Dagon & the Mitre - Is there a connection?

The Stones Cry out.

The Archaeological record does not lie!


1 Sam. 5:4

"When they got up early in the morning the very day after, there Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of Jehovah, with the head of Dagon and the palms of both his hands cut off, to the threshold. Only the *fish part had been left upon him".

Lit., “Only Dagon,” as the Dagon idol was seemingly half man, half fish.



"...Only the fish part had been left upon him".

Other translations read: torso, stump, fishy part, fish-stump, body.






(above) DagonHalf fish, half man.From Layard's, Babylon and Nineveh, p. 342.



(left)Here you see a stone laver from Assyria which is now in the Pergamum Museum in Berlin. Carved on its sides are depictions of pagan priests that appear to be half sun-fish and half man, that are sprinkling holy water.







(enlarged)

















Dagon, the fish-god of the Philistines and Babylonians.


Dagon was represented as half man, half fish. The upper part human, the lower part fish. It reminded me of the Greek god Poseidon. Notice the the character to the left of the tree of life (above)and the costume he has on.

The above is from: LAYARD'S Babylon and Nineveh, p. 213. 4th Edit., vol. iii. pt. 4, Plata 27.


It should be noted that when Layard gives his account in his last work, which is here shown to the reader; and anyone who examines this mitre, and compares it with the Pope's as given in Elliot's Horoe just cannot hesitate for a moment that from that, and no other source, has the popes and other clergies mitre been derived. The wide open jaws of the fish that sit on the head of the man at Nineveh are the unmistakable counterpart of the horns of the Pope's mitre at Rome. It was in the East at least five hundred years before biblical Christianity.

It was also similar in Egypt; Wilkinson, speaking of a fish of the species of Siluris, says,

" that one of the Genii of the Egyptian Pantheon appears under a human form, with the head of this fish."

Wilkinson, vol. 5. p. 253.


Here in the West, in a later period, we have proof that the Pagans had seperated the fish-head mitre from the body of the fish, and began to used the mitre alone to beautify the head of this mediating god. On many Maltese Pagan coins, that god, with the well-known characteristics of Osiris, is represented with nothing of the fish save the mitre on his head (see picture above), almost identical in shape/form as the mitre of the Pope, and other bishops.








Now, compare the pictures below and that the connections can be seen. Some may object and say it is just a coincidence. It is no more than a coincidence than that of the cross in it various forms. (Please, cut and paste link below)

http://cross-paganorchristian.blogspot.com/












(left)Note the mitre on the head of this drawing of the goddess Cybele and the striking similarity to the fish head of Dagon. Cybele was worshipped in Rome and was also called the "Magna Mater", or the great queen mother goddess, which evolved into Catholic Mariology. The priesthood of Cybele was composed of castrated males, which parallels the celibate priesthood of Catholicism. The basilica of Saint Peter's, according to some, stands upon the former site of Cybele's main temple in Rome. The ruins of another temple to Cybele / Magna Mater can still be seen today in Rome on Palatine hill.









Again, here is a similar depiction of a pagan priest wearing a sun-fish, the head with open mouth worn as a mitre and the rest of the fish forming a cloak. These are both illustrations of Dagon, which was the God of Babylon and Philistia and is mentioned several times in scripture in Judges 16:23, 1 Samuel 5:2-7, and 1 Chronicles 1:10. In Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, this is the definition for Dagon.












How Chaldean (Babylonian) Religion Survives Today.


Babylon Falls, but Her Religion Survives to Dominate the Nations


Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus the Persian in 539 B.C.E. From this time on, Babylon was no longer a political world power. But what about Babylon’s religion? With the passing of Babylon’s political power and the shift of world control from Semitic to Aryan hands, did Babylon’s religion die with her? By no means.

Why not?

First of all, the foundation for the practice of Babylon’s religion by all nations except the faithful descendants of Shem was laid in their building of the Tower of Babel in Nimrod’s day. The miraculous confusion of tongues scattered the families but they took their false religious ideas with them. Babylon afterward was viewed by pagan nations as the center of religion. Secondly, after Babylon’s fall in 539 B.C.E., her priesthood was driven out by the Persians. But they did not have in mind letting Babylonish religion’s traditional authority and supremacy die out.


Though Babylon lost her political supremacy, her Nimrod-initiated religion maintained itself as a world empire of religion over all except those who held to Jehovah’s true worship at Jerusalem. Under the adroit maneuvering of Satan the Devil it immediately set its eyes on western horizons to establish a new center for its priesthood and the successorship of Belshazzar. In fact, we shall see that its very essence infiltrated later into apostate Christianity, actually getting control over the section of the earth that came to be called Christendom.


BABYLONISH RELIGION SPREADS TO EUROPE


Long before Babylon fell, the ground had been broken to make it possible to accomplish this transplant of the head of Babylonish religion to Italy.

Historian J. H. Breasted, in the book Ancient Times—A History of the Early World, tells us that:

A race of sea rovers called Etruscans, who probably came from Asia Minor, were settled in Italy by 1000 B.C.E. After 800 B.C.E. they stretched far across northern Italy, and Rome became a city kingdom under an Etruscan king, like the other Etruscan cities that stretched from Capua far north to the harbor of Genoa. These kings governed for two centuries and a half. This would make the line of kings of Rome from about 750 to 500 B.C.E. exclusively Etruscan. The traditional founding of Rome not long before 750 B.C.E. would then correspond to its capture and establishment as a strong kingdom by the Etruscans. Archaeological evidence bears this out, though written documents of Rome during this early period are missing. Although these Etruscan kings introduced improvements into Rome, their cruelty and tyranny finally caused a revolt, and about 500 B.C.E. the career of Rome under kings came to an end. But, says Dr. Breasted, the two and a half centuries of Etruscan rule left their mark on Rome, always discernible in architecture, religion, tribal organization, and some other things.


The Encyclopædia Britannica corroborates:

Referring to the historian Herodotus, who recounts that in the reign of Atys, son of Manes, there was a great scarcity of food in all Lydia, which lasted eighteen years. Finally, by the king’s arrangement, his son Tyrrhenus took half of the people down to Smyrna and built ships wherein they set out to seek a livelihood and a country, and after sojourning with many nations they came to the Ombrici in Italy, where they founded cities. Of these people, who (according to Herodotus) no longer called themselves Lydians, but Tyrrhenians, the Britannica goes on to say:

“From the character of their earlier remains the date of the first permanent settlement may be placed at the end of the 9th century.” What was the religion of the Tyrrhenians?


The Britannica relates:

That the Etruscans were orientals or semi-orientals is proved by the whole character of their earliest art, and by many details of their religion and worship. It is an art which shows close contact with Mesopotamia, Syria and Cyprus on the one side and with Egypt on the other. The deities and mythological figures on Etruscan gold-work and jewelry of the 7th century are evidently the heroes and deities of Asiatic mythology. . . . In the sphere of ritual and religion there are many details which are taken direct from Mesopotamia, and the whole feeling and atmosphere are purely oriental. The most striking identities are in the practice of divination and augury; for the custom of divining from the livers of sheep or the flight of birds is purely Chaldean. There are models of clay livers from Mesopotamia inscribed in cuneiform which precisely resemble the bronze model of a liver found at Piacenza [in the Province of Emilia, Italy], divided into compartments each of which is labelled in Etruscan with the name of its presiding divinity.

So archaeology clearly indicates that the Etruscans came from some part of Asia Minor, landing on the seacoast of Tuscany. Veii, in Etruria, north of Rome, became one of their chief cities. Etruria was finally swallowed up by Rome. A confederacy of twelve cities existed in the sixth century that held its annual meetings at the shrine of Voltumma above Lacus Volsiniensis (Lake of Bolsena), and it seems likely that the confederation confined itself principally to affairs of religion. All this took place before and up to the time of the fall of Babylon in the sixth century (539 B.C.E.).

So the religion of Babylon gained a strong foothold in Europe, not merely a remote relation from the time of Babel, but a direct-line inheritance. However, we are here mainly interested in the priesthood of Babylon. Just as Satan the Devil had instituted Babylonish religion through Nimrod to oppose true worship, so his spirit motivated the Babylonian priesthood to see to it that the priesthood and the religious successorship to Belshazzar himself should not die out when Babylon was lost as a capital.

Lares and Penates of Cilicia

After Babylon’s defeat, according to the work entitled “Lares and Penates of Cilicia,” by Barker and Ainsworth, chapter 8, page 232, we read:

“The defeated Chaldeans fled to Asia Minor and fixed their central college at Pergamos.” This is the Pergamum or Pergamos mentioned in Revelation 2:12, 13 as the location of a Christian congregation much later on, in the first century C.E.

As to this shifting of the Chaldean headquarters, Dr. Alexander Hislop says:

Phrygia . . . formed part of the Kingdom of Pergamos. Mysia also was another, and the Mysians, in the Paschal Chronicle, are said to be descended from Nimrod. The words are, “Nebrod [Greek for Nimrod], the huntsman and giant—from whence came the Mysians.” (See Paschal Chronicle, volume I, page 50.) Lydia, also, from which [the historian] Livy and Herodotus say the Etruscans [of Italy] came, formed part of the same kingdom. For the fact that Mysia, Lydia, and Phrygia were constituent parts of the kingdom of Pergamos, see SMITH’S Classical Dictionary, page 542.

ROME AFFECTED RELIGIOUSLY

This proved to have profound effect on Rome. After the Etruscan cities were overthrown and Rome became a republic (509 B.C.E.), the Romans took over the Etruscan gods, Jupiter, Juno, Minerva and others, and each god was now, for the first time, given a human form and a residence in a temple or shrine. They were identified with the Greek gods. Jupiter, the “sky-father” of the Etruscans, became the Roman version of the Greek Zeus-pater. Mars, the god of war, was the favorite deity of the fighting Romans. The Saturnalia were later taken over by the Christians as their Christmas, and given a new significance.

One modern historical work links the Roman practices directly with the Chaldeans:

The Chaldeans made great progress in the study of astronomy through an effort to discover the future in the stars. This art we call “astrology”. Much information has been systematically collected by the Babylonians and from it we have here the beginning of astronomy. The groups of stars which now bear the name “Twelve Signs of the Zodiac” were mapped out for the first time, and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were known. Since these planets were thought to have special powers over the lives of men, they were named for the five leading gods and goddesses. We refer to these planets by their Roman names, but the Romans had adopted the Babylonian terms and simply translated them into their equivalents in Rome. Thus the planet of Ishtar, the goddess of love, became Venus, and that of the god Marduk was changed to Jupiter.


In 133 B.C.E., King Attalus III, on his deathbed, bequeathed Pergamum and all its territory to the Romans, all of which later became a Roman province under the name of Asia.

This King Attalus had been selected by the Chaldean Magi as the successor to Belshazzar, as Doctor Hislop goes on to say:

The kings of Pergamos, in whose dominions the Chaldean Magi found an asylum, were evidently by them [by the Magi], and by the general voice of Paganism that sympathised with them, put into the vacant place which Belshazzar and his predecessors had occupied. They were hailed as the representatives of the old Babylonian god. This is evident from the statements by Pausanius. . . . Attalus, in whose dominions the Magi had their chief seat, had been set up and recognized in the very character of Bacchus, the Head of the Magi. Thus the vacant seat of Belshazzar was filled, and the broken chain of the Chaldean succession renewed.—The Two Babylons, pages 240, 241.

THE OFFICE OF PONTIFEX MAXIMUS?

In this time when world religions are offering themselves as the hope for world peace, with the Roman Catholic Church taking the lead, we owe it to ourselves next to trace with unbiased mind the origin of the Roman office of Pontifex Maximus.

Doctor Hislop cites history on pages 239, 240 of The Two Babylons:

A colony of Etruscans, earnestly attached to the Chaldean idolatry, had migrated, some say from Asia Minor [where Pergamos was located], others from Greece, and settled in the immediate neighborhood of Rome. They were ultimately incorporated in the Roman state, but long before this political union took place they exercised the most powerful influence on the religion of the Romans. From the very first their skill in augury, soothsaying, and all science, real or pretended, that the augurs or soothsayers monopolized, made the Romans look up to them with respect. It is admitted on all hands that the Romans derived their knowledge of augury . . . chiefly from the Tuscans, that is, the people of Etruria, and at first none but natives of that country were permitted to exercise the office of Haruspex which had respect to all the rites essentially involved in sacrifice. . . . the highest of the noble youths of Rome were sent to Etruria to be instructed in the sacred science which flourished there.


The college of Pontiffs was founded by Numa Pompilius, second legendary king of Rome, and regarding Numa, Hislop says: “That god was called in Babylon Nebo, in Egypt Nub or Num, and among the Romans Numa, for Numa Pompilius, the great priest-king of the Romans, occupied precisely the position of the Babylonian Nebo.” The Sovereign Pontiff that presided over that college, and that controlled all the public and private religious rites of the Roman people in all essential respects, became in spirit and in practice an Etruscan Pontiff. As to this, Dr. Hislop says:

The true legitimate Babylonian Pontiff had his seat beyond the bounds of the Roman empire [which never overran southern Mesopotamia or Chaldea]. That seat, after the death of Belshazzar and the expulsion of the Chaldean priesthood from Babylon by the Medo-Persian kings, was at Pergamos, where afterwards was one of the seven churches of Asia.


It would be of greatest interest to us in this brief historical consideration to see how this religious connection between Pergamos and Rome, which became the Sixth World Power in the first century B.C.E., was manifested in the office of Pontifex Maximus. It clearly proves that Babylonish religion actually is the source of the office of Pontifex Maximus of the popes of Rome.

The Two Babylons gives us an account:

At first the Roman Pontiff had no immediate connection with Pergamos and the hierarchy there; yet, in course of time, the Pontificate of Rome and the Pontificate of Pergamos came to be identified. Pergamos itself became part and parcel of the Roman empire, when Attalus III, the last of the kings, at his death, left by will all his dominions to the Roman people, B.C. 133. . . . When Julius Caesar, who had previously been elected Pontifex Maximus, became also. as Emperor, the supreme civil ruler of the Romans, then, as head of the Roman state, and head of the Roman religion, all the powers and functions of the true legitimate Babylonian Pontiff were supremely vested in him, and he found himself in a position to assert these powers. Then he seems to have laid claim to the divine dignity of Attalus, as well as the kingdom that Attalus had bequeathed to the Romans, as centring in himself; . . . Then, on certain occasions, in the exercise of his high pontifical office, he appeared of course in all the pomp of the Babylonian costume, as Belshazzar himself might have done, in robes of scarlet, with the crozier of Nimrod in his hand wearing the mitre of Dagon [the fish god] and bearing the keys of Janus [the two-faced god] and Cybele [the “mother” goddess]. . . .
. . . until the reign of [Western Emperor] Gratian, who, as shown by [the historian] Gibbon, was the first that refused to be arrayed in the idolatrous pontifical attire, or to sit as Pontifex. . . .

. . . Within a few years after the Pagan title of Pontifex had been abolished, it was revived . . . and was bestowed, with all the Pagan associations clustering around it, upon the Bishop of Rome, who, from that time forward, became the grand agent in pouring over professing Christendom, . . . all the other doctrines of Paganism derived from ancient Babylon. . . .

. . . The circumstances in which that Pagan title was bestowed upon Pope Damasus, were such as might have been not a little trying to the faith and integrity of a much better man than he. Though Paganism was legally abolished in the Western Empire of Rome, yet in the city of the Seven Hills it was still rampant, insomuch that Jerome [translator of the Latin Vulgate], who knew it well, writing of Rome at this very period calls it “the sink of all superstitions.” The consequence was, that, while everywhere else throughout the empire the Imperial edict for the abolition of Paganism was respected, in Rome itself it was, to a large extent, a dead letter. . . .

. . . The man [Pope Damasus I] that came into the bishopric of Rome, as a thief and a robber, over the dead bodies of above a hundred of his opponents, could not hesitate as to the election he should make. The result shows that he had acted in character, that, in assuming the Pagan title of Pontifex, he had set himself at whatever sacrifice of truth to justify his claims to that title in the eyes of the Pagans, as the legitimate representative of their long line of pontiffs. . . .

Under “Damasus I, pope,” page 652b of Volume 2 of M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia says the following:

“Damasus I, pope, . . . succeeded Liberius as bishop of Rome A.D. 366. He was opposed by Ursicinus, who claimed the election, and in their disgraceful strifes many people were murdered . . . The emperor Gratian conferred upon [Damascus], in 378, the right to pass judgment upon those clergymen of the other party who had been expelled from Rome, and, at the request of a Roman synod held in the same year, instructed the secular authorities to give to him the necessary support. . . .”

. . . The Pope, as he is now, was at the close of the fourth century, the only representative of Belshazzar, or Nimrod, on the earth, for the Pagans manifestly accepted him as such. . . . A.D. 606, when amid the convulsions and confusions of the nations, tossed like a tempestuous sea, the Pope of Rome was made Universal Bishop; and then the ten chief kingdoms of Europe recognized him as Christ’s Vicar upon earth, the only centre of unity, the only source of stability to their thrones.

BABYLON’S RELIGION FINALLY TO PASS AWAY

In this manner Babylon accomplished her conquest of the Western world. Her worldwide religious empire is called in God’s Word “Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth.” (Rev. 17:5) This religious empire ruled over Pergamos and even Rome, but of infinitely greater consequence has been her domination of Christendom.

Her children, “daughters” or religious organizations, are like her, harlots, having illicit relations with the political element of this world. Her doctrines and the course in which she leads the world powers are as detrimental to humankind and as disgusting and death dealing as ancient Babylon herself. Ancient Babylon left a name of contempt to all generations since.

Modern Babylon has led her followers to look to man-made efforts for world peace and has disgusted others with her hypocrisy and corruption, leading the world into a fight against God’s kingdom. The Bible kindly reveals the true picture for our safety and sensible action, and the facts of history verify this picture to the last detail. Why should anyone hesitate to listen to what the Creator of mankind says for his safety? Babylon is exposed, through Jehovah’s undeserved kindness to us.

Then flee from modern-day Babylon the Great and learn the truth about her early destruction and the freedom that it brings to mankind through God’s kingdom rule! (Rev. 18:4, 5, 20) How God made pictorial dramas to guide the escape of honest people, to help them to get out of Babylon, will be considered in issues to follow.

The Greek word for Etruria was used by Latin writers in the form Tyrrenhia; also Tusca from whence the modern Tuscany.—The Encyclopædia Britannica, 1959, Volume 8, page 783.

Volume 8, edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica 1946, pages 785, 786.
That ancient Pergamos (Pergamum) was a city of considerable wealth and stature in the fifth century B.C.E., is seen in the fact that “it had been striking coins since 420 B.C. at latest.” Before Xenophon (about 430-355 B.C.E.) mentions it in his Anabasis, VII, viii, 8, and Hellenica, III, i, 6, little is known of this cosmopolitan city but mythology.—The Encyclopædia Britannica, edition of 1946, Volume 17, page 507; also The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, page 666, edition of 1911.

The celebrated and much frequented temple of Aesculapius was located in Pergamos. Aesculapius was called the god of Pergamos, and the mythology in connection with his worship smacks of the religion of Babylon. He was worshiped in the form of a living serpent, fed in the temple and being considered as its divinity.
See pages 230, 232 of The Dawn of Civilization and Life in the Ancient East (1940) edition, by R. M. Engberg and F. C. Cole.

The word “college” as used here refers, not to an educational institution, but to a body of not fewer than three, legally constituted under Roman law to carry out a purpose. Our modern-day “corporation” corresponds somewhat to it.

The Two Babylons, by Hislop, page 256.

Ibid., page 240.

Under “Damasus I, pope,” page 652b of Volume 2 of M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia says the following:

“Damasus I, pope, . . . succeeded Liberius as bishop of Rome A.D. 366. He was opposed by Ursicinus, who claimed the election, and in their disgraceful strifes many people were murdered . . . The emperor Gratian conferred upon [Damascus], in 378, the right to pass judgment upon those clergymen of the other party who had been expelled from Rome, and, at the request of a Roman synod held in the same year, instructed the secular authorities to give to him the necessary support. . . .”
The Two Babylons, pages 241, 242, 247, 250, 252, 255.


letusreason

YHWH (Jehovah) in the New Testament

YHWH in the New Testament

(Contribution) Many thanks to my friends.

This article is a English version of a Italian article published on the catholic magazine, edited from Dehonian friars, "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, April-June 1997, p. 183-186. Bologna, Italy.


For a long time it was thought that the divine Tetragrammaton YHWH, in Hebrew written with the letters YHWH (which recurs over 6800 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament) did not appear in the original writings of the New Testament. In its place it was thought that the writers of the New Testament had used the Greek word for LORD, KYRIOS. However, it seems that such an opinion is wrong. Here below are some factors to consider:

1) The Tetragrammaton in the Greek Version of Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX).

One of the reasons produced to support the above mentioned opinion was that the LXX substituted YHWH (YHWH) with the term KYRIOS, (kurios) which was the equivalent Greek of the Hebrew word ADONAY used by some Hebrews when they met the Tetragrammaton during the Bible reading.

However, recent discoveries have shown that the practice of substituted in the LXX YHWH with KYRIOS started in a much later period in comparison with the beginning of that version. As a matter of fact, the older copies of the LXX keep the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters in the Greek text. (See App. 1)

Girolamo, the translator of the Latin Vulgate confirms this fact. In the prologue of the books of Samuel and Kings he wrote: "In certain Greek volumes we still find the Tetragrammaton of God's name expressed in ancient characters". And in a letter written in Rome in the year 384 it says: "God's name is made up of four letters; it was thought ineffable, and it is written with these letters: iod, he, vau, he (YHWH). But some have not been able to decipher it because of the resemblance of the Greek letters and when they found it in Greek books they usually read it PIPI (pipi)". S. Girolamo, Le Lettere, Rome, 1961, vol.1, pp.237, 238; compare J.P.Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol.22, coll.429, 430.

Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: "In Origen's Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX all represented JHWH by PIPI; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters." - The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159. Others believe the original text of Origen's Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that "in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today's Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones".

A biblical magazine declare: "In pre-Christian Greek [manuscripts] of the OT, the divine name was not rendered by 'kyrios' as has often been thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters. . . . At a later time, surrogates such as 'theos' [God] and 'kyrios' replaced the Tetragram . . . There is good reason to believe that a similar pattern evolved in the NT, i.e. the divine name was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT, but in the course of time it was replaced by surrogates". - New Testament Abstracts, March 1977, p. 306.

Wolfgang Feneberg comments in the Jesuit magazine Entschluss/Offen (April 1985): "He [Jesus] did not withhold his father's name YHWH from us, but he entrusted us with it. It is otherwise inexplicable why the first petition of the Lord's Prayer should read: 'May your name be sanctified!'" Feneberg further notes that "in pre-Christian manuscripts for Greek-speaking Jews, God's name was not paraphrased with kýrios [Lord], but was written in the tetragram form in Hebrew or archaic Hebrew characters. . . . We find recollections of the name in the writings of the Church Fathers".

Dr. P.Kahle says: "We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more". - The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222.

Further confirmation comes from The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, that says: "Recently discovered texts doubt the idea that the translators of the LXX have rendered the Tetragrammaton JHWH with KYRIOS. The most ancient mss (manuscripts) of the LXX today available have the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew letters in the Greek text. This was custom preserved by the later Hebrew translator of the Old Testament in the first centuries (after Christ)". Vol.2, pag.512.

Consequently, we can easily deduce that if the writers of NT in their quotations of the OT used the LXX they would surely have left the Tetragrammaton in their writings the way it recurred in the Greek version of the OT. To confirm the correctness of this conclusion it is interesting to note the following declaration made before the finding of the manuscripts proving that the LXX originaly continued the Tetragrammaton:

"If that version (LXX) would have kept the term (YHWH), or had used the Greek term for JEHOVAH and another for ADONAY, such a use would have surely been followed in the discourses and in the reasonings of the NT. Therefore our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalms, insteand of saying: 'The LORD has said to my LORD' could have said: "JEHOVA has said to ADONI". Supposing that a Christian student was translating in Hebrew the Greek Testament: every time that he met the word KYRIOS, he should have had to consider if in the context there was something that indicated the true Hebrew correspondent; and this is the difficulty that would have arisen in translating the NT in whatever language if the name JEHOVAH would have been left in the Old Testament (LXX). The Hebrew scriptures would have constituted a standard for many passages: every time that the expression "the LORD's angel" recurs, we know that the term LORD represents JEHOVA; we could come to a similar conclusion for the expression "the LORD's word", according to the precedent established in the OT; and so it is in the case of the name "the LORD of armies". On the contrary, when the expression "my LORD" or "our LORD" recurs, we should know that the term JEHOVA would be inadmissible, when instead the words ADONAY or ADONI should be used". R.B.Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p.43.

For a stronger support of this argument there are the words of the professor George Howard, of the University of Georgia (U.S.A.) who observes: "When the Septuagint Version that the New Testament Church used and quoted, contained the Divine Name in Hebrew characters, the writers of the New Testament included without doubt the Tetragrammaton in their quotations". Biblical Archeology Review, March 1978, p.14.

Consequently several translators of the NT have left the Divine Name in the quotations from the OT made by the New Testament writers. It can be noted, for example the versions of Benjamin Wilson, of Andrè Chouraqui, of Johann Jakob Stolz, of Hermann Heinfetter,in Efik, Ewe, Malgascio and Alghonchin languages.

2)The Tetragrammaton in Hebrew version of the NT.

As many know, the first book of the NT, the gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. The proof of this is found in the work of Girolamo De viris inlustribus, chap. 3, where he writes:

"Matthew, that is also Levi, that became an apostle after having been a tax collector, was the first to write a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and Hebrew characters, for the benefit of those who where circumcised that had believed. It's not know with enough certainly who had then translated it in Greek. However the Hebrew one it self is preserved till this day in the Library at Cesarea, that the martyr Pamphilus collected so accurately. The Nazarenes of the Syrian city of Berea that use this copy have also allowed me to copy it". From the Latin text edited by E.C.Richardson, published in the series Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschicte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol.14, Lipsia, 1986, pp.8,9.

External evidence to the effect that Matthew originally wrote this Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century a.C. Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language". - The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16. Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthew's account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the "first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language". - The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6.

Was this really Aramaic? Not according to documents mentioned by George Howard. He wrote: "This supposition was due primarily to the belief that Hebrew in the days of Jesus was no longer in use in Palestine but had been replaced by Aramaic. The subsequent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which are Hebrew compositions, as well as of other Hebrew documents from Palestine from the general time period of Jesus, now show Hebrew to have been alive and well in the first century".

It is therefore natural to conclude that when Matthew quoted passages from the OT in which the Tetragrammaton appeared (thing that occurred both in the Hebrew OT and in the Greek one then available) he would have surely left YHWH in his gospel as no Jew ever dared to take away the Tetragrammaton from the Hebrew text of the Holy Scriptures.

To confirm this there are at least 27 Hebrew versions of the NT that present the Tetragrammaton in the quotations of the OT or where the text requires it. (see app.2) Three of these are the versions of F.Delitzsch, of I.Salkinson & C.D.Ginsburg , of the United Bible Societies, ed.1991 and of Elias Hutter.

3) The Tetragrammaton in the Christian Scriptures according to the Babylonian Talmud.

The first part of this Jewish work is called Shabbath (Sabbath) and it contains an immense code of rules that establishes what could have been done of a Sabbath. Part of it deals with if on the Sabbath day Biblical manuscripts could be saved from the fire, and after it reads:

"The text declares: 'The white spaces ("gilyohnim") and the books of the Minim, can't be saved from the fire'. Rabbi Jose said: 'On working days one must cut out the Divine Names that are contained in the text, hide them and burn the rest'. Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my son if I don't burn them together with the Divine Names that they contain if I come across them". -From the English translation of Dr. H.Freedman.

The word "Minim" means "sectarians" and according to Dr. Freedman it's very probable that in this passage it indicates the Jewish-Christians. The expression "the white spaces" translates the original "gilyohnim" and could have meant, using the word ironically, that the writings of the "Minim where as worthy as a blank scroll, namely nothing. In some dictionaries this word is given as "Gospels". In harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above mentioned passage says: "The books of the Minim are like white spaces (gilyohnim)."

So in the book Who was a Jew?, of L.H.Schiffman, the above mentioned passage of the Talmud is translated: "We don't save the Gospels or the books of Minim from the fire. They are burnt where they are, together with their Tetragrammatons. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: "During the week one should take the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the rest". Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my children! If I would have them in my hands, I would burn them with all their Tetragrammatons'". Dr. Schiffman continues reasoning that here "Minim" is referred to Hebrew Christians.

And it's very probable that here the Talmud refers to the Hebrew Christians. It is a supposition that finds agreement among the studious people, and in the Talmud seems to be well supported by the context. In Shabbath the passage that follows the above mentioned quotations relates a story, regarding Gamaliel and Christian judge in which there is an allusion to parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, this passage of the Talmud is a clear indication that the Christians included the Tetragrammaton in their Gospel and their writings.

Because of all we have said there are valid reasons to assert that the writers of the New Testament reported the Tetragrammaton in their divinely inspired work.

Matteo Pierro Salita S. Giovanni 5, 84135 Salerno, ITALY. e-mail cdb@supereva.it

Appendix 1

List of LXX versions that have Tetragrammaton:

1) LXX P. Fouad Inv. 266.

2) LXX VTS 10a.

3) LXX IEJ 12.

4) LXX VTS 10b.

5) 4Q LXX Levb.

6) LXX P. Oxy. VII.1007.

7) Aq Burkitt.

8) Aq Taylor.

9) Sym. P. Vindob. G. 39777.

10) Ambrosiano O 39 sup.

Appendix 2

List of Hebrew versions of the NT that have the Tetragrammaton:

1) Gospel of Matthew, a cura di J. du Tillet, Parigi, 1555

2) Gospel of Matthew, di Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut, 1385

3) Matthew and Hebrews, di S. Munster, Basilea, 1537 e 1557

4) Gospel of Matthew, di J. Quinquarboreus, Parigi, 1551

5) Gospels, di F. Petri, Wittemberg, 1537

6) Gospels, di J. Claius, Lipsia, 1576

7) NT, di E. Hutter, Norimberga, 1599

8) NT, di W. Robertson, Londra, 1661

9) Gospels, di G. B. Jona, Roma, 1668

10) NT, di R. Caddick, Londra, 1798-1805

11) NT, di T. Fry, Londra, 1817

12) NT, di W. Greenfield, Londra, 1831

13) NT, di A. McCaul e altri, Londra, 1838

14) NT, di J. C. Reichardt, Londra, 1846

15) Luke, Acts, Romans and Hebrews, di J. H. R. Biesenthal, Berlino, 1855

16) NT, di J. C. Reichardt e J. H. R. Biesenthal, Londra, 1866

17) NT, di F. Delitzsch, Londra, ed.1981

18) NT, di I. Salkinson e C. D. Ginsburg, Londra, 1891

19) Gospel of John, di M. I. Ben Maeir, Denver, 1957

20) A Concordance to the Greek New Testament, di Moulton e Geden, 1963

21) NT, United Bibles Societies, Gerusalemme, 1979

22) NT, di J. Bauchet e D. Kinnereth, Roma, 1975

23) NT, di H. Heinfetter, Londra, 1863

24) Romans, di W. G. Rutherford, Londra, 1900

25) Psalms and Matthew, di A. Margaritha, Lipsia, 1533

26) NT, di Dominik von Brentano, Vienna e Praga, 1796

27) NT, Bible Society, Gerusalemme, 1986



Reviews

Matteo Pierro after his article about God's Name in New Testament appeared on catholic magazine "Rivista Biblica" published a book about this subject. It is in Italian language. You can see here a preview: http://utenti.tripod.it/matteopierro To contact author: cdb@supereva.it

Here is some reviews about this book:

a)

GEOVA E IL NUOVO TESTAMENTO (Jehovah and The New Testament) Matteo Pierro (Sacchi Editore Via Bonvesin de la Riva,8, 20027 Rescaldina [MI] Italy, 2000) 174pp. Tel: 0331-57.76.28.

One intractable factoid that faces every Bible translator centers on what to do with the regular appearance of the Divine Name in the Hebrew text. For those few that read the Introduction or Preface of Bible translations ,invariably they will see that there is comment on how this problem was addressed. In the popular New International Version we discover: "In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered "Lord" for which small letters are used." The American Translation produced by renowned scholars in the second decade of the 20th Century alerts the reader: "In this translation we have followed the orthodox Jewish tradition and substituted 'the Lord' for the name 'Yahweh' and the phrase 'the Lord God' for the phrase 'the Lord Yahweh.'" Viewed from a broad perspective, the truth is that around the world some translations render the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" regularly or in a few instances and others completely replace the personal name of God with a generic title like "Lord" or "God." Clearly, there has been an ongoing inconsistency. But what about the place of the Tetragrammaton, the personal name of God, in the New Testament? A small but increscent number of scholars and critics are arguing that the personal name of God has a place in the New Testament. Matteo Pierro is one of those and he diligently essays to make his case in an attractively packaged work headed GEOVA E IL NUOVO TESTAMENTO (Jehovah and The New Testament.)

The author is well aware of the scant manuscript evidence supporting his conclusion but he demonstrates a solid knowledge of both sides of the issue and critically analyzes the available data.

Pierro documents Jewish and Christian practices affecting the appearance and disappearance of the Divine Name in Bible translations and copies in the original languages. He reviews the debate over the Hebrew pronunciation of the Divine Name. Careful attention is given to scholars who reject the pronunciation "Yahweh" and cogently argue for a trisyllabic Divine Name. His survey of evidences for the appearance of the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament includes the testimony of the Talmud and interesting New Testament texts that only seem to make sense if the Greek text's "Kurios" ("Lord") was really "Jehovah/Yahweh" in the original Greek text.

The reader will be treated to a lengthy list of New Testament translations from around the world that incorporate the Divine Name in their texts. A wide range of scholarship is consulted and referenced. If you are fluent in Italian, I recommend that you add this work to your "must read" list.

Hal Flemings Instructor in Hebrew Language San Diego Community College San Diego, California

b)

Matteo Pierro's book "Geova e il Nuovo Testamento" (Jehovah and the New Testament) is a bibliographic novelty worth of researchers' most serious attention. Theonymy has been in the last three centuries a subject neglected by most Christian theologians. Reformation and contra-reformation theological disputes focused mainly on the surface level of the Scriptures, putting aside esoteric aspects, such as theonymy and its mystical implications. Most contemporary studies on theonymy are of laic nature, adopting a scientific-historical approach. They usually regard the theonyms Elohim, YHWH and others as denominations of different deities that eventually, out of political reasons, merged into one. Such phenomena were usually the result of tribal alliances, religious syncretism, etc. Of course, the scientific-historical approach, no matter how tempting it might be, leaves the religious aspects of the problem uncovered. The originality of Mr. Pierro's book resides in the fact that it is one of the very few books written by a modern Christian author that treats the problem of theonymy, mainly of the theonym YHWH, from a religious and philological point of view.

By discussing the usage and importance of the Ineffable Name among early Christians, Mr. Pierro brings to light new common elements shared by Judaism and Christianity alike and opens new perspectives for interconfessional dialogue.

Unlike most modern specialists, Mr. Pierro considers that the Ineffable Name was originally pronounced Yahowa and not Yahwe. The author's arguments are certainly worth of the attention of specialists and might represent a contribution to the solution of the problem: how was the Tetragrammaton pronounced?

Mr. Pierro analyses as well the causes that lead to the replacement of the theonym YHWH by the theonym Kuvrio" (< ynado<á /adonay/) in early Christian texts in Greek. A very tempting explanation, proposed in the book, is the possible intention of the Christian Church to create a textual identity between Kuvrio" (in Hebrew ynado<á /adonay/, literally "my Lords"), that referred to the Christian God Father and the Jewish One God, and Kuvrio" (in Hebrew ynido<á /adoni/ "my lord", "my lordship" or in Aramaic yrima /mari/ with the same meaning), that referred to Jesus of Nazareth.

Mr. Pierro's book is a fresh and important contribution in a field which, in spite of its huge importance, has been neglected by most modern Christian theologians. Mr. Pierro's book constitutes one of the few theological and philological alternatives to the scientific-historical approach that has so far predominated in the research of Christian theonymy, opening thus new perspectives for interconfessional dialogue and for further and deeper understanding of early Christianity.

Gustavo Adolfo Loria Rivel Romanian specialist on Biblical philology and Balcanic linguistics. Born in San Jose, Costa Rica on June 27 1970. In 1996 received a degree in English and Latin by the "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University from Iasi, Romania. Nowadays, doctorate student at the University of Iasi, Romania, under the guidance of prof. Traian Diaconescu (the professor who coordonates his doctorate). The subject of his doctorate thesis, to be presented in 2002, is "Pentateuch: Problems of translation of the Biblical text". He have participated in two International Congresses on Balcanistics: Piatra Neamt, Romania (1995) and Constanta, Romania (1996). He have published on Balcanistics mainly in the Thraco-Dacica Review of the Romanian Academy of Sciences and the "Anales" of the "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University of Iasi.

letusreason

Platonism and Neo-Platonism with Christendom.

The Development of Platonism & NeoPlatonism within Christendom.

Origins of the Trinity


This paper traces the development of the neo-Platonist trinitarian system from Greek philosophy into the post-Christian synthesis. It shows the origin of the Cappadocian system using both ancient philosophy and modern Catholic theology in admission of the origin of the doctrine.

The Development of Neo-Platonisism.

The concept of God as three hypostases of the superior entity is developed from Greek thought. It has nothing to do with the Bible. Plato developed the concept of forms in his works. Plato uses the philosopher Parmenides as his model. Parmenides was the first of the Greek Monists. He was not Monotheist. The concepts were further developed by those who followed Plato. Plotinus developed a relatively simple metaphysical scheme:

providing for just three hypostases - One, Intellect, and Soul - [this scheme] seems to have suffered elaboration already at the hands of his senior pupil Amelius (who had a special weakness for triads), but from the perspective of the Athenian School it is Iamblichus (c. 245-325) who began the major system of scholastic elaboration which is the mark of later Neoplatonism (Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Parmenides, General Introduction, p. xv, Morrow and Dillon, Princeton University Press, 1987).

Thus the Trinity is prefigured as the One, the Wisdom or Intellect and the Soul becoming the One as Father, Word equated with Wisdom and the Spirit as functional Soul. This Spirit as functional Soul is held to be capable of individuation yet remains complete as an entity separate to and equal with the other two hypostases.

Proclus developed the concept of an Unparticipated Divine Soul. Dillon says of this:

Once again the psychic realm must have its proper monad (or henad), Unparticipated Divine Soul, which itself participates in Nous and presides transcendently over its own realm. In the Elements of Theology, when Proclus comes to discuss Soul (props. 184-211), we find no mention of such an entity, only of souls in the plural, but it is plainly presupposed, and is in fact mentioned earlier, in prop. 164. There we learn that the Unparticipated Soul 'presides primarily over the cosmos' [prootoos huper tou kosmou esti], but does so transcendently and so is distinct from the immanent World Soul, as well as from individual souls.

Proclus holds that all monads (unities or single units, henads in Platonic philosophy) in and above the cosmos, intelligible and intellectual are attached to their own monads and ordered with respect to one another, with the One as the leader of secondary monads.

Similarly, the One is the source and basis of the triad. Proclus holds:

Parmenides abides in the transcendent One, Zeno projects the many as the One, and Socrates turns back even these many to the Parmenidean One, since the first member in the every triad is an analogue of rest, the second of procession and the third of reversion, and the reversion rounds out a kind of circular path connecting the end with the beginning .

The concepts of the three begin to emerge but the first step is necessarily that of the dyad (a unit of two parts) but the dyad is a copy of the Unity. Thus the second is inferior to the One of Parmenides which is termed by Zeno himself as logos or discourse. The One is greater than plurality and the paradigm superior to the copy.

Thus the logos concept of Greek philosophy is attributed to the One rather than the second. This is contrary to the Bible but the origin of the concept is thus evident. The important concept of the Greeks was to show, as Proclus did by improving on Zeno's arguments, that plurality devoid of unity is impossible. Thus the Godhead was logically required to be a unified plurality but the early Greeks had no concept of Agape.

Agape is a transliteration of the Hebrew term ’ahabah from the Song of Songs in the Septuagint. Thus the concept of the love of God by dispensation is limited among the early Greeks. The consequent sharing of godliness they thus regarded, where accidentally acquired, as divine theft having no real concept of a plan of salvation as was present in the Hebrew.

The theory of Ideas existed as early as the Pythagoreans and was taken up by Plato in the Sophist (248a). Socrates posits the existence of the itself by itself which is taken to be the unmixed simplicity and purity of the Ideas.

The Hebrew combines this concept as being present with God (Prov. 8:22). Wisdom was created by God as the beginning of His way, the first of His acts of old. This led the rabbis to assume that the law was the wisdom referred to as it established order instead of chaos.

The Ideas were distinguished from attributes predicated of particular things. Thus, for the Greeks, the logos as expression of ideas was taken to be appropriated to the prime cause rather than an attribute of the cause.

Hence the logic of the denial of a subordinate logos. From this also came the concept that God is pure thought. It is worth noting that from Acts 7:29 logos is merely an utterance or saying. See also logoi of God translating dabar Yahovah or oracle(s) of God in the LXX and New Testament.

Plato gave Orpheus to say (In Tim. I, 312.26 ff., and 324.14 ff., cf. Proclus ibid., p. 168).

...that all things came to be in Zeus, after the swallowing of Phanes, because, although the causes of all things in the cosmos appeared primarily and in a unified form in him (sc. Phanes), they appear secondarily and in a distinct form in the Demiurge. The sun, the moon, the heaven itself, the elements, and Eros the unifier - all came into being as a unity 'mixed together in the belly of Zeus' (Orph. fr. 167b.7 Kern).

The Demiurgic forms gave rise to the order and arrangement of sensible things (ibid.). All things stemming from the Father thus gave rise to animism, where the nature of the deity was immanent in all matter.

The Greeks, from Parmenides, turned the concept to Monism, making the One immanent. But Proclus shows that these concepts, particularly the Ideas which stemmed from the Will of the Father, have their origin in the Chaldean Oracles (fr. 37 Des Places).

The Intellect of the Father whirred, conceiving with his unwearying will

Ideas of every form; and they leapt out in flight from this single source

For this was the Father's counsel and achievement.
But they were divided by the fire of intelligence
and distributed among other intelligent beings. For their lord had placed

Before this multiform cosmos an eternal intelligible model; And the cosmos strove modestly to follow its traces,

And appeared in the form it has and graced with all sorts of Ideas.

Of these there was one source, but as they burst forth innumerable others were broken off and scattered

Through the bodies of the cosmos, swarming like bees

About the mighty hollows of the world,
And whirling about in various directions -
These intelligent Ideas, issued from the paternal source,

Laying hold on the mighty bloom of fire.
At the prime moment of unsleeping time
This primary and self sufficient source of the Father
Has spouted forth these primally-generative Ideas.
Proclus comments thus:

In these words the gods have clearly revealed where the Ideas have their foundation, in what god their single source is contained, how their plurality proceeds from this source, and how the cosmos is constituted in accordance with them; and also that they are moving agents in all the cosmic systems, all intelligent in essence and exceedingly diverse in their properties (op. cit., p. 169).

The concept of the Father as creator which is the biblical model is clearly understood in the Chaldean systems and in the original Greek texts. The application of the functions of God, however, become misapplied by them. However, the ancient concepts of the Father as supreme God was understood by all nations. It was the neo-Platonists who perverted it.

The Introduction to Book III of Proclus' Commentary holds that the summary (831.25 ff.) shows Proclus to specify:

three basic attributes of Forms - Goodness, Essentiality, Eternity, deriving respectively from the One (the First Cause), the One Being and Aeon. All paradigmatic Forms derive their being from these three (p. 155).

The requirement thus emerges of the three attributes of Goodness, Essentiality and Eternity being predicated to the Triune system. The Greeks thus had to assert that Christ was co-eternal with God in spite of the fact that the Bible clearly says he is not and that only God is immortal (1Tim. 6:16). The aspect of Christ as the Angel of YHVH also was required to be of the primary three, in view of the perceived requirements of the adequacy of the reconciliation of men to God through Christ.

The Greeks were themselves limited by their concepts of love to the primary relationships of filial and erotic love, hence they could not understand the biblical paradigms.

The concept of omniscience being applied to Christ, contrary to Scripture (e.g. Rev. 1:1), follows from the requirements of the attributes especially Essentiality. Proclus develops the argument from Book IV.1047, op. cit., p. 406.

In dealing with knowledge as single or multiple, Proclus shows that it must be single therefore the neo-Platonists had to assert omniscience to Christ to ensure the other attributes of the divine nature. Such assertion was, of itself, biblically absurd.

If, however, we are to state the single principle of knowledge, we must fix upon the One, which generates Intellect and all the knowledge both within it and what is seen on the secondary levels of being. For this, transcending the Many as it does, is the first principle of knowledge for them, and is not the same as them, as is Sameness in the intelligible realm.

This is co-ordinate with its Otherness and inferior to Being. The One, on the other hand, is beyond intellectual Being and grants coherence to it, and for this reason the One is God and so is Intellect, but not by reason of Sameness nor Being.

And in general Intellect is not god qua Intellect; for even the particular intellect is an intellect but is not a god. Also it is the proper role of Intellect to contemplate and intelligise and judge true being; but of God to unify, to generate, to exercise providence and suchlike. By virtue of that aspect of itself which is not intellect, the Intellect is God; and by virtue of that aspect of itself which is not God, the god in it is Intellect.

The divine Intellect, as a whole, is an intellectual essence along with its own summit and its proper unity, knowing itself in so far as it is intellectual, but being 'intoxicated on nectar,' as has been said, and generating the whole of cognition, in so far as it is the 'flower' of the Intellect and a supra-essential henad.

So once again, in seeking the first principle of knowledge, we have ascended to the One.

Similarly, the first principle was held to be the One (ibid.) and Socrates (Phaedrus 245d) says the first principle is ungenerated.

Here, Trinitarianism becomes confused because it holds Christ to be a generation of the Father. The newer Process Theologians hold the transcendent unity of the Godhead where there was an essential ungenerate co-eternal oneness which regards individuation as illusory. It is properly Monism and not Monotheism, hence it is properly a form of liberation theology akin to Buddhism and Hinduism rather than Christianity.

Logically it is popular with Mysticism. Indeed the recent developments of Trinitarianism seek to make God immanent as pure thought, present in matter, e.g. stone, wood, glass etc. This is not only not Christian it is not even transcendental Monotheism. It is Monism.

The logical requirements of the Greek philosophical form of reasoning have to assert equal divinity with Christ in order to predicate unconditional ascent to the One. This objective of ascent to God by individual determination rather than by God's allocation is the underlying motive of Cappadocian Trinitarianism.

The conclusion is verified from an examination of the history.

C M LaCugna (God For Us, Harper, San Francisco, 1973) states that the Cappadocians, despite the fact that they infrequently used the terms oikonomia and theologia, had considerably altered the concepts and their meaning became firmly set.

Theology is the science of 'God in Godself'; the economy is the sphere of God's condescension to flesh. The doctrine of the Trinity is Theology strictly speaking. In later Greek Patristic theology, usage will remain generally the same. The biblical concept of oikonomia [economy] as the gradual unfolding of the hidden mystery of God in the plan of salvation, is gradually constricted to mean the human nature of Christ, or the Incarnation.

Theologia, not a biblical concept at all, acquires in Athanasius and the Cappadocians the meaning of God's inner being beyond the historical manifestation of the Word incarnate.

Theologia in this sense now specifies the hypostases in God, but not the manner of their self revelation ad extra. If Christian theology had let go the insistence on God's impassibility and affirmed that God suffers in Christ, it could have kept together, against Arianism, the essential unity and identity between the being of God and the being of Christ (p. 43).

We are thus now at the illogical position which the process of Greek philosophy had led the theologians. They had to develop theology apart from soteriology (see ibid.). In other words, they considered theology apart from and without reference to the plan of salvation, which was fatal for Christianity.

The theologians cut theology adrift from the Bible and, hence, it achieved even greater levels of incoherence.

More particularly, the requirement for God to have suffered in Christ is not a biblical requirement; it is a requirement of Greek philosophy, which places improper limitations upon the adequacy of a subordinate sacrifice. The early Christian Church writers were all subordinationist. None of the early theologians ever claimed that Christ was God in the sense that God the Father was God. This was a late invention of Greek philosophy imported into Christianity.

LaCugna says that:

The Cappadocians were highly competent speculative theologians. They brilliantly synthesized elements of Neo-Platonism and Stoicism, biblical revelation, and pastoral concerns to argue against both Arius and Eunomius. Their central concern remained soteriological.

They saw as their task to clarify how God's relationship to us in Christ and the Spirit in the economy of Incarnation and deification reveals the essential unity and equality of Father, Son, and Spirit. In the process Basil and the Gregorys produced a sophisticated ‘metaphysics of the economy of salvation’.

Unfortunately that was not, in fact, the aim of Basil and the two Gregorys as Gregg had demonstrated from the texts in his Consolation Philosophy etc., Philadelphia Patristic Foundation Ltd, 1975.

Basil was attempting to separate from the world altogether in the one escape (Basil EP., 2 tr.

Defarrari, I, 11, Gregg, p. 224).

The passions were to be removed from the soul. The soul must be perfected for separation from the flesh. God Himself becomes visible to those who have seen the Son, His image.

Illuminated by the Spirit, souls become themselves spiritual [psuchai pneumatikai] and are initiated into life in which the future is known, mysteries come clear, and all the benefits of heavenly citizenship are enjoyed. The climax, Basil writes is:

...joy without end, abiding in God, being made like to God [he pros Theon homoioosis], and highest of all, being made God [Theon genesthai]
(Basil 9.23. trans from NPNF, V, 16) Gregg adds (fn3) Much of the thought of Basil's Spir. 9 was taken from Plotinus, as P Henry demonstrated in his Les etats de texte de Plotin (Brussels; n.p., 1938, p. 160). Jaeger argues that the ideas were borrowed from Basil by Gregory of Nyssa in his De Institutio Christiano, in Two Rediscovered works of Ancient Christian Literature: Gregory of Nyssa and Macarius (Leiden: E J Brill, 1954, pp. 100-103).

LaCugna noted that the Cappadocians oriented theology in a direction which further contributed to the separation of economy and theology. This trajectory led to the:

via negativa of Pseudo-Dionysius and, finally, to the theology of Gregory of Palamas (Chapter 6).

In the Latin West, in the period immediately following Nicaea, theologians such as Hilary of Poitiers and, perhaps to an extreme degree, Marcellus of Ancyra, retained the connection between the divine hypostases and the economy of salvation. Augustine inaugurated an entirely new approach. His starting point was no longer the monarchy of the Father but the divine substance shared equally by the three persons. Instead of inquiring into the nature of theologia as it is revealed in the Incarnation of Christ and deification by the Spirit, Augustine would inquire into the traces of the Trinity to be found in the soul of each human being.

Augustine's pursuit of a 'psychological' analogy for the intratrinitarian relations would mean that trinitarian doctrine thereafter would be concerned with the relations 'internal' to the godhead, disjoined from what we know of God through Christ in the Spirit (LaCugna, p. 44).

The Medieval Latin theology followed Augustine and the separation of theology from economy or soteriology. The entire structure became embroiled in neo-Platonism and Mysticism. The important notations of LaCugna are that from Augustine the Monarchy of the Father was no longer paramount. The Trinity assumed co-equality.

This was the second step following on from the false assertion of co-eternality. The correct premise was the concept of the manifestation of the Godhead in each individual, namely the operation of the Father by means of the Holy Spirit which emanated from Him through Jesus Christ.

This direction through Jesus Christ enabled Christ to monitor and direct the individual in accordance with the will of God who lived in each of the elect. Christ was not the origin of the Holy Spirit. He was its intermediary monitor. He acted for God as he had always acted for and in accordance with the will of God. But he was not the God.

The Trinitarians lost sight of this fact, if indeed they ever really understood the matter. As LaCugna says the:

Theology of the triune God appeared to be added on to consideration of the one God (p. 44).

This affected fundamentally the way Christians prayed. That is, they no longer prayed to the Father alone in the name of the Son as the Bible directs (from Mat. 6:6,9; Lk. 11:12) worshipping the Father (Jn. 4:23), but to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Further, the scholastics developed a metaphysics of theology itself. But the entire edifice was built in disregard to, or manipulation of, the Bible.

That is why Trinitarians never address all Bible texts on a subject and mistranslate and misquote other key texts ignoring the ones they cannot alter. But their system is based on Mysticism and Platonism. LaCugna states that:

The Cappadocians (and also Augustine) went considerably beyond the scriptural understanding of economy by locating God's relationship to the Son (and the Spirit) at the 'intradivine' level (p. 54).
The One God existed as ousia in three distinct hypostases. We have seen (in the paper) that the Platonic term ousia and the Stoic term hypostases mean essentially the same thing.

The theology of Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa, his brother, and Gregory of Nazianzus:

was formulated largely in response to the theology of Eunomius. Eunomius was also a Cappadocian, and for a brief time, bishop of Cyzicus. He was a neo-Arian, a rationalist who like Aetius believed in the radical subordination of Son to Father (heterousios).

For Eunomius, as for Arius, God is a unique and simple essence. But Eunomius drew further consequences for this essentially Arian premise. According to Eunomius, God is supremely arelational, God cannot communicate the divine nature, God cannot beget anything from the divine essence. Since the Son is begotten or generated (gennetos) by an energy, the Son cannot be of the same substance as the Father.

Thus there is no sense, not even a derivative sense, in which the divinity of the Son could be maintained.

Second, Arius had believed that while God is incomprehensible, the divine Son makes the incomprehensible God comprehensible. Eunomius believed human reason is capable of apprehending the very essence of God. His name for God is Agennesia: Ungenerateness, or Unbegottenness (LaCugna, p. 56).

Here we come to the issue. The Cappadocians repeatedly asserted that God can never be fully comprehended by human reason or language. Gregory of Nazianzus in his Theological Orations (hence the title Theologian) held that purity of heart and the leisure of contemplation are preconditions for the knowledge of God. Even this personal interaction does not enable the knowledge of God's ousia.

Only God's works and acts (energeiai) can be known, that which constitutes the hinder parts of God exposed to Moses between the gaps in the cliff in Exodus 33:23.Thus, Christ showed by this example that only an (as yet) imperfect knowledge of the Godhead was available to him.

LaCugna states:

The Cappadocian response to Arianism* and Eunomianism must be understood against the backdrop to mystical theology. The threads of the mystical theology of the Cappadocians are found already in their predecessors and in Middle Platonism.

The centrality of mysticism in the theology of Gregory of Nyssa, combined with his intellectual acumen, produced a powerful refutation of the Eunomian position that God is knowable, and the Arian position that the Son is created (genetos). Both Gregorys worked out a theology of divine relations in the process.

But they were emphatic that even if we are able to explain what divine paternity means, words like begotten and unbegotten, generate and ungenerate, do not express the substance (ousia) of God but the characteristics of the divine hypostases, of how God is toward us.

The title 'Father', for example, does not give any information on the nature or qualities of divine fatherhood but indicates God's relation to the Son (LaCugna, p. 57).

* Arianism is applied generally to encompass subordinationists who all believed that Christ was a creation of the Father. This included Irenaeus, Polycarp, Paul, the apostles and even Christ himself.

Thus, early theologians are often termed Arians or early Arians even though they wrote centuries before Arius was born. It helps Trinitarians assert a spurious relativity to their position. The correct term is Subordinationist Unitarianism – or simply Unitarianism.

Trinitarians do not see or understand the universal relationship of the Sons of God to the Father.

The important aspect, which emerges from the above summary by LaCugna, is that we are able to see the non-biblical premises from which the Cappadocians attempt to reason.

For example, Christ clearly states that God is knowable. Christ knows and is known by the elect as he knows the Father and the Father knows him (Jn. 10:14). This knowledge was given to Christ by the Father as he was given power to lay down his life (Jn. 10:18).

The Son of God came and gave understanding to the elect to know him who is true and the elect are in him who is true and in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life (1Jn. 5:20). Thus the true God is He who is true and the Son is Jesus Christ.

The Son is not the true God, he is the Son through whom the elect are to know God. Thus the elect know God, where they did not formerly know God (Gal. 4:8), but came to know Him through the Father's willing self-revelation in the Son.

For what is known of God is manifested by God (Rom. 1:19 see Marshall's Interlinear), namely His invisible nature, His eternal power and deity (Rom. 1:20). It is a source of shame to the elect that some do not have a knowledge of God (1Cor. 15:34).

The knowledge is hence conditional and relative. It is revealed through the Spirit, which searches everything, even the depths of God (1Cor. 2:10).
The Cappadocians are thus wrong.

Further, their insistence that the Son is ungenerate or unbegotten, is not only contrary to Scripture but also contrary to logic and that is why they had to resort to Mysticism – because the logic of subordinationism, whether or not it is incorrectly labelled Arianism, is compelling.

Christ is an image or eikõn of the God, the first begotten (prõtotokos) of all creation (see Marshall's Interlinear Col. 1:15). Hence, Christ is the beginning of the creation of God (Rev. 3:14).

Christ said this to the Laodicean Church because it is in that Church that the apostasy became evident as it does in the last days with the man of lawlessness. It is the Gentiles who do not know God (1Thes. 4:5) and who reap God's vengeance (2Thes. 1:8) as the Cappadocians so amply demonstrate from their mystical cosmology.

You cannot be punished for not knowing God if that knowledge is unobtainable. God would be an unjust judge and thus unrighteous and hence not God.

The second point of error of the Cappadocians was that the divine paternity was not confined to Jesus Christ as we see from Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Satan was also a Son of God before his rebellion typified by Genesis 6:4 and Jude 6. We are all to become Sons of God (Jn. 1:12; Rom. 8:14; 1Jn. 3:1,2) and hence co-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 3:29; Titus 3:7; Heb. 1:14; 6:17; 11:9; Jas. 2:5; 1Pet. 3:7).

Because we are Sons, God has sent the spirit of His Son into our hearts (Gal. 4:6). Thus the Spirit is extended through the Son to the Sons of God in Christ.

Paul's writings are subordinationist but confusing to Gentiles unfamiliar with the allocation of name by authority. For example, in Titus 1:3 he refers to God as the saviour of us. In Titus 1:4, he distinguishes from God the Father and Christ and refers to Christ as the saviour of us.

Thus, Trinitarians assert that the function of God as saviour is here asserted as the aspect known as Son. This is incorrect. The authority of the Son is derived from the Father as we have seen in John 10:18. The adequacy of the sacrifice was determined by the Father, as it was to reconcile man to the Father that it was required to be made. God determines the adequacy of the sacrifice as it was to Him that the debt was owed.

There is no question that Paul makes clear distinction between God and Christ. Paul is an absolute and incontestable subordinationist. No apostle was a Trinitarian – not because they did not need to develop the theory but because it is blasphemy.

Those who profess to know God must demonstrate their knowledge by their deeds (Titus 1:16). Thus the law is kept from a knowledge of and love of God. The law must be kept because sin is the transgression of the law (1Jn. 3:4) and, if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin (Heb. 10:26). Those sins are carried to judgment as a profanation of the blood of the covenant by which we are sanctified (Heb. 10:29).

The elect understand that Christ is a subordinate God. Further, that they will be co-heirs with Christ as subordinate theoi or elohim. They do not think that they can be equal to the God.

2Thessalonians 1:5-8 This is the evidence of the righteous judgement of God, that you may be made worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering - since indeed God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant rest with us to you who are afflicted, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

The punishment is meted out upon those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of Christ. There is no doubt that Paul distinguishes God from Christ in this text from 2Thessalonians 1:12: 2Thessalonians 1:12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus.

More particularly, the apostasy (apostasia) must come first before the coming of Christ when the Man of Sin or Lawlessness is revealed taking his seat in the shrine or the naos of God (2Thes. 2:4), the holy of holies of which we are.

Thus the Man of Sin is found amongst us as one of the elect. He sits in the naos of ton Theon, the Eloah or Elohim, placing himself above everything being called God declaring himself to be the God. Thus he is not one of the elect as subordinate theoi or elohim. He declares himself in equality to God as Basil sought to do by the introduction of trinitarian Mysticism.

The next development of Trinitarianism was by Augustine where the linear representation of the Cappadocians from Father to Son to the Holy Spirit was altered to an interrelationship which came to be represented as a triangle with each of the entities equally placed. His work De Trinitate is the most sustained treatment of his theology.

Written over the period 399-419 it was fundamentally influenced and probably altered by his reading of Gregory of Nazianzus' Theological Orations around 413 (LaCugna, p. 82, noting also Chevalier). Augustine sought to explain that:
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit constitute a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality (LaCugna, p. 82, quoting De Trinitate 1.4.7 PL 42,824).

Augustine's schema sought to return to God whom the soul images through contemplation (LaCugna, p. 83). Thus, he also was concerned with mystical contemplation.

The understanding of all the apologists of the second century, not to mention the first century, Church thought that the Son and Spirit had appeared in the Old Testament theophanies – for example, that the Son alone appeared to the Patriarchs (Novatian Treatise on the Trinity quoted also by LaCugna, p. 83.

The modern position is that all three as Father, Son and Holy Spirit appeared at Sinai because, in fact, God is pure thought and is expressed through the Son as logos. This misapprehends the nature of the Holy Spirit and the way in which it acts in the Son and, in fact, confers Godhood on the Son.

LaCugna argues that Arians interpreted the texts differently arguing that, if the Son appeared without the Father, this must indicate a difference in their natures (p. 83). We will assume that she is referring generically to Unitarians as the term Arian limits the nature of the inquiry.

The arguments of early theologians were quite clear and specific. Christ was a creation of the Father, in fact the primary act of the creation and hence its beginning. This is the position of the Bible. It was the Athanasians and the later Cappadocians who altered the structure contrary to the Bible.

Consequently, that is why the Cappadocian apologists in churches with a Bible foundation are caught up in this absurd position of denying the literal intent of the Bible.

The Process Theologians and neo-Buddhists in Christianity are attempting to assert a monist structure where the Godhead is an immanent non-divisive blob.

Thus is Christendom!

(Many thanks to my friends for this contribution)

letusreason

Singular anarthrous predicate nouns and John 1:1?

Jn 1: 1 

Original Greek translates into:
"God was the Word"

N.W.T. the word was “a god”.



Here is a story we are all familiar with, the account of Barabbas.

John 18:40 KJV

“Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was *a robber.”

Numbers 35:31 KJV

“Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of *a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death”

Acts 3:14 (Young's Literal Translation)

“and ye the Holy and Righteous One did deny, and desired *a man -- *a murderer -- to be granted to you”

Even you should understand that, there being no indefinite article in Greek


We wouldn’t translate John 18:40 as “Now Barabbas was robber.”

We wouldn’t translate Numbers 35:31 as “…the life of murderer…”

We wouldn’t translate Acts 3:14 as “…and desired man -- murderer -- to be granted to you”

Why the above?

It shows that Barabbas belongs to the category or class of “murderer” or belongs to the category or class of “man”.


Here is an illustration that even you will possibly comprehend!

"Charles is a Prince".

To use a count noun in a generic sense (e.g. "I am *man") draws attention to the ‘class’ "man". Or, to use Slatten's (1918) classic example "Charles is *a prince" could mean that Charles is the son of a monarch or that Charles is not the son of a monarch but has the qualities of the class "prince." (There are other in-between possibilities but these are the two examples that best clarify the issue).

A Class has Definite and (sometimes) Indefinite Members:

The generic use of a noun points to a class. Here is the point:

This class is instantiated by *members* of the class.

For example,

*(keep Barabbas in mind).

"I am man” *(I am robber) draws attention to class "Man." But when I am an instantiated member of class "Man," I am *a* man. I am *a member of* class "Man". As such, I am a separate and distinct instantiation of another instance of class "Man". In the second example of "Charles is a prince", Charles has the qualities and characteristics of class "Prince."

This use highlights that there is a class "Prince" and it consists of princes. Those princes *in general* display certain qualities that Charles also displays.

Apply this same instantiation to Barabbas. Barabbas likewise, belongs to the class ‘Robbers’.

So, again, and likewise, those ‘robbers’ *in general* display certain qualities that ‘Barabbas’ also displays.

The point is that a generic use points to the class AND REFERENCES TO MEMBERS OF THAT CLASS MUST BE DEFINITE OR INDEFINITE.

John 1:1- theos instantiated twice: (Again keep Barabbas in mind).

So, in the John 1:1 expression "Jesus is [a] theos, many modern Trinitarians assert that the ‘theos’ here is "qualitative" (this is also mislabelled since ‘theos’ is not in fact a quality, i.e. qualitative). What they are trying to do is to spin the word "qualitative" to mean as a lump all quality, substance, non-count, generic use, etc., nouns.

The net effect is that you lose precision on what they mean when they use the term "qualitative." But even here in John 1:1, the ‘theos’ class is instantiated twice.

Both THE God (ho-theos) and the one who is with him ((a) theos). The fact that there are two instantiations argues that the second one is indefinite. One can correctly argue to what extent the LOGOS as indefinite ‘theos’ possesses the qualities of the definite ho-theos as a member of class ‘theos’, but it is still an indefinite use, grammatically speaking.


In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mark 6:49; 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6


Jesus is God and the Lump is Yogurt:

What Trinitarians are trying to do is to use the word ‘theos’ as if it were a substance (or other noncount noun or count noun in a noncount sense).

For example, if I took a lump of yogurt from a cup of yogurt and placed the lump next to the cup, I could say "The lump was with the yogurt and the lump was yogurt." Since yogurt is a mass noun, this works grammatically. However, there are two instantiations here of class "Yogurt". You can convert a mass noun to a count noun but adding quantifiers. Here you have "the cup of" yogurt and "a lump of" yogurt.

Thus, instantiations of class "yogurt" are indefinite or definite depending on its reference in context. Since ‘theos’ is not a substance or other kind of mass noun, the expression "the LOGOS was God" does not work grammatically. And even if some argue that it is a count noun used in a noncount sense in "Jesus is God", take them to the next step and ask them if Jesus is a definite QEOS or an indefinite one. Since they reject definiteness as heresy, where does that lead them?

Conclusion:

Thus, the literal translation "and the Word was a god" is really the best literal translation.

NB,

Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns:

Scripture Text

New World Translation

King James Version

An American Translation

New International Version

Revised Standard Version
Today’s English Version

Mark

6:49 an apparition a spirit a ghost a ghost a ghost a ghost
11:32 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a real prophet a prophet

John

4:19 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet 6:70 a slanderer a devil an informer a devil a devil a devil
8:44 a manslayer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer
8:44 a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar
9:17 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet
10:1 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief
10:13 a hired man an hireling a hired man a hired hand a hireling a hired man
10:33 a man a man a mere man a mere man a man a man
12:6 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief

John1:1 is the exact same grammatical construction to the above examples and I have given you many examples. John 1:1 is no exception to the above examples. So, why do you insist that it means something else?

The Trinitarian translators above show that they understand exactly the situation with singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns.

But, theological bias prevents them from obeying the rules. They will selectively apply it to NT verses, but not to John 1:1 and yet that exact same rule applies.

There are some 70 translations, that translate similar to the NWT at John 1:1 and of these 70, some 18 translate exactly as does the NWT at John 1`:1, either as "a God" or "a god".

List of bibles that render John 1:1?
https://simplebibletruths.net/70-John-1-1-Truths.htm

The Greatest chruch father of his day, Origen, has left us a commentary on the relationship between Father and Son and it will be seen, that, Origen did not consider Jesus to be "God", in the same way, as the Father is "God", below is an extract from Origen's commentary on the gospel of John:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09/Page_323.html




letusreason

Wonderful Counsellor Isaiah 9:6?

Wonderful Counsellor Isaiah 9:6

Taken from:

‘thechristianexpositor.org’ web site.

‘The Christian Expositor is a non-denominational, orthodox evangelical Christian group…’
The site says this:

“Jehovah's Witnesses WHO IS Jesus Christ? Is He God?”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not ask who is Jesus Christ. And, is He God?

Jehovah’s Witnesses know who Jesus Christ is [he is the son of Jehovah] and do not subscribe to the Trinitarian view that he is God [Jehovah]. The Lord Jehovah is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The site shows its bias and a lack of insight in understanding what texts like, Judg 13:18-22; Isa 9:6; 11:1-3; Gen 18; and Gen 32 and others texts really convey.

I have used the text from Judges 13:18-22 ASV that the site authors preferred to use.

It must be remembered that the site’s authors are ‘Evangelicals’ and avowed Trinitarians and therefore their site information is biased and leans toward their theology, i.e. Trinitarian theology.

You may be surprised at the findings when using various bible translations instead of just one or two that would seem to lean to a particular interpretational belief/theology.
Other than the NWT, all other translations are the works of Trinitarian translator(s).


It is my intention to show how the authors of this site have twisted and corrupted the scriptures and their meaning and misinforms unsuspecting readers. The site’s authors wish you to believe that Jesus is Jehovah (God) of the Hebrew Scriptures [O/T].


I have taken various [free online] bibles including the NWT to show how
the site leaves out is the fact that The God of Israel [Jehovah] is never called an ‘angel’ or referred to as an angel! Also, the site leaves out other translations and how they translate Isaiah 9:6

--------------------------------------------------------

I will start with the:


Isaiah 9: 6 NWT (Please, see (*))

For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called *Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

*Wonderful Counsellor can also read:


Lit. “Wonder (Miracle) of a Counsellor,” or “Wonder, Counsellor,”
M.; LXX, “The Angel of Grand Counsel”;
Sy, “Wonder and Counsellor.”


According to the Hebrew the titles are:


*Pele-yo’ez-el-gibbor-avi-‘ad-sar-shalom. (See above: M, LXX and Sy)


Five translation examples were chosen for this example. Please note the difference with these five Trinitarian bibles.


Isaiah 9:6 five translations.

Isaiah 9:6 (English Standard Version)

6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called*Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


Footnotes:
Isaiah 9:6 Or is upon
Isaiah 9:6 Or is called


New International Version (NIV)

6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called*Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


Footnotes: Isaiah 9:6 or Wonderful, Counsellor


Isaiah 9:6 (Amplified Bible)

6For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace.


Isaiah 9:6 (New King James Version)

6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


Isaiah 9:6 (Darby Translation)

6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.


Now notice two of these Trinitarian translations and where they put the comma when it comes to ‘Wonderful’ and ‘Counsellor’.


Isaiah 9:6 (Darby Translation): “…Wonderful, Counsellor,”

Isaiah 9:6 (New King James Version)): “…Wonderful, Counsellor,”


Now look at these other Trinitarian translations and notice where the translators put the comma (,).

Isaiah 9:6 (English Standard Version): “…Wonderful Counsellor,”


New International Version (NIV): “…Wonderful Counsellor,”

Isaiah 9:6 (Amplified Bible): “…Wonderful Counsellor,”


Why the sudden abrupt change (in punctuation) from “Wonderful Counsellor” to “Wonderful, Counsellor”?

Certain Trinitarian translations differ one from another and are not consistent with each other. The reason is Trinitarian bias. Altering the flow of “Wonderful Counsellor” only and not the others (titles) is forcing the text to mean what the authors want it to mean!

Why is it that “Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Are not changed also to “Mighty, God; Everlasting, Father…”? (bias)

Altering the text in this way alters the meaning of Isaiah 9:6 and yet it will be noticed that the Trinitarian translators of the English Standard Version, New International Version, and the Amplified Bible show that they understand what is implicit in the text, that these are titles to be bestowed on the Messiah and therefore render the text, “Wonderful Counsellor” denoting a title like the rest of Isaiah 9:6. Please see (*) above.

Notice in the following texts what would happen to this ‘twig/stump’ of Jesse when he turned up, and eventually, what the fulfilment of the prophesy would mean, and its outcome upon the foretold Messiah, and the effect he would have on the people.



Isaiah 11:1-3 (New Living Translation)


A Branch from David’s Line


1 Out of the stump of David’s family will grow a shoot— yes, a new Branch bearing fruit from the old root. 2 And the Spirit of the Lord will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. 3 He will delight in obeying the Lord…

Isaiah 11:1-3 (NWT)

And there must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jes´se; and out of his roots a sprout will be fruitful. 2 And upon him the spirit of Jehovah must settle down, the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of mightiness, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah; 3 and there will be enjoyment by him in the fear of Jehovah.

Zech.6:13 NWT

And he himself will build the temple of Jehovah, and he, for his part, will carry [the] dignity; and he must sit down and rule on his throne, and he must become a priest upon his throne, and the very counsel of peace will prove to be between both of them.

Zechariah 6:13 (New Living Translation)

Yes, he will build the Temple of the Lord. Then he will receive royal honour and will rule as king from his throne. He will also serve as priest from his throne, and there will be perfect harmony between his two roles.’

Footnotes:

Zechariah 6:13 Or There will be a priest by his throne.


What are the above translations telling us about this ‘twig/stump’ of Jesse?


The Lord here means Jehovah.

the Spirit of the Lord will rest on him,
the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and might,
the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord
He will delight in obeying the Lord


When the spirit of Jehovah rested on the Messiah what would this mean?


The Christ of Jehovah would have, “wisdom, understanding, counsel and might, knowledge and he would delight in obeying the (Lord) Jehovah…

The effect of all of this on the people that the Messiah would have, as a result of a fulfilling of the prophesy of Isaiah 9:6


Matthew 7:28 (Amplified Bible)


When Jesus had finished these sayings [the Sermon on the Mount], the crowds were astonished and overwhelmed with bewildered wonder at His teaching.


Mathew 7.28 NWT


Now when Jesus finished these sayings, the effect was that the crowds were astounded at his way of teaching.


Matthew 12:42 (Darby Translation)


A queen of [the] south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, more than Solomon [is] here.


Mathew 12:42 NWT


The queen of the south will be raised up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it; because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, but, look! something more than Solomon is here.


Notice the result this had on the people:


“The crowds were astonished and overwhelmed with bewilderment, wonder at His teaching”

“the effect was that the crowds were astounded at his way of teaching.”

Also, Jesus performed many wonderful miracles when he was on earth as Jehovah’s “twig/stump”. Please see (*) above.


What the site authors try to do!


What the Trinitarian authors of the site try and do, is to take the title “Wonderful Counsellor” (*) and proceed to disjoint it in such a way that that part of the title “Wonderful” is being used to refer to Jehovah. These are the lengths Trinitarians will go to, to prove their interpretation, belief, theology.

The Trinitarian translations above do not even agree with each other in regard to Isaiah 9:6. Is it “Wonderful Counsellor” or “Wonderful, Counsellor”?

A basic definition of the word “wonder” is to be: amazed, be in awe, astonishment etc. (*)


The context shows that the prophesy of Isaiah 9:6 wasn’t using “Wonderful Counsellor” or “Wonderful, Counsellor”, or even “Wonderful” on its own (no matter which way the words are put) to identify Jesus with Jehovah.

No, the context shows that, because Jehovah’s spirit would be with Jesus the true Messiah (rest on him), people would stand in amazement, in awe, incredulous, speechless, bewildered, in wonder at this “Wonderful” miracle worker having more wisdom than even Solomon.

The people would have seen nothing or heard nothing of the like…The people would be astounded, amazed, dumbfounded, astonished… at his way of teaching…

*Wonderful Counsellor can also read:

Lit. “Wonder (Miracle) of a Counsellor,” or “Wonder, Counsellor,”
M.; LXX, “The Angel of Grand Counsel”;
Sy, “Wonder and Counsellor.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Next, this Evangelical site tries (yet again) to use scripture to prove that Jesus is Jehovah.


So, if I understand this correctly (see below), the Trinitarian Evangelical site authors are saying that, Jesus is Jehovah (the same as the LDS)and therefore God, but not God the Father (same as LDS)! So, we have God and God the Father and the authors use the texts below to prove this.


These are the words taken directly of the above Evangelical web site.


Judges 13:18-22. ASV

“Nine times in this passage He is referred to as the Angel of 'Jehovah': in verses 3, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21. But then, in verse 22, He is said to be God Himself. Note also in verse 18 that this Angel's name is "Wonderful."

The web site authors are correct in the above verses in that these verses refer to Jehovah’s angel 9 times. But when it comes to v22 the same authors show a blatant case of twisting the Hebrew text to make it fit Trinitarian theology. The authors cite the case of Manoah and his wife in Judges 13:18-22 emphasising v22.

First they say that it is Jehovah’s angel “the angel of Jehovah”, then turn and say that this same angel, who is Jehovah’s angel, is God, Jehovah Himself, because of what is said on the basis of the above verses up to v21.

Let’s look at vss 21 and 22 of Judges 13.


Judges 13:21, 22 RSV (Catholic Edition)


“…then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the Lord”

“And Manoah said to his wife, “we shall surely die, for we have seen God”.

Was the angel actually God? Was he Jehovah? Did Manoah and his wife actually see God with their own eyes? The text just says “angel of Jehovah” and adds nothing else to it.

Turn your bible to Genesis 16 a familiar account about the troubles in Abraham’s household, between Sarai (Sarah) and Hagar. V7 lets us know that Jehovah’s angel finds Hagar in the wilderness.
Note that it just says “Jehovah’s angel” it doesn’t specify any particular angel and supplies no name, yet we have Hagar saying,


Genesis 16:13 (American Standard Version)


“And she called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou art a God that seeth: for she said, Have I even here looked after him that seeth me?” (ASV)


Gen 32: 24-30 New American Standard Bible (NASB)


Jacob Wrestles

24Then Jacob was left alone and a man wrestled with him until daybreak.
25When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob's thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him.
26Then he said, "Let me go, for the dawn is breaking." But he said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me."
27So he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob."
28 He said, "Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed."
29Then Jacob asked him and said, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And he blessed him there.
30So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved."

Footnotes:
Genesis 32:28 I.e. he who strives with God; or God strives
Genesis 32:30 I.e. the face of God


The angel asks Jacob the “man”, “What is your name?” Jacob replies!
Jacob asks the angel for his name, the angel does not reply!



In v28 the angel said that Jacob had contended with God. In v30 Jacob said that he had seen God face to face and lived.

In Genesis 18 the same can be said for angels (three men) meeting Abraham and one of them was Jehovah. In v22 of Gen18 it says the “men” went off but Jehovah stayed with Abraham. Now, in Gen 19 it says “the two angels arrived at Sodom…” Where was the other, the third one? Well, he stayed with Abraham as in Gen 18:22; this one was called Jehovah.


So, Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Jacob and Manoah and his wife actually saw angels and then said as a result of their experience, that they had seen God (Jehovah) face to face, as it were! So, did they actually see Jehovah God Face to face?


Do angels at times speak in the place of God (the Father), as if they were God themselves?


Ex 3:2 Exodus 3:2 (New American Standard Bible)


The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.


Ex 23:20 NWT


“Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared.”


Other examples of angels speaking, as if they were the true God.


The angel who delivered God’s message to Moses at the burning thornbush was also a spokesman. He is identified as Jehovah’s angel at Exodus 3:2, where we are told:
“Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire in the midst of a thornbush.” Verse 4 says: “When Jehovah saw that he turned aside to inspect, God at once called to him out of the midst of the thornbush.” In verse 6, this angelic spokesman for God said: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” So when speaking with this personal representative of God, Moses spoke as if he were speaking to Jehovah himself.—Exodus 4:10.


In the 6th chapter of Judges, we find another example of a man speaking to God through an angelic representative. Verse 11 identifies the message bearer as “Jehovah’s angel.” There we read:


“Later Jehovah’s angel came and sat under the big tree that was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while Gideon his son was beating out wheat in the winepress so as to get it quickly out of the sight of Midian.” This messenger, “Jehovah’s angel,” is thereafter represented as if he were Jehovah [God the Father] himself. In verses 14 and 15, we read: “Upon that Jehovah faced [Gideon] and said:

‘Go in this power of yours, and you will certainly save Israel out of Midian’s palm. Do I not send you?’ In turn he said to him: ‘Excuse me, Jehovah. With what shall I save Israel?’”

So the materialized angel seen by Gideon and with whom he spoke is represented in the Biblical account as if he were God himself.


In verse 22, Gideon says:

“I have seen Jehovah’s angel face to face!” The angel spoke precisely what God told him to speak. Therefore, Gideon spoke with God through this angelic spokesman.

Now it is possible to understand why Abraham addressed the materialized angelic spokesman of God as if he were talking to Jehovah God himself.
Since this angel spoke precisely what God wanted to have said to Abraham and was there personally representing Him, the Biblical record could say that “Jehovah appeared to him.”—Genesis 18:1.

Remember that an angelic spokesman for God could transmit His messages just as precisely as a mobile phone or a radio can transmit our words to another person today in the 21st Century. Hence, it can be understood how Abraham, Moses, Manoah, and others could speak with a materialized angel as if they were talking to God.

While such individuals were able to see these angels and the glory of Jehovah reflected by them, they were not able to see God. Therefore, this in no way contradicts the apostle John’s statement: “No man has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18) In contradiction to the Evangelical web site. What these men saw were angelic representatives and not God himself.

So, all the individuals above saw God face to face. What they saw in reality was an angelic representative of Jehovah God, acting as if they were Jehovah and not actually the person of God, Jehovah.

If the Queen of England, who might weigh 9 stones and is 80 years old and is 5 foot 5 inches and wears a size 6 shoe, sends out one of her ambassadors to another country, and he is 6 foot 4 inches, weighs 170 pounds, is 40 years of age and wears a size 10 shoe, he is her legal representative (Shaliach= a Jewish legal term). He carries all the power and authority invested in him to carry out the Royal will. It is as if he were Elizabeth. He would be a reflection of the will of the Royal Sovereign, an ambassador, stepping in, substituting for the Queen of England.

Eleazar is the first mentioned Shaliach (intermediary). Put it another way, a man's shaliach was as the man himself. This means that the shaliach had the power of attorney and was authorized to act in the place (stead) of the person he or she represented.

Eleazar acted as if he was Abraham, in the execution of that ones will i.e. a wife for his son Isaac. He was Abraham’s ambassador, substituting for him.


The apostles were substitutes for Christ Eph 6:18-20; 2Cor 5:20


2 Cor 5:20 NWT


”We are therefore ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us. As substitutes for Christ we beg: “Become reconciled to God.”


2 Corinthians 5:20 (Amplified Bible)


”So we are Christ's ambassadors, God making His appeal as it were through us. We [as Christ's personal representatives] beg you for His sake to lay hold of the divine favour [now offered you] and be reconciled to God.”

The apostles stood in the place of Christ (in his stead), and being “ambassadors substituting for Christ” places serious restrictions upon God’s representatives who are new creatures in union with Christ.


What are these restrictions?


Those similar to the restrictions that rest upon ambassadors of the political nations.


Not only today, but also in Bible times, ambassadors had no right to meddle in the politics of foreign nations to which they were sent. (Luke 19:12-15, 27) They might make an appeal to those foreign governments, or even a protest, but they must strictly keep out of the politics of such alien nations.

They must be loyal to their own home government and jealously take care of its interests when they are dealing with foreign governments. If they do not do this, they can be refused recognition or their credentials be turned down and their presence in the land can be denied.

So, the angels who visited Abraham, Manoah etc were Jehovah’s ambassadors, legal representatives, (Shaliach) not meddling in any affair except doing the will of their Sovereign Jehovah.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the above web site.


"In the earlier study of Isaiah 9:6, it was pointed out that "pele", the Hebrew word for "Wonderful," is only used of God, never of man, or an angel. The very fact that He claims this name for Himself shows that He is not a common angel, but God Himself. And, of course, the title belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ:"


Judges 13:17, 18 NWT


Then Ma•no´ah said to Jehovah’s angel: “What is your name, that when your word comes true we shall certainly do you honour?” 18 However, Jehovah’s angel said to him: “Just why should you ask about my name, when it is a wonderful one?”


Judges 13:18 (New American Standard Bible)


But the angel of the LORD said to him, "Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?"

Footnotes:


Judges 13:18 I.e. incomprehensible


Judges 13:18 (New Living Translation)


“Why do you ask my name?” the angel of the LORD replied. “It is too wonderful for you to understand.”


Judges 13:18 (King James Version)


And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?


Judges 13:18 (New International Version - UK)


1 He replied, why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding.


Judges 13:18 Jerusalem Bible


And the Angel of Yahweh replied, ‘why ask my name? It is a mystery.’


Judges 13:18 The Bible an American Translation. By E. J. Goodspeed


“Why do you ask for my name,” the angel of the Lord said to him, “seeing that it is ineffable.”


Judges 13:18 The bible in living English. By S T Byington


But the angel of Jehovah said to him “what do you ask my name for, when it is mysterious.”


If you look at the above texts on Judges 13:18 you will notice (and in a footnote) a very big difference in wording, giving the said text a different contextual understanding and not as the authors are implying.


The translators of the above various translations are making explicit what is implicit and their findings are simply saying:

‘A wonderful one, wonderful (footnote- incomprehensible), It is too wonderful for you to understand, it is secret, It is beyond understanding, It is a mystery, seeing that it is ineffable, it is mysterious.’


The above does not have the same connotation that the site authors will like you to believe, but the above shows the very opposite. You decide for yourself.



Where does he ‘claim this name for himself?’


The above uses the word “Wonderful”.


The context of the various translations below belie the claim made by the site authors, that “Wonderful” in this context has a special meaning, that it applies to Jesus and that because of this, Jesus is Jehovah and therefore Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same, but not God the Father. So, in this context we have God and God the Father. This belief is not a Bible teaching, but extra biblical. It has its roots outside the bible. Its origins lie in the metaphysics of Greek and Oriental philosophy.


This Evangelical site turns everything upside down.


It makes an angel Jehovah, Jesus is “Wonderful” therefore must be Jehovah, Jesus is Jehovah because Jehovah appeared as an angel, therefore, Jesus must be an angel!



Yes, this is what the authors site says (below):


“Isa 9:6: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


So who had all of these Old Testament figures been speaking with? Manoah said unto his wife, 'We shall surely die, because 'we have seen God.'


They recognised that they had seen and spoken to God - to 'Jehovah'.


But it could not have been God the Father because we read the words of Jesus:


John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

So none of these appearances of the 'angel' shown to be 'Jehovah' could be God the Father, for He has never been seen by man at any time (John 1:18).”

But, do not forget the principle of the SHALIACH!

letusreason