• Welcome to White Horse Forums. We ask that you would please take a moment to introduce yourself in the New Members section. Tell us a bit about yourself and dive in!

Christian Gnostic's and Trinitarianism

C

CherubRam

Guest
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." (Col 2:16-18)
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." (1 Tim 6:20)
The "oppositions of science falsely so called." is the opposition to a Jewish Gnosticism (science is"gnosis" in the Greek, esoteric knowledge/wisdom). Is the "profane and vain babblings" the Church had to combat.

The worshipping of angels was then and is now one of the distinctive marks of Jewish Kabbalism. Kabbalism today use’s angels, magic, and astrology in their occult system, attempting to control their destiny. The first few chapters of Hebrews is another example, in correcting the Jew's emphasis on angels.
The Jewish Encyclopedia says: "The principal elements of Gnosticism were derived from Jewish speculation." The Jewish Encyclopedia also states that: "It is a noteworthy fact that heads of Gnostic schools and founders of Gnostic systems are designated as Jews by the early Church fathers."
The Roman Catholic Church with its philosophy of a hidden God who should be approached through intermediaries such as saints and angels is the same distinctive doctrine of the Kabbalah.
The angel that the Kabbalists call Metatron, is the female god of the Kabbalah, which they call the "shekhinah", it has emerged into Catholic theology as Mary.
The Catholic Church also absorbed the asceticism of the Gnostics into a system of celibacy for monks, priests and nuns.
Albert Pike, a high prophet of Freemasonry, spoke on the origin of Trinitarianism. In his secret book "Morals and Dogma" he says of the Kabbalist "Jews were the direct precursors of Gnosticism," their Kabbalist doctrine is derived from their captivity while in Babylon.
Philo of Alexandria was a Jew who played a key role in the development of the Trinitarian theory. Pike says, he was a Kabbalist "a initiate of the mysteries."
The Pharisees, who are Masonic like Kabbalists, were Hellenistic Jews and the enemies of Jesus Christ.
The Jewish Encyclopedia: “We are forced to conclude that the Pharisees introduced an element of confusion into Christian theology which we still have not emerged from.”
"Cast me not away from your presence; and take not your Holy Spirit from me" (Psalms 51:11).
Moses received the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 63:11).
Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1). Was he filled with another person inside his body? No. He was filled with the presence of God.
"He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me; Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he, which baptizes with the Holy Spirit" (John 1:33).
So here we see a change. People are now given the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. This will automatically mean more people (not just prophets and patriarchs) would receive the Holy Spirit.
"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). Peter told the people at Jerusalem about Jesus being crucified and they responded by asking what they should do.
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).
Was Peter telling them they could receive a person into their body? No.
So after the day of Pentecost (which is the same day as the Feast of First Fruits) people were able to repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit. No longer was this the domain of only a few as in the Old Testament. However those being called were still relatively few compared to the world population.
There is no mention of the trinity in the entire Bible. There is only one place in which the original Greek of the New Testament mentions the Father and Son and Holy Spirit together. For an explanation of this read: The False Doctrine of the Trinity and The Trinity.
Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius were the students of the original apostles. They lived at the turn of the century, before and after 100 AD. They did not mention a trinity or give a description of a trinity in all their writings.
It was not until the second century AD that the idea of a trinity began to take shape in the Christian community
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus is also known as Tertullian. In the second century he was the first to introduce trinitarism into christianity. He was the first person to formulate the idea of one substance having three persons.
The idea of individual substanence hypostasis was first introduced by Origen. Origen considered the Son to be not coequal, but derived from the Father whom is the Holy Spirit. Arius would adopt the idea of the Son being derivative of the Father in the third century AD. This eventually lead to a major crisis in the Counsel of Nicea.
Arius gained many followers as he taught that Christ was a created being, created by the Father.
Arians were the followers of Arius.
The creed that came out of the Counsel of Nicea in 325 AD did not explicate the trinity. It simply proclaimed the divinity of Christ, rejecting Arianism. There was no resolution on who the Holy Spirit is. That notion would not arise in full strength until the Counsel of Constantinople in 381 AD.
Basilius, also known as Basil, bishop of Caesarea. In the later 3rd century AD, formulated ideas as to what the Holy Spirit was. This was mainly in reaction to Arius who was his enemy doctrinally. Basil and others such as Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa were encouraged to develop ideas to combat the idea of Arianism. The person who encouraged them was Athanasius who hated Arianism and wanted to wipe it out.
Philo introduced the idea of trinity to the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria.
Philo did not equate the three members of his trinity. He wrote that “the middle person of the three,” was Yahweh, the Father of the Universe, who is uncreated and unbegotten. God, the Father of the Universe was accompanied by two “body-guards”: the creative power and the royal power. God is greater than them. These ideas of Philo made a great impact on Christianity.
How the Trinity Doctrine Entered Christianity
God commanded, “You will not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.” (Exodus 20:7 NRSV) Because of this command the translators of the Septuagint, did not transliterate the name “Yahwah” into Greek. They believed that the transliteration would have been a misuse of God’s name. Instead, they translated it as “Kyrios,” which in English is the word LORD. So therefore, the word Lord/Kyrios, became the name of Yahweh in Greek. It was a common title for masters or men of authority. Also, the New Testament writers applied it to Jesus. In the end, Jesus and God shared the same name: Lord/Kyrios.
In the early 4th century, Lactantius (born 240 A.D. died 320 A.D.) wrote: “He {Jesus} taught that God is one {person} and that He {the Father} alone ought to be adored, nor did He {Jesus} ever call himself God.” Lactantius did not recognize a Trinity. He emphasized that Jesus is an “improperly called god,” and must not be worshipped as God.
Wrong interpretations and the distortion of God’s word is what supports the doctrine of the trinity.
When asked, "Which is the most important commandment of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important of all the commandments is, hear, o Israel, the Lord our God is One." (Mark 12:29)
That is what we find throughout the scriptures:
"Beside me there is no God." (Isa. 44:6)
"I am God, and there is none else; there is no God beside me." (Isa. 45:5)
"I am God, and there is none else." (Isa. 46:9)
"One God and Father of all, who is above all." (Eph. 4:6)
"Hear, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." (Deut. 6.4)
"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Tim. 2:5)
"There is but one God, the Father, whom made all things, and us by Himself , and one lord Jesus Christ, by whom we are in. (1 Cor. 8:6)
"This is life eternal, that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3)
This last quotation is Christ speaking; addressing God in prayer as the one true God, and speaking of himself as separate from that one true God.
 
History of the Trinitarian doctrine.



The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: In regards to Matthew 28:19, it says:" It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism".



Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: "The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form changed by the [Catholic] church."



The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: "It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the exact words of Jesus, but a later liturgical addition."



The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."



Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015: "The Trinity is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs, The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch in (AD 180), (The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture." "The chief Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19. This late post-resurrection saying, is not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the New Testament, it has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion. Eusebius's text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf. Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit."



The Schaff Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: "Jesus, however, cannot have given his disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus. (Acts. 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5, Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again in the Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61. Finally the distinctly liturgical character of the formula is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas. The formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed." page 435.



The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states: "It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus."



The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says: "Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus."



New Revised Standard Version: In regards to Matthew 28:19. "Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity."



James Moffett's New Testament Translation: In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus." Acts 1:5.



Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star. In his "For Christ's sake," page 103. He informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the evidence available that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. It is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was changed to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published. "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment; even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal addition."



The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723: Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal addition. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."



Theology of the New Testament: By R. Bultmann, 1951. Page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confessed to very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Didache. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, (the apocryphal Catholic Didache) suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." later changed to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."



Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church: By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."



The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5: The Lord's Command To Baptize a Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo. Page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form! Had Christ given such a command, it is urged the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."



A History of the Christian Church: by Williston Walker, former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University 1953. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. "With the early disciples generally baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ." There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254 -257)."
 
@CherubRam and they, especially Trinitarians, accuse non-Trinitarians of believing in Gnosticism. They have it completely the opposite of reality and by the historical record.
 
In regards to Rev 1:11.
You will not find ( “I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last,” ) in most all other bibles because it was discovered that it was added to make Christ appear as the First and Last to support the Trinity doctrine. It is interesting that you will not find a foot note in the other bibles about this fact.


Rev 1:11. KJ21
saying, “I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What thou seest, write in a book and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.”


Rev 1:11. NIV
which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”





Rev 1:8.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith (the Lord / Yahwah,) which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

FYI
The correct translation is always, and only, "First and Last."
 
History of the Trinitarian doctrine.



The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: In regards to Matthew 28:19, it says:" It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism".



Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: "The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form changed by the [Catholic] church."



The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: "It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the exact words of Jesus, but a later liturgical addition."



The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."



Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015: "The Trinity is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs, The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch in (AD 180), (The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture." "The chief Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19. This late post-resurrection saying, is not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the New Testament, it has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion. Eusebius's text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf. Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit."



The Schaff Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: "Jesus, however, cannot have given his disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus. (Acts. 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5, Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again in the Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61. Finally the distinctly liturgical character of the formula is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas. The formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed." page 435.



The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states: "It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus."



The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says: "Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus."



New Revised Standard Version: In regards to Matthew 28:19. "Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity."



James Moffett's New Testament Translation: In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus." Acts 1:5.



Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star. In his "For Christ's sake," page 103. He informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the evidence available that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. It is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was changed to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published. "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment; even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal addition."



The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723: Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal addition. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."



Theology of the New Testament: By R. Bultmann, 1951. Page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confessed to very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Didache. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, (the apocryphal Catholic Didache) suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." later changed to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."



Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church: By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."



The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5: The Lord's Command To Baptize a Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo. Page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form! Had Christ given such a command, it is urged the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."



A History of the Christian Church: by Williston Walker, former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University 1953. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. "With the early disciples generally baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ." There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254 -257)."

More inaccutare nonsense, as there is not a shread of any actual textual evidence, that even hints at Matthew 28:19, as not have been written by the Apostle Matthew. It matters ZERO by quoting from anyone, who disputes this verse, when all they have is man-made conjecture. Anyone can say that this verse was not in the original, but they have NO actual proof of their claims! It is in every Greek manuscript, and quoted as early as the 1st century as part of the Gospel

 
In regards to Rev 1:11.
You will not find ( “I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last,” ) in most all other bibles because it was discovered that it was added to make Christ appear as the First and Last to support the Trinity doctrine. It is interesting that you will not find a foot note in the other bibles about this fact.


Rev 1:11. KJ21
saying, “I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What thou seest, write in a book and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.”


Rev 1:11. NIV
which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”





Rev 1:8.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith (the Lord / Yahwah,) which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

FYI
The correct translation is always, and only, "First and Last."

more inaccurate statements! In Revelation 1:17; 2:8 and 22:13, Jesus Christ says that He is "the First and the Last". The Unitarian Greek scholar, Dr Joseph Thayer, in his Greek lexicon, says on "the First and the Last", "“ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, i. e. the eternal One, Rev 1:17; Rev 2:8; Rev 22:13”. Jesus Christ is The Eternal One, which can only mean that He is Yahweh, which actually means exactly this!

This is what the Bible actually says, and not your twisting of it!
 
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." (Col 2:16-18)
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." (1 Tim 6:20)
The "oppositions of science falsely so called." is the opposition to a Jewish Gnosticism (science is"gnosis" in the Greek, esoteric knowledge/wisdom). Is the "profane and vain babblings" the Church had to combat.

The worshipping of angels was then and is now one of the distinctive marks of Jewish Kabbalism. Kabbalism today use’s angels, magic, and astrology in their occult system, attempting to control their destiny. The first few chapters of Hebrews is another example, in correcting the Jew's emphasis on angels.
The Jewish Encyclopedia says: "The principal elements of Gnosticism were derived from Jewish speculation." The Jewish Encyclopedia also states that: "It is a noteworthy fact that heads of Gnostic schools and founders of Gnostic systems are designated as Jews by the early Church fathers."
The Roman Catholic Church with its philosophy of a hidden God who should be approached through intermediaries such as saints and angels is the same distinctive doctrine of the Kabbalah.
The angel that the Kabbalists call Metatron, is the female god of the Kabbalah, which they call the "shekhinah", it has emerged into Catholic theology as Mary.
The Catholic Church also absorbed the asceticism of the Gnostics into a system of celibacy for monks, priests and nuns.
Albert Pike, a high prophet of Freemasonry, spoke on the origin of Trinitarianism. In his secret book "Morals and Dogma" he says of the Kabbalist "Jews were the direct precursors of Gnosticism," their Kabbalist doctrine is derived from their captivity while in Babylon.
Philo of Alexandria was a Jew who played a key role in the development of the Trinitarian theory. Pike says, he was a Kabbalist "a initiate of the mysteries."
The Pharisees, who are Masonic like Kabbalists, were Hellenistic Jews and the enemies of Jesus Christ.
The Jewish Encyclopedia: “We are forced to conclude that the Pharisees introduced an element of confusion into Christian theology which we still have not emerged from.”
"Cast me not away from your presence; and take not your Holy Spirit from me" (Psalms 51:11).
Moses received the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 63:11).
Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1). Was he filled with another person inside his body? No. He was filled with the presence of God.
"He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me; Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he, which baptizes with the Holy Spirit" (John 1:33).
So here we see a change. People are now given the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. This will automatically mean more people (not just prophets and patriarchs) would receive the Holy Spirit.
"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). Peter told the people at Jerusalem about Jesus being crucified and they responded by asking what they should do.
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).
Was Peter telling them they could receive a person into their body? No.
So after the day of Pentecost (which is the same day as the Feast of First Fruits) people were able to repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit. No longer was this the domain of only a few as in the Old Testament. However those being called were still relatively few compared to the world population.
There is no mention of the trinity in the entire Bible. There is only one place in which the original Greek of the New Testament mentions the Father and Son and Holy Spirit together. For an explanation of this read: The False Doctrine of the Trinity and The Trinity.
Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius were the students of the original apostles. They lived at the turn of the century, before and after 100 AD. They did not mention a trinity or give a description of a trinity in all their writings.
It was not until the second century AD that the idea of a trinity began to take shape in the Christian community
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus is also known as Tertullian. In the second century he was the first to introduce trinitarism into christianity. He was the first person to formulate the idea of one substance having three persons.
The idea of individual substanence hypostasis was first introduced by Origen. Origen considered the Son to be not coequal, but derived from the Father whom is the Holy Spirit. Arius would adopt the idea of the Son being derivative of the Father in the third century AD. This eventually lead to a major crisis in the Counsel of Nicea.
Arius gained many followers as he taught that Christ was a created being, created by the Father.
Arians were the followers of Arius.
The creed that came out of the Counsel of Nicea in 325 AD did not explicate the trinity. It simply proclaimed the divinity of Christ, rejecting Arianism. There was no resolution on who the Holy Spirit is. That notion would not arise in full strength until the Counsel of Constantinople in 381 AD.
Basilius, also known as Basil, bishop of Caesarea. In the later 3rd century AD, formulated ideas as to what the Holy Spirit was. This was mainly in reaction to Arius who was his enemy doctrinally. Basil and others such as Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa were encouraged to develop ideas to combat the idea of Arianism. The person who encouraged them was Athanasius who hated Arianism and wanted to wipe it out.
Philo introduced the idea of trinity to the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria.
Philo did not equate the three members of his trinity. He wrote that “the middle person of the three,” was Yahweh, the Father of the Universe, who is uncreated and unbegotten. God, the Father of the Universe was accompanied by two “body-guards”: the creative power and the royal power. God is greater than them. These ideas of Philo made a great impact on Christianity.
How the Trinity Doctrine Entered Christianity
God commanded, “You will not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.” (Exodus 20:7 NRSV) Because of this command the translators of the Septuagint, did not transliterate the name “Yahwah” into Greek. They believed that the transliteration would have been a misuse of God’s name. Instead, they translated it as “Kyrios,” which in English is the word LORD. So therefore, the word Lord/Kyrios, became the name of Yahweh in Greek. It was a common title for masters or men of authority. Also, the New Testament writers applied it to Jesus. In the end, Jesus and God shared the same name: Lord/Kyrios.
In the early 4th century, Lactantius (born 240 A.D. died 320 A.D.) wrote: “He {Jesus} taught that God is one {person} and that He {the Father} alone ought to be adored, nor did He {Jesus} ever call himself God.” Lactantius did not recognize a Trinity. He emphasized that Jesus is an “improperly called god,” and must not be worshipped as God.
Wrong interpretations and the distortion of God’s word is what supports the doctrine of the trinity.
When asked, "Which is the most important commandment of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important of all the commandments is, hear, o Israel, the Lord our God is One." (Mark 12:29)
That is what we find throughout the scriptures:
"Beside me there is no God." (Isa. 44:6)
"I am God, and there is none else; there is no God beside me." (Isa. 45:5)
"I am God, and there is none else." (Isa. 46:9)
"One God and Father of all, who is above all." (Eph. 4:6)
"Hear, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." (Deut. 6.4)
"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Tim. 2:5)
"There is but one God, the Father, whom made all things, and us by Himself , and one lord Jesus Christ, by whom we are in. (1 Cor. 8:6)
"This is life eternal, that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3)
This last quotation is Christ speaking; addressing God in prayer as the one true God, and speaking of himself as separate from that one true God.

more nonsense! Both Polycarp and Ignatius were Disciples of the Apostle John, and both clearly call Jesus Christ GOD in their writings! Clearly they believed in and taught that there is more than One Person Who is GOD!
 
more nonsense! Both Polycarp and Ignatius were Disciples of the Apostle John, and both clearly call Jesus Christ GOD in their writings! Clearly they believed in and taught that there is more than One Person Who is GOD!

There are many gods, real and imagined; but there is only one true God, and His name is Yahwah.

Yahwah was the First God to form, and He is the Last; there is no other besides Him.
Isaiah 43:10
“You are my witnesses,” declares (the Lord / Yahwah,) “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
 
God said He formed before any other. Actual science is not esoteric, Gnostic philosophy. Dark Matter is a real thing. It stands to reason that since Rev 1:17 is a known falsehood, that Rev 2:8 is also.
Yahwah is the First and Last, not Yahshua. In a study bible you find in the foot notes other places where the Catholics have corrupted the scriptures, to make Trinitarianism appear as a biblical truth.


Revelation 1:17
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.

Revelation 2:8
“To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.
 
There are many gods, real and imagined; but there is only one true God, and His name is Yahwah.

Yahwah was the First God to form, and He is the Last; there is no other besides Him.
Isaiah 43:10
“You are my witnesses,” declares (the Lord / Yahwah,) “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Isaiah 40:3

"The voice of one who calls out, "Prepare the way of Yahweh in the wilderness! Make a level highway in the desert for our God"

Matthew 3:3, fulfilled in the Coming of Jesus Christ

"For this is He who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the LORD (YHWH); Make His paths straight.’ ”

Jesus Christ IS YHWH!

There is no way around this!
 
Isaiah 40:3

"The voice of one who calls out, "Prepare the way of Yahweh in the wilderness! Make a level highway in the desert for our God"

Matthew 3:3, fulfilled in the Coming of Jesus Christ

"For this is He who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the LORD (YHWH); Make His paths straight.’ ”

Jesus Christ IS YHWH!

There is no way around this!
Incorrect assumption.
John prepared the way for Yahwah to work through Yahshua.
 
Back
Top