WESTMINSTER CONFESSION AN EXAMPLE OF TWISTING BY U

[iris89]

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION AN EXAMPLE OF TWISTING BY USE OF HERMENEUTIC METHODOLOGY TO BACK UP A MYTH/FALSE DOCTRINE:

<INTRODUCTION>

The Westminster Confession of faith was written by one Cornelius Burges, Assessor to the Westminster Assembly, in 1646. He was a very skilled individual with respect twisting the scriptures and chose hermeneutic methodology over 'Sola Scriptura' methodology as hermeneutic methodology was well suited for twisting the scripture to eloquently make it appear that the Word of God supported what ever you wanted it to; whereas, this could NOT be done with 'Sola Scripture' methodology unless it was greatly distorted and no longer true 'Sola Scriptura' methodology.

In Section 2 of the Westminister Confession of faith dealing with the Trinity myth which he supported, he did a masterpiece of deception in obfuscating the Word of God to make it appear that it backed his favorite myth/false doctrine of the Trinity which of course it does not. In fact, nowhere does the word Trinity even appear in the Bible, as was noted by the International Encyclopedia of the Bible (*1). He carefully crafted his deception in three parts, the first, 'There is but one only living, and true God:' is true and designed to throw one off guard to the deception to follow in the last part of Section 2, clever as is the deception of any con man. The second part, 'God hath all life,(a) glory,(b) goodness,© blessedness,(d) in and of Himself;' is likewise basically true, but with some very subtle deception or twisting in it designed to develop the readers confidence so the reader will gulp down the God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine and myth of the third part as Truth which of course it is anything but.

<FIRST AND SECOND PART OF A CLEVER DECEPTION>

I. There is but one only,(a) living, and true God:(b) who is infinite in being and perfection,© a most pure spirit,(d) invisible,(e) without body, parts,(f) or passions,(g) immutable,(h) immense,(i) eternal,(k) incomprehensible,(l) almighty,(m) most wise,(n) most holy,(o) most free,(p) most absolute,(q) working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,® for His own glory;(s) most loving,(t) gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;(u) the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;(w) and withal, most just and terrible in His judgments,(x) hating all sin,(y) and who will by no means clear the guilty.(z)

(a) Deut. 6:4; I Cor. 8:4, 6.
(b) I Thess. 1:9; Jer. 10:10.
© Job 11:7, 8, 9; Job 26:14.
(d) John 4:24.
(e) I Tim. 1:17.
(f) Deut. 4:15, 16; John 4:24, with Luke 24:39.
(g) Acts 14:11, 15.
(h) James 1:17; Mal. 3:6.
(i) I Kings 8:27; Jer. 23:23, 24.
(k) Ps. 90:2; I Tim. 1:17.
(l) Ps. 145:3.
(m) Gen. 17:1; Rev. 4:8.
(n) Rom. 16:27.
(o) Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8.
(p) Ps. 115:3.
(q) Exod. 3:14.
® Eph. 1:11.
(s) Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36.
(t) I John 4:8, 16.
(u) Exod. 34:6, 7.
(w) Heb. 11:6.
(x) Neh. 9:32, 33.
(y) Ps. 5:5, 6.
(z) Nah. 1:2, 3; Exod. 34:7.

II. God hath all life,(a) glory,(b) goodness,© blessedness,(d) in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made,(e) nor deriving any glory from them,(f) but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them: He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;(g) and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth.(h) In His sight all things are open and manifest;(i) His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,(k) so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.(l) He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.(m) To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.(n)

(a) John 5:26.
(b) Acts 7:2.
© Ps. 119:68.
(d) I Tim. 6:15; Rom. 9:5.
(e) Acts 17:24, 25.
(f) Job 22:2, 3.
(g) Rom 11:36.
(h) Rev. 4:11; I Tim. 6:15; Dan. 4:25, 35.
(i) Heb. 4:13.
(k) Rom. 11:33, 34; Ps. 147:5.
(l) Acts 15:18; Ezek. 11:5.
(m) Ps. 145:17; Rom. 7:12.
(n) Rev. 5:12, 13, 14.

Please note his reference to scripture in both part 1 and 2 designed to gain the readers confidence who does not realize the difference between hermeneutic methodology which is usually used to twist and true 'Sola Scriptura' methodology which is designed to bring out Bible Truths or to let the Bible interpret itself per 2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.," (Authorized King James Bible; AV). Also, please bear in mind the following two scriptures from the Old Testament when we next discuss Section 3 and think why they show this whole section is error. These scriptures are:

Psalm 80:17 "Let thy hand be upon the MAN of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself." (AV).

In Colossians 3:1 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." (AV).

Now just thing, If Jesus Christ sits on the right hand of God, then he must be the MAN mentioned in Psalm 80:17. And if Jesus Christ is the MAN that sits on the right hand of God...., obviously Cornelius Burges, Assessor to the Westminster Assembly, is a deceptive twister and all he says is to be rejected as the God (YHWH) dishonoring teaching of mankind warned against at Titus 1:10-11, "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." (AV); remember many false prophets like Cornelius Burgess, per 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (AV).

<SECTION THREE, THE GREAT DECEPTION>

Section three shall be covered by first presenting exactly what the deceiver Cornelius Burgess wrote, and the scriptures he used in a hermeneutics methodology way of deceiving to seemingly back up the false doctrine and myth he was presenting. Then, each scripture he used in his deception will be commented on individually to show its true Biblical significance as the Word of God so all will be able to understand how Cornelius Burgess was being deceitful and twisting the Word of God.

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.(o) The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father:(p) the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.(q)

(o) I John 5:7; Matt. 3:16, 17; Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14.
(p) John 1:14, 18.
(q) John 15:26; Gal. 4:6.

Now we shall deal with each scripture individually by section:

<<Sub Section 'O' Commentaries on the Scriptures>>

The first scripture, the deceiver Cornelius Burgess used was an added to scripture of 1 John 5:7 as contained in the Authorized King James Bible which is the most well known intentional distortion of scripture in the entire Bible, what lack of integrity and honesty:

Commentary on 1 John 5:7:

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (Authorized King James: AV)

1 John 5:7 "And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible)

1 John 5:7 " For there are three that testify:" (New American Standard Bible: NASB)

1 John 5:7 "There are three that testify:" (New Revised Standard Version; NRSV)

1 John 5:7 "quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant (The Latin Vulgate)

As one can clearly see these three scriptures all of 1 John 5:7, are quite different, now why is this? Let's find out!

Many say 1 John 5:7 is the center masterpiece for the concept of the Trinity, i.e., the center or sustaining gem so to speak of this doctrine. One such follows:

This is the only passage in the whole Bible that gives any color to the trinity or "oneness" doctrines. It is the central crystal of the Christian faith upon which we hold the blessed trinity to be ever eternal self-evident to all. [Catholic pamphlet from 1903]

Now for this to be true, the Authorized King James and the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible versions would of necessity have to be true and the New American Standard Bible rendering false; but then Jerome's original Latin Vulgate had a rendering more in line with the New American Standard Bible (NASB) so there is cast the question of why the earliest Catholic bible was quite different from the present.

Really one or the other would have to be an intentional corruption of scripture in violation of Revelation 22:18, "It testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book;" (NASB)

Clearly someone has added to one of these two renderings of 1 John 5:7 since this is clearly NOT a difference resulting from differs in translation. Now which has been added to in violation of God's (YHWH's) commandment as recorded by his Apostle John?

Well let's see what the Moody Bible Institute has to say on this in one of their publications. "The text of this verse should read, 'Because there are three that bear record.' The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the Trinitarian addition before the fourteenth century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the Trinity in the first 450 years of the church era." [The Wycliffe Bible Commentary," edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer (OT) and Earett F. Harrison (NT), by Moody Press, Chicago, a division of Moody Bible Institute, ISBN: 0-8024-9695-4, Library of Congress Catalogue Card #: 62-20893, page 1477].

Quite an admission from an institute that is pro-Trinitarian; therefore, the New American Standard Bible is correct and the Authorized King James and the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible are in gross error here with respect to this addition made in violation of the command of Revelation 18:22. My what a surprise. In fact this corruption, "and these three are one" was added by a monk, and is so well knows, as previously mentioned, as a corrupt and spurious verse addition that it even has its own name, Comma Johanna (in Greek, Comma Ioanneum), can you imagine that?

In fact this corruption of scripture does not appear in any manuscript in or out of the New Testament earlier than the 13 th. Century. It occurs in NO ancient Gree, manuscript, nor in the writings of any Greek Christian writers. "It is universally discredited by Greek scholars and editors of the Greek text of the New Testament." ["The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament," by Edgar J. Goodspeed - Chicago 1943, page 557].

Strange, all good Bible scholars recognize this as spurious including Catholic scholars, but, "....most Catholic writers of the present day agree the words were not contained in the original test; at the same time, until further action be taken by the Holy See it is not open to Catholic editors to eliminate the words from a version made for use of the faithful." [The Westminister Version of the Sacred Scriptures," Cutbert Lattey, S.J., and Joseph Keating, S.J., general editors, Vol. IV, pages 145 and 146, London 1931]. Now really why is this, obviously they do NOT want the 'faithful' to know they have NOT been told the truth and that their false Trinity doctrine does not 'hold water.'

Most modern Bibles have eliminated this spurious addition done against the command found at Revelations 22:18: see the following:

For there are three that testify: (New American Standard Bible: NASB)

There are three that testify: (New Revised Standard Version: NRSV)

And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. (The Revised Standard Version; RSV)

There are three witnesses: (The Good News Translation)

So there are three witnesses that tell us about Jesus: (New Century Version)

It is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. (World English Version)

For they that bear witness are three. (The Darby Translation)

For there are three that testify: (Holman Standard Christian Translation)

For there are three that give testimony-- the Spirit, the water, and the blood; (Weymouth Translation)

For there are three that testify: (New International Version)

Now really, how can anyone in all honesty believe a false doctrine whose principle support has been text that is spurious or test that can be translated at least nine (9) different ways without violating the grammatical rules of Koine Greek as can John 1:1? Especially so when the common rendering is shown to be out of context by John 1:2 and John 1:14 right after it.

Obviously thinking individuals should recognize the nonsense doctrine of the three-in-one god as spurious God (YHWH) dishonoring doctrine of men and NOT from God (YHWH).

<<<APPENDIX TO COMMENTARY ON 1 JOHN 5:7>>>:

(1) The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.
"5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement." --NET Bible

Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma, the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ pathvr, oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'" e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ marturou'nte" ejn th'/ gh'/ ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence-both external and internal-is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.1

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3 Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text,4 as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.

Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings-even in places where the TR/Byzantine manuscripts lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text. Further, it puts these Protestant proponents in the awkward and self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as inspired as the apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings-due either to carelessness or lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek).
In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. To argue that the Comma must be authentic is Bultmannian in its method, for it ignores history at every level. As such, it has very little to do with biblical Christianity, for a biblical faith is one that is rooted in history.

Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

Unfortunately, for many, the Comma and other similar passages have become such emotional baggage that is dragged around whenever the Bible is read that a knee-jerk reaction and ad hominem argumentation becomes the first and only way that they can process this issue. Sadly, neither empirical evidence nor reason can dissuade them from their views. The irony is that their very clinging to tradition at all costs (namely, of an outmoded translation which, though a literary monument in its day, is now like a Model T on the Autobahn) emulates Roman Catholicism in its regard for tradition.5 If the King James translators knew that this would be the result nearly four hundred years after the completion of their work, they'd be writhing in their graves.

1 For a detailed discussion, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., 647-49.
2 Not only the ancient orthodox writers, but also modern orthodox scholars would of course be delighted if this reading were the original one. But the fact is that the evidence simply does not support the Trinitarian formula here-and these orthodox scholars just happen to hold to the reasonable position that it is essential to affirm what the Bible affirms where it affirms it, rather than create such affirmations ex nihilo. That KJV advocates have charged modern translations with heresy because they lack the Comma is a house of cards, for the same translators who have worked on the NIV, NASB, or NET (as well as many other translations) have written several articles and books affirming the Trinity.
3 This manuscript which contains the entire New Testament is now housed in Dublin. It has been examined so often at this one place that the book now reportedly falls open naturally to 1 John 5.
4 That Erasmus made such a protest or that he had explicitly promised to include the Comma is an overstatement of the evidence, though the converse of this can be said to be true: Erasmus refused to put this in his without Greek manuscript support.
5 Thus, TR-KJV advocates subconsciously embrace two diametrically opposed traditions: when it comes to the first 1500 years of church history, they hold to a Bultmannian kind of Christianity (viz., the basis for their belief in the superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts-and in particular, the half dozen that stand behind the TR-has very little empirical substance of historical worth). Once such readings became a part of tradition, however, by way of the TR, the argument shifts to one of tradition rather than non-empirical fideism. Neither basis, of course, resembles Protestantism

See Part 2:

[iris89]

Part 2 - Westminister:

Commentary on Matthew 3:13-17 all 'Sola Scriptura,' covering Matthew 3:16-17 and more.

Matthew 3:13-17 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John would have hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 But Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffereth him. 16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; 17 and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. [American Standard Version; ASV]

Clearly this scripture shows that Jesus' (Yeshua's) Father, Almighty God (YHWH) approved of his Son, and sent his spirit, the Spirit of God. This was also testified to at Acts 10:38, "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." (Authorized King James Bible; AV); And at Luke 9:34-35, "And there came a voice out of the cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud. 35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." (AV); And at Matthew 17:5, "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." (AV). In fact, John the Baptist said as recorded at John 1:32, "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the holy Ghost." (AV). Clearly these scriptures show two separate individuals or beings, a superior one, Almighty God (YHWH), and a subordinate one, his Son, Jesus (Yeshua).

Now what is this Spirit or Holy Spirit that John the Baptist mentioned? The Holy Spirit is only God's (YHWH's) active force and not even a spirit being or person. This is clearly shown at Pentecost where the Holy Spirit was poured out onto all there, Acts 2:1-4, "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (AV). This entire scripture bespeaks of a force and not a being as you do not get filled with a being! And this fact is reaffirmed at Acts 4:31, ""And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spoke the word of God with boldness." (AV); And 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, "Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; 22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (AV), surely a being would not be in our hearts as that is ludicrous, thus this scripture talks of God's (YHWH's) active force; This is clearly shown at Luke 11:13, "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (AV). Once more, why? Why? Do many say they are coequal and coeternal when clearly they are not and the Holy Ghost is just God's (YHWH's) active force? Only to try to give some resemblance of reality to a myth as we shall later see. An interesting note on the Spirit is that the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used, the neuter pronoun "it" is properly employed. This fact is conveniently over looked or hidden by most Trinitarian translators as admitted in the "New American Bible Catholic Bible," regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa·ra'kle·tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine.

Jesus' (Yeshua's) coming and his anointing by his Father (YHWH) was foretold in advance at Isaiah 42:1 where God (YHWH) called his Son his servant, "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." (AV); And Matthew 12:18 foretells the fulfillment, "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles." (AV). Likewise, this is testified to at Isaiah 11:2, "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;" (AV). In fact, Jesus (Yeshua) prayed to his Father (YHWH) just before his execution, saying at John 12:28, "Father, glorify thy name, Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." (AV).

Yet there are those misguided ones that accept the false God (YHWH) dishonoring doctrine of the Trinity that claim the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) are coequal which clearly when one prays to the other, this claim can NOT be true. In fact, the doctrine of The Trinity defies the universally accepted and historically always held meaning of the words for father and son. Not only does it defy the meaning of these words, it destroys their meaning! This fact is important to realize for God gave us language. It was not invented by man as the evolutionist tries to say. Thus, we are not destroying man made terms, but God-given terms! One well known document, The Westminister Confession, even goes so far as to state, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity." But we have seen this is impossible if the Bible is true. At John 14:28, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (AV); thus, clearly no coequality as required by the Godhead theory of this document as clearly earlier shown. The Spirit is not even a being, but God's (YHWH's) active force.

Commentary on 2 Corinthians 13:13-14 all 'Sola Scriptura,' covering 2 Corinthians 13:14 and more:

2 Corinthians 13:13-14 All the saints salute you. 14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. (American Standard Version; ASV)

Here the Apostle Paul expresses the hope that the grace of the Lord, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, and of love of his Father, God (YHWH), and the spirit or power of God (YHWH) shall be on all true Christians. And the Apostle John follows through with this thought at John 14:26, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (Authorized King James Bible; AV). Of this Holy Spirit or Ghost, Jesus (Yeshua) spoke of the holy spirit as a "helper," and he said it would teach, guide, and speak as recorded at John 14:16-17, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (AV). And this same thought is carried at John 16:13, ""Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." (AV). The Greek word he used for helper (pa·ra'kle·tos) is in the masculine gender. Thus, when Jesus referred to what the helper would do, he used masculine personal pronouns as shown at John 16:7- 8, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." (AV). On the other hand, when the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used, the neuter pronoun "it" is properly employed. This fact is conveniently over looked or hidden by most Trinitarian translators as admitted in the "New American Bible Catholic Bible," regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa·ra'kle·tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine.

This scripture, 2 Corinthians 13:13-14 previously quoted, brings up the need for unity among all true Christians as do the scriptures immediately prior to it, 2 Corinthians 13:11-12, "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfected; be comforted; be of the same mind; live in peace: and the God of love and peace shall be with you. 12 Salute one another with a holy kiss." (ASV), and this need is further testified to at Ephesians 4:13, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:" (AV). We need to per Ephesians 4:21-22, "If indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, 22 that in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit," (New American Standard Bible, Ref. Ed., by Moody Press; NASB-MP), this scripture clearly showing the need to make over our personality unto the new personality acceptable to Jesus (Yeshua) Christ as testified to at Ephesians 4:23, "And be renewed tn the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." (NASB-MP). This is necessary as there is only one Almighty God (YHWH) as testified to at Ephesians 4:6, "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (AV). For a certainty each of us, if we accept, is, Ephesians 4:7, "But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ." (AV).

Clearly since there is but one Almighty God (YHWH) There can be no Trinity which is a myth requiring a 'Godhead' of three equal beings, coeternal and coequal as affirmed in the Westminister Confession, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity." But as we have seen, no such relationship exist between Almighty God (YHWH), the superior one; his son, the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) of which the Bible testifies at 1 Corinthians 11:3, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." )AV) clearly showing God (YHWH) is the head of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ; thus proving they are not coequal. Likewise Revelations 3:14 clearly shows they are not coeternal, "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" which shows him as the first of God's (YHWH's) creation. In fact, when Jesus (Yeshua) was ascending to be with his Father in heaven, he prayed, as recorded in John 17:5, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (AV). Showing he was returning to where he had been before with his Father (YHWH), see John 6:62, "What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before?" (NASB-MP). Once returned to heaven, God's (YHWH's) Son, Jesus (Yeshua) is, 1 Peter 3:22, "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him" (AV).

<<Sub Section 'P' Commentaries on the Scriptures>>

Commentary on John 1:14 all 'Sola Scriptura.'

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. (American Standard Version; ASV)

This scripture emphasis that Jesus (Yeshua) was sent to the earth to dwell among us as testified to at 1 John 4:9, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." (AV); And 1 John 4:14, "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." (AV), clearly Jesus' (Yeshua's) Father (YHWH) sent him showing he was superior and not coequal with His Son; And Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (AV). In fact, the scriptures clearly show that all true Christians must confess Jesus (Yeshua) has come in the flesh as testified to at 1 John 4:2, "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." (AV); whereas, 2 John 7 states shows many deceiver would come, "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (AV).

Clearly the only way to God (YHWH) is through his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) whom he has appointed as, 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (AV); and this is made even clearer by Jesus (Yeshua) at John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (AV). God (YHWH) has given his Son Jesus (Yeshua) an assignment and given him power over everything except himself to carry it out as testified to at 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (AV), testifies that God (YHWH) had given his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) over all except himself when the scripture says "it is manifest that he is excepted."

Jesus (Yeshua) actually prayed to his Father (YHWH) just before being put to death as a human to give him back the glory he previously had with his Father (YHWH) in heaven as recorded at John 17:5- "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept my word. 7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." (AV). Unmistakably Jesus (Yeshua) acknowledges in his prayer that his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) had given him everything and was his superior when he stated, "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." Therefore, we see that the Trinity is but a myth as the reality is that Jesus (Yeshua) is NOT coequal with his Father (YHWH), but that his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) is the Supreme one.

Commentary on John 1:18 all 'Sola Scriptura.'

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (American Standard Version, ASV)

Now this scripture seem straight forward and it is, but some translations did a poor job of translating it. Let's look at how the New International Version (NIV) translates this, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.' Would appear to show Jesus (Yeshua) as the One and Only, but this is just an error in translation in the NIV as shown by both the Authorized King James (AV) which renders it, ""No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." And the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible renders it, "No one has at any time seen God. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him." Now some may ask, how do you determine for sure which way of translating is correct. You do this quite simply by investigation the scripture from the Old Testament actually being quoted here by the Apostle John for the first part of this scripture which is Exodus 33:20, "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." (Authorized King James Bible; AV); And compare with similar scriptures in the New Testament such as John 6:46, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." (AV). Then you check the Old Testament scripture from which the Apostle John took the second part, Proverbs 8:30, where Jesus (Yeshua) while in heaven was speaking, "Then I was by him, as one brought up with him; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him," (AV). And cross reference this in the New Testament to John 13:23, "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." (AV).

Now of course, people have seen Jesus (Yeshua). The Apostle John, who wrote John 1:18, saw Jesus. He even said four verses earlier that Jesus (God
according to Trinitarians) had become flesh, John 1:14, "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." Yet no one has seen God. If John were trying to say in John 1:1 that Jesus (Yeshua) was God (YHWH) and then a few verses later say no one has seen God (YHWH), would he not need to put some type of qualifying statement explaining how this can be? Or are we to assume his readers had a firm grasp of the Duality or Trinity and needed no explanation of this paradox? While some Bibles say "only-begotten son" the oldest manuscripts say "only-begotten god". Most Bible do not want to translate it literally that way since this would imply Jesus (Yeshua) was made a god by God (YHWH). So the New International Version (NIV) reads as I quoted above "God the One and Only". However, the footnote to the NIV reads "or the Only-Begotten". It is proper that the NIV placed that footnote in its Bible translation because we are inclined to ask, "the One and Only what?" In what way is the Son the 'One and Only God' that the Father (YHWH)is not? John said that Jesus (Yeshua) was with God (YHWH) and yet was a god and Jesus (Yeshua) was the only begotten son of God (YHWH), the context supports a literal translation of John 1:18. Jesus (Yeshua) was the "only-begotten god". That is, God Almighty created Jesus and put him in the position o***od or mighty spirit person whom He used to create the rest of the universe.

While it is true that angels and men can be referred to as "gods", they were not begotten directly by Almighty God.

Interestingly the NIV says, John 6:27, "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." (NIV). It is obvious that there are two individuals here: the Son of Man (Yeshua) and God the Father (YHWH). Two separate and distinct persons. Also notice that the Father (YHWH) places his "seal of approval" on the Son. But nowhere in the Bible is there a Scripture where the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) places approval on the Father (YHWH). This shows or indicates that the Father is in the superior position and the Son is in the inferior position, i.e., they are NOT COEQUAL.

The NIV reaffirms this fact, they are NOT COEQUAL at 1 Peter 1:1-2, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance." (NIV). Once more we see two separate and distinct beings here: God the Father (YHWH) and Jesus (Yeshua) Christ.

Now some will say that Jesus (Yeshua) and His Father (YHWH) are one-and-the-same based on the usual out of context rendering of John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Well, try to keep the mental context of who Jesus was to the people who lived and studied about him when the Bible text was written. Apart from this verse, there is no indicator that anyone thought that Jesus (Yeshua)was God (YHWH). This is made clear by John 1:2, which shows, "The same was in the beginning with God." (AV); And John 1:10, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." (AV); Last consider John 1:14, previously quoted, and it is quite clear that they are NOT the same individual. But two distinct individuals. Note, some Bibles correctly render this as either as "the Word was a god," or "the Word was Divine." Both of these are in harmony with the remaining scriptures in John the first chapter.

The fact is that no Apostle nor any other writer of the Bible ever came out and stated that "there is One God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost". No example of the thousands of occurrences of YHWH and God in the original manuscripts can be shown to mean 'God in three Persons' as some falsely claim. In fact neither the word Duality nor Trinity appear nowhere in the scriptures. So be ye not mislead into believing the doctrines of men, but remember John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (AV).

See Part 3:

[iris89]

Part 3 - Westminster


<<Sub Section 'Q' Commentaries on the Scriptures>>

Commentary on John 15:26 all 'Sola Scriptura."

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me: (American Standard Version; ASV)

This scripture clearly shows that the Spirit comes from the Father (YHWH), but we need to ask just what is this spirit, and to look at the scriptures immediately proceeding John 15:26. Let's now look at these scriptures. John 15:18-25, "If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated me before [it hated] you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But [this cometh to pass], that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause." (ASV). Here Jesus (Yeshua) clearly testified that he had been sent, i.e., by a superior one, "they know not him that sent me," and this is reinforced when he said, "He that hateth me hateth my Father also." So Jesus (Yeshua) had been sent by his Father (YHWH) to do his Father's (YHWH's) will, and clearly testified at John 5:19, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (AV); therefore we see that Jesus (Yeshua) was doing the will of his Father (YHWH).

Now let's consider the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, that Jesus (Yeshua) would send to true Christians from his Father (YHWH). What exactly is it? This Spirit or Comforter is God's (YHWH's) active force that goes forth or emanates from Almighty God (YHWH). One of its functions is to act as a Comforter to mankind, see John 14:26, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (AV); And this is reaffirmed at John 14:16-17, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (AV).

In summary, It is the Creator's (YHWH's) force for getting things accomplished, 1 Corinthians 2:10, " And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:" (Ephesians 6:17; AV), " But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." (AV). This is made even clearer as the Bible shows that God (YHWH) pours out his active force onto his followers, Joel 2:28-29, "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit." (AV), and also caused inspired individuals to, 2 Peter 1:21, " For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (AV). Clearly then the Trinity is just a myth as defined as follows in the Westminister Confession, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity;" since Jesus (Yeshua) is NOT COEQUAL with his Father, Almighty God (YHWH), NOR is the Holy Spirit, since this is not an individual, but clearly the power and/or force of God (YHWH). Note, in ancient Koine Greek, the Spirit is always grammatically of the neutral gender, the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used, the neuter pronoun "it" is properly employed. This fact is conveniently over looked or hidden by most Trinitarian translators as admitted in the "New American Bible Catholic Bible," regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa·ra'kle·tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine. It is now clear beyond question that the Trinity is just false doctrine warned against at Titus 2:1, ""But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" (AV); this means we must reject myths being put forth as doctrine.

Commentary on Galatians 4:6 all 'Sola Scriptura."

Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (American Standard Version; ASV)

Let's first look at the scriptures immediately proceeding this to gain an understanding of the contest of this scripture, Galatians 4:1-5, "But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant though he is lord of all; 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the day appointed of the father. 3 So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world: 4 but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (ASV). Here is shown God's (YHWH's) purpose for sending his only begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to the earth and this is clarified at Romans 5:12, "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (The Kingdom Interlinear Lexicon). So he was sent by his Father (YHWH) to redeem mankind of inherited sin, 1 John 4:14, "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." (Authorized King James Bible, AV); Thus clearly showing his Father (YHWH), as the superior one, sent his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to the world clearly showing a superior subordinate relationship and not one of coequality.

Now let's look at the scriptures immediately after this to gain an even better understanding of the contest of Galatians 4:6, see Galatians 4:7-11, "So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. Howbeit at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them that by nature are no gods: 9 but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain." (ASV). So God (YHWH) sent his Spirit, Romans 8:16, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (AV); And this Spirit of God (YHWH), 1 John 3:24, "And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." (AV); And the drelling of his active force or spirit in us is affirmed at 1 John 4:13, "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (AV). And 1 John 3:230-24 shows, "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another as he gave us commandment. 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the spirit which he hath given." (AV).

Now exactly what is the Spirit of God (YHWH) which is also called the Comforter? It is God's (YHWH's)active force or power that he uses to accomplish his will as shown by John 14:26, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (AV); And this is reaffirmed at John 14:16-17, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (AV). And Romans 5:5 shows God (YHWH) gives true Christians a part of his power or holy spirit, "And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." (Authorized King James Bible;" (AV); and this is reaffirmed at Mark 14:33-36, "And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. 35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt." (AV). Here Jesus was praying to his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) and acknowledging him as the superior one contrary to the untruths put forth by man such as in the Westminister Confession which clearly contradicts the Word of God by stating of one substance and power; whereas, God (YHWH) has been shown by the scriptures to be the superior one that even his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) prays to. It is time for all to disgard myths such as the Trinity put forth as supposed truth by misguided documents such as the Westminster Confession which are the product of hermeneutic methodology used by those who seek to hide the truth of the scriptures instead of letting the scriptures speak for themselves as they do in true 'Sola Scripture' comments on the Word of God; This per 2 Peter 1:20, "This, then, you must understand first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation." (The Confraternity Edition of The New Testament by John C. Winston Co. -Catholic).

<CONCLUSION>

Unfortunately, the clever deceiver and twister of the scripture who was one of the best masters with respect using hermeneutic methodology to deceive unwary ones into false doctrine and mythology, Cornelius Burges, Assessor to the Westminster Assembly, was only one of many; but more polished in the art of deception than most.

As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions evoked by the Church's expansion. (*2)


The most famous of these Apologists was Justin Martyr (c.107-166 AD). He was born a pagan, became a pagan philosopher, then a Christian. He believed that Christianity and Greek Philosophy were related. According to McGiffert, "Justin insisted that Christ came from God; he did not identify him with God. . . [He] conceiv[ed] of God as a transcendent being, who could not possibly come into contact with the world of men and things." (*2).

An exhaustive review of Scripture and history reveals the simple fact that the Trinity teaching was unknown to the early New Testament Christians. That the doctrine of the Trinity is a "borrowed doctrine" and foreign to the Scriptures is supported by many authorities. Under the article Trinity we read, "The term 'Trinity' is not a biblical term...In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine...As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason" (*1).

The moral of this discourse is accept the Word of God, reject the clever twisting of the Word of God by deceitful men in keeping with Titus 2:1, ", "But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" (AV); this means we must reject myths being put forth as doctrine as does the Westminister Confession and similar deceptive documents by others.

See Appendix:
REFERENCES AND APPENDIX TO WESTMINSTER CONFESSION AN EXAMPLE OF TWISTING BY HERMENEUTIC METHODOLOGY:

REFERENCES:

*1 the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, volume 4, page 3012-3014, "The term 'Trinity' is not a Biblical term and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture.
"...the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated doctrine, but in fragmentary allusions.
"The doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason.
"Triads of divinities, no doubt, occur in nearly all polytheistic religions, formed under very various influences. Sometimes, as in the Egyptian triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus, it is the analogy of the human family with its father, mother and son which lies at their basis. Sometimes they are the effect of mere syncretism, three deities worshipped in different localities being brought together in the common worship of all.
"Sometimes they are the result apparently of nothing more than odd human tendency to think in threes, which has given the number three wide-spread standing as a sacred number.
"It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
"As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His Trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him. Many attempts have, nevertheless, been made to construct a rational proof of the Trinity of the Godhead.
"Certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament. It is a plain matter of fact that none who have depended on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever attained to the doctrine of the Trinity.
"It would seem clear that we must recognize in the Old Testament doctrine of the relation of God to His revelation by the creative Word and the Spirit, at least the germ of the distinctions in the Godhead afterward fully made known in the Christian revelation."
*2 - Pelikan, Jaroslav. "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition" (100-600). Chicago: U of Chicago P. 1971. Vol. 1 of "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine." 5 vols.
APPENDIX:

(1) Jamieson, Fausett and Brown, volume 6, page 643, regarding I John 5:7
"The only Greek manuscripts, in any form which support the words 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth...' are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the 15th century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All old versions omit the words."
(2) Sacred Origins of Profound Things, by Charles Panati, pages 302-306
"Among the three great monotheistic religions, only Christianity embraces the Trinitarian Creed: the coexistence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in a single Godhead, distinctly different, yet one and the same."
"One might ask - as Jews and Muslims repeatedly have - isn't it cheating for a religion to be monotheistic if it recognizes three distinctly different Gods? Three Gods; three different names; three different functions: the Creator, the Redeemer, the Sanctifier. Should, Muslims suggested, this not be called 'tritheism'?
"Significantly, the Christian books of the Bible - the Gospels, Acts, Epistles (or letters), Revelation, and the Apocrypha ('things that are hidden') - make no explicit reference to a three-fold Godhead.
"Nor did Jesus, a Jew, perhaps with rabbinic training, violate the Judaic motto - 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' - in his teachings.
"God the Father does mention God the Son in the New Testament, and the Son in turn mentions the Father and the Holy Spirit. The outline of a trinity is there, but it is never clearly delineated
"Early in the fourth century, the Trinitarian controversy heated to the high point of heresy, pitting two theologians, Athanasius and Arius, against each other and drawing concern from the Roman emperor Constantine himself who had warmed up to Christianity and would eventually convert.
"Today, Arius' name is a byword for heresy: the Arian Heresy.
"Back in 320, Arius, who knew Scripture inside and out - and was a skilled propagandist and musician - insisted that Christ, the Word, Logos could only be a creature like ourselves, created by God. When he put his ideas to music and sang songs of Christ's second-rank status to God, thousands of ordinary Christians, once content in their monotheism, became aware of the passionate debate raging among became aware of the passionate debate raging among bishops.
"Christian bishops gathered at Nicaea on May 20, 325, convening the Council of Nicaea, which, after much acrimonious contention, decided upon the crucial formula for the Trinitarian doctrine, setting it forth in a credo, the Nicaean Creed. The Son, it declared, is 'of the same essence as the Father.' The creed said troublingly little about the Holy Spirit.
"In fact, the entire lengthy creed, as first written, wrestles with logic and common sense to equate Father and Son, giving nod to the Holy Spirit only in the last passing line: 'And we believe in the Holy Ghost.'
"The controversy raged on for some years. Later the Nicaean Creed was revised under the leadership of Basil, bishop of Caesarea. It was altered to end 'We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father'.
"Thus, the concept of the Trinity did not take its present form until some 400 years after Christ's death."
(3) Peakes Commentary on the Bible, page 1038
"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in the RSV, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the Logos and the Holy Spirit, but it is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek manuscript contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the New Testament of Erasmus."

See Part 4:

[iris89]

Part 4 - Westminster


(4) The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M Metzger and Michael D Coogan, page 782
"Trinity: Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.
"Later believers systematized the diverse references to God, Jesus and the Spirit found in the New Testament in order to fight against heretical tendencies of how the three are related. Elaboration on the concept of a Trinity also serves to defend the church against charges of di- or tritheism. Since the Christians have come to worship Jesus as god (Pliny, Epistles 96.7), how can they claim to be continuing the monotheistic tradition of the God of Israel? Various answers are suggested, debated, and rejected as heretical, but the idea of a Trinity - one God subsisting in three persons and one substance - ultimately prevails.
"While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do.
"The earliest New Testament evidence for a tripartite formula comes in 2 Corinthians 13:14, where Paul wishes that 'the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit' be with the people of Corinth. It is possible that this three-part formula derives from later liturgical usage and was added to the text of 2 Corinthians as it was copied. In support of the authenticity of the passage, however, it must be said that the phrasing is much closer to Paul's understandings of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit than to a more fully developed concept of the Trinity. Jesus, referred to not as Son, but as Lord and Christ, is mentioned first and is connected with the central Pauline theme of grace. God is referred to as a source of love, not as father, and the Spirit promotes sharing within the community. The word 'holy' does not appear before 'spirit' in the earliest manuscript evidence for this passage."
(5) The Lion Encyclopedia of the Bible, page 158
"Trinity - this word is not used in the Bible. It is the name given to the statements about God in the creeds drawn up in the early centuries of the church to explain what is meant by saying that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament as a whole. From earliest times it was stated at every Christian baptism.
"The Jewish teaching was that there is only one God. No one and nothing must compromise that belief. Yet the New Testament writers clearly show God as the Father who created and sustained everything in his love and power, as the Son who came into this world, and as the Spirit who worked in their own lives.
"After the end of the New Testament period the church found it necessary to work out carefully worded statements about three persons in one God, in order to uphold the truth of the New Testament against false beliefs."
(6) Francis David's Tower, Strength through Peace, by Todd F. Eklof (06-16-02)
Yet his extraordinary life becomes even more meaningful if we find in it relevance for the circumstances of our own day. As we shall see, Francis David, the 16th Century son of a Saxon shoemaker, helped lay the foundation for a new sort of tower that may at last provide humanity with an enduring refuge.

The problem with most towers, that is, with the ideological constructs we adopt to make us feel safe, is that they are maintained by force. For example, when the Roman Emperor Constantine became a Christian, he wanted to rule a unified Christian empire. But first he would have to find a way to end the dispute over the divinity of Jesus-was he a man or God? So he ordered his Christian bishops to meet at Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle the matter once and for all. Their solution was to create a creed making it illegal for anyone to believe Jesus was not the same as God by inventing the notion of a Trinity. This intellectual tower remained in full force for well over a thousand years, until the Reformation.
(7) The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine by Cher-El L. Hagensick]The search for the origins of the Trinity begins with the earliest writings of man. Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show polytheistic religions, though many scholars assert that earliest man believed in one god. The 19th century scholar and Protestant minister, Alexander Hislop, devotes several chapters of his book The Two Babylons to showing how this original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Catholic Church dogmas. A more recent Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: '[Monotheism is] a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts,' which were written between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51); but there is no question that ancient man believed in 'one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all' (Hislop 14); and in a multitude of gods at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad.1
( Durant, Will. , Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.- note, I believe this author was Catholic With this background, let's look at the growth and evolution of the Trinity. As previous stated, the Bible does not mention the trinity. Harnack affirms that the early church view of Jesus was as Messiah. After his resurrection he was "raised to the right hand of God" - but not considered as God. (7 Lonergan concurs that the educated Christians of the early centuries believed in one, supreme God. (119). As for the Holy Spirit, McGiffert tells us that "They [early Christians] thought of [the Holy Spirit] not as an individual being or person but simply as the divine power working in the world and particularly in the Church." (111) Durant summarizes Apostolic Christianity thus: "In Christ and Peter Christianity was Jewish; in Paul it became half Greek; in Catholicism it became half Roman." [
(9) Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago: U of Chicago P. 1971. Vol. 1 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. 5 vols. As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions evoked by the Church's expansion. The writers of these "Apologies" are known to us now as "Apologists". Pelikan states that "it was at least partly in response to pagan criticism of the stories in the Bible that the Christian apologists... took over and adapted the methods and even vocabulary of pagan allegorism."
(10) Dictionary Of The Bible 1995 John L. Mckenzie
"The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."
(11) The Encyclopedia Americana 1956
"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."
(12) The Church of the First Three Centuries 1865 Alvan Lamson
" . . . The modern doctrine of the Trinity is not found in any document or relic belonging to the Church of the first three centuries. . . so far as any remains or any record of them are preserved, coming down from early times, are, as regards this doctrine an absolute blank. They testify, so far as they testify at all, to the supremacy of the father, the only true God; and to the inferior and derived nature of the Son. There is nowhere among these remains a coequal trinity. . . but no un-divided three, -- coequal, infinite, self-existent, and eternal. This was a conception to which the age had not arrived. It was of later origin."
"The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official. The subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . . Finally, cart-loads of saints raised to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, it was the most polytheistic religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This untenable contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt with by accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. "
(13) The Doubter's Companion (John Ralston Saul) "The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages." -
(14) Colliers Encyclopedia "In brief, the ante-Nicene Fathers taught the real distinction and divinity of the three persons . . . but in their attempts at a philosophical interpretation of the Dogma, the ante-Nicene Fathers used certain expressions which would favor sudordinationism. In the late 17th century, the Socinians cited these expressions that the ante-Nicene tradition agreed rather with Arius than with Athanasius . . . Catholic theologians commonly defend the orthodoxy of these early Fathers, while admitting that certain of their expressions were inaccurate and eventually dangerous."
(15) The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." -- (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
(16) Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, S.J. p. 899 "The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature: which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as "essense" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."
(17) Quoting Bruce L. Shelley, a writer for Christian History, we read:
"The Council of Nicea, (was) summoned by Emperor Constantine and held in the imperial palace under his auspices. Constantine viewed the Arian teachings-that Jesus was a created being subordinate to God-as an 'insignificant' theological matter. But he wanted peace in the empire he had just united through force. When diplomatic letters failed to solve the dispute, he convened around 220 bishops, who met for two months to hammer out a universally acceptable definition of Jesus Christ.
"The expression homo ousion, 'one substance,' was probably introduced by Bishop Hosius of Cordova (in today's Spain). Since he had great influence with Constantine, the imperial weight was thrown to that side of the scales. . . . As it turned out, however, Nicea alone settled little. For the next century the Nicene and the Arian views of Christ battled for supremacy. First Constantine and then his successors stepped in again and again to banish this churchman or exile that one. Control of church offices too often depended on control of the emperor's favor." [Christian History, Bruce L. Shelley, "The First Council of Nicea," Issue 28 (Vol. IX, No. 4), 1990, p. 11. ]
(18)Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, The Council of Nice, Isaac Boyle, p. 27.] Furthermore, John 1:1 could not be a proof of the Trinity, for no mention is made of the holy Spirit. That is most embarrassing when the key scripture to the whole Trinity concept omits one-third of the Trinity. Therefore, whatever John 1:1 proves, it does not mention the holy Spirit, and it fails to provide the third part necessary to support the Trinity. Trinitarians have combed through the Bible using every possible text to prove their point. In the overwhelming majority of texts used, you find them doing the same thing as in John 1:1, using arguments that God and Jesus are one, hoping we will not notice that none of their proof verses include the third part necessary - the holy Spirit. The idea is to get people so involved in the discussion that they will forget the holy Spirit is not mentioned. Therefore, the debate lacks the third part needed for rational proof. In order to prove the Trinity doctrine, it is necessary to find Biblical statements of the oneness of being of Father, Son and holy Spirit. Even if we could prove the Father and Son were one being, would it give us a Trinity? When the Nicean Council ended on August 25, 325 A.D., Emperor Constantine delayed the festivities of his twentieth anniversary until the close of this council. We quote the following:
"A magnificent entertainment was provided by that prince, 'for the ministers of God' . . . No one of the bishops was absent from the imperial banquet, which was more admirably conducted than can possibly be described. The guards and soldiers, disposed in a circle, were stationed at the entrance of the palace with drawn swords. The men of God passed through the midst of them without fear, and went into the most private apartments of the royal edifice. Some of them were then admitted to the table of the emperor, and others took the places assigned them on either side. It was a lively image of the kingdom of Christ(?), and appeared more like a dream than a reality."
(19) Edward Gibbon says, in his preface to History of Christianity: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."8 [History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, preface. ] Note: Gibbon is an historian's historian. He would not speak so forthrightly without an enormous basis for his evaluations.
(20) Outline of History, H. G. Wells, p. 421. Commenting on the state of affairs in the early Church, H. G. Wells writes: "We shall see presently how, later on, all Christendom was torn by disputes about the Trinity. There is no clear evidence that the apostles of Jesus entertained

Your Friend in Christ Iris89