The phony enthusiasm of a snake oil salesman.
God is NOT a Trinity...
God is a Family composed of the two Personages...
...the God Family will not always be composed of only two divine beings...
God is in the process of expanding His divine Family!
There we go again, the same lie that the serpent told Eve - you shall be as God.
You haven't addressed ONE Bible verse given from those proofs.
Please refer to this link.
QUESTION: I have heard that this verse was added by someone attempting to lend credence to the trinity idea, is that true?
ANSWER:
Here is the verse in question. This verse is well known as not being part of the original transcripts of the Bible.
1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Notice the Bible Commentaries:
1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
The text of this verse should read, Because there are three that bear record. The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the trinitarian addition before the fourteenth century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the Trinity in the first 450 years of the church era. 8. The three witnesses are the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. "The trinity of witnesses furnish one testimony" (Plummer, The Epistles, p. 116) namely that Jesus Christ came in the flesh to die for sin that men might live.
*****
1 John 5:7
[For there are three that bear record in heaven ...] There are three that "witness," or that "bear witness"-the same Greek word which, in 1 John 5:8, is rendered "bear witness"-marturountes (NT:3140). There is no passage of the New Testament which has given rise to so much discussion in regard to its genuineness as this. The supposed importance of the verse in its bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity has contributed to this, and has given to the discussion a degree of consequence which has pertained to the examination of the genuineness of no other passage of the New Testament. On the one hand, the clear testimony which it seems to bear to the doctrine of the Trinity, has made that portion of the Christian church which holds the doctrine reluctant in the highest degree to abandon it; and on the other hand, the same clearness of the testimony to that doctrine, has made those who deny it not less reluctant to admit the genuineness of the passage.
It is not consistent with the design of these notes to go into a full investigation of a question of this sort. And all that can be done is to state, in a brief way, the "results" which have been reached, in an examination of the question. Those who are disposed to pursue the investigation further, can find all that is to be said in the works referred to at the bottom of the page.
(NOTE: Mill. New Test., pp. 379-386; Wetstein, II. 721-727; Simon, Critical History of the New Testament; Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, 4:412 ff; Semler, Histor. und Krit. Sammlungen uber die sogenannten Beweistellen der Dogmatik. Erstes Stuck uber, 1 John 5:7; Griesbach, Diatribe in locum, 1 John 5:7-8, second edit., New Test., vol. II., appendix 1; and Lucke's Commentary "in loc.")
The portion of the passage, in 1 John 5:7-8, whose genuineness is disputed, is included in brackets in the following quotation, as it stands in the common editions of the New Testament: "For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth,) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." If the disputed passage, therefore, be omitted as spurious, the whole passage will read, "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:
II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions-one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.
III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity-a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5 th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine-nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor-it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.
(b) The "language" is not such as John would use. He does, indeed, elsewhere use the term "Logos," or "Word"-ho (NT:3588) Logos (NT:3056), (John 1:1,14; 1 John 1:1), but it is never in this form, "The Father, and the Word;" that is, the terms "Father" and "Word" are never used by him, or by any of the other sacred writers, as correlative. The word "Son"-ho (NT:3588) Huios (NT:5207)-is the term which is correlative to the "Father" in every other place as used by John, as well as by the other sacred writers. See 1 John 1:3; 2:22-24; 4:14; 2 John 3,9; and the Gospel of John, "passim." Besides, the correlative of the term "Logos," or "Word," with John, is not "Father," but "God." See John 1:1. Compare Rev 19:13.
(c) Without this passage, the sense of the argument is clear and appropriate. There are three, says John, which bear witness that Jesus is the Messiah. These are referred to in 1 John 5:6; and in immediate connection with this, in the argument, (1 John 5:8), it is affirmed that their testimony goes to one point, and is harmonious. To say that there are OTHER witnesses elsewhere, to say that they are one, contributes nothing to illustrate the nature of the testimony of these three-the water, and the blood, and the Spirit; and the internal sense of the passage, therefore, furnishes as little evidence of its genuineness as the external proof. V. It is easy to imagine how the passage found a place in the New Testament. It was at first written, perhaps, in the margin of some Latin manuscript, as expressing the belief of the writer of what was true in heaven, as well as on earth, and with no more intention to deceive than we have when we make a marginal note in a book. Some transcriber copied it into the body of the text, perhaps with a sincere belief that it was a genuine passage, omitted by accident; and then it became too important a passage in the argument for the Trinity, ever to be displaced but by the most clear critical evidence. It was rendered into Greek, and inserted in one Greek manuscript of the 16th century, while it was missing in all the earlier manuscripts.
*****
1 John 5:6-9 <> The name the Word is known to be almost (if not quite) peculiar to this apostle. Had the text been devised by another, it had been more easy and obvious, from the form of baptism, and the common language of the church, to have used the name Son instead of that of the Word. As it is observed that Tertullian and Cyprian use that name, even when they refer to this verse; or it is made an objection against their referring to this verse, because they speak of the Son, not the Word; and yet Cyprian's expression seems to be very clear by the citation of Facundus himself. Quod Johannis apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus, Carthaginensis antistes et martyr, in epistolƒ sive libro, quem de Trinitate scripsit, de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu sancto dictum intelligit; ait enim, Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt.-Blessed Cyprian, the Carthaginian bishop and martyr, in the epistle or book he wrote concerning the Trinity, considered the testimony of the apostle John as relating to the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit; for he says, the Lord says, I and the Father are one; and again, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit it is written, And these three are one. Now it is nowhere written that these are one, but in v. 7.
(from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible)
*****
Commentary by: Daniel B. Wallace, Th.M., Ph.D Associate Professor of New Testament Studies Dallas Theological Seminary
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1186.
Here is the text found there:
5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these
Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma, the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ
pathvr, oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'" e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ
marturou'nte" ejn th'/ gh'/ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.1
This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3 Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text,4 as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.
Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine manuscripts lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text. Further, it puts these Protestant proponents in the awkward and self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as inspired as the apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings—due either to carelessness or lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek).
In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. To argue that the Comma must be authentic is Bultmannian in its method, for it ignores history at every level. As such, it has very little to do with biblical Christianity, for a biblical faith is one that is rooted in history.
Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.
Unfortunately, for many, the Comma and other similar passages have become such emotional baggage that is dragged around whenever the Bible is read that a knee-jerk reaction and ad hominem argumentation becomes the first and only way that they can process this issue. Sadly, neither empirical evidence nor reason can dissuade them from their views. The irony is that their very clinging to tradition at all costs (namely, of an outmoded translation which, though a literary monument in its day, is now like a Model T on the Autobahn) emulates Roman Catholicism in its regard for tradition.5 If the King James translators knew that this would be the result nearly four hundred years after the completion of their work, they’d be writhing in their graves.
2 Not only the ancient orthodox writers, but also modern orthodox scholars would of course be delighted if this reading were the original one. But the fact is that the evidence simply does not support the Trinitarian formula here—and these orthodox scholars just happen to hold to the reasonable position that it is essential to affirm what the Bible affirms where it affirms it, rather than create such affirmations ex nihilo. That KJV advocates have charged modern translations with heresy because they lack the Comma is a house of cards, for the same translators who have worked on the NIV, NASB, or NET (as well as many other translations) have written several articles and books affirming the Trinity.
3 This manuscript which contains the entire New Testament is now housed in Dublin. It has been examined so often at this one place that the book now reportedly falls open naturally to 1 John 5.
4 That Erasmus made such a protest or that he had explicitly promised to include the Comma is an overstatement of the evidence, though the converse of this can be said to be true: Erasmus refused to put this in his without Greek manuscript support.
5 Thus, TR-KJV advocates subconsciously embrace two diametrically opposed traditions: when it comes to the first 1500 years of church history, they hold to a Bultmannian kind of Christianity (viz., the basis for their belief in the superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts—and in particular, the half dozen that stand behind the TR—has very little empirical substance of historical worth). Once such readings became a part of tradition, however, by way of the TR, the argument shifts to one of tradition rather than non-empirical fideism. Neither basis, of course, resembles Protestantism.
*****
Restoration Light Bible Study Services
web site located at: http://godandson.reslight.net/1john-5-7.html
This is an excerpt from that site:
"For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
(Words in brackets are spurious! They are not retained by any manuscripts of earlier date than the seventh century and are not in the Revised Version. One hundred and twelve of the oldest manuscripts do not retain them. Trinity thus loses its supposed main Scriptural support.)
This is the only passage in the whole Bible that gives any color to the trinity or "oneness" doctrines. However, the bracketed portion (see above) of this passage is almost universally recognized as an interpolation. It first crept into the Greek text in the fourteenth century. It is true that some late Latin, Vulgate MSS., copied not more than five centuries before, do contain it. This interpolation was first inserted into some Vulgate manuscript and was therefrom in the fourteenth century translated into the first Greek text having it. Had this text been in the Bible when the trinitarian controversies were going on, in the fourth to the eighth centuries, certainly the trinitarians who were hard pressed by their opponents to produce such a text, would have used it as a proof text. But none of them ever so used it, for the good reason that it was then not in the Bible. It doubtless crept into the Latin text by a copyist taking it from the margin, where it was written by somebody as his comment on the text, and inserting it into the Latin text itself, from which, as just said, it was first translated into a Greek manuscript in the fourteenth century. The next Greek manuscript that contains it is from the fifteenth century.
Additionally, Ivan Pain, who was a trinitarian, gave added testimony that the portion in question does not belong through his Biblical numerics. More than likely Panin, being a trinitarian, would like to have proved the portion as genuine with Biblical numerics, but could not do so; thus he came to the conclusion that it must be spurious. Regarding Biblical Numerics, see: Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 12 (1949, by Paul S. L. Johnson), pages 603-632, available from Laymen's Home Missionary Movement, P.O. Box 679, Chester Springs, PA 19425. http://members.aol.com/lhmmbible/catalog/publications.html
Regarding 1 John 5:7,8, Paul S. L. Johnson states: "Assuming that this text were genuine, it would not prove that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God; for the Greek word for 'one' here is 'hen,' and is neuter; and the masculine word Theos (Greek God) cannot be supplied after it; for the Greek word for one in that case would have to be heis (masculine for one). Nor can the Greek word for being (ousia) be supplied after it, because ousia is feminine, which would require the feminine of one, mia. If the passage were genuine we would have to supply a neuter noun, e.g., like pneuma (disposition), after hen in this text even as we have to do so in John 10:30: 'My Father and I are one' (hen) disposition. It could not be theos (God) or ousia (Being), which would respectively require the masculine heis and the feminine mia." -- Ephiphany Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. I - God, page 477. For more information on John 10:30, see http://members.tripod.com/~reslight/john10-30.html
The Father, Son, and holy spirit are one in disposition, one in heart, mind, and will; but not one God. The Bible nowhere states that there are three persons in one God. Nor does it ever say that there is a being called God who is more than one person. In the Bible, one person IS one personal being, and one personal being IS one person always, and never more than one. It was Satan who, in producing a counterfeit for everything in the Bible, counterfeited the true God as one Being composed of three persons. This unbiblical, unreasonable and unfactual distinction between the words *person* and *being* when referring to a personal being should be avoided. It is surely an error invented by Satan to deceive -- a work of darkness, a self-contradiction, which no one can understand or explain, while Bible doctrines are all explainable and understandable.
Additionally, we might say, if the logic were valid that the Father's, Son's and holy spirit's oneness in John 5:7,8 must be that of being, we would have to say that Paul and Appolos were one being (1 Corinthians 3:6-8)! Of course they were two separate beings. Hen being used of them in 1 Corinthians 3:8 (not mia, which would be necessary to agree with the feminine ousia, being) proves that their oneness was not one of being but of spirit, disposition (Acts 4:32; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3-6,13; Philippians 1:27; 2:2; 4:2) Hence 1 John 5:7,8 does not by the Greek word hen prove that the Father, Son and holy spirit are one being any more than 1 Corinthians 3:8 proves by the word hen that Paul and Apollos were one being; but the same word and form of that word, proving Paul and Apollos to one in heart, mind and will, gives presumptive evidence that the same word and form that word in John 10:30 proves the same of the Father and Son.
But we have more than presumptive proof of this. When Jesus prayed (John 17:11,21,22) that all of the saints may be one (hen, not heis, nor mia) he did not pray that they be all one being, which would be nonsense, but that their unity may be one in mind, heart and will. Since the oneness for which He prayed for them was not a oneness of being, the oneness between Him and the Father cannot be that of being, because Jesus in John 17:11,22 prays that the oneness for which He prayed on their behalf be patterned after the oneness that exists between the Father and himself: "That they may be one as we are." Hence the oneness between the Father and Jesus is not one of being, but one of mind, heart and will. Moreoever Jesus defines this oneness in verse 21 as follows: "that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me [Yahweh was in Jesus by his holy spirit, disposition, (John 14:17,20) and I in thee [Jesus was in the Father (John 14:10,11,20) by accepting and keeping the Father as his head, i.e,, by his being and remaining in the consecrated attitude. (1 Corinthians 3:23; 11:3 are passages that also strongly prove Jesus' inferiority to the Father, and the Father's being the Supreme Being)], that [thus the Father and the Son, by their spirit, disposition, being in them and they by their spirit of consecration, being in them (1 John 5:20; Colossians 3:3; 1 Corinthians 12:12,13] they also may be one in us . . . that they may be one, even as we are one." Thus these verses prove that the same kind of oneness as exists between the saints, also exists between the Father and Son and vice versa. Therefore, since the oneness that exists between the saints is not one of being, but one of heart, mind, and will, the oneness that exists between the Father and Sons is not one of being, but one of will, heart, and mind.
Futhermore, if the Father and the Son were but one being, they could not be the two beings bearing required witness, as John 8:17,18 says they were, since the law required at least two different beings to be witnesses sufficient to establish a matter. But since they gave sufficient witness, they must be two beings. Therefore their oneness is not that of being -- for they are two beings. It must be that of mind, heart and will. Accordingly, John 10:30 does not prove the Son's equality with the Father. Rather, it proves the Son's subordination to the Father. John 17:21, which shows the kind of unity that exists between them to be connected with the Son's being in the Father, implies that the Father is the Son's head that the Son is His in the sense that believers are Christ's, in subordination to him. Thus Jesus must be subordinate to the Father (1 Corinthians 3:23; 11:3), even as the headship of Christ makes the Church subordinate to Christ (Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:22,23; 4:15; 5:23,24, compared with Colossians 3:19).
The above was adapted from the book entitled GOD (1938, by Paul S. L. Johnson), pages 476-478, 516-518, available from Laymen's Home Missionary Movement, P.O. Box 679, Chester Springs, PA 19425.
For more information about the trinity and oneness doctrines, see: http://reslight.net/l-numerics.html.
PLEASE NOTE: The following books are given as sources of more information on the above topic. The opinions and conclusions given in the books are those of the author(s) and does not necessarily reflect our conclusions.
Two Babylons or the Papal Worship by Alexander Hislop
Concepts of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by Matthew Alfs
Amazon's Description: Subtitled "A Classification and Description of the Trinitarian and Non-Trinitarian Theologies Existent Within Christendom," this is a theological and historical handbook of how the variety of Christian denominations have defined and viewed God the Father, Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit. Detailed and penetrating, it demonstrates how Christendom's many denominations and sects have differed and even powerfully clashed in explicating this so-called "central doctrine of the Christian faith," often with heated verbal sparring and sometimes by inflicting physical violence on opposers. Objective in tone, which is rare for a work of this sort, this careful study encourages the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Unlike apologetic works, which often quote what critics say about variant denominational theologies, this work allows the plethora of denominations to speak for themselves. The author further solicited comments from many denominational headquarters to clarify and expand upon material from their available published works. It can truly be said that no stone has been left unturned in order to provide the reader with full and complete coverage of the subject. Includes 355 references and a detailed index. Sturdy libary binding, brown cloth with gold-embossed cover illustration. 104pp.
*****
Suny Buffalo Online Library—a resource for the Muslim faith. This from a Page, “What Did Jesus Really Say?”
Web site located at: http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.2.5.html.
1 John 5:7
The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1
John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been asking for. However, as I would later find out, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott."
Mr. Wilson says:
Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and God's people. Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a "Trinity" therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God chose to inspire someone to insert this verse in order to clarify the true nature of God as being a "Trinity." Notice how mankind was being inspired as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being "inspired" (see chapter two).
If these people were being "inspired" by God, I wondered, then why did they need to put these words into other people's mouths (in our example, in the mouth of John). Why did they not just openly say "God inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name"? Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to "inspire" his "true" nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself?
The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words:
"Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418.
Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who also proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only first inserted by the Church into the Bible in the year 400C.E.(Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).
Regarding Porson's most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbonlater said
To which Mr. Bentley responds:
Peake's Commentary on the Bible says
Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, p. 156
According to Newton, this verse first appeared for in the third edition of Erasmus's (1466-1536) New Testament.
For all of the above reasons, we find that when thirty twobiblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations got together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is. For more on the compilation of the RSV Bible, please read the preface of any modern copy of that Bible.
Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a "colt", or was it an "ass and a colt"? see point 42 in the table of section 2.2) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read:
*****
CONCLUSION:
Kind Begets Kind
Remember, God created man in the image of God. As stated, human reproduction is a true cycle. We can discover no beginning of the cycle short of actual creation.
Not only did God reveal that He created man "in His image," but when Adam and Eve had children, the Bible says "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his own image; and called his name Seth" (Genesis 5:3). Of course, Cain and Abel came along before Seth, and perhaps several daughters were born somewhere in between, but the important point is that in this first of the genealogical tables of the Bible, God's Word says Seth was "in the image" of Adam and Eve, his parents.
There is no more obvious law at work in our ecosphere than that of the law of biogenesis. Kind begets kind. Like produces like. Horses do not produce dogs; chickens do not produce cows; dolphins do not come from elephants, and, for all the obvious similarities in comparative embryology, (which should prove to questing minds the fact that the same great DESIGNER produced all forms of life.) the embryo of the egg becomes a chicken, and the human embryo becomes human.
It is a fabulous MIRACLE that a microscopic spermatozoon (male sperm cell) can unite with a virtually invisible human female egg in the womb of the mother, and that this new life which is now engendered by the uniting of male and female cells, is on its way toward becoming a separate, individual HUMAN BEING.
I have said, for many years, that birth is ABSOLUTE. There was a moment when you did not exist. Then, there was a moment when that life which became you was the result of intense competition between potentially hundreds and thousands of others, but YOU were begotten, instead.
Humorously, I have told audiences for many years that "never has a young girl come home, frightened, and said to her mother, 'Mom, I am half pregnant.'"
Begettal is a positive act. When it takes place, a separate, unique human life is being developed.
It is a fabulous miracle that height, shape, weight, texture of skin, color and texture of hair and eyes, tone of voice, abilities and proclivities, talents and aptitudes can be conveyed from parent to child.
No wonder David marveled that he was "fearfully and wonderfully made." No wonder David gave God the credit for having "knit me together in my mother's womb," and exulted, "How marvelous art all thy works, 0 Lord God."
When human parents reproduce, it is as if a microcosm of the whole plan and purpose of GOD-a microcosm of ultimate human destiny.
There was a moment in time when you were begotten. For the sake of understanding one of the great "mysteries" of the plan of God-understanding your own human destiny, you need to understand the process by which YOU came to be. You need to understand the difference between begettal (conception), the gradual development of the fetus in the womb, and actual parturition, or birth.
Obviously, begettal and birth are not the same. There is difficulty with a Greek word, gennao, which means the entire process of begettal and birth. The Greek makes no distinction between begettal, and birth, but is used interchangeably.
It is only in the context that we can discern whether the Bible is speaking of a spiritual begettal, or spiritual BIRTH.
And there is a DIFFERENCE.
When you were begotten, your mother was probably unaware of it. She may have discovered it about a month or so later, but wasn't really sure, until after two or three months, and a visit to the doctor. Meanwhile, you were gradually developing within the womb of your mother. Now, the placenta that was forming was causing the nutrients from your mother's own bloodstream to flow into the tiny, strange-looking little shape (bearing resemblance to other types of embryos) that was to someday become YOU.
The Bible instructs us through analogies often. It speaks of God (the great God whom Jesus came to reveal, but who no man has ever seen.) as "the Father."
Jesus said we are to pray "our Father, which art in heaven..." He warned us not to call any man "father," in a spiritual sense on this earth, for "One is your Father, who is in heaven."
Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
The church is depicted as a woman (see Revelation 12) and is spoken of as the "mother" of those who are the members of the church.
Within the church, converted men and women are called "brothers and sisters." The apostles spoke of "the brethren," and these family terms are found throughout the New Testament.
What have we here? We have words commonly applied to a human family being applied to God and Christ in heaven, to the church, and to members of the church.
Now, follow the analogy: Even as you, as a tiny embryo, had to be protected and nurtured in the womb of your mother; so newly-begotten Christians must be "fed with the milk of the word" (1 Corinthians 3:1,2), and must be nourished and protected within the church, which is a group or assembly of "called-out ones."
The nourishment is not physical, but SPIRITUAL. The food comes through sermons from the pulpit, perhaps radio broadcasts or telecasts, written literature such as articles, Bible study courses, pamphlets and booklets, through personal/social contact with other Christians, through private conversation, and, MOST importantly, through personal Bible study and PRAYER. In these ways, God's Holy Spirit flows into the mind of the newly-developing Christian, in similar fashion as nutrition flows through the mother's body into the placenta, and to the developing embryo.
At last, after approximately nine months in the womb, you were "full-term," and ready to be BORN.
Now, a shocking change occurs.
No longer are you carried about in the womb of your mother; no longer are you fed through the umbilical cord directly into your stomach from your mother's bloodstream and the placenta. Now, shockingly, you enter the world, gasp your first breath, perhaps begin to cry from the shock and surprise of it all, and are truly ON YOUR OWN. Of course, if a loving mother (or nurse) did not care for you immediately, you would die of starvation or exposure, or both.
But now, you are truly a separate human being.
Another analogy can be developed beginning at birth, relating the Christian development, but for the sake of the analogy I am drawing here, being BORN of your human parents, becoming completely SEPARATE; beginning to develop your own personality, your own peculiar talents and abilities, developing your own thoughts and mind, developing your own individuality, your own conscience and personal morality-all these things are uniquely YOU.
These analogies are not imaginary-the Bible truly uses analogous representations of the family unit as a teaching method. It is through understanding the physical creation we can come to understand Almighty God as an invisible Spirit Being.
"The invisible things about God are clearly seen by looking at what He has created-they are understood by the things He made-including His eternal power and godhead-so ungodly men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20, paraphrased).
Jesus used the physical creation; specifically, the phenomenon of wind and its actions in attempting to teach Nicodemus about spiritual rebirth. "You Must Be Born Again"
Jesus told Nicodemus "Verily, verily I say unto you, except a man be born again [gennao, Greek-meaning 'born from above'], he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).
The Greek word Jesus used has already been explained. You can only discern whether He intended "begotten" or "born" in the context.
In this case, we need not wonder, for Nicodemus was responding to Jesus in the Greek language.
"Nicodemus said unto Him, how can a man be born [gennao, Greek] when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4).
Do you see? Was Nicodemus engaging in a little sarcastic humor? The point is, Nicodemus did not misunderstand the word Jesus used. He knew the word Jesus used connoted birth. Stunned, dumbfounded by Jesus' statement, Nicodemus spoke of the utter impossibility of what Christ implied.
Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit IS SPIRIT.
"Marvel not that I said unto you, you must be born again.
"The wind blows where it will, and you hear the sound thereof, but cannot tell where it comes from, and where it goes. So is everyone that is born of the spirit" (John 3:5-8).
Paul was inspired to write, "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption.
"Behold, I show you a mystery, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised in-corruptible and we [we who are alive and remain at that time] shall be CHANGED.
"For this corruptible must PUT ON incorruption, and this MORTAL must PUT ON immortality" (1 Corinthians 15:50-53).
Read that again. Come to understand.
Your Bible plainly tells you that you CANNOT ENTER the "kingdom of God" as a human being.
Jesus Christ said you must be born anew-born from above. When Nicodemus assumed Jesus was referring to the impossible, Jesus told him "Marvel not." He then explained. He said you can hear the noise the wind makes in the trees, or under the eaves of the house-but that the wind, while powerful enough to uproot trees, blow down buildings, or sink ships with hurricane force, is invisible.
And what did He say? "SO IS everyone that is born of the spirit.''
How is one who is born of the spirit? He is like the wind. He is invisible. He IS SPIRIT.
WHY cannot many sincere, yet deceived people see the plain, simple TRUTH of what Jesus SAID?
He said, "That which is born of the flesh [you and I-we human beings who are physical, fleshly, created 'in the image' of our physical parents.] are flesh."
So far, so good. Are you physical? Are you human? Are you FLESH?
Of course you are.
Were you born of fleshly parents? Of course.
And what are you? You are FLESH.
Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh IS FLESH."
Now then. Read the rest of John 3:6. "and that which is born of the spirit IS SPIRIT."
Have you, then, been "born" of the spirit? How to answer the question? ARE you spiritual essence? Are you composed of spirit? Can you appear or disappear at will? Can you walk through solid stone, granite, concrete block or brick? Can you zip around the heavens, visiting Mars, Venus and Jupiter?
No, you are mundane, temporal, mortal, human, FLESH.
Then you HAVE NOT been "born of the spirit" according to what your Savior, Jesus Christ, plainly tells you.
You can become "begotten" by God's Holy Spirit. You can repent, be baptized, and receive a spiritual begettal by receiving the Spirit of God. (Acts 2:38).
But you cannot, now, be "born of the spirit" UNTIL a certain moment, of which you have already read. (1 Corinthians 15:23).
Go back and read that quotation from 1 Corinthians 15 again. Better yet, turn to and read the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15. Here is the "resurrection chapter." If you read it slowly, carefully; if you ponder what you read, drinking in meaning from each word, you will learn great and profound truths which are not known; not taught, by the churches of this world.
No one, reading the simple and beautiful words of Almighty God concerning the coming resurrection at the return of Christ could believe in the pagan fables of the "immortality of the soul"; that people go either to heaven or an ever-burning hell when they die.
Rather, they would come to know the TRUTH of the Bible; that man is physical, fleshly, mortal. That when man dies, his very thoughts cease, and he shares the very same kind of death as do beasts.
And what did Paul say? "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." What is the Kingdom of God?
You have heard of "the plant kingdom," "the animal kingdom," and "the human kingdom."
Biologically, the term "kingdom" is often used to connote flora and fauna, or humankind. A famous television series is entitled, "Wild Kingdom."
Technically, however, a "kingdom" is the government of a king.
A "kingdom" correctly includes four parts: (1) A king, (2) A territory over which that king rules; (3) Subjects, living in the territory under the rulership of that king; (4) Laws, by which that king rules over his subjects in his territory.
When we speak of "the kingdom of Great Britain," or "the kingdom of Norway," we know exactly what we mean. Even though parliamentary and democratic-type governments have supplanted monarchies, the expression "kingdom" is clearly understood.
Read Revelation 19. In this shocking chapter, you see the description of the returning, conquering CHRIST. Notice. "And He hath on His vesture and on His thigh a name written KING OF KINGS, and LORD OF LORDS." (Revelation 19:16).
The great KING of the coming kingdom of God is Jesus Christ.
His territory? THIS EARTH. Notice many Bible PROOFS. "And out of His mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it He should smite the nations: [the physical, human nations of this earth.] and He shall rule them with a rod of iron..." (Revelation 19:15).
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the EARTH." (Matthew 5:5).
"...ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven SHALL SO COME in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11).
"Behold, the day of the Lord cometh. . then shall the Lord go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fought in the day of battle.
"And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east.. .and the Eternal shall be King over all the EARTH: in that day there shall be one Lord, and His name one." (Zechariah 14:1-9).
"And hast made us unto our God kings and priests, and we shall reign on the earth." (Revelation 5:10).
"And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations [on this physical earth.] and he shall RULE them with a rod of iron... (Revelation 2:26, 27).
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne [on this EARTH.] even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in His throne." (Revelation 3:21).
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them... and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years... blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years." (Revelation 20:1-6).
Study Isaiah 11, the whole book of Zephaniah, Zechariah 14, and especially the latter chapters of the book of Revelation.
Jesus Christ is the returning, conquering KING of the kingdom of God.
The territory over which His kingdom will rule is this earth. The subjects are those human, physical remnants of rebellious, war-making nations which will still be alive following the great battle of Armageddon, the outpouring of the last plagues of God, and who will be forced to submit to the government of God after the second coming of Christ.
The laws by which Jesus Christ will administer His kingdom are God's Ten Commandments as magnified by Jesus Christ; GOD 'S LAWS, mercifully and justly applied at last to a sinning, rebellious, war-mongering world.
The kingdom of God is the living, ruling, governing FAMILY of God. At this present moment, it consists only of Father and Son.
Yet, it is into this ruling family we must be BORN.
Now comes the greatest truth you could ever come to understand. Christ the "Firstborn"
Jesus Christ is called the "firstborn from the dead".
"For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29).
Do you now understand what that scripture means?
When Jesus came back to His disciples after His resurrection He said, "ALL POWER is given unto me in heaven and in earth-go ye therefore..." (Matthew 28:18-20).
Did you notice it? Jesus said He had now inherited ALL POWER. Now, He was no longer merely flesh and bone, but SPIRIT. He was once again VERY GOD.
He had risked everything, and won. He had overcome Satan the devil; dispossessing and disenfranchising him as the present world ruler. He had overcome sin in the flesh. He had qualified to become the super WORLD RULER. Now, as VERY GOD; having been BORN OF GOD by a resurrection from the DEAD, He said He had inherited "all things."
Yet, He says you and I have the opportunity to be born of God just as HE WAS.
He is the Captain and Author of our salvation-the "first born" from the dead.
Notice. "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption [son-ship.] whereby we cry, 'Abba,' Father.
"The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
"And if children, then HEIRS [not yet inheritors.] heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ..." (Romans 8:15-17).
And what did Christ inherit?
ALL THINGS. He has been given eternal life forevermore. He now has ALL POWER. He has conquered death. He will live forever in joyous happiness; ruling, administering, carrying out the plans, policies and purposes of God the Father at His right hand. As such, Christ is the executive member of the Godhead; the KING of the coming "kingdom of God" to rule on this earth for one thousand years and throughout the UNIVERSE for all eternity.
And what did He promise you? Read again the promises of Revelation 2:26 and Revelation 3:21.
He promises you... are you ready for this? Are you willing to believe it? He promises you CO-RULERSHIP with Him in His kingdom.
Notice. "But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the FIRSTFRUITS of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20).
Christ has been resurrected from the dead. He is alive. He is VERY GOD.
If you are to be BORN into the very family of God, then what will you BE?
Will you be a kind of "superhuman"? Will you be at the angel level? Will you be like a spiritual "plaything," a "pet," or some lesser being, staring up adoringly into the eyes of the Father?
What are you, now, in relationship to your human parents? Are you not, in every way their equal, except that you owe them HONOR as your parents? Are you not of their very flesh, bone and blood? Are you not a mature, adult human being, on an equal level with your fleshly, human parents? Are you not an intimate member of their family?
Of course you are.
And when you are BORN OF GOD what will you be? Will you not be a member of the very FAMILY OF GOD? Notice. "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.
"But every man in his own order: Christ the FIRSTFRUITS; afterward they that are Christ's at His coming."
No one has ascended to heaven except Christ Himself. He said so. "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (John 3:13).
What is the order of events-WHEN can you and I be born into God's kingdom? You just read it-"AT HIS COMING." And not one second before.
Do you see, now? God is your Spirit FATHER. Christ is your Spirit OLDER BROTHER.
IF you are converted-begotten of God by His Holy Spirit, then you are ON YOUR WAY to becoming a full-BORN member of GOD'S OWN FAMILY.
Now, drink in what you are about to read-and NEVER FORGET it. God is a Family
The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created..." is "Elohim." Elohim is a plural. The "im" ending connotes MORE than one-a duality of Persons in the Godhead.
Notice. "And 'Elohim' [God] said, 'Let us make man in our image...'" He did not say, "I will make man in my image"-but, "Let us," MORE THAN ONE-"make man in OUR image."
You know now that Jesus Christ of the New Testament is the Person or the Godhead who DID THE CREATING. (John 1:3, 10). The member of the Family of God who wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger; who parted the Red Sea; who wrestled with Jacob; who spoke to Abraham-that Person was one of the Divine Beings called, in the Hebrew tongue, Elohim. He became HUMAN; changed from Spirit to flesh, born of a virgin, and came among us as Jesus Christ of Nazareth-a human, to become the Author of our salvation; our redeemer from sin and Satan-the firstborn from the dead.
He revealed to us that He had a FATHER in heaven.
He said, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him" (John 1:18).
Jesus said, "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me..." (John 8:18). He enraged the Jews when He proclaimed, "Verily, Verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58).
The Jews knew by heart what God had said to 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." (Exodus 3:14).
To them, this was BLASPHEMY. They "took up stones to cast at Him" when He made that statement. They later accused Him of "making Himself EQUAL WITH GOD."
And WHO WAS Christ?
He WAS THE CREATOR-come in HUMAN FLESH. He was the executive member of the Elohim (GOD) who did the commanding; who "Spoke, and there was light," Truly, before Abraham was ever thought of-HE EXISTED.
He reveals to us that there is a divine FAMILY of beings; which HE chooses to call the "Father," and the "Son."
He says we can be "begotten by His Holy Spirit, and become "children" of God. We are then "brothers and sisters'' in Christ.
The church, which nourishes and protects us, is likened to our "mother." When we are resurrected, or when we are instantaneously changed, "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump..." at the second coming of Christ, then we are BORN OF GOD. Yes BORN into our new, spiritual, divine FAMILY.
We are then "JOINT-HEIRS WITH CHRIST."
And what did Christ "INHERIT?"
ALL THINGS.
Now do you see?
Your great human potential-your divinely-appointed human destiny-YOUR PERSONAL FUTURE is to become a MEMBER OF GOD'S OWN DIVINE, SPIRIT FAMILY.
YOU are to become a MEMBER of the FAMILY (KINGDOM) OF GOD.
Paul said, "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" (1 Corinthians 6:3).
Yes, those who are resurrected in the first resurrection (Revelation 20:5) are to share RULERSHIP OF THE WORLD with Christ for the first one thousand years (Revelation 2:26, Revelation 20:4), and are to be like "pillars in the temple of God" (Revelation 3:12) living, ruling, reigning with God the Father and with Jesus Christ His Son FOR ALL ETERNITY.
God says the time will come-after the millennium-AFTER the great judgment of the "rest of the dead" (Revelation 20:5, 11:15) that He, God the Father, will come down to THIS EARTH-and ".... the throne of God and of the Lamb [Christ] shall be in it..." (Revelation 22:3), and then Christ says, God will"... MAKE ALL THINGS NEW" (Revelation 21:5).
Then is a "NEW BEGINNING" in the great plan and purpose of God.
THEN it will come clear WHY Almighty God is SO GREATLY enlarging HIS FAMILY. Then we will know perfectly what we can now know only in part.
Does your mind comprehend it? Can you really grasp it? YOU were born of your human parents as a POTENTIAL MEMBER OF GOD'S SPIRIT FAMILY. As you are a full-fledged member, an equal, in your HUMAN family, so through God's Holy Spirit-through growth, development, overcoming-and, finally, through an actual, literal CHANGE; a change from HUMAN to DIVINE; a change from FLESH TO SPIRIT-you will experience your own great personal, human destiny-YOU WILL BECOME A SPIRIT BEING-A MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING KINGDOM, THE FAMILY OF GOD.
This GREAT TRUTH is somehow hidden from the eyes of the MILLIONS, today. The churches don't teach it. But you have SEEN, with your own eyes, in your own Bible, the real truth about YOUR personal DESTINY.
May God help you to surrender your will to HIM; to repent; to be baptized; to receive His Spirit-to become HIS CHILD-to finally be BORN into His great Spirit FAMILY. That is the only real reason you are living on this good, green earth.