge of his previous education, behaviour, and conversation; then it will be conceded, we trust, that there are satisfactory grounds for the conclusion to which our reasoning has led us, that the Apostle Peter is to be regarded as a Unitarian Christian at the period of his history at which we have now arrived.

But new revelations are to be made to him, it may be said. Our Saviour, just before his death, promised to the disciples further illumination, by which they would be led “into all truth.” Who knows, it may be asked, but Peter, unitarian as he doubtless was at that time, may yet see cause to change his opinions and become a teacher of Trinitarianism? In reply to this, we will not stop to show the intrinsic improbability of such an event; but, taking up the subject where we left it, in our former essay, proceed to ascertain how the matter stands in point of fact. The question is to be settled by recurring to the records we have of his preaching, controversies, private teaching, devotions, and writings. That we may not be accused of taking a partial view of the evidence in the case, we shall adduce all of it that relates to the subject.

1. We begin with the apostle's preaching. His first sermon occurs in the second chapter of the Acts. He delivered it, we are told, immediately after the special illumination of the Holy Spirit. Does it contain any thing like Trinitarianism? Not a syllable. It is thoroughly unitarian from beginning to end. The points of doctrine it presents are these. 1. The divine mission of Jesus Christ. - Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you;” or, as it should be rendered,“proved unto you to be a man from God.” 2. The evidence of the divinity of his mission. “By miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves know.” 3. His death, and how the event stood connected with divine Providence and human agency. “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” 4. His resurrection, together with the Author and proofs of it. “Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death; ...... this Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses.” 5. His exaltation, and to whom he was indebted for it. “By the right hand of God exalted.” 6. His possession of the promise of the holy spirit, dispensed through him to the first Christians, and how he came by it. “Having received of the FATHER the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” 7. His offices, not underived, but conferred by the Most High. "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus both Lord and Christ.”

Of this character are the doctrinal parts of Peter's first sermon. It contains, not a word, as to the point in question, different from what we have quoted. Who does not see that it is unitarian in every particular? Could one be delivered more directly opposed to trinitarian views? And yet, free as the apostle's preaching was from what are so much vaunted, in our day, as the “doctrines of grace," it was not without the most salutary effects. When the people heard it, "they were pricked in their heart," and said, "what shall we do?" And now we have a specimen of Peter's practical directions. Do they savor of modern orthodoxy? Does he tell them to worship the trinity, to mourn over native and entire depravity, to confess they can do nothing themselves, to hope for a transfer of the penalty of their guilt to a substituted victim, or to calculate on having their moral deficiencies supplied by the imputed righteousness of Christ? As far from it as possible. He says to them, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” So taught the most able and zealous of our Lord's ministers. We have too much respect for the understandings of our readers to add a single word by way of comment.

But it will be asked, perhaps, whether Peter always preached so much in the manner of a Unitarian? We will see. Another opportunity offers itself for listening to him. We find him in Solomon's porch, surrounded by a multitude, that had been drawn together by the miraculous cure he had just wrought of a lame man. [Acts 3] He prepares to address the people. Will he, who but a little time before preached Unitarianism with such success, now adopt an entirely new course, and unfold the dark system of an opposite faith? Let the recorded facts decide. The very first statement he makes involves the doctrine of God's supremacy and the inferiority of Christ. “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his son Jesus.” Is this Trinitarianism? Is the Son of God the very God whose son he is? Is he who is glorified the same with him who confers the glory? Peter proceeds. “Ye denied the holy one and the just, and killed the prince of life; whom God raised from the dead.” Is it Jehovah that the apostle accuses the Jews of denying and killing? Is it Jehovah that he says God raised from the dead? The inspired preacher goes on. “Moses truly said unto the fathers, a prophet shall the LORD your God raise up unto you, of your brethren, like unto me.” This Peter applies to Christ. Look at its import. “A prophet like unto Moses,”--"of their brethren,"-"raised up by God!” Is this Trinitarianism? The apostle concludes his discourse in these words. "Unto you first, God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” Here, again, Trinitarianism is not only not recognised, but opposed. Jesus is represented simply as the son, the sent of God, while the supremacy of the Father is maintained, as it is uniformly in the teachings of this distinguished minister of the gospel.

Such as we have seen was the character of Peter's preaching. We do not believe he ever uttered a word in his public instructions, inconsistent with what we have now given. Not a single expression occurs in any of his sermons that have been reported, which can by any just rules of interpretation, be made to yield support to the doctrine of the trinity. And what was the efficacy of the sort of preaching we have been considering? Was it impotent, as some are so fond of representing Unitarianism to be? Three thousand souls were converted to the christian faith by Peter's first sermon, and five thousand by the second!

2. Let us now regard Peter in another character than that of a preacher. He was called to perform the part of a controvertist. Who were his first antagonists? His countrymen the Jews. Now consider, first, that they were exceedingly tenacious and sensitive as to their favorite doctrine respecting the Divine Unity; and, secondly, that it was alike their wish and their practice to seize on every plausible ground of objection to the advocates of Christianity. From these facts, what was to have been expected, on the supposition that Peter was a Trinitarian and did not conceal his opinions? Why, certainly, that he would have been opposed on this ground, by the Jews; that he would have been drawn into a controversy as to the question whether God were three persons or one; and that some traces of such a controversy would have been left on record, after the manner of his other disputes with his countrymen. But how stands the case in reality? The New Testament does not afford us the slightest hint that any such question was agitated. We therefore say that he could not have been openly a Trinitarian. So much in the way of negative proof that Peter continued to be a believer in Unitarianism.

Something more than this, however, we are able to derive from the Apostle's known conduct as a controvertist. In his discussions with the Jews on other subjects he let fall divers incidental remarks, which yield us positive evidence that he was as far as possible from being a Trinitarian. The first example we have of his controversial manner, occurs in the fourth chapter of the Acts. The chiefs of the nation “being grieved," as the historian expresses it, that the Apostles “taught the people”-what? Trinitarianism? nothing like it; but "through Jesus Christ the resurrection from the dead." So, as we are told,they “set them in the midst, and asked by what power or by what name they had done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, ......... be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him" &c. Remark this language. “Jesus of Nazareth whom ye crucified.” Would a Trinitarian have said this, and no more? If Peter believed Christ to be Jehovah, why did he not embrace an opportunity like this for declaring bis conviction? “Whom God raised from the dead.” How could the Apostle have used these words, without any others by way of qualification or explanation, if he had not meant to leave on the minds of his auditors the impression of Christ's inferiority to, and dependence on, the Father Almighty.

Are we asked for another instance of Peter's controversial manner? One offers itself in the fifth chapter. He had been brought before the council and reprimanded by the chief priests for having“ filled Jerusalem with his doctrines,” contrary to their express injunctions. What was his reply? “We ought to obey God rather than nien. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour.” How does this accord with Trinitarianism? Could God die? But Jesus was slain and hanged on a tree. He rose from the dead; but was it by his own inherent and independent power? No. It was by that of the one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Could the Most High be exalted? and by whom? But Jesus was exalted by the right hand of God. Christ is a Prince and a Saviour; how did he come by such a distinction? Peter says that God bestowed it upon him.

Now what has the Trinitarian to say to these things? Does he ask for other instances of the Apostle's controversies with the Jews? There are no others on record. Does he inquire, if we have not omitted some expressions in those we have cited, which favor the doctrine of the Trinity? We answer,—not a word. It was always on unitarian ground that Peter defended Christianity against the Jews; and we may add, it is the only ground on which it can ever be defended, with success, against the attacks of their descendants. Does he take up the old objection of Athanasius, and say that Peter refrained from declaring his Trinitarianism openly to his countrymen, on account of their prejudices respecting the Divine Unity? We need not dwell on the inberent improbability of this; for we happen to be informed of the Apostle's mode of presenting the truths of Christianity to the Gentiles, whose prejudices, it is well known, were so far from being favorable to Unitarianism, that they were all on the side of Polytheism. We refer to his conference with Cornelius and his friends. It may be well to quote the language he used on this occasion, at length; not, however, so much to meet the objection just stated,—for it is too weak to require a formal refutation,-as to fulfil our purpose of giving a complete view of the Apostle's system of doctrine.

3. We have, then, as a third source of proof that Peter continued a Unitarian, an account, in the tenth chapter of the Acts, of his private teachings. We are told in the first place that Cornelius, a devout heathen, had received an extraordinary direction from God to repair to Peter, in order to be instructed in the christian religion. We have then a statement of some special revelations made to the Apostle, for the purpose of qualifying him for this new duty. Is the doctrine of the Trinity a part of these revelations? We have not the least hint to this effect. We at length find Cornelius and his friends prepared for their interview with Peter, who immediately proceeds to instruct them in all things (these are his words,) that had been commanded him of God.” His whole discourse follows. “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ-(he is Lord of all)-[i. e. he is master of the Gentiles equally as of the Jews]—that word I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptisin which John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are all witnesses of all things which he did, both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew, and hanged on a tree; him God raised up the third day and showed him openly, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it was he which was ordained of God to be the judge of quick and dead. To bim gave all the prophets witness that through his name, whoever believeth in him, (whether Gentile or Jew] shall receive remission of sins."

Such is the message which Peter had received from God to deliver to Cornelius. Its whole complexion is unitarian. Had the arguments that have since been urged in support of Trinitarianism, then been prevalent, they could not, it seems to us, have easily had a more complete refutation. Let our readers weigh these expressions. “The word which God sent by Jesus Christ; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; for God was with him; whom they slew, him God raised up; it is he which was ordained of God to be the judge of quick and dead;---let these expressions be impartially weighed, and then let any one say, if he can, that Peter was commissioned to teach, or, that he did teach, Trinitarianism.

4. We have followed Peter as a public preacher of the Gospel, as a religious controvertist among the Jews, and as a private instructer of Christianity to Cornelius and his Pagan friends. Let us now listen for a moment, in the next place, to his devotions. Do we hear him addressing his prayers to the Trinity? Never. Does he pay religious homage to Jesus Christ? The instance is not recorded by the sacred historian. All his devotions, of which we have any account, were unitarian. Take an example, which alone establishes the position that he was not a trinitarian worshipper. It is given in the fourth chapter of the Acts. Peter and John had just been released from prison, and had related the circumstances of their confinement to their brethren. It was natural that, at such a season, they should unite, in devout acknowledgments to their accustomed object of adoration. To whom were their devotions on this occasion, offered, and in what terms? “They lifted up their voice to God, with one accord, and said, LORD, thou art God, which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; who by the mouth of thy servant David, hast said, why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the LORD and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy council determined to be done. And now, LORD, behold their threatenings, and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, by stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.” We examine this prayer in vain for any recognition of trinitarian views. It is Jehovah, in one person, the Creator of the world, that is addressed. “LORD, thou art God, who hast made heaven and earth,” &c. Jesus Christ is represented as distinct from and subordinate to God. “Against the Lord and against his Christ.” Our Saviour is spoken of as indebted to the Father for his appointment to the office he sustained. “Thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed.” The favorite notion of a “compact between the Sacred Three,” so often referred to by trinitarian writers, is excluded, and all is ascribed to the sole purpose and execution of the one Divine Being. “To do whatsoever thy hand and thy council determined to be done.” Aid is supplicated; but of whom? The one God. “And now, LORD, grant unto thy servants,” &c. Jesus Christ is mentioned in the petition for miraculous powers; but how? As the author of them? No. The request is made to God; and Jesus is spoken of only as instrumental and subordinate. "Grant ....... that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus." Further remark is unnecessary. If Peter could unite in a prayer of this character without being a Unitarian, no one's language, it seems to us, can be relied on as an adequate medium for the communication of thought.

5. It only remains to examine the writings of Peter. These are comprised in one or two epistles or letters, composed by him many years after the date of what we have learned respecting him from the Acts of the Apostles. As their purpose is chiefly practical, it cannot be expected that they will be found to contain much which bears directly on the point of the present discussion. So far, however, as they afford any testimony as to the Divine nature, it is decidedly in favor of our position, that Peter's views of it were unitarian. Is it objected that he says of Christ, “to him be glory both now and forever?” (2 Peter 3:18.) Be it remembered that this is the only instance of ascription of glory, or praise to Jesus, in Peter's writings. And to what does it amount? It is not said to have been the highest glory, such as we are required to ascribe to the Father of all; and what Unitarian would refuse to give that praise to Christ which belongs to him in his subordinate capacity of a divinely constituted Mediator and Saviour? Is stress laid on the circumstance that Peter sometimes applies the term, Lord, to Christ? It is enough to remark, in reply, that he quotes Sarah as calling Abraham, Lord, 1 Peter 3:6; and that nothing is more common in the scriptures, than to designate other beings than the Deity by the same title of respect. Is it asked if the epistles of Peter do not contain some other support of Trinitarianism than what we have now referred to? We answer confidently, not the least. On the contrary, we find scattered on their pages such expressions as the following, which go to disprove that doctrine. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” 1 Peter 1:3. “If ye call on the FATHER," &c. 5:17, not on Jesus Christ; which agrees with the words of our Saviour himself: “In that day ye shall ask me nothing,” &c. “Who by him (Christ] do believe in God, that raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.” 5:21. [Christ] “a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God.” 2:4. “Spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” 5:5. “For Christ hath suffered ...... that he might bring us to God." 3:18. “Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God." 5:22. “That God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ; to whom [God] be praise and dominion forever and ever." 4:11. “The God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Jesus Christ, make you perfect. To HIM (God] be glory and dominion forever and ever. 5:10. “He (Christ) received from GOD THE FATHER honor and glory, when there came such a voice from the excellent glory, this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." 2 Pet. 1:17.

These are all the words and phrases, we believe, that can be found in the epistles of Peter, from which anything can be inferred as to his opinions concerning the great question at issue between us and Trinitarians. Few, however, as they are, they afford abundant evidence to convince us that he was a unitarian writer. It is remarkable how he uniformly distinguishes between Christ and God. The language he uses, when speaking of Jehovah, is strikingly different from that which he employs in reference to our Saviour. The former he calls "Lord God," "Faithful Creator," and the like; but never the latter. He says, “God the Father,” but in no instance, God the Son. He speaks of the "will of God," as supreme; of “a good conscience towards God,” &c.; but refrains from such expressions respecting Christ. In a word, he seems, almost without exception, when making mention of our Saviour, to use language with that sort of caution, which we might imagine an intelligent and thorough Unitarian would employ, who was apprehensive that his writings were sometime to be searched for trinitarian proof-texts. We conclude with a single remark. Let it be supposed that the apostle Peter had said, even in a single instance, (what he has never done either expressly or impliedly,) that our Saviour was a partaker of a DIVINE NATURE, which he actually has affirmed of Christians in his second epistle, (1 Peter 1:4,) with what triumph would it not be now seized on by Trinitarians as an argument for the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ, incomparably stronger than what can be found for the support of that doctrine in all the productions that remain to us of this, or of any other writer of the New Testament.

See also Unitarianism & Universalism - 100 Books on DVDrom and Over 200 PDF Books on the Christology & Deity of Christ on DVDrom