Post by iris89 on Nov 22, 2007 22:01:54 GMT -5
Sequel # 5 to The Trinity, So Called The Central Doctrine of Christianity Is NOT As Billed:
INTRODUCTION:
Let’s first understand what the Trinity doctrine is, <<<” Within the nature of the One True God, there simultaneously exists three eternal Persons, namely, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All three Persons are co-equals in all the attributes of the Divine Nature.” [SOURCE – an Internet poster named Franklin]>>>. Although this may be considered an over simplified definition by some, it serves as a very excellent operational definition which is not confusing as are more technical definitions such as, <<<” The Trinitarian dogma, The Cyclopoedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York 1871, by John M'Clintock and James Strong, Vol. II, page 560-561, states, "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.....The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal...So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty...So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God...The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding...And in this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal. So that in all things, as is afore said, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity." [this is the Athanasian Creed quoted in the above mentioned Cyclopoedia]>>>.
Now that we know what this false doctrine is that is being used by Satan the Devil to deceive and mislead many, let’s consider a few examples of individuals being mislead by it and trying to defend it. One such example revolves around Isaiah 42:8.
LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF ISAIAH 42:8:
This scripture reads as follows in the Authorized King James Bible (Authorized King James Bible; AV), “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” (AV).
Now this scripture can be confusing to many because it uses a title instead of a personal name, and a dictionary says this of the title “lord.”
LORD:
Noun, 1. A man of high rank in a feudal society or in one that retains feudal forms and institutions, especially: a. A king. b. A territorial magnate. c. The proprietor of a manor. 2. Lords The House of Lords. 3. abbr. Ld. Chiefly British The general masculine title of nobility and other rank: a. Used as a form of address for a marquis, an earl, or a viscount. b. Used as the usual style for a baron. c. Used as a courtesy title for a younger son of a duke or marquis. d. Used as a title for certain high officials and dignitaries: Lord Chamberlain; the Lord Mayor of London. e. Used as a title for a bishop. 4. Lord a. God. b. Christianity Jesus. 5a. A man of renowned power or authority. b. A man who has mastery in a given field or activity. c. Archaic The male head of a household. d. Archaic A husband.
[source - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.]
A term that is applied to both the Father, Almighty God (YHWH), and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, in many Bible scriptures in many different translations/versions of the Bible. Now, why is the same term used since it causes confusion with respect to who is being spoken of that in many cases only a close examination of context can sort out? It is due to an old Jewish superstition wherein the ancient Jewish scribes substituted “Lord” in place of the personal name of Almighty God (YHWH). Let’s look at some facts on this matter and on how the name of Almighty God (YHWH) should be pronounced and learn the facts, the reality in line with John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Authorized King James Bible; AV):
<<<” Biblical Hebrew was originally written with only consonants, no vowels. When the language was in everyday use, readers easily provided the proper vowels. In time, however, the Jews came to have the superstitious idea that it was wrong to say God’s personal name out loud, so they used substitute expressions. Centuries later, Jewish scholars developed a system of points by which to indicate which vowels to use when reading ancient Hebrew, but they put the vowels for the substitute expressions around the four consonants representing the divine name. Thus the original pronunciation of the divine name was lost.
So we do not know exactly how God's name was pronounced. But interestingly, there are other Biblical names that we do not know for sure how they were pronounced either in the origional Hebrew, yet we still use the names. In fact, the name Jesus is not really the true pronunciation, and we do not know for sure how it was pronounced either. Some feel that his name might have actually been pronounced "Yeshua," and yet the Greek form "Iesous" was used by the inspired writers of the Greek scriptures. In most other languages the pronunciation is slightly different, but we freely use the form that is common in our tongue. Christians are not excused from using the name of Jesus just because they do not know exactly how it was pronounced. How did Jesus feel about his father's name? Jesus himself said at John 17:26: "[Jesus prayed to his Father:] I have made your name known to them [his followers] and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them." Jesus' himself said who his God and father is at John 20:17, RS: "Jesus said to her [Mary Magdalene], ‘Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’" Jesus refers to Mary's God as his God. Who was Mary's God? Mary was a Jew, so her God was Jehovah.
Jesus made the name of his father and God, Jehovah known to the people. So then, how could we ever expect to be excused from using the name of the father? The fact is, most names change in their pronunciation to some extent when transferred from one language to another.
Why then, do we not see the name in the Bible more? Because of an ancient Jewish superstition that God's name is too sacred to be spoken, most translation have ommitted the name. Jesus spoke of such ones when he siad, "You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition," at Matthew 15:6. The fact is, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, éäåä, which means "He Causes to Become," appears over 7000 times in the oldest manuscripts of the Bible. It occurs more than any other word in the scriptures! That is what we would expect of a name that is that important, but translators of the Bible have taken the liberty of leaving the name out, substituting it with the titles LORD (Adonai) and GOD (Elohim), which are not names, but they are titles, such as President, King, Judge, etc. The name Jehovah, Yawweh, or another form that is common in the reader's language, means "He Causes to Become."
Is it reasonable to conclude that we show honor to the most important person in the universe by never speaking or writing his name because we do not know exactly how it was originally pronounced?
Jehovah is the name of the father and Jesus is the name of his son. It is important to know and use the name of the father as well as the name of the son. The Bible says at Romans 10:13: "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved," and at Ezekiel 39:6: "People will have to know that I am Jehovah."
Psalms 83:18 says,"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." All the Earth would include more than Isreal only. “ [source – “Is Jehovah is the God of Israel only?” by Wiki Answers at wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Jehovah_is_the_God_of_Israel_only] >>>.
But, now let’s consider several translations where the translators did NOT follow the practice of the superstitious ancient Jewish copyist, but used Almighty God (YHWH) name:
(American Standard Version; ASV) – “I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.”
(Rotherham Bible of 1902; RB) – “I, am Yahweh, that, is my Name,––And, my glory, to another, will I not give, Nor, my praise, to images.”
(Young's Literal Translation; YLT) – “I am Jehovah, this is My name, And Mine honour to another I give not, Nor My praise to graven images.”
(Darby 1884 Version; Darby) – “I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.”
(Updated American Standard Bible: UASB) – “I am Yahweh, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to engraved images.” [source - www.awitness.org/biblehtm/isa/isa42.htm ]
(New World Translation; NWT) – “I am Jehovah. That is my name and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images.” [source - www.geocities.com/onlinebibletranslations/]
(Noyes 1869 Translation; N1869T) - " I am Jehovah, that is my name; And my glory will I not give to another, Nor my praise to graven images."
As we can see, Isaiah 42:8 clearly applies strictly to the Father, Almighty God (YHWH), and NOT to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ. Of course, this reality does not sit well with Trinitarians that try and say that both are members of a trinity of three-in-one like Three-in-One Oil, which os course is not so as shown by this scripture where Almighty God (YHWH) is clearly shown as NOT “I am Jehovah, this is My name, And Mine honour to another I give not”.
Let’s look at one scripture that blows this nonsense of a three-in-one-god all apart, John 14:28, “Ye heard that, I, said unto you––I go my way, and I come unto you,––Had ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, that I am going unto the Father, for, the Father, is, greater than I.” (RB). Also, consider 1 Corinthians 11:3, “But I wish you to know––that, the head of every man, is, the Christ, and, the head of a woman, is, the man; and, the head of the Christ, is, God.” (RB), and 1 Corinthians 15:28, “But whensoever have been put into subjection, unto him, the all things, then, the Son himself, [[also]] shall be put in subjection unto him who put in subjection, unto him, the all things,––that, God, may be, all things in all.” (RB); and John 5:19, “Jesus, therefore, answered, and went on to say unto them––Verily, verily, I say unto you: The Son cannot be doing, of himself, a single thing,––save anything he may see, the Father, doing; for, whatsoever, he, may be doing, these things, the Son also, in like manner, doeth.” (RB).
These scriptures all clearly show that Almighty God (YHWH) is the higher and/or superior authority and that is only begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, is a lower authority, but second highest authority in the universe; therefore NO co-equality, hence no trinity possible.
Of course, it is reasonable to how did this doctrine come to exist in modern Christianity? In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, it reads:
<<<”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.”[source – History of Christianity by Edward Gibbon’s]>>>.
Which as can gives a brief summary of how it came about.
MORE IN DEPTH ON THE TRINITY:
One writter said the following with respect this false doctrine:
<<<”Most theologians know that the Trinity doctrine is not scriptural.
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.
But nowhere do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.
All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon have adopted in one form or another a Trinity doctrine or a triad or trinity of gods. In Babylon it was Nimrod, Semiramas, and Tammuz. In Egypt it was Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Within Israel paganism it was Kether, Hokhmah, and Binah. In Plato's philosophy it was the Unknown Father, Nous/Logos, and the world soul. In the book, A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity:
We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy … The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.
Historians also know that the Trinity doctrine is not authorized in the New Testament.
There is no evidence the Apostles of Jesus ever heard of a Trinity.
The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word Trinity itself, nor such language as one in three, three in one, one essence or substance or three persons, is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient Church, taken not from the Bible but from classical Greek philosophy.
Long before the founding of Christianity the idea of a triune god or a god-in-three persons was a common belief in ancient religions. Although many of these religions had many minor deities, they distinctly acknowledged that there was one supreme God who consisted of three persons or essences. The Babylonians used an equilateral triangle to represent this three-in-one god, now the symbol of the modern three-in-one believers. The Greek triad was composed of Zeus, Athena and Apollo. These three were said by the pagans to 'agree in one.' One of the largest pagan temples built by the Romans was constructed at Ballbek (situated in present day Lebanon) to their Trinity of Jupiter, Mercury and Venus. In Babylon the planet Venus was revered as special and was worshipped as a Trinity consisting of Venus, the moon and the sun. This triad became the Babylonian holy Trinity in the fourteenth century before Christ. Although other religions for thousands of years before Christ was born worshipped a triune god, the Trinity was not a part of Christian dogma and formal documents of the first three centuries after Christ. That there was no formal, established doctrine of the Trinity until the fourth century is a fully documented historical fact. Clearly, historians of church dogma and systematic theologians agree that the idea of a Christian Trinity was not a part of the first century church. The twelve apostles never subscribed to it or received revelation about it. So how then did a trinitarian doctrine come about? It gradually evolved and gained momentum in late first, second and third centuries as pagans, who had converted to Christianity, brought to Christianity some of their pagan beliefs and practices.” [source - The Christian Doctrine of God By Emil Brunner., Pages 205-206]>>>.
Other renown historians and Koine Greek scholars said the following:
"The reference [to "gods" in Psalm 82f], however, is undoubtedly to magistrates, and the idea is, that they were to be regarded as representatives of God; as acting in his name; and as those, therefore, to whom, in a subordinate sense, the name gods might be given. Compare Psalms 82:6. In Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8-9, Exodus 22:28, also, the same word in the plural is applied to magistrates, and is properly translated judges in our common version. Compare the notes at John 10:34-35. The idea is, that they were the representatives of the divine sovereignty in the administration of justice. Compare Romans 13:1-2, Romans 13:6. They were, in a sense, gods to other people; but they were not to forget that God stood among them as their God; that if they were exalted to a high rank in respect to their fellowmen, they were, nevertheless, subject to One to whom the name of God belonged in the highest sense. [source - Barnes, Albert (b.1798-d.1870), Contributor, Editor. "Notes, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical, on the Book of Psalms." 3 vols. (New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, c1895), vol. 1, p. 328. BS1430 .B3 1895 / 33004349.]
And,
"Although it is true that Jehovah declared that he is the only God, the most outstanding point to keep in mind is that it was Jehovah himself who designated the ancient rulers of Israel with the honorific title "gods." However, this obviously did not mean that these were "of the same essence" or "being" as God [[Almighty God (YHWH)]]; thought of as "false gods." They were properly called gods because they had authority delegated to them by the Almighty God… Appreciating the fact - established by the biblical tradition - that there are individual beings beside God Almighty (particularly angels and human rulers) that can properly be called "god" or "gods" in a positive scriptural affirmation - without in any way compromising or calling into question the biblical truth that there is only one Most High God - may in fact be the essential key to understanding those few texts, both in the Old and New Testaments, that do in fact apply the term "God" to God's Son, Jesus Christ. As pointed out, in the Old Testament, the term God was applied to Moses (Exodus 4:16; 7:1), to the King of Israel (possibly King Solomon; Psalm 46:6), to the pre- monarchical judges of Israel (Psalm 82:6), as well as to the angelic hosts of heaven (Psalm 8:5). They were all honored with the title, evidently, based on their representative role (or function) and exalted position given to them by God....If we can verify from the Scriptures that men were given a measure of authority from God can appropriately be called "gods" (without resulting in a compromise to `biblical monotheism,' or the scriptural truth that there is only one true God), how much more fitting would it be for the Scriptures to have called God's very own Son "God," the one who was given, not merely a measure of authority, but "all authority in heaven and on earth," [Matthew 28:18; John 17:2] without representing a negation or violation of that truth in any way? Actually, in light of the fact that other beings in addition to the Father are rightfully called "God" (Psalm 8:5; 45:6) or "gods" (based on the authority delegated to them; and with angels, perhaps because of their divine nature as powerful, celestial beings), it would have really been inconsistent, even surprising, for the Bible not to have described God's Son by that very same kind of description; he is, clearly, far more worthy of that special dignity....Was and is not the Messiah God's perfect "representative," one who acted "in God's name" as "God's ultimate spokesman (compare Hebrews 1:1-3; Matthew 21:9; John 5:43)? Could we not - in light of such clear, scriptural precedents and principles - say the same with respect to the Christ in the terms of his own Godship?: "The idea {in Scripture} is, that Christ was the representative of the divine sovereignty in the administration of justice...(Hebrews 1:3, 8; Matthew 28:18; compare Daniel 7:13-14; Isaiah 11:1-6) He was, in a sense, `God' to other people (John 20:28); but he was not to forget that God Stood among him as his God (John 20:17); that if he was exalted to a high rank in respect to his fellow men (Philippians 2:9-11), he was, nevertheless, subject to the One to whom the name of God belonged in the highest sense (1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:26-28; compare Revelation 3:2, 12)." [source - Navas, Patrick, "Divine Truth or Human Tradition? A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures." (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom [England]; Bloomington, Indiana: Authorhouse, 2007), pp. 226-230 (brackets mine; braces mine to represent authors use of brackets). 2006906613.]
And,
"Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."[source - The Encyclopedia of Religion]
See Part Two of Sequel # 5
INTRODUCTION:
Let’s first understand what the Trinity doctrine is, <<<” Within the nature of the One True God, there simultaneously exists three eternal Persons, namely, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All three Persons are co-equals in all the attributes of the Divine Nature.” [SOURCE – an Internet poster named Franklin]>>>. Although this may be considered an over simplified definition by some, it serves as a very excellent operational definition which is not confusing as are more technical definitions such as, <<<” The Trinitarian dogma, The Cyclopoedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York 1871, by John M'Clintock and James Strong, Vol. II, page 560-561, states, "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.....The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal...So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty...So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God...The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding...And in this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal. So that in all things, as is afore said, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity." [this is the Athanasian Creed quoted in the above mentioned Cyclopoedia]>>>.
Now that we know what this false doctrine is that is being used by Satan the Devil to deceive and mislead many, let’s consider a few examples of individuals being mislead by it and trying to defend it. One such example revolves around Isaiah 42:8.
LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF ISAIAH 42:8:
This scripture reads as follows in the Authorized King James Bible (Authorized King James Bible; AV), “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” (AV).
Now this scripture can be confusing to many because it uses a title instead of a personal name, and a dictionary says this of the title “lord.”
LORD:
Noun, 1. A man of high rank in a feudal society or in one that retains feudal forms and institutions, especially: a. A king. b. A territorial magnate. c. The proprietor of a manor. 2. Lords The House of Lords. 3. abbr. Ld. Chiefly British The general masculine title of nobility and other rank: a. Used as a form of address for a marquis, an earl, or a viscount. b. Used as the usual style for a baron. c. Used as a courtesy title for a younger son of a duke or marquis. d. Used as a title for certain high officials and dignitaries: Lord Chamberlain; the Lord Mayor of London. e. Used as a title for a bishop. 4. Lord a. God. b. Christianity Jesus. 5a. A man of renowned power or authority. b. A man who has mastery in a given field or activity. c. Archaic The male head of a household. d. Archaic A husband.
[source - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.]
A term that is applied to both the Father, Almighty God (YHWH), and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, in many Bible scriptures in many different translations/versions of the Bible. Now, why is the same term used since it causes confusion with respect to who is being spoken of that in many cases only a close examination of context can sort out? It is due to an old Jewish superstition wherein the ancient Jewish scribes substituted “Lord” in place of the personal name of Almighty God (YHWH). Let’s look at some facts on this matter and on how the name of Almighty God (YHWH) should be pronounced and learn the facts, the reality in line with John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Authorized King James Bible; AV):
<<<” Biblical Hebrew was originally written with only consonants, no vowels. When the language was in everyday use, readers easily provided the proper vowels. In time, however, the Jews came to have the superstitious idea that it was wrong to say God’s personal name out loud, so they used substitute expressions. Centuries later, Jewish scholars developed a system of points by which to indicate which vowels to use when reading ancient Hebrew, but they put the vowels for the substitute expressions around the four consonants representing the divine name. Thus the original pronunciation of the divine name was lost.
So we do not know exactly how God's name was pronounced. But interestingly, there are other Biblical names that we do not know for sure how they were pronounced either in the origional Hebrew, yet we still use the names. In fact, the name Jesus is not really the true pronunciation, and we do not know for sure how it was pronounced either. Some feel that his name might have actually been pronounced "Yeshua," and yet the Greek form "Iesous" was used by the inspired writers of the Greek scriptures. In most other languages the pronunciation is slightly different, but we freely use the form that is common in our tongue. Christians are not excused from using the name of Jesus just because they do not know exactly how it was pronounced. How did Jesus feel about his father's name? Jesus himself said at John 17:26: "[Jesus prayed to his Father:] I have made your name known to them [his followers] and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them." Jesus' himself said who his God and father is at John 20:17, RS: "Jesus said to her [Mary Magdalene], ‘Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’" Jesus refers to Mary's God as his God. Who was Mary's God? Mary was a Jew, so her God was Jehovah.
Jesus made the name of his father and God, Jehovah known to the people. So then, how could we ever expect to be excused from using the name of the father? The fact is, most names change in their pronunciation to some extent when transferred from one language to another.
Why then, do we not see the name in the Bible more? Because of an ancient Jewish superstition that God's name is too sacred to be spoken, most translation have ommitted the name. Jesus spoke of such ones when he siad, "You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition," at Matthew 15:6. The fact is, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, éäåä, which means "He Causes to Become," appears over 7000 times in the oldest manuscripts of the Bible. It occurs more than any other word in the scriptures! That is what we would expect of a name that is that important, but translators of the Bible have taken the liberty of leaving the name out, substituting it with the titles LORD (Adonai) and GOD (Elohim), which are not names, but they are titles, such as President, King, Judge, etc. The name Jehovah, Yawweh, or another form that is common in the reader's language, means "He Causes to Become."
Is it reasonable to conclude that we show honor to the most important person in the universe by never speaking or writing his name because we do not know exactly how it was originally pronounced?
Jehovah is the name of the father and Jesus is the name of his son. It is important to know and use the name of the father as well as the name of the son. The Bible says at Romans 10:13: "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved," and at Ezekiel 39:6: "People will have to know that I am Jehovah."
Psalms 83:18 says,"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." All the Earth would include more than Isreal only. “ [source – “Is Jehovah is the God of Israel only?” by Wiki Answers at wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Jehovah_is_the_God_of_Israel_only] >>>.
But, now let’s consider several translations where the translators did NOT follow the practice of the superstitious ancient Jewish copyist, but used Almighty God (YHWH) name:
(American Standard Version; ASV) – “I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.”
(Rotherham Bible of 1902; RB) – “I, am Yahweh, that, is my Name,––And, my glory, to another, will I not give, Nor, my praise, to images.”
(Young's Literal Translation; YLT) – “I am Jehovah, this is My name, And Mine honour to another I give not, Nor My praise to graven images.”
(Darby 1884 Version; Darby) – “I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.”
(Updated American Standard Bible: UASB) – “I am Yahweh, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to engraved images.” [source - www.awitness.org/biblehtm/isa/isa42.htm ]
(New World Translation; NWT) – “I am Jehovah. That is my name and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images.” [source - www.geocities.com/onlinebibletranslations/]
(Noyes 1869 Translation; N1869T) - " I am Jehovah, that is my name; And my glory will I not give to another, Nor my praise to graven images."
As we can see, Isaiah 42:8 clearly applies strictly to the Father, Almighty God (YHWH), and NOT to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ. Of course, this reality does not sit well with Trinitarians that try and say that both are members of a trinity of three-in-one like Three-in-One Oil, which os course is not so as shown by this scripture where Almighty God (YHWH) is clearly shown as NOT “I am Jehovah, this is My name, And Mine honour to another I give not”.
Let’s look at one scripture that blows this nonsense of a three-in-one-god all apart, John 14:28, “Ye heard that, I, said unto you––I go my way, and I come unto you,––Had ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, that I am going unto the Father, for, the Father, is, greater than I.” (RB). Also, consider 1 Corinthians 11:3, “But I wish you to know––that, the head of every man, is, the Christ, and, the head of a woman, is, the man; and, the head of the Christ, is, God.” (RB), and 1 Corinthians 15:28, “But whensoever have been put into subjection, unto him, the all things, then, the Son himself, [[also]] shall be put in subjection unto him who put in subjection, unto him, the all things,––that, God, may be, all things in all.” (RB); and John 5:19, “Jesus, therefore, answered, and went on to say unto them––Verily, verily, I say unto you: The Son cannot be doing, of himself, a single thing,––save anything he may see, the Father, doing; for, whatsoever, he, may be doing, these things, the Son also, in like manner, doeth.” (RB).
These scriptures all clearly show that Almighty God (YHWH) is the higher and/or superior authority and that is only begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, is a lower authority, but second highest authority in the universe; therefore NO co-equality, hence no trinity possible.
Of course, it is reasonable to how did this doctrine come to exist in modern Christianity? In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, it reads:
<<<”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.”[source – History of Christianity by Edward Gibbon’s]>>>.
Which as can gives a brief summary of how it came about.
MORE IN DEPTH ON THE TRINITY:
One writter said the following with respect this false doctrine:
<<<”Most theologians know that the Trinity doctrine is not scriptural.
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.
But nowhere do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.
All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon have adopted in one form or another a Trinity doctrine or a triad or trinity of gods. In Babylon it was Nimrod, Semiramas, and Tammuz. In Egypt it was Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Within Israel paganism it was Kether, Hokhmah, and Binah. In Plato's philosophy it was the Unknown Father, Nous/Logos, and the world soul. In the book, A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity:
We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy … The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.
Historians also know that the Trinity doctrine is not authorized in the New Testament.
There is no evidence the Apostles of Jesus ever heard of a Trinity.
The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word Trinity itself, nor such language as one in three, three in one, one essence or substance or three persons, is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient Church, taken not from the Bible but from classical Greek philosophy.
Long before the founding of Christianity the idea of a triune god or a god-in-three persons was a common belief in ancient religions. Although many of these religions had many minor deities, they distinctly acknowledged that there was one supreme God who consisted of three persons or essences. The Babylonians used an equilateral triangle to represent this three-in-one god, now the symbol of the modern three-in-one believers. The Greek triad was composed of Zeus, Athena and Apollo. These three were said by the pagans to 'agree in one.' One of the largest pagan temples built by the Romans was constructed at Ballbek (situated in present day Lebanon) to their Trinity of Jupiter, Mercury and Venus. In Babylon the planet Venus was revered as special and was worshipped as a Trinity consisting of Venus, the moon and the sun. This triad became the Babylonian holy Trinity in the fourteenth century before Christ. Although other religions for thousands of years before Christ was born worshipped a triune god, the Trinity was not a part of Christian dogma and formal documents of the first three centuries after Christ. That there was no formal, established doctrine of the Trinity until the fourth century is a fully documented historical fact. Clearly, historians of church dogma and systematic theologians agree that the idea of a Christian Trinity was not a part of the first century church. The twelve apostles never subscribed to it or received revelation about it. So how then did a trinitarian doctrine come about? It gradually evolved and gained momentum in late first, second and third centuries as pagans, who had converted to Christianity, brought to Christianity some of their pagan beliefs and practices.” [source - The Christian Doctrine of God By Emil Brunner., Pages 205-206]>>>.
Other renown historians and Koine Greek scholars said the following:
"The reference [to "gods" in Psalm 82f], however, is undoubtedly to magistrates, and the idea is, that they were to be regarded as representatives of God; as acting in his name; and as those, therefore, to whom, in a subordinate sense, the name gods might be given. Compare Psalms 82:6. In Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8-9, Exodus 22:28, also, the same word in the plural is applied to magistrates, and is properly translated judges in our common version. Compare the notes at John 10:34-35. The idea is, that they were the representatives of the divine sovereignty in the administration of justice. Compare Romans 13:1-2, Romans 13:6. They were, in a sense, gods to other people; but they were not to forget that God stood among them as their God; that if they were exalted to a high rank in respect to their fellowmen, they were, nevertheless, subject to One to whom the name of God belonged in the highest sense. [source - Barnes, Albert (b.1798-d.1870), Contributor, Editor. "Notes, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical, on the Book of Psalms." 3 vols. (New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, c1895), vol. 1, p. 328. BS1430 .B3 1895 / 33004349.]
And,
"Although it is true that Jehovah declared that he is the only God, the most outstanding point to keep in mind is that it was Jehovah himself who designated the ancient rulers of Israel with the honorific title "gods." However, this obviously did not mean that these were "of the same essence" or "being" as God [[Almighty God (YHWH)]]; thought of as "false gods." They were properly called gods because they had authority delegated to them by the Almighty God… Appreciating the fact - established by the biblical tradition - that there are individual beings beside God Almighty (particularly angels and human rulers) that can properly be called "god" or "gods" in a positive scriptural affirmation - without in any way compromising or calling into question the biblical truth that there is only one Most High God - may in fact be the essential key to understanding those few texts, both in the Old and New Testaments, that do in fact apply the term "God" to God's Son, Jesus Christ. As pointed out, in the Old Testament, the term God was applied to Moses (Exodus 4:16; 7:1), to the King of Israel (possibly King Solomon; Psalm 46:6), to the pre- monarchical judges of Israel (Psalm 82:6), as well as to the angelic hosts of heaven (Psalm 8:5). They were all honored with the title, evidently, based on their representative role (or function) and exalted position given to them by God....If we can verify from the Scriptures that men were given a measure of authority from God can appropriately be called "gods" (without resulting in a compromise to `biblical monotheism,' or the scriptural truth that there is only one true God), how much more fitting would it be for the Scriptures to have called God's very own Son "God," the one who was given, not merely a measure of authority, but "all authority in heaven and on earth," [Matthew 28:18; John 17:2] without representing a negation or violation of that truth in any way? Actually, in light of the fact that other beings in addition to the Father are rightfully called "God" (Psalm 8:5; 45:6) or "gods" (based on the authority delegated to them; and with angels, perhaps because of their divine nature as powerful, celestial beings), it would have really been inconsistent, even surprising, for the Bible not to have described God's Son by that very same kind of description; he is, clearly, far more worthy of that special dignity....Was and is not the Messiah God's perfect "representative," one who acted "in God's name" as "God's ultimate spokesman (compare Hebrews 1:1-3; Matthew 21:9; John 5:43)? Could we not - in light of such clear, scriptural precedents and principles - say the same with respect to the Christ in the terms of his own Godship?: "The idea {in Scripture} is, that Christ was the representative of the divine sovereignty in the administration of justice...(Hebrews 1:3, 8; Matthew 28:18; compare Daniel 7:13-14; Isaiah 11:1-6) He was, in a sense, `God' to other people (John 20:28); but he was not to forget that God Stood among him as his God (John 20:17); that if he was exalted to a high rank in respect to his fellow men (Philippians 2:9-11), he was, nevertheless, subject to the One to whom the name of God belonged in the highest sense (1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:26-28; compare Revelation 3:2, 12)." [source - Navas, Patrick, "Divine Truth or Human Tradition? A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures." (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom [England]; Bloomington, Indiana: Authorhouse, 2007), pp. 226-230 (brackets mine; braces mine to represent authors use of brackets). 2006906613.]
And,
"Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."[source - The Encyclopedia of Religion]
See Part Two of Sequel # 5