Source: MY RESPONSE
This is my response to those who wander around in a religious state of confusion when it comes to the Doctrine of the Trinity and also to those who believe in the ” Jesus Only ” Doctrine.
And to extract the Father from His rightful position as being God and the Word and the Holy Spirit then that is just another foolish assumption to take away true ownership of the title of ” Father “. Just one comment to those who believe in the Jesus only doctrine answer this simple question, why did Jesus constantly pray to His Father, Who, incidently, is our Father? Enough said.
“I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” And,
“And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
To both of these regimens of thought, I try to explain my belief in One God as all of God’s people believe, as well as the devils and they tremble. So, if Satan and his army of angels believe in one God, [ James 2:19
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” ] why do most of today’s ” Christians believe in a ” TRINITY ” Doctrine over the One God Doctrine as taught by God in His own words in His Holy Scriptures.
Both of these doctrines are foolish in their very definitions. Even Augustine stated that the word ” persons ” was a poor choice of a word to use but used it anyway realizing that some of his colegues wanted and demanded that God be defined and also because the Roman Emporer Constantine threatened the lives of Christians. The persecution of Christians was prevalent back then and the Church was pressured to allow certain Pagan deities and the Roman trinity, Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto. It is well documented that Constantine was a devout Sun worshipper and therefore this was the open door the Pagan influence that followed because of the council of Nicea.
There is an evolution to the ” Trinity ” doctrine. It began with The Apostle’s Creed, progressed to the Nicene Creed, and finally culminated in the Athanasian Creed. The Christian Church’s roots were originally from Judaism, which was, and still is, a monotheistic (One-God) religion. There is no belief in a polytheistic (Plural) God in the Old Testament. On the contrary, OT scriptures declare the singleness of God.
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
The Nicene and Athenian creeds are in direct denial of these scriptures as well as many others. First, they had to declare that Jesus was God, and that he was eternal–which also contradicts scripture.
God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Jesus was a man; and he referred to himself as the Son of Man many times.
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Jesus was begotten, (born) at a point in time, according to the Jewish prophecies. The Athanasian Creed also states that Jesus was God incarnated. This contradicts scripture also, because God does not change.
Up until the rule of Emperor Constantine, the Christians of the Roman Empire were persecuted. Constantine, however, in the early fourth century saw a chance to help restore the former glory of the Empire by bringing about religious unity. In exchange for the cooperation of the Roman Christian Bishops he made Christianity the official state religion. However, this came at great cost to the true gospel of Jesus Christ. From this time forward Christianity became a mixture of the Christian faith and Paganism.
One of the most common beliefs among Pagan cultures was in a trinity of gods. We find this among the Egyptians, Indians (of India), Japanese, Sumarians, Chaldeans, and of course, the Babylonians, to where historians trace the roots of trinitarism.
Church history shows a gradual assimilation of Pagan ideas into Christianity, brought about mostly by the Roman or Western Church, which became a political/religious extension of the Roman Empire. Foremost among the pagan ideas was the adoption of the trinity doctrine into the dogma of the church. Pagan holidays (holy days) were also incorporated into tradition by “Christianizing” them, thus we end up with Christmas being celebrated on Dec 25th; Easter, which combined the resurrection of Christ with the pagan goddess Ester, and Halloween combined with All Saint’s Day.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967 –
“The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”
The Encyclopedia Americana 1956 –
“Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”
The trinity is a deviation from believing in one God; it is a deviation from what the early church taught and it is a deviation from the scripture.
The Church of the First Three Centuries 1865 Alvan Lamson –
” . . . The modern doctrine of the Trinity is not found in any document or relic belonging to the Church of the first three centuries. . . so far as any remains or any record of them are preserved, coming down from early times, are, as regards this doctrine an absolute blank. They testify, so far as they testify at all, to the supremacy of the father, the only true God; and to the inferior and derived nature of the Son. There is nowhere among these remains a coequal trinity. . . but no un-divided three, — coequal, infinite, self-existent, and eternal. This was a conception to which the age had not arrived. It was of later origin.”
During the first three centuries, Christians did not believe that Jesus Christ was coequal, and coeternal with God, or that he was God the Son, they believed that Jesus Christ was subordinate to God, and that he had a beginning, that he was born. Those that believed otherwise were the exception.
The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995 –
“. . . scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament.”
If the trinity is the cornerstone of Christianity then how did the church of the first three centuries get along so well without it? If the trinity is the cornerstone of Christianity then why is it not mentioned in the Bible?
Dictionary of The Bible 1995 John L. Mckenzie –
“The trinity of God is defined by the church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief.”
The Rise of Christianity W.H.C. Frend 1985 –
“For him [Clement] the trinity consisted of a hierarchy of three graded beings, and from that concept – derived from Platonism – depended much of the remainder of his theological teaching.”
Microsoft Encarta Funk & Wagnalls 1994 –
“The theologians Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and St. Augustine were early Christian exponents of a Platonic perspective. Platonic ideas have had a crucial role in the development of Christian theology”
I Peter 1:20, 21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
People don’t respect God’s Word, they are more interested in inventing their own theology by the will of man instead of believing the word of God, they are not interested in rightly dividing God’s word of truth. The trinity is private interpretation and wrong dividing of God’s word.
The Rise of Christianity 1985 W.H.C. Frend
“If the Father begat the son, there must be when he was not. He could not, therefore, be coeternal with the Father.”[said by Arius]
The Church in History 1964 B. K. Kuiper –
“The heathen believe in many gods. Arius thought that to believe that the Son is God as well as that the Father is God would mean that there are two Gods and that therefore the Christians would be falling back into heathenism.”
Arius believed that Jesus Christ was born, that he had a beginning, he believed that Jesus Christ was the created Son, not the Creator, and for taking the Word of God literally he was excommunicated and anathematized. Starting with Nimrod in ancient Babylon until today man has stubbornly rebelled against the doctrine of one God.
Encyclopedia Britannica 1968 –
“The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325. Constantine himself presiding, actively guiding the discussion, and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council ‘of one substance with the father.’ Over-awed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them against their inclination. Constantine regarded the decision of Nicaea as divinely inspired. As long as he lived no one dared openly to challenge the creed of Nicaea.”
A History of Christianity Volume 1 1997 Kenneth Scott Latourette –
“Constantine. . . although only a catechumen, [One who is being instructed in a subject at an elementary level] presided over its [the council of Nicea] opening session, and was active in its deliberations. Whether Constantine appreciated the niceties of the questions at issue is highly doubtful, for he was a layman, a warrior and administrator, not a philosopher or an expert theologian.”
The Rise of Christianity 1985 W.H.C. Frend –
“Like all great conquerors from Alexander to Napoleon or even Hitler his [Constantine’s] aim was unity and unification on a worldwide scale.”
A History of the Christian Church 2nd Ed. 1985 Williston Walker –
“He [Constantine] accepted the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus, and his coins still showed the emblems of the Sun-God.”
The Doctrine of the Trinity Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound 1994 Anthony F. Buzzard Charles F. Hunting –
“The God of Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, and the apostles was one person, the Father. One cannot be made equal to two or three. All that can be done with one is to fractionalize it. Divide it into smaller segments and it is no longer one. Expand it, and in spite of prodigious mental gymnastics on the part of Trinitarians, it cannot be made into two or three and still remain one.”
“. . . it is not uncommon for religious leaders to insist that you must believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, or be branded a cultist.”
“One of the great marvels of Christian history has been the ability of theologians to convince Christian people that three persons are really one God.”
I embrace the blessings bestowed upon me to be in the same company as the Apostles Peter and John, and all of the saints of God not having any formal training or degree in scholarship concerning religion but in the company of those who preach the Gospel of God Almighty; ACTS 4:13. Many are trained and taught the intricacies of religion and theaology instead of the Truth of the salvation of mankind through the death and the ressurection of the Lord Jesus, His Christ; ACTS 4:26.
As much education that I have received from that which came from those who have had formal education and learning I still went away with questions unanswered as they still are today because of the formal education and the theology that they have received in those higher institutions of education, bible schools, colleges, seminaries, etc.
I’ll never forget a well-minded pastor telling me that there is without a doubt a God the father, a God the son, and a God the Holy Ghost. That had been drilled into me throughout my childhood and my entire life, yet I rejected that theory because of the God I read about and hear is only One God, not three. Some say it’s on God but like ice having three states but one essence; water as a liquid then frozen as ice then evaporating as a vapor. NONSENSE! It’s illogical and totally unscriptural.
Has anyone ever wondered why the early church never declared the One True God as a Trinity, a Triune, or a God other than the One True God of all of His children, Israel, than Lord? In ISAIAH 43 the Lord states His name, states His position, and states His goal for mankind including His sorrow for those who remain obstinant, and states clearly, I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.
How then can anyone try to even teach theology such as a ” TRINITY ” to those who believe in One God, or believe that in all things when you see, talk or hear them there is on one of it, not a ” Trinity ” of it? It’s more confusing to attempt to try to explain it. The God of the Holy Scriptures is NOT a God of confusion. So from where can we attribute this confusing theology originating from?
1 John 2:18
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 4:3 “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”
Now, is this stating that there is more than One God? NO! This is stating that Jesus is the same glory of the Lord as it was before it was sent to this world as a son of man. That would make sense according to Jesus prayer; John 17:5
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” This prayer explains clearly that the Lord’s son was sent by the Father, John 3:13 – 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 8:58 – Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Jesus is nothing more than a veil of flesh over the Lord, the Father, the invisible Lord of all spirits able to be seen by mankind,
Hebrews 1:3 – Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 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? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
So, why is it the early church understood the Godhead but today the church has been duped into believing a concept of God which can’t be defined nor explaind by any manner that it has been attempted. Even at it’s formal introduction at the council of Nicea Augustine stated that his view of God was – [ This meditation, he concedes, fails to yield much by way of understanding. –
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ]
Why is it that he thinks, and many millions of people who teach that, teach and preach from their pulpits contrary to what the Lord teaches?
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
1 Timothy 3:16
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.
And our Father, through The flesh He had clothed Himself in said, John 14:7
“If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.”
“Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.”
“At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.”
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
“Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.”
“But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.”
If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
“The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,”
“Jesus 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?”
Oh, I could go on and on. The truth is so plain; John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And then we have in Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
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.”
How does someone deny this truth? Even Jesus said that His words are the Spirit of life, as the Father is the Spirit of life, and as is the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of life. John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Why then would someone try to divide God into three by thinking that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost aren’t one, but then denying God’s definition of Himself by telling us that He is the Father, and He is the Word, and that He is the Holy Ghost?
I don’t get it? I see it and understand it, the Apostles understood it as well as all of God’s disciples. Even the Jewish listeners understood that but accused Jesus as being a liar because they believed the Father would reveal Himself as a majestic King asserting His power against wickedness in a forceful manner. Even Pilate acknowledged as much, John 18:36
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
To understand the mystery one MUST walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh.
A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrine of the Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ 1833 Andrews Norton –
“When we look back through the long ages of the reign of the Trinity . . . we shall perceive that few doctrines have produced more unmixed evil.”
The Bible does not give us a doctrine of a trinity, the historical record shows that modern Christian trinitarian beliefs were not formulated until about 300 years after the death of Jesus Christ, but in pagan religions trinitarian beliefs date back to ancient Babylon, thousands of years before Jesus Christ. The coequal, coeternal, one substance, three in one trinity is not a Christian Biblical doctrine; yet there are those who insist that it is the cornerstone of Christianity.
In our day and time the doctrine of the trinity is a cornerstone of idolatry.
Source: Jesus, the XX Male
Where’s the ” Y ” chromosome? Men have the ” Y ” chromosome, but Yehuah is not a man.
Source: AND TO THOSE WHO ARE LUKEWARM
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
To help in the explanation of what had been written for all believers I constantly use the the help of others in furthering the knowledge that we all will benefit from. As in the passage I’ve referred to, above, this fact remains. So, I will start off by having a point that we can ascribe to in better understanding what the Lord Yeshua Elohim is telling us.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
I exhort, therefore – Margin, “desire.” The word exhort, however, better expresses the sense of the original. The exhortation here is not addressed particularly to Timothy, but relates to all who were called to lead in public prayer; 1 Timothy 2:8. This exhortation, it may be observed, is inconsistent with the supposition that a liturgy was then in use, or with the supposition that there ever would be a liturgy – since, in that case, the objects to be prayed for would be prescribed. How singular would it be now for an Episcopal bishop to “exhort” his presbyters to pray “for the President of the United States and for all who are in authority.” When the prayer is prescribed, do they not do this as a matter of course?
First of all – That is, as the first duty to be enjoined; the thing that is to be regarded with primary concern; compare Luke 12:1; 2 Peter 1:20. It does not mean that this was to be the first thing in public worship in the order of time, but that it was to be regarded as a duty of primary importance. The duty of praying for the salvation of the whole world was not to be regarded as a subordinate and secondary thing.
Supplications – It is not entirely easy to mark the difference in the meaning of the words used here, and it is not essential. They all relate to prayer, and refer only to the different parts of prayer, or to distinct classes of thought and desire which come before the mind in pleading for others. On the difference between the words supplications and prayers, see notes on Hebrews 5:7.
Intercessions – The noun used occurs only in this place and in 1 Timothy 4:5, of this Epistle. The verb, however ἐντυγχάνω entungchanō, occurs in Acts 25:4; Romans 8:27, Romans 8:34; Romans 11:2; Hebrews 7:25. See the meaning explained in the Romans 8:26 note; Hebrews 7:25 note. There is one great Intercessor between God and man, who pleads for our salvation on the ground of what he himself has done, but we are permitted to intercede for others, not on the ground of any merit which they or we possess, but on the ground of the merit of the great Advocate and Intercessor. It is an inestimable privilege to be permitted to plead for the salvation of our fellow-men.
Giving of thanks – That is, in behalf of others. We ought to give thanks for the mercy of God to ourselves; it is right and proper also that we should give thanks for the goodness of God to others. We should render praise that there is a way of salvation provided; that no one is excluded from the offer of mercy; and that God is using so many means to call lost sinners to himself.
For all men – Prayers should be made for all people – for all need the grace and mercy of God; thanks should be rendered for all, for all may be saved. Does not this direction imply that Christ died for all mankind? How could we give thanks in their behalf if there were no mercy for them, and no way had been provided by which they could be saved? It may be observed here, that the direction to pray and to give thanks for all people, showed the large and catholic nature of Christianity. It was opposed entirely to the narrow and bigoted feelings of the Jews, who regarded the whole Gentile world as excluded from covenant mercies, and as having no offer of life. Christianity threw down all these barriers, and all people are on a level; and since Christ has died for all, there is ample ground for thanksgiving and praise in behalf of the whole human race.
See Supplementary note, 2 Corinthians 5:14.
For the love of Christ – In this verse, Paul brings into view the principle which actuated him; the reason of his extraordinary and disinterested zeal. That was, that he was influenced by the love which Christ had shown in dying for all people, and by the argument which was furnished by that death respecting the actual character and condition of man (in this verse); and of the obligation of those who professed to be his true friends 2 Corinthians 5:15. The phrase “the love of Christ” (ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ agapē tou Christou) may denote either the love which Christ bears toward us, and which he has manifested, or our love toward him. In the former sense the phrase “the love of God” is used in Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 13:13, and the phrase “love of Christ” in Ephesians 3:14. The phrase is used in the latter sense in John 15:9-10, and Romans 8:35. It is impossible to determine the sense with certainty, and it is only by the view which shall be taken of the connection and of the argument which will in any way determine the meaning. Expositors differ in regard to it. It seems to me that the phrase here means the love which Christ had toward us. Paul speaks of his dying for all as the reason why he was urged on to the course of self-denial which he evinced. Christ died for all. All were dead. Christ evinced his great love for us, and for all, by giving himself to die; and it was this love which Christ had shown that impelled Paul to his own acts of love and self-denial. He gave himself to his great work impelled by that love which Christ had shown; by the view of the ruined condition of man which that work furnished; and by a desire to emulate the Redeemer, and to possess the same spirit which he evinced.
Constraineth us – (συνέχει sunechei). This word (συνέχω sunechō) properly means, to hold together, to press together, to shut up; then to press on, urge, impel, or excite. Here it means, that the impelling, or exciting motive in the labors and self-denials of Paul, was the love of Christ – the love which he had showed to the children of men. Christ so loved the world as to give himself for it. His love for the world was a demonstration that people were dead in sins. And we, being urged by the same love, are prompted to like acts of zeal and self-denial to save the world from ruin.
Because we thus judge – Greek “We judging this;” that is, we thus determine in our own minds, or we thus decide; or this is our firm conviction and belief – we come to this conclusion.
That if one died for all – On the supposition that one died for all; or taking it for granted that one died for all, then it follows that all were dead. The “one” who died for all here is undoubtedly the Lord Jesus. The word “for” (ὑπὲρ huper) means in the place of, instead of; see Philippians 2:13 and 2 Corinthians 5:20. It means that Christ took the place of sinners, and died in their stead; that he endured what was an ample equivalent for all the punishment which would be inflicted if they were to suffer the just penalty of the Law; that he endured so much suffering, and that God by his great substituted sorrows made such an expression of his hatred of sin, as to answer the same end in expressing his sense of the evil of sin, and in restraining others from transgression, as if the guilty were personally to suffer the full penalty of the Law. If this was done, of course, the guilty might be pardoned and saved, since all the ends which could be accomplished by their destruction have been accomplished by the substituted sufferings of the Lord Jesus.
The phrase “for all,” (ὑπὲρ πάντων huper pantōn) obviously means for all mankind; for every man. This is an exceedingly important expression in regard to the extent of the atonement which the Lord Jesus made, and while it proves that his death was vicarious, that is, in the place of others, and for their sakes, it demonstrates also that the atonement was general, and had, in itself considered, no limitation, and no particular reference to any class or condition of people; and no particular applicability to one class more than to another. There was nothing in the nature of the atonement that limited it to anyone class or condition; there was nothing in the design that made it, in itself, anymore applicable to one portion of mankind than to another. And whatever may be true in regard to the fact as to its actual applicability, or in regard to the purpose of God to apply it, it is demonstrated by this passage that his death had an original applicability to all, and that the merits of that death were sufficient to save all. The argument in favor of the general atonement, from this passage, consists in the following points:
(1) That Paul assumes this as a matter that was well known, indisputable, and universally admitted, that Christ died for all. He did not deem it necessary to enter into the argument to prove it, nor even to state it formally. It was so well known, and so universally admitted, that he made it a first principle – an elementary position – a maxim on which to base another important doctrine – to wit, that all were dead. It was a point which he assumed that no one would call in question; a doctrine which might be laid down as the basis of an argument, like one of the first principles or maxims in science.
(2) it is the plain and obvious meaning of the expression – the sense which strikes all people, unless they have some theory to support to the contrary; and it requires all the ingenuity which people can ever command to make it appear even plausible, that this is consistent with the doctrine of a limited atonement; much more to make it out that it does not mean all. If a man is told that all the human family must die, the obvious interpretation is, that it applies to every individual. If told that all the passengers on board a steamboat were drowned, the obvious interpretation is, that every individual was meant. If told that a ship was wrecked, and that all the crew perished, the obvious interpretation would be that none escaped. If told that all the inmates of a hospital were sick, it would be understood that there was not an individual that was not sick. Such is the view which would be taken by 999 persons out of 1,000, if told that Christ died for all; nor could they conceive how this could be consistent with the statement that he died only for the elect, and that the elect was only a small part of the human family.
(3) this interpretation is in accordance with all the explicit declarations on the design of the death of the Redeemer. Hebrews 2:9, “that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man;” compare John 3:16, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” 1 Timothy 2:6, “who gave himself a ransom for all.” See Matthew 20:28,” The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many.” 1 John 2:2,” and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
(4) the fact also that on the ground of the atonement made by the Redeemer, salvation is offered to all people by God, is a proof that he died for all. The apostles were directed to go “into all the world and to preach the gospel to every creature,” with the assurance that “he that believeth and is baptized shall he saved;” Mark 16:15-16; and everywhere in the Bible the most full and free offers of salvation are made to all mankind; compare Isaiah 55:1; John 7:37; Revelation 22:17. These offers are made on the ground that the Lord Jesus died for people; John 3:16. They are offers of salvation through the gospel, of the pardon of sin, and of eternal life to be made “to every creature.” But if Christ died only for a part, if there is a large portion of the human family for whom he died in no sense whatever; if there is no provision of any kind made for them, then God must know this, and then the offers cannot be made with sincerity, and God is tantalizing them with the offers of that which does not exist, and which he knows does not exist. It is of no use here to say that the preacher does not know who the elect are, and that he is obliged to make the offer to all in order that the elect may be reached. For it is not the preacher only who offers the gospel. It is God who does it, and he knows who the elect are, and yet he offers salvation to all. And if there is no salvation provided for all, and no possibility that all to whom the offer comes should be saved, then God is insincere; and there is no way possible of vindicating his character.
(5) if this interpretation is not correct, and if Christ did not die for all, then the argument of Paul here is a non sequitur, and is worthless. The demonstration that all are dead, according to him is, that Christ died for all. But suppose that he meant, or that he knew, that Christ died only for a part, for the elect, then how would the argument stand, and what would be its force? “Christ died only for a portion of the human race, therefore all are sinners. Medicine is provided only for a part of mankind, therefore all are sick. Pardon is offered to part only, therefore all are guilty.” But Paul never reasoned in this way. He believed that Christ died for all mankind, and on the ground of that he inferred at once that all needed such an atonement; that all were sinners, and that all were exposed to the wrath of God. And the argument is in this way, and in this way only, sound. But still it may be asked, What is the force of this argument? How does the fact that Christ died for all, prove that all were sinners, or dead in sin? I:answer:
(a) In the same way that to provide medicine for all, proves that all are sick, or liable to be sick; and to offer pardon to all who are in a prison, proves that all there are guilty. What insult is it to offer medicine to a man in health; or pardon to a man who has violated no law! And there would be the same insult in offering salvation to a man who was not a sinner, and who did not need forgiveness.
(b) The dignity of the sufferer, and the extent of his sufferings, prove that all were under a deep and dreadful load of guilt. Such a being would not have come to die unless the race had been apostate; nor would he have endured so great sorrows unless a deep and dreadful malady had spread over the world. The deep anxiety; the tears; the toils; the sufferings, and the groans of the Redeemer, show what was his sense of the condition of man, and prove that he regarded them as degraded, fallen, and lost. And if the Son of God, who knows all hearts, regarded them as lost, they are lost. He was not mistaken in regard to the character of man, and he did not lay down his life under the influence of delusion and error. If to the view which has been taken of this important passage it be objected that the work of the atonement must have been to a large extent in vain; that it has actually been applied to but comparatively a small portion of the human family, and that it is unreasonable to suppose that God would suffer so great sorrows to be endured for nothing, we may reply:
(1) That it may not have been in vain, though it may have been rejected by a large portion of mankind. There may have been other purposes accomplished by it besides the direct salvation of people. It was doing much when it rendered it consistent for God to offer salvation to all; it is much that God could be seen to be just and yet pardoning the sinner; it was much when his determined hatred of sin, and His purpose to honor His Law, was evinced; and in regard to the benevolence and justice of God to other beings and to other worlds, much, very much was gained, though all the human race had rejected the plan and been lost, and in regard to all these objects, the plan was not in vain, and the sufferings of the Redeemer were not for nothing. But,….
(2) It is in accordance with what we see everywhere, when much that God does seems to our eyes, though not to his, to be in vain. How much rain falls on ever sterile sands or on barren rocks, to our eyes in vain! What floods of light are poured each day on barren wastes, or untraversed oceans, to our eyes in vain! How many flowers shed forth their fragrance in the wilderness, and ‘waste their sweetness on the desert air,” to us apparently for nothing! How many pearls lie useless in the ocean; how much gold and silver in the earth; how many diamonds amidst rocks to us unknown, and apparently in vain! How many lofty trees rear their heads in the untraversed wilderness, and after standing for centuries fall on the earth and decay, to our eyes in vain! And how much medicinal virtue is created by God each year in the vegetable world that is unknown to man, and that decays and is lost without removing any disease, and that seems to be created in vain! And how long has it been before the most valuable medicines have been found out, and applied to alleviating pain, or removing disease! Year after year, and age after age, they existed in a suffering world, and people died perhaps within a few yards of the medicine which would have relieved or saved them, but it was unknown, or if known disregarded. But times were coming when their value would he appreciated, and when they would be applied to benefit the sufferer. So with the plan of salvation. It may be rejected, and the sufferings of the Redeemer may seem to have been for nothing. But they will yet be of value to mankind; and when the time shall come for the whole world to embrace the Saviour, there will be found no lack of sufficiency in the plan of redemption, and in the merits of the Redeemer to save all the race.
Now our thankfulness comes from our recognition of the great, and wonderful act of love the Creator of all things seen, and unseen, had executed to ensure all mankind the realization of life everlasting with Him. In creation the Lord God delighted in all that related to all of humankind, men and women inclusively; Proverbs 8: 310 Rejoicing in the world, His earth, And having my delight in the sons of men.
In spite of how most humans act, and react, He continues, because of His love for us, He provides, still, all of the air we breath, and all of our necessities in order to survive. Wisdom rejoices yet more in the world as inhabited by God’s rational creatures. (compare Isaiah 45:18). Giving joy and delight to God, she, WISDOM, finds her delight among the sons of men. These words, like the rest, are as an unconscious prophecy fulfilled in the Divine Word, in whom were “hid all the treasures of Wisdom.” Compare the marginal reference: in Him the Father was well pleased; and yet His “joy also is fulfilled,” not in the glory of the material universe, but in His work among the sons of men.
Continue in prayer – That is, do not neglect it; observe it at all stated times; maintain the spirit of prayer, and embrace all proper occasions to engage in it; compare the Luke 18:1; Ephesians 6:18; and 1 Thessalonians 4:17.
And watch in the same with thanksgiving – Watch for favorable opportunities; watch that your mind may be in a right frame when you pray: and watch, that when your mind is in a right frame you may not neglect to pray; see Ephesians 6:18; Philippians 4:6.
Why does my English Bible use The LORD?
by Rav Sha’ul
The LORD is not the name of the Creator. The LORD is the name/title for the Babylonian sungod Ba’al and is a pagan reference to just about all pagan “gods”… The LORD is a false god:
Baal, also rendered Baʿal (Biblical Hebrew בַּעַל), is a Northwest Semitic title and honorific meaning “master” or “lord” that is used for various gods who were patrons of cities in the Levant and Asia Minor, cognate to Akkadian Bēlu. A Baalist or Baalite means a worshipper of Baal i.e. The Lord.
“Baʿal” or “The Lord” can refer to any god and even to human officials. In some texts it is used for Hadad, a god of the rain, thunder, fertility and agriculture, and the lord of Heaven. Since only priests were allowed to utter his divine name, Hadad, Ba‛al was commonly used. Nevertheless, few if any Biblical uses of “Baʿal” refer to Hadad, the lord over the assembly of gods on the holy mount of Heaven; most refer to a variety of local spirit-deities worshipped as cult images, each called baʿal and regarded in the Hebrew Bible in that context as a “false god”.
Baʿal (bet-ayin-lamedh) is a Semitic word signifying “The Lord, master, owner (male), keeper, husband”,
Yahuah told Elijah and Jeremiah that the Israelites would adopt “the way of the pagans” in Babylon who worshipped Ba’al and forget His name Yahuah and use the title the LORD which is a reference to Ba’al.
1 Kings 18
18 “I have not made trouble for Israel,” Elijah replied. “But you and your father’s family have. You have abandoned Yahuah’s commands and have followed Baal (The LORD).
25 “I have heard what the prophets say who prophesy lies in my name. They say, ‘I had a dream! I had a dream!’ 26 How long will this continue in the hearts of these lying prophets, who prophesy the delusions of their own minds? 27 They think the dreams they tell one another will make my people forget my name, just as their ancestors forgot my name through Baal (The LORD) worship
The LORD “Ba’al” was worshipped on Sunday the “day of the invincible sun” or Dias Solis and the sacrifice to the LORD “Ba’al” was the pig of Ishtar (Easter). The prophecies in 1 Kings that we would abandon Yahuah and follow Ba’al have come true in Christianity who calls on The LORD on Sunday and who put their faith in Easter. Just as Jeremiah foretold we would forget the name Yahuah and use the LORD as they did in Babylon.
We see below that the name Yahuah was regularly pronounced by His chosen until superstitious Jews who adopted the pagan practices of their captors changed the name Yahuah to The LORD coming out of Babylonian captivity:
The Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume 7, pages 680-682
Yahuah or Yahuah. The personal name of the God of Israel is written in the Hebrew Bible with the four consonants Yahuah and is referred to as the “Tetragrammaton”. At least until the destructions of the First Temple in 586 b.c.e., this name was regularly pronounced with its proper vowels (Yahuah), as is clear from the *Lachish Letters, written shortly before that date. But at least by the third century b.c.e., the pronunciation of the name Yahuah was avoided, and Adonai, “the Lord”, was substituted for it, as evidenced by the use of the Greek word Kyrios, “Lord”, for Yahuah in the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that was begun by Greek-speaking Jews in that century. Where the combined form Adonai Yahuah occurs in the Bible, this was read as Adonai Elohim, “Lord God”.
We also see below from the same source that the Jews replaced the proper vowel points in Yahuah with the vowel points in Adonai giving us the name Yehowah in ERROR and then uninspired Christian translators then came up with the totally foreign name Jehovah. Then later in a total disconnect from all reality, the Jews started just saying ha-Shem (the name) and totally abandoned the proper name of the Creator all together.
In the early Middle Ages, when the consonantal text of the Bible was supplied with vowels points to facilitate its correct traditional reading, the vowel points for ‘Adonai with one variation – a sheva with the first yod of Yahuah instead of the hataf-patah under the aleph of ‘Adonai were used for Yahuah, thus producing the form Yehowah. When Christian scholars of Europe first began to study Hebrew, they did not understand what this really meant, and they introduced the hybrid name “Jehovah”. In order to avoid pronouncing even the sacred name Adonai for Yahuah, the custom was later introduced of saying simply in Hebrew ha-Shem (or Aramaic Shemc, “the Name”) even in such an expression as “Blessed be he that cometh in the name of Yahuah” (Ps. 118:26).
This is an abomination! Yahuah gave us His name and He declares that it is His memorial for all generations:
And Yahuah said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahuah the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
His name is not “The LORD” or “Adonai” or “Jehovah” or anything else. His name is YHVH (Yahuah) and that is His everlasting memorial by which He is to be called upon.
Our English Bibles use the title The LORD for Yahuah which is a violation of the command not to add to nor subtract from His Word not to mention it is idolatry calling upon the Babylonian god Ba’al. We, humanity, have totally forgotten the name of our Creator which was originally written in His Word over 8,000 times! We replaced every reference to it with The LORD (Ba’al). Below we see the Jews committed this abomination out of what I call “reverent stupidity” as they followed the way of the pagans in Babylon:
Unger’s Bible Dictionary, on page 665:
Lord (Hebrew, Adon), an early word denoting ownership; hence, absolute control. It is not properly a divine title. The Jews, out of a superstitious reverence for the Name Yahuah, always, in reading, pronounce Adonai (lord) where Yahuah is written.
Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 1872 Edition, states the following:
The substitution of the word Lord is most (sad); for, while it in no way represents the meaning of the Sacred Name, the mind has constantly to guard against a confusion with its lower uses, and, above all, the direct personal hearing of the Name on the revelation of Yahuah…is injuriously out of sight.
This is extremely important as the name of the Messiah contains the Tetragrammaton to fulfill the prophetic requirements of the one name under heaven whereby we may obtain salvation:
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”
When I quote scripture in this book, no matter what translation I use, I will always replace the pagan reference and title of The LORD with Yahuah and Lord with King as it applies to Yahusha. I will always clarify in context the use of impersonal pronouns such as ‘he’ and ‘him’ by identifying the subject by name. I will turn the text from passive voice to active voice. I will demonstrate when the uninspired translations are corrected in this way; the truth comes shining through as to the real meaning of the text. In doing so many of the scriptures used to justify the false doctrines of the incarnation and The Trinity completely fall apart in light of the truth.
This is a minor update that fixes a few high priority problems that many people were bumping into.
As usual, you can download the update directly from the website, or you can use the built-in updater via Settings –> Updates –> Check Now.
- Fixed “Missing api-ms-win-core-timezone-l1-1-0.dll” error that was being seen on some Windows 7 systems due to partial install or uninstall of Microsoft’s Universal C Runtime
- Fixed the layout for the File->New, Image->Resize, and Image->Canvas Size dialogs in all known situations (various languages, DPI sizes, font configurations)
- Fixed: Old versions of PSD plugin couldn’t load due to removal of PrivateThreadPool
- Fixed a crash when typing a negative number for a zoom level
Source: AND TO THOSE WHO ARE LUKEWARM