TrevorL

Greetings WilliamL, You seem to have moved away from the literal sub-division of the Grecian Empire into four parts and then the emphasis in Daniel 11 on the King of the North and the King of the South, defined by the actual area where these two powers ruled. The King of the North in Ezekiel 38 is supported by Persia and this is an Islam country. The present alliance between Russia and Iran in Syria appears to be a precursor of this. Thus the King of the North is a literal power, headed up by Russia, confederate with Iran, and also backed by Europe including the Papacy Revelation 16. It is therefore Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and Shiite Islam in religion. The southern confederacy will be moderate Sunni Islam backed by Britain and the Commonwealth countries, but it appears from Ezekiel 38 and Daniel 11 the King of the North will defeat this opposition and stand triumphant in the Holy Land, only to be defeated by the intervention of the Lord Jesus Christ himself at the Battle of Armageddon. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings, To further clarify my previous statements, I believe that there is no power existing at present that corresponds to the King of the South. Nor will there be when the King of the North invades the Holy Land, Israel and also invades Egypt. Britain fulfilled the role of the King of the South in 1917 when she pushed the Turk out of the Holy land, but later Britain withdrew from Egypt and Egypt became an independent nation. Thus in the following it does not say the King of the North conquers the King of the South, but that it conquers Egypt. Daniel 11:40-45 (KJV): 40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. 41 He shall enter also into the gloriousk land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. 42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. 44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. 45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings Golden Eagle, I believe that the term “Merchants of Tarshish and all the young lions” in Ezekiel 38 is speaking of Britain as a merchant trading nation, and will be united with Sheba and Dedan, southern Arab nations. These will form a southern confederacy and they will oppose the King of the North of Ezekiel 38 when it invades Israel in the latter days. As such I agree with the general scope of the article that you quote and the definition of these terms found in Ezekiel 38. Where I differ with the articles and maps on that site is that I believe that the king of the south existed as Britain in occupation of Egypt in 1917 when Britain pushed at the Turkey power and freed the land to allow the eventual establishment of Israel. I believe that this is the first part of Daniel 11:40. I parallel the second part of Daniel 11:40 and the following verses with Ezekiel 38, the invasion of the king of the north. Associated with the king of the north are various nations and I believe that some of these are Europeans. Thus Britain is opposing the king of the north and some Europeans in the events of Ezekiel 38. As such Britain is not united with Europe in these events, but is opposed to them. Where I also differ with the site is where it indicates that the southern confederacy is the “king of the south”, but I believe that Britain is no longer the king of the south, defined as a land based power in occupation of Egypt, but is a merchant power in the region. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again FresnoJoe and angels4u, I endorse these words of Peter. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again angels4u, I appreciate your sincere suggestion. I would consider it appropriate to pray for understanding concerning this subject as a whole, that we may more fully understand God’s revelation concerning Himself. To specifically pray for a concept that I am already convinced is an error that was developed in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries, derived in part from Greek philosophy and other sources, contrary to the clear Bible teaching would go against my conscience. Two Mormon’s on one occasion made a similar appeal to me to pray concerning their very wrong doctrines, for example that each of us has an immortal soul in heaven (that has lived a previous existence?) before our birth that enters into the womb. But we are given understanding and wisdom to weigh these things in a reasonable manner. I utterly reject many of their wrong doctrines and to pray about these would be a form of idolatry. Perhaps one area that I have not covered in detail is the concept that angels represent God and speak on his behalf and the title “God” and even the Name “Yahweh” is used by these angels. I mentioned this concept concerning the judges, but have not considered the angels in detail. Some claim that such occurrences are speaking of the pre-existent Jesus, but a closer examination disproves this theory. I will only mention one example and other examples could be supplied if anyone would like to discuss this further. Exodus 3:1-9 (KJV): 1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. A careful examination of the above will reveal that the angel is called “God” Hebrew “Elohim” and speaks on God’s behalf. Stephen states that Moses spoke to an Angel: Acts 7:30-32 (KJV): 30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. 31 When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him, 32 Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Joline, I have already expressed a disagreement with the pre-existence of Christ and you seem to be alluding to Philippians 2 and I have a different understanding of this. But yes even now I am still confused with what you are saying, even your latest post. Possibly I am old and slow and not discerning. I am happy to have a rest from this thread unless something significant is posted. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Joline, I am also confused by your response. My main reason for posting on this thread was to suggest that the Apostolic belief is that there is one God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. My impression is that most that had contributed to this thread claimed that the Bible teaches the Trinity and that Jesus always claimed to be God and the Trinity was the faith of the Apostles. I have not quite worked out your position. I assume that you accept the Trinity, but I am not sure if you believe it was and is the Bible teaching, or whether you agree with the Catholic position that some of these things were left for the Church to reveal and explain. You seem to specialise in the finer points of the Trinity and classifications of the overall subject. My previous post suggests that the closer we go to the time of the Apostles the closer we are to the belief “that there is one God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” I am not sure if you accept this or understand the implications of the list of people and the citations of their beliefs. Rather than the Trinity being a correct development, I believe that it was a part of the “falling away” from the truth of the Gospel that the Apostles prophesied and spoke about: 2 Thessalonians 2:3,10-11 (KJV): 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Timothy 4:1-4 (KJV): 1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 1 John4:1-3 (KJV): 1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Joline, I appreciate your response but I was trying not to get too involved in this era as I have not studied the details. Before posting today I quickly reviewed our speaker’s slides and then while doing other jobs I listened on a mobile mp3 device to his talk. The following is from his revised more recent slides and is only about 1/8th of his total talk. When he gave the talk he had less people listed and citations. If you have access to their writings you may check what he says for bias as he is on my side of the fence. I do not have access to where to go to check these details. Clement of Rome (1st Century) The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power. Ignatius of Antioch (1st Century) The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality ; the Holy Spirit is God’s power. Polycarp of Smyrna (1st-2nd Century) The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power. Papias of Hierapolis (1st-2nd Century) The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power. Justin Martyr (2nd Century) The Father alone is ‘true God’; Jesus is a pre-existent divine being created by God; the Holy Spirit is a type of angel. Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd Century) The Father alone is ‘true God’; the Son and Holy Spirit are the divine ‘hands of God’, but not fully God in their own right. Tertullian (2nd-3rd Centuries) Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same essence and co-exist equally as God, yet the Son was somehow ‘begotten’ by the Father and there was a time when he did not exist. Origen (2nd-3rd Centuries) The Father alone is ‘very God’; the Son has always existed, being eternally ‘generated’ by Him; the Holy Spirit’s divinity is derived from the Son. Arius (3rd-4th Centuries) Jesus is the first of God’s creation; a pre-existent divine being. Athanasius (3rd-4th Centuries) Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God; Jesus was—and still is—fully God and fully man. Council of Nicaea (AD 325) Condemned Arianism, declared Jesus is fully God, equal to the Father. 1st Council of Constantinople (AD 381) Re-condemned Arianism, declared that Jesus is fully human yet simultaneously divine; also affirmed that the Holy Spirit is God. Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) Declared that Jesus has two natures (human and divine) but is only one person, without sin; also affirmed that Mary is the Mother of God. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Joline and Esther4:14, I appreciate your comments and information. I have in the past found a bit of information about Reville’s personal beliefs and these were not very impressive. At issue is whether what he said as a Historian is valid or biased. My brother, who I asked an opinion on those summaries, gave an address confirming some of this by saying that many of the prominent people in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries came from a Greek philosophy background and brought many aspects of their Greek thoughts and combined them with their new found “Christianity”. Also these did not have fully developed Trinitarian ideas, but most considered Jesus of less status than God the Father. I encountered a similar problem when talking to someone who did not believe in the Millennium. I quoted a statement by Gibbon, but he rejected any statement by Gibbon because of Gibbon’s often negative comments about the Catholic Church. My impression is that Gibbon was a good historian even though some of his personal beliefs could be questioned. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Esther4:14, I appreciate your response and encouragement. Nevertheless I find the articles that you quoted unusual and do not seem to have much relevance to the Scriptures. I have done some preliminary research into the meaning and usage of the word “Elohim” in the OT Scriptures, but the above extract seems to be very speculative and contrary to the revealed word of God. You seem to be quoting some Rabbinical work, and to my understanding they reject Jesus as their Messiah. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings Joline and Esther4:14, I was interested in your response, but most of this seems obscure to me. You seem to almost dismiss the humanity of Jesus. I am not sure that this is the average position of Trinitarians. I am not sure if it is a good book or not, but it seemed to answer how the doctrine of the Trinity developed. I am a collector of books and found this in a 2nd hand book sale. I have not studied this history at length. Joline, seeing that you seem to be familiar with some of the history of these doctrines, could I ask if you would agree that the brief summary of some of the developments mentioned in Page 8, Post 3 (linked by Esther) is a reasonable assessment? I asked the same of one of my brethren who studied the early centuries AD, and he agreed, but as he is more on my side of the fence, I would like to ask a Trinitarian’s opinion. The following is mainly to draw attention to the humanity of Jesus. This aspect is usually overlooked by Trinitarians even though they claim he was both human and divine, and remarkably claim that he had two natures, for example I have read “within Jesus’ unique nature He was both fully God and fully man”. I cannot understand the Trinitarian concept. Such a view must claim that Jesus when young had the mind of a child and the mind of God at the same time, or possibly that the mind of God was partly or fully suppressed until a certain age. This view must claim that Jesus was limited in knowledge, and yet knew all things. A greater list of contradictions could be compiled. The Birth of Jesus Matthew 1:18-23 (KJV): 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Here is a simple and clear narrative. The child was conceived by the Holy Spirit, his name was to be called Jesus, and he would also be named Emmanuel. There is no mention of God the Son being somehow incorporated into the child to be born, but simply that the Holy Spirit was instrumental in the conception. The name Emmanuel may be taken by some to teach that the child is somehow God, and there is some Scriptural support and language to accept this, but I do not accept the Trinitarian version of this. On a simpler level it also teaches that the birth of Jesus would be evidence that God was now with them in the person of His Son, and Jesus would manifest or reveal His Father. (I cannot clear the complete underlining of the following, please excuse) Luke 1:30-35 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Again here is a simple and clear narrative. Again it speaks of the child being conceived of the Holy Spirit, but here in a parallelism it speaks of this as the power of the Highest. The process would result in a "holy thing" and we could discuss what this represents, but will defer till another time. The child born "shall be called the Son of God" and earlier "the Son of the Highest", and these two expressions form another parallelism. Again there is no mention of God the Son being somehow incorporated into the child to be born, but simply that the Holy Spirit was instrumental in the conception. What these verses do indicate is that God is the Father of Jesus, and thus Jesus is "the Son of the Highest" and "the Son of God". These terms are contrary to the concept that Jesus is God the Son. Also there is no hint in either Matthew's and Luke's account that Jesus or the 2nd Person of the Trinity pre-existed. As a child is conceived and born today, unless you are a Mormon or a Buddhist and believe in some form of incarnation or reincarnation. It is to me remarkable, that Trinitarians speak of the incarnation. John 1:1-2 (KJV): 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. John 1:14 (KJV): 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Looking only at the birth of Jesus initially, there are two aspects. The first is that "the Word was made flesh" and this teaches that Jesus was not of Spirit Nature at birth, but he was of flesh nature. The second is "the only begotten of the Father" and this is similar to the Matthew and Luke records that teach that God was the Father of Jesus by means of the conception. The Development of Jesus Luke 2:40 (KJV): And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. Luke 2:52 (KJV): And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. Although this speaks of Jesus' exceptional development, there is no hint that Jesus is God the Son. Such an idea ignores the fact that Jesus increased in wisdom, and increased in favour with God. From a Trinitarian perspective, what portion of Jesus' mind was from his education and growth, and how much is from his previous knowledge in being God the Son? Isaiah 11:1-5 (KJV): 1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; 3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: 4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. This again speaks of Jesus' exceptional development. Again this is inconsistent with the concept of God the Son, as Jesus developed in understanding. Isaiah 50:4 (KJV): The Lord GOD hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned. This indicates that God the Father instructed Jesus on a daily basis. This is contrary to the concept of God the Son. John 1:1-2 (KJV): 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. John 1:14 (KJV): 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Looking again at these verses there is an emphasis on the character of Christ, "he was "full of grace and truth". This speaks of the end result of the development of Jesus. He was no longer a babe in his mother's arms, nor a youth of 12 discussing with the elders in the Temple. When Jesus started his ministry John and others "beheld his glory", and this glory was the moral character that Jesus revealed, he was full of grace and truth. The following extract from one writer takes up portion of the 1st of the 4 Servant Songs of Isaiah, and speaks of the character of Christ: Christ of whom it was prophesied that “a bruised reed shall he not break and dimly burning flax shall he not quench”; who came to seek and save which was lost; who gave his life for men who were unrighteous and unthankful, and who continue to this day, with their vanity and self-expression, breaking the bruised reeds and quenching the smoking flax, often claiming to do such destructive work in His name – Christ came not to do His own will but the will of the One who sent Him. In His service to humanity He surrendered Himself entirely to God, and the result of this self-effacement was a human personality so strong and distinctive that it shines through history with a lustre that makes individualism of self-expressing men look dull and dirty. It is the last sentence above that I would especially mention. Could I ask a Trinitarian if they really consider the humanity of Jesus? Does a Trinitarian think in terms of the development of the character of Jesus? Or simply because of a belief that He is and was God during His ministry that there is no real place for the development of Jesus’ character. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again kwikphilly and angels4u, Nice to hear that things are going well on the other side of the globe. We are having a nice winter’s day over here in mid NSW on the coast. We were treated lightly with the recent weather that swept from Queensland, through NSW and Victoria bringing some flooding to some regions and then flooded northern Tasmania. Another one of my interests is feeding the local birds and it is interesting to see the sulphur-crested cockatoos, lorikeets, eastern rosellas, pink galahs, various pigeons including a white crested and front larger bush pigeon, duck-like geese and ducks line up to take their pecking-order turn at the grain and water. I also enjoy many others that are regular visitors but do not eat this grain, and some that I have only seen once or twice in the area. I read a very encouraging chapter this morning Isaiah 26. Today also should see the return to relative normalcy, with God’s blessing, from a traumatic and difficult circumstance that commenced 5 weeks ago. This has been achieved by the help of an unknown stranger who after his kind deed and wisdom 5 weeks ago was able to turn the situation around and then disappeared again into the night, and with professional hospital help, and then the support and care by members of our meeting and some family members. I would like to briefly draw attention again to Acts 2 that I mentioned in an earlier post: Acts 2:22-24,32-36 (KJV): 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. I would like to emphasise the underlined words and ask the question: Are these terms the type of language and ideas that fit comfortably with the Trinitarian view? Now this address by Peter was spoken to a Jewish audience, fiercely monotheistic. Where in this speech is there any hint of this great change from monotheism to the Trinity, and for that matter in any records of the preaching of the Apostles in the Book of Acts? From my perspective they speak of Jesus as a man, that he was approved of God, that it was God that did the miracles through him, it was God that raised him from the dead, and Jesus is now exalted to sit at the right hand of God, God then gave Jesus the Holy Spirit power that was received by the Apostles and God has now made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Do Trinitarians really appreciate even these title, Lord and Christ and how and when did he receive these functions? I decided to give a brief response to a few of your Scriptures: Genesis 1:1: Yes, God the Father created the heavens and earth. Consider Psalm 8. Proverbs 8-22-31: This is a personification of God’s wisdom as a wise woman Hebrews 7:3: Jesus had a father, God and a mother, Mary. It is speaking of the Order of Melchizedek in comparison to the hereditary priesthood of Aaron. Hebrews 13:8: Yes, Jesus was the same, and is the same, but this is not saying from eternity. 1 John 5:7: This is regarded as spurious by most scholars and commentators and is excluded from most Bible translations. Refer my response on page 8, post 6. John 1:18: But the Scriptures say that no man can see God, and thus Jesus is not God the Son but a man, the Son of God. John 10:30-33: I gave an extensive response to John 10:30-36 on page 7, posts 3 and 6. 2 Peter 1:1: Why is God spoken of as a separate entity from Jesus Christ, not only here but in the introduction of EVERY NT letter? 2 Peter 1:1-2 (KJV): 1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again kwikphilly, Revelation Man and angels4u, The reason why I concentrated on John 8:28 was that it was part of my explanation of the “I am” passages of John’s Gospel. My detailed explanation of these is on page 9, post 2 where I was trying to prove that Jesus is claiming to be the Christ. I have also reinforced my view by some comments on page 9, post 4 where I gave an explanation of how I understand Exodus 3:14 and the Yahweh Name as it is developed throughout Scripture. As a result I suggested that John 8:58 is not linked with Exodus 3:14, despite the popular view on this. Overall you can decide if Jesus is claiming to be the Christ or he is claiming to be the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. I believe he is claiming to be the Christ. I decided to make a survey of how the different translations rendered John 8:28 and possibly the second of the two views is clearly shown by the bias of some of these translations. I found the differences interesting and will allow you to draw your own conclusions. Part of my interests is to collect books, and this includes many different Bibles, some in print and a few electronic only. I was only looking at the phrase translated in the KJV “I am he” from John 8:28. I checked the following translations and (P) = print copy; (E) = electronic copy. I am he: KJV (P), RV (mg: Or I am) (P), YLT (P) I am He: NASB (mg: Lit. I AM) (P) I am he: RSV (P), ESV (P), NRSV (mg Gk I am) (P), Rotherham (P), Douay-Rheims (E), NCV (E), NET (mg Gk I am – also extensive tn on the two views, that Jesus is claiming to be Messiah or claiming to be the same as the Name of God in Exodus 3:14) (E) I am He: NKJV (P), JB (P), NJB (P), Weymouth (P) I am [he]: Darby (P) I AM he: NLT (mg Gk I am) (E) I am the one I claim to be: NIV (mg Or I am he) (P) I AM: NAB (E), “Literal” as supplied by Ezra on page 9, post 3 I am what I am: NEB (P), REB (P) I am who I am: Barclay (P) I am: Marshall’s literal (P) you will know who I am: Moffatt (P), Message (P) you will recognize that it is myself you look for: Knox (P) I AM THE LIVING GOD: Aramaic Bible in Plain English (as quoted by FresnoJoe on page 10 post 2) The biggest surprise to me was the NEB, and I was disappointed that this was not corrected by the REB, my latest Bible purchase. I should also add Revelation Man's mention of Genesis 1:26 here, together with kwik's request. I believe that there is one God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I have already briefly looked at John 1 in page 4, post 8, page 5, post 8 and page 6, post 4. I have considered the use of the word “God” (Hebrew Elohim) in the OT by looking at John 10:30-36 in page 7, post 3 and page 7, post 6. I have briefly considered Genesis 1:26 in page 8, post 8. If you would like to discuss any of this further please let me know. Angels4u: Perhaps you would like me to respond to the many verses that you have quoted in your latest Post. I would select only a few at first, ones that I feel that I could give a reasonable answer.. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again kwikphilly and FresnoJoe, I appreciate your many kind thoughts in your latest Post. I will respond to two aspects for the moment. Neither you nor Joe really responded or perhaps understood what I was saying about John 8:28. Joe quoted from a translation that interpreted the “I am” phrase with a Trinitarian bias and explanation with “I AM THE LIVING GOD”, rather than simply translating it as “I am” as per the original text. Unless this is his favourite translation, he must have searched far and wide to find a translation that gave this result. The KJV on the other hand added a word showing how they understood this, as “I am he”, but note the italics that indicate that they added this word “he” in order to give the sense as they understood this. Yes, I think it is important to understand the limitations of each translation. I read a chapter in the morning from an Interlinear RV / KJV and the comparison is interesting and instructive. I also use other translations for reference, not to find a translation that suits my preconceived ideas, but an attempt to get closer to the meaning of a passage. I suggest you are reinforcing your ideas by such a question. From my perspective a Trinitarian removes the human side of Jesus and also ignores the reality of Jesus being the Son of God and the son of Mary, most probably the most faithful woman who has ever lived. Then there is the education of Jesus by God his Father as depicted in Isaiah 11 and 49. Jesus overcame by faith, not because of the Trinitarian concept that he almost could not sin. Was the Temple in heaven or upon earth? I believe that Isaiah was near the Temple in Jerusalem and then saw this vision open up to him of the Most Holy Place of the Temple. The contrast is also between king Uzziah who went to burn incense in the Holy Place seeking also the priesthood but was struck with leprosy and the future King-Priest enthroned in the Most Holy Place beyond the veil. Jesus has become the King-Priest in the fullest sense after his death and resurrection. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again kwikphilly and greetings FresnoJoe, I appreciate your posting the “statement of faith”. When I read it, it seemed a bit familiar and perhaps when I first joined I did read this. My impression is that this represents a fairly simple statement of mainly Protestant beliefs, and not defining any of the differences that are particular to some of the many branches of Protestantism. I cannot recollect if I had to agree with this statement and have therefore by omission misrepresented my position, but I do not agree with quite a few aspects of this statement. My own definition of the faith of the gospel would be much more detailed, starting with Acts 3:19-21, 8:5,12 and then looking at Acts 2 and many other Scriptures. On the subject of the Trinity, is the Trinity taught in Acts 2? I believe that this chapter should be carefully considered for the correct teaching on a number of subjects. When I joined I had decided to discuss things that were common and I have posted Psalm 1, Psalm 72 threads and discussed prophecy. But when I saw this thread on the Trinity I felt challenged and thought I could clarify some aspects of the Biblical teaching. Perhaps I should have stayed in the neutral subject areas. I appreciate your strong feeling on my position, and yes I have a strong opinion on many of the Scriptures that I have quoted and this opinion has been formed over many years and in discussion with and listening to many people. If I could wind back the clock and be more conscious of what was stated when I joined, and if it said “do you agree with “The Statement of Faith” ”, I would have said “No”. Even if this was only implied then I overlooked these conditions, as I simply attempted to register knowing that most probably there would be a range of opinion, and the mainstream as represented by the Worthy Forum would be normal Protestant view of major subjects. I had only just left a forum with radical views and radical participants, and sighed a breath of relief when I joined this forum. Kwik, you seemed to object at first to my asking “Have you carefully considered John 8:28?” but now you have endorsed what FresnoJoe has responded to on this verse. I suggest that you need to understand the difference between a literal translation and a commentary type or dynamic equivalent translation. The translation given here of John 8:28 is strongly biased towards the Trinitarian view and does not correctly translate the Greek original. Ezra was closer to the mark when he gave “I AM” here, but by using capitals even this is biased to represent that it is a direct quote from Exodus 3:14. “I AM THE LIVING GOD” is simply not there. So Kwik, please be careful in your strong affirmations and become more aware of the whole subject of translations. I agree that Isaiah 6 is a vision of Jesus in glory as John 12 clearly states. I believe that this is a vision of the future when Jesus will be revealed as Yahweh, the name given to him, and he will sit upon his throne as King-Priest on the throne of David in Jerusalem Isaiah 2:1-4. This revealing of Yahweh is stated in: Philippians 2:9-11 (KJV): 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Please note that this is to the glory of God the Father. There is one God the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings kwikphilly, I appreciate your concern but even though I only joined a short time ago (January 13th 2016) I do not remember seeing that a condition of membership on this forum was to agree with the (“our” as you suggest) statement of faith. I have never read that statement of faith. I have not worked out what particular view or denomination Worthy Christian Forum represents and if you could explain this I would appreciate it. I reviewed my profile and I could find no evidence of any condition on that page at least. No I am not a “seeker” in the sense that you suggest, but I do continually seek for the truth of God’s word and seek to modify my understanding and way of life. I am not an unbeliever. Have you carefully considered John 8:28? Kind regards Trevor

Greetings enoob57, I appreciate your response, but you seem to completely dismiss the Scriptures and explanation on the basis of your Trinitarian view of John 17 and Philippians 2. A brief tentative answer, John 17 is speaking of the glory that Jesus had in prospect before the creation and Philippians 2 is speaking of the disposition of mind that Jesus had after his birth as the Son of God. He was like Adam and Eve who were made in the image and likeness of God, the form of God, but unlike them he did not grasp at equality with God. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Ezra, I appreciate your response. It may seem impressive quoting the Greek and giving a literal translation, but you have in effect rejected the KJV translation of John 8:28 “I am he”. Do you really believe that Jesus is claiming to be Deity in John 8:28? 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. He also says that the words that he spoke were only as a result of his being taught by his Father. Again is this saying he is Deity? He needed God the Father to teach him what to say. Jesus is the Son of man and the Son of God as he claims. I believe that Jesus was in the plan and purpose of God before Abraham, in that when God created the world he had Jesus as central to the ultimate completion of his purpose Numbers 14:21, Psalm 8. I apologise for the length of my posts but I consider that it is necessary to clarify this important subject. In the previous Post I considered the various “I am” passages of John’s Gospel. The purpose of that Post was mainly to examine the meaning of the “I AM” passage of John 8:58. Many consider that this passage is quoting and alluding to Exodus 3:14 “I AM THAT I AM”. I also stated that it is my belief that Exodus 3:14 should be translated with the future tense “I will be”. The following is a consideration of Exodus 3:14, not only to determine the meaning of this passage, but also to check if Exodus 3:14 is linked with John 8:58. It is hoped that the following comments will help to explain some of the language of both the OT and NT and the true role of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The Name of God was revealed to Moses in the following terms: Exodus 3:14-15 (KJV): 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. Most translations and commentators accept the present tense “I am that I am”, but notice in the margin of the RV (or ASV) and RSV, an alternative is given “I will be that I will be” or “I will be what I will be”, showing that some modern scholars suggest this alternative reading. Although not popular it appears that this future tense is the correct translation. Not only modern scholars, Tyndale also translated this in the future tense. Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you. The word “ehyeh” is in Exodus 3:14 is the same in the earlier statement in v12, and here the translators give the future tense: Exodus 3:12 (KJV): And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain. Not only does this fix the tense, it also introduces the concept that the Name of God is also associated with some future activity. This future tense and future activity was to be God acting to deliver Israel out of Egypt, so that Israel would become a people for His Name. They would be a living witness to the purpose of God, and a witness to the existence of God. The following passage emphasises this future work in delivering Israel with the future aspect of the Name: Exodus 6:1-8 (KJV): 1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH (or Yahweh) was I not known to them. 4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. 6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, 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: 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 the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD. When Israel was delivered out of Egypt the Name of God remains the same, but the particular activity has been accomplished: Exodus 15:1-3 (KJV): 1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. The future tense of God’s Name “He will be or become” has been accomplished, and Yahweh had become Israel’s salvation. But this was not the ultimate completion of the Yahweh Name. God’s purpose with the earth was not complete with the salvation of Israel out of Egypt. God’s purpose was declared in the following, but sadly this was spoken at a time when the very generation that had been born through God’s deliverance failed. Numbers 14:21 (KJV): But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD. The above raises the question of how and when will the earth be filled with the glory of God. One indication is found when the Psalmist uses the same words as Moses’ Song to speak of another deliverance: Psalm 118:14-25 (KJV): 14 The LORD is my strength and song, and is become my salvation. 15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 16 The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 17 I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD. 18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death. 19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD: 20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter. 21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation. 22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. 23 This is the LORD’S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. 24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. 25 Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity. The above is quoted at length to show that there was to be a greater salvation in fulfillment of the Yahweh Name. It is evident from the context that this salvation is by means of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the man of God’s right hand, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The greater deliverance is revealed even in the conception and birth of the child: Matthew 1:20-21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. The meaning of the name Jesus is revealed: “for he shall save his people from their sins”. Was Jesus to be an independent Saviour? No, the name Jesus incorporates the Yahweh Name, Je-sous, Jo-shua, or Yah-oshea. He was to be Yahweh’s Salvation. Here then is the extension or fulfillment of the Yahweh Name, Yahweh was to be, to become. He was to “become salvation” Exodus 15:2, in and through Jesus, the Son of God. Yahweh is the Saviour, Jesus is the Saviour. In other words Yahweh, God the Father is the Saviour through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Yahweh has become salvation. Salvation is now offered in the Name of Jesus Christ: Acts 4:10-12 (KJV): 10 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 doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Kind regards Trevor

Many Trinitarians claim that when Jesus uses the phrase “I Am” in John 8:58 that he is claiming to be God, and they connect this with Exodus 3:14 where the KJV and many other translations suggest the Name of God is revealed as “I AM”. The following is taking up some of the places in John’s Gospel where the phrase “I am” occurs and testing the Trinitarian claim. I am not sure if I have found every relevant occurrence. We need to determine if Jesus and John are connecting all or some of these with Exodus 3:14. Principally we need to determine if the “I am” of John 8:58 is directly connected with Exodus 3:14 or has some other meaning. John 1:20-23 (KJV): 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am (S# 1510) not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am (S# 1510) not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. 22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. John 3:28 (KJV): Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. The Apostle John records these words of John the Baptist when the representatives of the Jews questioned him. This was not just an idle inquiry, but part of their role to examine if a prophet spoke with Divine authority. They also felt challenged because here was a new prophet who seemed to be working independently of the Scribes and Pharisees and the Sanhedrin Council. Please note the phrases “I am not the Christ” and “I am not” (Elijah). In my opinion, neither of these are connected with Exodus 3:14, but is possibly the start of a theme that John draws attention to by recording various “I am” passages. In other words it is the question of who a person actually is, and it is usually the authorities who want to determine their status. John 4:25-26 (KJV): 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am (S# 1510) he. Here is Jesus confession that He is the Christ, but note this is similar to the language that John the Baptist used. The translators of the KJV have added “he” in italics to connect Jesus’ answer to say that Jesus is here claiming to be the Christ. They are suggesting by this that Jesus is not claiming to be the “I am” of Exodus 3:14, even though the “I am” of John 4:26 is identical to John 8:58 in the original Greek. In other words the phrase “I am” is a simple expression in this context, but seems a bit awkward in English, requiring the addition of he. John 6:20 (KJV): But he saith unto them, It is (S# 1510) I; be not afraid. This is in a different order and I am not familiar enough with Greek to comment except to say that I do not think Jesus is appealing to Exodus 3:14 here. He was comforting them by his words and the familiar tone of his voice. “I am” occurs in John 6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51, :7:28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 8:12, 16, 18, 23, 24, 28, and each of these describe in one way or another who Jesus is, but it is the last two of these, John 8:24,28 that may be connected to John 8:58, as they are in the same context and spoken at the same time. John 8:23-28 (KJV): 23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. Now again the KJV translators have added the “he” in both occurrences, and this gives the impression that they did not believe that Jesus was claiming here a connection with Exodus 3:14. It speaks in the first of his claim to a Divine origin as the Son of God v23, and in the second that he was the Son of Man v28. Rather than having some claim to independent Deity, he rather states his absolute dependence upon God His Father, “I do nothing of myself”. John 8:58 (KJV): Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Despite the context and usage of the phrase in John 8:28, the translators here with exactly the same original words have translated this as “I am” and not “I am he”. They thus leave wide open the suggestion that this connects with Exodus 3:14. In my opinion the same phrase occurring in John 8: v24 and v28 qualifies how we should understand John 8:58, spoken at the same time to the same audience. My conclusion is that when Jesus says “I am” in John 8:58, he is claiming to be the Son of God and the Son of Man. John 9:9 (KJV): Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he. This is the blind man speaking and again the translators have added the he to give the proper sense in the English. This particular usage here for the blind man again demystifies the expression in the Greek “I am” to show that it is not automatically a reference to what at first may seem to be the obscure words of Exodus 3:14. In addition to this it is my belief that Exodus 3:14 should be translated with the future tense “I will be”. Therefore I have serious doubts that Exodus 3:14 is in any real way connected with John 8:58. A true understanding “I will be” from Exodus 3:14 necessitates that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, not God the Son. Kind regards Trevor

There is a range of views amongst Trinitarians, but some feel challenged by the lack of evidence in the OT to support their view. They seek some passage to support their view that “God is a multi-Person God” or some similar expression. Some use Genesis 1:26-27 for this purpose. I would like to briefly comment on this passage in anticipation, and at the same time attempt to clarify the meaning of the word Elohim as used in this passage. Genesis 1:26-27 (KJV): 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Some Trinitarians point to the fact that v26 speaks in the plural, while v27 speaks in the singular. My understanding of this is that God the Father, the Lord of Heaven and Earth, the Creator, invites the participation of the angels in the creation of man after God’s and the angel’s image and likeness. Although the angels participate, v27 says that it is God Himself that has created man, because it is by His wisdom, power and initiative man has been created. We use an expression that a particular architect built an important building, but this in effect summarises the whole process with many designers and detailers and important workers and administrators contributing to the final result. David comments and interprets the creation record in the following, and this shows that the angels were involved in the creation of man. Psalm 8:4-6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: The phrase a little lower than the angels correctly summarises Genesis 1:26. Man was made after the image and likeness of God and the angels, and hence lower than the angels. It will only be after man’s probation and exaltation that man will be made equal to the angels. Jesus on the other hand, although made lower than the angels, has been after his death and resurrection exalted above the angels. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Ezra, There are a number of Trinitarians who quote the KJV of 1 John 5:7 in support of the Trinity, even though it is recognised by most scholars as spurious. The following is the KJV, and in contrast consider the NIV, NASB95, RSV and ASV. Each of these more modern translations simply omit the portion of 1 John 5:7-8 that is often used to support the Trinity. 1 John 5:7-8 (KJV): 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:7-8 (NIV): 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 1 John 5:7-8 (NASB95): 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 1 John 5:7-8 (RSV): 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree. 1 John 5:7-8 (ASV): 7And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. The following are a few of the explanations in readily available commentaries, and even though it is most probable that each of these are written by Trinitarians, they do not support the KJV of 1 John 5:7-8: KJV Bible commentary: The rest of verse 7 and the first nine words of verse 8 are not original, and are not to be considered as a part of the Word of God (refer to the marginal notes in any reference Bible). Believer’s Bible commentary: It always disturbs some devout Christians to learn that parts of verses 7, 8, as found in the KJV and NKJV, are actually found in only a handful of Greek manuscripts of the NT. But this does not at all affect the truth of the inspiration of the Scriptures. Some people think it is important to retain the words because they mention the three Persons of the Trinity. Erasmus added these words to later editions of his Greek NT under pressure from the pope (they occur in the official Roman Catholic Latin Bible, the Vulgate). Only four very late Greek mss. have these words, so it is unsafe to use them. Word Biblical commentary: The earliest of these Gr. witnesses, all of which depend on an earlier Latin tradition, can be dated to the twelfth century. The Old Latin is the only ancient version to include the words, and then with variations between the MSS; but, although the evidence is not entirely clear, the passage seems to be unknown in these texts before the eighth century. It does not appear in Jerome’s definitive edition of the Vg (circa A.D. 404), even if some other MSS of the Vg contain the addition. The earliest extrabiblical writer to show knowledge of the section is the Spanish heretic Priscillian (who died circa A.D. 385), when quoting from this part of John in his Latin “Book of Apology” (Liber Apologeticus). None of the Greek Fathers quotes the words. Despite this slight MSS attestation the inclusion remained in the Vg and also survived in the AV In most modern translations the words have disappeared from the text altogether. The section, which in any case interrupts the thought of the passage, is clearly an interpolation. Presumably it represents an attempt on the part of those who, in the third and fourth centuries, were preoccupied with understanding the doctrine of the Trinity, to explain this text in a trinitarian manner. What may have begun life as a marginal gloss in a Latin MSS then became incorporated in the text, and was eventually translated back into Gr. in some Gr. MSS Adam Clarke’s commentary: But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve. It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin. Barnes’ Notes on the NT: There is no passage of the New Testament which has given rise to so much discussion in regard to its genuineness as this. The supposed importance of the verse in its bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity has contributed to this, and has given to the discussion a degree of consequence which has pertained to the examination of the genuineness of no other passage of the New Testament. On the one hand, the clear testimony which it seems to bear to the doctrine of the Trinity, has made that portion of the Christian church which holds the doctrine reluctant in the highest degree to abandon it; and on the other hand, the same clearness of the testimony to that doctrine, has made those who deny it not less reluctant to admit the genuineness of the passage. It is not consistent with the design of these notes to go into a full investigation of a question of this sort. And all that can be done is to state, in a brief way, the “results” which have been reached, in an examination of the question. Those who are disposed to pursue the investigation further, can find all that is to be said in the works referred to at the bottom of the page. The portion of the passage, in 1 John 5:7-8, whose genuineness is disputed, is included in brackets in the following quotation, as it stands in the common editions of the New Testament: “For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth,) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.” If the disputed passage, therefore, be omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, “For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.” The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following: [Barnes then lists extensive reasons for rejecting what he considers to be a spurious portion. I will not add this to this Post, but his explanations are the most thorough of all the above commentaries]. The following translations could also be added to the list: NEB, ESV, Jerusalem Bible (Catholic), New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic), Rotherham. Kind regards Trevor

The following is a few extracts from a book “History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ" by A Reville, a French Professor of the History of Religion, written in 1904 and translated into English in 1905. I thought this might be of interest showing the development from a belief that Jesus was a man, the Son of God to the belief that Jesus was God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. These extracts also show some of the principal influences that caused this development. There are other more modern resources on this subject, but the following brief survey of some of the trends may be sufficient. Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it. After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says: Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians. Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration. Speaking of the developments in the second century: Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception. Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ. Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosphical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning. Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence. Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days. Page 108-109: … the minds of men … either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism. Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance. Speaking of the Nicene Creed: Page 121: … the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit. Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches. Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea. Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church. The adoption or acceptance of the Nicene Creed was by no means unanimous, and many areas of “Christendom” continued to reject this creed. As well as those that opposed the Nicene Creed there were some faithful individuals who continued also to believe in the Apostolic faith that there is one God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Kind regards Trevor

Many Trinitarians use John 10:30 in support of their beliefs. There is a need to look carefully at what Jesus actually says in v30, and also his explanation and response to the Jews. John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? The first thing to notice is that the same language that is used for the unity between the Father and Jesus is used for the unity between Jesus and the disciples: John 17:17-23 (KJV): 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. This shows that the unity in John 10:30 is not speaking of the Trinity, but that God the Father and Jesus have a unity of purpose and character, and the disciples will share in this unity. Jesus also draws attention to this unity by the works that he had done: John 10:32 (KJV):Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? Jesus does not claim to work these miracles from his own initiative or power, but by means of the power from his Father. So again Jesus is not claiming to be God. Jesus also answers the Jews by speaking concerning the OT usage of the word “God”, “gods”, that is the Hebrew word “Elohim”. Jesus speaks concerning the fact that in the OT the judges were called God or gods. It is interesting to note that the translators had difficulty with the relevant verses where the Judges acted in the role of God (Hebrew Elohim): Exodus 21:6 (KJV): 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Exodus 21:6 (ASV): then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever. Exodus 22:8-9 (KJV): 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. 9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. Exodus 22:8-9 (ASV): 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come near unto God, to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods. 9 For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, whereof one saith, This is it, the cause of both parties shall come before God; he whom God shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbor. The role and responsibility of the judges is indicated in the following: Deuteronomy 1:17 (KJV): Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. 2 Chronicles 19:6 (KJV): And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. So the judges were called God or gods because they were united in administering the work or judgements of God. Jesus was claiming a similar though superior role as The Son of God, by calling and claiming God as His Father. A careful consideration of verses 30 and 36 show that Jesus is not claiming to be God, but the Son of God. John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? He was united with His Father in character and works. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Ezra, I would like to make a further comment on your statement. The usage of Elohim to describe angels and judges should not be ignored or separated from this subject. This usage was designed to help introduce the subject of individuals representing God, and given the title “God” or Elohim, without being God themselves. Without a reasonable understanding of this, then the language of the NT can be confusing and wrong conclusions can be drawn. A key passage that shows the link between the role and status of Jesus and this OT usage is the following. Remarkably v30 is a favourite verse used by Trinitarians, who then totally ignore the answer of Jesus who shows the connection with the OT usage of Elohim: John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? There is one God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Ezra, I have given my explanation of John 1. Genesis 1:1 is speaking of God the Father as the Creator. The plurality for example in Genesis 1:26 is speaking of God the Father and the angels as Psalm 8 testifies. Kind regards Trevor