What you see ....When you can see!!!

Jesus said it: ".....because, looking, they look in vain, and hearing they hear in vain, neither do they get the sense of it; and toward them the prophecy of Isaiah is having fulfillment, which says, 'By hearing, you will hear but by no means get the sense of it; and, looking, you will look but by no means see." Matthew 13.13,14

They appear to try. Look at John 5.39: "You are searching the scriptures, because you think by means of them you will have everlasting life and these are the very ones that bear witness about me."

Paul put it this way in 2Thess.2.9-12 " But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan+ with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders*+ 10 and every unrighteous deception+ for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 11 That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie,+ 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness."

Romans 3.14:" But their mental powers were dulled."

One such one that has escaped Trinitarianism a Professor who taught at Masters University and ended up resigning because of the doctrine wrote:

"Trinitarians are victims of a kind of a kind of cult-ish persuasion, where once someone has been thoroughly indoctrinated into a system of theology, they are unable to read Scripture and ascertain it's true historical meaning, but are bound to see in it's pages, only the theology into which they were indoctrinated.

It's like in Romans 11.8 Paul speaks of these ones: just as it is written: “God has given them a spirit of deep sleep,+ eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear, down to this very day.

 

Genesis 19.24 Two Jehovah's ?.... 0r simple Illeism

"Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 19.24

For years in my discusion with trinitarians I have met with some advocating that two Jehovah's, are mentioned here in Genesis.. I would quickly retort with simple Herbraic idiom of speaking of oneself in 3rd person something common in Hebrew speech and even english denoting only one person. 1 Kings 8.1 boistered that Hebraic idomism:"At that time Solomon proceeded to congregate the older men of Israel .......to King Solomon. was always a quick example of Solomon speaking about Solomon.

 

As Acts 8.34 ask by the Eunuch. "I beg you about whom does the prophet say this? "About himself or about some other man?" An appropriate question to ask in reference to names shared in contextual parallels. What most refer to as illeism.

 Illeism is refering to oneself in the 3rd person within a text where 1st person is also present. Trinitarians have purported that these are plural hints of a plurality of God. Definatly anachronistic in understanding.

So in my attempt to clarify, here are some Biblical examples of illeism. It is also of interest that these examples are so common that we usually don't even recognize them as being such. For example I have thought of in regular speech some illeistic expressions  'Do you want your Dad to fix that. Obviously only one person is being spoken of .

Here are a few examples of illeism found in the scriptures.

Exodus 33.19 "But he said:"I will cause all my goodness to pass before your face, and I will declare the name of Jehovah before you.....(Here Jehovah is speaking of delaring the name of Jehovah.) (Two Jehovah's or illeism?)

2 Samuel 7.11b "And Jehovah has told you that a house is what Jehovah will make for you. (Two Jehovah's or simple illeism ?

Hosea 1.7 Here Jehovah is comforting the prophet. "I shall show mercy, and I shall save them by Jehovah their God. Two Jehovah's or simple illeism?

Genesis 9.12-15 Here God is speaking and saying that the rainbow is a covenant to time indefinite between God and every living soul. Are two Gods here mentioned or illeism?

Jehovah routinly refers to the House of Jehovah. Isa. 66.20; Jer.17.26; Hos.8.1

Two David's in 1 Samuel 25.22? or is this illeistic?

Genesis 4.23 Lamech titles his wives,'Wives of Lamech. Two Lamech's or illeistic?

A most quoted scripture. John 17.1,3. Here Jesus is praying to his Father. Jesus prays: "This means everlasting life, Taking in knowledge of you the only true God and the one who you sent forth Jesus Christ. Are their two Jesus' mentioned here or illeism?

If it were not for strained and tendentious attempts to prove the trinity we would see the absurdity of such claims.

See JETS 52/3 Sept. 2009 by Andrew S. Malone

Hitchens insight on the theory of evolution 'Can Bears Turn Into Whales?'

A quick treat for lovers of the never-ending evolution debate, whom I have cruelly starved of material for so long. Wesley Crosland says that ‘nothing can ever be proven in science.’ I am not quite sure what definition of 'proven' he is using here. It seems to me that there is a hierarchy of proof. Some theories can be demonstrated pretty conclusively by their reliable ability to predict, which many scientists believe to be the gold standard of scientific enquiry, and these are plainly of a different order from those which merely offer a plausible explanation for things which have already been observed. Even they are superior to theories which attempt to fit all known and many unknown facts into a pre-set theory, based on inadequate knowledge of the unobserved distant past and completely bereft of any predictive power.

   (radiometric dating) it really isn't comparable to evolution by natural selection, which arranges the known facts to suit its own subjective beliefs, and ceaselessly invents equally untestable supplementary theories to explain the various gaps and inconsistencies which then arise. (I said 'punctuated evolution' the other day when I meant 'punctuated equilibrium'. My apologies, though I suspect everyone who cared, knew what I meant to say). But if, as he says, radiometric dating has no more objective basis than evolution, perhaps I had better be more cautious about it. Any thoughts?

I am perfectly prepared to accept the possibility, dispiriting though it would be, that evolution by natural selection might explain the current state of the realm of nature. It is a plausible and elegant possible explanation. I just think the theory lacks any conclusive proof, is open to serious question on scientific grounds, from which it is only protected by a stifling orthodoxy. (This is always expressed by such expressions as 'overwhelming majority', as if scientific questions could be settled by a vote or a fashion parade).

So I am at liberty (I happen to think) not to accept it or its drab moral implications as proven or inescapable. I could do this privately and keep quiet about my view, as I suspect many do, but I think that would be cowardly.

In this matter of accepting that Darwin may conceivably be right, I have to deploy reason to triumph over my emotions. These lead to me laugh till tears flow down my face, every time I contemplate the theory of evolution for any length of time. I'm sorry. It just is very funny. I can't help it. Other people think the Marx Brothers are funny. I don't, nor am I moved by much of Monty Python, especially the 'Dead Parrot' sketch. But Darwin really does it for me, especially the bit about how a bear might turn into a whale, or was it the other way round? Ah, here we are: ’I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,’ he once speculated. Golly. ‘No difficulty’? I can think of a few. So, I'm sure, could he, if reason rather than emotion had been on top when he wrote that. I know that I cannot let this hilarity guide me into any sort of certainty. Darwinism, despite this piffle, might in fact be true, which would in some ways be even funnier.

What I enjoy about this debate is the way in which my cautious modesty about the unknowable is made out to be a fault - often by the same people who belabour me about my passionate certainty about knowable things. You just can't please some folks.

Part 2

Can Bears Turn Into Whales? (Part Two) - Charles Darwin Revisited

Mr Platt says I have been ‘put right’ about evolution.  I imagine he says this to provoke another posting on the subject. Well, it’s been a while, so here goes anyway, useless though it is to reason on the fanatical faith which has the mighty Selfist Church in its thrall (I don't mean you, Will) .

 

I’ll come to  the matter of being ‘put right’ in a moment. First, he resurrects a silly comparison. He tries to equate encylopaedia references (and medical journal references)  to an observed fact (Delirium Tremens) witnessed by doctors and classified since 1813, and encyclopaedia references to the theory of evolution by natural selection. The latter is opinionated, differing and rapidly changing speculation about supposed events in the remote past, long before we were there to witness them (and far too slow to be detected in our own time).

 

Why does he do this obviously misleading thing, and not notice he is doing it?  As I said, and now repeat, the theory of evolution, *whatever its merits and problems*, is – and has to be by its nature - a theory about the distant past, witnessed by nobody,  based upon speculation, not upon observation.

 

Mr Platt says : ‘If he had bothered to look it up in the encyclopaedia he relied upon for information about DT, and by implication trusted as a reliable source, he would have seen how badly mistaken his ideas on the subject are. Realising the implications of his theory, Darwin spent several years making observations and collecting data after his return from the Galapagos Islands before publishing his great work. To suggest that the theory is “based upon speculation, not upon observation” is an insult to Darwin, and to the many biologists who have studied and refined the theory over the years. But why take my word for it? Consult one or more reliable texts and see for yourself! Mr. Hitchens has just taken on a medical professional and (in my view) won, simply by quoting from various textbooks. Steadfastly refusing to believe what those textbooks tell him about other subjects – presumably because it would mean having to transform his entire view of the world – seems at best stubborn and at worst hypocritical.’

 

Let me say it again. These are different kinds of information, treated differently by works of reference. The fact that they both appear in the same work of reference does not make them necessarily comparable,  let alone identical.  Newspapers contain weather forecasts, sports reports and obituaries, as well as news of differing kinds. Because all these things are in the same place, do we read them all in the same way? Not if we have any sense.  

 

Mr McStraun, whom Mr Platt applauds, had said : ‘Your [my] statement that the Theory of Evolution only concerns the distant past cannot pass uncontested. It is also used to explain present day phenomena such as the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the rapid (within a decade) changes in common beak shapes in the Galapagos finches as a result of vegetation changes.’

 

First, what do these two gentlemen think my position is on the theory of evolution by natural selection? I will re-state it, yet again. It is that I am quite prepared to accept that it may be true, though I should personally be sorry if it turned out to be so as, it its implication is plainly atheistical, and if its truth could be proved, then the truth of atheism could be proved. I believe that is its purpose, and that it is silly to pretend otherwise.

 

It is an elegant and clever explanation for the current state of the realm of nature.  But it is a theory . Personally, I have no idea how the realm of nature took its present shape, or how life began, and I don’t think anyone else does either. There are several strands of belief among supporters of the theory (much as there are several sorts of belief in God), with Stephen Jay Gould disagreeing with Richard Dawkins, among others. The theory of evolution by natural selection has altered substantially since it was first set out, stumbles over the fossil record, which provides some unwelcome evidence of large-scale sudden change, especially in the Cambrian Explosion,  and has a general circularity problem (as do most all-explanatory theories),  which has troubled at least one notable philosopher, Sir Karl Popper. Don’t tell me he ‘recanted’ (even that is in dispute, by the way). So did Galileo, and in both cases the recantation said more about those who desired and pressed for it than it did about those who made it. In both cases a rather ossified faith come up against an enquiring mind, and the enquiring mind was compelled to conform,  by ossified faith. Which side are you on in such conflicts?  I am always on the same one.

 

Mr McStraun’s citation of ‘the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the rapid (within a decade) changes in common beak shapes in the Galapagos finches as a result of vegetation changes,’ simply moves the problem along a few feet, much as a motorway shifts a traffic jam from one place to another. It also suggests he may not fully understand the immense ambitions of the theory he embraces. It seems to me that these problems are so obvious to a thinking mind that nothing short of fervent faith protects them from sceptical examination.

 

These undoubted phenomena, which he mentions in the apparent belief that I haven’t heard of them,  are evidence of *adaptation*, which could easily exist in a non-evolutionary system (as could extinction)  and fall well short of the far more ambitious changes required for the evolutionary theory to work. The point at which adaptation becomes evolutionary change is one of the most interesting in science, and not easily answered, particularly by measurable evidence.  This is where the circularity tends to come in.

 

The theory’s confidence has often led its proponents into error (E.g. : Darwin’s own wondrous speculation that ’I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,’ and the willingness of so many to be fooled by the blatant fake which was Piltdown man) . Why shouldn’t it be doing the same now? And what exactly *is* punctuated equilibrium? It makes theology look straightforward.

 

Mr Platt’s assertion that ‘to suggest that the theory is “based upon speculation, not upon observation” is an insult to Darwin, and to the many biologists who have studied and refined the theory over the years.’ , with its interesting use of the word ‘insult’, is a mild but important warning of the inquisition-style rage which quickly enters arguments on this subject, and which is in fact the biggest single argument against the theory. Why are its supporters so furiously intolerant of doubt and dissent, if they are so confident?

 

By the way, I must request Mr ‘Crosland’ not to contribute to this debate until he has answered the ‘childishly simple questions’ on this subject I put to him some years ago, but to which he has mysteriously failed to respond despite numerous promptings, and now says he has lost.  Of course, I cannot stop him contributing, but I will not respond to him unless he answers the questions.

 

I’ll end as I did the last time I wasted my time trying to approach this matter in a reasoned, sceptical way, three years ago. This can be found here

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/02/can-bears-turn-into-whales.html

 ‘What I enjoy about this debate is the way in which my cautious modesty about the unknowable is made out to be a fault - often by the same people who belabour me about my passionate certainty about knowable things. You just can't please some folks.’

 

 

 

Agency A Reply to Dale Tuggy

Dale; I really appreciate your podcast. I am not a Trinitarian. But, nor am I a Dale Tuggy Unitarian.

In connection with your reply on creatorship to Douglas. You replied: “that Now in the case of God, he’s omnipotent and omniscient, so we can be sure that he would not *need* to employ others to create the cosmos. Perhaps he might desire to share the work, conceivably; but a few times in the Old Testament he forcefully says that he alone did it. Obviously, this would exclude any of the deities of the nations’ pantheons. But on the face of it, it’d exclude “good guys” too – such as angels, or the pre-Incarnate Son.And as I mention in my Who is the one creator episodes, the clear NT mentions of creation show an assumption of one creator, who is God himself, aka the Father’

 

“panta di auto egeneto” All things were made through him John 1.3

A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana And Mantey pg 162 says: (2)The Passive With Intermediate Agent. “When the agent is the medium through which the original cause has effected the action expressed by the passive verb, the regular construction is dia with the genitive.” panta di autou egeneto

“Here God the Father is thought of as the original cause of creation, and the logos as the intermediate agent.”

I also think this genitive form is found in Col. 1.15 “firstborn of all creation”. And passive verb forms to describe his role in creation. “ektisthe” Col. 1.16

I do believe because of your Unitarian leanings you must work your way around these text. You said, “he forcefully says that he alone did it.”

Now come on Dale, this is just an old trinity text ignoring agency and ascribing absoluteness to God. When we both know that other text that seem to indicate absoluteness are not really absolute. For instance Isaiah 43.11 Is this true or is agency involved in many occasions. Jud 3.9:1 John 4.14 Psalms 8.6 “Everything you have put under his feet. Does this mean everything? Angels, God etc.

Another text that highlights my position and also yours to a certain extent is 1 Cor.15.27, ” For God ‘subjected all things under his feet (does ‘All things really mean this absolute sense?) No, for the text goes on to say; ‘But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected, it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.’

Of course a simple word search on the Greek word panta would testify to ‘all’ not meaning a totality.

 Nor do the expressions in Hebrew text “Besides me there is no God” when we both know Elohim is used of Angels, Men,and even Jesus. A lot of these text that seem to imply absoluteness are couched in with a society that worshiped idols and foreign gods. So you would expect statements of absoluteness that are truly not absolute only in relation to pagan gods.

In conclusion, I think agency and context must be considered when using text that imply absoluteness.

Thank you;

Dale

 I still think you are remarkable

addendum

“Phrases such as ‘there is no god besides me’…and ‘besides me there is no other’…do not deny the existence of other [ELOHIM]. This is readily demonstrated by the fact that the phrases occur in passages that presume the division of the nations and their allotment to other gods (e.g. Duet. 4:35, 39 [cp. Duet. 4:19-20] and Duet. 32:29 [cp. Duet. 32:8-9, 43]). This sort of phrasing is also used of Nineveh and Babylon, where the point cannot be non-existence, but incomparability (Zeph. 2:15; Isa. 47:8, 10).” (Monotheism and the Language of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls) p. 98, footnote 46.

 

“In connection with the Second God theory, logically, and to some extent also historically, may be taken the distinction between ‘God’ (Θεὸς, used without the definite article) and ‘the God’ (ὁ Θεὸς, with the addition of the article). The difference may be indicated in English by contrasting the phrases ‘a divine being’ and ‘the supreme being.'” (G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought), p. 144

Does "All" Ever Mean "All" in Scripture?

 

Tom Hicks

Eric Hankins preached a sermon on September 26, 2013 at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in which he said, “All means all and that’s all all means.” Jump to 17:23 in the linked video to hear this claim. But is Hankins’ statement true? Does the Greek word “pas” (each, every, any, all, the whole, etc.) ever mean “all” categorically and apart from any limitation? There are over 1,200 occurrences of the word “pas;” so, it’s not practical to list them all here, but an examination of a concordance will show that the term “all” is almost always limited to some category. The meaning of “all” in Scripture is always determined by the context, and rarely, if ever, means “all without any kind of limitation.” Consider the first ten occurrences of the term “pas” in the Greek New Testament.

• Matt 1:17 – “There were fourteen generations in all”
• Matt 2:3 – “All Jerusalem”
• Matt 2:4 – “All the people’s chief priests”
• Matt 2:16 – “All the boys in Bethlehem”
• Matt 2:16 – “All that region”
• Matt 3:5 – “All Judea”
• Matt 3:5 – “All the region of the Jordan”
• Matt 3:10 – “Every tree that does not produce good fruit”
• Matt 3:15 – “Fulfill all righteousness”
• Matt 4:4 – “Every word that comes from the mouth of God”

In each of these occurrences of the word “pas,” there’s some kind of categorical limitation. In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, who has never been accused of having a Calvinistic agenda, outlines a number of uses of the Greek word “pas.”  He states, “In particular, one may speak of a summative, implicative and distributive signification of pas as the term embraces either a totality or sum as an independent entity (summative), an inclusion of all individual parts or representatives of a concept (implicative), or extension to relatively independent particulars (distributive).  If the reference is to the attainment of the supreme height or breadth of a concept, we have an elative or (amplificative) significance” (Volume 5, 887).  Since the biblical writers used the word “pas” in a variety of different ways, interpreting the word requires careful attention to context.  It is, therefore, inaccurate to say as Eric Hankins does that “all means all and that’s all all means.”

There’s only one way to use the word “all” such that it means “all” without qualification, and it isn’t very useful because it’s so comprehensive. “All” only means “all without any kind of limitation” if it refers to all things and no things, created and uncreated, existent and non-existent, abstract and concrete, actual and potential, true and false, rational and irrational, beautiful and ugly, good and evil, etc. Scripture, however, very rarely, if ever, uses the word “all” in that kind of comprehensive way.

What About “All” in Romans 3:23?

Some may suggest that the word “all” in Romans 3:23 is a place where “all means all without any limitation.”  Romans 3:23 says, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”  But I submit that the meaning of the word “all”  is limited here too.  Romans 3:23 doesn’t mean that all of the angels sinned, and it certainly doesn’t mean that Jesus sinned.

If we look at the wider context of Romans 1-3, we’ll see that Paul uses the word “all” in Romans 3:23 to speak of all humanity since creation, both Jews and Greeks.  But in Romans 3, Paul goes even further to show that the word “all” in Romans 3:23 doesn’t just mean “all ethnic groups have sinned,” “all in general have sinned,” or that “every kind of person has sinned.” Rather Paul shows that each and every individual of fallen humanity has sinned.  In Romans 3:10-11, Paul makes this crystal clear: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”  The fact that Paul denies the goodness of any fallen individual in Romans 3:10-11 clarifies his meaning of “all” in Romans 3:23.  There would be little reason for Paul to deny that any individual is good, not even one, if “all” always meant “all” without any qualification.  Thus we see that the word “all” in Romans 3:23 alone isn’t sufficient to prove that each and every individual descended from Adam has sinned.  But the context of Romans 3 demonstrates that that’s exactly what Paul means.

What About “All” in Romans 11:32?

When Eric Hankins said that “all means all and that’s all all means,” he was referring to Romans 11:32, among other passages (16:53 in the video).  Romans 11:32 says that God has “mercy on all.” But in Romans 11:32, does “all” mean “all” and is that really “all all means?” Is Romans 11:32 saying that God has mercy on Satan and his angels? I assume Eric Hankins would want to limit the meaning of “all” to human beings and exclude the devil and his demons. What about human beings who have already died and are under punishment at this very moment? Does God have “mercy on all” human beings, including those currently under punishment?  I suspect that Eric Hankins would want to limit the meaning of “all” even further to something like “all fallen human beings while they are alive” in order to avoid serious theological error.

But does Romans 11:32 teach that Christ has “mercy on all” human beings while they are alive?  Is that the category of Romans 11 itself?

Romans 11 is dealing with elect Israelites and elect Gentiles.  In Romans 11:5-7, Paul writes, “So too at the present time, there is a remnant chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise, grace would no longer be grace. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.”  These verses tell us that God’s saving grace and mercy extends to the “elect,” while “the rest,” the non-elect, are “hardened.”

The phrase “mercy on all” in Romans 11:32 is limited to Jews and Gentiles (Rom 11:25-26) who are part of the “remnant chosen by grace” (Rom 11:5) and “the elect” (Rom 11:7). In Romans 11:30-32 Paul is saying that the elect Gentile believers in Rome had all once been disobedient but that they were shown mercy.  So also, Paul says, elect Israelites have been consigned to disobedience that God might have mercy on them.

 

 

 

Birthday Celebrations

A writer more than 3,000 years ago penned; " A name is better than good oil, and the day of death than the day of one's being born." Why is that? the writer goes on, "because that is the end of all mankind; and the one alive should take it to his heart." Eccl. 7.1,2

 Certainly at the end of my life I will carry with me a name that carries with it retribution or mercy...I hope for the latter. I must admit as I grow older these verses certainly do carry with it my life and what I have done and what kind of name I will carry to my grave. And that I must be held accountable for. How do my own children view me and of course others who have known me through the years.

 Birthdays of course are to be avoided especially as I grow older.(ha) They of couse remind me of things I have not done; things I wish I would have done and things I have done, especially things that I have done to cause hurt.May God have mercy on me. 

Birthdays to others are a celebration. Of what? Well of life. Of remembrance of that special day when a miracle happened you were born. A oneness of two into one. A miracle. That being said; how do I view the celebration of birthdays and more importantly how does God view the celebration of one's birth?

 Well, our advocate the Christ as far as I know did not celebrate his birthday nor did he ascribe others to do so not in command nor in the narrative of his life. Nor in the immediate historical evidence of his followers. So how should I feel about my own birthday and those of my children and my grandchildren. I will leave that with others to examine on there own. But here is some additional information to help to see our way on this matter of birthdays and the celebration of birthdays. Let it be said that others may disagree. And I give them that. Out of respect. But here goes.... 

The day or anniversary of one’s birth; in Hebrew, yohm hul•leʹdheth (gen.40.20)and in Greek, ge•neʹsi•a (Matt.14.6, mk 6.21) The Hebrews kept records of the year one was born, as the Bible’s genealogical and chronological data reveal. (Num.1.2,3;Josh. 14.10, 2Chron. 31.16,17)) The ages of Levites, priests, and kings were not left to guesswork. (Num. 4.3;8.23-25; 2Ki. 11-21; 15.2; 18.2)) This was also true in the case of Jesus.—Lk. 2.21,22,42;3.23 

According to the Scriptures, the day the baby was born was usually one of rejoicing and thanksgiving on the part of the parents, and rightly so, for “look! Sons are an inheritance from Jehovah; the fruitage of the belly is a reward.” (Ps. 127.3; Jer.20.15; Lk1.57,58) However, there is no indication in the Scriptures that faithful worshipers of Jehovah ever indulged in the pagan practice of annually celebrating birthdays. The Bible makes direct reference to only two birthday celebrations, those of Pharaoh of Egypt (18th century B.C.E.) and Herod Antipas (1st century C.E.). These two accounts are similar in that both occasions were marked with great feasting and granting of favors; both are remembered for executions, the beheading of Pharaoh’s chief baker in the first instance, the beheading of John the Baptizer in the latter.—Gen.40.18-22; 41.13; Mt14.6-11; Mk6.21-28. 

With the introduction of Christianity the viewpoint toward birthday celebrations did not change. Jesus inaugurated a binding Memorial, not of his birth, but of his death, saying: “Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” (Lk. 22.19) 

If early Christians did not celebrate or memorialize the birthday of their Savior, much less would they celebrate their own day of birth. 

Historian Augustus Neander writes: “The notion of a birthday festival was far from the ideas of the Christians of this period.” (The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries, translated by H. J. Rose, 1848, p. 190)

 “Origen [a writer of the third century C.E.] . . . insists that ‘of all the holy people in the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day on which they were born into this world below.’”—The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Vol. X, p. 709. 

Clearly, then, the festive celebration of birthdays does not find its origin in either the Hebrew or the Greek Scriptures.

 Additionally, M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia (1882, Vol. I, p. 817) says the Jews “regarded birthday celebrations as parts of idolatrous worship . . . , and this probably on account of the idolatrous rites with which they were observed in honor of those who were regarded as the patron gods of the day on which the party was born.” 

"The later Hebrews looked on the celebration of birthdays as a part of idolatrous worship, a view which would be abundantly confirmed by what they saw of the common observances associated with these days."—The Imperial Bible-Dictionary (London, 1874), edited by Patrick Fairbairn, Vol. I, p. 225 

“Early Christians [from time of Christ until the 4th century] frowned on [celebrating anyone’s birthday], which was too closely linked with pagan customs to be given the approval of the church.” - How It Started, Garrison, copyright 1972 by Abingdon Press, p. 213 The Christian Book of Why, by Dr. John C. McCollister 

(Lutheran minister and university professor, graduate of Trinity Lutheran Seminary), Jonathan David Publishers, Inc., 1983, tells us on p. 205: "Christians of the first century did not celebrate the festival honoring the birth of Jesus - for the same reason they honored no other birthday anniversary. It was the feeling at that time by ALL Christians that the celebration of all birthdays (even the Lords) was a custom of the PAGANS. 

In an effort to divorce themselves from ALL pagan practices, the early Christians refused to set aside a date marking Jesus' birth. As a result, the first celebration of Christmas by Christians did not take place until the fourth century." 

The Jews themselves never celebrated birthdays until long after the death of Jesus. They considered it a purely pagan custom and detestable to the God they worshiped. Jesus and his Apostles continued this belief and so did their followers for centuries. 

Likewise, just as the early Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses today view these things seriously because they are aware that Jehovah God views these things very seriously. (Lev. 19:2)

 God Himself said: "You must not have any other gods against my face. Because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion." (Ex. 20:1-5) NWT

 If pagan ceremonies, customs, god names, etc. are really mixed in with ceremonies, customs, etc. that we use today, they are not merely unacceptable - - - they are detestable to God. We must completely get away from these unclean things and not even "touch" them: "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." - 2 Cor. 6:17. 

Notice how exclusive the worship of God must be: "Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips." - Exodus 23:13, NIVSB.

My Beloved Religion

Rolf Furili recently wrote an amazing book concerning Jehovah's Witnesses and the Governing Body.
It definatly caused me to reflect on the blessings and privilege of coming to know and to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Is there only one True Religion?
What identifies one Religion as True
Preaching God's Kingdom Worldwide
The Name Jehovah
Two Different hopes of Salvation

A Conversation on the letter y or Yod in Hebrew when it comes to the Divine Name

12 of 12

dokimazo said...

I think this may underline the fact, that even today people say they worship God. But what does that mean? Or to play to your theme Pahad Elohim. To them probably fear the Creator. Yet the term may still leave a certain ambiguity. With one's misunderstanding of Jesus and worse the Trinity, God has been confused with other deities or persons. To put a name on a deity is to clarify. In this case of Maimonides the translation used (Tanach ?) used the term 'Hashem' (The Name) still lack of personhood. Almost comical, yet in there misguided attempts to avoid using the divine Name choose to use this term.

3:29 AM

Edgar Foster said...

Thanks for your comments. I read an argument yesterday about why Jehovah should not be used, and also why the ancient Jews did not use the divine name. I must admit that it's still hard for me to understand why someone would espouse not using at least YHWH, Yahweh or Yehovah. Exodus 20:7 forbids using Jehovah's name in vain: it does not say the name should not be pronounced at all. But people have come up with all kinds of ways to avoid saying the divine name, including Adonai and Hashem. Maybe one day I'll post the information where the writer insists that God's name is not Jehovah, etc.

10:27 AM

dokimazo said...

Edgar;

Thanks for your comments. In my opinion, the issue is between Jehovah and the translators of the Tanach and other translations that do not use the Divine name. After all, we did not put the Name in the Hebrew text. Jehovah did! To use surrogates such as Adonai or Hashem is certainly a misrepresentation of the text. I ran across this gentleman one day reading the Hebrew text (Stuttgartensia I assume)at a local coffee shop. And I asked him to read Deut.6.4.The famous Shema. And of course he read Adonai in place of Jehovah. I expressed to him that he is not reading the God given text as it was inspired. He was a bit surprised by my insistence. I think he realized my point after a few more text. As to Pharaoh, he did not know Jehovah at all (Ex.5.2) but he soon did. Ex.7.5 Ex.7.17 Yadah anihu YHWH Ex9.16 Here's my point that of course you know. No one has the right to remove it. There is no other name or title that comes close to it's usage. Hardly any other word that appears so frequently in the Hebrew text. I know I'm rambling. One night I had an Adventist friend over and his Pastor, and to make this point I said blind fold me,turn me round and round, and You open my Biblical Hebraica Stuttgartensia any where, and there is the name.

3:33 AM

Edgar Foster said...

dokimazo,

We're on the same page regarding how we view use of the divine name, and I appreciate your zeal for the divine name. I'm sure you also know that the practice of using surrogates for YHWH goes back to antiquity. It's rooted in a misreading of Exod 20:7 and Leviticus 24:16. But I've found that Dutch Calvinists, of all people, have traditionally had no problem with employing Jehovah as the personal name for God. And while I don't think Yahweh is likely to be the right reconstruction of YHWH, I give some credit to Rotherham (I believe) who at least saw the need to use YHWH in his Bible.

10:54 AM

Duncan said...

Didn't the Dutch use "Jehovah" pronounced with a "Y" (kjv1611 uses "I"). Already posted Nehemiah Gordon's research that also leans that way.

There is evidence of a j sound in Hebrew but no evidence for it in this or other Hebrew names.

If we say it is the traditional spelling in English, is it the traditional pronunciation?

1:15 PM

Edgar Foster said...

Dutch pronounces the J with a Y sound. I can't say that I know much about the language, but I know someone who does. In any event, you're right about the Y sound for Dutch.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem that God's name in Hebrew is pronounced with a J. To my understanding, Jehovah's Witnesses don't teach that God's name is pronounced with a J in Hebrew--that is the way it's said in English.

The publications of Witnesses also say we don't know how God's name was pronounced by ancient Jews. The exact pronunciation has been lost.

1:28 PM

Edgar Foster said...

From Worldwide Security Under the “Prince of Peace” p. 176-177:

Fulfilled then will be the words of Zechariah 14:9: “In that day Jehovah will prove to be one, and his name one.” Jehovah alone will be worshiped as the one true God. In “that day” of Jehovah’s Kingdom by the “Prince of Peace,” God will reveal the exact pronunciation of his name. Then there will be just one pronunciation of that holy name by everybody on earth. His name will be one.

1:44 PM

Duncan said...

The point I was driving at is that Jehovah IS pronounced with a J in English, but WAS it pronounced with a J in English?

I am also looking at Tyndale's rendering of Hebrew names.

12:28 AM

dokimazo said...

In response to Duncan, The Hebrew has no J. 'Hey' was never pronounced as a J in Hebrew. I have had people come to me and say that Jehovah is not a Hebrew name. You can't find Jehovah in any Hebrew Lexicon. Well, you can't find Jeremiah, Joshua, or any J names. They are Anglicized. Can't find Jesus in a Greek lexicon, at least not in Greek, it to has been Anglicized.

1:19 AM

Edgar Foster said...

Thanks, dokimazo.

Duncan, see https://www.dictionary.com/e/j/

Compare the Latin word, iam.

8:49 AM

dokimazo said...

To all. I should have said the letter yod was never pronounced in Hebrew nor transliterated as a J from any Hebrew lexicon. It was Anglicized as a J.

3:46 PM

Comfort (paraklesis)

In a world that is in so much turmoil today, who can say they need no comfort. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus in almost an eschatological sense exclaimed," Happy are those that mourn, since they will be comforted."Mt5.4

Comfort translates the Greek word paraklesis which carries not only a sense of consoling but also help or encouragement.2 Cor. 1.3 Paul alludes to this, "Blessed be the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to  comfort those in any sort of tribulation through the comfort with which we ourselves are being comforted by God."

It is of interest that in these few short verses from verse 3 through verse 7, comfort (paraklesis) is mentioned 10 times, which indicates the importance of this subject to Paul.

Isaiah speaks of Divine comfort in Isaiah 57.18. It alludes to the fact that 'true comfort', can come only from Jehovah. Going back to 2Cor.1.3 "He is the God of all comfort". True consolation of the heart comes from God alone, in comparison of all others.

Apart from God, man, nation, and world are without comfort, for they cannot really open the way eschatologically to mans sinful state. The Psalmist  records for us in Psalm 127.1 "Unless Jehovah himself builds the house, It is to no avail that the builders have worked hard on it.

That is why when Isaiah speaks of comfort from God, it is spoken of as, true comfort ( paraklesis alethinen). I looked this verse up in several translations. Not one suggest such a rendering, though Kittels Unabridged Dictionary of Greek words pg 789 vol.5. suggest this rendering. So I looked it up in the LXX and there it was, "paraklesis alethinen." (true comfort) From God alone can such comfort come.

Romans 15.4 speaks of comfort from the Scriptures (paraklesis ton graphon) This refers us back to the ultimate source of all comfort (2 Cor.1.3) Jehovah.

He is the only one who can give us, 'everlasting comfort'. "Moreover, may our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and gave everlasting comfort and good hope by means of undeserved kindness." 2 Thess. 2.16,17 He assures us of comfort forever or everlastingly.

He comforts in our tribulations. 2Cor.1.4. Jesus said: In the world you are having tribulation, but take courage! I have conquered the world."

Revelation 21.3,-5
"With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent*+ of God is with mankind, and he will reside*+ with them, and they will be his peoples.+ And God himself will be with them.+ 4 And he will wipe out every tear+ from their eyes, and death will be no more,+ neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.+ The former things have passed away.”+

5 And the One seated on the throne+ said: “Look! I am making all things new.”+ Also, he says: “Write, because these words are faithful and true."

 

See also Psalms 118

Isaiah 40.1,11-14

Ps 55.6-8

Addendum

Metaphorically Jehovah is likened to a Shepherd who loves his sheep. "Like a shepherd he will shepherd his own drove. With his Arm he will collect together the lambs; and in his bosom (a close and loving relationship) he will carry them." Isaiah 40.11

 And note 40.1 "Comfort, comfort my people." Then he lets us know his immutable abilities and unsurpassing strengths. "Who has measured the waters in the mere hollow of his hand, and taken the proportions of the heavens themselves with a mere span and included in a measure the dust of the earth, or weighed with an indicator the mountains, and the hills in the scales? Who has taken the proportions of the spirit of Jehovah, and who as his man of counsel can make him know anything?
 With whom did he consult together that one might make him understand, or who teaches him in the path of justice, or teaches him knowledge, or makes him know the very way of real understanding?"
Isaiah 40.12-14.

Psalm

91 Anyone dwelling in the secret place of the Most High+

Will lodge under the shadow of the Almighty.+

 2 I will say to Jehovah: “You are my refuge and my stronghold,+

My God in whom I trust.”+

 3 For he will rescue you from the trap of the birdcatcher,

From the destructive pestilence.

 4 With his pinions he will cover* you,

And under his wings you will take refuge.+

His faithfulness+ will be a large shield+ and a protective wall.*

 5 You will not fear the terrors of the night,+

Nor the arrow that flies by day,+

 6 Nor the pestilence that stalks in the gloom,

Nor the destruction that ravages at midday.

 7 A thousand will fall at your side

And ten thousand at your right hand,

But to you it will not come near.+

 8 You will only see it with your eyes

As you witness the punishment* of the wicked.

 9 Because you said: “Jehovah is my refuge,”

You have made the Most High your dwelling;*+

10 No disaster will befall you,+

And no plague will come near your tent.

11 For he will give his angels+ a command concerning you,

To guard you in all your ways.+

12 They will carry you on their hands,+

So that you may not strike your foot against a stone.+

13 On the young lion and the cobra you will tread;

You will trample underfoot the maned lion and the big snake.+

14 God said: “Because he has affection for me,* I will rescue him.+

I will protect him because he knows* my name.+

15 He will call on me, and I will answer him.+

I will be with him in distress.+

I will rescue him and glorify him.

16 I will satisfy him with long life,+

And I will cause him to see my acts of salvation

Psalm

 

46 God is our refuge and strength,+

A help that is readily found in times of distress.+

 2 That is why we will not fear, though the earth undergoes change,

Though the mountains topple into the depths of the sea,+

 3 Though its waters roar and foam over,+

Though the mountains rock on account of its turbulence. (Selah)

 4 There is a river the streams of which make the city of God rejoice,+

The holy grand tabernacle of the Most High.

 5 God is in the city;+ it cannot be overthrown.

God will come to its aid at the break of dawn.+

 6 The nations were in an uproar, the kingdoms were overthrown;

He raised his voice, and the earth melted.+

 7 Jehovah of armies is with us;+

The God of Jacob is our secure refuge.* (Selah)

 8 Come and witness the activities of Jehovah,

How he has done astonishing things on the earth.

 9 He is bringing an end to wars throughout the earth.+

He breaks the bow and shatters the spear;

He burns the military wagons* with fire.

10 “Give in and know that I am God.

I will be exalted among the nations;+

I will be exalted in the earth.”+

11 Jehovah of armies is with us;+

The God of Jacob is a secure refuge for us

 

 

 

What Trinitarian scholars admit

Trinitarian scholars & theologians

The following opinions represent Trinitarian scholarship from a wide range of denominations and eras:

• Shirley C. Guthrie Jr., Presbyterian theologian, Columbia Theological Seminary
  “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity.  Neither the word “trinity” itself nor such language as ‘one-in-three’, ‘three-in-one’, one ‘essence’ (or “substance”), and three ‘persons’ is biblical language.”
  _{(Guthrie, Shirley C. Christian Doctrine. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. p. 76-77.)}
• “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity.  Neither the word “trinity” itself nor such language as ‘one-in-three’, ‘three-in-one’, one ‘essence’ (or “substance”), and three ‘persons’ is biblical language.”
  _{(Guthrie, Shirley C. Christian Doctrine. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. p. 76-77.)}
• Charles C. Ryrie, Evangelical scholar
  "But many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts.  The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this.  It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity… [This] proves the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results… If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the deity of the Holy Spirit.”
  _{(Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999. p.89-90.)}
  “Even with all the discussion and delineation that we attempt in relation to the Trinity, we must acknowledge that it is in the final analysis a mystery.”
  _{(Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999. p.61)}
• "But many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts.  The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this.  It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity… [This] proves the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results… If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the deity of the Holy Spirit.”
  _{(Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999. p.89-90.)}
• Millard J. Erickson, Baptist Scholar, Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary
  "It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine.  If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible?  If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity’s uniqueness, as over against unitarian monotheism on the one hand, and polytheism on the other hand, how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation?  In response to the complaint that a number of portions of the Bible are ambiguous or unclear, we often hear a statement something like, ‘It is the peripheral matters that are hazy or which there seem to be conflicting biblical materials.  The core beliefs are clearly and unequivocally revealed.’  This argument would appear to fail us with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, however.  For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.  Little direct response can be made to this charge.  It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion."
  _{(Erickson, Millard J. God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity. Michigan: Baker Pub Group, 1995. p.108-109.)}
  “In the final analysis, the Trinity is incomprehensible.”
  _{(Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, Second Edition, 1999. p. 363.)}
  "This doctrine in many ways presents strange paradoxes... It is a widely disputed doctrine, which has provoked discussion throughout all the centuries of the church’s existence. It is held by many with great vehemence and vigor. These advocates are certain they believe the doctrine, and consider it crucial to the Christian faith. Yet many are unsure of the exact meaning of their belief. It was the very first doctrine dealt with systematically by the church, yet is still one of the most misunderstood and disputed doctrines. Further, it is not clear or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom (a self evident truth) of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the Scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church."
  _{(Erickson, Millard J. God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity. Michigan: Baker Pub Group, 1995. p 11-12.)}
• Graham Greene, Catholic scholar
  “Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture... But the Protestant churches have themselves accepted such dogmas as the Trinity, for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels.”
  _{(Greene, Graham. "Assumption of Mary." Life Magazine. 30 October 1950. 51.)}
• Douglas McCready, Trinitarian scholar
  "New Testament scholars disagree whether the N.T. directly calls Jesus as God because of the difficulty such language would create for early Christians with a Jewish background. It is important to note that every passage that identifies Jesus as “theos” can be translated other ways or has variants that read differently."
  _{(McCready, Douglas. He Came Down From Heaven: The Preexistence of Christ and the Christian Faith. Downer’s Grove: IL: IVP Academic, 2005. p. 51.)}
  "In biblical Judaism the term “messiah” did not necessarily carry any connotation of divine status, and Jews of Jesus’ day were not expecting their messiah to be other than human… While some have used the title Son of God to denote Jesus’ deity, neither the Judaism nor the paganism of Jesus’ day understood the title in this way. Neither did the early church."
  _{(McCready, Douglas. He Came Down From Heaven: The Preexistence of Christ and the Christian Faith. Downer’s Grove: IL: IVP Academic, 2005. p. 51, 55, 56.)}
• Emil Brunner, influential Protestant scholar
  “Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word “Trinity,” but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness to the faith…"
  _{(Brunner, Emil. Dogmatics, Vol. 1. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949. p. 205.)}
  “When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation.  On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element of the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the Idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism, Judaism, Islam and Rational Theism are Unitarian.  On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian – New Testament – message.”
  _{(Brunner, Emil. Dogmatics, Vol. 1. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949. p. 205.)}
  “[The Trinity was] a conception at which the [Early Church] age had not yet arrived”
  _{(Brunner, Emil. Dogmatics, Vol. 1. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949. p. 467.)}
  "The ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity, established by the dogma of the ancient Church, is not a Biblical kerygma (preaching)..."
  _{(Brunner, Emil. Dogmatics, Vol. 1. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949. p.206)}
• New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 (Thomas Carson)
  “[The doctrine of the Trinity] is not directly and immediately in the Word of God.”
  _{(Carson, Thomas. “Trinity,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition. Farmington Hills: Gale, 2003. Volume XIV, p. 304)}
  “Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”
  _{(Carson, Thomas. “Trinity,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition. Farmington Hills: Gale, 2003. Volume XIV, p. 299.)}
  "It is difficult in the second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and the theological elaboration of the Mystery of the Trinity… Historians of dogma and systematic theologians [recognize] that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.  It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'One God in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought… it was the product of three centuries of development."
  _{(Carson, Thomas. “Trinity,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition. Farmington Hills: Gale, 2003. Volume XIV, p.295.)}
• Cardinal Stanislau Hosius, Catholic Bishop
  “We believe the doctrine of a triune God, because we have received it by tradition, though not mentioned at all in Scripture.”
  _{(Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Conf. Cathol. Fidei, Chap. XXVI)}
• Bruce Metzger, influential Protestant scholar
  "Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament.  Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon [ . . . ] While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do."
  _{(Metzger, Bruce, Michael Coogan. The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford University Press, 1993.  Accessed Online May 9th, 2013. )}
• W.R. Matthews, Anglican theologian
  “It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity formed no part of the original message."
  _{(Matthews, W.R. God in Christian Experience. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2010 (1930). p. 180.)}
  “St. Paul did not know it, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed… [it] formed no part of the original message.”
  _{(Matthews, W.R. God in Christian Experience. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2010 (1930). p. 180.)}
• A.T. Hanson, Protestant Professor of Theology, University of Hull
  "No responsible NT scholar would claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by Jesus or preached by the earliest Christians or consciously held by any writer of the NT. It was in fact slowly worked out in the course of the first few centuries…"
  _{(Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. The Image of the Invisible God. London: SCM Press, 1982. p.87.)}
• Ray Pritchard, Evangelical apologist
  “I admit that no one fully understands it.”
  _{(Pritchard, Ray. “God in Three Persons: A Doctrine We Barely Understand,” Keep Believing Ministries. Accessed online. 31 December 2014. .)}
• James Strong, Bible Scholar and author of Strong's Concordance
  "Towards the end of the 1st century, and during the 2nd, many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism to Christianity.  These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platonic ideas and phraseology."
  _{(Strong, James, John McClintock. Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. New York: Harper, 1891. Vol. 10, "Trinity," p. 553.)}
• Christopher B. Kaiser, Reformed scholar, Western Theological Seminary
  “The Church’s doctrine of the Trinity would seem to be the farthest thing from [Jesus’ and the writers of the New Testament’s] minds, and today’s reader may well wonder if it is even helpful to refer to such a dogma in order to grasp the theology of the New Testament.  When the church speaks of the doctrine of the Trinity, it refers to the specific belief that God exists eternally in three distinct ‘persons’ who are equal in deity and one in substance.  In this form the doctrine is not found anywhere in the New Testament; it was not so clearly articulated until the late fourth century AD.”
  _{(Kaiser, Christopher B. The Doctrine of God: A Historical Survey. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001. p. 27.)}
• John L. McKenzie, Catholic scholar
  "The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. That belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief."
  _{(McKenzie, John L. Dictionary of the Bible. New York: Touchstone, 1995. p. 899)}
   
• "The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. That belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief."_{(McKenzie, John L. Dictionary of the Bible. New York: Touchstone, 1995. p. 899)}
• Cyril C. Richardson, Protestant The"The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. That belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief."
  “One of the sources of the confusion in Trinitarian theology is that the doctrine arose when this sense of the development of thought in the New Testament was lacking.  Texts were torn from their contexts and misused to no small degree, and certain symbols were canonized without a full understanding of their original meaning.  They were introduced into later theological schemes, not because they really fitted, but because they could not be questioned.  Much of the defense of the Trinity as a ‘revealed’ doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it.”
  _{(Richardson, Cyril C. The Doctrine of the Trinity: A Clarification of What it Attempts to Express. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1958. p. 16.)}
• Charles Peter Wagner, Evangelical professor, Fuller University
  “We today believe in the Trinity not because of direct biblical revelation but because of majority votes in certain councils—in other words, by extra-biblical revelation.”
  _{(Wagner, Peter C. “But That’s Not in the Word!” Charisma Magazine, 2 June 2014. Accessed Online. 19 December 2014. .)}
• Edmund J. Fortman, Catholic scholar
  “[The doctrine of the Trinity] is a museum piece with little or no relevance to the problems of contemporary life.”
  _{(Fortman, Edmund J. The Triune God. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1972.)}
  "The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power."
   _{(Fortman, Edmund J. The Triune God. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1972. p. 6, 15.)}
• Charles Bigg, Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Oxford
  “We are not to suppose that the apostles identified Christ with Jehovah; there were passages which made this impossible, for instance Psalm 110:1, Malachi 3:1.″
  _{(Charles Bigg, D.D., Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, in International Critical Commentary on Peter and Jude, T&T Clark, 1910, p. 99).}
• Frederic William Farrar, Chaplain to the Queen of England, Trinity College at Cambridge
  “The first teachers of Christianity were never charged by the Jews (who unquestionably believed in the strict unity of God), with introducing any new theory of the Godhead. Many foolish and false charges were made against Christ; but this was never alleged against him or any of his disciples. When this doctrine of three persons in one God was introduced into the Church, by new converts to Christianity, it caused immense excitement for many years.  Referring to this, Mosheim writes, under the forth century, “The subject of this fatal controversy, which kindled such deplorable divisions throughout the Christian world, was the doctrine of the Three Persons in the Godhead; a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches, and had been left undefined and undetermined by any particular set of ideas.” Would there not have been some similar commotion among the Jewish people in the time of Christ, if such a view of the Godhead had been offered to their notice, and if they had been told that without belief in this they “would perish everlastingly”?”
  _{(Farrar, Frederic William. Early Days of Christianity, vol. I. Boston, Massachusetts: DeWolfe, Fiske & Company, 1882. p. 55.)}
• Saint Augustine, Fourth century theologian
  “if you deny it you will lose your salvation, but if you try to understand it you will lose your mind!"
  _{(attributed)  (Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999. p. 261.)}
• Roger E. Olson, Evangelical scholar
   “It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture. How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture?”
  _{(Olson, Roger E., Christopher Hall. The Trinity. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002. p.1.)}
  “The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the N. T. in the heat of controversy. The full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical councils: Nicaea (324 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD).”
  _{(Olson, Roger E., Christopher Hall. The Trinity. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002. p.2.)}
  “I affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is not “gospel.” Nor is it part of the gospel we preach.  It is a human construct and a defensive one.”
   _{(Olson, Roger E. “How Important is the Doctrine of the Trinity?” Patheos.com. 29 April, 2013. Accessed online. 12 January 12, 2015. .)}
  “It is a clumsy doctrine, no matter how it’s expressed.”
  _{(Olson, Roger E. “How Important is the Doctrine of the Trinity?” Patheos.com. 29 April, 2013. Accessed online. 12 January 12, 2015. .)}
  “For numerous Christian theologians past and present, the doctrine of the Trinity is crucial, essential, indispensable to a robust and healthy Christian view of God.  The problem is, of course, that many, perhaps most, Christians have little or not understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.  And they couldn’t care less.”
  _{(Olson, Roger E. “How Important is the Doctrine of the Trinity?” Patheos.com. 29 April, 2013. Accessed online. 12 January 12, 2015. .)}

other Encyclopedias, dictionaries and NOTEWORTHY sources

The following opinions reflect a wide range of secular authorities on history & respected Christian scholarship from non-Trinitarian traditions:

• Alvan Lamson, Church historian
  "[The doctrine] is not found in any document or relic belonging to the church of the first three centuries…Letters, art, usage, theology, worship, creed, hymn, chant, doxology, ascription, commemorative rite, and festive observances… are, as regards this doctrine, an absolute blank.”
  _{(Lamson, Alvan. The Church of the First Three Centuries. Toronto: University of Tornoto Libraries, 1875. p.466-467.)}
  "The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity… derives no support from the language of Justin, and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ.  It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and… holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in one, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians.  The very reverse is the fact."
  _{(Lamson, Alvan. The Church of the First Three Centuries. Boston: Horace B. Fuller, 1869. p. 56-57.)}
• William Barclay, Professor of Divinity & Biblical Criticism, University of Glasgow
  “But we shall find that on almost every occasion in the New Testament on which Jesus seems to be called God there is a problem either of textual criticism or of translation.  In almost every case we have to discuss which of two readings is to be accepted or which of two possible translations is to be accepted.”
  _{(Barclay, William. Jesus As They Saw Him: New Testament Interpretations of Jesus. Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1983. p. 21)}
  “Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus with God.”
  _{(Barclay, William. A Spiritual Autobiography. Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977. p. 50.)}
  "It is not that Jesus is God. Time and time again the Fourth Gospel speaks of God sending Jesus into the world. Time and time again we see Jesus praying to God. Time and time again we see Jesus unhesitatingly and unquestioningly and unconditionally accepting the will of God for himself. Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus and God.  He said: `He who has seen me has seen God.' There are attributes of God I do not see in Jesus. I do not see God's omniscience in Jesus, for there are things which Jesus did not know.”
  _{(Barclay, William. The Mind of Jesus. Harper & Rowe, 1961. p. 56.)}
• New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
• “The Trinity. The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are of an equal essence and therefore in an equal sense God himself. And the other express declaration is also lacking, that God is God thus and only thus, i.e., as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. These two express declarations, which go beyond the witness of the Bible, are the twofold content of the church doctrine of the Trinity (Karl Barth, CD 1, 1 437)….
  That God and Christ belong together and that they are distinct, are equally stressed, with the precedence in every case due to God, the Father, who stands above Christ… There is no strict dogmatic assertion… All this underlines the point that primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church.”
  (J. Schneider, Ph. D, Prof. of Theology in Berlin.)