Origins of the Insertion of the Trinity.

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”John 8:32

“Most “proofs” against the traditional teachings of Christianity consist of pitting one passage of Scripture against another.” Should it not be impossible to “pit one verse of the Bible against another”? Should the verses of the Bible not be consistent? Should they not reinforce each other rather that refute each other? What kind of logic is this?

As we shall now begin to see, humanity has over the ages taken great liberties with the text of the Bible. This has ultimately resulted in countless contradictions between the verses. This means that as a result of this continuous unrelenting tampering, the message of the Bible can no longer be trusted as the original 100% unchanged word of God. The Bible itself bears witness that a “false witness” will always result in discrepancy (Mark 14:56). “…and almost always taking such passages out of context.”

“The Christian message about Jesus revolves around three facts: the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection.” Have we now totally given up on such matters as the “Trinity,” the “original sin,” the “atonement,” and so forth…? “Prove from the Bible or otherwise that any one of these three things are not true, and like a three-legged stool the truth of the message would collapse.” Please go back and have another look at your stool. Does it not need the doctrines of “Trinity,” “begotten son of God,” “original sin” and “atonement.” In order to remain standing?

But someone may now say: “If the Trinity was not revealed by God Almighty or Jesus then why does Christianity believe in it?” The answer lies in the council of Nicea of 325 CE.

In “The New Catholic Encyclopedia” (Bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, indicating official approval) we get a glimpse of how the concept of the Trinity was not introduced into Christianity until close to four hundred years after Jesus :

“…….It is difficult in the second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, present a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma ‘One God in three Persons’ became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought … it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development”(emphasis added).

“The New Catholic Encyclopedia,” Volume XIV, p. 295

Jesus, John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, all of the apostles, and even Paul, were completely unaware of any “Trinity.” !!

So what did exactly happen in this fourth century CE? David F. Wright, a senior lecturer in Ecclesiastical History at the University of Edinborough. Mr. Wright has published a detailed account of the development of the doctrine of the “Trinity.” We read:

“…Arius was a senior presbyter in charge of Baucalis, one of the twelve ‘parishes’ of Alexandria. He was a persuasive preacher, with a following of clergy and ascetics, and even circulated his teaching in popular verse and songs. Around 318 CE, he clashed with Bishop Alexander. Arius claimed that Father alone was really God; the Son was essentially different from his father. He did not possess by nature or right any of the divine qualities of immortality, sovereignty, perfect wisdom, goodness, and purity. He did not exist before he was begotten by the father. The father produced him as a creature. Yet as the creator of the rest of creation, the son existed ‘apart from time before all things’. Nevertheless, he did not share in the being of God the Father and did not know him perfectly.” Wright goes on to demonstrate in this book how before the third century CE the “three” were separate in Christian belief and each had his or it’s own status.

“Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity,” chapter on “Councils and Creeds,”

Tertullian (155-220AD), a lawyer and presbyter of the third-century Church in Carthage, was the first Christian to coin the word “Trinity” when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father (Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, V4, p. 711).

About this time, two separate events were about to lead up to the official recognition of the church by the Roman empire. On the one hand, Emperor Constantine, the pagan emperor of the Romans, began to notice the increasing number of converts to the new faith among his subjects. They were no longer a petty fringe sect of no great concern to the empire, rather, their presence was becoming increasingly noticeable, and the severe division and animosity between their ranks was beginning to pose a serious threat to the internal stability of the empire as a whole.

On the Christian front, controversy over the matter of the Trinity had in 318C.E. once again just blown up between two church men from Alexandria, Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop. Now Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray. The emperor sent these men many letters encouraging them to put aside their “trivial” disputes regarding the nature of God and the “number” of God, etc. To one who had become accustomed to being surrounded by countless gods, and goddesses, and demi-gods, and man-gods, and incarnations of gods, and resurrections of gods, and so forth, the issue of whether a given sect worshipped one god or three gods or “three gods in one” was all very trivial and inconsequential.

After several repeated attempts by the emperor to pacify them failed, he finally found himself in 325 CE faced with two serious controversies that divided his Christian subjects: the observance of the Passover on Easter Sunday, and the concept of the Trinity. Emperor Constantine realized that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiations failed to settle the dispute, the emperor called the “Council of Nicea“ in order to resolve these, and other matters. The council met and voted on whether Jesus was God or not. They effectively voted Jesus into the position of God with an amendment condemning all Christians who believed in the unity of God. There is even extensive proof that most of those who signed this decree did not actually believe in it or understand it but thought it politically expedient to do so. Neo-Platonic philosophy was the means by which this newly defined doctrine of “Trinity” was formulated. One of the attendees, Apuleius, wrote “I pass over in silence,” explaining that “those sublime and Platonic doctrines understood by very few of the pious, and absolutely unknown to every one of the profane.” The vast majority of the others signed under political pressure consoling themselves with such words as “the soul is nothing worse for a little ink.” It is narrated that out of the 2030 attendees, only 318 readily accepted this creed (”Al-Seerah Al-Nabawiyya”, Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi, p. 306). They then approved the doctrine of homoousious meaning: of CO-EQUALITY, CO-ETERNITY, AND CONSUBSTANTIALITY; of the second person of the Trinity with the Father. The doctrine became known as the Creed of Nicea.

Only on returning home did other attendees such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chaledon and Theognis of Nicaea summon the courage to express to Constantine in writing how much they regretted having put their signatures to the Nicene formula: “We committed an impious act, O Prince,” wrote Eusebius of Nicomedia, “by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you.”

However, the damage was already done and there would be no undoing it now. It has been recorded that thirteen conferences were held in the fourth century wherein Arius and his beliefs were condemned. On the other hand, fifteen supported him. While seventeen conferences issued decrees similar to the beliefs of the Arians (”Al-Seerah Al-Nabawiyya”, Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi, p. 306).

Of the fruits of this council, Jesus was made “Very God.” Shortly thereafter, his mother Mary was given the title of “Ever Virgin.” It would not be long until these concepts were later combined in 431AD to give her the title “Theotokos” (God-bearing). This is how she became known to us as “Mother of God.”

The persecution of the Jews was just now getting into full swing and with it a severe disdain and intolerance for all Christians who did not convert to the new creeds. The books of Arius and his sympathizers were ordered to be burnt, and a reign of terror proclaimed for all those who did not conform with the new, “official” Christian beliefs. The following is one of the public declarations in this regard:

“Understand now by this present statute, Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulinians, you who are called Cataphrygians … with what a tissue of lies and vanities, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inextricably woven! We give you warning… Let none of you presume, from this time forward, to meet in congregations. To prevent this, we command that you be deprived of all the houses in which you have been accustomed to meet .. . and that these should be handed over immediately to the catholic [i.e. official] church.”

Following the Conference of Nicea, the matter of the “Trinity” remained far from settled. Despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine, Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; “Arianism” became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who didn’t hold to the newly defined doctrine of the Trinity. Athanasius, the bishop who is popularly credited for having formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the more his thoughts recoiled upon themselves and the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it. After the Council of Chalcedon in 451, debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy and earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousand because of this difference of belief.

Some people might object that the words of all of these eminent Christian scholars and highly respected references are all in error. They claim that Jesus did indeed teach the “Trinity” to the disciples, but that he did so in secret to them alone. The disciples then went on and secretly taught others, and then a couple of centuries later it was made public knowledge. However, not only is this theory based upon no evidence from the Bible, but it actually contradicts the words of Jesus himself:

“Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.”

John 18:20

Worship of the Roman sun-god was very popular during the third century CE among the pagan Gentiles as it had been for centuries before that. As had become the popular custom, Emperor Constantine (who presided over the council of Nicea) was popularly considered to be the “manifestation” or “incarnation” of the supreme Roman sun-god. For this reason, in order to please Constantine, the Trinitarian church compromised with him on the following points:

• They defined Christmas to be on the 25th of December, the birthday of the Roman sun-god
• They moved the Christian Sabbath from Saturday to the Roman Sun-day (Dies Soli), the holy day of the sun-god Apollo (see chapter 3)
• They borrowed the emblem of the Roman sun God, the cross of light, to be the emblem of Christianity. Before this, the official symbol of Christianity was that of a fish, a symbol of the last supper (see chapter 3)
• They incorporated most of the rituals performed on the sun-god’s birthday into their own celebrations.

History records that Constantine was determined that the masses not think that he had forced these bishops to sign against their will, so he resorted to a miracle of God: Stacks of somewhere between 270 and 4,000 Gospels (one copy of all available Gospels at the time) were placed underneath the conference table and the door to the room was locked. The Bishops were told to pray earnestly all night, and the next morning “miraculously” only the Gospels acceptable to Athanasius (The Trinitarian Bishop of Alexandria) were found stacked above the table. The rest were burned.

“The reign of Constantine marks the epoch of the transformation of Christianity from a religion into a political system; and though, in one sense, that system was degraded into idolatry, in another it had risen into a development of the old Greek mythology. The maxim holds good in the social as well as in the mechanical world, that, when two bodies strike, the form of both is changed. Paganism was modified by Christianity; Christianity by Paganism. In the Trinitarian controversy, which first broke out in Egypt - Egypt, the land of the Trinities - the chief point in discussion was to define the position of ‘the Son.’”

History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, Prof. John Draper, pp. 52-53
History was repeating itself. God had cautioned the Jews in the past to never give concession in their religion to the non-believers. They, however, disobeyed Him and felt that a little compromise here and there might go a long way towards facilitating “the greater good” and the continuation of the faith. This trend was now repeating itself. A small compromise here and a little concession there, it would not be long until all remaining differences would be resolved. But at what price?

Many more sweeping campaigns for the utter and complete destruction of all “unacceptable” gospels to the Trinitarian Church would be launched over the following centuries. One example of such campaigns is the one launched during the period of 379-395 AD during the reign of the Christian Emperor Flavius Theodosius wherein all non-Roman Catholic Christian writings were destroyed, or the campaign of Christian Emperor Valentinian III (425-454AD) which again commanded that all surviving non-Roman Catholic writings be utterly destroyed. Such campaigns would become the norm in the centuries to come.

Muhammad ‘Ata ur-Rahim informs us in his book that Arius was quickly condemned and then excommunicated. He was reinstated, but was poisoned and killed by the Trinitarian Bishop, Athanasius, in 336 CE. The Trinitarian Church called his death “a miracle.” Athanasius’s treachery was discovered by a council appointed by Costanatine and he was condemned for Arius’ murder.

Constantine had made it an imperial law to accept the Creed of Nicea. He was a pagan emperor and at the time cared little if such a doctrine contradicted the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and the centuries of prophets of God before him who had suffered severe hardship in order to preach a monotheistic god to their people as can be seen in the Old Testament to this day. He just wanted to pacify and unite his “sheep.” Ironically, Mr. Ata’ Ur Rahim records that Constantine embraced the beliefs of the Arians, was baptized on his death bed in 337 by an Arian priest and died shortly thereafter. In other words, he died a believer in the divine Unity and teachings of the Arians and not the new Trinitarian beliefs of the Athanasiun sect.

This “triune God” theory was not a novel concept but one that was very much in vogue during the early Christian era. There was:

1. The Egyptian triad of Ramses II, Amon-Ra, and Nut.
2. The Egyptian triad of Horus, Osiris, and Isis.
3. The Palmyra triad of moon god, Lord of the Heavens, and sun god.
4. The Babylonian triad of Ishtar, Sin, and Shamash.
5. The Mahayana Buddhist triune of transformation body, enjoyment body, and truth body.
6. The Hindu triad (Tri-murti) of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva.
   

However, it is popularly recognized that the “Trinity” which had the most profound effect in defining the Christian “Trinity” was the philosophy of the Greek philosopher, Plato. His philosophy was based on a threefold distinction of: The “First Cause”, the “Reason” or Logos, and the “Soul or Spirit of the Universe” (please see section 1.2.2.6). Edward Gibbon, considered one of the Western world’s greatest historians, and the author of “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” generally considered a masterpiece of both history and literature writes in this book:

“..His poetical imagination sometimes fixed and animated these metaphysical abstractions; the three archical or original principles with each other by the mysterious and ineffable generation; and the Logos was particularly considered under the more accessible character of the Son of an eternal Father, and the Creator and Governor of the world.”

“Decline and fall of the Roman Empire,” II, Gibbon, p. 9.

Even the practice of promoting men to the status of gods was common among the Gentiles at the time. Julius Caesar, for instance, was acknowledged by the Ephesians to be “a god made manifest and a common Savior of all human life.” In the end, both the Greeks and the Romans acknowledged Caesar as a god. His statue was set up in a temple in Rome with the inscription: “To the unconquerable god.” Another man who was elevated by the Gentiles to the status of a god was Augustus Caesar. He was acknowledged as a god and the “divine Savior of the World.” Emperor Constantine was also popularly believed to be the human embodiment of the Roman Sun-god. And on and on. Is it inconceivable that such people, after hearing of Jesus’ many miracles, of his raising of the dead, of his healing of the blind, would consider elevating him to the status of a god? These were simple people who had become accustomed to countless man-gods, and Jesus had become a legend among them even during his lifetime. No wonder it did not take them long to make him a god after his departure. In the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus himself indeed foretold that mankind would make him a god and severely condemned those who would dare to do so . The Bible itself bears witness to the fact that these gentiles were all too willing to promote not just Jesus but even the apostles of Jesus to the position of gods (see Acts 14:1-14).

Even though the “Trinity” was formulated in the council of Nicea, still, the concept of “Jesus was God,” or the “incarnation” was not formulated until after the councils of Ephesus in 431, and the council of Chalcedone in 451:

“…the Catholics trembled on the edge of a precipice, where it was impossible to recede, dangerous to stand, dreadful to fall; and the manifold inconveniences of their creed were aggravated by the sublime character of their theology. They hesitated to pronounce that God Himself, the second person of an equal and consubstantial trinity, was manifested in the flesh; that a being who pervades the universe, had been confined in the womb of Mary; that His eternal duration had been marked by the days, and months, and years, of human existence; that the Almighty had been scourged and crucified; that His impassable essence had felt pain and anguish; that His omniscience was not exempt from ignorance; and that the source of life and immortality expired on Mount Cavary. These alarming consequences were affirmed with the unblushing simplicity of Apollinans, Bishop of Laodicia, and one of luminaries of the church.”

“Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” VI, Gibbon, p. 10.

Groliers encyclopedia under the heading of “Incarnation” informs us that

“Incarnation denotes the embodiment of a deity in human form. The idea occurs frequently in mythology. In ancient times, certain people, especially kings and priests, were often believed to be divinities. In Hinduism, Vishnu is believed to have taken nine incarnations, or Avatars. For Christians, the incarnation is a central dogma referring to the belief that the eternal son of God, the second person of the Trinity, became man in the person of Jesus Christ. The incarnation was defined as a doctrine only after long struggles by early church councils. The Council of Nicea (325) defined the deity of Christ against Arianism; the Council of Constantinople (381) defined the full humanity of the incarnate Christ against Apollinarianism; the Council of Ephesus (431) defined the unity of Christ’s person against Nestorianism; and the Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the two natures of Christ, divine and human, against Eutyches.”

Notice that it took the Church close to five hundred years after the departure of Jesus to build up, justify, and finally ratify the “incarnation.” Also notice that the apostles, their children, and their children’s children for tens of generations were too ignorant to recognize the existence of an “incarnation.” Jesus’ very first and very closest followers were too ignorant to recognize this “truth.”

It is not surprising then, that this doctrine of incarnation is not mentioned in the New Testament. Once again, the one verse which validates this claim, 1 Timothy 3:16, is again recognized as a later forgery which was foisted upon Jesus fully six centuries after his departure:

Regarding this verse, Sir Isaac Newton says:

“In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy, it never came into play … they that read ‘God manifested in the flesh’ think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business.”

“This strong expression might be justified by the language of St. Paul (I TIM. 3.16), but we are deceived by our modern Bibles. The word “o” (which) was altered to “theos” (God) at Constantinople in the beginning of the 6th century: the true reading, which is visible in the Latin and Syriac version, still exists in the reasoning of the Greek, as well as the Latin fathers; and this fraud, with that of the three witnesses of St. John, is admirably detected by Sir Isaac Newton.”

“Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” VI, Gibbon, p. 10.

Notice how, shortly after the “incarnation” was officially approved, it was recognized that the Bible needed to be “corrected” and “clarified” so that the reader could see the “incarnation” clearly. All that was needed was to change one word. Thus 1 Timothy 3:16 went from saying:

Before the inspired sixth century “correction”:

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: which was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” to saying:

After the inspired sixth century “correction”:

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory”

Thankfully, more recent and faithful versions of the Bible such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) are now beginning to discard such innovations. Much is yet to be desired, however, it is a start.

Even the holy “Easter” holiday is a pagan innovation unknown to Jesus and his apostles. The name “Easter” is derived from the pagan spring festival of the Anglo-Saxon goddess of light and spring “Eostre” (or “Eastre”) and to whom the month of April was dedicated. Many folk customs associated with Easter such as colored Easter eggs (representing the sunlight of spring in her festival), the Easter bunny (a symbol of fertility) are of pagan origin also. Her festival was celebrated on the vernal equinox (March 21st), and so too is the Christian “Easter.” It was celebrated to commemorate spring and the sun regaining it’s strength. Once again, the “Son” Jesus (pbuh), regained his power and came to life at the same time

After the council of Nicea, 325C.E., the following proud proclamation was made:

“We also send you good news concerning the unanimous consent of all, in reference to the celebration of the most solemn feast of Easter; for the difference has also been made up by the assistance of your prayers; so that all the brethren of the east, who formerly celebrated this festival at the same time as the Jews, will in future conform to the Romans and to us and to all who have of old observed our manner of celebrating Easter.”

As mentioned above, the very first Christians were all devout Jews. These first followers of Jesus (including the apostles themselves) followed the same religion which Moses and his followers had followed for centuries before them. They knew of no “new covenant” or annulments of the commandments of Moses . They had been taught by Jesus that his religion was an affirmation of the religion of the Jews and a continuation of it.

“The first fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem” writes Gibbon, “were all circumcised Jews; and the congregation over which they presided united the Law of Moses with the Doctrine of Christ.”

“Decline and fall of the Roman Empire,” II, Gibbon, p. 119.

As we have seen in the previous sections, this fact is indeed confirmed in the Bible where we are told that after the departure of Jesus, his faithful followers continued to keep up their daily attendance at the Temple of the Jews (the most holy of Jewish synagogues) in observance of the religion of Moses.

“And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,”

Acts 2:46

Also remember the words of Professor Robert Alley:

“….The (Biblical) passages where Jesus talks about the Son of God are later additions…. what the church said about him. Such a claim of deity for himself would not have been consistent with his entire lifestyle as we can reconstruct. For the first three decades after Jesus’ death Christianity continued as a sect within Judaism. The first three decades of the existence of the church were within the synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they (the followers of Jesus) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus”

This would also have been beyond belief if they had preached the total cancellation and destruction of the law of Moses, as Paul did.

Toland observes:

“We know already to what degree imposture and credulity went hand in hand in the primitive times of the Christian Church, the last being as ready to receive as the first was to forge books, this evil grew afterwards not only greater when the Monks were the sole transcribers and the sole keepers of all books good or bad, but in process of time it became almost absolutely impossible to distinguish history from fable, or truth from error as to the beginning and original monuments of Christianity. How immediate successors of the Apostles could so grossly confound the genuine teaching of their masters with such as were falsely attributed to them? Or since they were in the dark about these matters so early how came such as followed them by a better light? And observing that such Apocryphal books were often put upon the same footing with the canonical books by the Fathers, and the first cited as Divine Scriptures no less than the last, or sometimes, when such as we reckon divine were disallowed by them. I propose these two other questions: Why all the books cited genuine by Clement of Alexander. Origen. Tertullian and the rest of such writers should not be accounted equally authentic? And what stress should he laid on the testimony of those Fathers who not only contradict one another but are also often inconsistent with themselves in their relations of the very same facts?”(emphasis added).

The Nazarenes, John Toland, pp. 73

Jesus himself did indeed foretell of this most tragic situation:

“They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time comes, that whosoever kills you will think that he does God service And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, you may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you..”

John 16:2-4

Well then, why did the masses in the centuries after this not revolt and renew the original teaching of Jesus? Because the Bible was made the property of the privileged few. No one was allowed to read it, nor to translate it into other languages. When these privileged few came into power in what would later be called “The Dark Ages,” (our more politically correct generation now prefers to refer to it as “The Middle Ages”) the Bible was hoarded by these men and they were claimed to be the only ones who could understand it’s teachings. The first authoritative English translation of the Bible was completed by Mr. William Tyndale, popularly considered a master of both the Hebrew and Greek languages. The King James Bible was based upon his translation. He was forced into exile in 1524 and later condemned and burned to death as a heretic in 1536 for the vile and blasphemous deed of translating the Bible into English.

With the rule of the church came the great Inquisitions. The Inquisitions were a medieval church court instituted to seek out and prosecute heretics. Notoriously harsh in its procedures, the Inquisition was defended during the rule of the church by appeal to biblical practices and to the church father Saint Augustine himself (354-430 AD), the great luminary of the church, who had interpreted Luke 14:23 as endorsing the use of force against heretics in order to convert them. Mr. Tom Harpur observes

“The horrors of the Crusades and the notorious Inquisitions are all but a small part of this tragic tale.”

Okay, but surely of those who had access to the Bible there must have been some who would have revealed these matters. As it happens, there were. Sadly, they were all put to death or tortured until they recanted their views. Their books were also burned. For instance, Isaac de la Peyere was one of many scholars to notice many serious discrepancies in the Bible and to write about them openly. His book was banned and burned. He was arrested and informed that in order to be released he would have to recant his views to the Pope. He did. There are countless such examples for those who would simply research their history books.

The Trinitarian church’s campaign of death and torture for all Christians refusing to compromise their beliefs continued for many centuries after the creation of the Trinity in 325 CE. Many brilliant scholars and leaders of the Unitarian Christians were condemned, tortured, and even burned alive in a very slow and drawn-out manner. Only some of these men are: Origen (185-254 CE), Lucian (died 312 CE), Arius (250-336 CE), Michael Servetus (1511-1553 CE), Francis David (1510-1579 CE), Lelio Francesco Sozini (1525-1562 CE), Fausto Paolo Sozini (1539-1604 CE), John Biddle (1615-1662 CE)… and on and on.

This wholesale condemnation became so bad that it was not sufficient to condemn individuals any more, but rather, whole nations were condemned and killed. An example is the Holy decree of 15th of February 1568 which condemned all of the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. Three million men women and children where sentenced to the scaffold in three lines by the benevolent Trinitarian church. Why does no one cry “Holocaust” for these poor people?

“Upon the 15th of February 1568, a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of King Philip II of Spain, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution. . . Three millions of people, men, women and children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three lines. Under the new decree, the executions certainly did not slacken. Men in the highest and the humblest positions were daily and hourly dragged to the stake. Alva, in a single letter to Philip II, coolly estimates the number of executions which were to take place immediately after the expiration of Holy Week at ‘eight hundred heads.’”

“Rise of the Dutch Republic” John Lothrop Motly

Toland asks in his book The Nazarenes:

“Since the Nazarenes and Ebonites (Unitarian Christians) are by all the Church historians unanimously acknowledged to have been the first Christians, or those who believe in Christ among the Jews with which, his own people, he lived and died, they having been the witness of his actions, and of whom were all the apostles, considering this, I say how it is possible for them to be the first of all others (for they were made to be the first heretics), who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of Jesus? And how came the Gentiles who believed on him after his death by the preaching of persons that never knew him to have truer notions of these things, or whence they could have their information but from the believing Jews?” (emphasis added).

(From: Jesus a Prophet of Islam)

Only today when true religious freedom, scientific knowledge, and archeological discoveries have come together in the study of the Bible and other ancient documents have Christians started to see the truth. An example of this can be found in the British newspaper the “Daily News” 25/6/84 under the heading “Shock survey of Anglican Bishops“ We read that a British television poll of 31 of 39 Anglican Bishops found 19 to believe that it is not necessary for Christians to believe that Jesus is God, but only “His supreme agent.”

Yahshua the Messiah is Not Almighty Yahweh

Modern day Christians believe that Yahshua the Messiah pre-existed in some form or another. Some say he was Melchizedek, some say he was "the captain of the host of Yahweh" (Josh.5:14), some say he was the archangel Michael, others say he was the "angel of Yahweh". Perhaps the most erroneous view is that Yahshua was the "Yahweh" (LORD) of the Old Testament. This study is written in the hopes that all who read it will finally understand that Yahweh is the Almighty Creator of the heavens and the earth, and that Yahshua the Messiah is His Son, as it is written.

For some reason people feel they have to magnify the Savior into the position of the Almighty when, in fact, scripture makes it quite clear that the Father is greatest of all and the "head of Messiah" (1 Cor.11:3). Consider Yahshua’s own words in Jn. 14:28, "…for my Father is greater than I."; Jn.10:29, "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all…"; and Jn. 13:16, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant [Yahshua] is not greater than his lord [Yahweh]; neither he that is sent [Yahshua] greater than he that sent him [Yahweh]." These verses teach us Yahshua’s view of his relationship to his Father. Notice he didn’t claim to be the Father but instead, made a clear distinction between the two.

Who is Yahshua’s Father?

Who does scripture say is the Father? Is.63:16 says, "Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Yahweh, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting." Yahweh is the Father. Yet, some might claim that this scripture says Yahweh is the Father of Israel, not of Yahshua. In that case we need to note two other verses. The first is Heb.1:5; "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Who said these things? All would agree that Yahshua’s Father said them since He is referring to Yahshua as His Son. Heb.1:5 is a direct quote from Ps.2:7; "I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." The first "I" here refers to Yahshua speaking through prophecy in which he declares that Yahweh is his Father!

We also previously saw that Yahshua said, "My Father is greater than I." In reality he was also saying, "[Yahweh] is greater than I", thereby teaching us that he is not Yahweh. Anyone who believes Yahshua is Yahweh must also believe Yahshua is the Heavenly Father. That is even more absurd and more difficult to prove in the light of scripture.

Who is the Elohim of Israel?

Who does scripture say is the Elohim (God) of Israel? Is. 45:3 says, "And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, Yahweh, which call thee by thy name, am the Elohim of Israel." Yahweh is the Elohim of Israel. Since we already learned that Yahshua is not Yahweh, Yahshua cannot be the Elohim of Israel. This is confirmed in Acts 3:13, "The Elohim of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the Elohim of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Yahshua;…" The Elohim of Jacob (Jacob being Israel) glorified His Son.

Since the scriptures reveal the Elohim of Israel and the Father are both called Yahweh, some will go so far as to teach that there are two separate beings called Yahweh in order to support their erroneous belief that Yahshua pre-existed as Yahweh, Elohim of Israel. They use Gen.19:24 as proof of this; "Then Yahweh rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven;" At first glance there appear to be two Yahwehs, one in heaven and one somewhere near Sodom and Gomorrah. This is merely a figure of speech peculiar to the Hebrew language, an idiom. Similar idioms are seen in Eze.11:24 (two Spirits), Zech.10:12 ( two Yahwehs), Ex.24:1 (Yahweh used as idiom for "me"), Gen.17:23 (two Abrahams), and 1 Kgs.8:1 (two Solomons).

It is impossible to harmonize the two Yahweh doctrine with verses that teach there is only one Yahweh. Consider Nehemiah’s prayer;

"Thou, even thou, art Yahweh alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee." Neh 9:6

Ps 83:18 says;

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yahweh, art the most high over all the earth."

Is 45:6 says;

"That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am Yahweh, and there is none else."

Zech 14:9 reads;

"And Yahweh shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Yahweh, and his name one."

A second God cannot be named "Yahweh."

Is.42:1 teaches us that Yahshua is Yahweh’s servant. "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." And again in Is.49:6, "And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth."

Ps.2:2 reads, "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Yahweh, and against his anointed." His "anointed" is Yahshua, making a clear distinction between the two. Peter applied this prophecy to Yahshua in Acts 4:26; "The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against Yahweh, and against His Messiah." Peter never claimed that the Messiah pre-existed as Yahweh.

Ps.110:1 also distinguishes the two; "Yahweh said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." In Mt.22:41-46, Yahshua reveals this "lord" to be himself, the Messiah. Is Yahweh talking to His Son the Messiah or is He talking to Himself?

Ps.110 makes another intersesting statement in verse 5. This is one of the verses in which the Sopherim removed Yahweh’s name and replaced it with "Adonai". The text would have originally read, "Yahweh at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of His wrath." It is then wrongly deduced that since Yahshua was invited to sit on Yahweh’s right hand (Heb.1:13), he, Yahshua, must also be called "Yahweh". There is no doubt that Yahweh invited Yahshua to sit at His right hand. But what does verse 5 mean? It must be understood in the same way Ps.16:8 and Ps.109:6 are to be understood. When someone is "at thy right hand" it means their power and strength are derived from that source. David derived his power from Yahweh and so it is said that Yahweh is "at my right hand." A wicked person would derive his power from Satan and so it is said, "Let Satan stand at his right hand." When Yahshua comes to carry out Yahweh’s wrath upon the wicked, Yahweh will be his strength. See, also, Mic.5:4.

Who is the Prophet like unto Moses?

In Acts 3:22,23 Peter quotes from Deut.18:15,19 proving that Yahshua is the "prophet like unto Moses." Placing the name "Yahshua" in brackets clearly shows him not to be Yahweh. "Yahweh thy Elohim will raise up unto thee a Prophet [Yahshua] from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him [Yahshua] ye shall hearken.. . .I [Yahweh] will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my [Yahweh's] words in his [Yahshua's] mouth; and he [Yahshua] shall speak unto them all that I [Yahweh] shall command him [Yahshua]. . . . And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my [Yahweh's] words which he [Yahshua] shall speak in my [Yahweh's] name, I [Yahweh] will require it of him." Jn.12:49 is a direct fulfillment of Deut.18:18; "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak."

Let’s treat Is.53:6, 10 ,12 similarly; "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Yahweh hath laid on him [Yahshua] the iniquity of us all. . . Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him [Yahshua]; he [Yahweh] hath put him [Yahshua] to grief: when thou [Yahweh] shalt make his [Yahshua's] soul an offering for sin, he [Yahshua] shall see his seed, he [Yahshua] shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Yahweh shall prosper in his [Yahshua's] hand."

Zech.12:10 is often misunderstood due to an apparent error in the text. It reads, "And I [Yahweh] will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn." The word "me" obviously does not harmonize with the pronouns "him" and "his" that follow. The same verse is quoted in Jn.19:37; "And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced." John gives us the correct understanding of this verse.

Another possible error occurs in Acts 20:28; "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (KJV)." The great majority of Greek MSS have kurios (Lord) here instead of theos (God). In that case, Lord would refer to Yahshua whose blood was shed. Even if we were to accept the KJV rendering, it would have to be understood in the sense that parents often refer to their children as their "own flesh and blood." In that sense the blood of Yahshua was the "blood of [Yahweh]’s own."

YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS

Jer.23:6 is often used to prove Yahshua is Yahweh. "In his [Yahshua's] days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his [ Yahshua's] name whereby he [Yahshua] shall be called, YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." If this verse teaches that Yahshua is Yahweh because he is called "Yahweh Our Righteousness, then Jer.33:16 teaches that Jerusalem is also Yahweh. It reads, "In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, Yahweh our righteousness." The translators did not use the same capitalization because they undoubtedly feared that it would suggest Jerusalem is Yahweh.

A difficult passage to understand is found in Jn.12:37-41. A superficial reading leads one to believe that the "his" and "him" of verse 41 refers to Yahshua and ties in with verse 37. For the sake of clarity these verses will be printed out with [brackets] designating the speaker. Jn.12:37,38, "But though he [Yahshua] had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him [Yahshua]: That the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he [Isaiah] spake, Lord, ‘who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Yahweh been revealed?’ (The underlined is a quote from Is.53:1. The "arm of Yahweh" is Isaiah’s reference to the Messiah). The passage continues with verses 39-41; "Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again, ‘He [Yahweh] hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I [Yahweh] should heal them.’ These things said Isaiah, when he [Isaiah] saw his [Yahweh's] glory, and spake of him [Yahweh]." Verse 40 (underlined) is a quote from Is.6:10. John is quoting a second passage from Isaiah to show why they could not believe on Yahshua; because Yahweh blinded them. Verse 41 therefore, is referring to Is.6:10, not Is.53:1. In Is.6:1-3 Yahweh is seen in all His glory. That is the glory referred to in verse 41. It was not Yahshua’s glory.

Since John the Baptist preceeded Yahshua, Is.40:3 and Mt.3:3 are often used to prove Yahweh is Yahshua. Is.40:3 reads, "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Yahweh, make straight in the desert a highway for our Elohim." Of all the N.T. verses that quote Isaiah, Lu.3:4-6 aids our understanding because it includes Is.40:4 & 5. It says, "As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Yahweh, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; And all flesh shall see the salvation of Yahweh." "Prepare ye the way of Yahweh" does not mean, "Move out of the way because Yahweh is coming." And so when Yahshua comes they believe he is Yahweh.

How was "the way" to be prepared? By filling valleys, leveling mountains, straightening paths, etc. This work is not to be understood literally, but spiritually through the humbling of those in exalted positions and the restoration of truth. Who was to do that work? Jn.4:34 says, "Yahshua saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish his work." Almighty Yahweh appointed His Son Yahshua to finish His work. Yahshua was Yahweh’s instrument in the accomplishment of His great plan. Yahshua is the "Messenger of the Covenant," "the servant of Yahweh," and "the salvation of Yahweh." Jn.14:6 calls Yahshua "the way." He is "the way of Yahweh;" the means through which Yahweh will finish His work.

Two Creators

Gen.1:26 is often used to show Yahshua’s hand in Creation. It reads, "And Elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." They say the Father is talking to the Son in this verse based on the pronouns used. Notice, however, that verse 27 says, "So Elohim created man in his own image, . . ." Why isn’t the phrase "in their own image" used? Again, in Gen.11:7,8, "us" is used and yet Yahweh alone scattered them abroad. According to Job 38:4-7, "the sons of Elohim shouted for joy" when Yahweh created the earth. This doubtless refers to the angels who were also present at the creation of man. Yahweh could be speaking to them, in Gen.1:26, using the plural of majesty. An example of this is found in Ezr. 4:18; "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me." In this case, a letter was written strictly to King Artaxerxes and no one else (vs. 11). Yet the King speaks as though it was written to others as well. Another example would be the Queen of England saying, "We, the Queen of England, . . ." It can also be understood in the sense of someone saying, "Let us drive to the lake for a picnic," and yet, only the speaker does the driving. To believe Yahweh is talking to Yahshua is an assumption. It is reading into the text something that it does not say.

If we do not try to force the scripture to conform to our own doctrines, they are so simple to understand. Instead men try to support "Holy Trinities", "Incarnations", "Transubstantiations", and the like. The Bible does not use terms like "Father" and "Son" to try and trick us. They are used to express a relationship that we can relate to. If Yahshua is Father Yahweh, the scriptures would state it in plain language. Instead, it says that Yahshua is the Son of Father Yahweh.

An article in "Israel Today" tried to explain this relationship by saying Yahweh manifested himself in the fleshly form of Yahshua. The author calls this the incarnation. This same author rightfully puts down the trinity because the word is not found in the Bible and yet, he exalts another unscriptural term, "incarnation." Perhaps he was misled by the erroneous translation of 1 Tim.3:16 in the KJV. It says, "God was manifest in the flesh." A footnote in the Emphatic Diaglott reads, "Nearly all ancient MSS., and all the versions have "He who," instead of "God," in this passage." Even if the incarnation theory was true, would Yahweh continue to manifest himself as Yahshua even after the Millennium? 1 Cor.15:24-28 and Rev.22:1 show both as separate beings after the Millennium. The truth is, they are not parts of one being but two separate and distinct beings. That is why Yahshua could say what he did in Jn.8:17,18, "It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." Yahweh and Yahshua are two separate beings, not two manifestations of one being.

When the scriptures are accepted at face value, without reading into the text more than it says, the relationship between the two becomes quite clear. In spite of this, many people are not satisfied with Yahshua’s rank in the hierarchy of heaven. They feel a need to exalt him into the number one position, that of Yahweh Almighty, and they will twist scripture in a variety of ways to accomplish this.

Yahweh is One

Concerning the "Shema" (Deut.6:4) it reads, "Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our Mighty One is one Yahweh:" or "Yahweh is one." It is believed by many that the word "echad," translated "one," means "a united one" or a "compound unity," not singularity. The scriptures prove this belief to be false. Note Nu.7:13-82 where "echad" is translated "one" 84 times and each time it means one as in the number one, singularity. Consider also Gen.2:1 - one rib and Dan.9:27 - one week.

Historic Judaism does not give echad the meaning of unity or plurality as is seen in the Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 14, p.1373: "Perhaps from earliest times, but certainly from later, the word echad (one) was understood also to mean unique. God is not only one and not many, but He is totally other than what paganism means by gods." Note also The Jewish Commentary, Soncino Edition, p.770: "He is one because there is no other Elohim than He; but He is also one, because He is wholly unlike anything else in existence. He is therefore not only one, but the Sole and Unique, Elohim."

Perhaps the most conclusive evidence that the word echad has the meaning of alone or unique comes to us from the Messiah himself in Mk.12:28-34. When asked which commandment was the most important, Yahshua responded by quoting the Shema. In response to his answer the teacher replied, "You are right in saying that Yahweh is one and there is no other but Him." Although Yahshua did not specifically say "there is no other but Him" the teacher understood that meaning to be implied in the word echad or one. Yahshua acknowledged that the teacher answered wisely thereby confirming the teacher’s correct understanding of the meaning of the Shema.

It is true that echad was used in verses such as Ge.2:24 and Ge.41:25. There we see two people becoming one flesh and two dreams having one meaning. The key here is that two become one. In the Shema, we only see one individual, Yahweh, proclaimed to be one! It doesn’t say, "And the two Yahweh’s became one." In the two verses in Genesis, we don’t see one becoming two. But that is what people are trying to do with the Shema. They say one means two and therefore, there must be two Yahweh’s.

Yahshua said, "I and my Father are one." (Jn.10:30). Does that mean they are the same being? Yahshua said something similar in Jn.17:22, "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

Here again, Yahshua says he and the Father are one. But he also prays that his followers will be one in the same sense that he and Yahweh are one. That is a oneness of mind, purpose, and will, not a oneness of being. And it certainly does not mean there are two Yahweh’s.

Elohim - Plural or singular?

The word "Elohim," translated "God," is often attacked as well. It is believed that it denotes a plurality or a god consisting of more than one being or more than one manifestation of a being. This, too, is a false concept based on the philosophy of men. Elohim is used in the Bible with a plural sense when it refers to several deities and in a singular sense when it refers to a singular deity. Its plural sense can be seen in Ex.12:12, "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods (elohim) of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Yahweh." Its singular sense can be seen in 1 Sam.5:7, ". . . and upon Dagon our god (elohim)" and 2 Kgs.1:2, ". . . Go, enquire of Baal-zebub the god (elohim) of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease." Are we to believe that Dagon and Baal-zebub are also plural beings who can "incarnate" themselves as Yahweh "supposedly" did?

The word "God" (elohim) is properly applied to Yahshua in Heb.1:9 and Jn.20:28. Both words are from the Greek word "theos" which was also used in reference to Satan (2 Cor.4:4) and Herod (Acts 12:22). It has the same meaning as the Hebrew word "elohim" and can be applied to men, angels, and the Almighty. Ps.82:6 applies it to any child of the Most High; "I have said, Ye are gods [elohim]; and all of you are children of the most High." It simply means "a mighty one among his people." It is not wrong to call Yahshua an elohim or a god. The problem lies in believing he is the one true "God," Yahweh Almighty. Yahshua made it clear that he was not, in Jn.17:3; "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee [Yahweh] the only true Elohim, and Yahshua Messiah, whom thou hast sent." The Apostle Paul declared the same thing in 1 Cor.8:6; "But to us there is but one Elohim, the Father [Yahweh], of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Master Yahshua Messiah, by whom are all things, and we by him."

Oneness proponents wrongly interpret 1 Jn.5:20 to mean that Yahshua is the one true "God." It reads, "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life" (KJV). When it says, "his Son Jesus Christ," it means Yahweh’s Son. That being the case, the previous use of the pronoun "him" in the two phrases "him that is true" must also refer to Yahweh. The "his" and "him" refer to the same person. To say that "This is the true God" refers to the Son is grammatically incorrect.

Not only is Yahweh the one true Elohim, but He is also Yahshua’s Elohim. If Yahshua is an elohim or god and he himself has a god, then surely his god must be a greater god. This is what scripture teaches in Mt.27:46; Jn.17:3; 20:17; Eph.1:17; Heb. 1:9; and Rev.3:12. Rev.3:12 says, "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my Elohim, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my Elohim [Yahweh], and the name of the city of my Elohim, New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my Elohim: and I will write upon him my new name." Yahshua is saying this after he ascended to heaven and sat down at the right hand of Yahweh (Heb 8:1). If he was the Yahweh Almighty of the Old Testament, who is his Elohim and who is he sitting next to? Two scriptures answer that question. The first is Ps.110:1; "Yahweh said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." The second is Mic.5:4; "And he [Yahshua] shall stand and feed in the strength of Yahweh, in the majesty of the name of Yahweh his Elohim; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth."

The Image of Yahweh

What about Jn.14:9? "Yahshua saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" Is Yahshua declaring that he is Father Yahweh? Heb.1:3 and Col.1:15 both state that Yahshua is the "image" of Yahweh. An image is something that resembles something else. Yahshua resembles Yahweh in that their characters are almost identical. "Not that any man has seen the Father" (Jn. 6:46) bodily, but we have seen His character through His Son.

Man (specifically Adam) was made in the "image of Elohim" (Gen 1:26,27; 5:3; 9:6). Messiah Yahshua is also in the "image of Elohim" (2 Co 4:4; Col 1:15). "Elohim" in these verses, when understood in the context of pure monotheism, is a reference to Yahweh the Creator. Adam’s inner man resembled Elohim, but he himself is not Elohim. Yahshua’s inner man resembles Yahweh, but he himself is not Elohim.

Col 3:10 tells us that after a person’s conversion, after he has put on the new man, he is "renewed in knowledge after the image of Him [Yahweh] that created him." Rom 8:29, 30 echoes this in that those that have been justified (through conversion unto Messiah) have been predestined to be "conformed to the image of His [Yahweh's] Son." Since the Son is in the image of Elohim, to be conformed to the image of the Son is to be conformed to the image of Elohim or Yahweh the Creator. 2 Co 3:18 says that we "are changed into the same image" as the Master. This also happens upon conversion.

From this info, I deduce the following;

Adam was made in the image of Yahweh. Upon his fall, that image was lost. It can only be restored through conversion unto the Master Yahshua. Yahshua, being sinless, never lost the image of Yahweh. The image of Yahweh has nothing to do with the physical appearance as far as the above references are concerned. It has to do with the inner man.

Look at Ps 73:20. Yahweh despises the image of the wicked. Why? Because they have put off Yahweh’s image through sin and have created their own new image. The same is true of all men for all have sinned. We all have fallen away from the image of Yahweh and need to have that image restored through the indwelling Spirit of Messiah.

When Yahweh looks upon a believer, He sees the righteousness of His Son clothing us. He also sees the image of His Son clothing us. Our physical appearance has not changed, but our inner man has.

Yahshua is from everlasting?

What about Mic.5:2; "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." This is undoubtedly a Messianic prophecy. The question is, what does "goings forth" mean? Does it mean Yahshua has existed as long as Yahweh? Some say yes thereby giving more weight to their argument that Yahshua is Yahweh. According to Strong’s Concordance, "Goings forth" comes from one Hebrew word, "mowtsaah". It means, "a family descent." Since Yahweh is Yahshua’s Father, Yahshua’s family descent would go back as far as Yahweh’s existence. Since Yahweh has always existed, Yahshua’s family descent or goings forth must be from everlasting. The New English Bible, the Phillips translation, and Todays English Bible render it similarly. Yahshua himself is not from everlasting. His family descent, or his family tree, is.

There are those who believe that Yahshua was not only Yahweh, but Melchizedek as well. They site Heb.7:4 to prove this. In Gen.14:18 we read that Melchizedek, king of Salem, "was the priest of the most high God." The "most high God" is shown to be Yahweh three verses later; "…I have lift up mine hand unto Yahweh, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth." Therefore, Melchizedek is the priest of Yahweh, not Yahweh Himself. If Yahshua is Melchizedek, he cannot be Yahweh. If Yahshua is Yahweh, he cannot be Melchizedek. The fact is, Yahshua is neither one of these beings. He is Yahweh’s Son and Yahweh made him a priest "after the order of Melchizedek" (Ps.110:4, Heb. 7:21).

Receiving Worship and Forgiving Sins

Many people believe that only Almighty Yahweh can forgive sins and receive worship. Since Yahshua did both they believe he must be the Almighty. Yahshua indeed is worthy of our worship and honor, but only as Yahweh’s representative, not as Yahweh Himself. Yahweh commanded even the angels of heaven to worship Yahshua (Heb.1:6). Rev.5:12 ,13 show both Yahweh and the Lamb [Yahshua] receiving worship. Eventually, those believers comprising the Philadelphia assembly will receive worship as well (Rev. 3:9). The worship they receive however, is not directed at them as though they were Yahweh.

A study of the Hebrew and Greek words that were translated "worship" will show that the Almighty is not always the recipient. Of the 170 occurrences only about half refer to the worship of Yahweh. This is hidden from the reader of scripture because half of those occurrences were translated ‘to bow, bow down, do reverence, do obeisance,’ as can be seen in the following verses: Gen.18:2; 19:1: 23:7,12; 27:29; 1 Sam.24:8; 25:23,41; 2 Sam.9:6; 14:4,22.

Yahshua said to a man with palsy, "thy sins be forgiven thee" (Mt.9:2). The account continues, "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house. But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified Yahweh, which had given such power unto men." Were they correct? Had Yahweh given Yahshua the power to forgive sins? Yahshua said, "I can of my own self do nothing," "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things," "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (Jn.5:30a; 8:28b; 14:10b). Yahweh gave Yahshua the authority to forgive sins, judge men, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. He is Yahweh’s Representative with the power to act in His name. The word "power" in Mt.9:2 is from the same Greek word that was translated "authority" in Jn.5:27 and throughout the New Testament. This same power was given to the Angel of Yahweh in Ex.23:20-21, "Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him."

While we are on the subject of sin, many believe Yahshua was the one true "God" because "only the death of God could atone for man’s sins. The death of a man wouldn’t suffice." This is another example of the philosophy of men contrary to scripture. Heb.9:22 says, "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission (of sins)." One requirement was shed blood. The other requirement was that the sacrifice had to be "without blemish" which, regarding Messiah, meant sinless. Yahweh Almighty did not have to die. Only the blood of a sinless man was required. Yahshua was that only sinless man (1 Jn.3:5).

The Attributes of Yahweh

The terms "omniscient" (all knowing), and "omnipotent" (all powerful) are often applied to Yahshua to prove he is the Almighty. In Jn.5:30 Yahshua said, "I can of mine own self do nothing" therefore, he cannot be omnipotent as Yahweh is. Mt. 24:36 proves Yahshua is not omniscient; "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but my Father." In order to explain such verses "Oneness" proponents must turn Yahshua into the "God-Man." This unscriptural idea claims that Yahshua’s divine half is omniscient and omnipotent but that he suppressed his powers during his life in the flesh. Nowhere in scripture is the Messiah called a God-Man or shown to have two such natures at the same time. He is repeatedly referred to as a man in such verses as 1 Tim.2:5. When he is called "God" it is in the sense of a mighty one among his people as was shown earlier. This is not to say that Yahshua was a mere man. Scripture is clear that Yahshua’s birth was a miracle in that he was not made from the seed or sperm of man. He is Yahweh’s only begotten Son; the only being ever to be "Fathered" by Yahweh.

Titles in Common

Should we refer to Yahshua as the Almighty, a title only applied to Yahweh? Nowhere in scripture is this ever the case. One scripture that seemingly supports such an application is Rev. 1:8; "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith [the Lord]*, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (KJV). *The Greek has "kurios o theos" ("the Lord the God" or "[Yahweh] Elohim"). The phrase "Lord God" is never used of Yahshua in the New Testament. Aside from that, John is giving a greeting starting in verse four and ending in verse seven. Verse four is a greeting from the Father "which is, and which was, and which is to come." Verse five is a greeting from Yahshua the Messiah. Verse eight is spoken by the Father which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Scripture makes a clear distinction between the Almighty and Yahshua in Rev.21:22; "And I saw no temple therein: for [Yahweh] Elohim Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it." Yahshua is not Yahweh Almighty.

This misapplication of titles is often the cause of making these two beings into one. For example, Acts 3:14 reads, "But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;" Here the title "Holy One" is applied to Yahshua the Messiah. In Is.43:3 it says, "For I am Yahweh thy Elohim, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour:. . . " Here the title "Holy One" is applied to Yahweh. Without further study one would conclude these two references are to the same person. However, we are not to study scripture superficially. In what way is Yahshua the Holy One? The answer is found in Mk.1:24; "Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Yahshua of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of Yahweh." Yahweh is the Holy One of Israel and Yahshua is the Holy One of Yahweh, not of Israel. Ps.16:10 confirms this understanding; "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." This is a Messianic prophecy. "My soul" refers to Yahshua’s soul and "thine Holy One" refers to Yahweh’s Holy One. Scripture reveals two Holy ones that are separate beings.

Another shared title is "Savior." Is.43:11 says, "I, even I, am Yahweh; and beside me there is no saviour." That seems quite clear. Since Yahweh is the only Savior and Yahshua is called our Savior, the two must be one and the same being. This is true only in the minds of men who do not study deeply. Is.19:20b reads, "for they shall cry unto Yahweh because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them." It was prophesied that Yahweh would send someone other than Himself to be a savior to Egypt. Yahweh is the one true Savior who works through Yahshua the Messiah, His appointed Savior.

A few other shared titles, all basically equal in meaning, are "Alpha and Omega," "the first and the last," and "the beginning and the end." Each of these titles are applied to both Yahweh and Yahshua (Is.41:4;44:6;48:12; Rev.1:8,17;2:8;22:13) and have the meaning of uniqueness. Each is the first and last of his peculiar, unique kind. Yahweh is unique in that He is the only being that was not created and Yahshua is unique in that he is the only being ever to be directly begotten by Yahweh the Father (Jn.1:14). (Adam was created, all others were begotten by men).Titles that Yahweh and Yahshua have in common do not supply a firm foundation for a "Oneness" doctrine. If that were true, Cyrus, the king of Persia, would have been the pre-existent Yahshua since both are called "Messiah." In Is.45:1a it reads, "Thus saith Yahweh to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him;" The Hebrew for "anointed" is the same word that was translated "Messiah" in Dan. 9:25,26 and "anointed" in Ps.2:2.

The scriptures tell us Yahshua would also be called Emmanuel, meaning "God with us," or more correctly, "El with us." As a result, people teach that Yahshua is "God." This name is to be understood in the light of Acts 10:38; "How [Yahweh] anointed Yahshua of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for [Yahweh] (El) was with him." Not that Yahshua was El, but that El was with and in Yahshua. If you choose to use the logic of those in error, then consider the name Jehu. In Hebrew, this name means "He is Yah" or "Yah is He." Does that mean the man Jehu is, in reality, Yahweh?

Is.9:6 reads, "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." Is this prophecy declaring Yahshua the Messiah to be the Heavenly Father? There are at least 27 names in the Bible with the same Hebrew construction as in this verse. Each one means the "father of (something)." For example, Abishua means "father of plenty." Instead of translating the phrase in Is.9:6 as "Father of eternity," the KJV reversed the sequence making the true meaning harder to discern. Several newer versions correct this mistake such as The Emphasized Bible, The Bible in Basic English, The New American Bible, The Holy Bible; A Translation From the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals, and The New English Bible, just to name a few. Yahshua is the Father of Eternity because eternal life comes to us through him. And so it is written in Heb.5:9, "And being made perfect, he became the author (or father) of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

One last title that confuses people is "Rock." 1 Cor.10:4 says, "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Messiah." Since Yahweh is called a "Rock" in several Old Testament verses, the two beings are made into one. This verse must be understood with Ex.17:6 in mind; "Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel." 1 Cor. 10:4 is figuratively making reference to Ex.17:6 which is a shadow of Messiah. To "smite the rock" is to kill the Messiah. The rock could not yield water until it was smitten. Similarly, the Messiah Yahshua could not give forth "rivers of living water" until he was put to death and then resurrected unto eternal life (glorified). Jn.7:39 shows this "living water" to be the Holy Spirit. Yahshua was not physically present with them in the wilderness. Spiritually speaking he was. That is why the verse says "spiritual drink" and "spiritual Rock." The word "them" in the phrase "that followed them" is not in the Greek. Reading the verse without that misleading word gives the meaning that Yahshua followed in time as in 1 Pe.1:11, "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Messiah which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Messiah, and the glory that should follow." Even if one were to believe Yahshua physically followed Israel, that would not prove he was Yahweh since Yahweh was not personally leading or following Israel in the wilderness. Scriptures reveal that the Angel of Yahweh, Yahweh’s representative, followed them (Ex.14:19).

I AM

"Before Abraham was, I am." These words, spoken by our Savior in Jn.8:58, have led to much controversy and confusion. Some use this verse to prove the Messiah’s pre-existence. Others use it to prove the trinity doctrine. And then there are those who use it to prove Yahshua is the great "I AM" of Ex.3:14.

The phrase "I am" is "ego eimi" in Greek. Since the Greek New Testament records Yahshua using "ego eimi" many times, Christian theologians term these sayings, "The I Am’s of Jesus." It is believed that each of these occurrences implies Yahshua’s identity as the "I AM" of Ex.3:14. Can this be true? Can our Savior, the Son of Yahweh, actually be the "I AM"?

Ex.3:14-15 reads, "And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh, Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." Therefore, the "I AM" is identified as "Yahweh."

And what does Yahweh say in Ps.2:7? "I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Yahweh is the Father of Yahshua. Yahshua is the Son of Yahweh. Yahshua is not Yahweh and the Son is not the Father. Therefore, Yahshua (the Son of Yahweh) cannot be the I AM (Yahweh). That alone should be sufficient to discredit the belief that Yahshua was claiming to be the "I AM." But let’s look into the matter a little farther.

In the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Ex 3:14 reads,

In Septuagint English it reads, "And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you."

In KJV English it reads, "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

In John 8:58, "I am" is "" in Greek. As you can see, "" in Ex 3:14 is just the prelude to what the Almighty really wanted the Israelites to know, that is, that He was the "" or "the Being" or "the Existing One".

If Yahshua truly wanted to tell the Jews he was the great "I am" of Ex 3:14, he would have said, "Before Abraham was I am the Being" or "I am the Existing One".

It is believed that Jn.8:59 further supports the position that Yahshua is the "I AM." Why else would the Jews try to stone him? He obviously blasphemed in the eyes of the Jews, a stoneable offense. Or did he? Is the mere utterance of "ego eimi" a blasphemy? Does the use of "ego eimi" automatically identify the speaker as Yahweh, the I AM?

Several individuals aside from Yahshua used "ego eimi" as well. In Lu.1:19, the angel Gabriel said, "Ego eimi Gabriel." In Jn.9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Yahshua said, "Ego eimi." In Acts 10:21, Peter said, "Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek." Obviously, the mere use of "ego eimi" does not equate one to the "I Am" of Ex.3:14. But perhaps the Saviors use of it was somehow different. After all, he came down from heaven.

If, in fact, Yahshua spoke Greek to the Jews (which I doubt), he used the phrase "ego eimi" at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Jews seek to stone him (Jn.8:58). Yahshua said, "I am the bread of life" to a large crowd, in Jn.6:35 & 48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Jews murmured because he said, "I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven." But in verse 42, the Jews questioned only the phrase, "I came down from heaven" and ignored "ego eimi." The same is true of verses 51 & 52.

In Jn.8:12, 18, 24, & 28, Yahshua used "ego eimi" with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in Jn.10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Yahshua said to his disciples, "…that…ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)" in Jn.13:19 without them batting an eye.

An interesting account occurs in Jn.18 when the Jews came to arrest Yahshua in the Garden of Gethsemane. When the chief priests and Pharisees said they were seeking Yahshua of Nazareth, Yahshua said to them, "Ego eimi." At that they fell backward to the ground. It is not made clear why they fell to the ground, but what followed will make it clear that Yahshua was not claiming to be the "I AM."

After Yahshua’s arrest, the Jews took him to Annas first (vs.13). Then they took him to Caiaphas (vs.24) and eventually to Pilate (vss.28,29). A parallel account is found in Mt.26:57-68. Notice, in particular, verse 59. The same men that had fallen backward to the ground were in attendance when the council sought false witnesses against Yahshua to put him to death. Verse 60 says they couldn’t find any. Eventually two came forward. Interestingly, they didn’t bear false witness about what Yahshua said in Jn.8:58, but about his reference to destroying the temple and building it again in three days. Where were all those witnesses from Jn.8:58?

The point about Mt.26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard Yahshua say "Ego eimi." They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn’t. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn’t. Why not? Because it wasn’t blasphemy, nor was it a stoneable offense. He was merely identifying himself as Yahshua of Nazareth.

This brings us back to Jn.8:58. Why did the Jews seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of Jn.8 shows that Yahshua;

1) accused the Jews of "judging after the flesh" (vs.15).

2) said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).

3) implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).

4) said they were servants of sin (vs.34).

5) said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).

6) implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).

7) said their father was the devil (vs.44).

said they were not of Elohim (vs.47).

9) accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).

10) accused them of not knowing Yahweh (vs.55).

11) accused them of lying (vs.55).

Aside from that, the Jews misunderstood Yahshua’s words leading them to believe;

1) that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).

2) Yahshua had a devil (vs.52).

3) that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).

4) that he saw Abraham (vs.56).

Yahshua’s words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Jews that they couldn’t restrain themselves anymore. They simply couldn’t take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, "ego eimi," but because he was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham. They sought to stone him illegally.

So what does Jn.8:58 really mean? Although I do not believe we can be certain what Yahshua meant due to a variety of reasons, I offer the following explanation.

Let’s look at the context of Yahshua’s statement. It begins in verse 51 with the thought of eternal life; "If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." The Jews thought since Abraham and the prophets were dead, Yahshua must have a devil. The context is eternal life. Then in verse 56 Yahshua says Abraham "rejoiced to see my day." He did not say he saw Abraham as the Jews misunderstood. How did Abraham see Yahshua’s day? Heb.11:13 says, "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." He saw Yahshua’s day by faith.

Yahshua then resumed the context of his initial conversation by saying, "Before Abraham was, I am." "Was" is from the Greek "ginomai" meaning, "to come into being, … to arise." What Yahshua actually meant was, "Before Abraham comes into being (at his resurrection unto eternal life), I will." Confirmation of this understanding comes to us from Figures of Speech Used in the Bible by E.W. Bullinger, pgs. 521,522. Under the heading "Heterosis (Of Tenses)," subheading "The Present for the Future," he writes, "This is put when the design is to show that some thing will certainly come to pass, and is spoken of as though it were already present." He then lists some examples such as Mt.3:10b, "therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is [shall be] hewn down;" and Mk.9:31a, "For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is [shall be] delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day." Included among this list of examples of Heterosis is Jn.8:58. In other words, although properly written, "Before Abraham comes to be, I am," with "I am" in the simple present tense, the meaning points to the future, "Before Abraham comes to be, I will."

Yahshua was telling them that Abraham will be one of those people who will be granted eternal life, but before that takes place, Yahshua will receive that same eternal life. This statement of fact must be since Yahshua is to have the preeminence in all things. He must be the firstborn from the dead, the first to receive eternal life.

Some people believe this verse should be translated, "Before Abraham existed, I existed." However, neither Greek verb is in the perfect tense (past tense). "Was" is in the aorist tense and "am" is in the present tense. Let’s look a little closer at "was." Concerning the aorist tense, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey says, "It has time relations only in the indicative, where it is past and hence augmented." The verb ginomai (was) is in the infinitive, not the indicative. Therefore it should not be translated in the past tense. This same reference says of the infinitive, "The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, …" Abraham will eventually resurrect which is why the Greek uses the aorist infinitive. The meaning is, "Before Abraham comes to be" not "Before Abraham was (or existed)."

Yahshua was not declaring that he is the great "I AM" of Ex.3:14. Yahshua was not declaring himself to be Yahweh. And Yahshua was not declaring his pre-existence. He is the Son of Yahweh and the Son of the great "I Am."

The Word was God?

In Jn.1:1-3 we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (KJV). As mentioned previously, it is not wrong to address Yahshua as god or elohim as long as we don’t address him as the "one true Elohim." According to the common understanding of verse 1, there are two beings, the Word and God, Yahshua and Yahweh. Therefore, the phrase "the Word was God" would lead one to believe that Yahshua (the Word) was Yahweh (God). However, if we know that Yahweh called Yahshua "God" or "elohim" in Heb.1:9 and Ps.45:7, there is no problem with the phrase "the Word was God." Yahshua is obviously an elohim in Hebrew or a god in English. This, of course, is based on the common understanding of the "Word" being Yahshua. That, however, is not what John intended when he wrote these verses.

Nor did John intend to teach us that the Son preexisted "with" God from the very beginning of creation. De 32:39 says, "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." Yahweh the Father is speaking here. He is saying there is no other "elohim" or no other God with Him. John 1:1 says, " . . .and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God." If the "Word" is the Son and the Son was WITH God and was God, how does that harmonize with the above verse? In De 32:39, since Yahweh was speaking, then there was no other God with Him, not even the Son.

Since Yahshua is called "The Word of God" in Rev.19:13, the translators of the KJV assumed the "Word" of Jn.1:1 was also Yahshua and therefore, capitalized the word "word" and used the pronoun "him" in reference to the "word." The Greek for "Word" is "logos." It appears in the text written with a small letter l. Logos means "the spoken word" or "something said (including the thought)." In that sense the word is an "it," not a person but a thing. The great English translator William Tyndale renders it that way in his 1525 version as does the Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva Bible of 1560, and the Bishop’s Bible of 1568. (Click here for more info.) Verse 3 should read, "All things were made through it; and without it was not anything made that was made." In other words, Yahweh spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Gen.1:3,6,9,11,14, 20, and 24 all of which begin, "And Elohim said." Yahweh spoke and it was done. Ps.33:6,9 says, "By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast." Not only did Yahweh speak creation into existence, but He also spoke His Son Yahshua into existence; "And the word (Yahweh’s spoken word) was made flesh" (Jn.1:14). Yahshua did not become the "Word of [Yahweh]" until his birth as a flesh and blood male child.

How then should we translate verse 1? "In the beginning was the word; and the word was with [Yahweh], and the word was [Yahweh]’s" is one suggestion. The Greek word translated "God" is "theos." The Greek does not have a different word to show possession. Therefore, theos can be translated "Yahweh" or "Yahweh’s." The possessive form makes this verse so clear and in harmony with the phrase "the word was with Yahweh."

For the Sake of the Other’s Conscience

All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market, without asking questions for conscience’ sake; for the earth is the Lord’s, and ALL IT CONTAINS. If one of the unbelievers invites you, and you wish to go, eat anything that is set before you, without asking questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone should say to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved.

1 Corinthians 10:23-33, New American Standard Version

This scripture is often misunderstood and misapplied. This is caused, in part, because most translations are not very clear in the translation, plus a desire on the part of many to retain the idols of the heathen in worship, as idols often lend comfort and a mistaken feeling of spirituality to the flesh. Paul’s discussion here is also often mistakenly confused with his discussion concerning food and drink in Romans 14, which is a different matter altogether. Thus some have produced studies in these verses wherein they conclude almost the opposite of Paul’s intent: “Flee from idolatry.” — 1 Corinthians 10:14.

The apostle is pointing out that it is fine for us to eat food sacrificed to idols as long as we not informed that the food is sacrificed to an idol, for we know that the food itself is not polluted by the offering made to the idol, and we also know that an idol is nothing of itself. — 1 Corinthians 8:4

Some have read into this that we should not eat food sacrificed to an idol if the believer feels he is violating his own conscience by eating or if another thinks in his conscience that it is wrong to eat food sacrificed to an idol and thus our eating would be offensive to such a person. While we should certainly do nothing that violates our conscience, nor should we seek to do willfully do things unneccessarily to offend others’ consciences, this is almost the opposite of what Paul is stating in this instance.

The apostle explains that not all understand that an idol is nothing and therefore if food is presented to us, and the person giving us the food states that it has been offered to an idol, that person’s conscience is weak (not fully trained to discern good and evil — Hebrews 5:14) and defiled, thinking and falsely believing with all good conscience that offering food to an idol is the right thing to do. (1 Corinthians 8:7) If we partake of the food that is presented as being offered to an idol, we give credence to the belief that the idol is something, and the person who believes the idol is something is emboldened by our actions to actually eat the food as an offering to an idol, which, in effect, would make us participators in that offering. (1 Corinthians 8:10; 10:18-23) The eating of such food in the presence of a weak one might seem to them to be an endorsement of the idol worship; and thus they might be misled into a partial endorsement of idolatry.

If that person is a brother, we may by our actions give cause for that brother to commit sin (offend - Strong’s #4624; 1 Corinthians 8:13), and not only that, we also sin toward that brother — we may become sharers in the sin of idolatry that that brother commits as a result. (1 Corinthians 8:12; 10:16-23)

The word “offend” in modern English most often means to “to cause dislike, anger, or vexation.” Thus the popular notion derived from these verses is that we might cause a brother to violate his own conscience. However, that is not the meaning in 1 Corinthians 8-10, although many often read that meaning into the word. In these chapters it has the meaning of “to transgress the moral or divine law”, or “to entice to sin.” — http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4624

The Mosaic Law Covenant does not forbid eating of the food itself, but it does forbid making any kind of offering or service to an idol. (Exodus 20:4,5; Deuteronomy 4:15-19; 5:8,9) The apostle appeals to the Hebrew Scriptures to this effect: “The things that the heathen sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God.” “For the earth is Yahweh’s, and all that is in it.” (1 Corinthians 10:20,26; Leviticus 17:7; Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 24:1; 50:12; 106:37) Thus the apostles states that all these things are lawful, that is, the law does not forbid partaking of anything even though it has been offered to an idol. (1 Corinthians 10:23) Some have thought that the apostle refers to the liberty we have in Christ, which the Jews do not have. Actually, it appears from the context that Paul is speaking of the Law itself. Thus, the apostle could state that it is lawful to eat these things sacrficed to idols, since there is no law against such. And while we could eat the food that has been sacrificed to idols, and we personally do not participate in the actual offering of the food to the idol, we do not directly break the law on idolatry, yet on the other hand we could be participating in the offering by seemingly giving approval to the sin of the other person who views the food as offered to an idol. This is Paul’s argument from 1 Corinthians 10:16-23. Therefore he tells us not to use the liberty that knowledge brings to us to cause another person to sin. He says we may eat the food (that has been offered to an idol) as long as we are not told by the giver: This is offered in sacrifice to idols. (1 Corinthians 10:25-28) If we are told that the food is offered to an idol, we need to regard, not our own conscience in the matter, but the other person’s, by not partaking of the food, lest our liberty be judged by another person’s conscience.

We want to emphasize that Paul is not speaking of violating our conscience, or that we might cause someone else to violate their conscience, as many have assumed. He is speaking of one whose conscience is weak - undeveloped - whose conscience would approve of sin — that food should be offered to idols — and that we might appear to such a person as approving of his conscience in that matter. Likewise, if that person should be a brother in Christ, and we, by our actions, should lead such a brother whose conscience sees nothing wrong with offering foods to idols, to appear that we approve of such offerings by partaking of the food after being told that it has been offered to idol, our liberty could come into judgment because of our seeming approval of the idolatrous sin of our brother. If this happens, the apostle does then call our act a “sin”, not because we violated our own conscience, or because we led a brother to violate his conscience, but because we appear to approve of the weaker one’s conscience that would see nothing wrong in actually offering food to idols. — 1 Corinthians 8:7,12.

In 1 Corinthians 10:28 in many translations, there is the phrase added which does not belong there: “for the earth is Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” This is an interpolation, and was copied from verse 26, where it does belong. However, in verse 28 it is added and does not belong in the context being spoken of, and gives a wrong impression by its presence there.

But we don’t see people in our neighbors offering food sacrifices to idols, do we? Idolatry is often cloaked so that it is deceptive. The heathen offer their food or other presents all dressed up before their idols — they may say that they know that the image does actually receive the food or presents, for they later eat the food or the presents are given to people. But they say that the spirit of love and labor of the offering is received by the god or goddess whom the idol represents. Isn’t this basically the same thing that is said about putting presents under the Christmas tree or gifts before the image of Mary, etc.?

In a broad sense, the principles obtained from these verses could be applied, not just to food, but any kind of gift that is offered to an idol. If we are being given a gift that would embolden someone else to approve of idolatry in their conscience, as demonstrated by what they say or do, should we accept such a gift in such a way so that they might conclude we approve of their carnal worship of an idol?

Additionally, “We do not feel such a restraint that we would fear to enter a nominal church building to hear a service there; but would not seem to give our assent to their errors by regular attendance and participation.” (ZWT Reprints 3146:4) In other words, if we continue in regular attendance at meetings of a church that indulges in teaching gross error, it might appear to those in attendance at these meetings that we condone their errors. This applies the same principle that the apostle is speaking of here.

Some have pointed to 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 in a effort to prove that Paul would partake of idolatrous ritual when with the heathen, that he might win them for Christ. No, this is not his meaning, as can be seen from the context. (1 Corinthians 8:10; 10:6-11,14) Principles may never be abandoned for any consideration, but liberties and personal rights may be ignored in the interest of others, frequently and to divine pleasing. Thus we understand the apostle to mean that he was refraining from exercising lawful liberties which would detract from the message he was preaching.