Constantine's Cross on This Day in History

 

Today in history: On this day (October 27) in 312, Emperor Constantine claimed to have had a vision of a cross in the sky and heard the words "in this sign, you will conquer". This vision is said to have led to Constantine's conversion to Christianity and his victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge on October 28, 312.

Just how Christian was Constantine?

History is full of myths, tales in where we make mere men as gods and heroes. Molehills of moments blown into mountains of false memories. How many of us truly know that George Washington did not really cut down the cherry tree, or that Helen Keller was a communist, that the first Thanksgiving with the pilgrims didn't happen as told, that Martin Luther was an anti-Semite and John Calvin a murderer? We paint our heroes with the broad stroke of perfection, and the same goes for Constantine the Great, the first "Christian" Emperor. Some books will have you believe that Constantine was used by God, and that he was a "Saint."

Constantine, after his conversion to Christianity, was still a Sun Worshipper who killed his Son and had his wife drowned.

"To pass for a Christian would, indeed, have been a great presumption on his part. Not long after the Council of Nicaea he suddenly had Crispus, his excellent Son by his first marriage and a pupil of Lactantius, put to death at Pola in Istria (326), and soon thereafter he had his wife Fausta, daughter of Maximian, drowned in her bath." [The Age of Constantine the Great,  pp.283,284, Burckhardt]

"In modern-day terms, Constantine could hardly be considered much of a Christian. As an example, he never relinquished his title Pontifex Maximus. This was the title given to him as the head of the state pagan cult, which was either Mithraism or Sol Invictus, two distinct but similar religions. In addition, the coinage of his reign continued to depict the Sun God [Sol Invictus]. Finally, it is reported that he personally murdered one of his own sons, had his second wife drowned, had his nephew and brother-in-law killed after he had guaranteed safe passage, etc. However, during all of this he sponsored Christianity because it had been useful to him in winning a decisive battle."

[The Christian Conspiracy, p. 58, Dr. L.D. Moore]

"Some things have been established with reasonable certainty: Constantine was no intellectual giant; he took himself very seriously with regard to what he considered his mission to promote Christianity; and lacking more than one of the Christian virtues, he was on occasion cruel, ruthless, and even inhumane."  Encyclopedia Americana 2000

"Constantine was a hot-blooded man. He was wise to avoid being baptized while there were still so many sins of passion that he might yet commit." [Rubenstein, p. 49]

"Although Constantine attributed his success to the divine message that he believed he had read in the skies before the battle at the Milvian Bridge in 312, he could not officially--and privately, it seems, did not-abandon paganism at once." Encyclopedia Americana 2000

"However, until his preparations for his final campaign by 323, he did not abandon his allegiance to the Sun god, even though he regarded himself as a servant of the Christian God... Constantine's public image remained - the Sun god was the emperor's 'companion.' The liberation of Rome was attributed to the Sun on a medallion struck at the time." The Rise of Christianity, W.H.C. Frend, p.484

It is evident from the above that Constantine was no godly man in a Christian sense. This has been borne out by the violence that erupted at the time during the Nicene Controversy. The pro-Trinitarian side of the issue was led by Athanasius, "a future saint and uninhibited faction fighter, had his opponents excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled to distant provinces." He "possessed a power independent of the emperor which he built up and perpetuated by violence. That was both the strength and the weakness of his position. Like a modern gangster, he evoked widespread mistrust, proclaimed total innocence -  and especially succeeded in evading conviction on specific charges." [When Jesus Became God, Rubenstein, pp. 6, 107]

"Constantine was a Christian of a very peculiar type, a type that would hardly be recognized as Christian at all today." Constantine the Great by Michael Grant

This Kindle book, The Dark History of Christmas, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99 and The Strange History of Easter and the Christian Cross is on Amazon for only $1.99 

Bible Translator Steven T. Byington on This Day in History

This day in history: Steven T. Byington died on this day in 1957. Byington was a Christian Anarchist and a Bible translator. The Watchtower society bought the rights to his Bible in 1972. The book "So Many Versions" remarks on the association below: 

"While this translation is completely independent from the NWT, we made a comparison of the two. Since it is published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, we were especially interested in those passages where the characteristic biases of the NWT [New World Translation] were evident. In the BLE [Bible in Living English], "Jehovah" is used in the OT but is not found in the NT. The word "God" is capitalized when referring to Jesus Christ, e.g., in John 1:1; 1:18; 6:45; 10:33. Where the NWT added the article "the" in brackets in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 and "other" in Colossians 1:16, 17, this translation does not, so that Jesus Christ can be identified with God in these passages. Furthermore, by its punctuation in Romans 9:5 it has clearly identified Christ as God: "Whose are the fathers, and from whom in the way of flesh comes the Christ, he who is over everything, God blessed forever-Amen!"
The designation "Holy Spirit" is capitalized, contrary to the NWT, and the words "cross" and "crucify" are used instead of "torture stake" and "impale." The only apparent reason for the Witnesses' publishing this translation is the translator's use of "Jehovah" for God's name in the OT, unless they also want to tone down the idiosyncrasies of their own translation." So Many Versions by Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Specht

Reply: Much of the above is over-stated. I fail to see where Christ is identified as God at Romans 9:5, and a clear understanding of the other Scriptures listed and its context removes any divinity from Christ, specifically at John 1:18: "Nobody ever has seen God; an Only Born God, he who is in the Father's bosom, he gave the account of him." A God that is "born" is definitely held as separate from that God that cannot be seen.

Consider also other Scriptures that waters down the deity of Christ:

"I will be what I will be" Ex 3:14
"God is your throne forever" Psalm 45:6
"Jehovah framed me first in line" Prov 8:22
"his origin being from of old, from ancient days." Micah 5:2
"they will look at the one they stabbed to death" Zech 12:10
Acts 20:28 footnote points to "the Lord's church"
"let all God's angels do him reverence" Heb 1:6
"God is your throne forever and ever." Heb 1:8
"firstborn of all creation" Col 1:15
"did not regard equality with God a prize" Php 2:6
"the beginning of God's creation" Rev 3:14

Byington had high sights set for his Bible in his Translator's Preface:

"It is customary for the preface of a new translation of the Bible to say that this translation is to be used only for certain limited purposes, and for most purposes the old version, or a conservative revision of it, should still be preferred. I say the contrary: I sincerely recommend that my translation be used in preference to the old for all purposes, under all circumstances where mine is available. I do not say, observe, that mine is better than any other that can or will be made; neither do I say that it is probable that mine will become everybody's Bible. What I have more right to expect, and what I am bound to be content with, is that when a Bible is made which shall be everybody's Bible, my work will have contributed part of the material which will go into it; what I am here recommending is that when a choice is to be made between mine and the old version, and a version better than either is not available, mine be chosen rather than the old."

It also ranked more accurate than the New American Standard Bible according to Colwell's apparatus:
See http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-new-world-translation-is-best-new.html

Byington's Bible also has some very interesting renderings and makes for a pleasant read:

"The Scriptures say that God 'has put eternity into our minds.'
(Ecclesiastes 3:11)

"wild parties," Galatians 5:19-21

"Foolishness is bliss to a brainless man, but an intelligent man will
go straight." Proverbs 15:21

"A man's ignorance muddles his affairs and he flies out against
Jehovah." (Proverbs 19:3)

"I did not flinch from . . . teaching you publicly and from house to
house."-ACTS 20:20

"So I would have younger ones marry, bear children, keep house, not
give the opponent any opening toward abusive talk."-1 Timothy 5:11-
14, Byington.

"Then I will turn the lips of all the peoples clean, that they may
all call on Jehovah's name and cooperate in his service." Zeph 3:9

"There is no thumbing your nose at God." Gal 6:7, 8

"Jehovah will exterminate slippery lips, tongues that make great propositions" Psalm 12:3

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

See also Divine Name Controversy & Mysteries - 50 Books on CD and 145 Rare Divine Name Bibles on DVDrom and 200 Books on the Divine Name Jehovah on DVDrom 

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

Another God in the Gospel of John? A Linguistic Analysis of John 1:1

 Watch the above video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPXEuxJutDk  - This is a visual representation of what is posted at https://brill.com/view/journals/hbth/44/2/article-p141_2.xml

See also 243 Alternative Translations of John 1:1c

See also The Pathway and the New World Translation

Buy: And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 on Amazon for only 99 cents

Jehovah as the Most Beautiful Name of God that any Language Can Employ

 

From: Twenty Speeches and Discourses on Various Subjects By Daniel Chapman 1855

"The idea of interminable or eternal existence is the radical idea of the term Jehovah, the mysterious, incommunicable name of God in the Hebrew language. The form in which it occurs in the Hebrew, is an admirable instance of the perfect simplicity, significancy, and comprehensiveness of that ancient language. It is indeed the predominance of these qualities -the simplicity of its elements, and the complexity of their combinations, which constitutes at once the easiness and the difficulty of its acquisition. It is evident from the transcendent excellence of what remains, that there is no language, ancient or modern, better adapted than the Hebrew was in its perfect state, to convey a complete revelation from God to man: an impartial comparison will justify this remark. This term, considered as a form of the Hebrew verb which signifies to be, to exist, is one that embodies the forms of both tenses, the past and the future, inclusive of the present, a threefold division of time, which, when each of its portions is expanded to infinity, and all those portions are combined with each other, affords, perhaps, as perfect an idea of absolute eternity as we can form,-infinite past, infinite future, infinite present, all blended in one infinite duration, the measure of His existence alone who eternally was, and is, and is to be. The term Jehovah is the most philosophical, as well as the most beautiful name of God that any language can employ."

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

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

Trinitarians on the Word "Trinity"

Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing.

From: The Concessions of Trinitarians By John Wilson 1845

The word homousion is not found in the Sacred Writings; and therefore from these alone, what the Arians deny cannot be taught or proved, except by inference. ERASMUS: Op. tom. ix. p. 1034.

We ought to believe, that there are three persons and one essence in the Deity; God the Father unbegotten, God the Son consubstantial with the Father; and God the Holy Spirit proceeding from both. But, though you attentively peruse the whole of Scripture, you will never find these sublime and remarkable words "three persons - one essence - unbegotten consubstantial — proceeding from both.” COCHLEUS; apud Sandium, pp. 4, 5.

The word Trinity is never found in the Divine Records, but is only of human invention, and therefore sounds altogether frigidly (frigide). Far better would it be to say God than Trinity. There is no reason for objecting to me, that the word homousion was made use of in opposition to the Arians. It was not received by many of the most eminent men; Jerome himself having wished to abolish the term; and on this account, they did not escape peril. .... But, though from my soul I abhor the word homousion, and am unwilling to employ it, I shall not therefore be a heretic. LUTHER: Postil. Major. fol. 282; Confut. Rat. Latom. tom. ii. fol. 240.

I dislike this vulgar prayer, "Holy Trinity, one God! have mercy on us!" as altogether savouring of barbarism. We repudiate such expressions as being not only insipid, but profane. - Abridged from CALVIN: Tractat. Theol. p. 796.

The phrase,"Holy Trinity, one God," is dangerous and improper. LAMBERT DANEAU: Resp. ad Genebrard. cap. iii.; Opusc. p. 1327. 

The words Trinity, person, homousion, and others of a similar kind, besides being ambiguous, .... never occur in the Scriptures. LIMBORCH: Theol. Christ. lib. vii. cap. 21. § 13.

The words Trinity, homousion, hypostasis, procession, &c. ... were not expressly to be found in the Holy Scriptures. BISHOP SANDERSON: Ad Clerum, p. 85; apud Tracts for the Times, vol. iv. No. 78, p. 45.

It must be allowed, that there is no such proposition as this, That one and the same God is three different persons, formally and in terms, to be found in the Sacred Writings, either of the Old or New Testament; neither is it pretended, that there is any word of the same signification or importance with the word Trinity, used in Scripture, with relation to God.- DR. SOUTH: Consid. on the Trinity, p. 38.

It were to be wished that on topics so sublime [as that of the Trinity], men had thought proper to confine themselves to the simple but majestic diction of the Sacred Scriptures [instead of using the terms homoosious, homoiousious, hypostasis, hypostatikos, &c.]. — DR. CAMPBELL: Lectures on Ecclesiastical History: Lect. xiv.

The title of Mother of God, applied to the Virgin Mary, is not perhaps so innocent as Dr. Mosheim takes it to be. The invention and use of such mysterious terms as have no place in Scripture are undoubtedly pernicious to true religion. The use of this [the word Trinity] and other unscriptural terms, to which men attach either no ideas or false ones, has wounded charity and peace, without promoting truth and knowledge. It has produced heresies of the very worst kind. DR. MACLAINE: Note to Mosheim's Ecclesiastical Hist. cent. v. part ii. chap. v. § 9; and Chron. Table, cent. ii.

The general practice of Scripture seems to indicate, that, in ordinary worship, we should address the Deity in his unity, manifested to us as, in Christ Jesus, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to men their trespasses. I confess that I have ever disliked the use of the word Trinity in prayer to God, as not being a name whereby God reveals himself to us, and as savouring of scholastic theology. — CARLILE: Jesus Christ the Great God, p. 232.

Substance, and person, and essence, as applied to the Godhead, are not to be found in Holy Scripture.-H. M'NEILE: Sermons preached in St. Jude's Church, Liverpool, on Trin. Sund. 1835; p. 10.

I need hardly make any observation on the word purgatory: the very name itself is generally made one of the topics of abuse, because it is not be found in Scripture. But, I would ask, where is the term Trinity to be discovered in Scripture? Where is the term incarnation to be found? Where are many other terms which are held most sacred and most important in the Christian religion, to be found in Scripture? DR. WISEMAN: Lect. on the Doct. of the Rom. Cath. Church, p. 270.

[It is admitted also by TILLOTSON, SWIFT, HEY, TOMLINE, the Oxford Doctors, and others, that the scholastic terms here spoken of do not occur in the Bible. But who would venture to say that they do?]

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

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 End of Prayer in Public Schools on This Day in History

 

This Day in History: The United States Supreme Court rules 8–1 in Abington School District v. Schempp against requiring the reciting of Bible verses and the Lord's Prayer in public schools on this day in 1963.

Billy Graham said, "[i]n my opinion... the Supreme Court... is wrong.... Eighty percent of the American people want Bible reading and prayer in schools. Why should a majority be so severely penalized...?"

There was a time where I would have applauded the Supreme Court's decision and sneer at Billy Graham. There was a time where I thought that the New Atheists (Hitchens, Harris & Dawkins)  made a lot of sense. 

I've changed my mind. The secularism that the West has embraced has failed society.

Why?

In 1963 most families were intact. 

In 1963 everyone knew what a woman was. 

In 1963 there were only two genders. In fact, the word "gender" was only used in relation to language.

In 1963 profanity was not as ubiquitous as it is today. In 1963, the entertainment industry adhered to the Hays Code which prohibited profanity, suggestive nudity, graphic or realistic violence, sexual persuasions and rape.

In 1963 there was no Pride Month. People kept their peccadillos private.

In 1963 there was no Wokeism.

In 1963 people believed in freedom of speech. 

In 1963 we weren't calling each other "Racist."

In 1963 were weren't flooding our countries with people who hate us.

In 1963 promiscuity was considered a moral failure. We did not brag about a "body count."

In 1963 there were no mass school shootings. In fact, kids brought guns to school. Schools even had shooting clubs.

In 1963 a big chunk of the population were not on antidepressants and psychotropic drugs.

In 1963 there were far less people needing mental health treatment.

In 1963 our schools and universities were respected. Today, 19% of high school graduates can't read.

In 1963 we had a shared narrative in Christianity. It bound us together.

In 1963 we did not have a World Economic Forum or a Club of Rome or any other such organization whose aim is to reduce and enslave the population. 

In 1963 the media reported news instead of propaganda.

In 1963 we trusted our institutions. Now you are wise not to.

In 1963 we weren't offended by absolutely everything.

In 1963 we talked to each other. There was no Social Media.

Sure, 1963 was not all sunshine and rainbows. After all, 1963 ended with the killing of an American president by a faithless Communist.

Buy this published Kindle book on Amazon on Forgotten Bible Versions for only 99 cents  and Buy Forgotten Tales of Dogs - 60 Chapters of Dogs in Legend, Lore, Love, Loyalty and Intelligence for only 99 cents

Does God Exist? - 300 Books to Download (Philosophy, Apologetics) for only $3.99

William Hamilton Drummond on John 20:28

 

Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing.

From: The Doctrine of the Trinity, founded neither on Scripture, nor on Reason and Common Sense but on Tradition and the Infallible Church (1831):

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, my Lord and my God."

Thomas was a Jew - a believer in the one invisible and immortal God - a disciple of Christ-incredulous - a sceptic who required no less than ocular and palpable proof that the body of Christ had become re-animated and arisen from the dead. Our Lord condescended to give him the proof required, on which occasion he uttered the words just quoted.

Now, what do we learn from them? The Athanasians would have us believe that this incredulous Apostle who would not credit the testimony of his fellow disciples as to a plain matter of fact, passed in a moment to the belief, of which he had not the least previous hint or conception, that in the crucified Jesus, whose flesh he handled, and whose wounds he felt, he saw, touched and addressed the infinite and incomprehensible Jehovah, whom he had been taught to think no man could see and live! That he whom he had so lately beheld nailed to a cross, and mortally wounded by a Roman spear - was Jehovah of hosts - the Lord God of Israel, who liveth and reigneth for ever and ever! Verily, the credulity of the Athanasians exceeds, the incredulity of Thomas! But the Saviour's address to his disciple sufficiently proves the gross folly  and absurdity of such imaginations. "Jesus said unto Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed." Believed what? That of which he had previously doubted,-Christ's resurrection. Our Lord continues, "blessed, or happy, are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." -Not seen and yet believed what? Not seen Christ personally, as Thomas had seen him and yet believed that he was actually risen.

There is not the slightest ground for any of the Athanasian whims in the whole passage. Thomas, under the influence of excited and wonderstruck feeling, gave way to his emotion, as was perfectly natural, by apostrophizing God. All men under such impressions, express themselves in language precisely similar. Thus, when Gideon saw that one with whom he had been conversing was an angel of Jehovah - he said, “Alas, O Lord Jehovah! for because I have seen an angel of Jehovah, face to face."-Judg. vi. 22. Thus, Jonathan in the ardour of his friendship, "said unto David, O Jehovah God of Israel, when I have sounded my Father, &c." - 1 Sam. xx. 12. Had Thomas been capable of embodying all his feelings in words, he might have uttered some ejaculations like these, in addition to "my Lord and my God." It is then true! I doubt no longer! Here is proof! I yield O my God, how great is thy power, how wonderful thy deeds! Now, I see, now I believe that thou hast indeed raised from the dead, thy holy child Jesus! That our Saviour understood him thus is evident from his address to the disciple. - Milton refers the words my Lord to Christ, and my God to the Father, who had testified that Christ was his Son, by raising him from the dead. The whole comment of this great genius on the passage before us, is well entitled to the readers serious consideration. He regards the words of Thomas as an abrupt exclamation in an exstacy of wonder, and deems it incredible--

"That he should have so quickly understood the hypostatic union of that person whose resurrection he had just before disbelieved. Accordingly the faith of Peter is commended-blessed art thou, Simon-for having only said-thou art the Son of the Living God.-Matt. xvi, 16, 17. The faith of 

Thomas, although, as it is commonly explained, it asserts the divinity of Christ in a much more remarkable manner, is so far from being praised, that it is undervalued, and almost reproved.-Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And yet, though the slowness of his belief may have deserved blame, the testimony borne by him to Christ as God, which if the common interpretation be received as true, is clearer than occurs in any other passage, would undoubtedly have met with some commendation; whereas it obtains none whatever."

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

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